Generalized water production relations through process-based modeling: A viticulture example

Knowling, Matthew J.; Walker, Rob R.; Pellegrino, Anne; Edwards, Everard; Westra, Seth; Collins, Cassandra; Ostendorf, Bertram; Bennett, Bree

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108225

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the more simplistic models that predicted dry matter accumulation and yield in stress-free conditions from plant and environmental parameters [25][26][27], modelling has advanced towards the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum under restrictive growing conditions. Daily time-step models accounting for crop, soil, climate, and management are favoured to estimate the water-limited yield potential [28], hence overcoming the limitations of simpler approaches [29]. Process-based models estimate yield under limiting growing conditions [30][31][32][33], closing the gap between the synthesis of knowledge and decision-making for vineyard management [34].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Benchmarking Water-Limited Yield Potential and Yield Gaps of Shiraz in the Barossa and Eden Valleys

Bonada,

Petrie,

Phogat

et al. 2023

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims. Vineyard performance is impacted by water availability including the amount and seasonality of rainfall, evapotranspiration, and irrigation volume. We benchmarked water-limited yield potential (Yw), calculated yield gaps as the difference between Yw and actual yield, and explored the underlying environmental and management causes of these gaps. Methods and Results. The yield and its components in two sections of 24 Shiraz vineyards were monitored during three vintages in the Barossa zone (GI). The frequency distribution of yield was L-shaped, with half the vineyards below 5.2 t·ha−1, and an extended tail of the distribution that reached 24.9 t·ha−1. The seasonal ratio of actual crop evapotranspiration and reference evapotranspiration was below 0.48 in 85% of cases, with a maximum of 0.65, highlighting a substantial water deficit in these vineyards. A boundary function relating actual yield and seasonal rainfall was fitted to quantify Yw. Yield gaps increased with an increasing vine water deficit, as quantified by the carbon isotope composition of the fruit. The yield gap was smaller with higher rainfall before budburst, putatively favouring early-season vegetative growth and allocation to reproduction, and with higher rainfall between flowering and veraison, putatively favouring fruit set and berry growth. The gap was larger with higher rainfall and lower radiation between budburst and flowering. The yield gap increased linearly with vine age between 6 and 33 yr at a rate of 0.3 t·ha−1·yr−1. The correlation between yield gap and yield components ranked bunch weight ≈ berries per bunch > bunch number > berry weight; the minimum to close the yield gap was 185,000 bunches ha−1, 105 g bunch−1, 108 berries bunch−1, and 1.1 g berry−1. Conclusions. Water deficit and vine age were major causes of yield gaps. Irrigation during winter and spring provides an opportunity to improve productivity. The cost of dealing with older, less productive vines needs to be weighed against the rate of increase in yield gap with vine age. Significance of the Study. A boundary function to estimate water-limited yield potential returned viticulturally meaningful yield gaps and highlighted potential targets to improve vineyard productivity.

show abstract