4.7 Review

Could trunk diameter sensors be used in woody crops for irrigation scheduling? A review of current knowledge and future perspectives

期刊

AGRICULTURAL WATER MANAGEMENT
卷 97, 期 1, 页码 1-11

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agwat.2009.09.008

关键词

Deficit irrigation; Maximum daily trunk shrinkage; Irrigation requirements; Plant water relations; Sensors; Stem water potential; Trunk growth rate

资金

  1. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia (MEC) [AGL2000-0387-C05, AGL2003-9387C05, AGL2004-07940-C03, AGL2007-66279-C03-01/AGR, AGL200766279-C03-02/AGR, AGL2007-66279-C03-03/AGR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The use of trunk diameter fluctuations and their derived parameters for irrigation scheduling in woody crops is reviewed. The strengths and weaknesses of these continuously measured plant-based water stress indicators compared with other discretely measured indicators for diagnosing plant water status in young and mature trees are discussed. Aspects such as sensor reading variability, signal intensity and the relationship between trunk diameter fluctuations and plant water status are analyzed in order to assess their usefulness as water stress indicators. The physiological significance of maximum and minimum daily trunk diameter and maximum daily trunk shrinkage (MDS) are also considered. Current knowledge of irrigation protocols and baselines for obtaining maximum daily trunk shrinkage reference values is discussed and new research objectives are proposed. We analyze the response of woody crops to continuous deficit irrigation scheduled by maintaining MDS signal intensity at threshold values to generate mild, moderate and severe water stress and assess the possibility of using linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) sensors in trunk as a precision tool for regulated deficit irrigation scheduling. Finally, the possibility of using MDS signal intensity as a tool to match the irrigation regime to tree water requirements is also reviewed. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据