AJEV
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:2:173-181 (2007)
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Baeza, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Baeza, P.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.
Right arrow Articles by Baeza, P.

Relationships among Ambient Temperature and Vapor Pressure Deficit and Leaf and Stem Water Potentials of Fully Irrigated, Field-Grown Grapevines

Larry E. Williams1,* and Pilar Baeza2

1 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis and Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648; 2 Departamento de Producción Vegetal, Fitotecnia, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain.

* Corresponding author (fax: 559-646-6593; email: williams{at}uckac.edu)

Four Vitis vinifera L. cultivars grown at five locations throughout California were studied to determine the relationships among temperature and vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and leaf water potential ({Psi}l) measured under clear skies at midday (solar noon) or in some instances midmorning to midafternoon. Stem water potential ({Psi}stem) was also measured on several occasions. Vines were irrigated at 100% or greater of measured or estimated vineyard evapotranspiration, and deficit or nonirrigated vines were included for comparison. Temperature and VPD were determined at the time of measurement. The highest and lowest values of {Psi}l measured on well-watered grapevines were –0.51 and –1.15 MPa, respectively. Leaf and stem water potentials were linearly related to VPD and ambient temperature. The coefficient of determination was greater for the relationship between {Psi}l and VPD (R2 = 0.74) than ambient temperature (R2 = 0.58). Based on the regressions, estimates of {Psi}l at a VPD of 2 and 5 kPa for fully irrigated grapevines would be –0.65 and –0.89, respectively, while those of {Psi}stem at the same VPDs would be –0.37 and –0.57 MPa, respectively. Leaf water potential of water-stressed vines was less responsive to VPD or temperature when {Psi}l values ranged from –1.2 to –1.45 MPa. The values of {Psi}l and {Psi}stem as a function of VPD or temperature could serve as baselines indicating whether grapevines are fully irrigated or not water stressed under the environmental conditions found in semiarid grapegrowing regions.

Key words: leaf water potential, stem water potential, grapevines, vapor pressure deficit, nonstressed baseline




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
A. Ezzahouani and L. E. Williams
Effect of Irrigation Amount and Preharvest Irrigation Cutoff Date on Vine Water Status and Productivity of Danlas Grapevines
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., September 1, 2007; 58(3): 333 - 340.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.