The use of irrigation in Mediterranean viticulture is now a common practice in intensive grapevine production to improve quality
of production. The negative effects of water deficits on grape berry development are well known but the underlying mechanisms
remain not fully understood. To avoid the unfavourable impacts of mechanization on the soil structure and biology some farmers
are using cover crops on their vineyards. Within this frame we have compared the traditional soil tillage with a high level of
mechanization with other system where we maintained a permanent soil cover between the rows. In both soil systems we
tested three different irrigation treatments, deficit irrigation (DI - 40% of evapotranspiration (ETc)); regulated deficit irrigation
(RDI); partial root drying (PRD) while in the soil cover treatment we also studied the full irrigation (FI) and the non irrigation (NI)
treatments. Compared to soil tillage the resident vegetation reduced soil water content during late Spring, before irrigation
started, inducing a significant reduction on vine vegetative growth berry weight and yield. Among irrigation strategies only RDI
treatment showed a significant reduction in the lateral leaf area development, berry weight and yield when compared to PRD
and DI treatments which presented similar values. No significant differences were observed in berry composition either for the
two floor management practices or for the three irrigation strategiesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Chaves, M.M.

Costa, M.

Lopes, C.M.

Ortuno, M.F.

Rodrigues, M.L.

Santos, T.P.

English

UTL Repository

IX Simposium Hispano Portugués de Relaciones Hídricas en las Plantas 25  Effects of soil management and deficit irrigation strategies on physiological and agronomical responses of Aragonez field-grown grapevines   dos Santos, TP.1,2; Lopes, CM.1; Rodrigues, ML.1; Costa, M.2; Ortuño, MF.2 and Chaves, MM.1,2  1Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal; 2Laboratório de Ecofisiologia Molecular, Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica, Apartado 127, 2780-901 Oeiras, Portugal.  E-mail: tiagopsantos@itqb.unl.pt  ABSTRACT  The use of irrigation in Mediterranean viticulture is now a common practice in intensive grapevine production to improve quality of production. The negative effects of water deficits on grape berry development are well known but the underlying mechanisms remain not fully understood. To avoid the unfavourable impacts of mechanization on the soil structure and biology some farmers are using cover crops on their vineyards. Within this frame we have compared the traditional soil tillage with a high level of mechanization with other system where we maintained a permanent soil cover between the rows. In both soil systems we tested three different irrigation treatments, deficit irrigation (DI - 40% of evapotranspiration (ETc)); regulated deficit irrigation (RDI); partial root drying (PRD) while in the soil cover treatment we also studied the full irrigation (FI) and the non irrigation (NI) treatments. Compared to soil tillage the resident vegetation reduced soil water content during late Spring, before irrigation started, inducing a significant reduction on vine vegetative growth berry weight and yield. Among irrigation strategies only RDI treatment showed a significant reduction in the lateral leaf area development, berry weight and yield when compared to PRD and DI treatments which presented similar values. No significant differences were observed in berry composition either for the two floor management practices or for the three irrigation strategies.  INTRODUCTION  Grape-wine industry is the second most important economic sector in European agriculture after wheat and plays a very important role in the social and cultural sectors of many regions. Since grape and wine quality was shown to be particularly sensitive to environmental stresses, we can expect serious economic and social consequences from predicted climate change. Expected increases in the occurrence of heat waves and uncommon drought events (Warnant et al., 1994, Rizza et al. 2004) will likely accelerate flowering and ripening, increase the problems with pests and diseases, affect wine compounds such as flavour, etc. Grapevine is often grown in regions under conditions termed marginal for agricultural production and thus vulnerable to climate change. With this work we aim to characterize the response of grapevine to environmental stress and to different soil management techniques. This knowledge will be essential to support new adaptive management techniques as deficit irrigation. Irrigation is applied in order to provide an optimal plant water status, which ensures the right availability of assimilates and an optimal turgor potential for expansive growth (Naor, 2000). However, excess water originates higher vegetative growths that influences negatively berry quality due to photoassimilate competition and to the shading of clusters during maturation (Dokoozlian & Kliewer, 1996; Keller & Hrazdina, 1998). The overall objective of the proposed work is an analysis of the effects of deficit irrigation treatments and soil management on grapevine physiological and agronomical responses.   MATERIAL AND METHODS  This research was conducted during the 2005 and 2006 growing seasons in a commercial vineyard at southern Portugal (Estremoz). Five year-old grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Aragonez), were subjected to five water regimes: partial-root drying (PRD): 40% of the evapotranspiration (ETc) periodically supplied to only one side of the root system with the other allowed to IX Simposium Hispano Portugués de Relaciones Hídricas en las Plantas 26  dry, and sides alternated every 15 days; deficit irrigation (DI): 40% of the ETc supplied simultaneously to both sides of the plant (25% to each side); regulated deficit irrigation (RDI): 40% of ETc given at specific phenological phases, not constant throughout the season; non-irrigated (NI): non irrigated but rain-fed; full irrigated (FI): 100% of the ETc supplied to both sides of the plant with (50% to each side). In addition, two soil treatments were applied: RV (resident vegetation) and ST (soil tillage). This variety was grafted on 1103 Paulsen rootstock and trained on a bilateral Royat Cordon system using a vertical shoot positioning. Leaf water potential was assessed using a Scholander chamber pressure (Model 1000; PMS instrument Co., Corvallis, OR, USA). Leaf gas-exchange was measured using a LiCor-6400 portable photosynthesis system. Transpiration rate of Aragonez grapevines was assessed by measuring xylem sap flow, using heat balance sensors (Flow 32-AO, Dynamax, USA). Canopy density was assessed by point quadrat analysis (Smart and Robinson 1991). Light at the cluster zone was measured in sunny days at midday using a Sunflek Ceptometer (model SF-40, Delta T Devices LTD). The values of incident photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) were expressed in percentage of a reference PPFD, measured over the canopy top. Leaf area per shoot was assessed in a non-destructive way, by a model developed by Lopes and Pinto, 2000. All the berry quality parameters were measured according to the O.I.V. (1990) procedure.   RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  The years 2005 and 2006 had some rainfall (200 mm) during the Spring months (March, April, May) although during summer, 2006 was a very wet year compared to 2005 (no rainfall during June, July and August). Pre-dawn water potential (ψpd) of FI plants was maintained around -0.2 MPa until irrigation was stopped (Figure 1). On the contrary, NI plants presented a gradual decrease of ψpd. RDI, PRD and DI grapevines showed a plant water condition intermediate of that of FI and NI grapevines. The rain that occurred in mid-August of 2006 had a pronounced effect on the recovery of ψpd in NI plants. Values of net photosynthesis (An) and stomatal conductance (gs) in FI vines showed a tendency to decrease since the first of August (Figure 2) presumably, due to leaf aging, since leaf water status was maintained throughout the season. The mild or severe water deficit imposed respectively to plants under deficit irrigation treatments (RDI, PRD, DI) and to NI vines resulted in a significant reduction in An and gs since the beginning of the experiment, in particular in the NI plants. This trend demonstrates the important role of stomatal regulation in grapevine (Figure 2). Data from sap flow rates expressed per unit leaf area, obtained in August (2005 and 2006) for grapevines growing under resident vegetation and different water availability are shown in figure 3. The daily courses of sap flux density show a close relationship with the micrometeorological conditions, namely radiation intensity and air vapor pressure deficit. On sunny days, all the irrigated plants showed high sap flow rates, attaining maximum values of 250 g m-2 h-1 in 2005 and 400 g m-2 h-1 in 2006. This occurs in spite of a higher stomatal conductance (gs) of FI plants comparatively to PRD and DI ones. In water-stressed plants (NI), day-to-day variability was reduced as water supply controls over demand.             Figure 1 – Seasonal evolution of Pre-dawn leaf water potential. Five water treatments (FI, PRD, DI, RDI, NI) and two soil managements treatments (ST, RV). Values are means ± SE (n=6).  Soil Tillage 2006-1.0-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.07. Jun 21. Jun 5. Jul 18. Jul 1. Aug 24. Aug 1. SepDate Ypd (MPa)DIPRDRDINatural Cover 2006-1.0-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.07. Jun 21. Jun 5. Jul 18. Jul 1. Aug 24. Aug 1. SepDateNIDIPRDRDIFIRain 21 mmIX Simposium Hispano Portugués de Relaciones Hídricas en las Plantas 27              Figure 2 - Leaf stomatal conductance (gs) and net photosynthesis (An). Five water treatments (FI, PRD, DI, RDI, NI). Values are means ± SE (n=3).  Also, the observed diurnal variation of transpiration rate is consistent with a higher stomatal opening in the early morning followed by a continuous decline of gs in the afternoon. Daily maximum values of sap flow rates were attained by midday, and are closely related with the water vapour pressure deficit of the air (∆e). The differences in daily water use between treatments were larger in warm and dry days. In 2006 the diurnal patterns of sap flux density of deficit irrigated plants (PRD, DI and RDI) (data not shown) show a similar trend without significant differences between them. Mean maximum temperature and ∆e in this period were 35.8 ºC and 4.1 kPa respectively. RV led to a clear and significant reduction in total leaf area as compared to ST in both years (Table 1). This reduction was mainly du to a strong decrease in the secondary leaf area. RDI and PRD showed lower values of total leaf area than the DI irrigation treatment during 2005, while in 2006 RDI presented lower values than the other two deficit irrigation strategies. This results also from the significant reduction in the secondary leaf area. The more open canopy in RV and in RDI as expressed by the lower leaf layer number allowed higher values of PAR at cluster zone. Vine vigour, yield and berry quality are shown in Table 1. RV induced a decrease in vine vigour as compared to ST as we can observe through the lower values of shoot weight, shoot length, summer pruning weight and percentage of water shoots. RDI was the irrigated strategy that presented the lowest vine vigour components as compared to PRD and DI. As for yield, RV promoted a decrease in berry weight in both years and consequently an important decrease in the yield compared to ST. RDI led to a decrease in berry weight during 2006 season presenting lower yield than PRD and DI. In berry composition no differences were observed between treatments. We can conclude that the presence of flora decreased vine vigour and canopy density. By withholding irrigation during the first two weeks after the full bloom period, RDI led to a significant reduction in vine vigour and in canopy density, improving cluster microclimate as compared to PRD and DI,. As a result of low vigour in this vineyard no differences in quality were observed between deficit irrigation strategies.            Figure 3 - Diurnal courses of xylem sap flow per unit leaf area of full irrigated (FI) and non-irrigated (NI) from 2 to 10 August 2005 (A) and 8 to 15 August 2006 (B). Values are means of four plants per treatment. Daily variation of the vapour pressure deficit of the air in the same period of 2006 (C).    Date Date An (mmol CO2 m-2 s-1)2468101214161820g s (mol H2O m-2 s-1)0.050.100.150.200.250.300.35FI NI PRDDI RDI 29/06/06 01/08/06 28/08/06 6/09/06 01/08/0629/06/06 28/08/06 6/09/062-10 AUGUST - 2005 010020030040050060011:45 6:15 0:45 19:1513:45 8:15 2:45 21:1515:4510:15 4:45Sap flow, gm-2h-1 FI NITime of the day8-15 AUGUST - 200601002003004005006000:00 20:00 16:00 12:00 8:00 4:00 0:00 20:00 16:00 12:00Time of the day0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.00:00 20:00 16:00 12:00 8:00 4:00 0:00 20:00 16:00 12:00Time of the dayKPa∆ eA B C IX Simposium Hispano Portugués de Relaciones Hídricas en las Plantas 28  DI PRD RDI ST RV DI PRD RDI ST RVYIELD COMPONENTSCluster number/vine 15,3 ns 14,2 ns 15,9 ns 15,0 ns 15,2 ns 19,3 ns 20,3 ns 20,0 ns 19,9 ns 19,8 nsBerry volume (ml/berry) na na na na na 155.0 a 148.8 a 139.2 b 153.3 ns 141.9 nsBerry weight (g/berry) na na na na na 159,2 a 155,5 ab 147,4 b 159,0 ns 149,0 nsCluster weight (g) 199,7 ns 218,3 ns 198,9 ns 223,5 a 193 b 180,8 a 181,4 a 144,4 b 184.4 a 153.3 bYield (kg/vine) 3,3 ns 3,3 ns 3,2 ns 3,7 a 2,9 b 3,4 a 3,6 a 2,9 b 3,6 a 3,0 bIrrigation amount(l/vine) 376.8 376.8 329.0 X X 221 221 152 X XWUE (g berry/l) 8.9 8.8 9.8 X X 15.5 16.3 18.9 X XVIGOURsummer prunning weight (kg) na na na na na 1,8 ab 2,0 a 1,5 b 2,6 a 0,9 bmean shoot lenght (m) 1,4 ns 1,3 ns 1,3 ns 1,4 a 1,1 b 1,2 ns 1,3 ns 1,1 ns 1,4 a 1,0 btotal shoot number/vine 14,3 ns 14,2 ns 14,4 ns 14,9 ns 13,6 ns 17,4 ns 18,0 ns 17,9 ns 18,1 ns 17,2 nswater shoots (% of total shoot nº) 23,7 a 19,4 b 19,9 b 23,3 a 18,8 b 38,7 ns 41,1 ns 40,4 ns 40,1 ns 42,7 nspruning weight (kg/vine) 0,4 ns 0,4 ns 0,4 ns 0,5 ns 0,3 ns 0,5 ns 0,6 ns 0,5 ns 0,6 a 0,4 bshoot weight (g/shoot) 29,0 a 28,0 a 26,0 b 31,4 a 23,9 b 31,8 a 32,3 a 25,3  b 34,9 a 24,7 bRavaz Index (yield/pruning weight) 7,8 ns 7,6 ns 7,9 ns 6,8 b 9,3 a 7,1 a 6,9 ab 6,6 b 6,1 b 7,6 aCANOPY DENSITY (veraison)Main leaf area 4,1 a 3,4 b 3,5 b 4,1 a 2,9 b 4,1 ns 4,5 ns 4,1 ns 4,7 a 3,7 bSecondary leaf area 1,3 a 0,8 b 0,5 b 1,0 a 0,5 b 1,2 a 1,1 a 0,7 b 1,4 a 0,5 bTotal leaf area 5,4 a 4,3 b 4,0 b 5,1 a 3,4 b 5,3 a 5,6 a 4,7 b 6,1 a 4,3 bPAR (% of top reference) na na na na na 10,1 ab 8,9 b 11,4 a 7,1 b 13,1 aLeaf layer number 2,6 ns 2,6 ns 2,5 ns 2,8 b 2,4 a 4,3 a 3,9 b 3,8 b 4,1 a 3,8 bFRUIT COMPOSITIONAlcohol (vol %) 11.5 ns 11.9 ns 11.9 ns 12,2 ns 11,3 ns 13,1 ns 13,0 ns 13,8 ns 13,3 ns 13,3 nsTitratable acidity (g/l) 4.8 ns 4.7 ns 4.5 ns 4,5 ns 4,9 ns 3,8 ns 3,8 ns 3,5 ns 4,0 a 3,4 bpH 3,49 ns 3,50 ns 3,49 ns 3.53 ns 3.46 ns 3,29 ns 3,29 ns 3,37 ns 3,27 ns 3,36 nsColour intensity na na na na na 1,6 ns 1,5 ns 1,5 ns 1,5 ns 1,6 nsPhenols (IFT) na na na na na 2,2 ns 2,3 ns 2,2 ns 2,2 ns 2,3 ns2005 2006Irrigation Treatment Soil treatment Irrigation Treatment Soil treatmentTable 1 - Canopy density and vine vigour parameters, yield components and berry composition. Three water treatments (PRD, DI, NI) and two soil managements treatments (ST, RV). Columns of data within a row, followed with different letters, are significantly different at P<0.05.                          REFERENCES  Dokoozlian, N.K., Kliewer, W.M., 1996. Influence of light on grape berry growth and composition varies during fruit development. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121, 869-874. Keller, M., Hrazdina, G., 1998. Interaction of nitrogen availability during bloom and light intensity during veraison. II Effects on anthocyanin and phenolic development during grape ripening. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 49, 341-349. Lopes C, Pinto PA (2000) Estimation de la surface foliaire principale et secondaire d’un sarment de vigne. Progrés Agricole et Viticole, 117(7), 160-166. Naor, A. 2000. Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for irrigation. scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Hort. 537:447-454. OIV. 1990. Recueil des methodes internationales d’analyses des vins et des moûts. Office Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin, Paris. Rizza, F., Badeck, F.W., Cattivelli, O., Lidestri, O., Di Fonzo, N., Stanca, A.M., 2004. Use of a water stress index to Identify Barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. Crop Sci. 44, 2127-2137. Warnant, P., François, L., Strivay, D. and Gérard, J.-C. 1994. CARAIB: a global model of terrestrial biological productivity. Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 8: 255-270.  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  FUNDAÇÃO PARA A CIÊNCIA E A TECNOLOGIA (FCT) is acknowledged for financial support (project POCI/AGR/59079/04; Tiago Santos grant SFRH/BPD/26975/2006). WATERWEB (FP6-2002-INCO-WBC–1-509163) is also acknowledged for financial support.  

Effects of soil management and deficit irrigation strategies on physiological and agronomical responses of Aragonez field-grown grapevines

https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/23049/1/8.2%20Santos%20et%20al%202008%20IX%20Simposium%20Hispano%20Portugu%c3%a9s%20de%20Relaciones%20H%c3%addricas%20en%20las%20Plantas.pdf

Effects of soil management and deficit irrigation strategies on physiological and agronomical responses of Aragonez field-grown grapevines

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UTL Repository