4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Exploring thermal imaging variables for the detection of stress responses in grapevine under different irrigation regimes

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 58, 期 4, 页码 815-825

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erl153

关键词

leaf angle; leaf temperature; partial rootzone drying; regulated deficit irrigation; stomatal conductance; thermography; Vitis vinifera; water deficit

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Temperatures of leaves or canopies can be used as indicators of stomatal closure in response to soil water deficit. In 2 years of field experiments with grapevines (Vitis vinifera L., cvs Castelao and Aragones), it was found that thermal imaging can distinguish between irrigated and non-irrigated canopies, and even between deficit irrigation treatments. Average canopy temperature was inversely correlated with stomatal conductance measured with a porometer. Variation of the distribution of temperatures within canopies was not found to be a reliable indicator of stress. A large degree of variation between images was found in reference 'wet' and 'dry' leaves used in the first year for the calculation of an index proportional to stomatal conductance. In the second year, fully irrigated (FI) (100% Et-c) and non-irrigated (NI) canopies were used as alternatives to wet and dry leaves. A crop water stress index utilizing these FI and NI 'references', where stressed canopies have the highest values and non-stressed canopies have the lowest values, was found to be a suitable measure for detecting stress. It is suggested that the average temperatures of areas of canopies containing several leaves may be more useful for distinguishing between irrigation treatments than the temperatures of individual leaves. Average temperatures over several leaves per canopy may be expected to reduce the impact of variation in leaf angles. The results are discussed in relation to the application of thermal imaging to irrigation scheduling and monitoring crop performance.

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