Advertisement

International Journal of Biometeorology

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 363–370 | Cite as

Spatial variability of leaf wetness duration in different crop canopies

  • Paulo C. Sentelhas
  • Terry J. Gillespie
  • Jean C. Batzer
  • Mark L. Gleason
  • José Eduardo B. A. Monteiro
  • José Ricardo M. Pezzopane
  • Mário J. PedroJr
Original Article

Abstract

The spatial variability of leaf wetness duration (LWD) was evaluated in four different height-structure crop canopies: apple, coffee, maize, and grape. LWD measurements were made using painted flat plate, printed-circuit wetness sensors deployed in different positions above and inside the crops, with inclination angles ranging from 30 to 45°. For apple trees, the sensors were installed in 12 east-west positions: 4 at each of the top (3.3 m), middle (2.1 m), and bottom (1.1 m) levels. For young coffee plants (80 cm tall), four sensors were installed close to the leaves at heights of 20, 40, 60, and 80 cm. For the maize and grape crops, LWD sensors were installed in two positions, one just below the canopy top and another inside the canopy. Adjacent to each experiment, LWD was measured above nearby mowed turfgrass with the same kind of flat plate sensor, deployed at 30 cm and between 30 and 45°. We found average LWD varied by canopy position for apple and maize (P<0.05). In these cases, LWD was longer at the top, particularly when dew was the source of wetness. For grapes, cultivated in a hedgerow system and for young coffee plants, average LWD did not differ between the top and inside the canopy. The comparison by geometric mean regression analysis between crop and turfgrass LWD measurements showed that sensors at 30 cm over turfgrass provided quite accurate estimates of LWD at the top of the crops, despite large differences in crop height and structure, but poorer estimates for wetness within leaf canopies.

Keywords

Dew Rainfall Microclimate Plant disease Warning systems 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was funded in part by a fellowship to the first author from CNPq, a Brazilian Government Institution (Proc. 202536/02-5), and by the United States Department of Agriculture. The first and sixth authors are supported by a fellowship from CNPq and the fourth and fifth from FAPESP. The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive criticism and helpful comments. The experiments of this project comply with current laws of the Brazilian, Canadian, and American Governments

References

  1. Chtioui Y, Panigrahi S, Francl L (1999) A generalized regression neural network and its application for leaf wetness prediction to forecast plant disease. Chem Intel Lab Syst 48:47–58Google Scholar
  2. Francl LJ, Panigrahi S (1997) Artificial neural network models of wheat leaf wetness. Agric For Meteorol 88:57–65Google Scholar
  3. Gillespie TJ, Barr A (1984) Adaptation of a dew estimation scheme to a new crop and site. Agric For Meteorol 31:289–295Google Scholar
  4. Gillespie TJ, Srivastava B, Pitblado RE (1993) Using operational weather data to schedule fungicide sprays on tomatoes in southern Ontario, Canada. J Appl Meteorol 32:567–573Google Scholar
  5. Gleason ML, Taylor SE, Loughin TM, Joehler KJ (1994) Development and validation of an empirical model to estimate the duration of dew periods. Plant Dis 78:1011–1016Google Scholar
  6. Huber L, Gillespie TJ (1992) Modeling leaf wetness in relation to plant disease epidemiology. Annu Rev Phytopathol 30:553–577Google Scholar
  7. Kim KS, Taylor SE, Gleason ML, Koehler KJ (2002) Model to enhance site-specific estimation of leaf wetness duration. Plant Dis 86:179–185Google Scholar
  8. Madeira AC, Kim KS, Taylor SE, Gleason ML (2002) A simple cloud-based energy balance model to estimate dew. Agric For Meteorol 111:55–63Google Scholar
  9. Magarey RD (1999) A theoretical standard for estimation of surface wetness duration in grape. PhD dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Magarey RD, Seem RC, Russo JM, Zack JW, Waight KT, Travis JW, Oudemans PV (2001) Site-specific weather information without on-site sensors. Plant Dis 85:1216–1226Google Scholar
  11. McArdle BH (1988) The structural relationship: regression in biology. Can J Zool 66:2329–2339Google Scholar
  12. Monteith JL, Unsworth MH (1990) Principles of environmental physics, 2nd edn. Edward Arnold, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Pedro MJ (1980) Relation of leaf surface wetness duration to meteorological parameters. PhD dissertation, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. Pedro MJ, Gillespie TJ (1982a) Estimating dew duration. I. Utilizing micrometeorological data. Agric Meteorol 25:283–296Google Scholar
  15. Pedro MJ, Gillespie TJ (1982b) Estimating dew duration. II. Utilizing standard weather station data. Agric Meteorol 25:297–310Google Scholar
  16. Rao PS, Gillespie TJ, Schaafsma AW (1998) Estimating wetness duration on maize ears from meteorological observations. Can J Soil Sci 78:149–154Google Scholar
  17. Sentelhas PC, Monteiro JEBA, Gillespie TJ (2004a) Electronic leaf wetness duration sensor: why it should be painted. Int J Biometeorol 48:202–205Google Scholar
  18. Sentelhas PC, Gillespie TJ, Gleason ML, Monteiro JEBA, Helland ST (2004b) Operational exposure of leaf wetness sensors. Agric For Meteorol 126:59–72Google Scholar
  19. Wittich K-P (1995) Some remarks on dew duration on top of an orchard. Agric For Meteorol 72:167–180Google Scholar
  20. Zhang Y, Gillespie TJ (1990) Estimating maximum droplet wetness duration on crops from nearby weather station data. Agric For Meteorol 51:145–158Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ISB 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo C. Sentelhas
    • 1
  • Terry J. Gillespie
    • 2
  • Jean C. Batzer
    • 3
  • Mark L. Gleason
    • 3
  • José Eduardo B. A. Monteiro
    • 4
  • José Ricardo M. Pezzopane
    • 5
  • Mário J. PedroJr
    • 5
  1. 1.Agrometeorology Group, Department of Exact Sciences, ESALQUniversity of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Agrometeorology Group, Department of Land Resource Science, Ontario Agricultural CollegeUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  4. 4.Agrometeorology Group, Department of Physical Science, Agricultural College “Luiz de Queiroz”University of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  5. 5.Agrometeorology GroupAgronomic Institute of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations