Sensitivity of trunk diameter fluctuations in Vitis vinifera L. Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon cultivars

American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 85-93

  Montoro, Amelia ^a   Fereres, Elías ^b   López Urrea, Ramón ^a   Mañas, Fernando ^a   López Fuster, Prudencio ^a  

^a Instituto Tecnico Agronomico Provincial de Albacete   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CÓRDOBA   (Spain)

Author keywords

LVDT sensor; Stem water potential; Trunk growth

Indexed keywords

VITACEAE; VITIS VINIFERA;

EID: 84858069104     PISSN: 00029254     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2011.11010     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. FAO, Rome.
2. Cochard, H., S. Forestier, and T. Améglio. 2001. A new validation of the Scholander pressure chamber technique based on stem diameter variations. J. Exp. Bot. 52:1361-1365.
3. Cohen, M., D. Goldhamer, E. Fereres, and J. Girona. 2001. Assessment of peach tree responses to irrigation water deficits by continuous monitoring of trunk diameter changes. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 76:55-60.
4. Comstock, J. 2002. Hydraulic and chemical signaling in the control of stomatal conductance and transpiration. J. Exp. Bot. 53:195-200.
5. Dobbs, R.C., and D.R.M. Scott. 1971. Distribution of diurnal fluctuations in stem circumference of Douglas-fir. Can. J. Forest Res. 1:80-83.
6. Düring, H., and A. Scienza. 1980. Drought resistance in some Vitis species and cultivars. In Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Grapevine Breeding. H.P. Olmo (ed.), pp. 179-190. Dept. of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis.
7. Escalona, J., J Flexas, and H. Medrano. 2002. Drought effects on water flow, photosynthesis and growth of potted grapevines. Vitis 41:57-62.
8. Fereres, E., and D. Goldhamer. 2003. Suitability of stem diameter variations and water potential as indicators for irrigation scheduling of almond trees. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 78:139-144.
9. Fernández, J.E., and M.V. Cuevas. 2010. Irrigation scheduling from stem diameter variations: A review. Agric. For. Meteor. 150:135-151.
10. Fuchs, E.E., and N.J. Livingston. 1996. Hydraulic control of stomatal conductance in Douglas fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb) Franco] and alder [Alnus rubra (Bong)] seedlings. Plant Cell Environ. 9:1091-1098.
11. Garnier, E., and A. Berger. 1986. Effect of water stress on stem diameter changes of peach trees growing in the field. J. Appl. Ecol. 23:193-209.
12. Goldhamer, D., and E. Fereres. 2001. Irrigation scheduling protocols using continuously recorded trunk diameter measurements. Irrig. Sci. 20:115-125.
13. Goldhamer, D., and E. Fereres. 2004. Irrigation scheduling of almond trees with trunk diameter sensors. Irrig. Sci. 23:11-19.
14. Hubbard, R.M., M.G. Ryan, V. Stiller, and J.S. Sperry. 2001. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis vary linearly with plant hydraulic conductance in ponderosa pine. Plant Cell Environ. 24:113-121.
15. Huguet, J.G., S.H. Li, J.Y. Lorendeau, and G. Pelloux. 1992. Specific micromorphometric reactions of fruit trees to water stress and irrigation scheduling automation. J. Hortic. Sci. 67:631-640.
16. Intrigliolo, D.S., and J.R. Castel. 2006a. Performance of various water stress indicators for prediction of fruit size response to deficit irrigation in plum. Agric. Water Manag. 83:173-180.
17. Intrigliolo, D.S., and J.R. Castel. 2006b. Usefulness of diurnal trunk shrinkage as a water stress indicator in plum trees. Tree Physiol. 26:303-311.
18. Intrigliolo, D.S., and J.R. Castel. 2007. Evaluation of grapevine water status from trunk diameter variations. Irrig. Sci. 26: 49-59.
19. Intrigliolo, D.S., J.R. Castel, and D. Pérez. 2005. Water relations of field grown drip irrigated "Tempranillo" grapevines in Requena, Spain. Acta Hort. 689:317-324.
20. Jones, H.G. 2004. Irrigation scheduling: Advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J. Exp. Bot. 55:2427-2436.
21. Klepper, B., V.D. Browning, and H.M. Taylor. 1971. Stem diameter in relation to plant water status. Plant Physiol. 48:683-685.
22. Marsal, J., M. Gelly, M. Mata, J. Arbonés, J. Rufat, and J. Girona. 2002. Phenology and drought affects the relationship between daily trunk shrinkage and midday stem water potential of peach trees. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 77:411-417.
23. Molz, F.J., and B. Klepper. 1973. On the mechanism of water stress induced stem deformation. Agronomy J. 65:304-306.
24. Montoro, A., E. Fereres, R. López Urrea, F. Mañas, and P. López Fuster. 2008. Evapotranspiration of grapevines measured by a weighing lysimeter in La Mancha, Spain. Acta Hort.792:459-466.
25. Moriana, A., and E. Fereres. 2002. Plant indicators for scheduling irrigation of young olive trees. Irrig. Sci. 21:83-90.
26. Moriana, A., F. Orgaz, M. Pastor, and E. Fereres. 2003. Yield responses of a mature olive orchard to water deficits. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 128:425-431.
27. Myburg, P.A. 1996. Respose of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to soil water depletion levels with particular references to trunk growth parameters. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 17:3-14.
28. Scholander, P.F., H.T. Hammer, E.D. Bradstreet, and E.A. Hemmingsen. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339-346.
29. Schultz, H. 1996. Water relations and photosynthetic response of two grapevine cultivars of different geographical origin during water stress. Acta Hort. 427:251-266.
30. Schultz, H. 2003. Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behavior of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant Cell Environ. 26:1393-1405.
31. Selles, G., R. Ferreyra, R. Ahumada, I. Muñoz, and H. Silva. 2008. Effect of soil water content and berry phenological stages on trunk diameter variations in table grapes. Acta Hort. 792: 573-580.
32. Simonneau, T., R. Habib, J.P. Goutouly, and J.C. Huguet. 1993. Diurnal changes in stem diameter depend upon variations in water content: Direct evidence in peach trees. J. Exp. Bot. 44:615-621.
33. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to Soil Taxonomy. 10th ed. USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
34. Velez, J.E., D.S. Intrigliolo, and J.R. Castel. 2007. Scheduling deficit irrigation of citrus trees with maximum daily trunk shrinkage. Agric. Water Manag. 90:197-204.
35. Weyand, K.M., and H.R. Schultz. 2006. Long-term dynamics of nitrogen and carbohydrate reserves in woody parts of minimally and severely pruned Riesling vines in a cool climate. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:172-182.