A comparative study of apple and pear tree water consumption measured with two weighing lysimeters
Tóm tắt
A five-year experiment (2002–2006) was conducted to determine apple (cv ‘Golden Smoothee’) and pear (cv ‘Conference’) crop coefficients (Kc) using two large weighing lysimeters. Daily reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and crop evapotranspiration (ETc) were evaluated. Midday canopy light interception of both crops planted in hedgerows, 4 × 1.6 m, was determined on a weekly basis from bud-break until leaf fall from year 2002 (fourth after planting) to year 2006 of both plantations. Relationships between canopy light interception and calculated Kc (ETc/ETo) were evaluated from bud-break until harvest. There were differences in Kc values between apple and pear trees. When daily Kc values from bud-break until harvest were adjusted to hyperbolic functions each year, adjusted curves for pear trees were very similar regardless of year (maximum Kc around 1.0). In apple trees, the maximum values of Kc increased over time, from 0.49 in 2002 to 1.04 in 2006. Midday light interception in both apple and pear trees increased during the 5 years of experiment from 29.0 to 45.6% in apples and from 27.5 to 41.6% in pears in midsummer. Although there was a significant positive correlation between midday canopy light interception and Kc in apple and pear trees, in different times within a specific year, these relationships were different between crops. While the apple data fitted into the same equation regardless of the year, different equations were needed to fit the pear data in different years. This discrepancy may have been related to differences in the canopy properties between apple and pear trees. Pear canopies had higher porosity than apple canopies and thus improved light penetration. Apple trees were more vigorous and produced taller and denser canopies. Pear Kc values were greatly influenced by the evaporative demands of different years and consequently differences in midday canopy light interception did not adequately reflect the differences in Kc across the two species.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allen RG, Pereira LS (2009) Estimating crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height. Irri Sci 28:17–34
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper no 56, 300 pp
Ayars JE, Johnson RS, Phene CJ, Trout TJ, Clark DA, Mead RM (2003) Water use by drip-irrigated late-season peaches. Irrig Sci 22:187–194
Campbell GS (1986) Extinction coefficients for radiation in plant canopies calculated using an ellipsoidal inclination angle distribution. Agric For Meteorol 36:317–321
Chootummatat V, Turner DW, Cripps JEL (1990) Water use of plum trees (Prunus salicina) trained to four canopy arrangements. Sci Hortic 43:255–271
Consoli S, O’Connell N, Snyder R (2006) Measurement of light interception by navel orange orchard canopies: case study of Lindsay, California. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 132:9–20
Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) Crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage, paper no 24, 194 pp
Fereres E, Martinich DA, Aldrich TM, Castel JR, Holzapfel E, Schulbach H (1982) Drip irrigation saves money in young almond orchards. Calif Agric 36:12–13
Girona J, Marsal J, Mata M, del Campo J (2004) Pear crop coefficients obtained in a large weighing lysimeter. Acta Hortic 664:277–281
Goodwin I, Whitfield DM, Connor DJ (2006) Effects of tree size on water use of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch). Irrig Sci 24:59–68
Higgins SS, Larsen FE, Bendel RB, Radamaker GK, Bassman JH, Bidlake WR, Al Wir A (1992) Comparative gas exchange characteristics of potted, glasshouse-grown almond, apple, fig, grape, olive, peach and Asian pear. Sci Hortic 52:313–329
Jackson JE (2003) Biology of apple and pears. Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom
Johnson RS, Ayars J, Trout T, Mead R, Phene C (2000) Crop coefficients for mature peach trees are well correlated with midday canopy light interception. Acta Hortic 537:455–460
Johnson RS, Ayars J, Hsiao T (2002) Modelling young peach tree evapotranspiration. Acta Hortic 584:107–113
Johnson RS, Ayars J, Hsiao T (2004) Improving a model for predicting peach tree evapotranspiration. Acta Hortic 664:341–346
Li F, Cohen S, Naor A, Shaozong K, Erez A (2002) Studies of canopy structure and water use of apple trees on three rootstocks. Agric Water Manag 55:1–14
Marsal J, Mata M, Arbones A, del Campo J, Girona J, Lopez G (2008) Factors involved in alleviating water stress by partial canopy removal in pear trees. Tree Physiol 28:1375–1382
Oyarzun RA, Stökle CO, Whiting MD (2007) A simple approach to modeling radiation interception by fruit-tree orchards. Agric For Meteorol 142:12–24
Reyes VM, Girona J, Marsal J (2006) Effect of late Spring defruiting on net CO2 exchange and leaf area development in apple tree canopies. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 81(4):575–582
Trout TJ, Gartung JL (2006) Use of crop canopy size to estimate crop coefficient for vegetable crops. Environmental and water resources institute world congress proceedings, Omaha, NE, USA
Williams LE, Ayars JE (2005) Grapevine water use and the crop coefficient are linear functions of the shaded area measured beneath the canopy. Agric For Meteorol 132:201–211
Williams LE, Phene CJ, Grimes DW, Trout TJ (2003) Water use of mature Thompson seedless grapevines in California. Irrig Sci 22:11–18
Wünsche JN, Lakso AN, Robinson TL (1995) Comparison of 4 methods for estimating total light interception by apple-trees of varying forms. HortScience 30:272–276