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


     

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:3:333-340 (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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ezzahouani, A.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Ezzahouani, A.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Ezzahouani, A.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, L. E.

Effect of Irrigation Amount and Preharvest Irrigation Cutoff Date on Vine Water Status and Productivity of Danlas Grapevines

Abdelaziz Ezzahouani1 and Larry E. Williams2,*

1 Department of Horticulture, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, B.P. 6202, 10101 Rabat-Instituts, Morocco; 2 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 S. Riverbend Ave., Parlier, CA 93648.

* Corresponding author (email: williams{at}uckac.edu)

An irrigation study was conducted in a Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Danlas) table-grape vineyard in Morocco with vines receiving no applied water (NI treatment) or one of two applied water amounts with subplots composed of three irrigation cutoff dates: early cutoff (EC) at berry set, late cutoff (LC) at veraison, and no cutoff (traditional irrigation, TI; based on grower practice). Midday leaf water potential ({Psi}l), canopy temperature (TC), and soil water content were measured in several of the treatments. Midday {Psi}l was significantly correlated with soil water content (r = 0.89), ambient temperature (r = –0.71), and vapor pressure deficit (r = –0.62). The highest yield and berry weights were measured in TI vines followed by LC vines. NI vines had the lowest soluble solids at harvest. No significant differences were observed for fruit pH and titratable acidity among treatments. A comparison of NI and TI treatments indicated that yields increased as TC - TA (ambient temperature) and {Psi}l increased. Under the conditions of this study, an average TC - TA of –2.5°C or a {Psi}l of –1.0 MPa would be sufficient to maintain yield and fruit quality, while a {Psi}l value of –1.2 MPa would indicate water stress. Estimated vineyard evapotranspiration was much greater than the amount of water normally applied to vines in this region, and values of {Psi}l and temperature differentials indicated such. However, since grapes produced in this region are destined for the early table-grape market, results indicate that vines could be deficit irrigated or water applications could be terminated at veraison without a significant yield loss.

Key words: grapevines, irrigation, leaf water potential, canopy temperature, water status, growth, yield






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