Sensitivity and Variability of Maximum Trunk Shrinkage, Midday Stem Water Potential, and Transpiration Rate in Response to Withholding Irrigation from Field-grown Apple Trees
By A. Naor, S. Cohen. 2003
134 citations recorded by the source corpus.
The sensitivity of water stress indicators to changing moisture availability, and their variability, determine the number of measurements that should be taken in order to represent properly plant water status in a certain orchard. In the present study we examined the sensitivity and variability of maximum daily trunk shrinkage, midday stem water potential, and daily transpiration rate in their responses to withholding irrigation from field-grown drip-irrigated 'Golden delicious∑ apple trees in a commercial orchard. Irrigation was withheld from the stressed trees for 17 days starting in mid-July, and the control trees were irrigated daily at 100% of the "Class A" pan evaporation rate. The courses of daily transpiration rate, maximum trunk shrinkage, and midday stem water potential before and 10 days after the drying period were similar in the control and the stressed trees. Highly significant differences between the stressed and the control trees in their midday stem water potentials were apparent from the early stages of the stress period. Daily transpiration rate and maximum daily shrinkage were more variable than midday stem water potential, and differences between treatments became significant only after measurements were expressed relative to the initial values before irrigation was witheld. Differences between treatments (as percentages of the values obtained for the control trees) increased after irrigation stopped where these differences were greatest for maximum daily shrinkage, which reached 90%; moderate for stem water potential (60%); and least for daily transpiration rate, for which the differences remained below 20%. Our data show that the choice of a certain water stress indicator should be based on both the sensitivity to changing moisture availability and the degree of variability. Possible reasons for the different sensitivity to moisture availability and the different variability between the water stress indicators under study are discussed.
Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Plant Science, Soil Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/28a2a12144d4bf8ecce7317b8af69b1c8324bf8c
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Global and Planetary Change
In Plant Science
In Soil Science
Citations in the corpus
- Evaluation of plant-based water status indicators in mature apple trees under field conditions (2007, methodology): “MDS (CV = 28%) than the C treatment (CV = 10%), as shown in Table 1. Naor and Cohen (2003) also found a greater variability of MDS in stressed tress.”
- Comprehending crystalline β-carotene accumulation by comparing engineered cell models and the natural carotenoid-rich system of citrus (2011, unknown): “If plant-to-plant variability in plant-water status is high, this variability must be assessed for precision irrigation (Naor and Cohen, 2003; Arno et al., 2009).”
- Evaluation of grapevine water status from trunk diameter variations (2007, background): “In our conditions all determinations had low variability, and therefore allowed clear diVerentiation between treatments along the whole season (Fig. 2, Table 1). Similarly to other reports in fruit tree crops ( Naor and Cohen 2003; Intrigliolo and Castel 2004) the sensitivity of MDS and TGR was low”