2007
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/27.12.1753
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of sap flow and trunk diameter sensors for irrigation scheduling in early maturing peach trees

Abstract: Five-year-old early maturing peach trees (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Flordastar grafted on GF-677 peach rootstock) were subjected to three irrigation treatments from March 18 to November 10, 2006. Control plants (T0 treatment) which received irrigation in excess of their crop water requirements (1089.7 mm) were compared with plants watered according to sap flow (SF; T1 treatment) or maximum daily trunk shrinkage (MDS; T2 treatment) measurements, so as to maintain SF and MDS signal intensities (control SF/S… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
21
0
3

Year Published

2008
2008
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
2
21
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…With that purpose, Goldhamer and Fereres [119] proposed what it is widely known as the signal-intensity approach. Basically, at the beginning of the irrigation season all the instrumented plants must be kept under non-limiting soil water conditions for enough days to calculate the so-called reference signal This approach has been tested in orchards of various fruit tree species, including almond [218], peach [219] and lemon [220], and has disadvantages for its use in commercial farms and orchards. First, it is difficult to define the threshold value [30].…”
Section: An Alternative To the Signal-intensity Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…With that purpose, Goldhamer and Fereres [119] proposed what it is widely known as the signal-intensity approach. Basically, at the beginning of the irrigation season all the instrumented plants must be kept under non-limiting soil water conditions for enough days to calculate the so-called reference signal This approach has been tested in orchards of various fruit tree species, including almond [218], peach [219] and lemon [220], and has disadvantages for its use in commercial farms and orchards. First, it is difficult to define the threshold value [30].…”
Section: An Alternative To the Signal-intensity Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…They do not give reliable information, however, on the precise value of the irrigation dose. Thus, the new irrigation dose is normally determined from the previous one and increased or decreased by a certain percentage, which in most cases varies from 10 to 15% [7,219].…”
Section: An Alternative To the Signal-intensity Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2007), which are often supported by physiologically based monitoring tools, such as infrared thermometry (Grant et al. 2007), trunk diameter sensors (Conejero et al. 2007) or sap flow meters (Fernández et al.…”
Section: Improving Vineyard Water Use Efficiency By Crop Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of yPD for evaluating plant water status and consequently for making decisions about irrigation is promising because the daily maximum rates of A and g as well as vegetative growth are related to yPD (Schultz 1996, Escalona et al 1999, Rodrigues et al 2008). Various proposals to substitute direct measurements of yPD have been made for perennial plants, using vegetative growth components (Pellegrino et al 2005), gas exchange parameters like g (Cifre et al 2005), continuous measurements of sap flow (Ginestar et al 1998, Conejero et al 2007 or trunk diameter fluctuations (Goldhamer andFereres 2004, Ortuño et al 2006) and, seemingly most related, midday measurements of yM and yST (Choné et al 2001, Williams and Araujo 2002, Girona et al 2006. Various proposals to substitute direct measurements of yPD have been made for perennial plants, using vegetative growth components (Pellegrino et al 2005), gas exchange parameters like g (Cifre et al 2005), continuous measurements of sap flow (Ginestar et al 1998, Conejero et al 2007 or trunk diameter fluctuations (Goldhamer andFereres 2004, Ortuño et al 2006) and, seemingly most related, midday measurements of yM and yST (Choné et al 2001, Williams and Araujo 2002, Girona et al 2006.…”
Section: Management Aspects Irrigation Systemsmentioning
confidence: 99%