Physiological Indicators of Plant Water Status as Criteria for Irrigation Scheduling in Table Grapes Cv. Crimson Seedless, Irrigated by Drip

Selles, Gabriel; Ferreyra, R.; Muñoz, Iván; Silva, H.

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2004.664.75

Cited by 15 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the case of Ψ(Stem), CT stayed above -0.9 MPa in both periods, consistent with the results reported by Myburg (1996) and Sellés et al (2004) for grapevines irrigated with 90% and 100% of the calculated water demand, respectively. DT had a similar behavior in the first period, with values close to those of 'Cabernet Sauvignon' plants with a similar irrigation regime (Williams and Araujo, 2002).…”

Section: Response Of the Indicators To The Irrigation Treatmentssupporting

confidence: 90%

“…This disparity in the results obtained with wine grapes may extrapolate to table grapes. Sellés et al (2004), comparing the growth rate of the trunk in plants with and without water deficit, obtained results favorable to the use of TDV to determine irrigation, between berry set and veraison. Myburg (1996) used a threshold value of daily trunk contraction to define the opportunity of irrigation, with satisfactory results.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Variation of water potential and trunk diameter answer as sensitivity to the water availability in table grapes

Silva-Contreras

Schouwen

Ferreyra-Espada

et al. 2012

Chilean J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in trunk diameter (TDV) has been proposed as an indicator of the water status of grape vines, with apparently contradictory results. In Vitis vinifera L. var. Crimson Seedless we evaluated the water potential (Ψ), an indicator normally used to determine the water status of grapes, and TDV, comparing two irrigation treatments which restored 100% or 50% of the ETc, to compare the sensitivity of these two indicators to a decrease in soil water. Two evaluation periods of 23 d each were used, the first during the exponential growth phase and the second in the post-veraison period, when the trunk stops growing. In both periods TDV showed coefficients of variation greater than 25%, compared to the 7-10% recorded for water potential. However, during the first measuring period (82-105 d after bud break) the TDV of the treatment with water deficit decreased by more than 30%, while water potential only decreased from 6-12%. In the second measurement period (112-155 d after bud break) in which fruit growth is predominant, the control showed TDV values 100% greater than those of the treatment with water deficit, while the differences in water potential were between 10% and 13%. These results demonstrate the sensitivity of the continuous variation of the trunk diameter and the utility of TDV as a criterion for irrigation control, taking into consideration the development stage of the vines.

show abstract

Section: Response Of the Indicators To The Irrigation Treatmentssupporting

confidence: 90%

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Variation of water potential and trunk diameter answer as sensitivity to the water availability in table grapes

Silva-Contreras

Schouwen

Ferreyra-Espada

et al. 2012

Chilean J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Trunk growth is affected by water deficits in grapevines (Intrigliolo and Castel 2007;Myburg 1996;Sellés et al 2004;van Zyl 1984). Trunk diameter decreased significantly for the sustained deficit irrigated treatments compared to those irrigated at ET c or greater in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured evapotranspiration on water relations and vegetative growth of Thompson Seedless grapevines

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetative growth and water relations of Thompson Seedless grapevines in response to applied water amounts at various fractions of measured grapevine ET c were quantified. Treatments ranged from no applied water up to 1.4 times the water used by vines growing in a weighing lysimeter. All treatments were irrigated at the same frequency as the vines in the lysimeter (whenever they used 2 mm of water), albeit at their respective fraction. Soil water content and midday leaf water potential (W l ) were measured routinely in four of the irrigation treatments across years. The amount of water depleted in the soil profile ranged from 190 mm for the 0.2 treatment in 1993 to no water depletion for the 1.4 treatment in 1992. The irrigation treatments significantly affected midday W l , total shoot length, leaf area per vine, pruning weights and trunk diameter; as applied water decreased so did vegetative growth. Pruning weights were a linear function of the seasonal, mean midday W l across growing seasons. The application of water amounts in excess of evapotranspiration negatively affected vegetative growth some of the years. A companion paper will demonstrate that over-irrigation can negatively affect reproductive growth of this grape cultivar due to excess vegetative growth.

show abstract

“…After veraison, trunk growth ceased independently of plant water status. Negligible TGRs after veraison were also observed by Myburg (1996) and Sellés et al (2004). It is well known that after veraison berries are the dominant sink (Williams 1997), and have priority for assimilates in the carbon partitioning among the weekly averages of the weeks when s was measured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

“…Using trunk growth itself as a water stress indicator in grapevines was explored by Myburg (1996) and Sellés et al (2004). However, the relationship between MDS, TGR, and leaf or stem water potential had not been explored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of grapevine water status from trunk diameter variations

Intrigliolo

Castel

2007

Irrig Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We evaluated the usefulness of short-term trunk diameter variations (TDV) as water stress indicator in Weld-grown grapevines cv. Tempranillo. Two indices were calculated from TDV, maximum daily trunk shrinkage (MDS), and trunk growth rate (TGR). The seasonal evolution of both indicators was compared with occasional determinations of pre-dawn leaf water potential and stem water potential, measured at early morning ( s em ) and at midday ( s md ) in irrigated and non-irrigated vines. In the second season, the eVect of crop load on the vine water status indicators was also studied. Crop load did not aVect either the vine water relations or the TDV. All water potential determinations had much lower variability and were more sensitive than both MDS and TGR to water restrictions. The ability of both indices to detect plant water stress varied largely depending upon the phenological period. In fact, MDS and TGR were only able to detect vine water stress during a short period of time before veraison. During this period, TGR was linearly related to both s em and s md , while for MDS a curvilinear, quadratic equation, better described the relationship with plant water status. After veraison no apparent relationship existed between plant water status and MDS or TGR. Hence, our results question the practical use of both MDS and TGR as variables to automate irrigation scheduling for grapevine.

show abstract

Physiological Indicators of Plant Water Status as Criteria for Irrigation Scheduling in Table Grapes Cv. Crimson Seedless, Irrigated by Drip

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Variation of water potential and trunk diameter answer as sensitivity to the water availability in table grapes

Variation of water potential and trunk diameter answer as sensitivity to the water availability in table grapes

The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured evapotranspiration on water relations and vegetative growth of Thompson Seedless grapevines

Evaluation of grapevine water status from trunk diameter variations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About