Crop yield response to water - Cra
Crop yield response to water - Cra Crop yield response to water - Cra
ox 10 (CONTINUED)The major limitation of using SWP for irrigation management is its labor requirement, alimitation that greatly increases for the predawn measurements, because the measurementsrequire trips to the fields, and they cannot be automated. Alternative techniques to thepressure chamber have been proposed, such as measuring the diurnal trunk diameter changeswith dendrometers. This technique provides continuous records automatically and it has beentested in a few species, although it is not widely used outside research activities. Anothershortcoming of plant-based scheduling approaches is that they do not provide quantitativeinformation on how much water should be applied, as the soil water monitoring and thewater budget methods offer. Research information on SWP of the various tree and vinespecies is available to diagnose the relative level of water status in an orchard, and this is oneof the most useful applications of SWP measurements. Box 11 provides indicative values forsome tree species and further details are given in the specific crop chapters. Both evaporativedemand and time of the season may affect the reference SWP values.Canopy temperatureTree canopy temperature is another indicator of water stress. The underlying mechanism isthat the closure of stomata induced by water deficits causes an increase in canopy temperaturebecause of a lower transpirational cooling. On a clear day, plant canopies well supplied withwater are cooler than the surrounding air by several degrees. As water supply is restrictedand water stress is imposed, the canopies warm up as transpiration is reduced, and theirtemperatures can be equal or higher than that of the air. In a given environment, canopytemperature increases with the severity of water stress. The development of the infraredthermometer (IRT) made it possible to measure canopy temperature remotely, withoutphysical contact with the plant and this made it possible to use canopy temperatures forirrigation management. As an example, the difference between canopy and air temperaturemay range from -3 ºC when canopies are well watered to +3 ºC under significant stress, whichoffers a wide window to detect stress.Yield Response to Water of Fruit Trees and Vines 275
ox 11 Reference values of stem-water potential (SWP) in some species of fruit trees and vines.Range of SWP values for well-irrigated trees (no stress) of several perennial crop species.Values were observed around midday on clear days. The range indicates the variationobserved at the low and high evaporative demands, and early (soon after full canopydevelopment) vs. late in the season (before leaf senescence visual symptoms).SWP (MPa) Early season Mid-to-late seasonOlive, Citrus -0.8 to -1.0 -1.0 to -1.2Grapes -0.4 to -0.6 -0.6 to -0.8Pistachio -0.7 to -0.8 -1.0 to -1.2Almonds -0.6 to -0.8 -0.8 to -1.0Peach -0.5 to -0.6 -0.7 to -0.9Walnuts -0.4 to -0.5 -0.5 to -0.7Based on canopy temperatures, a crop water stress index (CWSI) has been developed toquantify the level of water stress of crop canopies. The CWSI uses the temperature differencebetween the canopy (T c ) and surrounding air (T) which is normalized for differences in climaticconditions using the vapour pressure deficit of the air.Box 12 shows how the CWSI is calculated using two baselines, one for a fully irrigated canopy(lower baseline) and another for a severely stressed canopy (upper baseline). Both lines areeither empirically determined or theoretically derived under equivalent evaporative demandconditions. Protocols for use in irrigation scheduling focus on not exceeding predeterminedCWSI thresholds during specific periods of the season. Canopies under no stress have CWSIvalues near zero while in severely stressed crops, CWSI approaches one.The CWSI indicator has been successful in detecting the water status of homogeneouscanopies of the major field crops. It is more difficult to apply it to the heterogeneous canopiesof trees and vines because the bare soil, which has a much higher temperature, interfereswith the readings of surface temperature of isolated tree crowns within hot soil surfaces.Also, in the case of tree crops, the use of CWSI has been limited by the smaller differences inthe canopy-air temperature gradient because of the rougher tree canopy as compared to thesmooth canopies of homogeneous field crops. With the latter, the crop canopy temperaturesget hotter than tree canopies for the same relative decline in temperature. However, recentlyit has been shown that the CWSI approach is capable of detecting water stress in fruit treecanopies, as seen in Box 12 for pistachio trees.276crop yield response to water
- Page 239 and 240: Generally, the growing season begin
- Page 241 and 242: FAO. 2011. FAOSTAT online database,
- Page 244 and 245: *Flower and grain colour presented
- Page 246 and 247: Figure 1 World quinoa harvested are
- Page 248 and 249: with typical values around 10.5 g/m
- Page 250: ReferencesAlvarez-Jubete, L., Arend
- Page 254 and 255: Growth and developmentThe common me
- Page 256 and 257: soils (EARO, 2002). Tef has some to
- Page 258: tef 243
- Page 261 and 262: Lead AuthorsElias Fereres(Universit
- Page 264: equirements per unit land area for
- Page 268 and 269: figure 6 The water balance of an or
- Page 270 and 271: ox 2 Understanding the transpiratio
- Page 272: Orchard transpirationTree Tr is det
- Page 276 and 277: ox 4 Sample calculation of E dz , E
- Page 278 and 279: ox 5 Computing olive tree transpira
- Page 280 and 281: FIGURE 10 Crop coefficient (K c ) c
- Page 282 and 283: For training systems on a vertical
- Page 284 and 285: ox 7Consumptive and non-consumptive
- Page 286 and 287: are seeking more precision in their
- Page 288 and 289: ox 9 Examples of soil water monitor
- Page 292 and 293: ox 12Definition of CWSI and an exam
- Page 294 and 295: The water budget methodWith this me
- Page 296 and 297: ox 15 Evolution of soil water under
- Page 298 and 299: opening and photosynthesis relative
- Page 300 and 301: that occur during the periods of fr
- Page 302 and 303: The crop, where price can vary more
- Page 304: Modify horticultural practicesPruni
- Page 307 and 308: FIGURE 13Comparison of yield per un
- Page 309 and 310: season. Thus the risks of salinity
- Page 312: 4.1 Fruit trees and vinesEditor:Eli
- Page 315 and 316: Figure 1 Production trends for oliv
- Page 317 and 318: Figure 2Occurrence and duration of
- Page 320 and 321: The use of displacement sensors to
- Page 322 and 323: Figure 4 Relationship between relat
- Page 324 and 325: Table 3 Sample calculation of month
- Page 326 and 327: clayey soils. If supply is very lim
- Page 329: Lead AuthorDavid A. Goldhamer(forme
- Page 332 and 333: Fruit growth during this stage is t
- Page 334 and 335: Season-long stressSeveral studies h
- Page 336 and 337: Table 1Published monthly crop coeff
- Page 339 and 340: Four crop-water-production function
ox 10 (CONTINUED)The major limitation of using SWP for irrigation management is its labor requirement, alimitation that greatly increases for the predawn measurements, because the measurementsrequire trips <strong>to</strong> the fields, and they cannot be au<strong>to</strong>mated. Alternative techniques <strong>to</strong> thepressure chamber have been proposed, such as measuring the diurnal trunk diameter changeswith dendrometers. This technique provides continuous records au<strong>to</strong>matically and it has beentested in a few species, although it is not widely used outside research activities. Anothershortcoming of plant-based scheduling approaches is that they do not provide quantitativeinformation on how much <strong>water</strong> should be applied, as the soil <strong>water</strong> moni<strong>to</strong>ring and the<strong>water</strong> budget methods offer. Research information on SWP of the various tree and vinespecies is available <strong>to</strong> diagnose the relative level of <strong>water</strong> status in an orchard, and this is oneof the most useful applications of SWP measurements. Box 11 provides indicative values forsome tree species and further details are given in the specific crop chapters. Both evaporativedemand and time of the season may affect the reference SWP values.Canopy temperatureTree canopy temperature is another indica<strong>to</strong>r of <strong>water</strong> stress. The underlying mechanism isthat the closure of s<strong>to</strong>mata induced by <strong>water</strong> deficits causes an increase in canopy temperaturebecause of a lower transpirational cooling. On a clear day, plant canopies well supplied with<strong>water</strong> are cooler than the surrounding air by several degrees. As <strong>water</strong> supply is restrictedand <strong>water</strong> stress is imposed, the canopies warm up as transpiration is reduced, and theirtemperatures can be equal or higher than that of the air. In a given environment, canopytemperature increases with the severity of <strong>water</strong> stress. The development of the infraredthermometer (IRT) made it possible <strong>to</strong> measure canopy temperature remotely, withoutphysical contact with the plant and this made it possible <strong>to</strong> use canopy temperatures forirrigation management. As an example, the difference between canopy and air temperaturemay range from -3 ºC when canopies are well <strong>water</strong>ed <strong>to</strong> +3 ºC under significant stress, whichoffers a wide window <strong>to</strong> detect stress.Yield Response <strong>to</strong> Water of Fruit Trees and Vines 275