Abstract
The frequency, duration, and intensity of heatwaves are threatening the stability of perennial crops, including winegrapes. Winegrapes are becoming increasingly irrigated with low-pressure, low-flow micro-irrigation systems (e.g., drip, micro-sprinklers) to address water scarcity. Heatwaves cause both heat and water stress in wine grapes, so growers commonly increase irrigation to cope with heatwaves. However, the effects of this practice on vineyard responses have not been extensively studied. We characterized biometeorological and physiological responses to different drip irrigation treatments surrounding three heatwaves in 2021 from the plant to vineyard scale using a combination of remote and proximal sensing approaches – satellite, drone, and tower-based methods – to quantify land surface temperature (LST) and actual evapotranspiration (ET a ). We further separated LST into canopy and soil components using a segmentation approach. Additionally, we measured soil water content and leaf-level vine responses including stomatal conductance, net photosynthesis, transpiration, stem and leaf water potentials, and radiometric leaf temperatures. Reflecting standard viticultural practices, supplemental drip irrigation treatments were only implemented surrounding heatwaves and included 60 % (i.e., maintaining standard deficit irrigation), 90 %, and 120 % of the estimated crop evapotranspiration. Our key findings were: (1) moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration, stomatal conductance, CO 2 assimilation, and yield with maximum daily ranges between treatments of 2.21 −4.00 mmol m −2 s −1 , 0.06 −0.11 mol m −2 s −1 , 5.82 −7.27 µmol m −2 s −1 , and 16.3 −19.0 kg vine −1 , respectively. However, these physiological responses did not translate to differences in LST and ET a , which did not vary between treatments by more than 1.5 °C or 1 mm day −1 , respectively; (2) LST and ET a patterns followed the same ranking by treatment throughout the season, which did not align with or respond to differential drip irrigation treatments; (3) Soil surface temperatures also did not align with or respond to differential drip irrigation treatments. Findings from this study suggest that increased drip irrigation addresses vine water stress and increases leaf transpiration during heatwaves but does not provide the evaporative cooling benefits demonstrated by high-pressure, high-flow irrigation systems (e.g., center pivot irrigation). These findings can be used to inform optimal irrigation and heat management practices for agriculture during heatwaves.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration in winegrapes, with maximum daily ranges between treatments of 2.21 −4.00 mmol m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- winegrapes
Vitis viniferae0 - Treatment
- moderate increases in drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- transpiratione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 2.21 −4.00 mmol m −2 s −1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration, stomatal conductance, CO 2 assimilation, and yield”
e2“2.21 −4.00 mmol m −2 s −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate increases in drip irrigation increased stomatal conductance in winegrapes, with maximum daily ranges between treatments of 0.06 −0.11 mol m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- moderate increases in drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 0.06 −0.11 mol m −2 s −1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration, stomatal conductance, CO 2 assimilation, and yield”
e2“0.06 −0.11 mol m −2 s −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate increases in drip irrigation increased CO2 assimilation in winegrapes, with maximum daily ranges between treatments of 5.82 −7.27 µmol m −2 s −1.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- moderate increases in drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- CO 2 assimilatione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 5.82 −7.27 µmol m −2 s −1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration, stomatal conductance, CO 2 assimilation, and yield”
e2“5.82 −7.27 µmol m −2 s −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate increases in drip irrigation increased yield in winegrapes, with maximum daily ranges between treatments of 16.3 −19.0 kg vine −1.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- moderate increases in drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 16.3 −19.0 kg vine −1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“moderate increases in drip irrigation increased transpiration, stomatal conductance, CO 2 assimilation, and yield”
e2“16.3 −19.0 kg vine −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Land surface temperature did not vary between irrigation treatments by more than 1.5 °C.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- Increased drip irrigation during heatwavest0
- Outcome
- LSTe1
- Direction
- did not varye1
- Value
- 1.5 °Ce1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Increased drip irrigation during heatwaves”
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“these physiological responses did not translate to differences in LST and ET a , which did not vary between treatments by more than 1.5 °C or 1 mm day −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Actual evapotranspiration did not vary between irrigation treatments by more than 1 mm day −1.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- Increased drip irrigation during heatwavest0
- Outcome
- ET ae1
- Direction
- did not varye1
- Value
- 1 mm day −1e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Increased drip irrigation during heatwaves”
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“these physiological responses did not translate to differences in LST and ET a , which did not vary between treatments by more than 1.5 °C or 1 mm day −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil surface temperatures did not align with or respond to the differential drip irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- winegrapesVitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- differential drip irrigation treatmentse1
- Outcome
- Soil surface temperaturese1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“including winegrapes”
e1“Soil surface temperatures also did not align with or respond to differential drip irrigation treatments”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.