Open Access
Issue
Ciência Téc. Vitiv.
Volume 29, Number 2, 2014
Page(s) 60 - 70
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ctv/20142902060
Published online 26 January 2015
  • Allen R., Pereira L., Raes D., Smith M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper nº 56 300p.
  • Choné X., Van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D., Pierre J., 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Ann. Bot., 87, 477–483. [CrossRef]
  • 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, 159–170. [CrossRef]
  • CIREN, 2007. Estudio Agrológico Valle de Copiapó y Valle del Huasco. Publicación 135. 126.
  • Cohen M., 1994. Funcionamiento hídrico y producción frutal del nogal en zonas semiáridas: aplicación al manejo del riego. 298 p. Tesis Dr. Ing. Agr. Lleida, Escola Técnica Superior D’Enginyeria Agraria, Universitat de Lleida.
  • Deloire A., Carbonneau A., Wang Z., Ojeda H., 2004. Vine and water a short review. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, 38, 1–13.
  • Ferreira R., Sellés G., Maldonado P., Celedón J., Gil P., 2007. Efecto del clima, de las características de la hoja y de la metodología de medición del potencial hídrico xilemático en palto (Persea americana Mill.). Agr. Tec., 67, 182–188.
  • Gálvez R., Callejas R., Reginato G., 2010. Comparación de tres indicadores fisiologicos del estado hídrico en vid de mesa. 27. In: 61º Congreso Agronómico de Chile. 11° Congreso de la sociedad chilena de fruticultura. 56th ISTH Annual Meeting.
  • Gálvez R., Callejas R., Reginato G., 2011. Comparación de la cámara de presión tipo Scholander modelo Pump-up respecto a la cámara de presión tradicional en vides de mesa. Idesia, 29, 175–179. [CrossRef]
  • Garnier E., Berger A., 1985. Testing water potential in peach trees as an indicator of water stress. J. Hort. Sci., 60, 47–56.
  • Grimes D., Williams L., 1990. Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of Thompson seedless grapevine. Crop Sci., 30, 225–260. [CrossRef]
  • Goldhamer D., Fereres E., 2001. Simplified tree water status measurement of stem water potential. Calif. Agr., 55, 32–37. [CrossRef]
  • Howell T., Meron M., 2007. Irrigation scheduling. Microirrigation for crop production. Design, Operation, and Management. 2nd nd. edition. 61 – 130. Lamm F., Ayars J., Nakayama F. (eds.). Elsevier, The Netherlands. [CrossRef]
  • Jackson R., Reginato R., Idso B., 1977. Wheat canopy temperature: A practical tool for evaluating water requirements. Water Resour., 13, 651–656. [CrossRef]
  • Jones H., 2004. Irrigation scheduling:advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J. Exp. Bot., 55, 2427–2436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  • Kaiser R.M., Cavagnaro J.B., Rios M., 2004. Response of Argentinian and European cultivars of Vitis vinifera L. to water stress: II Water relations. Acta Hortic., 646, 47–54.
  • Lovisolo C., Hartung W., Schubert A., 2002. Whole-plant hydraulic conductance and root-to-shoot flow of abscisic acid are independently affected by water stress in grapevines. Funct. Plant Biol., 29, 1349–1356. [CrossRef]
  • Marsal J., Mata M., Del Campo J., Arbones A., Vallverdú X., Girona J., Olivo N., 2008. Evaluation of partial root-zone drying for potential field use as a deficit irrigation technique in commercial vineyards according to two different pipeline layouts. Irrigation Sci., 26, 347–356. [CrossRef]
  • McCutchan H., Shackel K., 1992. Stem water potential as a sensitive indicator of water stress in prune trees. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 117, 607–611.
  • Medrano H., Escalona J.M., Cifre J., Bota J., Flexas J., 2003. A ten-year study on the physiology of two Spanish grapevine cultivars under field conditions: effects of water availability from leaf photosynthesis to grape yield and quality. Funct. Plant Biol., 30, 607–619. [CrossRef]
  • Mendoza J., 2005. Riego de precisión en Vitis vinifera L. cv. Superior Seedless, monitorizado con sondas de capacitivas FDR. 161 p. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena.
  • Murray F., 1967. On the computation of saturation vapor pressure. J. Appl. Meteorol., 6, 203–204. [CrossRef]
  • Naor A., 1998. Relations between leaf and stem water potentials and stomatal conductance in three field-grown woody. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech., 73, 431–436.
  • Naor A., 2000. Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Hortic., 537, 447–454.
  • Naor A., 2006. Irrigation scheduling and evaluation of tree water status in deciduous orchard. Hortic. Rev., 32, 111–165.
  • Navarrete P., 2006. Efecto de la disponibilidad de agua del suelo en el comportamiento estomático, fotosíntesis y transpiración en vid de mesa variedad Crimson Seedless. 29 p. Memoria Ingeniero Agrónomo, Facultad de Ciencias Agronómicas, Universidad de Chile.
  • Olivo N., Girona J., Marsal J., 2009. Seasonal sensitivity of stem water potential to vapour pressure deficit in grapevine. Irrigation Sci., 27, 175–182. [CrossRef]
  • Patakas A., Noitsakis B., Chouzouri A., 2005. Optimization of irrigation water use in grapevines using the relationship between transpiration and plant water status. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 106, 253–259. [CrossRef]
  • Pire R., De Pire M., Tortolero E., De Fréitez Y., 1988. El riego de la vid (Vitis vinifera L.) en el tocuyo, estado Lara. II Relaciones hídricas. Agronomía Tropical, 38, 155–171.
  • Rosati A., Metcalf S., Buchner R., Fulton A., Lampinen B., 2006. Tree water status and gas exchange in walnut under drought, high temperature and vapour pressure deficit. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech., 81, 415–420.
  • Saxton K., Rawls W., 2006. Soil water characteristics estimates by texture and organic matter for hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 70, 1569–1578. [CrossRef]
  • Sellés G., Ferreira R., Contreras G., Ahumada R., Valenzuela J., Bravo R., 2003. Manejo de riego por goteo en uva de mesa cv. Thompson Seedless cultivado en suelos de textura fina. Agr. Tec., 63, 180–192.
  • Sellés G., Ferreira R., Maldonado P., 2002. Cámara de presión: instrumento para controlar el riego a través de mediciones del estado hídrico de las plantas. Aconex, 76, 18–26.
  • Shakel K., 2007. Water relations of woody perennial plant species. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, 41, 121–129.
  • Shakel K., 2011. A Plant-based approach to deficit irrigation in trees and vines. Hortscience, 42, 173–177.
  • Sackel K., Ahmadi H., Biasi W., Buchner R., Goldhamer D., Gurusinghe S., Hasey J., Kester D., Krueger B., Lampinen B., McGourty G., Micke W., Mitcham E., Olson B., Pelletrau K., Philips H., Ramos D., Schwankl L., Sibbett S., Snyder R., Southwick S., Stevenson M., Thorpe M., Weinbaum S., Yeager J., 1997. Plant water status as an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit trees. HortTechnology, 7, 23–29.
  • Shakel K., Gurusinghe S., Kester D., Micke W., 1998. Water stress responses of almond (Prunus dulcis (Mill)). Acta Hortic., 470, 309–316.
  • Shakel K., Lampinen B., Southwick S., Goldhamer D., Olson W., Sibbett S., Keueger W., Yeager J., 2000. Deficit irrigation in prunes: Maintaining productivity with less water. HortScience, 35, 30–33.
  • Schultz H., 2003. Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behaviour of two Weld-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant Cell Environ., 26, 1393–1405. [CrossRef]
  • Smart R., 1974. Aspects of water relations of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera). Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 25, 84–91.
  • Sousa T., Oliveira M., Pereira J., 2006. Physiological indicators of plant water status of irrigated and non-irrigated grapevines grown in a low rainfall area of Portugal. Plant Soil, 282, 127–134. [CrossRef]
  • Tosso J., Torres J., 1986. Relaciones hidricas de la vid, bajo diferentes niveles de riego, usando goteo, aspersion y surcos. II. Efecto sobre el crecimiento vegetativo y la produccion. Agricultura Tecnica, 46, 283–289.
  • Van Zyl J., 1987. Diurnal variation in grapevine water stress as a function of changing soil water status and meteorological conditions. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic., 8, 45–52.
  • Williams L., Araujo F., 2002. Correlations among predawn leaf, midday leaf, and midday stem water potential and their correlations with other measures of soil and plant water status in Vitis vinifera. J Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 127, 448–454.
  • Williams L., Baeza P., 2007. Relations among ambient temperature and vapor pressure deficit and leaf and stem water potentials of fully irrigated, field-grown grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 58, 173–181.
  • Williams L., Trout T., 2005. Relationships among vine-and soilbased measures of water status in a Thompson seedless vineyard in response high-frecuency drip irrigation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 56, 357–366.
  • Winkler A., 1965. La poda. In: Winkler. Viticultura. 301–361. Compañía Editorial Continental, México D.F.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.