Browsing by Author "Lategan, Eugene Lourens"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Deficit irrigation and canopy management practices to improve water use efficiency and profitability of wine grapes
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2024-03) Lategan, Eugene Lourens; Hoffman, Josias Eduard; Myburgh, Philipus Albertus; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Agrisciences. Dept. of Soil Science.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Grapevines irrigated at low plant available water (PAW) depletion levels required more than double the irrigation volumes compared to those irrigated at high depletion levels. The accelerated sugar accumulation of sprawling grapevine canopies resulted in earlier harvest dates, reducing pre-harvest irrigation requirements. Different canopy manipulations did not affect total leaf area (LA) per grapevine within an irrigation strategy, but negatively affected LA as less water was applied. Non-suckered grapevines produced more shoots and more vigorous shoot growth, while non-suckered vertical shoot positioned (VSP) grapevines tended to produce lower cane mass. The LA distribution provides a good indication of canopy orientation, and non-destructive measurements of primary and secondary shoots can estimate winter pruned cane mass. This would allow viticulturists, producers, or irrigation consultants to estimate the maximum cane mass and use the VINET© model to predict grapevine water requirements in real-time throughout the season, as the LA is estimated using cane mass. Grapevines with sprawling canopies had lower mid-day leaf water (ΨL) and stem water (Ψs) potentials compared to those with VSP canopies. Grapevines experiencing severe water constraints ripened more rapidly than those without or with medium water constraints. Low frequency irrigation increased water constraints compared to high frequency irrigation. Diurnal ΨL cycles showed that grapevines with sprawling canopies had lower ΨL after 18:00 and throughout the night, suggesting that their water status could not recover as fast as VSP grapevines. High irrigation frequencies led to higher grapevine row evapotranspiration (ETGR) losses, with losses from sprawling grapevines, particularly those irrigated at ca. 30% plant available water (PAW) depletion, being higher in January and February than those with VSP canopies. Seasonal full surface evapotranspiration was more sensitive to irrigation frequency than to canopy manipulations. Grapevines irrigated at ca. 30% PAW depletion had higher mean full surface crop coefficient (Kc) values compared to other strategies, with those irrigated at ca. 90% PAW depletion having the lowest Kc values. The mean peak Kc was generally obtained in February for grapevines irrigated at frequencies, while the lowest Kc was found during the same period for low frequency irrigation applications. The fraction of soil wetted during irrigation applications under grapevine row (Kc,GR) could be a more realistic coefficient than Kc for producers and consultants to use in irrigation scheduling requirements. Irrigation frequency had a more significant impact on yield than canopy manipulation. Higher rainfall in 2013/14 increased vegetative growth and yield, with low frequency irrigations resulting in higher production water use efficiency compared to medium and high frequency irrigations. The incidence of grey rot was higher during the wetter season, with grapevines with sprawling canopies experiencing higher yield losses due to sun burn and less frequent irrigation. The highest incidences and yield loss to grey rot were found in grapevines left un-suckered and irrigated at ca. 30 PAW depletion, while irrigation at around 90 PAW depletion resulted in the absence of grey rot. Grapes were harvested near the target total soluble solids level of 24ºB, with severe water constraints enhancing berry maturation. Non-suckered VSP grapevines produced poorer quality at lower levels (30% and 60% depletion levels), with the highest overall wine quality obtained when irrigated at ca. 90% PAW depletion. Less frequent irrigations reduced summer canopy management requirements, but grapevines with more shoots required higher labour inputs at harvest. Pruning labour input requirements were affected by the number of shoots produced per grapevine and the mass per individual shoot. Sprawling canopy grapevines generally required lower labour costs, and pump costs were affected by the frequency of irrigation applications. During low to normal rainfall seasons, grapevines with sprawling canopies irrigated at ca. 60% PAW depletion produced the highest gross margins incomes, followed by box pruned grapevines irrigated at ca. 90% PAW depletion. In high summer rainfall seasons, box pruned grapevines and non-suckered VSP canopies had the highest gross margins. Grapevines with sprawling canopies, particularly those irrigated at ca. 60% PAW depletion, produced the best balance between yield and quality, ensuring the best gross margin incomes. The gross margin water use efficiency (WUEGM) increased with an increase in PAW depletion level irrigation, with box pruned grapevines consistently having the highest WUEGM. The study found that grapevines with sprawling canopies experienced lower diurnal and cumulative evaporation losses compared to VSP grapevines, regardless of PAW depletion levels. The higher mean leaf area per grapevine resulted in denser canopies, and treatments irrigated at approximately 30% PAW depletion were always within stage 1 of evaporation. Grapevines irrigated at around 60% PAW depletion occasionally went into stage 2, particularly in sprawling canopies. The water content of soil under grapevines irrigated at around 90% PAW depletion spent most of the season in stage 2. The vegetation coefficient (Kv) of sprawling canopies was lower than VSP grapevines, irrespective of PAW depletion. The VINET© model generally underestimated transpiration rates in wet soil regimes and overestimated them during dry soil regimes. Adjusting the model by addition of Kv and adapted transpiration water predictions can be done using two multilinear regressions after a few grapevine canopy measurements inputs have been considered.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Determining of optimum irrigation schedules for drip irrigated Shiraz vineyards in the Breede River Valley
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2011-12) Lategan, Eugene Lourens; Hoffman, J. E.; Myburgh, P. A.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of AgriSciences. Dept. of Soil Science.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Shiraz/110R grapevines, growing in a fine sandy loam soil in the Breede River Valley, were subjected to ten different drip irrigation strategies during the 2006/07, 2007/08 and 2008/09 seasons. Grapevines of the control treatment (T1) were irrigated at 30% to 40% plant available water (PAW) depletion throughout the growing season. Grapevines of three treatments were irrigated at 70% to 80% PAW depletion from bud break until véraison (i.e. when ca. 95% of grape berries have changed colour), followed by either irrigation at 30% to 40% PAW depletion (T2) or a continuous deficit irrigation (CDI) strategy (T3) or irrigation at 70% to 80% PAW depletion (T4) during ripening. The CDI strategy was obtained by applying ca. half the volume of water that was applied to the control. This allowed the soil to dry out gradually between physiological stages (i.e. bud break and véraison or véraison and harvest). Grapevines of three further treatments were irrigated at ca. 90% PAW depletion from bud break until véraison, followed by irrigation at 30% to 40% PAW depletion (T5) or a CDI strategy (T6) or irrigation at ca. 90% PAW depletion (T7) during ripening. Grapevines of two treatments were irrigated by means of a CDI strategy from bud break until véraison. For both treatments, the soil water content (SWC) was allowed to dry out gradually until ca. 90% PAW depletion was reached. After véraison, the SWC of the one treatment was maintained at ca. 90% PAW depletion by applying only four small irrigations of three hours each during ripening (T8). The soil of the other treatment, received an irrigation at véraison to refill the SWC to field capacity (T9) followed by the CDI strategy during ripening. Grapevines of the tenth treatment were irrigated at ca. 90% PAW depletion between bud break and véraison followed by a partial profile refill (PPR) strategy during ripening (T10). In order to obtain the PPR strategy, SWC was only maintained between 40% and 60% PAW depletion. Evapotranspiration varied between 3.5 mm/day and 0.1 mm/day for driest and wettest treatments, respectively, during the period between December and February. This was substantially less than the volumes required for full surface irrigation. For irrigations applied at 30% to 40% PAW depletion (T1), 70% to 80% PAW depletion (T4) and ca. 90% PAW depletion (T7) levels throughout the season, crop coefficients for the Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration (ETo) were 0.4, 0.2 and 0.1, respectively. Under the given conditions, the different irrigation strategies did not have any effect on root distribution and density. Shoot growth of grapevines exposed to high to severe water deficits in the pre-véraison period stopped before mid December. Shoots of grapevines that were exposed to high or severe water deficits before véraison followed by more frequent irrigation during ripening showed active re-growth. These trends occurred during all the seasons. The level of PAW depletion reflected strongly in the plant water potential in the grapevines. Leaf water potential was influenced by the prevailing atmospheric conditions, whereas stem water potential was less sensitive to atmospheric conditions, but responded more directly to soil water availability. Due to the good relationships between pre-dawn leaf, mid-day leaf, mid-day stem and total diurnal water potential, it was possible to re-classify the water status in terms of previous classifications for these water potentials based on pre-dawn measurements. Water constraints in T1, T2 and T5 grapevines were classed as experiencing no stress, whereas the T7 and T8 ones experienced strong to severe water constraints before harvest. High frequency irrigation strategies during ripening delayed sugar accumulation due to dilution of sugar in the larger berries. Except for the wettest strategy, and where grapevines were subjected to the CDI strategy throughout the season, berry mass increased during ripening, i.e. from véraison to harvest. Water deficits had a negative effect on berry mass, bunch size and yield. Where higher soil water depletion levels were allowed, irrigation strategies had a positive effect on the irrigation water productivity of grapevines compared to the frequently irrigated or CDI strategies. Higher water constraints in grapevines, particularly during ripening, improved sensorial wine colour and enhanced some of the more prominent wine aromas, e.g. spicy and berry. Grapevines that were irrigated at a high frequency during ripening produced wines with diluted character flavours and aromas and inferior overall quality. Under the given conditions, sensorial wine colour and spicy character were the dominant factors in determining overall sensorial wine quality.