Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432 DOI 10.1007/s00271-012-0351-3
ORIGINAL PAPER
Effects of canopy size and water stress over the crop coefficient of a ‘‘Tempranillo’’ vineyard in south-western Spain J. Pico´n-Toro • V. Gonza´lez-Dugo • D. Uriarte L. A. Mancha • L. Testi
•
Received: 3 August 2011 / Accepted: 26 January 2012 / Published online: 15 June 2012 Ó Springer-Verlag 2012
Abstract This paper describes the assessment of the crop coefficient of an irrigated Tempranillo vineyard measured in a weighing lysimeter during 5 years in south-western Spain. During the first year of the study (2006), young vines displayed a different canopy growth compared to the subsequent years. From 2007 to 2010, vines experienced 2 years with no restriction in water supply, and two other years with short periods of crop water stress. Basal crop coefficient (Kcb) started from 0.2 at bud-break until 1.0 at full development in every year, being this maximum management-dependent. Kcb showed a good correlation with canopy size indices, which allows to interpolate these results to a wide range of commercial vine systems that are usually managed with lower vegetation size. Moreover, a simple linear model of crop evapotranspiration reduction with relative water content is presented, allowing the estimation of consumptive water use under deficit irrigation conditions.
Communicated by S. Ortega-Farias. J. Pico´n-Toro (&) D. Uriarte L. A. Mancha Centro de Investigacio´n Agraria Finca La Orden-Valdesequera. Junta de Extremadura, 06187 Guadajira, Badajoz, Spain e-mail:
[email protected] V. Gonza´lez-Dugo L. Testi Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible, CSIC, Alameda del Obispo s/n, 14004 Co´rdoba, Spain L. Testi Dep. Agronomı´a, Universidad de Co´rdoba, Av. Mene´ndez Pidal s/n, Apartado 3048, 14004 Co´rdoba, Spain
Introduction Grapevine is a crop of worldwide importance, with a global cultivated area in 2009 of 7,660 Mha, 4,435 of them located in the European Union (EU). The main producer within the EU is France, while Spain ranks first in crop surface area (1,100,000 ha) and third in production (5,573,400 t) (FAO 2010). The region of Extremadura, in south-western Spain, is one of the largest grapevinegrowing areas in the country with a surface area of 87,000 ha (MARM 2010). Vineyards in Spain have been traditionally dry-farmed because irrigation was forbidden by law until 1996. Since then, irrigation has increased progressively, but farmers do not have adequate information to correctly calculate irrigation requirements based on their cultivation and production target. Evapotranspiration (ETc) in vineyards varies considerably according to local climate, grapevine type, irrigation scheduling, and management method, for example, trellis system and canopy size (Allen et al. 1998; Williams and Ayars 2005b). Moreover, farmers’ strategies may be different as far as production is concerned; some producers would prefer high yield, while others seek for a high-quality product by introducing significant water stress levels by deficit irrigation at the cost of reducing yield. Water supply would increase wine productivity, but it may also reduces wine quality. High tannin and anthocyanin content (a desired trait in berries for red wine production) is related to moderate vine water deficit (Matthews et al. 1990). Other studies link wine quality with berry size (Williams and Matthews 1990). However, the correct assessment of crop water needs is a basic requirement to manage irrigation in order to increase yield and/or wine quality, especially in semi arid conditions.
123
420
The ‘‘Tempranillo’’ cultivar occupies a large acreage in Spain and in South America, being one of the most popular varieties for quality wine production; rainfed vines are trained as open vase system, but with the introduction of irrigation, they are usually trained on trellis systems and drip irrigated. Crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) is defined as the evapotranspiration from diseasefree, well-fertilised crops, grown in large fields, under optimum soil water conditions and achieving full production under the given climate (Allen et al. 1998; Doorenbos and Pruitt 1977). The ETc is thus an ‘‘upper limit’’ of water use of a given crop under the best growing conditions and development of vegetation, without taking into account restrictions that may be adopted to increase the quality of the product: an example of this in wine vineyards is some degree of deficit irrigation. The optimum vegetation or water status may not be desirable for all crops, but still, the knowledge of ETc is the reference. Once the maximum ETc is determined as the function of canopy size, it is possible to establish deficit irrigation schedules with fractional amounts of the unstressed water use, depending on the commercial objectives (for example, quality production of berries for a particular wine). The most common approach to estimate crop ETc is the crop coefficient (Allen et al. 1998; Doorenbos and Pruitt 1977). The crop coefficient (Kc), defined as the ratio between the ETc of the crop and the evapotranspiration of a reference surface of well irrigated grass (ETo), is dependent upon the stage of crop growth, canopy height, cover and architecture (Allen et al. 1998). Although in annual crops, averaged values that are found in the literature could be used to estimate mean ETc values, the dependency of Kc on ground cover, training and management hinders its general use in fruit trees and vines, where these factors are widely variable. It has been demonstrated that the Kc is highly correlated with leaf area (Williams et al. 2003b), leaf area index (LAI) (Castel 1997; Girona et al. 2011; Heilman et al. 1982; Netzer et al. 2009; Williams and Ayars 2005b), canopy cover (Testi et al. 2004; Villalobos et al. 2009) and the fraction of light intercepted by the canopy (Ayars et al. 2003; Consoli et al. 2006). The development of a simple method to estimate the seasonal Kc for different crops including woody, perennial horticultural crops would be of great benefit to the agricultural industry (Williams and Ayars 2005b). Crop coefficient values for grapevine may vary with cultural practices and modes of trellising (Williams and Ayars 2005b). Kc changes over the course of the growing season, related with the increase of LAI, the solar radiation intercepted by the crop and the different crop phenological stages (Grimes and Williams 1990; Netzer et al. 2009; Peacock et al. 1987).
123
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
The transpiration of vineyards has been measured by heat pulse (Intrigliolo et al. 2009) or heat balance (Braun and Schmid 1999; Trambouze and Voltz 2001). Measurements of evapotranspiration were obtained with the techniques of Bowen ratio (de Teixeira et al. 2007; Rana and Katerji 2008; Trambouze et al. 1998; Zhang et al. 2010) and eddy correlation (Ortega-Farias et al. 2007; PobleteEcheverria and Ortega-Farias 2009; Spano et al. 2000). However, lysimeters are the more straightforward measurement of ETc (Prueger et al. 1997). Although there are some studies using drainage lysimeter (Evans et al. 1993; Netzer et al. 2009; Rollin et al. 1981), greater accuracy and time resolution can be obtained with weighing lysimeters, which measure ETc directly by monitoring the weight of a soil monolith that includes the crop under study (Hatfield 1990). With the appropriate instrumentation, weighing lysimeters can accurately determine ETc on an hourly or shorter time basis (Williams et al. 2003a, b; Williams and Ayars 2005a, b) although at the price of some efforts required to ensure the representativeness of the enclosed plants (Allen et al. 1991), and of being expensive and unmovable devices. The information available on the water use of wine vineyards with the precision granted by weighing lysimeters is still scarce. Apart from the lysimeter used in this work, there are very few references of weighing lysimeters installed in vineyards in the world. One of them is located in the San Joaquin Valley (California) with vines of the raisin variety ‘‘Thompson Seedless’’, where many studies related to water consumption have been performed (Williams et al. 2003a, b, 2010a, b; Williams and Ayars 2005a, b; Williams and Trout 2005; Williams and Baeza 2007). Another one is located in Albacete, Spain (Montoro et al. 2008), with vines of the same ‘‘Tempranillo’’ cultivar used in this study. The training and canopy conditions of the Tempranillo vineyard in the present work are quite different from those described by Montoro et al. (2008) in Albacete, and these authors did not report any relationship of Kc with canopy size, making difficult to transfer their conclusions to the different vineyard typologies that can be found in other wine producing areas. In fact, vineyards management (training, pruning, density and cultivars used) is so different among wine producing regions that extrapolations from water use measurements taken from other sites and contexts are often questionable. A better insight of the vineyard water consumption under the specific climatic conditions of Extremadura and the peculiarities of local vineyard management is therefore very important for a good use of the scarce water resources available in this region. Correlation of crop coefficients with indexes such as accumulated degree-growing days or heat units has been used by some authors (Sammis et al. 1985; Wright 1985) to
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
reduce the effects of year-to-year climatic variations on crop development and water consumption. It has been shown that the development of leaf area on Thompson Seedless grapevines under non-limiting soil moisture conditions and the Kc was highly correlated with degree-days (base temperature 10 °C) (Williams and Ayars 2005a, b; Williams et al. 2003b). A long-term study (5 years) was conducted to determine the crop coefficients for wine grapevines under the agronomic conditions of south-western Spain using a weighing lysimeter and to assess the relationship between Kc and canopy size (which range was extended on purpose) and linking it to thermal time. The occurrence of water stress during two of the years enabled the estimation of water use decrease as a function of water shortage. This relationship is a useful tool to schedule irrigation in wine production vineyards that are normally deficit-irrigated to enhance wine quality.
Materials and methods Site and vineyard description A 5-year (2006–2010) study to determine ETc of grapevines used for wine production was conducted in a 1.70 ha vineyard of ‘‘Tempranillo’’ grafted onto Richter 110. The vines were planted in February 2001 in the research farm ‘‘Finca La Orden’’ (Centro de Investigacio´n Agraria ‘‘Finca La Orden-Valdesequera’’, Badajoz, Spain). The farm is located in the middle of the irrigation area of the Vegas Bajas del Guadiana (38°510 N, 6°400 W, elevation 198 m). The climate of the area is Mediterranean with mild Atlantic influence, dry and hot summers and cold winters with irregular precipitations. The soil is typical from the Guadiana River Valley, with a uniform, poorly differentiated profile. According to Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff 2006), this soil is in the order Entisol, suborder Orthent and in the great group Xerorthent. In general, these soils are slightly leached, with scarce calcium and with low sandadherence value. The upper soil has some humus content, while the lower soil is poor in it and has also a low nitrogen content. The row and vine spacing in the vineyard was 2.5 and 1.2 m, respectively. The vines were drip irrigated with one 4 L h-1 emitter for each vine during 2006, 2007 and 2008 seasons, and with two 4 L h-1 emitters each vine during 2009 and 2010. The drip tubing was attached to a wire suspended 0.4 m above the soil surface. The vines were trained in vertical trellis that consisted of 1.7-m-long galvanised steel posts with two wires. The main wire that holds the arms of the plant was placed 0.5 m above the soil surface, and the shoots were kept on a vertical plane by a
421
movable wire, which was raised in height with the development of the canopy, reaching 1.5 m height at full development. The rows were E–W oriented. Vines were trained to a bi-lateral cordon, pruned to eight spurs and two buds per spur during 2006, 2007 and 2008, and six spurs and two buds per spur to during 2009 and 2010. Spring pruning and row topping operations (Table 1) were performed following the habitual practice in the area. Weighing lysimeter A weighing lysimeter of 2.67 9 2.25 m and 1.5 m deep was installed in 1995 as described in Yrisarry and Naveso (2000). The soil was excavated from the lysimeter site in layers and stockpiled for refilling the tank respecting the layers order. The lysimeter tank was hand filled in 0.15 m layers and compacted to approximately the original bulk density of each layer. The tank is placed on a balance system with a counterweight system to offset the dead weight. The weighing system is connected to a load cell (Transductec SA, model TPF-1/10) with a nominal load of 10 kg, and a nominal sensitivity of 2 mV V-1. The overall resolution of the system is 200 g or 0.033 mm of water. The sample time is 0.05 s, and an average value is registered in a data logger (CR5000, Campbell Scientific, Inc.) every 5 min. The lysimeter has also a controlled vacuum system (Aboukhaled et al. 1982), which aims to simulate the original conditions of the field and prevents the accumulation of water at the bottom layer of the lysimeter. Two vines were planted in the container, getting an available surface of 3.0 m2 per plant, as in the rest of the plot. The canopy development of the two grapevines within the lysimeter was similar to that of the vines in the surrounding vineyard. The water consumption of grapevines (ETc) was calculated from the weight differences recorded in the lysimeter between two consecutive measurements. The ETc measured by the lysimeter was adjusted to an area equivalent of an individual vine. Calculation of the water budget of the soil in the lysimeter Since no direct measurement of soil water content in the lysimeter was performed and it was counterweighted, the actual total weight in the lysimeter is unknown a priori. Nevertheless, the massive precipitations of the autumn 2006 suggest that the lysimeter soil was in a state of upper limit (field capacity) at the end of the year; it is then possible to calculate the water budget of the soil in the lysimeter from this time on. Based on data of physical properties of soil (Table 2) and using the program SPAW Hydrology v6.02.75, the volumetric water content of the
123
422
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
Table 1 Dates (in day of the year) of green pruning operations in the experimental vineyard Years
Spring pruning (biomass)
1st Topping (biomass)
2nd Topping (biomass)
2006
145*
205*
2007
106*
171 (301 g)
2008
106 (13 g)
161 (101 g)
2009
98 (8 g)
147 (59 g)
201 (323 g)
2010
120 (116 g)
158 (282 g)
179 (123 g)
3rd Topping (biomass)
196 (60 g) 215 (189 g)
The biomass removed per plant from the lysimeter vines (average of two plants) is reported in parentheses (g of dry matter) * Without data of biomass weight
Table 2 Some physical properties of the soil in the experimental vineyard Depth (m)
Sand (% wt)
Clay (%wt)
Silt (% wt)
Organic matter (%wt)
Bulk density (g m-3)
Field capacity (%vol)
Wilting point (%vol)
0.0–0.4
40.4
24.8
34.8
1.35
1.50
29.1
16.0
0.4–0.8
37.4
26.0
36.6
0.93
1.49
29.7
16.3
0.8–1.4
37.2
25.8
37.0
0.88
1.52
29.7
16.3
soil at the upper (field capacity) and lower (wilting point) limits has been estimated as 29.5 and 16.2 %, respectively. Irrigation and water status Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) was obtained from a weather station located 100 m from the vineyard using FAO-56 Penman–Monteith Method (Allen et al. 1998) (Table 3), applying the recommendations proposed by Allen et al. (2006) on standardised surface resistance for hourly calculation: rs = 50 s m-1 for daytime and rs = 200 s m-1 for night-time periods. ETo was calculated at hourly time steps and then integrated over 24 h to get the daily ETo. The crop coefficient Kc was calculated on a daily basis as the ratio of ETc/ETo. ETo and precipitation during the experiment are detailed monthly in Table 3; the annual amounts of rainfall and irrigation are shown in Table 4, with the dates of start and end of the irrigation season. Midday stem water potential (wstem) was measured for all the duration of the experiment. Two leaves were taken from the north and shaded part of the vine and enclosed in an aluminium foil at least 1 h before measurement in a pressure chamber (Scholander et al. 1965); if the values of potential were very different from each other ([0.4 Mpa), a third leaf was taken, discarding the discordant value. The value of wstem was adopted to set the date of irrigation start according to previous works that recommended the stem water potential as the most reliable indicator of the water status of the irrigated vineyard (Chone´ et al. 2001; Naor 2000). The threshold of wstem for irrigation start was taken -1.0 MPa in 2006 and 2007 following previous works (Cifre et al. 2005; Ferreyra et al. 2003; Williams and
123
Araujo 2002); from the year 2008 on, it was changed to a more conservative value of -0.6 MPa according to Williams and Baeza (2007) and Williams and Trout (2005). Irrigation was carried out during the night, when ETc is very low or absent, so that the weight increment could be eliminated without affecting the calculation of daily totals of ETc. The amount of irrigation applied every night was set to match the ETc of the previous day. Canopy growth and development Phenology monitoring was performed according to phenological stages described by Baggiolini (1952) and Eichhorn and Lorenz (1977). Starting from mid-March, (coinciding with the phenological stage of ‘‘cotton buds’’) a visual inspection of 10 plants was performed weekly to determine the most representative growth stage at that time (the stage showed by at least 50 % of plants) as well as the most backward and the most advanced stages in the sample. The phenological development of the vineyard is summarised in Table 5. Degree-days (DD) were calculated using the base temperature of 10 °C as used previously for grapevine by several authors (Netzer et al. 2009; Williams et al. 2003b) (Table 5). Temperature data used for calculating degreedays were obtained from the weather station mentioned above. LAI of the lysimeter plants was periodically determined using a Plant Canopy Analyzer LAI-2000 (Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). A reference measurement was taken above the canopy immediately followed by eight measurements at soil level in the centre of an eight-quadrant grid into which the planting frame was divided. The
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
423
Table 3 Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) and rainfall per month, for the 5 years of the study Month
2006
2007
ETo (mm)
Rain (mm)
2008
ETo (mm)
Rain (mm)
2009
ETo (mm)
Rain (mm)
ETo (mm)
2010 Rain (mm)
ETo (mm)
Rain (mm)
Jan.
30.7
28.4
23.5
21.4
28.4
56.4
30.0
69.0
29.4
88.6
Feb.
44.3
32.6
38.7
58.8
47.3
132.8
51.4
47.8
39.5
147.4
Mar.
76.2
62.
97.4
11.6
92.4
10.8
101.7
8.2
67.7
88.2
Apr.
124.1
8.2
96.1
68.2
118.4
60.8
120.5
36.0
122.8
45.6
May
184.4
3.8
150.8
65.6
124.2
51.0
182.0
20.4
166.6
29.7
Jun.
190.4
23.4
175.4
25.4
203.6
3.6
184.7
28.2
179.9
33.8
Jul. Aug.
221.1 197.9
8.2 10.0
220.7 186.8
0.2 12.4
217.7 192.7
5.2 1.0
227.6 197.8
1.6 4.4
228.3 196.1
6.2 2.9
Sep.
130.8
16.8
122.7
46.6
129.6
22.4
140.6
5.8
137.2
5.8
Oct.
77.6
107.2
82.0
28.4
79.7
67.0
89.5
60.6
84.6
82.0
Nov.
36.0
150.6
51.7
30.4
46.9
20.2
52.7
18.8
42.9
72.0
Dec.
30.7
32.0
24.3
10.4
26.4
41.2
29.3
204.0
31.2
150.1
Total
1343.0
483.2
1270.0
379.4
1307.3
472.4
1407.8
504.8
1296.7
663.7
Table 4 Reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo), water use (ETc) and rainfall from bud-break until leaf fall; duration of irrigation period and irrigation water applied during the growing season Years
ETo (mm)
ETc (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
Duration of irrigation period (days)
Total irrigation (mm)
2006
1156.1
704.0a
269.8
131
322.9
2007
1101.0
637.3
254.3
86
272.9
2008 2009
1135.9 1233.6
995.7 896.2
220.4 164.0
104 141
714.2 666.6
2010
1170.2
936.5b
235.8
106
597.0
Data for each year of the study a
16 last days of growing period without data
b
26 first days of growing period without data
Table 5 Mean onset of vine phenological stages, total growing period and the accumulation of degree-days (base 10° C) from bud-break to harvest for the 5 years of the study Years
Bud-break
Anthesis
Veraison
Harvest
Leaf fall
Growing period (days)
Degree-day accumulation
2006
85
127
193
251
314
230
1991
2007
81
134
195
252
320
240
1683
2008 2009
79 80
132 132
194 196
252 244
324 329
246 250
1599 1750
2010
85
138
200
256
326
242
1944
Avg.
82
133
196
251
323
242
1793
Dates of the different stages were established according to the most representative stage (more than 50 %) of the inspected plants Dates expressed in day of the year
obtained measurements of transmittance were used to determine the vine leaf area using an empirical relation previously fitted versus destructive measurements in the same cultivar and trellis system. The fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (fiPAR, dimensionless) by the lysimeter vines
was determined at midday with a linear ceptometer (model LI-191SA, Li-Cor Inc, Lincoln, NE, USA during 2007–2008 and Accupar Linear PAR, Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA in 2009 and 2010). Measurements were taken at solar noon on cloudless days, from bud-break until leaf fall. The ceptometer was placed in a horizontal
123
424 6
50
3
40 30
2
20 10
0
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
80
6
50 40
3
30
2
20 1
10 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
6
123
80 60
4
50
3
40 30
2
20 10
0
0 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
80
6 5
2
-2
LAI (m m )
70
2009
60 4
50 40
3
30
2
20 1 0
10 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 80
6
70
2010
5
60 4
50
2
-2
fiPAR (%)
-2
70
2008
5
LAI (m m )
0
fiPAR (%)
0
3
40 30
2
fiPAR (%)
-2 2
60 4
fiPAR (%)
5
LAI (m m )
70
2007
1
The maximum LAI achieved in 2006 was around 2.5 m2 m-2, a lower value compared to the following years, showing that vines were still incompletely developed during the first year of this study (Fig. 1). For all the other years, the evolution of LAI and fiPAR displayed a similar pattern throughout the season. For all the years of study, the values of LAI and fiPAR increased sharply during the first part of the growing period. From bud-break until the stage of veraison, reached around the day of the year (DOY) 200 (Tables 1, 4), the cover of the vineyard was controlled by pruning operations, and both LAI and PAR intercepted values increased lightly, or even decreased (except for the year 2010). The pruning operations were managed in order to obtain a maximum LAI at veraison of around 4, which, in this system, is associated with a fiPAR between 50 and 60 % (Fig. 1). The highest value of LAI (4.3 m2m-2) was reached on 29 July 2010, while the highest value of PAR intercepted (71 %) occurred on 14 September 2010, indicating that the vines were allowed to vegetate in excess that year compared to the previous experimental years and the usual practices for the area. The monthly totals of ETo obtained from the weather station adjacent to the experimental orchard (Table 3) indicate that every year was within the typical values for the region. Daily ETo usually reached a peak of about 7.5–8.0 mm day-1 around mid-July. Although rainfall is typically irregularly distributed, mean values were also
fiPAR (%)
60 4
2
-2
LAI (m m )
70
1
2
Results
80 2006
5
LAI (m m )
position covering the planting grid at ground level and perpendicular to the vines. During 2007–2008, a measurement was made every 0.4 m on each side of the plants; in subsequent years, measurements were taken every 0.1 m in order to achieve a better coverage of the planting frame. Two further measurements were made at an open site with no interference from the canopy. In the year 2006, these measurements were not performed; as the canopy management was the same all the years of experiment, fiPAR was estimated from LAI data using an empirically fitted relationship. During the years 2009 and 2010, the fraction of ground cover in the lysimeter was determined by digital images of the vines area obtained with a camera installed in nadirview position on a metal structure (4.0 m high). Eight and 7 photographs, respectively, were taken during 2009 and 2010, at various times throughout the growing season. A rectangular frame encompassing the whole canopy of vines in the lysimeter was used as a reference area. The images, taken on cloudless days, were then analysed with an image processor to differentiate between vegetation and soil by means of colour reclassification and thresholding.
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
20 1 0
10 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
Day of year Topping
fiPAR
LAI
Fig. 1 Seasonal variations in LAI and in the fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (fiPAR) measured at solar noon during the 5 years of experiment. Dates of shoot topping during the experimental period are also indicated with vertical bars, as well as a strong hailstorm that took place on 4 May 2007
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
425
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
10
-2.0 0.0
8
-0.4
6
-0.8
4
-1.2
2 0
-1.6 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
10
Ψstem (MPa)
ETc (mm)
2007
-2.0 0.0
8
-0.4
6
-0.8
4
-1.2
2
-1.6
0
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
10
Ψstem (MPa)
ETc (mm)
2008
-2.0 0.0
8
-0.4
6
-0.8
4
-1.2
2
-1.6
0
0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
10
Ψstem (MPa)
ETc (mm)
2009
-2.0 0.0
8
-0.4
6
-0.8
4
-1.2
o
2 0
-1.6 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
-2.0
Ψstem (MPa)
2010
20 0.5 0.0
10 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
2.0
Topping
Stem Water Potential
0 50
2007 40
1.5
30 1.0 20 0.5 0.0
10 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
2.0
0 50
2008 40
1.5
30 1.0 20 0.5 0.0
10 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
2.0
0 50
2009 40
1.5
30 1.0 20 0.5 0.0
10 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
2.0
0 50
2010 40
1.5
30 1.0 20 0.5
10
0.0
0 0
50
100 150 200 250 300 350
Day of year
Day of year ETc ETc
Rainfall (mm)
30 1.0
Rainfall (mm)
0
40
1.5
Rainfall (mm)
-1.6
2
50
2006
Rainfall (mm)
-1.2
2.0
Rainfall (mm)
-0.8
4
Kc (dimensionless)
6
Kc (dimensionless)
-0.4
Kc (dimensionless)
8
Ψstem (MPa)
ETc (mm)
2006
Kc (dimensionless)
0.0
10
ETc (mm)
Fig. 2 Left column: time series of vineyard daily crop evapotranspiration (ETc, mm) from 2006 to 2010 and measurements of midday stem water potential (wstem). Right column: time series of daily crop coefficient (Kc) of Tempranillo grapevines from 2006 to 2010, calculated as ETc/ETo, where ETc is the evapotranspiration from the lysimeter and ETo the reference evapotranspiration from meteorological data. The days with dry soil surface are represented by white dots; black dots are Kc values in days when the soil surface was completely or partially wet after rainfalls events (shown as vertical bars)
season, with a minimum value of 1.59 and 3.82 mm day-1 on 7 July 2009 (DOY 188) and 24 July 2007 (DOY 205), respectively. This decrease in ETc was recovered afterwards, but in the year 2007, the vines never reached the maximum values observed in the other years of experiment. The stem water potential recorded during all the experimental years (Fig. 2, left side) ranged between -0.28 MPa on 16 May (DOY 136) 2007 and -1.20 MPa in late July—early August of 2006 (namely DOY 209, 214 and 221). The average stem water potential was practically
Kc (dimensionless)
within the typical ranges of the region (Table 3). Nevertheless, it can be highlighted the rainy winter and early spring in 2008 and 2010, enabling the refilling of the soil profile. Daily ETc values increased with time from bud-break until full canopy development (Fig. 2, left side). In the years 2008 and 2010, ETc maintained high values (around 7 mm day-1 on average) for approximately a month, then decreased steadily until approaching zero at time of leaf fall, around DOY 323. On the contrary, in 2007 and 2009, ETc showed a noticeable decrease in the middle of the
Rainfall
Kc Dry days Days Kc Dry
Kc Wet days Days K c Wet
123
426
123
Kcb (dimensionless)
a
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
y = 0.22x + 0.13 2 R = 0.81
0.2 0
0
1
2
3
LAI (m 2006
Kcb (dimensionless)
b
2007
4
5
2
-2 m )
2008
2009
2010
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
y = 0.01x + 0.23 2 R = 0.68
0.2 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
fiPAR (%) 2006
c Kcb (dimensionless)
the same during 2007, 2008 and 2010 (-0.58, -0.54 and -0.56 MPa, respectively), but slightly lower during 2006 and 2009 (respectively -0.86 and -0.71). During 2008 and 2010, the stem water potential was in general more stable than in the other years. In all the experimental years, the daily Kc ranged between almost nil and values close to 2 (Fig. 2, right side); the minimum values occurred always at bud-break and leaf fall—that is, when minimum leaf area was present—and during days when the soil surface was dry, that is, when no precipitation was registered in the previous days. Conversely, the largest Kc values only occurred when leaf area was present—although not necessarily at peak LAI—and always after precipitations events that left the soil surface completely wet (Fig. 2); these high values of Kc are always transitory. When the soil was dry, the Kc increased more or less steadily from bud-break until the full development of the canopy (for specific dates, see Table 5), but this rule is broken in the years 2007 and 2009, when it decreased noticeably (down to 0.20 and 0.53, respectively) in late spring, and then recovered during summer. These periods suggest the occurrence of water stress and will be discussed later. A similar although much less intense behaviour can be appreciated for a shorter period also in the year 2008. A plateau in the Kc value of around unity is reached all the years, with the exception of 2007, when the maximum Kc was around 0.75 and was reached only in late summer. In the year 2006, the Kc showed a slow but always increasing pattern which culminated with a maximum peak (also close to unity) in the late summer. The Kc then decreased during fall from the DOY 260–270, with a steady pattern when the soil was dry but with intermittent very high values (up to 1.75) in coincidence with the autumn rainfall events. In the years 2008 and 2010, the Kc under dry-soil conditions was stable and slightly higher than 1 up to the DOY 260–270. The values of ETc and Kc of some days with heavy and prolonged rainfall were discarded from Fig. 2 due to the uncertainty in the lysimeter measurements in such conditions. The relation between the vineyard Kc (under dry soil conditions) and the canopy size of the vines is presented in Fig. 3, by means of three common canopy indicators: LAI, fiPAR and ground cover fraction (Fig. 3a–c, respectively). The periods of possible transpiration reduction due to water stress (early summer of 2007 and 2009, see Fig. 2) were filtered out from the regressions. There is a clear linear relationship between each indicator and the Kc with dry soil through the range explored in this experiment; nevertheless, some scatter is present. All the regression lines have a positive intercept significantly different from 0 (0.13, 0.23 and 0.07 for LAI, fiPAR and ground cover fraction, respectively), which represent, in each linear model, the expected Kc when the vines are leafless and the soil surface
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
2007
2008
2009
2010
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4
y = 0.02x + 0.07 2 R = 0.88
0.2 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Ground cover fraction (%) 2009
2010
Fig. 3 Relationship between vine crop coefficient (Kc) with dry soil and a LAI; b fraction of intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (fiPAR) at solar noon; and c ground cover fraction for two growing seasons in Tempranillo grapevines. Different symbols distinguish among experimental years, while linear regressions are obtained from all the data pooled together. Each Kc value is the average of the 5-day period centred on the day when the canopy measurement was taken. a 2006–2010 seasons, n = 36. b 2006–2010 seasons, n = 54. c 2009–2010 seasons, n = 13
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
dry, that is, the bare and dry-soil evaporation coefficient. Ground cover seems the best predictor of the Kc (R2 = 0.88) followed by LAI (R2 = 0.81) and then fiPAR (R2 = 0.68), although the data samples are of different size. The relationship between basal crop coefficients and ground cover fraction agrees well with Kc estimation procedure discussed by Allen and Pereira (2009) for crops growing in rows. The vineyard mean yield was 19,500 kg ha-1 (average of all the experimental years); this yield is high compared to commercial vineyards due to both the high LAI achieved and the unrestricted irrigation.
Discussion Effects of soil surface wetness on Kc The effect of the wetted soil over the actual Kc of crops with incomplete ground cover (including vines) is clearly displayed in the right side of Fig. 2. After rainfall events, the Kc rises abruptly, to decrease later when the soil dries out. The Kc of a bare wet soil in the energy-limiting stage is &1 (Allen et al. 1998; Doorenbos and Pruitt 1977; Ritchie 1972); nevertheless, when an incomplete cover of high aerodynamic roughness is present, its transpiration adds up to the soil evaporation in a way that is more than proportional to the ground cover, yielding transitory Kc values close to 2 usually the day that follows a precipitation of some significance (see Fig. 2); a similar behaviour has been described by Testi et al. (2006) in olive groves. These peaks in Kc are dependent on the crop cover in a very complex way, and they advocate the use of more advanced models to calculate the evaporation and the transpiration separately in trees and vines (Testi et al. 2006). When such models are not available, Kc should be at least determined on the conditions of dry soil surface (but no crop water stress), when the soil evaporation is greatly reduced— although not completely absent. Allen et al. (1998) call this quantity ‘‘basal Kc’’ or Kcb that is equivalent to the dry-soil Kc in this work. During the first year of the study (2006, with vines not completely developed), the dry-soil Kc of the vines reached the maximum value late in the season; only after DOY 200, once the canopy development was complete and vines showed a stable LAI, the dry-soil Kc displayed values around 1. In all the other years of this study, the maximum value of Kc also close to 1 was usually achieved earlier in the season, between DOY 150 and 170, corresponding with a mean value of LAI exceeding 3; a similar behaviour was reported by Williams et al. (2003b), also with lysimetry. The maximum seasonal Kc seems to be close to 1 with the exception of the year 2007. This
427
maximum is in the range found in the literature in intensive irrigated vineyards for table or raisin production: Williams and Ayars (2005b) found a Kc of 0.8 in ‘‘Thompson Seedless’’, whereas Johnson et al. (2005) reported Kc values higher than 1.10 for this same variety; Netzer et al. (2009) found 1.20 in ‘‘Superior Seedless’’; recently Allen and Pereira (2009) have calculated values of 1.04 in table grapevines. Effects of water stress on Kc The decrease in the Kc that the vines showed in the early summer of some years—namely 2007 and 2009—cannot be attributed to pruning given the small amount of biomass removed (Table 1): we ascribe it to conditions of reduced transpiration due to the occurrence of water stress. Water stress was not induced on purpose in this experiment and must have been caused by the strategy used to determine the start of the irrigation period. Irrigation was not started until wstem reached -1.0 MPa in 2006 and 2007; this threshold was then changed to -0.6 in the following year due to the behaviour of the vineyard Kc during 2007. Nevertheless, the solution proved to be insufficient, as a spring drier than normal caused a similar decrease in 2009 (Table 3). The measured values of wstem of these 2 years (in particular 2007) do not justify such an extreme reduction of transpiration: in 2007, the Kc dropped from 1.05 (on 17 June, DOY 168) to only 0.17 (on 8 July, DOY 189), whereas in the same period, wstem only decreased from -0.46 to -0.91 MPa. Effects of canopy size on Kc The relationships we found between Kc and LAI or ground cover (Fig. 3a, c respectively) are practically identical to those reported by Williams and Ayars (2005b) for Thompson Seedless vines irrigated at 100 % of ETc in San Joaquin Valley (California), where climatic conditions are similar to those of south-western Spain. Campos et al. (2010) measured with eddy covariance an average Kc of 0.5 during summer in Albacete (Spain) in a multivarietal vineyard that covered slightly more than 30 % of the ground; this finding is in almost perfect concordance with Fig. 3c. Intrigliolo et al. (2009) obtained by gas exchange chambers in the humid climate of NE, USA, an average basal Kc of 0.49 in ‘‘Riesling’’ vines with LAI of 1.57, also in complete concordance with the relationship of Fig. 3a. These similarities, in spite of the different varieties, climates, training system and management, suggest that the relationships between Kc and vegetative growth of Fig. 3 may be applicable to vineyards of many different cultivars, given of course the absence of crop water stress.
123
428
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
Dry-soil Kc (dimensionless)
1.4 B.
A.
V.
H.
L.F.
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Thermal time from bud-break (DD) Fig. 4 Relationships of dry-soil Kc of a ‘‘Tempranillo’’ vineyard with thermal time (DD, degree-days) from bud-break until leaf fall. Data pooled from the years 2008 and 2010, without water stress. Thermal time is calculated using a base temperature of 10 °C. The vineyard average phenological stages are shown in the line above: B bud-break, A anthesis, V veraison, H harvest, LF leaf fall
Curve of dry-soil Kc (Kcb) without water stress The definition of Kc implies a good water status (Allen et al. 1998; Doorenbos and Pruitt 1977). To obtain a Kc curve, we have to restrict the analysis to measurements in certain good water status conditions, that is, the years 2008 and 2010. Due to the incomplete cover of the vineyard even at full canopy development, the effect of wet soil must be separated from the vine transpiration. Without modelling the soil evaporation and the plant transpiration independently, one can still obtain the dry-soil Kc (Kcb) if enough measured data are available in conditions of both dry soil and good watering. The Kcb curve of a mature ‘‘Tempranillo’’ orchard is shown in Fig. 4 using the data of the years 2008 and 2010 that comply with these restrictions. Following the classic approach, we fitted two lines (minimum square error): one from bud-break when no leaves are present—to the maximum ground cover (from Kcb = 0.2 to 1.0); the other is a constant value, Kcb = 1.0, (maximum or mid-season Kc, Allen et al. 1998) maintained until the onset of senescence (if the ground cover do not vary, which is not implicit in a crop with incomplete cover). These values of crop coefficients are very similar to those proposed by Allen and Pereira (2009) for table grapes. The x-axis is thermal time (Tbase = 10), but the curve has essentially the same form when expressed versus simple time (the fitting is not presented, but it is clearly perceivable in Fig. 2, right side), given that the inflexion point is correctly placed at the onset of maximum ground cover (reached at 650 DD in our experiment). This crop stage can be simply observed, especially because the level
123
of vegetation is artificially set by pruning. Although the data suggest a slight increase in the Kcb during the maximum-cover period (Fig. 4), using another linear function instead of a constant is unnecessary; besides, most of the data points above the line of Kcb = 1.0 at the end of the cycle occur after harvest (around 1700 DD, Fig. 4), and the soil surface dryness in this period is more uncertain than during summer (see the precipitation data in Fig. 2 and Table 3); thus the Kcb of Fig. 4 may be slightly overestimated on some days of the late season. The maximum (or mid-season) Kcb of Fig. 4 is heavily dependent on canopy size (Fig. 3); thus, it is defined by the vine cropping standards of the region and cannot be extrapolated to different trellising and production systems involving different vine sizes. The canopy development of our experimental vineyard is (on purpose) higher than in most winemaking areas. Therefore, the maximum Kcb (=1) we estimated from our measured data is to be considered an upper threshold that must be adapted to the actual canopy size for the given vineyard. A simple adjustment of the maximum Kcb to match the vegetation size of less intensive vineyards can be obtained using the relationships of Fig. 3, once one knows the canopy size that a given commercial vineyard is pruned to. Quantifying the reduction of Kc due to water stress In the period ranging from 17 June to 8 July of 2007, the Kcb of the vineyard—still not irrigated—decreased from the unstressed Kcb = 1 to the initial Kcb registered ad budbreak (close to 0.2, see Fig. 4), suggesting that the transpiration component must have been minimum at this point; in fact, irrigation was started due to symptoms of wilt, even if the -1 MPa threshold in wstem was not actually crossed. This 20-day period of steadily increasing stress may be now analysed using the function of unstressed Kc (Fig. 4) as a tool to investigate how the vine ETc is actually reduced by the water available in the soil, and how Wstem is related to this reduction. Since the water content of the soil at field capacity and at wilting point is known (Table 2), the % of soil water available to the vines in the stress period can be calculated. By using the Kcb curve of Fig. 4 to calculate the ETc expected without water stress (ETc-unstressed) for each day in the stress period, it is possible to obtain the % of the potential ETc as ETc-measured/ETc-unstressed 9 100, and to analyse it versus % of available water as in Fig. 5. The analysis of Fig. 5 indicates that the vine ETc begins to be reduced when approximately the 50 % of the available soil water has been consumed, and that the reduction in ETc, from this point on, is proportional to the reduction in the soil available water in an approximately linear way. The regression line gives the coefficient of reduction due to
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432
429
of Fig. 5 should not be applied (in the form presented) in soils having less than 1.5 m of depth, as z would be limited.
100
y = 2.04x - 0.49 2 R = 0.98
% of potential ETc
80
Relationship between reduction of ETc and stem water potential
60
40
20
0 0
20
40
50
60
80
% soil available water (volumetric) Fig. 5 Relationship between the % of potential ETc (ETc-measured/ ETc-unstressed) and the % of available water in the soil in the lysimeter vines. Available water is calculated over a root depth of 1.5 m
water stress that should be applied to the daily wellwatered ETc (calculated by means of the Kc proposed in Fig. 4) when the vine available water is less than 50 % of the total. A similar analysis was conducted by Lebon et al. (2003), with the cultivar ‘‘Sirah’’, but using the relative stomatal conductance instead of the relative evapotranspiration as the dependent variable. Their analysis is comparable to Fig. 5 if the aerodynamic conditions are not too different. The plot they obtained differs from Fig. 5, only for the inflection point at 40 % (instead then 50 %) available water; nevertheless, their value is somehow uncertain, due to the level of scatter in their data. The relation presented in Fig. 5 is theoretically independent of canopy size, and thus may be applied in ‘‘Tempranillo’’ vineyards different from the experimental one; nevertheless, some caveat has to be given. The available water is here calculated over a soil depth of 1.5 m; if this depth is changed, the relation also changes. For a more universal and precise description of the process, one should know the actual root depth of the vines (z) and the function of variation of the soil water content with z each day, then obtaining the actual water available to the roots by integration over the variable z. Such an approach is not possible with the available data in this study and is also unfeasible in the practice of commercial irrigation scheduling. Nevertheless, if the assumption of z \ 1.5 m is met (which is reasonable in most soils, e.g. Smart et al. 2006) and if the soil water budget is calculated over the same depth of 1.5 m, then the relationship of Fig. 5 can be applied to calculate ETc—and thus the water budget and the irrigation requirements—in vineyards where deficit irrigation is practiced. For the same reason, the relationship
The year 2007 (Fig. 2) shows a paradigm of strong isohydric behaviour. Isohydricity (Stocker 1956) is the quality of a plant of keeping the water potential nearly unchanged even under water restriction and high atmospheric demand by a strong stomata closure—thus at the price of reducing assimilation and transpiration rates. Isohydricity and anisohydricity are not categories but the two extremes of a continuous range that plants show in the physiological control of their water stress. Different cultivars of some species have been reported to behave differently in this aspect, and Vitis vinifera is a good example (Rogiers et al. 2009; Schultz 2003). The data presented (Fig. 2, years 2007 and 2009) show that ‘‘Tempranillo’’ behaves as isohydric, confirming previous works that already suggested it (Intrigliolo and Castel 2006; Intrigliolo et al. 2005). As a consequence, in ‘‘Tempranillo’’, stem water potential is a weak predictor of water stress for irrigation purposes, as the ultimate goal pursued with irrigation is to avoid excessive stomatal closure that would reduce the assimilation of carbon. The use of soil % available water as a predictor of the reduction in the vine water use has the advantage of being less influenced by stomatal control with respect to Wleaf, and probably also to Wstem, when the water potentials are measured at midday. If this hypothesis is true, the wide range of isohydricity found within Vitis vinifera should give different relationships between Wstem and the actual reduction in water use in different cultivars. The measured data of transpiration are unfortunately scarce in the literature, but Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the reduction in ETc of the day and Wstem measured at midday in three cultivars, including Tempranillo from the year 2007 of this experiment, the period when the reduction in ETc was more intense. While all the three cultivars seem to activate the stomata control on transpiration at Wstem of near -0.5 MPa, the rate of reduction in transpiration at decreasing Wstem was less pronounced in Thompson Seedless (Williams et al. 2011) than in Malagouzia (Patakas et al. 2005), which, in turn, has a lower rate of ETc reduction than Tempranillo. The slope of the three lines represents the rate of change in Wstem that generates a given reduction in transpiration, which can be considered the direct measure of isohydricity: higher in Tempranillo and lower in Thompson Seedless. Figure 6 shows why the thresholds of Wstem to trigger or schedule irrigation should be cultivar-specific in grapevine, and why they could be either a good indicator of water status—like in Thompson
123
430
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432 100 cv. Thompson Seedlees (Williams et al. 2011) cv. Malagouzia (Patakas et al. 2005) cv. Tempranillo (this experiment)
% of potential ETc
80
60
y = 163.57x + 177.57 2
R = 0.68 40
Acknowledgments This work was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the projects INIA (RTA 2005-0038-C06-05) and (RTA-2008-00037-C04-03), by the project CONSOLIDER CSD2006-0067 and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).
20
0
present, then the relationship ETc/potential ETc versus %AW can be used to approximate the ETc reduction due to stomatal closure during the periods of deficit irrigation. Finally, stem water potential, although used with success in other varieties, may not be the most adequate variable to drive irrigation scheduling in this isohydric cultivar, where stress levels high enough for reducing considerably ETc only produced small changes in Wstem of ‘‘Tempranillo’’.
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
% midday ψ stem (MPa) Fig. 6 Relationships between the % of potential ETc (ETc-measured/ ETc-unstressed) and the midday stem water potential (Wstem) in this experiment and other cultivars. Straight line linear regression from data of this experiment (cv. ‘‘Tempranillo’’); dashed line: linear regression from Patakas et al. 2005 (cv. ‘‘Malagouzia’’); dot-dashed line: linear regression from Williams et al. 2011. (cv ‘‘Thompson Seedless’’, assuming maximum Kc = 1)
Seedless—or a less good one—like in the strongly isohydric Tempranillo, where, despite the linear fitting is equally good than in the other cultivars, the slope is simply too steep to be useful within the normal accuracy of Wstem measurement.
Conclusions This work presents a long-term study (5 years) that allowed the assessment of the crop coefficient of wine vineyard as a function of canopy size under the agronomic conditions of south-western Spain. The minimum Kcb (crop coefficient with dry soil and no water stress) of Tempranillo is about 0.2 at bud-break, and the maximum value is a function of the canopy size (in this case, it was 1 in our vineyard with our management and extended range of vegetation). When plotted against thermal time from bud-break, it showed a typical shape with two linear phases. The pattern is the same when Kc is plotted against normal time (data not shown), although the inflection point must be placed at the onset of the maximum ground cover. In less intensive vineyards (as is usual in wine producing areas), the estimation of Kcb can be adjusted by the linear relationships presented here with one of the canopy size indicators, namely LAI, fiPAR and ground cover fraction. If the soil water budget is calculated over the same 1.5 m of soil depth and no restrictions to root depth are
123
References Aboukhaled A, Alfaro JF, Smith M (1982) Lysimeters. FAO irrigation and drainage paper No 39 edn., Rome Allen RG, Pereira LS (2009) Estimating crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height. Irrig Sci 28:17–34 Allen RG, Pruitt WO, Jensen ME (1991) Environmental requirements for Lysimeters. In: Allen RG, Howell TA, Pruitt WO, Walter IA, Jensen ME (eds) Lysimeters for evapotranspiration and environmental measurements. ASCE, New York, pp 170–181 Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper No 56 edn., Rome Allen RG, Pruitt WO, Wright JL, Howell TA, Ventura F, Snyder R, Itenfisu D, Steduto P, Berengena J, Yrisarry JB, Smith M, Pereira LS, Raes D, Perrier A, Alves I, Walter I, Elliott R (2006) A recommendation on standardized surface resistance for hourly calculation of reference ETo by the FAO56 Penman-Monteith method. Agric Water Manag 81(1–2):1–22 Ayars JE, Johnson RS, Phene CJ, Trout TJ, Clark DA, Mead RM (2003) Water use by drip-irrigated late-season peaches. Irrig Sci 22(3–4):187–194 Baggiolini M (1952) Les stades repe`res dans le de´veloppement annuel de la vigne et leur utilisation pratique. Revue romande d’agriculture de viticulture et d’arboriculture:4–6 Braun P, Schmid J (1999) Sap flow measurements in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) 1. Stem morphology and use of the heat balance method. Plant Soil 215(1):39–45 Campos I, Neale CMU, Calera A, Balbontı´n C, Gonza´lez-Piqueras J (2010) Assessing satellite-based basal crop coefficients for irrigated grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Agric Water Manag 98 (1):45–54 Castel JR (1997) Evapotranspiration of a drip-irrigated clementine citrus tree in a weighing lysimeter. Acta Hortic 449:91–98 Chone´ X, Van Leeuwen C, Dubourdieu D, Gaudille`re JP (2001) Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Ann Bot 87(4):477–483 Cifre J, Bota J, Escalona JM, Medrano H, Flexas J (2005) Physiological tools for irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): an open gate to improve water-use efficiency? Agric Ecosyst Environ 106(2–3):159–170 Consoli S, O’Connell N, Snyder R (2006) Measurement of light interception by navel orange orchard canopies: case study of Lindsay, California. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 132(1):9–20 de Teixeira AHC, Bastiaanssen WGM, Bassoi LH (2007) Crop water parameters of irrigated wine and table grapes to support water
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432 productivity analysis in the Sao Francisco river basin, Brazil. Agric Water Manag 94(1–3):31–42 Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements, Rev. edn. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome Eichhorn KW, Lorenz DH (1977) Pho¨enologische Entwicklungsstadie. Der rebe. Nachrichtenb. Deutsch Pflanzenschutzd (Braunschweig):119–120 Evans RG, Spayd SE, Wample RL, Kroeger MW, Mahan MO (1993) Water-use of Vitis vinifera grapes in Washington. Agric Water Manag 23(2):109–124 FAO (2010) FAO Statistical Database (online). http://faostat.fao.org/. Accessed Marzo 2011 Ferreyra R, Selle´s G, Ruiz RS, Selle´s IM (2003) Effect of water stress induced at different growth stages on grapevine cv. Chardonnay on production and wine quality. Acta Hortic 664:233–236 Girona J, del Campo J, Mata M, Lopez G, Marsal J (2011) A comparative study of apple and pear tree water consumption measured with two weighing lysimeters. Irrig Sci 29(1):55–63 Grimes DW, Williams LE (1990) Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of Thompson seedless grapevines. Crop Sci 30(2):255–260 Hatfield JL (1990) Methods of estimating evapotranspiration. In: Stewart BA, Nielson, DR (ed) Irrigation of agricultural crops. Agron Monogr No. 30. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 435–474 Heilman JL, Heilman WE, Moore DG (1982) Evaluation the crop coefficient using spectral reflectance. Agron J 74(6):967–971 Intrigliolo D, Castel J (2006) Vine and soil-based measures of water status in a Tempranillo vineyard. Vitis 45(4):157–163 Intrigliolo D, Castel J, Pe´rez D (2005) Water relations of field grown drip irrigated Tempranillo grapevines. Acta Hortic 689:317–323 Intrigliolo D, Lakso A, Piccioni R (2009) Grapevine cv. ‘Riesling’ water use in the northeastern United States. Irrig Sci 27(3):253–262 Johnson RS, Williams LE, Ayars JE, Trout TJ (2005) Weighing lysimeters aid study of water relations in tree and vine crops. Calif Agric 59(2):133–136 Lebon E, Dumas V, Pieri P, Schultz HR (2003) Modelling the seasonal dynamics of the soil water balance of vineyards. Funct Plant Biol 30(6):699–710 MARM (2010) Anuario de Estadistica Agraria. MAPA (online). http://www.marm.es. Accessed Marzo 2011 Matthews MA, Ishii R, Anderson MM, Omahony M (1990) Dependence of wine sensory attributes on vine water status. J Sci Food Agric 51(3):321–335 Montoro A, Urrea RL, Manas F, Fuster PL, Fereres E (2008) Evapotranspiration of grapevines measured by a weighing lysimeter in La Mancha, Spain. Acta Hortic 792:459–466 Naor A (2000) Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Hortic 1(537):447–454 Netzer Y, Yao CR, Shenker M, Bravdo BA, Schwartz A (2009) Water use and the development of seasonal crop coefficients for Superior Seedless grapevines trained to an open-gable trellis system. Irrig Sci 27(2):109–120 Ortega-Farias S, Carrasco M, Olioso A, Acevedo C, Poblete C (2007) Latent heat flux over Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard using the Shuttleworth and Wallace model. Irrig Sci 25(2):161–170 Patakas A, Noitsakis B, Chouzouri A (2005) Optimization of irrigation water use in grapevines using the relationship between transpiration and plant water status. Agric Ecosyst Environ 106(2–3):253–259 Peacock WL, Christensen LP, Andris HL (1987) Development of a drip irrigation schedule for average-canopy vineyards in the San Joaquin Valley. Am J Enol Vitic 38(2):113–119
431 Poblete-Echeverria C, Ortega-Farias S (2009) Estimation of actual evapotranspiration for a drip-irrigated Merlot vineyard using a three-source model. Irrig Sci 28(1):65–78 Prueger JH, Hatfield JL, Aase JK, Pikul JL (1997) Bowen-ratio comparisons with lysimeter evapotranspiration. Agron J 89(5):730–736 Rana G, Katerji N (2008) Direct and indirect methods to simulate the actual evapotranspiration of an irrigated overhead table grape vineyard under Mediterranean conditions. Hydrol Process 22(2):181–188 Ritchie JT (1972) Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover. Water Resour Res 8(5):1204–1213 Rogiers SY, Greer DH, Hutton RJ, Landsberg JJ (2009) Does nighttime transpiration contribute to anisohydric behaviour in a Vitis vinifera cultivar? J Exp Bot 60(13):3751–3763 Rollin H, Meriaux S, Boubals D (1981) Sur l’irrigation de la vigne dans le midi de la France. Prog Agric Vitic 98:447–459 Sammis TW, Mapel CL, Lugg DG, Lansford RR, McGuckin JT (1985) Evapotranspiration crop coefficients predicted using growing-degree days. Trans ASAE 28(3):773–780 Scholander PF, Bradstreet ED, Hemmingsen EA, Hammel HT (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants: negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science 148(3668):339–346 Schultz HR (2003) Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant Cell Environ 26(8):1393–1405 Smart D, Schwass E, Lakso A, Morano L (2006) Grapevine rooting patterns: a comprehensive analysis and a review. Am J Enol Vitic 57(1):89–104 Soil Survey Staff (2006) Keys to soil taxonomy, 10th edn. USDANRCS, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC Spano D, Snyder RL, Duce P, Paw KT (2000) Estimating sensible and latent heat flux densities from grapevine canopies using surface renewal. Agric For Meteorol 104(3):171–183 Stocker O (1956) Die Abha¨ngigkeit des transpiration von den umweltfaktoren. In: Ruhland W (ed) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, vol 3. Springer, Berlin, pp 436–488 Testi L, Villalobos FJ, Orgaz F (2004) Evapotranspiration of a young irrigated olive orchard in southern Spain. Agric For Meteorol 121(1–2):1–18 Testi L, Villalobos FJ, Orgaz F, Fereres E (2006) Water requirements of olive orchards: I simulation of daily evapotranspiration for scenario analysis. Irrig Sci 24(2):69–76 Trambouze W, Voltz M (2001) Measurement and modelling of the transpiration of a Mediterranean vineyard. Agric For Meteorol 107(2):153–166 Trambouze W, Bertuzzi P, Voltz M (1998) Comparison of methods for estimating actual evapotranspiration in a row-cropped vineyard. Agric For Meteorol 91(3–4):193–208 Villalobos FJ, Testi L, Moreno-Perez MF (2009) Evaporation and canopy conductance of citrus orchards. Agric Water Manag 96(4):565–573 Williams LE, Araujo FJ (2002) Correlations among predawn leaf, midday leaf, and midday stem water potential and their correlations with other measures of soil and plant water status in Vitis vinifera. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127(3):448–454 Williams LE, Ayars JE (2005a) Water use of Thompson Seedless grapevines as affected by the application of gibberellic acid (GA(3)) and trunk girdling - practices to increase berry size. Agric For Meteorol 129(1–2):85–94 Williams LE, Ayars JE (2005b) Grapevine water use and the crop coefficient are linear functions of the shaded area measured beneath the canopy. Agric For Meteorol 132(3–4):201–211 Williams LE, Baeza P (2007) Relationships among ambient temperature and vapor pressure deficit and leaf and stem water
123
432 potentials of fully irrigated, field-grown grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 58(2):173 Williams LE, Matthews MA (1990) Grapevine. In: Stewart BA, Nielsen DR (eds) Irrigation of agricultural crops. Agron Monogr No 30. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, pp 1019–1055 Williams LE, Trout TJ (2005) Relationships among vine- and soilbased measures of water status in a Thompson Seedless vineyard in response to high-frequency drip irrigation. Am J Enol Vitic 56(4):357–366 Williams LE, Phene CJ, Grimes DW, Trout TJ (2003a) Water use of young Thompson seedless grapevines in California. Irrig Sci 22(1):1–9 Williams LE, Phene CJ, Grimes DW, Trout TJ (2003b) Water use of mature Thompson Seedless grapevines in California. Irrig Sci 22(1):11–18 Williams LE, Grimes DW, Phene CJ (2010a) The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured evapotranspiration on reproductive growth and water productivity of Thompson Seedless grapevines. Irrig Sci 28(3):233–243
123
Irrig Sci (2012) 30:419–432 Williams LE, Grimes DW, Phene CJ (2010b) The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured evapotranspiration on water relations and vegetative growth of Thompson Seedless grapevines. Irrig Sci 28(3):221–232 Williams LE, Baeza P, Vaughn P (2011) Midday measurements of leaf water potential and stomatal conductance are highly correlated with daily water use of Thompson Seedless grapevines. Irrig Sci:1–12. doi:10.1007/s00271-011-0276-2 Wright JL (1985) Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements, In: proceedings of the national conference on advances in evapotranspiration, 16–17 December. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, Chicago, pp 105–113 Yrisarry JJB, Naveso FS (2000) Use of weighing lysimeter and Bowen-Ratio Energy-Balance for reference and actual crop evapotranspiration measurements. Acta Hortic 537:143–150 Zhang B, Kang S, Li F, Tong L, Du T (2010) Variation in vineyard evapotranspiration in an arid region of northwest China. Agric Water Manag 97(11):1898–1904
