Response of grapevine cv. Syrah to irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern in a clay soil

Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Response of grapevine cv. Syrah to irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern in a clay soil Bárbara Sebastian ∗,1 , Pilar Baeza 1 , Luis G. Santesteban 1 , Patricia Sanchez de Miguel 1 , Mario De La Fuente 1 , José R. Lissarrague 1 Grupo de Investigación en Viticultura, Departamento de Producción Vegetal: Fitotecnia, Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos, na Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, C/Senda del Rey s/n, 28040 Madrid, Espa˜

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 April 2014 Accepted 21 October 2014 Available online 9 November 2014 Keywords: Drip irrigation Grapevine Biomass Yield Water potential Vitis vinifera L.

a b s t r a c t Water availability is one of the major factors that determine vineyard performance in many grape growing regions, so its implications have been widely studied before. However, for a given irrigation water amount, other aspects such as application frequency, or emitter spacing and flow rate (i.e., distribution pattern), may play a relevant role, but these factors have been scarcely studied. The aim of this work was to evaluate the agronomic implications of two irrigation frequencies (IrrF, every 2 and 4 days) and two water distribution patterns (DisP, 2 L h−1 emitters every 0.6 m vs. 4 L h−1 emitters every 1.2 m). The experiment was carried out during four consecutive seasons in a cv. Syrah vineyard with a clay soil in central Spain, and the two factors were evaluated under two water availability conditions (low and medium). IrrF and DisP promoted changes in water status that affected some aspects of vegetative development and yield components under both water availability conditions, although the effects observed were not the same every year. Berry size was the most sensitive parameter to changes in IrrF and DisP. The effects were more evident under low water availability. Soil texture has certainly conditioned the results obtained, since high frequency irrigation implied applying small amounts of water that resulted in limited superficial water bulbs, which probably favored water evaporation. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Water management is a key issue in many wine grape production areas, particularly where the evaporative demand outcomes the amount of water available during the growing season. Moreover, the warming trend during the growing season experienced in the majority of the world’s high quality wine-producing regions in the last fifty years (Jones et al., 2005a,b) has lead viticulturists to evaluate the effect of different water availability levels in zones such as Bordeaux (Van Leeuwen et al., 2009) or Switzerland (Spring and Zufferey, 2009), where irrigation is not yet a conventional practice. Water management is particularly critical in regions, such as Central Spain, where the amount of available water during the growing season is extremely lower than the evaporative demand, as rainfall in summer is scarce or negligible, and water reserves in

∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Sebastian). 1 All the authors have contributed significantly and agree with the content of the manuscript. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.017 0378-3774/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

the soil profile are not enough to meet grapevine needs. Irrigation is therefore essential in those regions in order to achieve yields that make grape growing profitable and, as a consequence, a vast corpus of research has lately evaluated how it affects yield, grape, and wine quality for different varieties in semi-arid areas either focusing on comparing different amounts of irrigation water and/or water availability levels across the season (Kliewer et al., 1983; Stevens et al., 1995), or on analyzing the effects of water deficit at certain stages of berry development (Poni et al., 1993; Ginestar et al., 1998; Ojeda et al., 2002; Petrie et al., 2004; Salon et al., 2005; Bowen et al., 2011; Intrigliolo and Castel, 2010; Santesteban et al., 2011; Junquera et al., 2012). However, quite surprisingly, other irrigationrelated factors such as irrigation frequency, emitter spacing and flow rate have been scarcely studied, despite a relevant effect has been observed for annual (Goldberg and Shmueli, 1970; Freeman et al., 1976; Segal et al., 2000; Sharmasarkar et al., 2001; Ertek et al., 2004; Sensoy et al., 2007; El-Hendawy et al., 2008) and for other perennial crops such as apple (Levin et al., 1979), olive (Palomo et al., 2002) and almond (Andreu et al., 1997). Concerning irrigation frequency, Goldberg et al. (1971a) and Myburgh (2012), when working in drip-irrigated table grapes grown in sandy soils, reported that the more frequent irrigation

270

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

strategies resulted in an increase in yield and pruning weight. This effect can be indirectly due to a greater water constraint when irrigation frequency decreases, as reported by Myburgh (2012) when drip irrigation frequencies of two days or longer were used. On the contrary, Selles et al. (2004), dealing with table-grapes in a clay loamy soil, observed just the opposite effect (the less frequent application implied better plant water status that resulted in an increased yield and pruning weight), concluding that less frequent irrigation resulted in a better distribution of water in the soil profile and larger root development. Lastly, Bowen et al. (2012a,b) in a 4-year study that compared the effect of irrigation frequencies of 1 and 3 days in a loamy sandy soil for Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Syrah, observed no effect on pruning weight, but greater yields were found for the less frequent irrigation treatments. The discrepant results obtained in these four experiments highlight the importance of matching irrigation frequency with the hydraulic properties of the soil and with the soil volume explored by the root system. The information available on the effect of water distribution pattern (emitter spacing and flow rate) in grapevines is even scarcer, despite it is known to affect the shape of the wetted soil zone (Li et al., 2003), modifying the root system development (Goldberg et al., 1971b, Stevens and Douglas, 1994) and function (Clothier and Green, 1997). Viticultural research on this aspect has focused on comparing how different irrigation techniques (drip and furrow irrigation – Araujo et al., 1995, drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation systems – Myburgh, 2012) affect root distribution and vineyard performance, or on analyzing the effect that changing from one irrigation system to another had on grapevine root distribution (Soar and Loveys, 2007), or studying the effect on yield and quality of partial root drying (Dry and Loveys, 1998; McCarthy et al., 2002). The aim of this work was to evaluate the effect of irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern on the vegetative development, yield and grape composition of Syrah grown in a clay soil at two different levels of water availability. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Vineyard characteristics The experimental work was performed during four consecutive seasons (2003–2006), in a commercial cv. ‘Syrah/SO4’ vineyard located in Malpica de Tajo, Toledo, Spain (39◦ 52 N, 4◦ 39 W, 493 m above sea level), a region characterized by a Mediterranean climate (P = 450 mm; ETPPenman = 1225 mm). The climatic conditions during the four seasons considered are summarized in Table 1. Soil was a dark reddish brown clay, classified as fine, mixed, Typic Haploxeralf according to the Soil Survey Staff (2013). Textural classes according to USDA classification were clay loam (38% of clay) for the upper horizon (0–25 cm) and clay (60% of clay) below that depth, with approx. 2% coarse elements. The subsoil presented a firm soil layer that limited vine root growth. Soil bulk density was 1.67 g cm−3 (topsoil) and 1.44 g cm−3 (subsoil). At the beginning of the experiment (2003), the root system was mainly established in the top 45 cm, only a few roots were observed between 45 and 80 cm, and no deeper roots were found. Root penetration into the mid row was very scarce. Total Available Water was calculated to be 96 mm using the Saxton-Rawls model (Saxton and Rawls, 2006), considering the texture properties of the two soil horizons observed in the root-explored horizons. The vineyard was trained as a bilateral cordon, spur-pruned, and shoots vertically positioned. Row orientation was NW-SE, plant spacing 2.7 m between rows and 1.2 m within the row. At the beginning of the experiment, the vineyard was 3 years old. Soil was maintained bare across the growing season through mechanical and chemical weeding, though a winter cover crop that was mowed

in early April was established every autumn. Irrigation water had an average electrical conductivity of 2 dS m−1 (measured at 25 ◦ C). Irrigation started when shoot growth stopped, the exact dates are indicated in Table 1. 2.2. Experimental design Two factors were considered in the experiment: irrigation frequency (IrrF) and water distribution pattern (DisP). For the first factor (IrrF), the irrigation frequencies established were every 2 and every 4 days, whereas for the second factor (DisP), two emitter distance and flow rate combinations – that resulted in the same amount of water applied per row meter at each irrigation event were tested: 2 L h−1 drip emitters every 0.6 m, and 4 L h−1 drip emitters every 1.2 m. These combinations allowed an evaluation of the effect of the water distribution pattern without changing the amount of irrigation applied per row meter. For the sake of clarity, hereon the two DisP treatments will be referred solely as 0.6 m and 1.2 m. The experiment was laid out following a split-plot design, IrrF being the main factor. The number of replicates per each IrrF–DisP combination was 3, each being comprised of 4 rows of 40 vines. All the experimental measurements and sampling were performed at the two central rows, the remaining two acting as buffer. The experimental design described above was set up independently under two water availability conditions, labeled as low (Low WA, 20% of ETo) and medium (Medium WA, 40% of ETo) at two adjacent fields. The irrigation doses (Dose) were calculated according to Eq. (1) on a weekly basis Dose =

(IrrCoef × ETo − Re) 0.9

(1)

ETo and Re being, respectively, the reference evapotranspiration and effective rainfall (>7 mm) of the previous week, and IrriCoef the irrigation coefficient defined for each water availability conditions (0.2 for Low WA and 0.4 for Medium WA), and 0.9 being the correction factor considering the efficiency of the irrigation system. The performance of the irrigation system and the dose applied were checked twice a week with flow meters and summarized in Table 1. 2.3. Experimental measurements 2.3.1. Plant water status and soil water tension Plant water status was estimated measuring leaf water potential at noon ( n) using a Scholander type pressure chamber (PMS, Portland, Oregon), taking into account the considerations given by Turner and Long (1980) and Turner (1988). Briefly, leaf blades were covered with a plastic bag prior to severing the petiole, gas flow was limited to 0.2 bar s−1 and the measurement was performed within the 1–1.5 min after detaching the leaf from the plant. Measurements were carried out on 5 leaves per replicate at 3 phenological stages (fruitset, veraison, and end of ripening). In 2006, water potential was monitored in more detail in order to achieve a more complete understanding of how the irrigation strategies affected the evolution of vine water status. In order to better characterize the whole 2- and 4-day irrigation cycles, predawn ( pd), mid-morning ( m), noon ( n) and afternoon ( a) water potentials were measured one day after irrigation had been applied to both irrigation frequencies, and two days later at 3 phenological stages (pea-size, veraison, and end of ripening). Additionally,  n was measured at weekly intervals from fruitset to harvest. Soil water tension at two depths (20 and 50 cm) was monitored weekly using gypsum blocks (mod GB-1G, Delmhorst, Germany) from 2004 on. Two gypsum blocks were placed at both depths in each replicate.

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

271

Table 1 Climatic conditions (temperature and rainfall) at Malpica de Tajo (Toledo) during the seasons involved in the experiment. Parameter

Period

2003

2004

2005

2006

Tm (◦ C)

Budburst-Flowering Flowering-Veraison Veraison-Harvest

14.5 25.1 27.5

13.9 25.1 24.1

16.8 26.1 25.6

15.8 24.1 26.1

TM (◦ C)

Budburst-Flowering Flowering-Veraison Veraison-Harvest

20.7 32.1 35.2

19.7 29.6 31.4

23.9 33.8 33.6

22.6 31.7 34.2

ETP (mm day−1 )

Budburst-Flowering Flowering-Veraison Veraison-Harvest

4.1 6.6 6.4

4.2 6.4 5.7

5.1 6.6 6.2

4.1 6.2 5.7

Rainfall (mm)

Budburst-Flowering Flowering-Veraison Veraison-Harvest From previous harvest (October 1st) to irrigation start datea

58.0 7.6 1.6 458

134.2 5.2 35.6 422

16.6 7.8 22.0 187

27.4 35.4 6.6 318

Water application (mm)

Low available water (0.2×ET0 ) Medium available water (0.4×ET0 )

188 296

133 261

123 248

105 204

Tm: mean temperature; TM: average maximum temperature; ETP: reference evapotranspiration calculated according to Penman Monteith equation). a Irrigation start dates were 20/06/2003, 17/06/2004; 17/05/2005 and 09/06/2006 (dd/mm/yy).

Lastly, to allow the comparison between treatments and years, the weighted mean value for  n and soil water tension were calculated, considering the number of days between measurements as the weighting factor.

2.3.2. Plant growth At veraison, total leaf area (LA) was estimated by measuring the length of the leaf central vein (L) of every 3 leaves (including main and lateral shoots) on 2 shoots of 2 vines per replicate, since a very

close relationship (LA = 21.421 × L − 75.41; R2 = 0.93 P < 0.001) had been previously established between central nerve length and single leaf area with a set of 50 leaves from the same vineyard (Sanchez de Miguel et al., 2011). Pruning weight was evaluated in winter on 10 vines per replicate.

2.3.3. Yield components and berry characteristics Yield per vine was determined weighting all the clusters from 10 vines per replicate. Cluster and shoot number per vine were also

Fig. 1. Influence of irrigation frequency (left) and water distribution pattern (right) on noon Leaf water potential evolution along the season and mean weighed value in 2003 (a,b), 2004 (c,d), 2005 (e,f), 2006 (g,h) for IrrF and DisP under low water availability conditions (20% ETo).

272

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

counted at harvest, which allowed calculating the average cluster weight, and the fruitfulness of the shoots as no. of clusters per shoot. Harvest date was determined according to the winery’s specifications, ranging from August 24th in 2005 to September 7th in 2004. From each replicate, 100-berries samples were used to monitor berry weight evolution weekly from berry set to harvest. At harvest, total soluble solids (TSS), pH and titratable acidity (TA) were measured after crushing a 200-berry sample per replicate. TSS was measured using a temperature compensating refractometer (Palette WM-7, Atago Inc., Kirkland, WA, USA), whereas pH and TA were measured with a Metrohm pH autotitrator (pH 8.2 endpoint). 2.3.4. Biomass estimation Vegetative and reproductive organs were considered separately to estimate annual biomass production. At harvest, 5 entire shoots per replicate were sampled. Main leaves, lateral leaves, and lateral stems where counted and weighted and, after drying at 75 ◦ C, dry weight determined. Concerning berry dry matter, an indirect estimation was obtained after yield and TSS content information, using the equation reported by García de Cortazar-Atauri et al. (2009) for Syrah to determine berry water content from TSS data. The contribution of grape stalks was assumed to be negligible. 2.4. Statistical analysis The results obtained for each water availability situation were analyzed separately through a two-way ANOVA. All the analyses were performed using the IBM Statistics-SPSS v.21 software.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Plant water status IrrF and DisP affected plant water status under both low (20% of ETo) and medium (40% of ETo) water availability conditions. However, in the first three years (2003–2005), when leaf water potential was measured at fruit-set, veraison and end of ripening without taking into account irrigation timing, the effects observed were quite erratic between measurement days and years (Figs. 1 and 2). Under low water availability (Fig. 1), when the weighed mean values for  n were compared, no consistent differences were observed for IrrF, whereas for DisP a trend showing a slightly higher water deficit where emitter spacing was larger. Similarly, under medium water availability conditions (Fig. 2), no consistent differences were observed for IrrF, and the same trend for DisP was also found. In 2006, when noon water potential was measured at a higher frequency, the weighted mean value for noon leaf water potential tended to show small differences between treatments (Fig. 1D and 2D). Under both water availability conditions, the higher frequency and the lower dripper density resulted consistently in lower  n. For both water availabilities, the  n values reached during most of the ripening period correspond to severe stress according to Van Leeuwen et al. (2009), that under low WA were maintained until harvest. When daily leaf water potential patterns under the 2- and 4-day irrigation cycles were compared (Figs. 3 and 4), different trends were observed depending on water availability, irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern. To ease the

Fig. 2. Influence of irrigation frequency (left) and water distribution pattern (right) on noon Leaf water potential evolution along the season and mean weighed value in 2003 (a,b), 2004 (c,d), 2005 (e,f), 2006 (g,h) for IrrF and DisP under medium water availability conditions (40% ETo).

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

273

Fig. 3. Influence of irrigation frequency (Left) and water distribution pattern (Right) on daily leaf water potential evolution under the 2- and 4-day irrigation cycles under low water availability conditions at fruitset (a,d), veraison (b,e), and end of ripening (c,f). Irrigation events for 2d- and 4d-treatments are indicated by black and white arrows, respectively. Daily VPD evolution is also shown as a gray line.

Fig. 4. Influence of irrigation frequency (Left) and water distribution pattern (Right) on daily leaf water potential evolution under the 2- and 4-day irrigation cycles under medium water availability conditions at fruitset (a,d), veraison (b,e), and end of ripening (c,f). Irrigation events for 2d- and 4d-treatments are indicated by black and white arrows, respectively. Daily VPD evolution is also shown as a gray line.

274

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

explanation, the day both 2d and 4d treatments were irrigated has been considered to be the ‘day 1’ in the irrigation cycles. The diurnal evolution of VPD in the measurement days has also been included in Figs. 3 and 4. Under low WA, irrespective of the time between irrigation events and water potential measurement, plants irrigated every 2 days showed lower water potential values. The day after both treatments (2d, 4d) had been irrigated (‘day 2’), differences were already observed pre-dawn, and maintained across the whole day. This result is a direct consequence of the fact 4d plants had received twice the amount of water than 2d plants. More surprisingly, the day after only the 2d treatment plants had been irrigated (‘day 4’), they also showed lower  n and  a values than 4d plants at the three phenological stages considered, and also for  pd and  m at the end of ripening. This result indicates that applying a small irrigation dose with a high frequency in a heavy clay soil may lead to an efficiency loss, as the wetted soil volume created is small and close to the soil surface (Amin and Ekhmaj, 2006). In fact, when soil water tension weighted mean values were compared, more negative values of soil water tension were observed at 50 cm when vines were irrigated every 2 days under low WA (Fig. 5a). Concerning DisP, the differences observed were smaller, although in general, when emitters were located every 1.2 m, leaf water potential values tended to be slightly lower, particularly at mid-morning. Under medium WA (Fig. 4), leaf water potential daily evolution pattern was different depending on the time lag between irrigation events and water potential measurement. Thus, on ‘day 2’, the 2d treatment plants showed lower values as already observed under low WA conditions, whereas on ‘day 4’, the lowest water potential values were found in 4d plants pre-dawn and at mid-morning. These results may indicate that the higher irrigation frequency (2d) when applying 40% of ETo (medium WA) did not imply an efficiency loss, as the wetted soil volume created is bigger than that obtained when applying 20% of ETo (Low WA) and, hence, the

Fig. 5. Soil water tension at 20 and 50 cm under low (a) and medium (b) availability conditions. Weighted mean values are presented.

proportion of water held near the soil surface is smaller. This agrees with soil water tension weighted mean values shown in Fig. 5b, where it can be seen that under medium WA soil water tension reached at 50 cm was less negative than under low WA, allowing the plants to have a better water status.

Table 2 Influence of irrigation frequency (IrrF) and water distribution pattern (DisP) on vegetative development and yield components under low water availability conditions. Significant P-values (P < 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Yr

Factor

Vegetative development Shoot no. m−1

2003

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2004

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2005

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2006

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP

Yield components

Shoot wt (g)

LAI

Cluster no. m−1

Berry no. clust

Cluster wt (g)

Yield (kg m−1 )

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

5.14 5.28 0.282 5.28 5.14 0.282 0.282

54.3 51.3 0.466 54.9 50.7 0.330 0.484

2.11 2.23 0.709 2.17 2.17 0.981 0.348

9.12 9.68 0.483 9.16 9.64 0.550 0.552

141.5 128.0 0.158 141.9 127.6 0.139 0.855

100.4 88.6 0.253 101.2 87.8 0.198 0.487

0.91 0.85 0.605 0.92 0.84 0.447 0.886

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

7.48 8.19 0.236 7.79 7.88 0.878 0.786

37.7 36.2 0.707 35.8 38.1 0.570 0.343

2.65 3.57 0.043 3.07 3.14 0.872 0.944

12.97 13.52 0.631 13.73 12.76 0.405 0.504

132.0 146.8 0.167 141.5 137.4 0.682 0.875

139.6 157.0 0.254 151.1 145.5 0.702 0.775

1.81 2.11 0.041 2.06 1.87 0.252 0.860

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

9.65 9.51 0.792 9.53 9.63 0.835 0.278

42.2 42.7 0.920 44.09 40.8 0.527 0.757

2.80 2.92 0.667 2.94 2.78 0.585 0.603

17.67 17.08 0.345 17.03 17.72 0.276 0.439

171.5 165.3 0.485 167.8 169.0 0.889 0.508

174.1 183.5 0.614 180.9 176.7 0.817 0.845

3.08 3.15 0.866 3.09 3.14 0.879 0.664

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

10.67 11.45 0.258 11.09 11.03 0.923 0.642

34.6 42.1 0.112 38.7 38.1 0.892 0.688

2.63 3.33 0.181 3.17 2.78 0.438 0.874

20.78 21.63 0.573 21.94 20.47 0.337 0.788

141.6 152.6 0.249 144.7 149.4 0.613 0.685

116.4 137.8 0.162 125.8 128.4 0.857 0.843

2.43 3.00 0.042 2.80 2.64 0.726 0.973

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

275

Table 3 Influence of irrigation frequency (IrrF) and water distribution pattern (DisP) on vegetative development and yield components under medium water availability conditions. Significant P-values (P < 0.05) are highlighted in bold. Yr

Factor

Vegetative development Shoot no. m−1

2003

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2004

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2005

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2006

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP

Yield components

Shoot wt (g)

LAI

Cluster no. m-1

Berry no. clust

Cluster wt (g)

Yield (kg m−1 )

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

5.07 5.63 0.016 5.21 5.49 0.169 0.471

73.3 76.6 0.692 77.6 72.3 0.539 0.915

2.85 3.15 0.231 2.78 3.21 0.365 0.108

9.61 9.13 0.619 9.47 9.27 0.832 0.786

136.2 150.7 0.395 141.9 145.0 0.852 0.841

103.8 126.8 0.154 117.7 112.8 0.743 0.775

0.97 1.16 0.116 1.09 1.04 0.660 0.705

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

7.96 6.94 0.144 7.74 7.16 0.378 0.723

46.2 43.5 0.535 43.7 46.0 0.600 0.290

3.96 3.04 0.006 3.51 3.49 0.929 0.948

15.68 13.47 0.017 14.82 14.32 0.515 0.786

131.9 135.0 0.400 131.8 135.1 0.378 0.132

171.2 184.5 0.028 176.9 178.8 0.710 0.007

2.68 2.53 0.234 2.61 2.60 0.948 0.076

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

10.20 10.07 0.767 9.93 10.34 0.370 0.568

49.0 49.5 0.882 50.2 48.3 0.567 0.847

3.99 3.74 0.712 3.93 3.80 0.844 0.144

19.85 19.08 0.255 19.39 19.55 0.806 0.387

171.7 174.6 0.745 181.4 164.9 0.036 0.851

204.6 213.0 0.311 218.9 198.7 0.031 0.849

4.05 4.06 0.945 4.24 3.88 0.027 0.332

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

11.02 10.95 0.877 11.03 10.94 0.828 0.580

42.3 45.6 0.243 44.7 43.1 0.558 0.423

3.89 3.20 0.035 3.47 3.61 0.737 0.919

23.89 23.87 0.981 23.79 23.97 0.846 0.575

146.9 151.8 0.330 147.6 151.1 0.479 0.924

147.4 153.3 0.348 154.6 146.1 0.194 0.757

3.52 3.66 0.490 3.68 3.50 0.416 0.561

Table 4 Influence of irrigation frequency (IrrF) and water distribution pattern (DisP) on grape composition under low water availability conditions (left) and medium water availability conditions (right). Yr

2003

Factor

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2004

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2005

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP 2006

IrrF

DisP

IrrF × DisP

Low Water availability

Medium Water availability

TSS (Brix)

pH

TitrA (g TA L−1 )

TSS (Brix)

pH

TitrA (g TA L−1 )

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

23.07 23.23 0.855 23.28 23.02 0.770 0.562

3.76 3.77 0.804 3.77 3.76 0.710 0.539

5.54 5.03 0.255 5.48 5.09 0.369 0.302

21.98 21.78 0.667 21.50 22.27 0.125 0.398

3.73 3.76 0.335 3.73 3.76 0.335 0.887

5.85 5.39 0.282 5.95 5.29 0.137 0.181

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

24.30 23.97 0.372 24.13 24.33 0.933 0.715

3.27 3.30 0.235 3.28 3.29 0.715 0.611

7.19 6.21 0.104 6.49 6.91 0.448 0.589

22.38 22.80 0.455 22.55 22.63 0.879 0.304

3.23 3.26 0.456 3.24 3.21 0.933 0.675

7.56 7.38 0.603 7.46 7.48 0.972 0.115

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

23.87 24.10 0.635 24.17 23.80 0.460 0.838

3.39 3.38 0.770 3.39 3.38 0.770 0.501

5.76 5.96 0.344 5.85 5.86 0.962 0.819

24.65 23.98 0.199 24.27 24.37 0.839 0.686

3.35 3.38 0.272 3.37 3.36 0.939 0.705

6.07 6.11 0.831 6.09 6.08 0.935 0.752

2d 4d P 0.6m 1.2m P P

27.45 26.73 0.153 27.13 27.05 0.835 0.771

3.48 3.51 0.484 3.50 3.49 0.680 0.450

5.02 3.91 0.161 4.08 4.85 0.928 0.306

26.60 26.83 0.700 26.53 26.90 0.547 0.868

3.51 3.60 0.149 3.58 3.54 0.503 0.935

4.76 4.83 0.500 4.73 4.86 0.275 0.117

276

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

Fig. 6. Influence of irrigation frequency (left) and water distribution pattern (right) on berry growth under low water availability conditions in 2003(a,b), 2004 (c,d), 2005 (e,f) and 2006 (g,h).

Concerning DisP, the results observed were similar to those obtained under low WA, as no differences were detected for  pd, and  m was in general slightly lower with emitters located every 1.2 m. In general terms, the stress reached is very high due to high evaporative demands and low to moderate irrigation supply. Soil characteristics (very high clay percentage) have certainly conditioned the results obtained as bulk densities greater than 1.6 g/cm3 tend to restrict root growth (McKenzie et al., 2004) as observed in our experiment. Thus, root system is reduced to a confined volume of soil resulting in a relatively fast soil water depletion in the wetted zone (Safran et al., 1975) specially in low WA treatments, where as shown in Figure 3, leaf water potential dropped below −1.4 MPa even from mid-morning. In both water availability situations, once  leaf reached values below −1.3 MPa,  leaf response to increments in VPD decreased. Despite all treatments showed severe stress around midday,  leaf sensitivity to VPD was different depending on water availability, as found by Williams and Baeza

(2007), and  leaf was lower for low WA than for medium WA under the same VPD. 3.2. Plant growth, yield components and berry composition IrrF and DisP affected some aspects of vegetative development and yield components under both low (Table 2) and medium (Table 3) WA conditions. The interaction effect was non-significant for all the variables, so the effects of two factors (irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern) are considered as independent, and can be therefore evaluated separately. When WA was low (Table 2), irrigation applied at every four days resulted in a greater LAI in 2004, and in a greater yield in 2004 and 2006, which were the coolest years of the experiment. This may have been due to an attenuated response under higher evaporative demands as shown by other authors (Smart, 1974; Van Leeuwen et al., 2009). DisP had no effect on neither vegetative development nor in yield components. Conversely, when WA was medium (Table 3), the

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

277

Fig. 7. Influence of irrigation frequency (left) and water distribution pattern (right) on berry growth under medium water availability conditions in 2003(a,b), 2004 (c,d), 2005 (e,f) and 2006 (g,h).

opposite trend was observed for vegetative development when differences arose, greater LAI being observed when irrigation was applied every 2 days in 2004 and 2006, non-significant effects being found for yield components apart from cluster weight in 2004 that was greater when irrigation was applied every 4 days. Concerning DisP, no significant differences were observed in vegetative development, a greater yield, berry number per cluster and cluster weight being found in 2005 when emitters were located every 0.6 m; no significant effects being found the remaining years. Berry growth reacted more sensitively to IrrF and DisP than vegetative growth and yield components. Thus, berry development curves showed much more consistent patterns (Figs. 6 and 7). Under Low WA, although final berry weight did not show significant differences three out of the four years studied, berries from the 4d treatment vines were bigger than those from 2d plants all the measurements days from veraison; and those where the distance between emitters was smaller also yielded bigger berries, though the effect was smaller than that observed for irrigation

frequency. Under medium WA conditions (Fig. 7), the effect was clearer for water distribution pattern rather than for frequency. Concerning DisP, the biggest berries were obtained when the emitters were closer; whereas when water was applied every 4 days, berries tended to be bigger only in 2003 and 2004, no differences being observed in 2005 and 2006. For grape composition at harvest (Table 4), no significant differences were detected for TSS, pH and TA. As a whole, the agronomic differences, when observed, were small in quantitative terms, which agrees with the fact the effect of IrrF and water DisP on plant water status was also relatively small (Figs. 1 and 2). In 2006, when the reliability of the results is greater since measurements were performed much more frequently, the differences observed where <6%. Thus, the treatments applied are not likely to promote differences as relevant in quantitative terms as those reported by other authors when irrigation doses are compared that in consequence result in greater differences in plant water status (e.g., >40% during the deficit periods in Santesteban

278

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279

is increased (0.4×ETo), the differences decreased. In general terms, the effects of water distribution pattern were less relevant. Lastly, irrigation frequency, emitter spacing and flow rate affect also irrigation network design (Phene, 1995; Thorburn et al., 2003) so even if these aspects do not create significant differences on vineyard performance, they have an implication for vineyard economics and should be taken into account. 4. Conclusions

Fig. 8. Effect of irrigation on accumulated vegetative (empty symbols) and reproductive (full symbols) biomass.

The differences observed between the irrigation frequencies and water distribution patterns compared were relatively small, but promoted some changes in water status that resulted in relevant agronomic differences at least two of the four years of the experiment. In general terms, in a heavy clay soil, the higher irrigation frequency (every 2 days) lead to an efficiency loss under low water availability conditions. Due to the dependence of the response to soil type and water availability, it is necessary to increase the existing knowledge on how different irrigation frequencies, emitter spacing and discharge rates affect vineyard performance, and then achieve a practical compromise solution between the agronomic response and the equipment and operational costs it implies. Acknowledgements

et al., 2011; >30% in Intrigliolo et al., 2012). Nonetheless, two out of the four years of the experiment, the change of irrigation frequency from 2 days to 4 days promoted an average yield increase of 20% for the low WA situation, which undoubtedly is remarkable from a profitability point of view (Table 2). Similarly, the agronomic differences between IrrF and DisP reported in the scarce bibliography on this subject are also greater than ours, as the difference between the frequencies compared was greater as well (e.g.: Goldberg et al., 1971a, 7.5 vs. 15 and 30 days; Selles et al., 2003, 2004; 3.6, 7.2 and 10.5 days) and also the distribution patterns considered (e.g.: Araujo et al., 1995, drip vs. furrow irrigation; Myburgh, 2012, drip vs. micro-sprinkler irrigation systems). According to all the previous considerations, it is sensible to hypothesize that some of the agronomic implications of the treatments evaluated could have been too subtle to be detected by the conventional experimental layout used (3 field replicates), specially when the effects are evaluated in a yearly basis. Therefore, the amount of vegetative and reproductive biomass produced during the 4 years of experiment was aggregated, and compared to the amount of water added through irrigation (Fig. 8). The amount of biomass produced as reproductive structures was much more sensitive to applied water than that produced in vegetative organs, as the slope for the former was greater, as already observed by Smart et al. (1974). The reason behind this behavior is that, under the experiment conditions, irrigation was started once most of the vegetative development had been completed. Apart from this major dependence of biomass production on the amount irrigation water, the effect of IrrF and DisP can also be seen, especially with regards to reproductive biomass. Irrigation every 4d and 0.6 m dripper spacing proved to be more efficient than their counterpart treatments, since they are located over the regression line for biomass production (Fig. 8), the greatest differences being found for IrrF under low WA, and for DisP under medium WA. As a whole, the results obtained indicate that applying relatively high irrigation frequencies (every 2 days) in heavy clay soils with low water availability (0.2×ETo) may lead to an efficiency loss, probably as the irrigation bulbs created are smaller and most water is located near the soil surface, where there are no roots, favoring soil water evaporation This agrees with the results obtained by Selles et al. (2004) in fine textured soils. When the irrigation dose

The authors would like to thank Osborne Malpica Winery, for allowing us to carry out this research on their vineyards, and for their financial support of the study. The authors would also like to thank the staff in the Viticulture Research Group of the Polytechnic University of Madrid for their support in taking measurements, and Alfred Cass for his help with soil data interpretation. References Amin, M., Ekhmaj, A., 2006. DIPAC – Drip irrigation water distribution pattern calculator. In: 7th International Microirrigation Congress, 10–16 September, PWTC, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 503–513. Andreu, L., Hopmans, J.W., Schwankl, L.J., 1997. Spatial and temporal distribution of soil water balance of a drip-irrigated almond tree. Agric. Water Manag. 35, 123–146. Araujo, F., Williams, L.E., Grimes, D.W., Matthews, M.A., 1995. A comparative study of young ‘Thompson Seedless’ grapevines under drip and furrow irrigation. I. Root and soil water distributions. Sci. Hortic. 60, 235–249. Bowen, P., Bogdanoff, C., Usher, K., Estergaard, B., Watson, M., 2011. Effects of irrigation and crop load on leaf gas exchange and fruit composition in red winegrapes grown on a loamy sand. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 62 (1), 9–22. Bowen, P., Bogdanoff, C., Usher, K., Estergaard, B., Cliff, M., Stanich, K., 2012a. Irrigation frequency and rate effects on vine growth, leaf gas exchange, berry composition, and wine sensory quality in red winegrapes. Technical Abstracts. In: 63rd Annual ASEV Conference, 18–22, June 2012, Portland, OR, pp. 77–78. Bowen, P., Bogdanoff, C., Usher, K., Lowery, T., Cliff, M., Neilsen, G., 2012b. Irrigation Regimes Affect Soil Wetting Patterns, Leaf Gas Exchange, Berry Composition, and Wine Quality in Merlot, Syrah and Cabernet Sauvignon. Report to AAFC and BCWGC for MII project A07344, 23 pp. (published on line at www.bbcgc.org/). Clothier, B.E., Green, S.R., 1997. Roots: the big movers of water and chemical in soil. Soil Sci. 162, 534–543. Dry, P.R., Loveys, B.R., 1998. Factors influencing grapevine vigour and the potential for control with partial rootzone drying. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 4, 140–148. El-Hendawy, S.E., Hokam, E.M., Schmidhalter, U., 2008. Drip irrigation frequency: the effects and their interaction with nitrogen fertilization on sandy soil water distribution, maize yield and water use efficiency under Egyptian conditions. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 192. Ertek, A., S¸ensoy, S., Küc¸ükyumuk, C., Gedik, I., 2004. Irrigation frequency and amount affect yield components of summer squash (Cucurbita pepo L.). Agric. Water Manag. 67, 63–76. Freeman, B.M., Blackwell, J., Garzoli, K.V., 1976. Irrigation frequency and total water application with trickle and furrow systems. Agric. Water Manag. 1, 21–31. García de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Brisson, N., Ollat, N., Jacquet, O., Payan, Ch., 2009. Asynchronous dynamics of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) maturation: experimental study for a modelling approach. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 43, 83–97. Ginestar, C., Eastham, J., Gray, S., Iland, P., 1998. Use of sap-flow sensors to schedule vineyard irrigation. I. Effects of postveraison water deficits on water relations, vine growth, and yield of Shiraz grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 49, 413–420. Goldberg, S.D., Shmueli, M., 1970. Drip irrigation—a method used under arid and desert conditions of high water and soil salinity. Trans. ASAE 13, 38–41.

B. Sebastian et al. / Agricultural Water Management 148 (2015) 269–279 Goldberg, S.D., Rinot, M., Karu, N., 1971a. Effect of trickle irrigation intervals on distribution and utilization of soil moisture in a vineyard. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 35, 127–130. Goldberg, S.D., Gornat, B., Bar, Y., 1971b. The distribution of roots, water and minerals as a result of trickle irrigation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 96 (51), 645–648. Intrigliolo, D., Castel, J.R., 2010. Response of grapevine cv. ‘Tempranillo’ to timing and amount of irrigation: water relations, vine growth, yield and berry and wine composition. Irrig. Sci. 28, 113–125. Intrigliolo, D.S., Pérez, D., Risco, D., Yeves, A., Castel, J.R., 2012. Yield components and grape composition responses to seasonal water deficits in Tempranillo grapevines. Irrig. Sci. 30 (5), 339–349. Jones, G.V., White, M.A., Cooper, O.R., Storchmann, K., 2005a. Climate change and global wine quality. Clim. Change 73, 319–343. Jones, G.V., Duchène, E., Tomasi, D., Yuste, J., Bratislavska, O., Schultz, H.R., Martinez, C., Boso, S., Langellier, F., Perruchot, C., Guimberteau, G.,2005b. Changes in European winegrape phenology and relationships with climate. In: Proceedings XIV GESCO Symposium, Geisenheim, Germany, vol. I. Forschungsanstalt, Geisenheim, pp. 55–61. Junquera, P., Lissarrague, J.R., Jimenez, L., Linares, R., Baeza, P., 2012. Long-term effects of different irrigation strategies on yield components, vine vigour, and grape composition in cv. Cabernet-Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.). Irrig. Sci. 30, 351–361. Kliewer, W.M., Freeman, B.M., Hosssom, C., 1983. Effect of irrigation, crop level and potassium fertilization on Carignane vines. I. Degree of water stress and effect on growth and yield. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 34 (3), 186–196. Levin, I., Assaf, R., Bravdo, B.A., 1979. Soil moisture and root distribution in an apple orchard irrigated by trickles. Plant Soil 52, 31–40. Li, J., Zhang, J., Ren, L., 2003. Water and nitrogen distribution as affected by fertigation of ammonium nitrate from a point source. Irrig. Sci. 22 (1), 19–30. McCarthy, M.G., Loveys, B.R., Dry, P.R., Stoll, M., 2002. Regulated deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying as irrigation management techniques for grapevines. In: Deficit Irrigation Practices, FAO Water Reports No. 22. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 79–87. McKenzie, N.J., Jacquier, D.J., Isbell, R.F., Brown, K.L., 2004. Australian Soils and Landscapes. An Illustrated Compendium. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, Victoria. Myburgh, P.A., 2012. Comparing irrigation systems and strategies for table grapes in the weathered granite-gneiss soils of the lower Orange River region. S Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 33, 184–197. Ojeda, H., Andary, C., Kraeva, E., Carbonneau, A., Deloire, A., 2002. Influence of preand postveraison water deficit on synthesis and concentration of skin phenolic compunds during berry growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53, 4. Palomo, M.J., Moreno, F., Fernández, J.E., Díaz-Espejo, A., Girón, I.F., 2002. Determining water consumption in olive orchards using the water balance approach. Agric. Water Manag. 1, 15–35. Petrie, P.R., Cooley, N.M., Clingeleffer, P.R., 2004. The effect of post-veraison water deficit on yield components and maturation of irrigated Shiraz (Vitis vinifera L.) in the current and following season. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 10, 203–215. Phene, C.J., 1995. Research trends in microirrigation. In: Lamm, F.R. (Ed.), Microirrigation for a Changing World: Conserving Resources/Preserving the Environment. Proceedings of the Fifth International Microirrigation Congress. Orlando, Florida. ASAE, St. Joseph, Michigan, pp. 6–24. Poni, S., Lakso, A.N., Turner, J.R., Melious, R.E., 1993. The effects of pre and postveraison water stress on growth and physiology of potted Pinot Noir grapevines at varying crop levels. Vitis 32, 207–214. Safran, B., Bravdo, B., Bernstein, Z., 1975. L’irrigation de la vigne par goutte a goutte. Bull. OIV 531, 405–429. Salon, J.L., Chirivella, C., Castel, J.R., 2005. Response of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal to deficit irrigation in Requena, Spain. Water relations, yield and wine quality. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56, 1–18.

279

Sanchez de Miguel, P., Junquera, P., De la Fuente, M., Jiménez, L., Linares, R., Baeza, P., Lissarrague, J.R., 2011. Estimation of vineyard leaf area by linear regression. Span. J. Agric. Res. 1, 202–212. Santesteban, L.G., Miranda, C., Royo, J.B., 2011. Regulated deficit irrigation effects on growth, yield, grape quality and individual anthocyanin composition in Vitis vinifera L. cv. ‘Tempranillo’. Agric. Water Manag. 98 (7), 1171–1179. Saxton, K.E., Rawls, W.J., 2006. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 70, 1569–1578. Segal, E., Ben-Gal, A., Shani, U., 2000. Water availability and yield response to high-frequency micro-irrigation in sunflowers. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Micro-irrigation Congress on ‘Micro-irrigation Technology for Developing Agriculture’, Conference Papers, 22–27 October, South Africa. Selles, G., Ferreyra, R., Contreras, G., Ahumada, R., Valenzuela, J., Bravo, R., 2003. Drip irrigation management in table grapes cv. Thompson Seedless grown on fine textured soils. Agric. Técnica 63 (2), 180–192. Selles, G., Ferreyra, R., Contreras, G., Ahumada, R., Valenzuela, J., Bravo, R., 2004. Effect of three irrigation frequencies applied by drip irrigation over table grapes (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Thompson Seedless) located in the Aconcagua Valley (Chile). Acta Hortic. 646, 175–181. Sensoy, S., Ertek, A., Gedik, I., Kucukyumuk, C., 2007. Irrigation frequency and amount affect yield and quality of field-grown melon (Cucumis melo L.). Agric. Water Manag. 88, 269–274. Sharmasarkar, F.C., Sharmasarkar, S., Miller, S.D., Vance, G.F., Zhang, R., 2001. Assessment of drip irrigation and flood irrigation on water and fertilizer use efficiencies for sugarbeets. Agric. Water Manag. 46, 241–251. Smart, R.E., Turkington, C.R., Evans, J.C., 1974. Grapevine response to furrow and trickle irrigation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 25 (2), 61–66. Smart, R.E., 1974. Aspects of water relations of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 25, 84–91. Soar, C.J., Loveys, B., 2007. The effect of changing patterns in soil-moisture availability on grapevine root distribution, and viticultural implications for converting full-cover irrigation into a point-source irrigation system. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 13 (1), 2–13. Soil Survey Staff, 2013. Simplified Guide to Soil Taxonomy. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Center, Lincoln, NE. Spring, J.L., Zufferey, V., 2009. Influence of irrigation on vine plant behaviour and on wine quality in red wine rootstocks cultivated in central Wallis, Switzerland. Rev. Suisse Vitic. Arboric. Hortic. 41 (2), 103–111. Stevens, R.M., Douglas, T., 1994. Distribution of grapevine roots and salt under drip and full-ground cover microjet irrigation systems. Irrig. Sci. 15, 147–152. Stevens, R.M., Harvey, G., Aspinall, D., 1995. Grapevine growth of shoots and fruit linearly correlate with water stress indices based on root-weighted soil matric potential. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 1, 58–66. Thorburn, P.J., Cook, F.J., Bristow, K.L., 2003. Soil-dependent wetting from trickle emitters: implications for system design and management. Irrig. Sci. 22, 121–127. Turner, N.C., Long, M.J., 1980. Errors arising from rapid water loss in the measurements of leaf water potential by the pressure chamber technique. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 7, 527–537. Turner, N.C., 1988. Measurement of plant water status by the pressure chamber technique. Irrig. Sci. 9, 289–308. Van Leeuwen, C., Tregoat, O., Chone, X., Bois, B., Pernet, D., Gaudillere, J.P., 2009. Vine water status is a key factor in grape ripening and vintage quality for red Bordeaux wine. How can it be assessed for vineyard management purposes? J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin. 43, 121–134. Williams, L.E., Baeza, P., 2007. Relationships among ambient temperature and vapor pressure deficit and leaf and stem water potentials of fully irrigated, field-grown grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58, 173–181.