Advertisement

Comparison of Three Operational Tools for the Assessment of Vine Water Status: Stem Water Potential, Carbon Isotope Discrimination Measured on Grape Sugar and Water Balance

  • Cornelis van Leeuwen
  • Philippe Pieri
  • Philippe Vivin
Chapter

Abstract

Yield, grape composition and wine sensory attributes tightly depend on vine water status. Hence, the measurement of vine water uptake is important for research purposes as well as for practical vineyard management. Many techniques have been developed over the past decades. Among them, three are of particular interest, because they are easy to implement, robust and because their utilization is complementary: stem water potential , carbon isotope discrimination measured on grape sugar and water balance. The present chapter describes and compares these three methods . It also indicates in which situation each of them will be most useful for researchers and vineyard managers.

Keywords

Water Potential Soil Water Availability Water Deficit Stress Carbon Isotope Discrimination Water Balance Modelling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

ET0

Daily reference evapotranspiration

FTSW

Fraction of transpirable soil water

SI

Stress index indicator

TDR

Time Domain Reflectometry

TTSW

Total transpirable soil water

Notes

Acknowledgments

Figure 7.5 was provided by Jean-Pascal Goutouly (UMR EGFV, ISVV, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon). Figure 7.6 was provided by David Pernet (SOVIVINS, F33650 Martillac).

References

  1. Améglio T, Archer P, Cohen M, Valancogne C, Daudet F.-A, Dayau S, Cruiziat P (1999) Significance and limits in the use of predawn leaf water potential for tree irrigation. Plant Soil 207:155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Begg J, Turner N (1970) Water potential gradients in field tobacco. Plant Physiol 46:343–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choné X, van Leeuwen C, Dubourdieu D, Gaudillère JP (2001) Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator for grapevine water status. Ann Bot-London 87:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cifre J, Bota J, Escalona J, Medrano H, Flexas J (2005) Physiological tools for irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): an open gate to improve water use efficiency? Agric Ecosyst Environ 106:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Escalona J, Flexas J, Medrano H (2002) Drought effects on water flow, photosynthesis and growth of potted grapevines. Vitis 41:57–62Google Scholar
  6. Farquhar G, Ehleringer J, Hubick K (1989) Carbon isotope discrimination and photosynthesis. Annual Rev Plant Physiol Plant Molecular Biol 40:503–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Garnier E, Berger A (1986) Effects of water stress on stem diameter changes of peach trees growing in the field. J Appl Ecol 23:193–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaudillère JP, van Leeuwen C, Ollat N (2002) Carbon isotope composition of sugars in grapevine, an integrated indicator of vineyard water status. J Exp Bot 53:757–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenspan M, Shackel K, Matthews M (1994) Developmental changes in the diurnal water budget of the grape berry exposed to water deficits. Plant Cell Environ 17:811–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hsiao T (1973) Plant responses to water stress. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 24:519–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones G (1999) Use of InfraRed thermometry for estimation of stomatal conductance as a possible aid for irrigation scheduling. Agric For Meteorol 95:139–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jones H (2004) Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J Exp Bot 55:2427–2436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lebon E, Dumas V, Pieri P, Schultz H (2003) Modelling the seasonal dynamics of the soil water balance of vineyards. Funct Plant Biol 30:699–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lovisolo C, Schubert A (1998) Effects of water stress on vessel size and xylem hydraulic conductivity in Vitis vinifera L. J Exp Bot 49:693–700Google Scholar
  15. Pellegrino A, Lebon E, Simonneau T, Wery J (2005a) Toward a simple indicator of water stress in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) based on the differential sensitivities of vegetative growth components. Aust J Grape Wine Res 11:306–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pellegrino A, Lebon E, Voltz M, Wery J (2005b) Relationships between plant and soil water status in vine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Soil 266:129–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pieri P, Gaudillère JP (2005) Vines water stress derived from a soil water balance model – sensitivity to soil and training parameters. In: Schultz H (ed) Proceedings of the XIVth International Conference GESCO, 23–27 August 2005, Geisenheim, Germany, pp 457–463Google Scholar
  18. Ritchie J. (1981) Water dynamics in the soil-plant-atmosphere system. Plant Soil 58:81–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saxton K, Rawls W, Romberger J, Papendick R (1986) Estimating generalized soil water characteristics from texture. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 50:1031–1035Google Scholar
  20. Saxton K, Rawls W (2006) Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci Soc Am J 70:1569–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Scholander P, Hammel H, Edda D, Bradstreet E, Hemmingsen E (1965) Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148:339–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schultz H (1996) Water relations and photosynthetic responses of two grapevine cultivars of different geographical origin during water stress. Acta Hort ISHS 427:251–266Google Scholar
  23. Schultz H, Matthews M (1988) Resistance to water transport in shoots of Vitis vinifera L. Plant Physiol 88:718–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shackel K (2006) Water relations of woody perennial plant species, in: VAN LEEUWEN, C. et al. (ed) Proceedings of the VIth International Terroir Congress, 2–7 July 2006, Bordeaux: ENITA – Montpellier: Syndicat Viticole des Coteaux du Languedoc, France, pp 54–63Google Scholar
  25. Smart R, Dick J, Gravett I, Fisher B (1990) Canopy management to improve grape yield and wine quality – Principles and practices. S Afr J Enol Vitic 11:3–17Google Scholar
  26. Trambouze W, Voltz M (2000) Measurement and modelling of the transpiration of a Mediterranean vineyard. Agric For Meteorol 2913:1–14Google Scholar
  27. Van Leeuwen C, Seguin G (1994) Incidences de l’alimentation en eau de la vigne, appréciée par l’état hydrique du feuillage, sur le développement de l’appareil végétatif et la maturation du raisin (Vitis vinifera variété Cabernet Franc, Saint Emilion 1990). J Int Sci Vigne Vin 28:81–110Google Scholar
  28. Van Leeuwen C, Gaudillère JP, Trégoat O (2001) Evaluation du régime hydrique de la vigne à partir du rapport isotopique 13C/12C. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 35:195–205Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cornelis van Leeuwen
    • 1
  • Philippe Pieri
    • 1
  • Philippe Vivin
    • 1
  1. 1.UMR 1287 Ecophysiologie et Génomique Fonctionnelle de la Vigne, Institut des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin (ISVV Bordeaux)Villenave d’OrnonFrance

Personalised recommendations