Citrus Orchards

Kriedemann, P. E.; Barrs, H. D.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-424156-5.50011-1

Cited by 42 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 132 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kriedemann and Barrs (1981) and Oguntunde et al (2007) both reported that VPD is the dominant regulator of transpiration in citrus, when trees are well-watered, with transpiration decreasing with an increase in VPD. VPD during the winter months in the winter rainfall region averaged 0.74 kPa, whilst in the orchards in the summer rainfall region, VPD averaged 1.11 kPa.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…r l ) and using r l estimated from the relationship with ET o (K t r l (ET o )). Also shown are FAO-56 standardised basal crop coefficients (K cb FAO-56) for a citrus orchard with 70 % canopy cover ("Delta" and "Rustenburg" orchards) and 50 % ground cover ("Bahianinha" orchard), all with no active ground cover, as given by Allen and Pereira (2009) coefficients and crop water use using the given citrus parameters, is likely a reflection of the greater stomatal control of transpiration in citrus than in most other crops, which is attributed to high resistances to water transport within the plant (van Bavel et al 1967;Kriedemann and Barrs 1981;Sinclair and Allen 1982 Although these values may only be useful for re-use in Eq. 5, it is clear that mean monthly estimated r l (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parameter F r applies a downward adjustment (F r ≤ 1.0) if the vegetation exhibits more stomatal control on transpiration than is typical of most annual agricultural crops, a situation that is typical of citrus (Kriedemann and Barrs 1981 …”

Section: Estimation Of Transpiration Crop Coefficients From Fractionamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Crop coefficient approaches based on fixed estimates of leaf resistance are not appropriate for estimating water use of citrus

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The estimation of crop water use is critical for accurate irrigation scheduling and water licenses. However, the direct measurement of crop water use is too expensive and time consuming to be performed under all possible conditions, which necessitates the use of water use models. The FAO-56 procedure is a simple, convenient and reproducible method, but as canopy cover and height vary greatly among different orchards, crop coefficients may not be readily transferrable from one orchard to another. Allen and Pereira (2009) therefore incorporated a procedure into the FAO-56 approach which estimates crop coefficients based on a physical description of the vegetation and an adjustment for relative crop stomatal control over transpiration. Transpiration crop coefficients derived using this procedure and fixed values for citrus, did not provide good estimates of water use in three citrus orchards. However, when mean monthly leaf resistance was taken into account, 1 good agreement was found with measured values. A relationship between monthly reference evapotranspiration and mean leaf resistance provided a means of estimating mean leaf resistance which estimated transpiration crop coefficients with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The use of a dynamic estimate of mean leaf resistance therefore provided reasonable estimates of transpiration in citrus.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crop coefficient approaches based on fixed estimates of leaf resistance are not appropriate for estimating water use of citrus

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whole plant hydraulic conductivity and individual conductance components are considered the main factors that control the movement of water through the soil-plant system and have been linked with plant transpiration and other physiological processes related with transpiration [126][127][128][129]. Differences in root hydraulic conductance may cause differences in water transport from soil to plant, influencing the leaf water status and therefore in the growth and other physiological responses of the plant [130].…”

Section: Effects Of Salinity On Leaf Water Relations and Gas Exchangementioning

confidence: 99%

Plant Responses to Salt Stress: Adaptive Mechanisms

Acosta‐Motos¹,

Ortuño²,

Bernal‐Vicente³

et al. 2017

Preprint

361

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review deals with the adaptive mechanisms that plants can implement to cope with the challenge of salt stress. Plants tolerant to NaCl implement a series of adaptations to acclimate to salinity, including morphological, physiological and biochemical changes. These changes include increases in the root/canopy ratio and in the chlorophyll content in addition to changes in the leaf anatomy that ultimately lead to preventing leaf ion toxicity, thus maintaining the water status in order to limit water loss and protect the photosynthesis process. Furthermore, we deal with the effect of salt stress on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence and some of the mechanisms thought to protect the photosynthetic machinery, including the xanthophyll cycle, photorespiration pathway, and water-water cycle. Finally, we also provide an updated discussion on salt-induced oxidative stress at the subcellular level and its effect on the antioxidant machinery in both salt-tolerant and salt-sensitive plants. The aim is to extend our understanding of how salinity may affect the physiological characteristics of plants.

show abstract

“…On another hand, significant differences of stomatal conductance were not verified for the Maranthes corymbora species in the morning and evening (Eamus et al, 1993). Growth and performance reduction by water stress has been very well documented (Fischer, 1980;Kriedemann and Barrs, 1981), although different physiological processes have been proposed to explain these reductions. Initially, the stress may cause loss of cellular hardening (Hsiao et al, 1976), concurring to reduce gas changes and the leaf lengthening.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%