Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Agronomy
This content is subject to copyright.
Agronomy 2015, 5, 405-417; doi:10.3390/agronomy5030405
agronomy
ISSN 2073-4395
www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy
Article
Response of Table Grape to Irrigation Water in the Aconcagua
Valley, Chile
Carlos Zúñiga-Espinoza 1, Cristina Aspillaga 2, Raúl Ferreyra 1 and Gabriel Selles 1,*
1 Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INIA La Platina, Santa Rosa 1161, Santiago, Chile;
E-Mails: czuniga@inia.cl (C.Z.-E); rferreyr@inia.cl (R.F.)
2 Roma N° 90, San Esteban, Los Andes 2120000, Chile;
E-Mail: cristina.aspillaga@gmail.com
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: gselles@inia.cl;
Tel.: +56-2-2577-9102; Fax: +56-2-2577-9106.
Academic Editor: Yantai Gan
Received: 24 April 2015 / Accepted: 18 August 2015 / Published: 24 August 2015
Abstract: The irrigation water available for agriculture will be scarce in the future due to
increased competition for water with other sectors, and the issue may become more serious
due to climate change. In Chile, the table grape is only cultivated under irrigation. A
five-year research program (2007–2012) was carried out in the Aconcagua Valley, the
central area of grapes in Chile, to evaluate the response of table grape vines (Vitis vinifera
L., cv Thompson Seedless) to different volumes of irrigation water. Four irrigation
treatments were applied: 60, 88, 120 and 157% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) during the
first four years, and 40, 54, 92 and 108% of ETc in the last year. Irrigation over 90%–100%
of ETc did not increase fruit yield, whereas the application of water below 90% ETc
decreased exportable yield, berry size and pruning weight. For example, 60% ETc applied
water reduced exportable yield by 20%, and only 40% of the berries were in the extra and
large category size, while pruning weight was 30% lower in comparison to the treatment
receiving more water.
Key words: table grape; water production function; berry size; grapevine irrigation
OPEN ACCESS
Agronomy 2015, 5 406
1. Introduction
Chile is one of the main exporters of table grapes in the world. There are 52,234 hectares dedicated
to table grape cultivation, from the Atacama Region (30° S Latitude) to the Maule Region (36° S). The
annual production of table grape was 725,000 tons in 2013/2014 [1]. The wide territorial extension of
table grape cultivation means that it grows under different climatic conditions, ranging from desert in
the north (30° S Lat.) to the Mediterranean climate between 30° and 40° S [2]. Annual mean precipitation
varies from 22.8 mm in the north to 735 mm in the south; rainfall is concentrated mainly in the winter
months [2]. Therefore, the table grape in the north must be grown under irrigation and the productivity
depends upon the availability of water in spring and summer months. The Aconcagua Valley in Chile is
one of the most important zones in the production of table grapes in the country, with 10,770 ha in full
production annually. The most important cultivars are Thompson Seedless, Flame Seedless, Crimson
Seedless and Red Globe [1]. Villagra et al. [3] measured a seasonal ETc (September to March) around
800 mm using the Eddy covariance technique. However, local farmers use a wide range of water volumes
to irrigate table grapes, above or below 800 mm per growing season.
The availability of water for agriculture will be scarce in the future, due to increased competition for
water with other sectors of the economy, and climatic change may lead to more recurrent drought
situations [4,5]. In the area of table grape production in Chile (30° to 36° South latitude), there is
evidence that precipitation has decreased in the last century; rainfall is predicted to decline 25%–35%
by 2040–2070, and average temperature to increase by 2–4 °C [6,7] as a consequence of climate change.
Furthermore, Chile is periodically affected by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which leads to
severe droughts (La Niña event) and economic losses [8]. This means less storage of water in the soil,
less runoff to reservoirs and less recharging of aquifers. In addition, as a consequence of climate change
the 0° isotherm will increase in altitude [6], and the area of snow reserves in the mountains for river
water flow in spring and summer will decrease; therefore, irrigation water in the period of maximum
crop development will be limited.
Crop production must be more efficient in the use of water [5]. Strategies are required to determine
crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and irrigation needs [3], and using improved irrigation practices to reduce
the quantity of water applied to crops without affecting yields or product quality [9]. Regulated deficit
irrigation (RDI) and sustained deficit irrigation (SDI) have been used as strategies to reduce the volume
of water applied without affecting yields [9]. With RDI, water is applied to crops below the ETc in
specific phenological periods, and this technique has been shown to be successful in crops such as
peach [10], olive [11,12] and wine grape [13,14].
With SDI technique, reduced water is applied to crops during the entire development period,
independent of the plant physiological stage [9]. In some fruit crops, this technique has produced better
results than RDI in terms of crop production and water saving [15]. There is sufficient evidence that
supplying the full ETc requirements to tree crops and vines may not be necessary in many
situations [16]. However, most of the experiments in vine grape have been on wine grapes and little on
table grapes. Berry quality variables of table grapes differ from those of wine grapes. In table grape,
berry size, firmness, color, acidity and total soluble solids are important quality parameters [17]. There
are a few RDI studies with table grapes where an irrigation restriction was imposed after veraison when
berries have almost reached full size [18–20]. El-Ansari et al. [19] showed that the cultivar “Muscat of
Agronomy 2015, 5 407
Alexandria” decreased firmness and acidity and increased total soluble solids of the berries under RDI.
Ezzahouani and Williams [20] found that under different irrigation treatments the cultivar “Danlas”
obtained the highest yield and berry weight under well irrigated treatments. Williams et al. [17,21]
studied the effect of SDI on Thompson Seedless for raisin production, and concluded that application of
water above 80% of the crop evapotranspiration (ETc) did not increase fruit yield, whereas below 60%
ETc decreased berry yield and weight but increased soluble solids.
The aim of this study was to determine the effect of different amounts of irrigation on the yield and
fruit quality of table grape in the Aconcagua Valley of Chile.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site and Irrigation Treatments
The experimental site was located in a commercial table grape vineyard in the Aconcagua Valley,
Valparaiso Region, Chile (70°41′23″ W, 32°47′21″ S). The soil is a Fluventic Haploxerolls, 1 m depth,
with a clay loam texture in all depths. Annual rainfall and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) during the
study period are presented in Table 1. The cultivar was Thompson Seedless on Freedom rootstock,
trained as overhead trellis system and irrigated by drip (double line). The vineyards were planted in 2003,
with a plant spacing of 3 × 2.5 m.
Table 1. Seasonal precipitation, seasonal reference evapotranspiration (ETo), seasonal crop
evapotranspiration (ETc), applied water and percentage of ETc in each experimental year.
Season
Annual
Rain
Season
ETo
Season
ETc
Applied water (m3ha−1)
Percent ETc (%)
(mm)
(mm)
(mm)
T1
T2
T3
T4
T1
T2
T3
T4
2007/08
116.3
845.2
799.2
5279
7647
9705
11796
66
96
121
148
2008/09
242.9
876.4
741.4
4717
6388
9397
11217
64
86
127
151
2009/10
182.4
825.6
658.1
3597
5755
7865
10806
55
87
120
164
2010/11
141.8
870.18
690.18
3992
5782
8395
11498
58
84
122
167
2011/12
111.1
962.3
674.12
2663
3615
6171
7293
39
54
92
108
The experiment was performed during five years; in the four first seasons (2007/08 to 2010/11) four
irrigation treatments were applied during the entire season; T1: 60% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc),
T2: 88% ETc, T3: 120% ETc and T4: 157% ETc. In the last season (2011/12) less water was applied in
all the treatments; 40, 54, 92 and 108% of ETc for T1, T2, T3 and T4, respectively. Each season,
irrigation treatments were started on 1 October and finished on 31 March. The water applied each season
and the resulting percentages of ETc are presented in Table 1. Each treatment was replicated four times
in a randomized block design, each elementary plot contained 16 vines, and measurements were done
only in the four central plants to avoid border effects. ETc was calculated as ETo × kc, where kc is the
crop coefficient [22]. ETo was estimated by the Penman-Montheith method [22], using climatic data
from an automatic weather station near the field experiment (www.agroclima.cl network). Crop
coefficient (kc) was estimated following the methodology proposed by Villagra et al. [3] and Williams
Agronomy 2015, 5 408
and Ayars [23]. Irrigation was scheduled in a low frequency regime as recommended by
Selles et al. [24] for the fine-textured soil of the Aconcagua valley.
2.2. Soil and Plant Water Status
Soil water content and stem water potential (SWP) were measured throughout the entire season. Soil
water content was measured daily with a capacitive probe (Diviner 2000, Sentek Inc., Sidney, Australia)
with 10 cm increment down to the depth of 1 m. Seven access tubes were used in each treatment, placed
30 cm away from the plant row. The readings were expressed as total soil available water (SAW). To
express soil water content measured with the capacitive probe as SAW, the soil was irrigated around the
access tubes until field capacity (FC) was reached as proposed by Cassel and Nielsel [25]. After that,
soil water content was measured with the probe and the value obtained was established as FC. In addition,
the permanent wilting point was estimated as half of FC [26,27].
Midday stem water potential (SWP) was measured at midday (2–4 PM, solar time) every other week,
before an irrigation event, using a pressure chamber technique [28]. Three leaves were used per replicate;
the leaves were covered with an aluminized plastic bag one hour before being measured [29].
2.3. Vegetative Growth and Fruit Production
Each season, pruning weight was determined on four central plants per replicate (16 per treatment)
and expressed as pruning dry matter. A sample of fresh pruned branches was dried at 70 °C in a
forced-air oven for 48 h to determine the water content of the sample.
During each season, the intercepted solar radiation (ISR) by the vines was measured from bud break
to harvest. At midday, the flux density of photosynthetically active incident radiation (PARi) over and
under the orchard (PARbd) was measured with a ceptometer (AccuPAR, Decagon Devices, Washington,
DC, USA). Data were measured in each replicate in one quadrant of four plants each. Fifteen
measurements were made per quadrant; three in each row and five between rows. Mean of ISR
(µmol m−2 s−1) were expressed as percentage using:
100
PAR
PAR
1ISR
i
bd
(1)
After fruit set, the number of bunches per vine and the number of berries per bunch were defined as
in normal commercial table grape management. (40 ± 2 bunches per vine and 113 ± 10 berries per bunch).
At harvest, exportable fruit production was measured in the four central plants per replicate. All
harvested export bunches were weighed, and a random sample of 100 berries per replicate (400 per
treatment) were weighed individually. A sample of bunches was commercially packed and stored at 0 °C
and 90% relative humidity for laboratory analysis; berry firmness was measured with 200 berries with
attached pedicel per treatment using a FirmTech 2 apparatus (BioWorks Wamego, KS, USA), along
with soluble solids, juice acidity and shatter.
Agronomy 2015, 5 409
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Data were subjected to analysis of variance using MIXED model, and mean separation was performed
by the LSD method or Duncan’s multiple range test where appropriate (SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
NC, USA).
3. Results and Discussion
The volume of water applied in each treatment from bud break until the end of maturity is shown in
Table 1. Winter precipitation was sufficient to maintain the soil available water (SAW) close to field
capacity (FC) until bud break time each year. The irrigation treatments produced a reduction of SAW
during the season (Figure 1) in the treatments which received less water (T1 and T2). Accordingly, a
moderate water deficit was produced and reflected in SAW (Table 2) and SWP (Table 3).
Figure 1. Typical variation of soil available water (SAW%), during the 2007/08 season.
Arrows indicate different phenological stages.
Table 2. Average soil available water (SAW%) in each experimental year.
Irrigation
Treatment
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
S-V*
V-H*
S-V
V-H
S-V
V-H
S-V
V-H
S-V
V-H
T1
63.73
64.4
60.32
54.45
86.2
56.21
90.91
66.68
83.88
41.77
T2
70.9
73.8
67.29
67.93
70.9
63.81
91.55
72.16
75.65
48.15
T3
79.35
81.75
75.07
77.69
85.95
73.91
80.48
79.14
84.8
88.85
T4
81.22
93.17
78.36
81.73
98.46
88.73
89.59
84.68
85.73
82.9
*(S-V bud break to veraison, V-H, veraison to harvest).
Table 3. Average stem water potential (SWP, MPa) in each experimental season.
Irrigation
treatment
Fruit set-Veraison (MPa)
Veraison-Harvest (MPa)
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
T1
−0.64 c
−0.78 b
−0.73 b
−0.63
−0.88 c
−0.71
−1.00 b
−0.96 b
−0.83
−1.16 c
T2
−0.62 bc
−0.76 a
−0.73 b
−0.64
−0.79 b
−0.67
−0.88 ab
−0.83 a
−0.86
−0.98 b
T3
−0.59 ab
−0.76 a
−0.63 a
−0.62
−0.72 a
−0.66
−0.87 ab
−0.80 a
−0.77
−0.81 a
T4
−0.53 a
−0.68 a
−0.63 a
−0.60
−0.68 a
−0.63
−0.82 a
−0.77 a
−0.83
−0.80 a
Means followed by a different letter within a given year are significantly different at P < 0.05
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
SAW %
Date
66% ETc
96% ETc
121% ETc
148% ETc
Berry set
Veraiso n
Bud break
Harvest
T1
T2
T3
T4
Agronomy 2015, 5 410
Allen et al. [22] established that soil water depletion greater than 30% of SAW (<70% SAW in the
soil) is a critical point for table grapes. In this study, only T1 and T2 presented SAW below 70% in the
soil, mostly from veraison to harvest. In Thompson Seedless, SWP at midday below −0.9 MPa was
defined as moderate water stress by Selles et al. [24]. Grimes and Williams [30] consider –1 Mpa as the
threshold value. From this point of view, only T1 was subjected to a moderate water stress between
veraison and harvest. The average water received by T1 was only 60% of ETc (2007/2008 to 2010/11)
and 39% of ETc in the last season (2011/12); a severe water stress was not observed. As all treatments
in each season began with the SAW close to FC (Table 2), part of the water used by plants in the T1
treatment came from the soil, preventing severe plant water stress during the season (Figure 1).
Irrigation treatments had an effect on winter pruning weight; the differences between T1 and T4 were
significant in three out of the five experiment years; plants which received less water showed lower
pruning weight (Table 4). A linear relationship was found between applied water (% ETc) and the
relative pruning weight of the vines (r2 = 0.67, Figure 2). For the same cultivar, Williams et al. [21]
found also a linear relationship between pruning weight and SWP at midday. This relationship shows
that vine pruning weight is sensitive to moderate water stress.
Table 4. Winter pruning dry weight (kg plant−1) and average solar radiation intercepted by
the vines (ISR, %) from veraison to harvest.
Irrigation
treatment
Pruning dry weight (kg plant−1)
ISR (%) from veraison to harvest
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
T1
1.82 b
1.61 b
2.47
2.16
2.11 b
80.55
87.53
85.35
84.47 a
81.7 c
T2
2.04 ab
2.01 ab
2.51
2.07
2.08 b
76.93
84.13
84.34
83.52 a
85.72 bc
T3
2.34 ab
2.20 ab
2.97
2.24
2.92 a
84.2
89.58
89.95
90.54 ab
90.54 ab
T4
2.89 a
2.46 a
3.18
2.5
3.17 a
83.2
86.53
88.26
81.13 a
92.53 a
Means followed by a different letter within a given year are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Figure 2. Relationship between applied water (% ETc) and relative winter pruning weight
in the different experimental seasons.
ISR was similar in all treatments in four of the five years of the experiment, but in 2011/12, T1
treatment which received only 39% ETc, presented significant differences in ISR compared to the other
y = 0.0027x + 0.5663
R² = 0.67**
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
020 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Relative pruning weight
Applied water (% Etc)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Agronomy 2015, 5 411
treatments (Table 4). That year the SAW and SWP of T1 were lower than in other years between veraison
and harvest (Tables 2 and 3), which clearly affected vine vegetative growth (Table 4). Similar results
were found also in Thomson Seedless [21], where sustained deficit irrigation reduced leaf area and
pruning weight per vine compared to vines irrigated at 100% ETc.
In 2011/2012, SWP decreased below −1 MPa, showing a moderate water stress in T1. Selles
et al. [31] also showed that vegetative growth is affected by the amount of water applied in Crimson
Seedless cultivar growing in the Aconcagua Valley. That study also reported that water applied affected
not only pruning weight but also trunk growth. Willians et al. [21] also showed that vegetative growth
(shoot length, pruning weight and leaf area) of Thomson Seedless is affected by the amount of
water applied.
The volumes of water applied produced a significant decrease in the mean bunch weight in four of
the five years; T1 average bunch weight was less than T3 and T4. Berry weight was also affected by the
amount of water (Table 5). The percentage of extra and large berries (>5.2g) increased with increasing
water applied (Figure 3).
Table 5. Bunch and berry weight at harvest (g) in each treatment, in five
experimental seasons.
Irrigation
treatment
Bunch weight (g)
Berry weight (g)
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
T1
607.5 b
623.2 b
578.5 b
560.7
511.1 b
4.76 c
4.86 b
5.19 b
5.28
5.5 b
T2
650.9 ab
676.9 ab
618.8 ab
625.4
528.0 ab
5.08 bc
5.02 b
5.17 b
5.39
6.0 ab
T3
674.6 ab
729.7 a
661.7 a
671.8
549.4 ab
5.67 ab
5.49 a
5.56 ab
5.48
6.11 ab
T4
714.4 a
723.2 a
682.9 a
631.9
594.0 a
5.85 a
5.64 a
5.74 a
5.44
6.23 a
Means followed by a different letter within a given year are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Figure 3. Relationship between percentage of Extra and Large berries and percentage ETc
of water applied in the different experimental seasons.
y = 0,231x + 29,93
R² = 0,467
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
Percentaje of Extra and Large berries
Applied water (% ETc)
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Agronomy 2015, 5 412
Williams et al. [17], using Thompson Seedless cultivar grown for raisins, found a linear relationship
between SWP and berry weight at harvest; berry weight increased with increased water applied up to
80% ETc, while more water beyond 80% ETc did not produce greater berry weight. This relationship
was also linear in the present study, even for greater amounts of water. The difference may be due to the
fact that there are fewer berries per bunch in table grape than in raisin production, thus the berries may
grow more when there is less competition within the same bunch. In table grape, berry size is a very
important commercial quality component; extra and large sizes have better market prices and it is very
important for the grower that most of the bunches have these berry sizes. Other quality parameters are:
color (green color in the case of Thompson Seedless), berry firmness, sugar content and juice acidity. In
this study, the application of less water (e.g., 40% ETc in 2011/2012) affected the percentage of green
berries in bunches due to more solar light received by bunches in T1, with lower intercepted solar
radiation (Figure 4). This agrees with the results of Selles et al. [32], who found that with less than 80%
ISR there was a predominance of yellow color in this cultivar.
Figure 4. Percentage of green commercial berries per bunch as a function of intercepted
solar radiation (ISR, %) in the different experimental growing seasons.
The quality parameters firmness (Table 6) and sugar content (Table 7) were not affected by the
irrigation treatment in any experimental year, and were in the normal range for this cultivar [33].
Williams et al. [17] found an increase in berry sugar with water application under 60% of ETc in
Thompson Seedless for raisins. However, juice acidity was between 0.7 and 0.8 mg of tartaric acid/100
mL juice in all years and treatments; these are considered normal values for this variety [33]. Also,
shattering was very low (less than 1.7%) in all treatments and all years. In summary, the only quality
parameters affected by irrigation treatment were berry size and berry color (lower percentage of green
berries in the bunch).
y = -0.5906x2+ 105.15x - 4591.9
R² = 0.5306
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
80.00 82.00 84.00 86.00 88.00 90.00 92.00 94.00
% of green berries (%)
ISR (%)
2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Agronomy 2015, 5 413
Table 6. Berry firmness at harvest (g mm−2) in each treatment, in five experimental years.
Irrigation treatment
Berry firmness (g/mm2)
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
T1
282.1 b
235.5 b
262.9
283.3 ab
258.2
T2
298.4 ab
242.2 b
275.6
279.7 b
274.7
T3
304.6 ab
261.8 ab
290.4
320.5 a
272.7
T4
327.3 a
275.3 a
294.2
313.5 ab
275.1
Means followed by a different letter within a given year are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Table 7. Berry sugar content at harvest (ºBrix), in each treatment, in five
experimental seasons.
Irrigation treatment
Sugar content (°Brix)
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
T1
18.97
20.5
17.39
21.45
21.08 a
T2
18.21
18.23
17.34
21.92
21.06 a
T3
18.38
18.98
17.61
21.31
20.95 ab
T4
18.84
19.35
17.43
21.79
20.43 b
Means followed by a different letter within a given year are significantly different at P < 0.05.
Finally, a production function was established correlating relative yield (actual treatment
yield/maximum yield) to water applied in terms of percentage of ETc (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Relative yield as a function of applied water (% ETc). Relative yields represent
the yield of each treatment divided by the highest yield recorded.
Relative yield increased by 30% when applied water increased from 40%–100% of ETc, and above
this amount relative yield did not increase (Figure 5). Williams et al. [17], in Thompson Seedless
destined to raisin production, found that yield increased when water applied was increased up to 80%
ETc. A linear relationship between water applied and relative yield of Crimson Seedless cultivar in the
Aconcagua Valley was reported by Ferreyra et al. [34]; the exportable production increased by 22%
y = -4E-05x2+ 0.0103x + 0.2827
R² = 0.8671
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170 190
Relative yield
Applied water (% ETc)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Agronomy 2015, 5 414
when the water applied was increased from 40%–100% of ETc. Netzer et al. [35] in Superior cultivar in
Israel found that yield decreased by 29% when water application was reduced from 100%–40% of ETc.
Similar results were found by Vita et al. [36] in Argentina, also in the Superior cultivar. In our case, it
is interesting also to consider that berry size decreased as applied water was reduced (Figure 3). That
means that a reduced amount of water not only decreases total yield but the berry size, affecting
commercial quality.
Water use efficiency (WUE), defined as kilograms of fresh fruit per cubic meter of applied water,
increased as applied water decreased, from 2.3 (160% ETc) to 7 kg m a−3 (40% ETc) (Figure 6). Deficit
irrigation (RDI or SDI) has been proposed as one way to increase water use efficiency particularly for
woody perennial crops [9]. However, in our case increasing WUE over 3.7 kg m−3 the fruit commercial
quality diminished. Thompson Seedless for table grape production has high sensitivity to water deficit
when quality standards are considered. SDI below 80%–90% ETc is not recommended, at least
before harvest.
Figure 6. Water use efficiency (kg of fresh fruit per cubic meter of applied water, kg m−3)
as a function of applied water (% ETc).
4. Conclusions
Irrigation water above 90%–100% ETc did not increase fruit yield in table grapes, whereas the
application of water below 90% ETc decreased exportable yield and fruit quality as reflected by smaller
berry size and a greater proportion of yellow fruit. Irrigation amounts did not have a significant effect
on the other quality parameters such as firmness, sugar content and juice acidity. Pruning weight was
also affected when less water is applied, reducing shoot wood for future vine fructification,
compromising sustainable grape production. The SDI technique on table grapes could be used as a short
term strategy to avoid water scarcity, but not as a permanent or long term strategy, at least in the
Thomson Seedless cultivar. In this cultivar, it is better to irrigate a smaller surface with adequate amounts
of water, so the yield and quality of the fruit are not affected.
y = 155.25x-0.827
R² = 0.96**
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
30 50 70 90 110 130 150 170
WUE ( kg/m3)
Applied water ( percentaje ETc, %)
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Agronomy 2015, 5 415
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge INNOVA-CORFO, whom financed this research (project 05-CR11PAT-
11). Also the authors acknowledge Agricola El Maitenal S.A., where the research was done.
Authors Contribution
Gabriel Selles was responsible of the all research project and with Raúl Ferreyra were responsible for
the interpretation of results and manuscript preparation. Carlos Zuñiga and Cristina Aspillaga were
responsible for technician supervision and all phases of field operations, measurements and
statistical analysis
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. CIREN. Catastro Frutícola. In Principales Resultados Región de Valparaíso; Centro de Información
de Recursos Naturales (CIREN): Santiago, Chile, 2014; p. 44.
2. Novoa, R. and Villaseca, S. (Eds.) Mapa Agroclimático de Chile; Instituto de Investigaciones
Agropecuarias: Santiago, Chile, 1989; p. 221.
3. Villagra, P.; García de Cortázar, V.; Ferreyra, R.; Aspillaga, C.; Zuñiga, C.; Ortega-Farias, S.;
Selles, G. Estimation of water requirements and Kc values of “Thompson Seedless” table grapes
grown in the overhead trellis system, using the Eddy covariance method. Chill. J. Agric. Res. 2014,
74, 213–218.
4. Laraus, J.L. The problems of sustainable water use in the Mediterranean and research requirements
for agriculture. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2004, 144, 259–272.
5. Morison J.I.L.; Baker, N.R.; Mullineaux M.P.; Davies, W.J. Improving water use in crop production.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2008, 363, 639–665.
6. CONAMA. Estudio de Variabilidad Climática en Chile para el Siglo XXI; Departamento de
Geofísica, Facultad de Ciencias; Físicas y Matemáticas, Universidad de Chile: Santiago, Chile,
2006; p. 63.
7. AGRIMED. Análisis de vulnerabilidad del sector silvoagropecuario, recursos hídricos y edáficos
de Chile frente a escenarios de Cambio Climático. In Capítulo I: Impactos Productivos en el Sector
Silvoagropecuario de Chile Frente a Escenarios de Cambio Climático; Conama y Ministerio de
Agricultura: Santiago, Chile, 2008; p. 181.
8. Bates, B.C.; Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Wu, S.; Palutikof, J.P. Climate Change and Water.
IPCC Technical Paper VI; IPCC Secretariat: Geneva, Switzerland, 2008; p. 210.
9. Fereres, E.; Soriano, M.A. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J. Exp. Bot. 2007,
58,147–159.
Agronomy 2015, 5 416
10. Ferreyra, E.R.; Selles, V.G.Y.; Lemus, S.G. Efecto del estrés hídrico durante la fase II del
crecimiento del fruto del duraznero cv. Kakamas en el rendimiento y estado hídrico de las plantas.
Agric. Téc. (Chile) 2002, 62, 565–573.
11. Selles, G.; Ferreyra, R.; Selles, I.; Lemus, G. Efecto de diferentes regímenes de riego sobre la carga
frutal, tamaño de fruta y rendimiento del olivo cv Sevillana. Agric. Téc. (Chile) 2006, 66, 48–56.
12. Motilva, M.J.; Tovar, M.J.; Romero, M.P.; Alegre, S.; Girona, J. Influence of regulated deficit
irrigation strategies applied to olive trees (Arbequina cultivar) on oil yield and oil composition
during the fruit ripening period. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 2037–2043.
13. Ferreyra, R.; Selles, G.; Peralta, J.; Burgos, L.; Valenzuela, J. Efecto de la restricción del riego en
distintos períodos de desarrollo de la vid cv. Cabernet Sauvignon sobre producción y calidad del
vino. Agric. Téc. (Chile) 2002, 62, 406–417.
14. Girona, J.; Mata, M.; del Campo, J.; Arbonés, A.; Bartra E.; Marsal, J. The use of midday leaf water
potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24, 115–127.
15. Goldhamer, D.A.; Viveros, M.; Salinas M. Regulated deficit irrigation in almonds: Effects of
variations in applied water and stress timing on yield and yield components. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24,
101–114.
16. Fereres, E.; Evans, R.G. Irrigation of fruit trees and vines: An introduction. Irrig. Sci. 2006, 24,
55–57.
17. Williams, L.E.; Grimes, D.; Phene, C. The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured
evapotranspiration on reproductive growth and water productivity of Thompson Seedless
grapevines. Irrig. Sci. 2010, 28, 233–243.
18. Blanco, O.; Faci1, J.M.; Negueroles, J. Response of table grape cultivar “Autumn Royal” to
regulated deficit irrigation applied in post-veraison period. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 76–85.
19. El-Ansari, D.O.; Nakayama, S.; Hirano, K.; Okamoto, G. Response of “Muscat” table grapes to
post-veraison regulated deficit irrigation in Japan. Vitis 2005, 44, 5–9.
20. Ezzahouani, A.; Williams, L.E. Effect of irrigation amount and preharvest irrigation cutoff date on
vine water status and productivity of “Danlas” grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2007, 58, 333–340.
21. Williams, L.E.; Grimes, D.; Phene, C. The effects of applied water at various fractions of measured
evapotranspiration on water relations and vegetative growth of Thompson Seedless grapevines.
Irrig. Sci. 2010, 28, 221–232.
22. Allen, R.; Pereira, L.; Raes, D.Y.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing
Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998;
p. 300.
23. Williams, L.E.; Ayars, J. Grapevine water use and the crop coefficient are linear functions of the
shaded area measured beneath the canopy. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2005, 132, 201–211.
24. Selles, G.; Ferreyra, R.; Contreras, G.; Ahumada, R.; Valenzuela, J.; Bravo, R. Manejo del riego
por goteo en uva de mesa cv. Thompson Seedless cultivada en suelos de textura fina. Agric. Téc. (Chile)
2003, 63, 180–192.
25. Cassel, D.; Nielsen, D. Field capacity and available water capacity. In Methods of Soil Analysis,
Physical and Mineralogical Methods; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Wisconsin,
WI, USA, 1986; pp. 901–924.
Agronomy 2015, 5 417
26. Israelsen, O.W.; Hansen, V.E. Irrigation Principles and Practices, 3rd ed.; John Wiley and Sons:
New York, NY, USA, 1962; p. 447.
27. Saxton, K.E.; Rawls, W.J. Soil water characteristic estimates by texture and organic matter for
hydrologic solutions. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 1569–1578.
28. Schackel, K.A.; Ahmadi, H.; Biasi, W.; Buchner, R.; Goldhamer, D.; Gurusinghe, S.; Hasey, J.;
Kester, D.; Krueger, B.; Lampinen, B., et al. Plant water status as an index of irrigation needs in
deciduous fruit trees. Hort Technol. 1997, 7, 23–29.
29. Meyer, W.S.; Reicosky, D.C. Enclosing leaves for water potential measurements and its effect on
interpreting soil-induced water stress. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1985, 35, 187–192.
30. Grimes, D.W.; Williams, L.E. Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of
Thompson Seedless grapevines. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 255–260.
31. Selles, G.; Ferreyra, R.; Ahumada, R.; Muñoz, I.; Silva, H. Effect of soil water content and berry
phenological stages on trunk diameter variations in table grape. Acta Hortic. 2008, 792, 573–580.
32. Selles, G.; Ruiz, R.; Aspillaga, C.; Lira, W. Efecto del sombreamiento del parronal sobre la
acumulación de sólidos solubles, color y golpe de sol en uva de mesa var. Thompson Seedless.
Aconex 2010, 106, 22–25.
33. Muñoz-Robredo, P.; Robledo, P.; Manríquez, D.; Molina, R.; Defilippi, B. Characterization of
sugars and organic acids in commercial varieties of table grape. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 71,
452–458.
34. Ferreyra, R.; Selles, G.; Silva, H.; Ahumada, R.; Muñoz, I.; Muñoz, V. Efecto del agua aplicada
en las relaciones hídricas y productividad de la vid “Crimson Seedless”. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras.
2006, 41, 1109–1118.
35. Netzer, Y.; Yao, C.; Shenker, M.; Bravdo, B.A.; Schwartz, A. Water use and the development of
seasonal crop coefficient for Superior Seedless grapevines trained to an open-gable trellis system.
Irrig. Sci. 2009, 27, 109–120.
36. Vita, F.; Liotta, M.; Parera, C. Effects of irrigation deficit on table grape cv. Superior Seedless
production. Acta Hortic. 2004, 646, 183–186.
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
