Grapevine crop coefficient (K<sub>c</sub>) determined by surface renewal method at different phenological periods

Poblete-Echeverría, Carlos; Sepulveda-Reyes, D.; Zúñiga, María del Carmén; Ortega-Farías, Samuel

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2017.1150.9

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study by Allen and Pereira (2009) is often quoted when users compare K cb from field research with paper tabulated K cb values, e.g. for strawberries (Lozano et al, 2016), vineyards (Moratiel and Martínez-Cob, 2012;Picón-Toro et al, 2012;Poblete-Echeverrı́a et al, 2017), and almond orchards (Stevens et al, 2012). More important, numerous studies report successful applications of the A&P approach to calculate K cb , mainly for trees and vines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Pereira

Paredes

Melton

et al. 2021

Agricultural Water Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The A&P approach, developed by Allen and Pereira (2009), estimates single and basal crop coefficients (K c and K cb ) from the observed fraction of ground cover (f c ) and crop height (h). The practical application of the A&P for several crops was reviewed and tested in a companion paper (Pereira et al., 2020). The current study further addresses the derivation of optimal values for A&P parameter values representing canopy transparency (M L ) and stomatal adjustment (F r ), and tests the resulting model performance. Values reported in literature of M L and F r were analysed. Optimal M L and F r values were derived by a numerical search that minimized the differences between K cb A&P with standard K cb for vegetable, field, and fruit crops as tabulated by Pereira et al. (2021aPereira et al. ( , 2021b and Rallo et al. (2021). Sources for f c were literature reviews supplemented by a remote sensing survey. Computed K cb and K c for mid-and end-season together with associated parameters values were tabulated. To improve the usability of the M L and F r parameters a cross validation was performed, which consisted of the linear regression between K cb computed by A&P and observed K cb relative to independent data sets obtained from field observations. Results show that both series of K cb match well, with regression coefficients very close to 1.0, coefficients of determination near 1.0, and root mean square errors (RMSE) of 0.06 for the annual crops and RMSE = 0.07 for the trees and vines. These errors represent less than 10% of most of the computed tabulated K cb. The tabulated F r and M L of this paper can be regarded as defaults to support A&P field practice when observations of f c and h are performed. Therefore, the A&P approach shows to be appropriate for use in irrigation scheduling and planning when f c and h are observed using ground and/or remote sensing, hence supporting irrigation water savings.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Pereira

Paredes

Melton

et al. 2021

Agricultural Water Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data on actual evapotranspiration (ET c act ) may be derived from a range of measurement systems [10][11], including lysimeters [12][13], eddy covariance [6][7]11], the Bowen ratio [14][15][16], water budget analysis [7,11], sap flow analysis [17], satellite-based remote sensing [18], and model simulations [19]. Of these systems, the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient approach is considered the most accurate for estimating daily ET c , as it separately calculates soil evaporation and crop transpiration [20][21][22].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating Evapotranspiration and Its Components in Cotton Fields under Deficit Irrigation Conditions

Wu¹,

Yang²,

Luo³

et al. 2018

Pol. J. Environ. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Several studies have shown that K c values proposed by FAO‐56 (Allen et al 1998) do not agree with those obtained experimentally in vineyards. For example, Poblete‐Echeverría et al (2017) observed K c and K cb values 11 and 19% lower, respectively, than estimated by FAO‐56 for the mid‐season in a drip‐irrigated Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot vineyard trained using a vertical shoot‐positioned system.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Historical and future trends in evapotranspiration components and irrigation requirement of winegrapes

Phogat

Cox

Mallants

et al. 2020

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims An understanding of the dynamics of the components of evapotranspiration and irrigation requirements in response to climate variation and change is essential to manage vineyards sustainably. Methods and Results Winegrape evapotranspiration (ETC adj), seasonal transpiration (Tp adj), soil evaporation (Es) and irrigation requirement (I) were evaluated with the FAO‐56 dual‐crop coefficient, across a range of soil types, in response to historical (1970–2017) and future (2018–2050, Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5) climate projections. The Mann–Kendell non‐parametric test and Sen's slope were used to detect any trends regarding historical and future climate. A statistically significant increasing trend was observed in the annual ETC adj, Tp adj and I under both climate scenarios, and Es showed a significant negative trend for the historical projection. Average daily ETC adj ranged from 1.2 to 4.3 mm under historical climate and increased to 1.5–4.6 mm under the future climate projection. Estimated I was 240–528 mm depending on the soil type and rainfall during the growing season, with the largest increase in irrigation predicted during October and November. Conclusions The increase in irrigation requirements was within half a standard deviation of historic values, and the largest increase did not coincide with the months of maximum demand. Significance of the Study The predicted increase in irrigation requirements is likely to be within the adaptive capacity of the existing infrastructure and growing systems but will need ongoing monitoring as climate projections are revised.

show abstract

Grapevine crop coefficient (K_c) determined by surface renewal method at different phenological periods

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Estimating Evapotranspiration and Its Components in Cotton Fields under Deficit Irrigation Conditions

Historical and future trends in evapotranspiration components and irrigation requirement of winegrapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Grapevine crop coefficient (Kc) determined by surface renewal method at different phenological periods

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization

Estimating Evapotranspiration and Its Components in Cotton Fields under Deficit Irrigation Conditions

Historical and future trends in evapotranspiration components and irrigation requirement of winegrapes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Grapevine crop coefficient (K_c) determined by surface renewal method at different phenological periods