Estimating Almond Crop Coefficients and Physiological Response to Water Stress in Semiarid ...

12 Pages·2017·0.46 MB·English

J. Agr. Sci. Tech. (2015) Vol. 17: 1255-1266
Estimating Almond Crop Coefficients and Physiological
Response to Water Stress in Semiarid Environments
(SW Spain)
I. F. García-Tejero1, A. Hernández1, V. M. Rodríguez1, J. R. Ponce1, V. Ramos1, J. L.
Muriel1, and V.H. Durán-Zuazo1*
ABSTRACT
Water is the most limiting factor in irrigated agriculture, mainly in Mediterranean
environments, as in the case of southwest Spain. In this area, almond is one of the most
valuable crops due to its high drought tolerance. This work examines the crop coefficients
(K ) based on four drainage lysimeters installed in an experimental young almond
C
orchard. Complementary, two deficit-irrigation treatments were tested: (1) moderate
deficit-irrigation (M ), which received 100% of the crop evapotranspiration (ET )
DI C
during the irrigation period, except during the kernel-filling stage and pre-harvest, when
irrigation was 50% of ET ; and (2) severe deficit irrigation (S ), in which water was
C DI
applied according to the values of leaf-water potential at midday (Ψ ), this being
leaf
maintained at between -1.6 and -2.0 MPa. The crop’s physiological response to water
8 ] stress was monitored throughout the study period by assessing the leaf-water potential
1-1 (Ψleaf) and canopy temperature (TC) dynamics. The KC values changed from 0.4 at the
0 beginning of irrigation period to a maximum of 1.1 during the maximum evaporative
3-
2 demand period. From this stage on, the Kc gradually decreased to 0.4 at the end of the
0
2 season. In physiological terms, both Ψ and T showed a temporal evolution according
n leaf C
o to defined irrigation strategies. Moreover, significant relationship (r2 = 0.63, P<0.05) was
c.ir obtained between Yleaf and the difference between leaf and air temperature values (AT).
s.a the difference between leaf and air temperature values; evidencing the feasibility of using
are TC for water-stress management. Thus, the findings highlight the importance of local KC
od to optimize water use and irrigation scheduling in almond orchards.
m
st.
a Keywords: Almond, Deficit-irrigation, Drainage lysimeters, Leaf temperature, Water stress.
m j
o
d fr INTRODUCTION margin is relatively low (García-Tejero et
de al., 2011a).
a
nlo Almond (Prunus dulcis Mill) is the third Knowledge of the accurate water loss
w
through crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is
Do crop, after olive and grape, in terms of
[ cultivated area in Spain, with 536,000 ha necessary in order to avoid mistakes in
estimating crop water needs, especially in
and annual production of 211,000 t
areas characterized by water scarcity and
(FAOstat, 2013), this being the most
drought. Many irrigation deficiencies are
important tree-nut crop in the Mediterranean
related to inadequate irrigation estimations,
area (Egea et al., 2009). However, this crop
3 ] has traditionally been associated with which promote higher costs, wastes of
14. marginal areas, being cultivated under irrigation water, and negative environmental
5. repercussions (Katerji and Rana, 2011). This
7. rainfed conditions, and therefore the profit
1 issue was largely solved through the water-
5.
1
0
3.2 _____________________________________________________________________________
7
0 1 Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training (IFAPA) Centro “Las Torres-Tomejil”.
7
0
8 Crta. Sevilla-Cazalla, km. 12. 41200 Alcalá del Río, Sevilla, Spain.
6
1 * Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected]
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1255
2
R:
O
D
[
1 / 12
__________________________________________________________________ García-Tejero et al.
balance method proposed by Allen et al. When a DI practice is applied, an effective
(1998, 2005). This method consists of monitoring of crop-water status is essential
estimating the ET by calculating the in order to optimize the crop response to
C
reference evapotranspiration (ET ) and the water stress both in physiological terms as
0
specific crop coefficient (K ). The latter is well as in yield. The use of plant-based
C
highly dependent on local conditions, crop water-stress indicators for monitoring the
architecture, canopy resistance, albedo, and effects of DI has been widely studied in
soil-surface evaporation (Abrisqueta et al., several crops. In this sense, leaf-water
2013). potential (Ψ ) and stomatal conductance
leaf
Today, it can be assumed that this is the (g) are the most commonly used parameters
s
most widely used and popular method to to monitor the plant water status, when the
estimate the crop-water requirements, crop is subjected to water stress. However,
although there are some questions that are these measurements are time consuming and
not totally clear, such as the possible effects cannot be automated (Fulton et al., 2001;
of local variations on K values. In this Romero and Botía, 2006). By contrast,
C
sense, K values are affected by many canopy temperature (T ) measured with
C C
factors, such as irrigation system infrared thermometry or other remote
(Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977; Wright, 1982), infrared sensors can be used as an alternative
weather conditions, soil characteristics, crop technique for monitoring the crop-water
management, canopy development, and status, especially when this is subjected to
practices that could determine the irradiance DI strategies (García-Tejero et al., 2011b).
fraction by the plant and soil (Stanghellini et This parameter is a particularly relevant
8 ] al., 1990; Annandale and Stockle, 1994). biophysical traits in many crops, because it
1
1- Consequently, most of the K values is a robust indicator specially of drought
0 C
3- reported in the literature can vary (Costa et al., 2012), and can be used for a
2
0
2 significantly from the actual ones if growing more precise management of deficit
n
o conditions differ from those where the K irrigation strategies (Jones et al., 2002;
ac.ir values were experimentally estimatedC García-Tejero et al., 2011b). TC is the result
s. (Tarantino and Onofrii, 1991). of an energy balance between the power
e
dar In arid and semi-arid areas such as the gains (incident radiation and temperature of
o
m south-western Spain, irrigation can be the surrounding air) and losses (due to
st.
a considered the main limiting factor in transpiration and evaporation of water from
m j
almond trees, despite its ability to adapt to the surface of the leaves), which entails a
o
d fr unfavourable conditions (Hutmacher et al., loss of heat from the surface studied and
e
d 1994). In this context, the implementation of energy-transfer processes (Sepulcre et al.,
a
o
nl irrigation systems in rainfed areas 2006). From an energy balance point of
w
o constitutes an alternative and an opportunity view, as a consequence of stomatal
D
[ to improve the productivity of this tree crop. regualtion (partial clousure) under a mild or
Some authors have demonstrated that the moderate water stress, leaf temperature
adoption of regulated deficit irrigation (DI) trends to increase, because of a descend in
strategies have improved almond the heat dissipation associated with the
productivity (Goldhamer et al., 2006; transpiration process (Jones et al., 2002;
3 ] Romero et al., 2006; Egea et al., 2010). Costa et al., 2013), which is known as the
4. Considering the optimal response of almond evaporative cooling process, in which there
1
5. under non-limiting water conditions, and its is a heat loss associated with transpiration
7.
5.1 strong drought resistance, strategies such as process from the canopy so that a
1
0 DI could be considered a promising transpiration decline is traduced in an
2
3. alternative to improve the crop productivity increase of leaf temperature (Jones, 1992).
7
0
7 when the water resources are scarce. However, direct relationhips between leaf
0
8
6 temperature values and other physiological
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1256
2
R:
O
D
[
2 / 12
Almond Crop Coefficients and Water Stress ______________________________________
parameters are not really significant because capacity (–0.3 MPa) and wilting point (–1.5
temperature readings are very dependent on MPa) in 1 m of soil depth were 255 and 90
other meteorological variables such as air mm, respectively.
temperature, solar radiation, wind speed, air The climatology in the study area is
humidity or air pressure deficit vapour (Pou attenuated meso-Mediterranean, with an
et al., 2014). For this reason, some reference annual ET rate of 1,400 mm and
0
temperature values are used to obtain some accumulated rainfall of 540 mm, distributed
stress indices which allow normalizing the from October to April, for an accumulated
obtained values of absolue leaf temperature water deficit up to 800 mm yr-1.
(Jones et al., 1997, 2009; Costa et al., 2013).
Within these indices, ∆T (this being the
Drainage Lysimeters and K
difference between leaf and air temperature) C
Calculation
allows to normalize the leaf temperature
values and obtain more representative
relationships between the temperature The soil-water balance was analyzed in
readings and other physiological variables fully irrigated trees, through four drainage
(Costa et al., 2013; García-Tejero et al., lysimeters, with one tree in each (3×3×1 m)
2011b). located inside an almond orchard, which
The aim of the present work was to were used to determine the ETc and the soil-
estimate the local crop coefficients (K ), and water-content time course for the entire
C
the relationships in the soil-plant- profile.
atmosphere system in a young almond Each lysimeter had eight Time Domain
8 ] orchard in SW Spain subjected to water Reflectometry (TDR) probes (CS616,
1
1- stress, analyzing its physiological response Campbell Sci.) placed twice at 15, 35, 50,
0
3- to drought, and the effects of some climatic and 75 cm of soil depth, at 35 cm from the
2
20 parameters in the K evolution during the vertical line of the trunk. These probes were
on irrigation period. C connected to a data logger (CR1000
c.ir Campbell Sci.), and readings were taken
a
s. every 15 minutes (Figure 1). An automatic
are MATERIALS AND METHODS collector (micro rain gauge; Campbell Sci.)
d
o
m controlled the water that drained after
ast. Experimental Site irrigation or rain episode in each lysimeter.
m j This system determined the crop-water
o
d fr The trial was conducted during 2013 in an demands, quantifying the entries and losses
de of water, according to the following
a experimental plot of four-year-old almonds
nlo (Prunus dulcis Mill. D. A. Webb. cv. Guara, equation:
Dow grafted onto GF677), located in the ETC = P + I – D – ∆θ – R (1)
[ Guadalquivir river basin (37º 30’ 47’’ N; 5º ∆θ = Σ(θi – θi-1) Z (2)
Where, P is the precipitation (mm), I is the
58’ 2’’ W) (Seville, SW Spain). Planted in
irrigation water amount (mm), ET the crop
2009, the trees were spaced 6×7 m, and drip C
evapotranspiration (mm); D, the drainage
irrigated using two pipe lines with emitters
(mm); ∆θ, the soil-water content variation (L
of 2.3 L h-1, spaced at 1 m (14 emitters per
3 ] tree). The soil is a silty loam, typical m-3); θi and θi-1 are the initial and final soil-
4. water content, respectively; Z is the
1 Fluvisol (Soil Survey Staff, 2006), 2.5 m
5. thickness of each horizon (m), and R the
7. deep, fertile, and low organic matter content
1 runoff, this being assumed as null.
5. (< 15.0 g kg-1). The roots were located
201 predominately in the first 0.5 m of soil, The seasonal values of ET0 were
3. determined by the Penman-Monteith
7 corresponding to the intended wetting depth,
70 equation (Allen et al., 1998), using the
0 although they exceeded more than 1 m in
168 depth. Soil-water content values at field climatic data recorded at an automated
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1257
2
R:
O
D
[
3 / 12
__________________________________________________________________ García-Tejero et al.
according to the Ψ values at midday. As in
leaf
the previous treatment (M ), this was
DI
watered at 100% ET throughout the
C
irrigation period, except from 182 to 235
DOY. In this treatment, Ψ values were
leaf
maintained between -1.6 and -2.0 MPa, i.e.,
when Ψ values approached -1.8 MPa,
leaf
these trees were irrigated at 100% of ET .
C
When Ψ was around -1.6 MPa, this
leaf
treatment was subjected to a new restriction
period until the threshold of Ψ (≈ -1.8
leaf
MPa) was again surpassed. Additionally, as
a control, a fully irrigated treatment (F )
IT
receiving the 100% of ET was used,
C
according to the crop-water balance
developed using the information from the
drainage lysimeters. At the end of irrigation
period, F , M , and S had received 397,
IT DI DI
307, and 175 mm, respectively.
The irrigation treatments were laid out in a
Figure 1. Drainage lysimeter used for the
experiment with TDR probe distribution across randomized-block design with three
the soil profile. replications per treatment. Each plot had
8 ] three rows and 4 trees per row, with the four
1
1- weather station located at 100 m from the central trees being used for physiological
0
3- experimental orchard. measurements while the other trees served
2
0
2 To ensure that the almonds located in the as border trees.
n
o lysimeters received enough water, these
ac.ir were irrigated at 130% of a theoretical ETC, Plant and Soil Measurements
s. this being calculated using the ET values
dare and the K values reported by 0Girona
ast.mo (2C00o6n)s.i d erinCg ET and ET values, K was waDsu rminega stuhree de xpine rimtweon taslu pnelirti odle, atvhees Ψpleearf
m j estimated by the 0followingC equation (CAllen sampling tree, between 12:00 and 13:00
o
d fr et al., 1998): hours solar time, with a periodicity of 3 to 5
de K = ET / ET (3) days, using a pressure chamber (Soil
a C 0 C
nlo Moisture Equipment, Mod. 3000, Santa
w
o Barbara, CA, USA).
D Irrigation Treatments in Almond
[ Orchards Canopy-temperature (TC) readings were
made in three sunlit leaves per tested tree,
using a portable thermal infrared
Two deficit-irrigation treatments were thermometer (Raytek, MX), between 12:00
applied: (1) a moderate deficit-irrigation and 13:00 hours solar time, and with the
3 ] treatment (MDI), which received 100% of same periodicity as the Ψleaf measurements.
14. crop evapotranspiration (ETC) during the Finally, besides the TDR probes installed
5. irrigation period (120–304 day of the year, inside the lysimeters (exclusively used to
7.
1 DOY), except during the kernel-filling stage monitor the soil water balance in fully
5.
01 and pre-harvest; that is, from 182 DOY to irrigated trees), volumetric soil-water
2
3. harvest 235 DOY, when this treatment was content (θ ) was measured at different soil
7 V
070 irrigated at 50% of ETC; and (2) a severe depths (10, 20, 30, 60, and 100 cm) using a
168 deficit irrigation (SDI), with water applied Frequency Domain Reflectometry (FDR)
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1258
2
R:
O
D
[
4 / 12
Almond Crop Coefficients and Water Stress ______________________________________
probe (Mod. PR2, Delta-T), with eight
access tubes per treatment, four of them
installed near the dripper closest to the
trunk, and the remaining between the two
farthest emitters from the tested tree. These
access tubes allowed us to monitor the soil-
water time course in each treatment,
C)
focusing on the effects of drought in soil (º
T
water content.
Statistical Analysis
An exploratory and descriptive analysis
was made in each physiological variable,
followed by an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) with mean separation analysis. In
order to find the hypothetical effects of local
climatic conditions on the K values, these
C
were correlated with the daily values of a)
P
radiation, wind speed, air temperature, and (k
D
vapor pressure deficit. VP
8 ] Moreover, the difference between leaf and
1-1 air temperature (∆T) were obtained and
23-0 correlated with the Ψleaf measurements to
0 evaluate the viability of canopy temperature
2
on for monitoring the crop water status when a
c.ir deficit irrigation strategy is being applied.
a
s.
e
ar
od RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
m
st.
a
om j KC from Drainage Lysimeters mm)
d fr all(
oade Figure 2 shows the daily time course of Rainf
nl the maximum, minimum, and average air
w
o temperature (a), air-vapour-pressure deficit
D
[ (VPD) (b), and ET0 and rainfall (c) during
the experimental period in the study area, all
following the typical Mediterranean trend.
The maximum values of ET , average
0
temperature, and VPD were registered
4.3 ] dDuOriYng ttoh e hkaerrvneeslt- fi(l2li3n5g pDeOrioYd),, frwoimth 18a2n Figure 2. Daily values of maximum,
1
7.5. accumulated ET0 and rainfall of 335 and 0.2 mmienainm oufm a, ira-nvda pmouera-np raeisrs uterme pdeerfaictuitr e( V(aP)D; )d a(bil)y;
1
15. mm, respectively. and daily mean of reference evapotranspiration
20 Figure 3 displays the dynamics of the and rainfall (c), during the monitoring period.
073. average KC for young almonds over the
07 monitoring period, comparing these results
8
6 with those reported by Girona (2006) and
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1259
2
R:
O
D
[
5 / 12
__________________________________________________________________ García-Tejero et al.
c
K

Figure 3. Time course of calculated crop coefficient K for almond trees in a semi-arid
C
environment.
8 ] Allen et al. (1998). According to this, weather conditions of the area where the
1
1- different patterns were observed during each values were recorded.
0
3- phenological stage. Although the K has been estimated for
2 C
20 The K values during the sprouting and many crops, the accuracy of these
n C
o fruit-growth period were significantly higher estimations can vary sharply for the same
c.ir than those reported by Allen et al. (1998), crop, especially in young trees, and even
a
s. although at the beginning of irrigation more so in arid and semiarid environments.
e
dar period the values were slightly lower than Consequently, for miscalculations to be
o
m those described by Girona (2006). The main avoided, the K should be calculated and
st. C
a differences between them appeared during adjusted to real water needs.
m j
the maximum evapotranspiration demand, In this sense, different relationships
o
d fr with KC values close to 1.2. Generally, the between adjusted KC and some climatic
e
d K values found were higher than those variables were estimated, in order to define
a C
o
nl described by Allen et al., (1998) throughout the influence on this parameter. Figure 4
w
o almost the entire season. Finally, fewer shows the main relationship between
D
[ differences were found during post-harvest, radiation (a), wind speed (b), air temperature
these values being more similar to our (c), and vapor pressure deficit (d) vs. the
adjusted K than those reported by earlier average of adjusted K . Considering the
C C
authors. results, vapor pressure deficit (r2= 0.85),
According to Annandale and Stockle temperature (r2= 0.78), and radiation (r2=
3 ] (1994), the KC of woody crops, or those with 0.31) would have a significant effect (P<
4. lower resistance to drought, are especially 0.05) in the local crop coefficient, whereas
1
5. sensitive to weather fluctuations, such as the wind speed would have no significant effect
7.
5.1 changes in air temperature, air-vapour on KC. Several authors have noted a
1
0 density, wind speed, and also solar radiation. significant K variability between years
2 C
3. For this reason, the K under different because of the different weather conditions
7 C
0
7 environmental conditions must be applied registered in a given area, this being
0
8
6 with some caution, taking into account the especially remarkable in the case of tree
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1260
2
R:
O
D
[
6 / 12
Almond Crop Coefficients and Water Stress ______________________________________
8 ]
1
1-
0
3-
2
0
2
n Figure 4. Relationship among radiation (a), wind speed (WS) (b), air temperature (c), and
o
c.ir vapour pressure deficit (VPD)(d) with the calculated crop coefficient KC in the study area (P<
s.a 0.05).
e
ar
d
o
m
st.
a crops. Therefore, one alternative would be to
m j
estimate K as a function of some vegetation
o C
d fr indices, which could reflect the effects of Soil-Water Content Evolution and Crop
e
d climatic conditions in crop development, as Physiological Response to Water Stress
a
o
nl stated by many authors (Williams et al.,
w
o 2003; Testi et al., 2004; Lovelli et al., 2005).
D The dynamics of the water content in the
[ Thus, according to the findings of the soil profile reflected the influence of the
present experiment, the K applications
C irrigation regime applied. In this sense, F
IT
which have been determined in regions with
registered values between the limits of field
different conditions or under different
capacity and the allowable depletion level.
management could promote over-irrigation
By contrast, M as S reflected a
3 ] or reduced profits because of a partial significant fall DiIn soil-wDIater contents,
4. drought. For this reason, the estimation of
1 consistent with the water demands and
5. the local K could improve the irrigation
7. C deficits incurred in each case (Figure 5).
5.1 management especially in arid and semiarid Therefore, both M and S were below the
1 DI DI
0 environments, where water scarcity is the
2 allowable depletion level throughout the
3. most limiting factor and higher water-use
7 kernel-filling period, with only a partial
0
7 efficiency is sought.
0 recovery after harvesting. Soil-water
8
6
1 depletion in S was very significant with
1. DI
1.
0
0
0.1 1261
2
R:
O
D
[
7 / 12
__________________________________________________________________ García-Tejero et al.
and Fereres, 2004, García-Tejero et al.,
2012). In this sense, the water restriction
from 182 DOY caused a significant decrease
in the values of Ψ in deficit irrigation
leaf
treatments. These values were particularly
low in S , during the kernel filling, reaching
DI
values of Ψ below -1.7 MPa, with slight
m leaf
m
recoveries corresponding to times when this
treatment was irrigated at100% ET . Figure
C
6-b shows the time course of sunlit canopy
temperature in each treatment. These values
were in line with those results obtained for
Yleaf. In this sense, Tc in Fit was from 27.5
to 29 ºC, and Mdi and Sdi from 28.5 to
31ºC, with some values that were close to
Figure 5. Time course of soil-water content 33ºC. Overall, S was the treatment that
DI
in the upper 0.7 m of soil profile for each
registered the highest values of T , which
C
treatment. (FC: Field Capacity; ADL:
was in line with the soil-water contents and
Allowable Depletion Level, WP: Wilting
the leaf-water potential values found in this
Point).
treatment. Significant relationships (P<

0.05) were detected between ∆T and Ψ
leaf
short recovery periods, corresponding to values (Figure 7, r2= 0.63), showing the
8 ] times in which this treatment was irrigated direct relationship between the effects of
1
1- according to F . leaf-water potential conservation and the
0 IT
3- The Ψ values recorded in each treatment diminishing of crop transpiration. This
2 leaf
0
2 were in line with the periodicity and finding was related to a less evaporative
n
o amounts of irrigation water applied (Figure cooling effect on sunny leaves, as reported
ac.ir 6-a). The Ψleaf in FIT ranged between -1.1 for young almond trees (García-Tejero et al.,
s. and -1.5 MPa, these values being in line 2011a, 2012) and orange trees (García-
e
dar with those reported by other authors under Tejero et al., 2011b).
o
m non-limiting water availability (Goldhamer
st.
a
m j DOY
36
o
d fr a) 190 200 210 220 230 b)
e -1
d
a 34
o
nl
w
o
D 32
[
a)-1.5
(MP (ºC)30
Ξleaf TC
28
3 ] -2
14. FIT 26
5. MDI
17. SDI
5.
1
0 -2.5
2
3. 190 200 210 220 230
07 DOY
07 Figure 6. Time course of leaf-water potential (a) and sunlit canopy temperature (b) in each
8
6 treatment. Vertical bars indicate the standard error.
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1262
2
R:
O
D
[
8 / 12
Almond Crop Coefficients and Water Stress ______________________________________
-0.8
-1.2
a)
P
M-1.6
(
∠leaf
-2
y=-0.21x-1.75
n=33
r2=0.63
-2.4
-4 -2 0 2
∠T(T-T)(ºC)
C a
Figure 7. Relationships between the difference in temperature (∆T) of sunlit canopy temperature (T ) and
C
air temperature (T ) with the leaf-water potential (Ψ) (P< 0.05)
a

CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
8 ]
1
23-01- prTovhied ec aal cuuslaetfeudl tKooC l vfaolru eims pfrroomvi nlgy saimlmeotenrds SoTchiaisl Fstuunddy twhraosu sguhpopuotr atend E buyr othpee aEnu Proropjeeacnt
0
n 2 irrigation management, reconciling POCTEFEX ‘Campus EAgUa’. The author
c.ir o idrermigaantido n vino luma e asnedm ifareriqdu enMcye dwitiethrr awnaetaenr If.i naGnacrecdí a-bTye jetrhoe reEcueriovpedea na Scoocnitaral ctF ucnod-
a
s.
e climate. In this sense, the results evidence Operational Programme (FSE) 2007–2013.
ar
od significant effects of some climatic variables “Andalusia is moving with Europe”.
m
st. on this parameter, suggesting the necessity
m ja of delving more deeply in this technique to REFERENCES
o recalculate the local crop coefficients,
d fr especially when treating young trees.
e
ad Based on the results of this experimental 1. Abrisqueta, I., Abrisqueta, J. M., Tapia, L.
o
nl work, significant correlations were found M., Munguía, J. P., Conejero, W., Vera, J.
w
Do between leaf-water potential and canopy and Ruiz-Sánchez, M. C. 2013. Basal Crop
[ temperature, suggesting that the latter could Coefficients for Early-Season Peach Trees.
Agric. Water Manage., 121:158-163.
be an advantageous and less time-consuming
2. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and
technique to monitor water stress in
Smith, M. 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration:
comparison to the former. Thus, this study Guidelines for Computing Crop Water
highlights the urgency to establish the Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage
3 ] optimal water use with respect to crop Paper 56, FAO, Rome, Italy.
14. requirements by estimating local K , in 3. Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Smith, M., Raes,
7.5. order to properly manage water stresCs by D. and Wright, J. L. 2005. The FAO-56
5.1 using physiological parameters, thereby Dual Crop Coefficient Method for
201 achieving more sustainable agriculture in Predicting Evaporation from Soil and
3. Application Extensions. J. Irrig. Drain.
7 almond-orchard cultivation in semiarid
0 Eng., 131: 2–13.
7
0 environments.
8
6
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1263
2
R:
O
D
[
9 / 12
__________________________________________________________________ García-Tejero et al.
4. Annandale, J. G. and Stockle, C. O. 1994. Status Tools for Water Stress Management
Fluctuation of Crop Evapotranspiration in Citrus Orchards. Funct. Plant Biol.,
Coefficients with Weather: A Sensitive 38:106–117.
Analysis. Irrig. Sci., 15:1 – 7. 15. García-Tejero, I. F., Durán-Zuazo, V. H.,
5. Ayars J. E., Johnson, R. S., Phene, C. J., Arriaga, J., Hernández, A., Vélez, L. M. and
Trout, T. J., Clark, D. A. and Mead, R. M. Muriel-Fernández, J. L. 2012. Approach to
2003. Water Use by Drip-irrigated Late- Assess Infrared Thermal Imaging of Almond
season Peaches, Irrig. Sci., 22:187-194. Trees under Water-stress Conditions. Fruit.,
6. Doorenbos J., and Pruitt, W. O. 1977. 67: 463 – 474.
Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water 16. Girona, J. 2006. La Respuesta del Cultivo
Requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper del Almendro al Riego. Vida Rural, 234:12-
No. 24 (Rev.), FAO-ONU, Rome, 144 PP. 16
7. Costa, J. M., Ortuño, M. F., Lopes, C. M. 17. Goldhamer, D. A., Viveros, M. and Salinas.
and Chaves, M. M. 2012. Grapevine 2006. Regulated Deficit Irrigation in
Varieties Exhibiting Differences in Stomatal Almonds: Effects of Variations in Applied
Response to Water Deficit. Funct. Plant Water and Stress Timing on Yield and Yield
Biol., 39:179-189. Components. Irrig. Sci., 24:101 – 114.
8. Costa, J. M., Grant, O. M. and Chaves, M. 18. Goldhamer, D. A. and Fereres, E., 2004.
M. 2013. Thernography to Explore Plant- Irrigation Scheduling of Almond Trees with
Environment Interactions. J. Exp. Bot. Trunk Diameter Sensors. Irrig. Sci., 23:11–
Online published. 64:3937-3949. 19.
9. Egea, G., González-Real, M. M., Baille, A., 19. Hutmacher, R. B., Nightingale, H. I.,
Nortes, P. A., Sánchez-Bel, P. and Domingo, Rolston., D. E., Biggar, J. W., Dale, F.,
R. 2009. The Effects of Contrasted Deficit Vails, S. S. and Peters, D. 1994. Growth and
8 ] Irrigation Strategies on the Fruit Growth and Yield Responses of Almond (Prunus
1-1 Kernel Quality of Mayure Almond Trees. amygdalus) to Trickle Irrigation. Irrig. Sci.,
3-0 Agric. Water Manage., 96: 1605-1614. 14:117 – 126.
02 10. Egea, G., Nortes, P. A., González-Real, M. 20. Jones, H. G. 1992. Plants and Microclimate.
n 2 M., Baille, A. and Domingo, R. 2010. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press,
o
ac.ir APrgordouncotmiviicty oRf espAolnmsoen d aTnrde es Wunadteerr 21. CJoanmesb,r iHd.g eG, .U, AKi.k man, D. and McBurney, T.
es. Contrasted Deficit Irrigation Regimes. A. 1997. Improvements to Infrared
ar
d Agric. Water Manage. 97:1710 -181. Thermography for Irrigation Scheduling in
o
m 11. FAOSTAT. 2013. Food and Agriculture Humid Climates. Acta Hort., 449: 259-266.
ast. Organization of the United Nations. 22. Jones, H. G., Serraj, R., Loveys, B. R.,
m j Available in: http://faostat.fao.org/. Xiong, L., Wheaton, A. and Price, A. H.
o
d fr [Accessed: November 2013]. 2009. Thermal Infrared Imaging of Crop
e 12. Fulton, A., Buchner, R., Olson, B., Canopies for the Remote Diagnosis and
d
oa Schwankl, L. J., Gilles, C., Bertagna, N., Quantification of Plant Responses to Water
nl
w Walton, J. and Shackel, K. A. 2001. Rapid Stress in the Field. Funct. Plant Biol.,
o
D Equilibration of Leaf and Stem Water 36:978–989.
[ Potential under Field Conditions in 23. Jones, H. G., Stoll, M., Santos, T., de Sousa
Almonds, Walnuts and Prunes. HortTech., C., Chaves, M. M., and Grant, O. M. 2002.
11: 609-615. Use of Infra-red Thermography for
13. García-Tejero, I. F., Durán-Zuazo, V. H., Monitoring Stomatal Closure in the field:
Vélez, L. M., Hernández, A., Salguero, A. Application to the Grapevine. J. Exp. Bot.
3 ] and Muriel-Fernández, J. L. 2011a. 53:2249-2260.
4. Improving Almond Productivity under 24. Katerji N. and Rana, G. 2011. Crop
1
5. Deficit Irrigation in Semiarid Zones. Open Reference Evapotranspiration: A Discussion
17. Agric. J., 5: 56 – 62. of the Concept, Analysis of the Process and
15. 14. García-Tejero, I. F., Durán-Zuazo, V. H., Validation. Water Res. Manage., 25:1581-
0
2 Muriel-Fernández, J. L. and Jiménez- 1600
3.
7 Bocanegra, J. A. 2011b. Linking Canopy 25. Lovelli S., Pizza, S., Cponio, T., Rivelli, A.
0
07 Temperature and Trunk Diameter R. and Perniola, M. 2005. Lysimetric
8
6 Fluctuations with Other Physiological Water Determination of Muskmelon Crop
1
1.
1.
0
0
0.1 1264
2
R:
O
D
[
10 / 12