Soil water monitoring in a vineyard and assessment of unsaturated hydraulic parameters as thresholds for irrigation management

Agricultural Water Management

Volumn 164, Issue , 2016, Pages 235-242

  Nolz, R ^a   Cepuder, P ^a   Balas, J ^a   Loiskandl, W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

Author keywords

EnviroSCAN probe; Matric potential; Pedotransfer function; Soil water content; Water retention curve; Watermark sensor

Indexed keywords

CALIBRATION; HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY; IRRIGATION; PROBES; SOIL MOISTURE; SOLVENTS;

MATRIC POTENTIAL; PEDO-TRANSFER FUNCTIONS; PLANT WATER REQUIREMENTS; PRESSURE PLATE APPARATUS; SOIL HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES; SOIL WATER CONTENT; UNSATURATED HYDRAULICS; WATER RETENTION CURVE;

SOILS;

DATA INTERPRETATION; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; HYDRAULIC PROPERTY; IRRIGATION SYSTEM; MATRIC POTENTIAL; PEDOTRANSFER FUNCTION; SENSOR; SOIL ANALYSIS; SOIL PROFILE; SOIL WATER; THRESHOLD; VINEYARD; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER RETENTION;

EID: 84977891581     PISSN: 03783774     EISSN: 18732283     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.030     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Adcon, 2015, Information on Adcon wireless sensor networks, Adcon Telemetry GmbH, Klosterneuburg, Austria, . http://www.adcon.at.
2. Allen, R.G, Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. In: FAO (Ed.), Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
3. Baumer, O.W., Predicting unsaturated hydraulic parameters. In: van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F.J. (Eds.), Indirect methods for estimating the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils. Proceedings of the international workshop on Indirect methods for estimating the hydraulic properties of unsaturated soils, Riverside, California, October 11-13.
4. Bittelli M., Flury M. Errors in water retention curves determined with pressure plates and their effect on soil hydraulic functions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009, 73:1453-1460.
5. Centeno A., Baeza P., Lissarrague J.R. Relationship between soil and plant water status in wine grapes under various water deficit regimes. Horttechnology 2010, 20:585-593.
6. Cepuder P., Nolz R. Irrigation management by means of soil moisture sensor technologies. J. Water Land Dev. 2007, 11:79-90.
7. Dabach S., Shani U., Lazarovitch N. Optimal tensiometer placement for high-frequency subsurface drip irrigation management in heterogeneous soils. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 152:91-98.
8. Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A.H., Bentvelsen, C.L.M., Branscheid, V., Plusje, J.M.G.A., 1979. Yield response to water. In: FAO (Ed.), Irrigation and Drainage Paper 33, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rom, 200 p.
9. Fares A., Alva A.K. Evaluation of capacitance probe for monitoring soil moisture content in a sandy entisol profile with citrus trees. Irrig. Sci. 2000, 20(1):1-8.
10. Fraga H., Malheiro A.C., Moutinho-Pereira J., Santos J.A. An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food Energy Security 2012, 1(2):94-110.
11. Girona J., Mata M., Fereres E., Goldhamer D.A., Cohen M. Evapotranspiration and soil water dynamics of peach trees under water deficits. Agric. Water Manage. 2002, 54:107-122.
12. Goodwin, I., Managing water stress in grape vines in Greater Victoria. Agriculture notes of the Victoria Department of Primary Industries, AG1074, November 2002, Vic Australia 2002 1-2.
13. Hardie W.J., Martin S.R. A strategy for vine growth regulation by soil water management. Proceedings of the Seventh Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference 1990, 51-57. P.J. Williams, D.M. Davidson, T.H. Lee (Eds.).
14. Intrigliolo D., Castel J. Continuous measurement of plant and soil water status for irrigation scheduling in plum. Irrig. Sci. 2004, 23:93-102.
15. Irrometer, 2010. Watermark Soil Moisture Sensor -Model 200SS. Specification document. Irrometer company, Inc. P.O. Box 2424, Riverside, CA 92516. http://www.irrometer.com.
16. Jones H.G. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J. Experimental Bot. 2004, 55:2427-2436.
17. Kargas G., Soulis K.X. Performance analysis and calibration of a new low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. ASCE 2012, 138(7):632-641.
18. Leib B., Jabro J., Matthews G. Field evaluation and performance comparison of soil moisture sensors. Soil Sci. 2003, 168:396-408.
19. Leib B.G., Caspari H., Redulla C., Andrews P., Jabro J.D. Partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation of 'Fuji' apples in a semi-arid climate. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24:85-99.
20. Muñoz-Carpena R., Dukes M.D., Li Y.C., Klassen W. Field comparison of tensiometer and granular matrix sensor automatic drip irrigation on tomato. HortTechnology 2005, 15(3):584-590.
21. Nolz R., Kammerer G., Cepuder P. Calibrating soil water potential sensors integrated into a wireless monitoring network. Agric. Water Manage. 2013, 116:12-20.
22. Nolz R., Cepuder P. Weather data as basis for calculating reference evapotranspiration on an irrigation trial plot within a vineyard. International Conference on Microclimate and Mesoclimate of Landscape Structures and Anthropogenic Environment 2011, H. Stredova, J. Roznovsky, T. Litschmann (Eds.).
23. Paltineanu I.C., Starr J.L. Real-time soil water dynamics using multisensor capacitance probes: laboratory calibration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61:1576-1585.
24. Pudney S., McCarthy M.G. Water use efficiency of field-grown Chardonnay grapevines subjected to partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation. Acta Hortic. 2004, 664:567-573.
25. Sadras V.O., Milroy S.P. Soil-water thresholds for the response of leaf expansion and gas exchange: a review. Field Crops Res. 1996, 47:253-266.
26. Scanlon B.R., Andraski B.J., Bilskie J. Miscellaneous methods for measuring matric or water potential. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4-Physical Methods 2002, 643-669. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA. J.H. Dane, G.C. Topp (Eds.).
27. Schaap M.G., Leij F.J., van Genuchten M.T. Rosetta: a computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 2001, 251:163-176.
28. Sentek, 2001. Calibration of Sentek Pty Ltd Soil Moisture Sensors. Manual, 60 pp.
29. Solone R., Bittelli M., Tomei F., Morari F. Errors in water retention curves determined with pressure plates: effects on the soil water balance. J. Hydrol. 2012, 470-471:65-74.
30. Soulis K.X., Elmaloglou S., Dercas N. Investigating the effects of soil moisture sensors positioning and accuracy on soil moisture based drip irrigation scheduling systems. Agric. Water Manage. 2015, 148:258-268.
31. Thompson R.B., Gallardo M., Aguera T., Valdez L.C., Fernandez M.D. Evaluation of the Watermark sensor for use with drip irrigated vegetable crops. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24:185-202.
32. Thompson R.B., Gallardo M., Valdez L.C., Fernandez M.D. Using plant water status to define threshold values for irrigation management of vegetable crops using soil moisture sensors. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 88:147-158.
33. Thompson R.B., Gallardo M., Valdez L.C., Fernandez M.D. Determination of lower limits for irrigation management using in situ assessments of apparent crop water uptake made with volumetric soil water content sensors. Agric. Water Manage. 2007, 92:13-28.
34. Tomasella J., Pachepsky Y., Crestana S., Rawls W.J. Comparison of two techniques to develop pedotransfer functions for water retention. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2003, 67:1085-1092.
35. Van Genuchten, M. Th, 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44, 892-898.
36. Van Genuchten, M. Th., Leij, F.J., Yates, S.R., 1991. The RETC Code for quantifying the hydraulic functions of unsaturated soils, version 1.0. EPA Report 600/2-91/065, U.S. Salinity Laboratory, USDA, ARS, Riverside, California.
37. Van Leeuwen C., Trégoat O., Choné X., Bois B., Pernet D., Gaudillère J.P. 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 2009, 43:121-134.