Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The use of midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards

The use of midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards Midday leaf water potential (Ψmd) was monitored for 3 years at a commercial vineyard (cv. Pinot Noir) under four irrigation strategies. Three treatments were established based on irrigating vines with 4–6 mm/day, when daily measured Ψmd was more negative than the pre-defined threshold. After the first experimental year, thresholds were adjusted for each treatment as: (1) Control (C), irrigated when Ψmd was less than −0.6 MPa at the beginning of the season and gradually fell to −0.8 MPa at about mid-June, after which the threshold was maintained at −0.8 MPa until harvest. (2) Control–Deficit (CD), irrigated as C from bud-break to mid-June (around the middle of Stage II of fruit growth), and from then until harvest when Ψmd decreased below −1.2 MPa. (3) Deficit–Deficit (DD), irrigated when Ψmd was less than −1.0 from bud break to mid-May (about the middle of fruit growth Stage I), and after that time the Ψmd threshold became −1.2 MPa until harvest. A fourth treatment was applied following a soil water budget approach (WB). All treatments were replicated five times but irrigation in the Ψmd-based treatments were independently applied to each of the replicate plots, whereas irrigation for WB was applied equally to all replications. The more site-specific information obtained from Ψmd thresholds in C provided substantial advantages for yield homogeneity and repeatability of results with respect to WB, thus demonstrating the method’s greater ability to account for spatial variability. Average applied water for the 3 years in C, CD, and DD was 374, 250, and 178 mm, respectively, while the yields were 11.8, 9.2, and 6.1 kg/vine, respectively. The CD treatment produced better juice quality than C, and was superior in other quality parameters to both C and DD. However, over the study period, an important carryover effect was observed in the yields and the grape size of CD, which tended to diminish from year to year relative to C. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Irrigation Science Springer Journals

The use of midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-use-of-midday-leaf-water-potential-for-scheduling-deficit-kFT7edKN8q

References (42)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by Springer-Verlag
Subject
Life Sciences; Waste Water Technology / Water Pollution Control / Water Management / Aquatic Pollution; Forestry; Soil Science & Conservation ; Plant Sciences ; Agriculture
ISSN
0342-7188
eISSN
1432-1319
DOI
10.1007/s00271-005-0015-7
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Midday leaf water potential (Ψmd) was monitored for 3 years at a commercial vineyard (cv. Pinot Noir) under four irrigation strategies. Three treatments were established based on irrigating vines with 4–6 mm/day, when daily measured Ψmd was more negative than the pre-defined threshold. After the first experimental year, thresholds were adjusted for each treatment as: (1) Control (C), irrigated when Ψmd was less than −0.6 MPa at the beginning of the season and gradually fell to −0.8 MPa at about mid-June, after which the threshold was maintained at −0.8 MPa until harvest. (2) Control–Deficit (CD), irrigated as C from bud-break to mid-June (around the middle of Stage II of fruit growth), and from then until harvest when Ψmd decreased below −1.2 MPa. (3) Deficit–Deficit (DD), irrigated when Ψmd was less than −1.0 from bud break to mid-May (about the middle of fruit growth Stage I), and after that time the Ψmd threshold became −1.2 MPa until harvest. A fourth treatment was applied following a soil water budget approach (WB). All treatments were replicated five times but irrigation in the Ψmd-based treatments were independently applied to each of the replicate plots, whereas irrigation for WB was applied equally to all replications. The more site-specific information obtained from Ψmd thresholds in C provided substantial advantages for yield homogeneity and repeatability of results with respect to WB, thus demonstrating the method’s greater ability to account for spatial variability. Average applied water for the 3 years in C, CD, and DD was 374, 250, and 178 mm, respectively, while the yields were 11.8, 9.2, and 6.1 kg/vine, respectively. The CD treatment produced better juice quality than C, and was superior in other quality parameters to both C and DD. However, over the study period, an important carryover effect was observed in the yields and the grape size of CD, which tended to diminish from year to year relative to C.

Journal

Irrigation ScienceSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 14, 2005

There are no references for this article.