Deficit Irrigation Practice - Fao 2002

ISSN 1020-1203
Water Reports 22
22
The scope for further irrigation development to meet food
requirements in the coming years has been strongly
diminished as a result of decreasing water resources and
growing competition for clean water. The great challenge for
the future will be the task of increasing food production with
less water, particularly in countries with limited water and land
resources. In the context of improving water productivity, there
is a growing interest in “deficit irrigation” – an irrigation practice
whereby water supply is reduced below maximum levels and
DEFICIT IRRIGATION PRACTICES

mild stress is allowed with minimal effects on yield. This
publication presents a range of studies, carried out for several
crops and under different ecological conditions, showing the
various options and practices of deficit irrigation and the
impacts of reduced irrigation water supply on crop yield. The
synthesis shows that deficit irrigation can result in substantial
water savings with little impact on the quality and quantity of
the harvested yield. However, to be successful, an intimate DEFICIT IRRIGATION
knowledge of crop behaviour is required, as crop response to
water stress varies considerably. PRACTICES
ISBN 92-5-104768-5 ISSN 1020-1203
FAO
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 4 7 6 8 2
TC/M/Y3655E/1/5.02/1300
Cover photo: Andreas Phocaides, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture,
Natural Resources and Environment. Microirrigation in young fruit-trees,
Nissou, Cyprus.
ISSN 1020-1203
Water Reports 22
DEFICIT IRRIGATION
PRACTICES
FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Rome, 2002
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this
information product do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations or the International Atomic Energy Agency
concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or
boundaries.
ISBN 92-5-104768-5
All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this

information product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are
authorized without any prior written permission from the copyright holders
provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this
information product for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited
without written permission of the copyright holders. Applications for such
permission should be addressed to the Chief, Publishing and Multimedia
Service, Information Division, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00100
Rome, Italy or by e-mail to copyright@fao.org
© FAO 2002
Deficit irrigation practices iii
Foreword
Irrigated agriculture makes a major contribution to food security, producing nearly 40 percent
of food and agricultural commodities on 17 percent of agricultural land. Irrigated areas have
almost doubled in recent decades and contributed much to the growth in agricultural productivity
over the last 50 years. Irrigated agriculture uses more than 70 percent of the water withdrawn
from the earth’s rivers; in developing countries the proportion exceeds 80 percent.
The scope for further irrigation development to meet food requirements in the coming years is,
however, severely constrained by decreasing water resources and growing competition for
clean water. While on a global scale water resources are still ample, serious water shortages are
developing in the arid and semi-arid regions as existing water resources reach full exploitation.
The situation is exacerbated by the declining quality of water and soil resources. The dependency
on water has become a critical constraint on further progress and threatens to slow down
development, endangering food supplies and aggravating rural poverty.
The great challenge for the coming decades will therefore be the task of increasing food
production with less water, particularly in countries with limited water and land resources.
Water productivity for food production was a major issue at the Second World Water Forum
convened in March 2000 by the World Water Council in The Hague, the Netherlands, where a
vision of progress towards water security was presented and an action framework for achieving
this was developed. One of its main targets was defined as the need to increase water productivity
for food production from rainfed and irrigated agriculture by 30 percent by 2015.
Water stress affects crop growth and productivity in many ways. Most of the responses have a
negative effect on production but crops have different and often complex mechanisms to react
to shortages of water. Several crops and genotypes have developed different degrees of drought
tolerance, drought resistance or compensatory growth to deal with periods of stress. The highest
crop productivity is achieved for high-yielding varieties with optimal water supply and high
soil fertility levels, but under conditions of limited water supply crops will adapt to water stress
and can produce well with less water.
In the context of improving water productivity, there is a growing interest in deficit irrigation,
an irrigation practice whereby water supply is reduced below maximum levels and mild stress
is allowed with minimal effects on yield. Under conditions of scarce water supply and drought,
deficit irrigation can lead to greater economic gains than maximizing yields per unit of water
for a given crop; farmers are more inclined to use water more efficiently, and more water-
efficient cash crop selection helps optimize returns. However, this approach requires precise
knowledge of crop response to water as drought tolerance varies considerably by species, cultivar
and stage of growth.
Recognizing the potential of deficit irrigation practices in conserving scarce water resources,
increasing farm profitability and enhancing environmental protection, the Joint FAO/IAEA
Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture coordinated a research project between
iv
1990 and 1995 entitled “The use of nuclear and related techniques in assessment of irrigation
schedules of field crops to increase effective use of water in Irrigation projects”. The results of
this project were published in 1996 in IAEA-TECDOC-888 Nuclear techniques to assess
irrigation schedules for field crops and externally in 1999 by Kluwer Academic Publishers
Crop yield response to deficit irrigation (C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera and D.R. Nielsen,
eds.).
The past five years have seen substantial progress in the practical application of deficit irrigation
for both annual and perennial crops. Recognizing the need for wide dissemination of this new
information, the Joint FAO/IAEA Division together with the FAO Land and Water Development
Division invited specialists in this sector of research and development to contribute to a new
publication to provide a state-of-the-art evaluation for a wide range of crops. Ms L.K. Heng
and Mr P. Moutonnet (IAEA, Vienna) and Mr M. Smith (FAO, Rome) implemented this task.
The aim of this publication is to provide further information on the way crops react to stress,
leading to practical guidelines to assist extensionists, farmers and decision-makers in minimizing
water use for optimal crop production.
Deficit irrigation practices v
Contents
FOREWORD iii
SUMMARY 1
DEFICIT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING BASED ON PLANT GROWTH STAGES SHOWING

WATER STRESS TOLERANCE
C. Kirda 3
YIELD RESPONSE FACTORS OF FIELD CROPS TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION

P. Moutonnet 11
USE OF THE FAO CROPWAT MODEL IN DEFICIT IRRIGATION STUDIES

M. Smith, D. Kivumbi and L.K. Heng 17
DEFICIT SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION OF COTTON 29

J.C. Henggeler, J.M. Enciso, W.L. Multer and B.L. Unruh
RESPONSE OF GROUNDNUT TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION DURING VEGETATIVE GROWTH

P.C. Nautiyal, Y.C. Joshi and Devi Dayal 39
DEFICIT IRRIGATION OF POTATO

C.C. Shock and E.B.G. Feibert 47
MANAGEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION OF WINTER WHEAT FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT

X. Zhang and D. Pei, Z. Li, J. Li and Y. Wang 57
SCHEDULING DEFICIT IRRIGATION OF FRUIT TREES FOR OPTIMIZING WATER USE EFFICIENCY
I. Goodwin and A.-M. Boland 67
REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION AND PARTIAL ROOTZONE DRYING AS IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

TECHNIQUES FOR GRAPEVINES
M.G. McCarthy, B.R. Loveys, P.R. Dry and M. Stoll 79
REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION AS A WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IN VITIS VINIFERA

PRODUCTION
R.L. Wample and R. Smithyman 89
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 101

vi
List of acronyms
CRP coordinated research project

DR diffusive resistance
DWU daily water use
Ec crop water use efficiency
Epan pan evaporation
ET evapotranspiration
ETa actual evapotranspiration
ETc crop evapotranspiration
ETm maximum evapotranspiration
ETo reference crop evapotranspiration
ETp potential evapotranspiration
GDD growing-degree-day
GMS granular matrix sensor
HI harvest index
HYV high-yielding variety
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency
IW/CPE irrigation water / cumulative pan evaporation
Kc crop coefficient
kPa kilopascal
ky crop yield response factor
LAI leaf area index
N nitrogen
NCP North China Plain
P phosphorous
PRD partial rootzone drying
RBD randomized block design
RDI regulated deficit irrigation
RWC relative water content
SDI subsurface drip irrigation
SMNP soil moisture neutron probe
SWP soil water potential
TR transpiration rate
UNR ultra-narrow row
WBC William Bon Chretien
Deficit irrigation practices 1
Summary
This publication presents the results of a number of deficit irrigation studies carried out for
various crops and under various ecological conditions, with a review of the impact of reduced
water supplies on crop yield. The results of the studies are presented in ten contributions prepared
by a team of scientists specialized in deficit irrigation. The articles were prepared at the request
of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture in close
collaboration with the FAO Land and Water Development Division.
The studies present the latest research concepts and involve various practices for deficit
irrigation. Both annual and perennial crops were exposed to different levels of water stress,
either during a particular growth phase, throughout the whole growing season or in a combination
of growth stages. The overall finding, based on the synthesis of the different contributions, is
that deficit or regulated-deficit irrigation can be beneficial where appropriately applied. Substantial
savings of water can be achieved with little impact on the quality and quantity of the harvested
yield. However, to be successful, an intimate knowledge of crop behaviour is required, as crop
response to water stress varies considerably.
The use of models can be an important tool to simulate crop water behaviour under different
conditions of water supply. The yield-response-to-water functions as developed by Doorenbos
and Kassam (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33) were tested with the FAO
CROPWAT model and applied successfully to evaluate and predict the impact of deficit irrigation
on crop yield. The crop parameters used in the model include the crop response factor, which
estimates relative yield reductions based on the measured reduction in crop transpiration. The
factor is a useful indicator for the sensitivity and tolerance of crop and crop stage to water
stress. Analyses showed that crops less sensitive to stress such as cotton, maize, groundnut,
wheat, sunflower and sugar beet can adapt well to deficit irrigation practices provided good
management practices can be secured. For more sensitive crops such as potatoes deficit irrigation
proved less economic.
A study carried out on winter wheat in the North China Plain (NCP) between 1992 and 2000
showed possible water savings of 25 – 75 percent by applying deficit irrigation at various growth
stages, without significant loss of yield and profits. A dynamic model was used to calculate the
net profits of the irrigation treatments. Procedures were developed to schedule irrigation
applications according to the number of irrigations required. For one irrigation, the application
should take place between jointing and booting; for two irrigations the applications should take
place between jointing and heading and from heading to early milk stage, while with three
irrigations, the applications should take place at tillering stage before over wintering, between
jointing and booting and from heading to milk stage.
In deficit studies carried out in India on irrigated groundnuts, it was possible to increase field
water use efficiency (WUE) and dry matter by imposing transient soil moisture-deficit stress
during the vegetative phase, i.e. 20 – 45 days after sowing. Water stress applied during vegetative
growth may have had a favourable effect on root growth, contributing to more effective water
use from deeper layers.
2 Summary
While most studies were able to demonstrate the benefits of deficit irrigation, potatoes grown
under sprinkler irrigation in the semi-arid environment of eastern Oregon, United States of
America, did not show an economic benefit when exposed to stress. Growing four varieties of
potato under various deficit irrigation treatments resulted in gross revenues declining by more
than the production costs, and hence reduced profits. The results of this case study suggest that
deficit irrigation of potatoes would not be a viable management option for that region under
current economic conditions.
Fruit crops such as peach and pear trees and grapevines reacted favourably to deficit irrigation
practices, with important water savings and improved fruit quality. In southeastern Australia,
regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) of peach and pear trees increased WUE by 60 percent, with
no loss in yield or reduction in vegetative vigour. In Washington State, United States of America,
RDI of grapevines prior to fruit set (veraison) was effective in controlling shoot growth and
pruning weights, with no significant reduction in yield. RDI applied after veraison to vines with
large canopies resulted in greater water deficit stress. Wine quality improved with pre-veraison
RDI applied as compared to post-veraison RDI. RDI applied at anytime resulted in better early-
season lignification of canes and cold hardening of buds.
In addition to RDI, partial root zone drying (PRD) is also a promising practice for inducing
stress tolerance in fruit trees. PRD is a new irrigation technique that subjects one-half of the
root system to a dry or drying phase while the other half is irrigated. The wetted and dried sides
of the root system alternate on a 10-14-day cycle. Both RDI and PRD systems require high
management skills. Close monitoring of soil water content is recommended. Both practices
improve the WUE of wine grape production. Micro-irrigation facilitates the application of RDI
and PRD. Practical guidelines for using RDI were developed.
Subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) also improved the WUE of crops and reduced farming
costs. An approach was developed for deficit SDI on cotton grown in arid east Texas, United
States of America, to enable farmers with a limited supply of water to decide on the optimal
area to plant and the best row width/pattern to apply. By applying deficit SDI, it proved more
economical to use the available water resources over the entire farm, rather than to try to
maximize water and yield on part of the farm. Moreover, with SDI, it proved possible to apply a
large part of the water required as pre-planting irrigation, thus effectively advancing the timing
of water application to the beginning of the season when more water is available.
In conclusion, with increasing scarcity and growing competition for water, there will be more
widespread adoption of deficit irrigation, especially in arid and semi-arid regions. The technique
has already been applied to a wide variety of crops as presented in this publication. However, as
different crops and trees respond differently to water stress, it is important that the technique
undergo continuous refinement and improvement, as deficit irrigation requires more sophisticated
water controls, accurate water management and soil water monitoring. Advances in new irrigation
technologies with more refined measuring techniques and soil water sensors will help improve
knowledge and management techniques. In this regard, recent years have witnessed major
advances in developing and marketing user-friendly and affordable soil water sensors, which
farmers are using increasingly in their farm management strategies. With these techniques, it is
then possible to identify irrigation scheduling strategies that minimize water demand with minimal
impacts on yields and crop quality, leading to improved food security.
Deficit irrigation scheduling based on

plant growth stages showing
water stress tolerance
SUMMARY
With increasing municipal and industrial demands for water, its allocation for agriculture is
decreasing steadily. The major agricultural use of water is for irrigation, which, thus, is affected by
decreased supply. Therefore, innovations are needed to increase the efficiency of use of the water
that is available. There are several possible approaches. Irrigation technologies and irrigation
scheduling may be adapted for more-effective and rational uses of limited supplies of water. Drip
and sprinkler irrigation methods are preferable to less efficient traditional surface methods. It is
necessary to develop new irrigation scheduling approaches, not necessarily based on full crop
water requirement, but ones designed to ensure the optimal use of allocated water. Deficit (or
regulated deficit) irrigation is one way of maximizing water use efficiency (WUE) for higher yields
per unit of irrigation water applied: the crop is exposed to a certain level of water stress either
during a particular period or throughout the whole growing season. The expectation is that any
yield reduction will be insignificant compared with the benefits gained through diverting the
saved water to irrigate other crops. The grower must have prior knowledge of crop yield responses
to deficit irrigation. This paper reviews yield responses of major field crops to deficit irrigation,
including cotton, maize, potato, sugar cane, soybean and wheat. Crop yields obtained under
various levels of reduced evapotranspiration were fitted to the linear crop yield response functions
of Stewart et al. (1977). Results show that cotton, maize, wheat, sunflower, sugar beet and potato
are well suited to deficit irrigation practices, with reduced evapotranspiration imposed throughout
the growing season. This list may also include common bean, groundnut, soybean and sugar cane
where reduced evapotranspiration is limited to (a) certain growth stage(s). With a 25 percent
deficit, WUE was 1.2 times that achieved under normal irrigation practices. Irrigation scheduling
based on deficit irrigation requires careful evaluation to ensure enhanced efficiency of use of
increasingly scarce supplies of irrigation water.
GENERAL CONCEPTS AND RATIONALE

In the past, crop irrigation requirements did not consider limitations of the available water supplies.
The design of irrigation schemes does not address situations in which moisture availability is the
major constraint on crop yields. However, in arid and semi-arid regions, increasing municipal
and industrial demands for water are necessitating major changes in irrigation management and
scheduling in order to increase the efficiency of use of water that is allocated to agriculture.
C. Kirda,
Cukuroya University,
Adana, Turkey
4 Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance
Agronomic measures such as varying tillage practices, mulching and anti-transpirants can
reduce the demand for irrigation water. Another option is deficit irrigation, with plants exposed
to certain levels of water stress during either a particular growth period or throughout the whole
growth season, without significant reduction in yields.
Much published research has evaluated the feasibility of deficit irrigation and whether
significant savings in irrigation water are possible without significant yield penalties. Stegman
(1982) reported that the yield of maize, sprinkler irrigated to induce a 30 – 40 percent depletion
of available water between irrigations, was not statistically different from the yield obtained
with trickle irrigation maintaining near zero water potential in the rootzone. Ziska and Hall
(1983) reported that cowpea had the ability to maintain seed yields when subjected to drought
during the vegetative stage provided subsequent irrigation intervals did not exceed eight days.
The work of Korte et al. (1983), Eck et al. (1987), Speck et al. (1989), and of many others, has
shown that soybean is amenable to limited irrigation. Stegman et al. (1990) indicated that although
short-term water stress in soybean during early flowering may result in flower and pod drop in
the lower canopy, increased pod set in the upper nodes compensates for this where there is a
resumption of normal irrigation.
Cotton shows complex responses to deficit irrigation because of its deep root system, its
ability to maintain low leaf water potential and to osmotically regulate leaf-turgor pressure, i.e.
so-called conditioning. Thomas et al. (1976) found that plants that suffered a gentle water
stress during the vegetative period showed higher tolerance of water deficit imposed later as a
result of adaptation to existing soil water status. Grimes and Dickens (1977) reported that both
early and late irrigations lowered cotton yields. However, water stress during vegetative growth,
causing leaf water potential less than a critical midday value of -1.6 MPa , adversely affected
the final yield (Grimes and Yamada, 1982).
Similar work on sugar beet (Okman, 1973; Oylukan, 1973; and Winter, 1980), sunflower
(Jana et al., 1982; Rawson and Turner, 1983; and Karaata, 1991), wheat (Day and Intalap,
1970; and Musick and Dusck, 1980), potato (Bartoszuk, 1987; Trebejo and Midmore, 1990; and
Minhas and Bansal, 1991) and on many other crops has demonstrated the possibility of achieving
optimum crop yields under deficit irrigation practices by allowing a certain level of yield loss
from a given crop with higher returns gained from the diversion of water for irrigation of other
crops. Where water scarcity exists at the regional level, irrigation managers should adopt the
same approach to sustain regional crop production, and thereby maximize income (Stegman et
al., 1980). This new concept of irrigation scheduling has different names, such as regulated
deficit irrigation, pre-planned deficit evapotranspiration, and deficit irrigation (English et al.,
1990).
Furthermore, yield reductions from disease and pests, losses during harvest and storage, and
arising from insufficient applications of fertilizer are much greater than reductions in yields
expected from deficit irrigation. On the other hand, deficit irrigation, where properly practised,
may increase crop quality. For example, the protein content and baking quality of wheat, the
length and strength of cotton fibres, and the sucrose concentration of sugar beet and grape all
increase under deficit irrigation.
DEFICIT IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

Deficit irrigation practices differ from traditional water supplying practices. The manager needs
to know the level of transpiration deficiency allowable without significant reduction in crop
yields. The main objective of deficit irrigation is to increase the WUE of a crop by eliminating
irrigations that have little impact on yield. The resulting yield reduction may be small compared
with the benefits gained through diverting the saved water to irrigate other crops for which
water would normally be insufficient under traditional irrigation practices.
Before implementing a deficit irrigation programme, it is necessary to know crop yield
responses to water stress, either during defined growth stages or throughout the whole season
(Kirda and Kanber, 1999). High-yielding varieties (HYVs) are more sensitive to water stress
than low-yielding varieties; for example, deficit irrigation had a more adverse efect on the yields
of new maize varieties than on those of traditional varieties (FAO, 1979). Crops or crop varieties
that are most suitable for deficit irrigation are those with a short growing season and are tolerant
of drought (Stewart and Musick, 1982).
In order to ensure successful deficit irrigation, it is necessary to consider the water retention
capacity of the soil. In sandy soils plants may undergo water stress quickly under deficit irrigation,
whereas plants in deep soils of fine texture may have ample time to adjust to low soil water
matric pressure, and may remain unaffected by low soil water content. Therefore, success with
deficit irrigation is more probable in finely textured soils.
Under deficit irrigation practices, agronomic practices may require modification , e.g. decrease
plant population, apply less fertilizer, adopt flexible planting dates, and select shorter-season
varieties.
DEFICIT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

Discussions in this section are based on data from a coordinated research programme (CRP) on
crop yield responses to deficit irrigation Kirda et al., 1999b, conducted under the auspices of the
Soil and Water Management and Crop Nutrition Section of the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of
Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, Vienna. A wide range of field crops (including
cotton, wheat, sugar beet, soybean, sugar cane, potato, and maize) were the subject of four
years of field experiments. Crop yield response data from deficit irrigation were fitted to the
following linear equation used earlier by Stewart et al. (1977):
Y é ET ù
= 1 - k y ê1 - a ú (1)
Ym ë ETm û
where Y and Ym are expected and maximum crop yields, corresponding to ETa and ETm, actual
and maximum evapotranspiration, respectively; ky is a crop yield response factor that varies
depending on species, variety, irrigation method and management, and growth stage when deficit
evapotraspiration is imposed. The crop yield response factor gives an indication of whether the
crop is tolerant of water stress. A response factor greater than unity indicates that the expected
relative yield decrease for a given evapotraspiration deficit is proportionately greater than the
relative decrease in evapotranspiration (Kirda et al., 1999a). For example, soybean yield decreases
proportionately more where evapotranspiration deficiency takes place during flowering and pod
development rather than during vegetative growth (Figure 1).
Table 1 summarizes crop response factors that are less than unity for situations where deficit
irrigation practices may seem to be acceptable and an infeasible option either for the season or
for a particular growth stage. Under the defined conditions, the relative yield decrease was
TABLE 1
Crop response factors where yield reduction is proportionally less than relative evapotranspiration
deficit
Crop Specific growth stage ky Irrigation Reference
method
Common Vegetative; 0.57 Furrow Calvache and Reichardt (1999)
bean Yield formation 0.87
Whole season 0.99 Sprinkler
Flowering and yield 0.99 Sprinkler Bastug (1987)
formation
Whole season 0.86 Drip Yavuz (1993)
Cotton Bud formation; 0.75 Check Prieto and Angueira (1999)
Flowering 0.48 Furrow
Boll formation; 0.46 Furrow Anac et al. (1999)
Flowering; 0.67
Vegetation 0.88
Groundnut Flowering 0.74 Furrow Ahmad (1999)
Maize Whole season 0.74 Sprinkler Craciun and Craciun (1999)
Soybean Vegetative 0.58 Furrow Kirda et al. (1999a)
Whole season 0.91 Furrow Karaata (1991)
Sunflower
Vegetative and yielding 0.83 Furrow
Whole season; 0.86 Furrow
Yield formation and 0.74 Furrow
Sugar beet ripening; 0.64 Bazza and Tayaa(1999)
Vegetative and yield
formation
Sugar cane Tillering 0.40 Furrow Pene and Edi (1999)
Vegetative; 0.40
Flowering; 0.33 Furrow Iqbal et al. (1999)
Potato Tuber formation 0.46
Whole season 0.83 Drip Kovacs et al. (1999)
Whole season; 0.76 Sprinkler Madanoglu (1977)
Wheat Whole season 0.93 Basin
Flowering and grain 0.39 Basin Waheed et al. (1999)
filling
proportionately less than the decreased

application of irrigation water. FIGURE 1
Relative seed yield response of soybean to relative
Therefore, one should expect crop ET deficit
WUE (Ec) to increase even if crop
yields fell. The equation for crop WUE -1
is: 1 - ET . ET m
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Y 1.0
Ec = (2)
ETa
N
TIO
TA 0.8
where:
T
E
EG
EN
8, V G
0.5 IN
PM
Y = crop yield (kg/ha) ky = ER 0.6

-1
O
Y. Ym
W
ETa = actual evapotranspiration (mm)
EL
LO
,F
EV
13
D
1. 0.4
D
=
Alternatively, the equation for crop
O
ky
,P
WUE can be derived from Equation

76
1.
0.2
SOYBEAN
(1):
y=
k
0
Y é k y - 1 ù Ym
Ec = = êk y - ú´ (3)
ETa ë ETa / ETm û ETm
TABLE 2
Expected relative yield and relative water use efficiency, for a planned evapotraspiration deficit of
25 percent
Crop Stage when ET ky Irrigation Expected Relative water
deficit occurred method relative yield use efficiency
Common bean Vegetative; 0.57 Furrow 0.86 1.14
Yield formation 0.87 0.78 1.04
Whole season; 0.86 Drip 0.79 1.05
Cotton Boll formation and 0.48 Furrow 0.88 1.17
flowering
Groundnut Flowering 0.74 Furrow 0.82 1.09
Maize Whole season 0.74 Sprinkler 0.82 1.09
Potato Whole season; 0.83 Drip 0.79 1.06
Vegetative 0.40 Furrow 0.90 1.20
Soybean Vegetative 0.58 Furrow 0.86 1.14
Sugar beet Whole season; 0.86 Furrow 0.79 1.05
Mid-season 0.64 0.84 1.12
Sugar cane Tillering 0.40 Furrow 0.90 1.20
Sunflower Whole season; 0.91 Furrow 0.77 1.03
Vegetative yielding 0.83 0.79 1.06
Wheat Whole season; 0.76 Sprinkler 0.81 1.08
Flowering and grain 0.39 Basin 0.90 1.20
filling
where E c varies depending on

FIGURE 2
crop response factor. Diverting the Dependence of crop field water use efficiency on the crop
saved water to increase the area yield response factor and planned ET deficit, percentage
irrigated may compensate for values
decreases in crop yields. Table 2
-1
1.40
(Y/ET).(Ym /ETm)
shows probable increases in

30 %
irrigation WUE, corresponding to 1.20 20
a 25 percent relative evapo- 10
1.00
transpiration deficit for the main
field crops. Estimates of relative 0.80
crop yields were made where yield 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
decreases were less than relative
evapo-transpiration deficits. For Crop response factor, k y
example, an expected yield was 82
percent for maize for the 25
percent relative ET deficit, when it prevailed for the whole growing season (Table 2). The field
crop WUE was 1.09 times higher than when no ET deficit occurred. This suggests that increasing
the areas irrigated with the water saved would compensate for any yield loss. If the planned ET
deficit is imposed throughout the season, it is possible to calculate the total irrigation water saved
if one knows total crop water requirement. However, if the stress is imposed during a specific
growth stage, one needs to know the total water requirement (i.e. crop water consumption)
during that stage to quantify the water saved. As crop yield response factor (ky) increases, field
WUE decreases, which in turn implies that benefit from deficit irrigation is unlikely. Figure 2
shows interrelations between field WUE, crop yield response factor, and planned ET deficit.
Only those crops and growth stages with a lower crop yield response factor (ky<1.0) can generate
significant savings in irrigation water through deficit irrigation.
CONCLUSIONS
The proper application of deficit irrigation practices can generate significant savings in irrigation
water allocation. Among field crops, groundnut, soybean, common bean and sugar cane show
proportionately less yield reduction than the relative evapotraspiration deficit imposed at certain
growth stages.
Crops such as cotton, maize, wheat, sunflower, sugar beet and potato are well suited for
deficit irrigation applied either throughout the growing season or at pre-determined growth stages.
For example, deficit irrigation imposed during flowering and boll formation stages in cotton,
during vegetative growth of soybean, flowering and grain filling stages of wheat, vegetative and
yielding stages of sunflower and sugar beet will provide acceptable and feasible irrigation options
for minimal yield reductions with limited supplies of irrigation water. This work may provide
guidelines for practising deficit irrigation for identifying likely growth stages for imposing reduced
ET, and for assessing the economic feasibility and acceptability of deficit irrigation through the
estimation of expected relative yield decreases.
REFERENCES
Ahmad, A. 1999. Yield response of groundnut grown under rainfed and irrigated conditions. In: C. Kirda,
P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Anac, M.S., Ali Ul, M., Tuzel, I.H., Anac, D., Okur, B. & Hakerlerler, H. 1999. Optimum irrigation scheduling
for cotton under deficit irrigation conditions. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds.
Crop yield response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bartoszuk, W. 1987. Decrease in potato yield resulting from water deficit during the growing season.
Potato Abstracts 15, Abst. No. 194.
Bastug, R. 1987. A study on determining the water production function of cotton under Cukuorova
conditions (Ph.D. Thesis, Turkish). Adana, Turkey, Cukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture.
Bazza, M. 1999. Improving irrigation management. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds.
Bazza, M. &Tayaa, M. 1999. Contribution to improve sugar beet deficit-irrigation. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet,
C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Calvache, M. & Reichardt, K. 1999. Effects of water stress imposed at different plant growth stages of
common bean (Pahaseolus vulgaris) on yield and N2 fixation. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera &
D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Craciun, L. & Craciun, M. 1999. Water and nitrogen use efficiency under limited water supply for maize
to increase land productivity. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield
response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Day, A.D. & Intalap, S. 1970. Some effects of soil moisture stress on the growth of wheat. Agronomy
Journal, 62: 27-29.
Eck, H.V., Mathers, A.C. & Musick, J.T. 1987. Plant water stress at various growth stages and growth and
yield of soybean. Field Crops Research, 17: 1-16.
English, M.J., Musick, J.T. and Murty, V.V. 1990. Deficit irrigation. In: G.J. Hoffman, T.A. Towell & K.H.
Solomon, eds. Management of farm irrigation systems, St. Joseph, Michigan, United States of America,
ASAE.
FAO. 1979. Yield response to water by J. Doorenbos & A.H. Kassam. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.
33. FAO, Rome.
Grimes, D.W. & Dickens, W.L. 1977. Cotton response to irrigation. California Agriculture 31, No. 5.
Berkeley, California, United States of America, University of California.
Grimes, D.W. & Yamada, Y.H. 1982. Relation of cotton growth and yield to minimum leaf water potential.
Crop Science 22: 134-139.
Iqbal, M.M., Shah, S.M., Mohammad, W. & Nawaz, H. 1999. Field response of potato subjected to water
stress at different growth stages. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield
Jana, P.K., Misra, B. & Kar, P.K. 1982. Effects of irrigation at different physiological stages of growth on
yield attributes, yield, consumptive use, and water use efficiency of sunflower. Indian Agriculturist
26: 39-42.
Karaata, H. 1991. Kirklareli kosullarinda aycicegi bitkisinin su-üretim fonksiyonlari. Köy Hizmetleri Arastirma
Enst. Kirklareli, Turkey (Turkish), Report No 24 (PhD Thesis).
Kirda, C. & Kanber, R. 1999. Water, no longer a plentiful resource, should be used sparingly in irrigated
agriculture. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit
irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Kirda, C, Kanber, R. & Tulucu, K. 1999a.Yield response of cotton, maize, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower
and wheat to deficit irrigation. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield
Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C. & Nielsen, D.R (eds.). 1999b. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation.
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Korte, L. L., Williams, J.H. & Sorencen, R.C. 1983. Irrigation of soybean genotypes during reproductive
ontogeny. I. Agronomic responses. Crop Science 23: 521-527.
Kovacs, T., Kovacs, G. & Szito, J. 1999. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation imposed at different plant
growth stages. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit
irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Madanoglu, K. 1997. Water consumption of wheat (Yektay 406) in central Anatolia. Publication No. 52.
Ankara. Ankara Central TOPRAKSU Research Institute. p. 67.
Minhas, J.S. & Bansal, K.C. 1991. Tuber yield in relation to water stress at stages of growth in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of the Indian Potato Association 18: 1-8.
Musick, J.I. & Dusck, D.A. 1980. Planting date and water deficit effects on development and yield of
irrigated winter wheat. Agronomy Journal, 72: 45-52.
Okman, C. 1973. Ankara Sartlarinda Seker Pancarinin su Istihlakinin Tayini Üzerinde bir Arastirma
(Ph.D. Thesis). Ankara, Ankara University Publications.
Oylukan, S. 1973. Cesitli mahsüllerde ekonomik sulama sayisinin tesbiti denemesi sonuc raporu. Eskisehir
Bölge TOPRAKSU Arastirma Enst. Md. 71, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Pene, C.B.G. & Edi, G.K. 1999. Sugarcane yield response to deficit irrigation at two growth stages. In: C.
Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Prieto, D. & Angueira, C. 1999. Water stress effect on different growing stages for cotton and its influence
on yield reduction. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds. Crop yield response to
deficit irrigation, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Rawson, H.M. & Turner, N.C. 1983. Irrigation timing and relationship between leaf area and yield in
sunflower. Irrigation Science 4: 167-175.
Speck, J.E., Elmore, R.W., Eisenhauer, D.E. & Klocke, N.W. 1989. Growth stage scheduling criteria for
sprinkler-irrigated soybeans. Irrigation Science 10: 99-111.
Stegman, E. C. 1982. Corn grain yield as influenced by timing of evapotranspiration. Irrigation Science 3:
75-87.
Stegman, E.C., Musick, J.T. & Stewart, J.I. 1980. Irrigation water management. In: M.E. Jensen ed. Design
and operation of farm irrigation systems. St. Joseph, Michigan, United States of America, ASAE.
Stegman, E.C., Schatz, B.G. & Gardner, J.C. 1990. Yield sensitivities of short season soybeans to irrigation
management. Irrigation Science 11: 111-119.
Stewart, J.I., Cuenca, R.H., Pruitt, W.O., Hagan, R.M. & Tosso, J. 1977. Determination and utilization of
water production functions for principal california crops. W-67 California Contributing Project Report.
Davis, United States of America, University of California.
Stewart, B.A. & Musick, J.T. 1982. Conjunctive use of irrigation and rainfall in semi-arid regions. Advances
in Agronomy 1: 1-23.
Thomas, J.C., Brown, K.W. & Jordan, J.R. 1976. Stomatal response to leaf water potential as affected by
preconditioning water stress in the field. Agronomy Journal 68: 706-708.
Trebejo, I. & Midmore, D.J. 1990.Effects of water stress on potato growth, yield and water use in a hot
and cool tropical climate. Journal of Agricultural Science 114: 321-334
Waheed, R.A., Naqvi, H.H., Tahir, G.R. & Naqvi, S.H.M. 1999. Some studies on pre-planned controlled soil
moisture irrigation scheduling of field crops.In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera & D.R. Nielsen, eds.
Winter, S.R. 1980. Suitability of sugar beets for limited irrigation in semi-arid climate. Agronomy Journal
72: 649-653.
Yavuz, M.Y. 1993. Farkli Sulama Yontemlerinin Pamukta Verim ve su Kullanimina Etkileri (Ph.D. Thesis).
Adana, Turkey, Cukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture.
Ziska, L.H. & Hall, A.E. 1983. Seed yields and water use of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.)
subjected to planned water deficit irrigation. Irrigation Science 3: 237-245.
Yield response factors of field crops

to deficit irrigation
SUMMARY
Water is essential for crop production, and any shortage has an impact on final yields. Therefore,
farmers have a tendency to over-irrigate, an approach that runs counter to the conservation of
scarce resources. At present, owing to the global expansion of irrigated areas and the limited
availablility of irrigation water, there is a need to optimize WUE in order to maximize crop yields
under frequently occurring situations of deficit irrigation. When water deficit occurs during a
specific crop development period, the yield response can vary depending on crop sensitivity at
that growth stage. Therefore, timing the water deficit appropriately is a tool for scheduling
irrigation where a limited supply of water is available. A standard formulation relates four parameters
(Ya, Ym, ETa and ETm) to a fifth: ky, the yield response factor, which relates relative yield decrease
to relative evapotranspiration deficit. Two series of ky values obtained from FAO data sets and
from an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinated research project (CRP) showed
a wide range of variation for this parameter 0.20 < ky < 1.15 (FAO), and 0.08 < ky < 1.75 (IAEA). The
two data sets, whilst showing the same trends, gave neither identical average values for ky nor
similar ranges of variation.
Water is a finite resource for which there is increasing competition among agricultural, industrial
and domestic sectors. According to Kemp (1996), in Mediterranean countries, “The World
Bank argues that the allocation of water to agriculture, which accounts for about 90 percent of
regional water use, no longer makes economic sense… In Morocco, for example, it is estimated
that the value added by a cubic meter of water in irrigated agriculture is a mere 15 cents; used
in industry it is a striking $25. In Jordan, which uses highly efficient drip irrigation for over half
of its irrigated agriculture, the equivalent figures are 30 cents for agriculture and $15 for industry.”
Therefore, there is an urgent need to maximize crop yields under conditions of limited water
supply. Kang et al. (2000) have shown that regulated deficit irrigation at certain periods during
maize growth saved water while maintaining yield.
The upper limit for yield is set by soil fertility, climatic conditions and management practices.
Where all of these are optimal throughout the growing season, yield reaches the maximum value
as does evapotranspiration. Any significant decrease in soil water storage has an impact on
water availability for a crop and, subsequently, on actual yield and actual evapotranspiration. A
standard formulation (Vaux and Pruitt, 1983) relates these four parameters to a fifth: the yield
P. Moutonnet,
International Atomic Energy Agency,
Joint FAO/IAEA Division,
Vienna, Austria
12 Yield response factors of field crops to deficit irrigation
response factor, which links relative yield decrease to relative evapotranspiration deficit, as
follows:
Ya ET
1- = ky ´ ( 1 - a ) (1)
Ym ETm
where: Ya = actual yield (kg/ha)
Ym = maximum yield (kg/ha)
ETa = actual evotranspiration (mm)
Etm = maximum evapotranspiration (mm)
ky = yield response factor
Calculations of Ym, ETm and ETa are well documented (FAO, 1977; and FAO, 1998) and the
literature has provided values for ky (FAO, 1979). From these four parameters, it is possible to
calculate Ya where the available water supply does not meet the full moisture requirements of
the crop. Where water deficit occurs during a specific growth stage, the yield response will
depend on crop sensitivity during that period. Therefore, the timing of the deficit is a tool for
scheduling the use of a limited water supply and in setting priorities among several irrigated
crops. As an example, the World Meteorological Organization recommended the utilization of
Computer-Aided Learning (CAL) software in meteorology (Bell, 1994), especially the French
educational computer program BILHY (Bilan Hydrique). BILHY is useful for training extension
workers and meteorologists in the subject of soil moisture; the user has to decide, according to
pedological, agricultural and meteorological parameters, whether or not to irrigate.
FAO has facilitated the calculation of crop water requirements and irrigation planning through
a series of technical papers (FAO, 1992; and FAO, 1993). Nevertheless, the process is still
difficult and requires several data sets. Another approach is based on field experiments on crops
exposed to deficit irrigation, with soil moisture status monitored using the soil moisture neutron
probe (SMNP) and sets of tensiometers (Vachaud et al., 1978). The SMNP is useful for assessing
the soil hydraulic conductivity versus the soil water content throughout the internal drainage
process, as described by Hillel et al. (1972) and Libardi et al. (1980). The monitoring of soil
water content profiles (with the SMNP) and gradients of hydraulic heads below the rootzone
(with tensiometers) allows the periodical calculation of water balance and water flows, and
hence access to ETa and subsequently to the yield response factors ky.
Mannocchi and Mecarelli (1994) showed that, using Equation (1), it was possible to model
relationships between crop yield and water applied. These relationships acted as a constraint in
a mathematical programming framework, with the aim of optimizing (in economic terms) the
application of available irrigation water, taking into account the possibility of varying the cropping
pattern. An optimal solution was possible only on an annual basis; there was an attempt to define
a method for determining a single, constant and optimal solution.
The objective of this study was to compare two series of yield response factors ky obtained
separately by FAO, through the literature or calculations, and by an IAEA coordinated research
project (CRP) under monitored field conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Implementation of the CRP “Nuclear techniques to assess irrigation schedules for field crops”
involved a network of eleven developing countries from 1990 to 1995; results were published in
a technical document (IAEA, 1996), with a later synthesis of this research in book form (Kirda
et al., 1999). The measurements of crop yield responses to deficit irrigation related to two sets
of conditions:
• A reduced amount of irrigation water and a deficit imposed throughout the season. The code
for this treatment was Tr.0000. An SMNP took weekly measurements of the soil water content
profile; the irrigation scheduleing was such as to maintain the soil water storage at 50 – 70
percent of its capacity.
• Water stress was imposed during specific growth stages of the crop under consideration. In
general, four physiological growth stages for each crop are sufficient to describe their sensitivity
to water stress: (a) initial (planting to 10 percent ground cover); (b) crop development (10
percent ground cover to effective full cover and initiation of flowering); (c) mid-season
(effective soil cover to onset of maturity); (d) late season (onset of maturity to harvest). The
deficit irrigation was applied only during one specific growth stage to be assessed for water
sensitivity. The codes for these treatments were Tr.0111, Tr.1011, Tr.1101 and Tr.1110 (i.e. 0 and 1
correspond to the stages during which irrigation water was or was not restricted, respectively).
During the period of restricted irrigation, the threshold of 50 – 70 percent, was enforced.
Periodical SMNP profiles and tensiometer readings were used both for monitoring soil water
storage and for calculating ETa throughout the successive crop growth periods.
RESULTS TABLE 1
FAO yield response factors
Table 1 collates values of k y from FAO Crop Tr.0000* Tr.0111 Tr.1011 Tr.1101 Tr.1110
publications for 11 crops or crop yields. Table Cotton 0.85 0.20 0.50 0.25
2 collates values of ky obtained by research- Bean 1.15 0.20 1.10 0.75 0.20
contract holders for the IAEA CRP for ten Groundnut 0.70 0.20 0.80 0.60 0.20
crops in nine countries. Some crops were Maize 1.25
Potato 1.10 0.60 0.70 0.20
grown in more than one country; e.g. cotton
Soybean 0.85 0.20 0.80 1.00
was cultivated in three countries, and some Sugar cane 1.20 0.75 0.50 0.50 0.10
values were not calculated/obtained for Sugar beet 0.80
certain crop growth periods. Sugar beet 0.90
Sunflower 0.95 0.40 1.00 0.80
FAO vs. CRP comparisons were possible Winter wheat 1.00 0.20 0.60 0.50
for 21 pairs of ky values (Table 3). Some crops *Corresponds to continuous deficit irrigation, whereas Tr.0111 to Tr.1110
correspond to restricted water supplies imposed at specific growth
(cotton, wheat and bean) may be over- stages.
represented as they were grown in more than
FIGURE 1
in one country. The t-Test gave a significant Comparative assessment of response
difference between the ky pairs at the 1- factors, FAO vs. CRP
percent level of probability (and at the 2-
2
percent level with the two-tail distribution).
The average ky value was higher (+38 1.5
K y from FAO
percent) for the CRP series than for the FAO

1
series. Therefore, in-field experiments
indicated a higher impact of deficit irrigation
0.5
practices on crop yield than previously
expected. 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Figure 1 shows the same data; the
K y from CRP
correlation was weak (Pearson correlation =
TABLE 2
CPR yield response factors
Crop, country Tr.0000* Tr.0111 Tr.1011 Tr.1101 Tr.1110
Bean, Brazil 0.59 0.38 1.75 1.44 0.08
Bean, Ecuador 1.43 0.56 1.35 0.87 0.17
Cotton, Argentina 1.02 0.75 0.48
Cotton, Pakistan 0.71 0.80 0.60 0.05
Cotton, Turkey 0.99 0.76
Groundnut, Malaysia 0.74
Maize, Romania 1.33
Potato, Pakistan 0.40 0.33 0.46
Soybean, Turkey 0.58 1.13 1.76
Sugar cane, Senegal 0.20 1.20 1.20
Sugar cane, Senegal 0.40 1.20 1.20
Sugar beet, Morocco 0.95
Sugar beet, Morocco 1.07
Sunflower, Turkey 0.91 1.19 0.94 1.14
Wheat, Chile 1.32 0.55 0.90 0.44 0.25
Wheat, Pakistan 0.87 2.54 0.81 0.48 0.62
*Corresponds to continuous deficit irrigation, whereas Tr.0111 to Tr.1110
correspond to restricted water supplies imposed at specific growth stages.
0.43) and the range of variation of ky TABLE 3

was wider for the CRP data than for Twenty-one pairs of response factors values obtained
the FAO data (slope = 0.65). Therefore, from the CRP and FAO publications
although there was a significant C CRP FAO
relationship between the two sets of Var. 1 Var. 2
data, the in-field values obtained by the 0.59 1.15
CRP research group were greater than 0.38 0.2
published FAO data, particularly for 1.75 1.1 Variable 1 Variable 2
small reductions in yield through deficit 1.44 0.75 Mean 0.837 0.614
irrigation (intercept = 0.44). At the 0.08 0.20 Variance 0.192 0.082

0.99 0.85 Observations 21 21
highest levels of yield reduction, in-field
0.76 0.50 Pearson correlation 0.428
CRP data were also higher than FAO
1.02 0.85 Hypothesized mean 0
data. It would be worthwhile completing difference
these data sets by further calculations 0.75 0.20 df 20
and with well managed field 0.48 0.50 t stat 2.505
experiments on different soils and in 1.32 1.00 P(T<=t) one-tail 0.010
different geographical areas. 0.55 0.20 t critical one-tail 1.724
0.90 0.60 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.020
0.44 0.50 t critical two-tail 2.085
CONCLUSIONS 0.20 0.75
1.20 0.50
Crop production depends mainly on soil 1.20 0.50
water status throughout the growing 0.40 0.75
season. A high level of soil water 1.20 0.50
availability usually ensures an optimal 1.20 0.50
yield with maximum ETa with potential 0.74 0.80
losses of water and N fertilizer through
leaching. Any restriction in the supply of irrigation water is likely to induce a decrease in crop
yield. However, the impact of deficit irrigation on crop yield can be insignificant where the
water stress is applied to the crop during specific growth stages that are less sensitive to moisture
deficiency. The two series of yield response factors, ky, showed wide ranges of variation of this
parameter: 0.20 < ky < 1.15 (FAO), and 0.08 < ky < 1.75 (CRP). The two data sets, whilst
showing the same trends, gave neither identical average values for ky nor similar ranges of
variation.
Therefore, it will be necessary to extend these data sets to other crops and cultivars, and to
other soils and weather conditions, to achieve mathematical optimization of deficit irrigation
systems.
REFERENCES
Bell, I. 1994. Computer-aided learning in meteorology. WMO Bulletin 43: 318-324.
FAO. 1977. Crop water requirement. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. Rome.
FAO. 1979. Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Rome.
FAO. 1992. CROPWAT. A computer program for irrigation planning and management. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 46. Rome.
FAO. 1993. CLIMWAT for CROPWAT. A climatic database for irrigation planning and management.
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 49. Rome.
FAO. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration; guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome.
Hillel, D., Krentos, V. & Stilianov Y. 1972. Procedure and test of an internal drainage method for measuring
soil hydraulic characteristics in situ. Soil Science, 114: 395-400.
IAEA. 1996. Nuclear techniques to assess irrigation schedules for field crops. IAEA-TECDOC-888. Vienna.
Kang, S., Shi, W. & Zhang, J. 2000. An improved water-use efficiency for maize grown under regulated
deficit irrigation. Field Crops Research, 67: 207-214.
Kemp, P. 1996. New war of words over scarce water. Middle East Economic Digest 49: 2-7.
Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C. & Nielsen, D.R. (eds.) 1999. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation.
Libardi, P.L., Reichardt, K., Nielsen, D.R. & Biggar, J.W. 1980. Simple field methods for estimating soil
hydraulic conductivity. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 44: 3-7.
Mannocchi, F. & Mecarelli, P. 1994. Optimization analysis of deficit irrigation systems. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage Engineering, 120: 484-502.
Vachaud, G., Dancette, C., Sonko, M. & Thony J.L. 1978. Méthodes de caractérisation hydrodynamique
in situ d’un sol non saturé: application à deux types de sol du Sénégal en vue de la détermination des
termes du bilan hydrique. Annales Agronomiques, 29: 1-36.
Vaux, H.J. & Pruitt W.O. 1983. Crop-water production functions. In: D. Hillel, ed. Advances in irrigation,
Volume 2, p. 61-93. New York, United States of America, Academic Press.
Use of the FAO CROPWAT model

in deficit irrigation studies
SUMMARY
Dwindling water resources and increasing food requirements require greater efficiency in water
use, both in rainfed and in irrigated agriculture. Regulated deficit irrigation provides a means of
reducing water consumption while minimizing adverse effects on yield. Models can play a useful
role in developing practical recommendations for optimizing crop production under conditions of
scarce water supply. To assess the applicability of the FAO CROPWAT model for deficit irrigation
scheduling, a study utilized data provided in studies from a joint FAO/IAEA coordinated research
project (CRP) on “The use of nuclear and related techniques in assessment of irrigation schedules
of field crops to increase effective use of water in irrigation projects,” carried out in Turkey,
Morocco and Pakistan on cotton, sugar beet, and potato, respectively. The study revealed that the
CROPWAT model can adequately predict the effects of water stress, but requires calibration of the
main crop parameters. Procedures were developed to calibrate the various crop parameters based
on research findings from the treatments. The study demonstrated that the model could be useful
in improving the design of experimental methods in research studies and in identifying
inconsistencies in procedures and results. Furthermore, the model permitted a more systematic
analysis of results, a more uniform presentation of data, and a greater compatibility of results.
Moreover, this paper concludes that models are a powerful tool for extending findings and
conclusions to conditions not tested in the field, and that useful predictions on deficit irrigation
scheduling are possible under various conditions of water supply, soil, and of crop management.
Scarce water resources and growing competition for water will reduce its availability for irrigation.
At the same time, the need to meet the growing demand for food will require increased crop
production from less water. Achieving greater efficiency of water use will be a primary challenge
for the near future and will include the employment of techniques and practices that deliver a
more accurate supply of water to crops. In this context, deficit irrigation can play an important
role in increasing water use efficiency (WUE).
The objective of regulated deficit irrigation is to save water by subjecting crops to periods of
moisture stress with minimal effects on yields. The water stress results in less evapotranspiration
by closure of the stomata, reduced assimilation of carbon, and decreased biomass production.
The reduced biomass production has little effect on ultimate yields where the crop is able to
compensate in terms of reproductive capacity.
In some cases, periods of reduced growth may trigger physiological processes that actually
increase yield and/or income. Such processes include flower-induction in the case of cotton,
increased root development exploring deeper soil layers, early ripening of grains, and improved
M. Smith and D. Kivumbi, Land and Water Development Division,

Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy
L.K. Heng, Joint FAO/IAEA Division,
International Atomic Energy Agency,
Vienna, Austria
18 Use of the FAO CROPWAT model in deficit irrigation studies
quality and flavour of fruits. However, stress applied during reproductive growth can affect fruit
or grain set, resulting in decreased yields. The effects of stress on yields are complex and may
differ with species, cultivar, and growth stage; they have been the subject of many studies.
Extensive field research is required to better understand the physical and biological processes
that control crop responses to moisture stress.
For that purpose, the Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture
coordinated a research project that involved 14 member states in the period 1990 – 1995. The
objective of the research was to improve WUE through deficit irrigation scheduling. With a
common research protocol, scientists from the 14 cooperating research institutes defined field
procedures to assess the effects of fertility and water stress, applied at various growth stages,
on growth characteristics, yield and yield-quality. Based on the findings and knowledge of crop
sensitivity to water stress, it was possible to develop recommendations for irrigation scheduling
to meet moisture requirements during stress-sensitive growth stages and to impose deficits
during less stress-sensitive stages.
Models that simulate crop growth and water flow in the rootzone can be a powerful tool for
extrapolating findings and conclusions from field studies to conditions not tested, allowing
predictions for deficit irrigation scheduling under various conditions of water supply and of soil
and crop management. Furthermore, the use of models may be important to standardize research
procedures in such coordinated research programmes and thus facilitate more-meaningful
comparisons between studies carried out in different locations and countries.
The CROPWAT model developed by the FAO Land and Water Development Division (FAO,
1992) includes a simple water balance model that allows the simulation of crop water stress
conditions and estimations of yield reductions based on well established methodologies for
determination of crop evapotranspiration (FAO, 1998) and yield responses to water (FAO, 1979).
To assess the applicability of the CROPWAT programme for recommendations on deficit
irrigation scheduling, a study utilized data reported in studies from the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA).
METHODOLOGY
Data from three field studies within an FAO/IAEA coordinated research project (CRP), reported
by Kirda et al. (1999), were used to evaluate the utility of the CROPWAT model in simulating
deficit irrigation scheduling. The field studies applied various irrigation treatments for various
crops, inducing water stress at various growth stages, with soil water status determined over the
growing season using soil moisture neutron probe (SMNP). The reported information on climate,
soil and crops constituted the input data while the study used reported yield and crop consumptive
water use to validate the various crop parameters of CROPWAT model.
THE CROPWAT MODEL

CROPWAT is a computer program for irrigation planning and management, developed by the
Land and Water Development Division of FAO (FAO, 1992). Its basic functions include the
calculation of reference evapotranspiration, crop water requirements, and crop and scheme
irrigation. Through a daily water balance, the user can simulate various water supply conditions
and estimate yield reductions and irrigation and rainfall efficiencies. Typical applications of the
water balance include the development of irrigation schedules for various crops and various
irrigation methods, the evaluation of irrigation practices, as well as rainfed production and drought
effects. Calculations and outputs are based on the CROPWAT version 7.2, available at the FAO
Web site (http://www.fao.org/ agl/aglw/cropwat.htm).
Calculation procedure
The calculation of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is based on the FAO Penman-Monteith
method (FAO, 1998). Input data include monthly and ten-daily for temperature (maximum and
minimum), humidity, sunshine, and wind-speed. Crop water requirements (ETcrop) over the
growing season are determined from ETo and estimates of crop evaporation rates, expressed as
crop coefficients (Kc), based on well-established procedures (FAO, 1977), according to the
following equation:
ETcrop = Kc × ETo (1)
FAO (1998) has presented updated values for crop coefficients. Through estimates of effective
rainfall, crop irrigation requirements are calculated assuming optimal water supply. Inputs on the
cropping pattern will allow estimates of scheme irrigation requirements.
With inputs on soil water retention and infiltration characteristics and estimates of rooting
depth, a daily soil water balance is calculated, predicting water content in the rooted soil by
means of a water conservation equation, which takes into account the incoming and outgoing
flow of water.
Stress conditions in the root zone are defined by the critical soil water content, expressed as
the fraction of total available soil water between field capacity and wilting point that is readily
available for crop transpiration, and characterizes a soil moisture condition in which crop
transpiration is not limited by any flow restrictions in the rootzone.
The critical soil water content
FIGURE 1
varies for different crops and Crop evaporation rate under soil moisture stress
different crop stages and is
ACTUAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION RATE
determined by the rooting density
Eta/ETmax as function of soil moisture depletion
characteristics of the crop,
evaporation rate and, to some extent, 1.0
by the soil type. FAO (1998) has
0.8
updated the estimates of critical soil Readily available
moisture, representing onset of 0.6 soil moisture
stress, previously reported in FAO 0.4

(1977) and FAO (1979). R.A.M. Stress
0.2
Figure 1 presents the rate of 0.1
reduced crop evapotranspiration,
10 20 40 60 80 100
ETa/ETcrop, as estimated according
FC Soil moisture depletion % WP
to soil moisture depletion (FAO,
1992).
The effect of water stress on yield is quantified by relating the relative yield decrease to the
relative evapotranspiration deficit through an empirically derived yield response factor (Ky)
(FAO 1979):
Ya ET a
1- = K y (1 - ) (2)
Ymax ET m
where:
1–Ya/Ymax = the fractional yield reduction as a result of the
decrease in evaporation rate (1 – ETa/ETm)
An analysis of an extensive set of research information yielded values for (Ky) for 26 crops
at various growth stages. This enables the degree of sensitivity to water to be taken into account
estimates of yield reductions for various crops and growth stages based on soil moisture status.
CROPWAT input data

Calculations of water and irrigation requirements utilize inputs of climatic, crop and soil data, as
well as irrigation and rain data. The climatic input data required are reference evapotranspiration
(monthly/decade) and rainfall (monthly/decade/daily). Reference evapotranspiration can be
calculated from actual temperature, humidity, sunshine/radiation and wind-speed data, according
to the FAO Penman-Monteith method (FAO, 1998). The CLIMWAT-database provides monthly
climatic data for CROPWAT on 144 countries (FAO, 1993).
The crop parameters used TABLE 1
for the estimation of the crop Parameters for cotton in Turkey
evapotranspiration, water- Growth stage (planted 18 May)
balance calculations, and yield Init Devel Mid Late Total
reductions due to stress Crop coefficient (Kc)
include: Kc, length of the CROPWAT calibration 0.40 –>a 1.20 0.80
growing season, critical CROPWAT standard (FAO, 0.35 –> 1.20 0.70
depletion level p, and yield 1998)
response factor K y. The Crop height (m) 1.00
program includes standard Rooting depth (m) 0.30 –> 0.90 0.90
data for main crops and it is Depletion level (fraction) 0.60 –> 0.60 0.60
possible to adjust them to meet Yield response factor (Ky)
actual conditions. Table 1 CROPWAT calibration 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.30 1.50
provides an example of the FAO (1979) 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.25 0.85
input data of crop parameters. Anaç et al. (1999) 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.63 1.49
a
Intermediate value
The soil data include
information on total available
soil water content and the maximum infiltration rate for runoff estimates. In addition, the initial
soil water content at the start of the season is needed.
The impact on yield of various levels of water supply is simulated by setting the dates and the
application depths of the water from rain or irrigation. Through the soil moisture content and
evapotranspiration rates, the soil water balance is determined on a daily basis. Output tables
enable the assessment of the effects on yield reduction, for the various growth stages and
efficiencies in water supply.
Case studies
Data availability and adequacy determined the selection of the case studies from Turkey, Morocco,
and Pakistan as being appropriate for analysing the suitability of the CROPWAT model in deficit
irrigation scheduling.
Cotton – Turkey
Anaç et al. (1999) of the Irrigation and Drainage Department at Ege University, Bornova-Izmir,
Turkey, carried out a three-year (1992-94) a study on optimum irrigation scheduling for cotton
under deficit irrigation. They applied five furrow-irrigation treatments: optimal irrigation with full
watering and no stress (111); stress applied at one of three growth stages, vegetative (011),
flowering (101), or boll formation (110); and stress applied at all three stages (000).
The irrigation water was applied to furrows through perforated pipes. The number of irrigation
applications varied with treatment, but ranged from eight for the full treatment to four for the
full-deficit treatment. The total irrigation water applied over the season for each treatment to
achieve field capacity was recorded. The individual irrigation application depths were determined
on the basis of soil water storage depletion. Under no-stress conditions, irrigation was applied
when the available soil moisture in the rootzone was depleted to 60 percent of the total available
soil moisture (40 percent depletion). In stress conditions, irrigation was applied whenever soil
moisture content was depleted to 20 – 25 percent of the total available soil moisture in the root
zone (75 – 80 percent depletion) at the respective growth stages.
Actual crop evapotranspiration for each of the treatments was measured using an SMNP
over the soil profile. Irrigation water applications were recorded. The number and total irrigation
depths for each season were available. However, there were no detailed data on individual
irrigation applications or actual climate data.
The application of CROPWAT utilized climatic and ETo data from the CLIMWAT data for
Borova, which showed good correlation with the measured water use over the growing season.
The standard crop values provided by CROPWAT did not correspond adequately with the reported
treatments, and an iterative procedure was applied to calibrate the crop parameters to the
reported values in the various treatments.
Sugar beet – Morocco

The objective was to improve irrigation management practices using water deficit techniques.
Bazza (1999) of the Institut Agronomique et Veterinaire Hassan II carried out the study on
sugar beet in the Doukkala region in western Morocco in1992 – 1993. The study compared ten
irrigation treatments, putting the crop under stress during one of four growth stages: crop
establishment (0111), vegetative development (1011), yield formation (1101), and root growth
and ripening (1110). It included three controls: one provided optimal watering (1111), one provided
stress at all growth stages (0000) and one mimicked traditional practices. This last control
consisted of five surface irrigations of 35, 40, 80, 65 and 60 mm respectively on the following
dates: 9 December 1992; and 6 January, 2 April, 25 April and 9 May 1993. In addition, in three
treatments two periods of stress were applied: 0011, 1001, 1100.
Irrigation timing and the application depth for each irrigation were reported for all ten
treatments. In addition, consumptive water use and yield in root and sugar weight were determined
for each treatment. As no detailed climate data were available, the study used average monthly
climatic data from the nearby station of Casablanca, available in the CLIMWAT data set used.
It also used actual rain data.
Data from the optimal irrigation treatment were used to calibrate Kc, while Ky was calibrated
with a step-wise procedure based on the yield reductions in the different treatments.
Potato – Pakistan
Mohsin Iqbal et al. (1999) of the Nuclear Institute for Food and Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan,
carried out a field study on the response of potato to water stress at various growth stages
during the period 1990 – 1995.
They applied seven irrigation treatments, imposing stress at four growth stages. The first
treatment entailed optimal watering without any stress. In four treatments, stress was applied
during establishment (0111), flowering (1011), tuber formation (1101), or during ripening (1110).
In one treatment, stress was applied at all four stages, while one control treatment represented
the traditional practice, i.e. irrigation applied at intervals of 10 – 15 days depending on the time
of the year.
The timing of, and application depth for, all irrigations were recorded. The study utilized
climate data from the CLIMWAT database for Peshawar, as no other such data were available.
Analysis
The analyses examined the climate, crop and soil data, and the conditions as given for each case
study. The standard crop data given in the CROPWAT model were calibrated using a step-wise
procedure. The first step was to adjust the Kc values and the critical depletion factor so that
they met conditions and data for the optimal irrigation treatment, with which no stress was
applied. The next steps were to analyse the treatments and adjust the Ky to achieve the measured
yield responses to water stress imposed during the various crop growth stages.
Optimal irrigation, i.e. no stress,
was applied by allowing depletion FIGURE 2
Soil water balance for optimal irrigation treatment of
to 60 percent of total available soil cotton
moisture. Figure 2 represents the
CROPWAT Irrigation Scheduling Graphics Output
soil water balance for optimal 0
Soil water depletion in mm
irrigation of cotton in Turkey (eight 25

irrigation applications). 50
The cotton crop was subjected 75 Dep 1 level
to deficit irrigation by imposing 100
water stress in one or more growth 125 RAM

stages. This was achieved by 150 TAM
adapting the full irrigation treatment 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
to achieve water stress in the Days after planting
specific stages of growth. Figure (Note: Upward lines are rainfall or irrigation; TAM= total available
moisture; RAM= readily available moisture)
3 shows an example where water
stress was imposed on the cotton
crop during flowering.
In the various treatments,

FIGURE 3
irrigation was withheld until the Soil water balance with stress during flowering stage
water content was depleted to of cotton in Turkey
20 percent of total available soil
CROPWAT Irrigation Scheduling Graphics Output
moisture. Stress applied in the 0
flowering stage resulted in

25
irrigation on days 75, 92, and 111
after sowing (Figure 3). 50
75
RESULTS 100
Dep 1 level
125
RAM
Cotton – Turkey TAM
150
Table 1 presents calibrations of the 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Days after planting
crop parameters. Values for Kc
were comparable with standard
values for cotton in CROPWAT, with crop factors representing the generally more arid conditions.
Yield response factors were also comparable, but the cotton proved to be more sensitive to
stress than previously reported (FAO, 1979).
Table 2 presents comparisons of the measured yield reduction with the treatments with the
yield reductions calculated with the CROPWAT model. The yield reductions are expressed as a
percentage of the yield obtained under optimal irrigation (111).
TABLE 2
Comparison of measured and CROPWAT simulated yield reductions for cotton
Measured CROPWAT
Irrigation treatment Yield Yield Red’n Yield reduction (%)
(t/ha) (%) Cumulative Seasonal
Normal watering (111) 3.31 0 0 0
Stress during veg. growth (011) 3.05 8 13 12
Stress at flowering (101) 3.01 9 14 16
Stress at boll formation (110) 3.13 5 6 6
Stress at all three stages (000) 2.29 31 28 31
The seasonal and cumulative yield reductions calculated by CROPWAT were comparable
with measured yield reductions (Table 2). Furthermore, the simulated results reflected the impact
that stress in the different growth stages has on yield reduction, i.e. stress at flowering leads to
a larger yield reduction than stress at boll formation.
Sugar beet – Morocco

Table 3 presents the results of the calibration of the CROPWAT crop parameters for sugar beet
adjusted to the optimum irrigation schedule reported in the study. Kc values were below expected
standards for cotton as previously reported (FAO, 1998). This may be due to a difference in
climatic conditions between the CLIM-WAT values for Casablanca and the climate conditions
in the study area. Inadequate records on soil moisture conditions and derived crop water
consumption are also possible causes. Rooting depth and depletion level indicated a strong
sensitivity to stress. Yield response factors were comparable with previously reported values
(FAO, 1979). However, these were for the growing season as a whole.
a
Intermediate value
TABLE 3
Crop parameters for sugar beet in Morocco
Growth stage
Initial Devel. Mid Late Total
Crop coefficient (Kc)
CROPWAT calibration 0.40 –>a 1.20 0.80
CROPWAT standard (FAO, 1998) 0.35 –> 1.20 0.70
Crop height (m) 1.00
Rooting depth (m) 0.30 –> 0.90 0.90
Depletion level (fraction) 0.60 –> 0.60 0.60
Yield response factor (Ky)
CROPWAT calibration 0.50 0.50 0.60 0.30 1.50
FAO (1979) 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.25 0.85
Anaç et al. (1999) 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.63 1.49
Figure 4 shows the water

balance over the growing season FIGURE 4
for the optimal treatment. It Soil water balance for optimal irrigation of sugar beet
in Morocco
demonstrates the effects of
winter rain during the development CROPWAT Irrigation Scheduling Graphics Output
stage, and of the fortnightly 0
irrigations at the establishment 10

20
stage in autumn and the maturing 30
stage in spring. 40 Dep 1 level
50 RAM
60
Table 4 measured yield 70
reductions resulting from the 80
treatments and the yield reductions 90

100
TAM
calculated with the CROPWAT 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
model, expressed as a percentage Days after planting
of the beet yield obtained with full

irrigation.
TABLE 4
Comparison of measured and CROPWAT simulated yield reductions for sugar beet in Morocco
Measured CROPWAT
Irrigation treatment Yield Yield Yield reduction (%)
(t/ha) red’n (%) Cumulative Seasonal
Normal watering in all four stages 81.4 0 0 0
Stress in all four stages 30.0 63 61 62
Traditional practice 64.1 21 32 23
Stress in Stage 1 (initial) 79.4 2 5 4
Stress in Stage 2 (veg. developm’t) 75.1 8 9 10
Stress in Stage 3 (yield formation) 61.9 24 31 31
Stress in Stage 4 (ripening) 71.8 12 16 7
Stress in Stages 1 and 2 69.4 15 16 16
For almost all the treatments, the yield reductions calculated by CROPWAT were close to
the measured reductions. For most of the ten treatments, the simulated results were slightly
higher than the measured yield reductions. The simulation results correctly reflected the trends
in sensitivity of sugar beet to water stress during the various growth stages.
Potato – Pakistan
Table 5 presents the calibrations of CROPWAT crop parameters for potato adjusted for the
optimum irrigation schedule. The Kc values were well below the expected standard values for
potato reported previously (FAO, 1998). Reported irrigation frequencies would not seem to
correspond well with average climate data for Peshawar from CLIM-WAT. However, rooting
depth and depletion level corresponded to standard values expected for potato. Yield response
factors corresponded well with those reported previously (FAO, 1979).
Table 6 presents the measured yield reductions for each treatment and yield reductions
calculated with the CROPWAT model, expressed as a percentage of the yield obtained with full
irrigation.
The measured yield reductions and the simulation results revealed particular sensitivity to
moisture stress during establishment and at flowering. The comparison of measured yield
reductions with simulation results reveals the sensitivity during establishment and flowering.
Reported yield reductions appear less consistent, with larger deviations from CROPWAT’s
TABLE 5
Crop parameters for potato in Pakistan
Growth stage
Initial Devel Mid Late Total
Length (days) 20 30 35 25 110
Crop coefficient (Kc)
CROPWAT calibration 0.35 –>a 0.80 0.50
CROPWAT standard (FAO, 1998) 0.35 –> 1.10 0.75
Crop height (m) 0.40
Rooting depth (m) 0.25 –> 0.60 0.50
Depletion level (fraction) 0.30 –> 0.50 0.50
Yield response factor (Ky)
CROPWAT calibration 0.45 0.80 0.80 0.30 1.10
FAO (1979) 0.45 0.80 0.70 0.20 1.10
a
Intermediate value
TABLE 6
Comparison of measured and CROPWAT simulated yield reductions for potato
Irrigation treatment Measured CROPWAT
Yield Yield Yield reduction (%)
(t/ha) red’n (%) Cumulative Seasonal
T1 Full irrigation 14.4 0 2 1
T2 Full deficit irrigation 8.71 40 56 22
T3 Farmer practice 13.8 4 2 1
T4 Stress (establishment stage) 10.4 28 21 8
T5 Stress (flowering stage) 12.4 14 17 6
T6 Stress (tuber formation stage) 11.2 22 11 3
calculated values. Moreover, there was a larger disparity between the seasonal and cumulative
yield reductions in the CROPWAT calculations; the total season may require an upward adjustment
of ky.
DISCUSSION
The use of the CROPWAT model can
FIGURE 5
provide useful insights into the design Soil water balance of potato for optimal irrigation
of irrigation studies and parameters treatment
selected for irrigation treatments. CROPWAT Irrigation Scheduling Graphics Output
-40
Apparent inconsistencies in these case -30
studies raise questions that require -20

-10
further scrutiny of the original field 0

10
data. For example in the Pakistan 20
experiment, the irrigation application 30

40 Dep 1 level
depths at the beginning of the growing 50
RAM
60
season do not seem justified, as 70
demonstrated by the soil moisture 80
90
content (Figure 5). 100 TAM
110
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
The soil water balance shows that Days after planting
the irrigation applications on days 1
and 6 after planting seem in excess of requirements. In contrast, the final two irrigation applications
appear to have been insufficient to properly rewet the soil profile.
Estimated crop water use, based on soil moisture measurements, appears to have been
below normally expected evapotranspiration values, in both Morocco and Pakistan, and the
derived crop factors in the optimal irrigation treatment were below standard values. This may
have been due to differences in estimates for ETo (taken from the CLIMWAT database rather
than from actual recorded climate data), but also may reflect inadequacies in the recorded soil
moisture values and derived crop consumptive use data.
A general problem in reported studies on deficit irrigation is lack of essential data, or incomplete
records that preclude meaningful comparisons with simulation models such as CROPWAT.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on this comparative analysis, the conclusion is that the CROPWAT model can adequately
simulate yield reduction as a result of imposed water stress. It accounted well for the relative
sensitivity of different growth stages and was able to reproduce the negative impact of water
stress on yield.
It is necessary to adjust standard values provided in CROPWAT in order to predict stress
and yield reduction satisfactorily. A step-wise procedure, developed to calibrate and adjust the
crop parameters, yielded satisfactory results in the modelling process.
The model proved useful in identifying inconsistencies in the design and possible shortcomings
or errors in the data records. Therefore, the model may be a powerful tool for helping researchers
analyse results and draw conclusions. Use of models will help achieve a more-uniform recording
of data and allow meaningful comparisons of findings in different studies and countries.
An important attribute of the CROPWAT model is that it allows extension of the findings and
conclusions from studies to conditions not tested in the field. Thus, it can provide practical
recommendations to farmers and extension staff on deficit irrigation scheduling under various
conditions of water supply, soil, and crop management conditions.
REFERENCES
Anaç, M.S., Ali Ul, M., Tuzal, I.H., Anac, D., Okur B. & Hakerlerler, H. 1999. Optimum irrigation schedules
for cotton under deficit irrigation conditions. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera, D.R Nielsen, eds.
Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. p. 196-212. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Bazza, M. 1999. Improving irrigation management practices with water-deficit irrigation. In: C. Kirda, P.
Moutonnet, C. Hera, D.R Nielsen, eds. Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. p. 49-71. Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
FAO. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration by R. Allen, LA. Pereira, D. Raes & M. Smith. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56. FAO, Rome.
FAO 1993. CLIMWAT for CROPWAT, a climatic database for irrigation planning and management by
M. Smith. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 49. Rome.
FAO. 1992. CROPWAT, a computer program for irrigation planning and management by M. Smith. FAO
FAO. 1979. Yield response to water by J. Doorenbos & A. Kassam. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No.
33. Rome.
FAO. 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements by J. Doorenbos & W.O. Pruitt. FAO
Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C. & Nielsen, D.R. (eds.). 1999. Crop yield response to deficit irrigation.
Mohsin Iqbal, M., Mahmood Shah, S., Mohammad, W. & Nawaz, H. 1999. Field response of potato subjected
to water stress at different growth stages. In: C. Kirda, P. Moutonnet, C. Hera, D.R Nielsen, eds. Crop
yield response to deficit irrigation. p. 213-223. Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Deficit subsurface drip irrigation

of cotton
SUMMARY
An experiment in arid west Texas, United States of America, grew cotton with subsurface drip
irrigation providing four basic levels of water resource and three row widths (1.02 m, 0.76 m, and
approximately 0.38 m). The former two row-width treatments contained three planting configurations
(a full pattern and two skip patterns). In all, there were seven row-width-pattern configurations,
each of which had four water levels, for a total of 28 treatments. Where farmers do not have
enough water with which to irrigate their crops, they may choose: (1) to reduce their planted area
and apply more water (up to the full water requirement) on this portion of their land; or (2) plant the
entire area, whereby they apply a quantity of irrigation water that only partially meets consumptive
use requirements. The purpose of this study was to develop mathematical characterizations for
yield as a function of water resource for various popular row width/patterns, and then to use these
equations in crop budget models to determine economically optimum scenarios for local cotton
growers. The full cotton production budgets were based on a 405-ha farm. The assumed water
resource varied from scarcely any to enough, with proper management, to supply the majority of
crop water needs. In almost all scenarios, it was economically sound to stretch the water resource
over the entire farm, rather than to try to maximize yield on portions of the farm. A break-even
economic water resource between covering the entire farm irrigating only portions of it was about
2.0 mm/day. Ultra-narrow-row treatments significantly exceeded the treatments with traditional
row widths at all four water levels. The highest yield of lint was 1 833 kg/ha. Applying large
portions of the moisture requirement as pre-planting irrigation enabled yields of 600 – 900 kg/ha of
lint for the full pattern width treatments on the smallest water treatment, which applied 36 mm of in-
season irrigation. The skip-row patterns did not yield as much as the full-row patterns.

Experimental design
The trial lasted three years starting in 1997 in St. Lawrence, Texas, United States of America,
which grows 33 000 ha of cotton annually, 30 percent of which irrigated with subsurface drip
irrigation (SDI). The region is semi-arid and receives less than 400 mm/year of rainfall. This
J.C. Henggeler, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,

University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America
J.M. Enciso, Agricultural and Biological Systems Engineering Dept.,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America
W.L. Multer, Texas Agricultural Extension Service,
Garden City, Texas, United States of America
B.L. Unruh, Agronomy and Soils Dept., Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas, United States of America
30 Deficit subsurface drip irrigation of cotton
lack of precipitation makes dryland cotton production risky. Farmers usually adapt a skip-row
configuration that allows the cotton plants to mine water from the unplanted rows.
The small groundwater resources in the region, although rechargeable, supply 250-500 mm
of irrigation water during the 6½-month pumping season; nearly half of this amount is pre-plant
irrigation that is stored in the soil. The soil in the experiment was a Reakor silty clay loam, which
possesses good moisture storage ability. The experiment included two basic row widths (1.02 m
and 0.76 m), each of which had three separate row patterns: (1) no row skips; (2) every other
row skipped; and (3) every third row skipped. Local cotton growers term these “Every Row”
“1-and-1” and “2-and-1”, respectively. These six configurations were accompanied by a seventh,
ultra-narrow row (UNR), treatment. The UNR width was 0.25 m in 1997 and 0.38 m during the
other two years. All full-planting patterns (i.e., the 1.02-m Every Row, the 0.76-m Every Row,
and the UNR) were irrigated using one of four water resource amounts, equivalent to 0.6, 1.2,
2.4, and 4.7 mm/d. The experiment used water resource amounts instead of percentages of
evapotranspiration (ET) because employing percent of ET to initiate a treatment leads to a
curtailing of early-season pumping as ET levels are low. In reality, farmers with smaller water
resources are likely to pump water continuously during this period, building a reservoir. The
skip-row patterns also had four water levels, but were proportionately less than the full-row
patterns based on the amount of skips in the pattern. All water levels used in the test were well
below the peak water use level for cotton in this region (9 mm/d).
The management of the experiment was based on operating the irrigation system in a
“common sense” method. For example, as an SDI system enables local farmers to begin pre-
irrigation in December, the systems in the experiment were operated in a similar manner, and
the soil profiles were filled where possible. Thus, for the full-row patterns, the soil profile was
fully recharged prior to planting in all cases, except for the smallest water treatment, with which
the profile was generally half full prior to planting. The patterns with skip row would have
received smaller amounts of pre-irrigation.
The drip lines were installed at a depth of approximately 0.35 m. A delivery manifold connected
lateral lines with a flushing manifold on the distill end. The lines were placed directly beneath the
planted rows, except in the case of UNR where the spacing was 0.76 m. The same delivery
manifold tied in all three row patterns for the 1.02-m row width. As there was one drip lateral
per planted row of cotton, the resultant relative deliveries of water to the various pattern treatments
on an aerial basis were 1.00, 0.67, and 0.50 for the Every Row, 2-and-1, and 1-and-1 patterns,
respectively. The ranges of water amounts received by the different patterns were: Every Row
from 0.6 to 4.8 mm/d, 2-and-1 from 0.4 to 3.2 mm/d, and 1-and-1 from 0.3 to 2.4 mm/d. As local
growers with large-capacity wells tended to plant Every Row, and farmers with smaller water
resources tended to use row skips, the range of water amounts tested for each pattern tended to
be appropriate.
The ultimate goal of the research was to develop mathematical equations of yield as a
function of available groundwater resources for the various patterns that could be used in economic
analyses. The three row patterns of the 0.76-m group had a similar set-up, but ran for
approximately 33 percent less time to compensate for the closer lateral spacings. This made all
water application amounts between the two row-width groups similar. The UNR plots were tied
into the 0.76-m lateral.
The drip lateral had emitters spaced 0.6-m apart with a nominal discharge of 4 litres/h. The
emitters were impregnated with Treflan® to inhibit root intrusion. The plot length was 17.1 m.
Treatments were replicated three times. Blocks were irrigated twice per week using an electric
timer with appropriate run times to give the desired application depths. Water meters were tied
into each delivery manifold to ensure accuracy. A cotton variety genetically modified with Bt
traits (Deltapine NuCOTN 33B) was used to limit insect predation and its possible influence on
the results. Planting dates were 23, 12 and 19 May for the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, respectively.
Urea (32-0-0) was injected into the drip system from around first bloom, at an amount proportional
to the water resource, in three chemigation events approximately two weeks apart. The average
amounts of nitrogen applied for the three years were 43, 65, 93 and 145 kg/ha for the full-pattern
treatments. The skip patterns received proportionately less.
The location for the experiment was on the farm of a local cotton grower, who performed
most of the operations. The 1.02-m treatments were planted in beds, with all other treatments
planted flat. The UNR treatment was planted with a grain drill (width = 0.25 m) the first year;
during the final two years a planter with a row-width setting of 0.38 m was used. Harvest data
were gathered by hand-picking two row lengths of 3.0 m, except in the case of the UNR, where
an area of 0.8 m2 was picked.
Third-order polynomial equations of yield as a function of water resource amount were
developed for the seven various patterns. Equations were also developed for a separate pattern,
4-and-1, by averaging the yield results of Every Row and 2-and-1 for equivalent amounts of
water. The equations were in the form of:
Y = a + bW+ cW½ + dW2 (1)
where: Y = yield (kg/ha)
W = water resource available (mm/d)
a, b, c, and d are constants
Economic analyses
Economic analyses determined the net total returns for each pattern/spacing under a wide
range of water resources. These analyses also investigated the benefits of installing SDI over
the entire farm (405 ha) versus installing it only on various fractions, which would increase
allocations of water (and thus SDI yield) to those portions, but would dictate that the omitted
area produced dryland yield levels.
Yields for the different row patterns/spacings were determined under conditions of varying
water resource amounts using Equation (1). All yields were reduced 5 percent to account for
possible differences between machine-stripping and the hand-picking. A fixed cost of about
US$100/ha was assumed for the machinery of the farm, irrespective of the percentage of land
in SDI. The quantity of water and the amount of SDI installed were used to directly calculate
yields, as well as several variable costs (fertilizer, pumping and ginning) and fixed costs (land
and SDI annual costs). Thus, 100 percent of all returns and about 75 percent of all costs in the
cotton budget were self-generated. Costs of pesticides, fuel, etc. that made up the other portion
of the cotton budget were based on the authors’ estimates. Dryland net returns were assumed
at about US$80/ha based on extension service information that did not include the fixed costs
captured under the SDI portion of the overall farm budgets.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows irrigation amounts applied TABLE 1
Average amount of irrigation and in-season rainfall for
both pre-plant and in-season for the the Every Row treatments, 1997-99
Every Row treatments (2-and-1 and 1-
Irrigation supplied at treatment
and-1 received 67 and 50 percent of the capacity of:
irrigation amounts, respectively). The 0.6 1.2 2.5 4.8
pre-season applications contributed 45- mm/d mm/d mm/d mm/d
81 percent to total irrigation amounts. –––––––––––– (mm) ––––––––––––
On average, the lowest full pattern Pre-season
treatment received a total of only irrigation 154 223 223 229
325 mm (irrigation plus rainfall), whereas In-season irrigation 36 75 149 286
Total irrigation 190 298 375 516
the highest treatment received 650 mm.
In-season rainfall 135 135 135 135
Unruh et al. (1999) showed that yields
Total water 325 432 510 650
were higher in years with more in-
––––––––––––– (%) ––––––––––––
season rainfall. Fraction of irrigation
applied pre-season 81 75 60 45
Yield results
Yields were similar from year to year. Table 2
UNR provided the highest lint yields for Average yields, 1997-99
all water levels, followed by the 0.76-m Yield with treatment capacity of
Treatment 0.6 1.2 2.5 4.8
treatment (Table 2). Due to hydraulics
mm/d mm/d mm/d mm/d
of the system, the 0.76-m patterns, ––––––––––––– (kg/ha) –––––––––––
which included the UNR treatment, Every (1.02 m) 596 837 1 083 1 308
received approximately 4 percent more 4-and-1 (1.02 m) 549 751 966 1 149
water than the 1.02-m treatments. The 2-and-1 (1.02 m) 500 671 843 998
yield response curves show that the 1-and-1 (1.02 m) 427 556 695 785
UNR treatment responded most strongly, Every (0.76 m) 658 993 1 302 1 570
4-and-1 (0.76 m) 633 890 1 149 1 348
followed by the 0.76-m treatments
2-and-1 (0.76 m) 605 798 984 1 139
(Figures 1 and 2). The 1.02-m treat- 1-and-1 (0.76 m) 429 582 723 842
ments (the row spacing generally used
by local farmers) had the lowest yields. Ultra-narrow row 880 1 224 1 553 1 833
Normal yields for the area are 560 and
224 kg/ha for furrow-irrigated and
dryland conditions, respectively. TABLE 3
Values for constants in Equation (1)
Table 3 shows the values for the Treatment Constant
constants in Equation (1).
a b c d
Every (1.02 m) -263 -378 1 401 14.0
4-and-1 (1.02 m) -154 -336 1 230 11.9
Economic analyses
2-and-1 (1.02 m) -60.9 -311 1 086 10.8
1-and-1 (1.02 m) -76.4 -462 1 168 28.4
Figures 3 and 4 show the net profits for
a 405-ha farm with limited water
Every (0.76 m) -597 -619 2 067 26.7
resources (0.3 mm/day) (UNR data 4-and-1 (0.76 m) -253 -426 1 530 15.3
included for comparison). The UNR had 2-and-1 (0.76 m) -69.6 -434 1 322 22.8
the highest net returns (about 1-and-1 (0.76 m) -77.5 -405 1 132 23.6
US$15 000). This optimum return for
UNR occurred when the irrigation Ultra-narrow row -376 -587 2 044 24.2
FIGURE 1
Average yield data for the 1.02-m patterns and UNR, 1997-99
Yield for 1.02-m patterns plus UNR
2 000
Lint yield (kg/ha)
Every Row
4-and-1
1 600
2-and-1
1-and-1
1 200 UNR
800
400
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
Water capacity (mm/day)
FIGURE 2
Average yield data for the 0.76-m patterns and UNR, 1997-99
Yield for 0.76-m patterns plus UNR
2 000
Every Row
1 600 4-and-1
Lint yield (kg/ha)
2-and-1
1-and-1
UNR
1 200
800
400
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Water capacity (mm/day)
system was configured for 1.0 mm/day. For a 405-ha farm with an available water resource of
0.3 mm/day, this would mean 121 ha of SDI [(0.3/1.0) x 405] and 284 ha of dryland. All the
other treatments in Figures 3 and 4 showed net losses at all points.
When the water resource was less than 1.0 mm/d, it was slightly more economic to use the
4-and-1 and the 2-and-1 rather than the Every Row pattern on the 0.76-m patterns, (data not
shown). In all other instances, Every Row was more economic than the skip patterns.
Once a farm’s water resource reached 2.0 mm/d or greater, the analysis showed that it was
best to install SDI over the entire 405 ha. Figures 5 and 6 show net returns for a farm with a
water resource of 1.5 mm/d. At this point, optimum economic levels were reached when about
90 percent of the farm was in SDI. Returns for the UNR, 0.76-m Every Row, and the 1.02-m
Every Row were approximately US$175 000, 100 000 and 50 000, respectively, for the
FIGURE 3
Net profit for farm with a 0.3-mm/d water resource using various row patterns with 1.02-m row
width
US$20 000
1-and-1
US$0
Total net farm profit, US$
2-and-1
4-and-1
-US$20 000
Every
UNR
-US$40 000
-US$60 000
-US$80 000
-US$100 000
-US$120 000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Water resource allocated to SDI system (mm/d)
FIGURE 4
width
US$20 000
US$0
1-and-1
2-and-1
-US$20 000
4-and-1
Every
-US$40 000
UNR
-US$60 000
-US$80 000
-US$100 000
-US$120 000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.5-mm/d water resource level. When the farm had a water resource of 3.0 mm/day, the net
profits were about US$286 000, 191 000, and 86 000 for the UNR, 0.76 Every Row, and the
1.02-m Every Row treatments, respectively.
Figure 7 shows net farm returns as a function of both farm water resources and fraction of
farm in SDI, with data for UNR, 0.76-m Every Row, and the 1.02-m Every Row. The X axis
shows the farm’s water resource.The Y axis represents the portion of SDI installed on the farm
(hectares of SDI/405). As an example, if this farm uses UNR and it has a water capacity of 2.0
mm/d and 300 ha of SDI are installed, then the SDI ratio is 0.74 and net profits should be a little
FIGURE 5
width
US$200 000
US$150 000
1-and-1
US$100 000 2-and-1

4-and-1
Every
US$50 000
UNR
US$0
-US$50 000
-US$100 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
FIGURE 6
width
US$200 000
US$150 000 1-and-1

2-and-1
4-and-1
US$100 000
Every
UNR
US$50 000
US$0
-$50 000
-US$100 000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
over US$175 000. With all acreage converted to SDI (ratio = 1.0), net profits would be over
US$225 000.
CONCLUSIONS
The experiment provided estimates of yields and incomes for a certain region of Texas. Therefore,
the data do not necessarily apply to other soil types and weather patterns.UNR had the highest
yields and largest farm net returns. However, UNR production practices, specifically in planting
and harvesting, are difficult to manage successfully, and local growers not adopted them widely.
FIGURE 7
Net farm returns for the entire 405-ha farm for UNR (top), 0.76-m Every Row (middle) and 1.02-m
Every Row (bottom)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
SDI Ratio
0.60
t
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.00 US$275 000
0.90
0.80
0.70
SDI Ratio
US$175 000
0.60
t
0.50
I
0.40 US$75 000
0.30
0.20
0.10
US$-25 000
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
1.0
0.9 US$-125 000
0.8
SDI Ratio
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Farm’s overall water resource (mm/d)
The 0.76-m treatments had significantly higher yields and net farm returns than did their
1.02-m counterparts. With a water resource greater than 1.0 mm/d, Every Row was more
economic than skip patterns. When the water resource was less than 1.0 mm/d, then 4-and-1
and the 2-and-1 were more economic.
The high proportion of pre-plant irrigation that was beneficially used was important in making
the SDI enterprises viable, especially with less water available. Questions remain regarding the
skip-row patterns and pre-plant irrigation. As blank rows existed, these treatments, depending
on lateral water movement, may store more useable pre-plant irrigation water than do the Every
Row patterns. However, as tested, all treatments received the same amount of pre-plant irrigation.
One of the most significant findings was that, in almost all cases, the economic analyses
showed that it was better to stretch the water resource over the entire farm, rather than to
concentrate it to maximize yields on parts of the farm. The exception to this was where the farm
had very little available water (less than 2.0 mm/d), when it was better to decrease installed SDI
acreage to ensure that 1.0-1.5 mm/d was available to any SDI that was installed.
REFERENCE
Unruh, B.L., Multer W.L., Sturtz S., Scott R. & Warren J. 1999. Optimizing row-width patterns when
faced with limited water resources. Result Demonstration Report. Fort Stockton, Texas, United
States of America, Texas Agricultural Extension Service.
Response of groundnut to deficit

irrigation during vegetative
growth
SUMMARY
Studies were conducted to investigate patterns of field water use efficiency (WUE) by groundnut
under moisture stress. Experiment 1 examined four cultivars of Spanish groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L. ssp. fastigiata var. vulgaris), Ak 12-24, J 11, GAUG 1 and GG 2, during the summer
seasons of 1989 and 1990. The crops were subjected to soil moisture deficit stress by withholding
irrigation for 30 d, starting at 20 d after sowing (treatment T 101), and for 25 d starting at 20 d (T 102).
In treatment T 101, the stress period was followed by two relief irrigations with an interval of 5 d.
In Experiment 2, stress was imposed on cv. GG 2 from 10 to 30 d after sowing, based on an irrigation
water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE) ratio of 0.6. In one case, this period of stress was
followed with irrigation to maintain IW/CPE at 1.0 until harvest (T 200, control); in the second case,
the initial stress period was followed by maintenance of IW/CPE at 0.8 until harvest (treatment T
201); in the third case, IW/CPE of 0.6 was continued until harvest (treatment T 202). The results of
Experiment 1 showed that leaf area indices of plants stressed during the vegetative phase were
higher during the reproductive phase, i.e. from 80 d after sowing until harvest, than those of
control (T 100) plants. In general, percent dry matter distribution to leaves remained higher in
control plants; percent dry matter distribution to the leaves of stressed plants was lower both
during and after stress. Dry matter distributions to pods, and thus the harvest indices, were higher
in the stressed plants. Among the treatments, total biomass and economic yields were higher in T
102, followed by T 101. The results of Experiment 2 were consistent with those of Experiment 1.
Where groundnut is cultivated with irrigation, it is possible to increase field WUE and dry matter
production, including economic yield, by imposing a transient deficit in soil moisture during the
vegetative phase.
Groundnut is an important source of oil (51 percent), protein (28 percent) and minerals (2.5
percent). India and China account for about 50 percent of global production, and developing
countries in the semi-arid tropics contribute 60 percent. The average in-shell yield is 900 kg/ha
(FAO, 1999). Groundnut is an important component of intercropping systems in the dry tropics,
and the haulm provides fodder for cattle. High and stable groundnut productivity is an essential
element in the improvement of efficiency of farming systems in the semi-arid tropics.
In India, farmers grow groundnuts on ustic alfisols, oxisols, and usterts (the dry vertic soils).
The major groundnut-producing areas are in western and southern India. The crop is primarily
rainfed, and moisture is a primary constraint on yield. As a result, the tendency is bring groundnut
under irrigation for cultivation during the summer season (January/June). Water use by groundnut
P.C. Nautiyal, Y.C. Joshi and D. Dayal,

National Research Centre for Groundnut,
Gujarat, India
40 Response of groundnut to deficit irrigation during vegetative growth
in different cropping seasons in different parts of the world varies between 250 mm under
rainfed conditions (Angus et al. 1983) to 831 mm under irrigated conditions (irrigation at intervals
of seven to ten days during winter months) (Nageswara Rao et al., 1985). The total water use
of a groundnut crop may be affected by scheduling irrigations based on requirements at the
various growth stages.
The average yields (1 400 kg/ha) of the summer season crop are almost double those obtained
in the rainy season. Therefore, the contribution of summer season crops to total production is
about 45 percent. The key factor affecting growth and yield is the availability of moisture during
the cropping season. There is a need for strategies that maximize the efficiency of use of the
limited amounts of water that are available. Therefore, a study attempted to examine the effects
on water use efficiency (WUE) of scheduling irrigation to take advantage of the lower water
requirements of groundnut during the early growth phase. Two experiments were conducted
with two moisture-deficit regimes, the first for two years and the second for one year, to determine
the effects of early-stage irrigation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS TABLE 1

Minerological, physical and chemical properties
The experimental site of the soil of the experimental site at Junagadh
The study site was the research farm of the Soil characteristics Soil depth
0–15 cm 15–30 cm
National Research Centre for Groundnut at Mineralogical
Junagadh (21°31’N, 70°36’E). The soil was Sand (%) 22.4 20.0
Silt (%) 14.0 15.8
a vertic ustochrept with low organic matter Clay (%) 63.6 64.2
content and available nitrogen (N) and Ca + Mg carbonate (%) 33.7 35.2
phosphorus (P) (Table 1). Soil temperatures Physical
Field capacity (%) 30.3 30.2
were recorded in all plots daily at 0900, 1300 Permanent wilting point (%) 14.4 13.9
and 1500 hours, at depths of 15 and 30 cm. Bulk density (g/cm) 1.44 1.46
Soil moisture contents at two depths, i.e. 0- Chemical
pH 7.80 7.70
15 cm and 15-30 cm, were estimated EC (dS/m) 0.280 0.270
gravimetrically at the end of each stress Available P2O5 (kg/ha) 23.9 20.1
Available K2O (kg/ha) 211 205
period. Available nitrogen (kg/ha) 235 223
Organic carbon (%) 0.830 0.760
Experiment 1
Experiment 1 studied four short-duration (120-125 days) groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L. ssp.
fastigiata var. vulgaris) cultivars, viz. Ak 12-24, J 11, GAUG 1 and GG 2, during the summer
seasons of 1989 and 1990. Fertilizers were applied as urea (25 kg N/ha) and single superphosphate
(40 kg/ha P2O5). The experiment had three replications in a randomized block design (RBD)
with 5x3-m plots. The spacing was 30 cm between rows, and 10 cm between plants within
rows. After sowing, the crop was irrigated twice at an interval of seven days to ensure good
emergence. Recommended agronomic practices and plant protection measures, except irrigation,
were followed to maintain crop health. The irrigations provided 50 mm of water, with treatments
as follows:
• T 100: control crop; irrigations at intervals of 10 d from emergence until harvest.
• T 101: stress imposed during vegetative phase; irrigation withheld for 30 d starting at 20 d
after sowing.
• T 102: stress imposed during vegetative phase; irrigation withheld for 25 d starting at 20 d
after sowiing, followed by two irrigations at intervals of 5 d.
After the treatment periods, treatment and control plots received the same irrigation.
Data collection
Data on leaf area development, dry mass accumulation and its partitioning among various plant
parts other than the roots were recorded every 10 d starting at 20 d after sowing. Dry matter
distribution to various plant parts was calculated on a percentage basis. At each sampling date,
0.28 m2 of each plot was sampled. Leaf area was measured with a LI-COR 3000 area meter,
and the plant parts were then dried at 80°C to a constant weight. At the final harvest (125 d
after sowing) pod yields were recorded. The harvest index (HI) and shelling outturn were
calculated with the following formulae.
Total dry pod mass at final harvest
HI =
Total dry biomass at final harvest
Mass of kernels
Shelling outturn (%) = ´ 100
Mass of pods
During the 1990 season, leaf transpiration rate (TR), diffusive resistance (DR), and relative
water content (RWC) were measured on the second and the third leaves from the apex of the
main axis at the end of each stress period at around 1400 hours. Transpiration and leaf diffusive
resistance were measured on abaxial and adaxial sides of the leaves with a steady-state
porometer (LI-COR 1600), and leaf RWC values were determined using the formula of Barrs
and Weatherly (1962):
Leaf fresh wt - Leaf dry wt
RWC (%) = ´100
Leaf turgid wt - Leaf dry wt
Data were analysed statistically in a factorial set-up.
Experiment 2
During the summer of 1999, an experiment was conducted in an RBD with three replications in
plots of 10x5 m with cv. GG 2.
The treatments were:
• T 200: control crop; deficit irrigation at an IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 imposed during vegetative
phases from 10 d until 30 d after emergence; thereafter irrigations to maintain an IW/CPE
ratio of 1.0 until final harvest (total application of 550 mm of water).
• Treatment T 201: deficit irrigation at an IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 imposed from 10 d until 30 d
after emergence, after which an IW/CPE of 0.8 maintained until harvest (450 mm).
• Treatment T 202: deficit irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 imposed from 10 d after emergence
until harvest at 125 d (400 mm).
To ensure uniform emergence, each plot received two irrigations immediately after sowing
and 5 d later. The irrigations provided 50 mm of water. Soil moisture at 15-cm intervals was
recorded before each irrigation with the help of a neutron probe. Total pod yields and dry matter
production were recorded at final harvest.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

FIGURE 1
Experiment 1 Monthly mean temperature, relative humidity, and pan
evaporation during two summer cropping seasons, 1989–
Characteristics of the growing 90, and 1999
season Weather
The monthly mean maximum
100
temperatures ranged between Max 89
90
32°C (February) and 42°C (April),
Temperatures (o C) and RH (%)
Max 90
while minimum temperatures 80 Max 99

E pan (mm day -1)
ranged between 7°C (January) and 70 Min 89
27°C (June). There was no rainfall 60

Min 90
Min 99
during the growing period (last 50
RH 89
week of January to first week of 40 Rh 90
June) in either year. Pan 30 Rh 99
evaporation ranged between 5 and 20
Epan 89
10 mm/d, the highest being during Epan 90

10
April and May in both years. This Epan 90
is why summer crops in Junagadh 0

J F M A M J
are fully irrigated. During vegetative Months
growth (January and February),
evaporative demands (ETm), and hence crop water requirements, are low. The requirements
increase in the later stages of crop growth, especially during pegging and pod development,
when evaporative demands also are high (April and May) (Figure 1). The soil needs to be moist
for peg penetration and pod development.
Soil temperature and water content

In comparison with control plots, soil temperatures (means of the observations recorded at
0900, 1300 and 1500 hours during 1989 and 1990) at 15 cm were 3.2°C higher in treatment T101
and 1.2°C higher in treatment T 102 (Table 2). Soil water contents at both depths were always
less in the irrigation-withheld plots than in the control plots. In control plots the water content
generally remained around 18-20 percent at a depth of 0-15 cm, and 19-23 percent at 15-30 cm.
TABLE 2
Soil water content and temperature under various moisture stress treatments
Soil water content (%) Soil temperature (°°C)
Depth
T 101 T 102 T 101 T 102
1989 1990 1989 1990 1989 1990 1989 1990
0–15 cm
Treated 9.5 10.0 14.0 13.1 30.5 31.0 28.5 29.7
Control 19.4 20.0 18.0 18.9 27.0 28.0 27.0 28.5
s.e 0.20 0.32 0.05 0.08 0.39 0.22 0.15 0.25
15–30 cm
Treated 14.0 15.0 17.1 18.0 25.0 26.1 28.0 29.4
Control 23.0 21.0 21.5 20.1 28.0 29.7 26.6 28.0
s.e. 0.13 0.18 0.45 0.36 0.63 0.15 0.15 0.36
At the peak stress periods, i.e. 30 d without irrigation with T 101 and 25 d without irrigation
with T 102, water contents in the surface layer (0-15 cm) were depleted to 9.5 percent in 1989
and to 10 percent in 1990 with T 101, and to 4.0 percent in 1989 and to 6.0 percent in 1990 with
T 102 (Table 2). At 15-30 cm, the soil water content was depleted, but less so.
Transpiration and leaf water content

In general, TR and RWC were significantly TABLE 3
lower, and leaf DR was higher, in stressed plants Leaf diffusive resistance, transpiration and
relative water content of groundnut at peak
than in their respective controls (Table 3). stress, 1990
Although the cultivars differed significantly in
Treatment DR TR RWC
terms of TR, DR and RWC, the trends of (cm2/s) mg/cm2/s)
(m (%)
changes in these parameters due to stress were T 100 2.5 12.9 87
similar. The difference in the values of TR, DR T 101 (50 d) 5.1 8.8 71
and RWC compared to their respective controls s.e. 0.48 0.20 0.69
were small. Leaf RWC under stress was also T 100 2.5 13.8 86
low. During the stress period, leaf temperatures T 102 (45 d) 4.1 9.6 73
of stressed plants were consistently higher than s.e. 0.53 0.21 0.70
ambient (data not presented).
Leaf area index

As groundnut is an indeterminate crop, the leaf FIGURE 2
area index (LAI) values tended to increase Leaf area index of groundnut with various
rapidly from 40 d after sowing and continued to treatments, mean values over two years
increase until 100 d. Genotype effects on LAI
were significant. However, Figure 2 only trends
LEAF AREA INDEX
in LAI that present stress influences. LAI values

of control plants (T 100) were significantly higher
during the 50-60-d period. However, the LAIs
of plants stressed in the vegetative phase were
higher during the reproductive phase, i.e. from
80 d until harvest, than the control plants. During
the reproductive phase, the highest LAI was with
treatment T102. Therefore, transient soil DAYS AFTER SOWING
moisture stress during the vegetative phase
increased LAI during the reproductive phase.
Dry matter distribution

In general, transient soil moisture deficit stress during vegetative growth resulted in higher biomass
at harvest (Table 4). During early growth (20 d after sowing) about 45-50 percent of dry matter
was distributed to stems (Figure 3). Plants under stress distributed relatively more dry matter to
the stems, not only during stress but also after it, than did control plants, although the differences
were not statistically significant at final harvest. In contrast, percent dry matter distribution to
leaves was significantly higher in the control plants between 40 and 50 d after sowing, when
maximum percent dry matter was obtained. Stressed plants had significantly lower dry matter
distribution to the leaves both during the stress period and after relief of stress (Figure 3).
Accumulation of dry matter in the reproductive FIGURE 3

parts (pegs and pods) began at 50 d after sowing Percent dry matter distribution to stem,
(Figure 3), and percent dry matter accumulation leaves, and reproductive parts of groundnut
1989 and 1990, mean values
increased slowly from 50 to 80 d, and then
rapidly until final harvest. Dry matter distribution
throughout pod development period until maturity
was higher in stressed plants, particularly
treatment T 102, which resulted in higher pod
yields in both years. In general, there were
improvements also in shelling outturn due to
imposition of stress during vegetative growth,
except in the case of cultivar GG 2. In 1989, the
shelling outturn in cv. GAUG 1, due to stress (T
102) was higher (75 percent) as compared to
control plants (70 percent) (Table 4).
Harvest index
In general, HIs increased due to the imposition
of soil moisture deficit stress during the
vegetative phase (Table 4). Cultivar GG 2 gave
the highest HI values, irrespective of treatment,
in both years. The 100-seed weight was highest
(44.4 g) in GG 2 in treatment T101 in both years.
Yield and water use efficiency

Genotypic variation in pod yield was significant.
Cultivar GG 2, known for its moisture stress
tolerance gave the highest pod yields under
control and treatments in both years (Table 4).
Consequently, the percent increase in pod yield
due to stress was lowest in cv. GG 2 (8.4
percent); it was highest in cv. Ak 12-24 (25 percent). Total biomass and pod yield values at the
final harvest were highest with treatment T 102 in both years. The higher reproductive efficiency
of these plants was due to improved synchrony in flowering, higher conversion rates of flowers
to pegs, and of pegs to pods, e.g. the high peg-to-pod conversion rate observed with T 102
(Nautiyal et al. 1999). Water stress in the vegetative stage stimulated the growth of reproductive
and vegetative parts.
Field WUE among treatments and cultivars varied widely (Table 5). Watering regime and
variety had significant effects on field WUE. Although the highest field WUE (6.2) was for cv.
Ak12-24 in 1989, GG2 provided the highest overall values, particularly in 1989. Overall, T 101
values were higher than T 102 values, which were higher than the control values. Thus, withholding
irrigation during vegetative growth improved WUE.
Experiment 2
This experiment built on findings that mild stress during vegetative growth was beneficial to
biomass accumulation and yield production. Control plants gave the highest biomass accumulation
TABLE 4
Biomass, pod yield, harvest index and shelling outturn of groundnut cultivars under stress treatments
1989 and 1990
Component/ 1989 1990
Treatment Ak J 11 GAUG GG2 Ak J 11 GAUG GG2
Biomass (g/m2)
T 100 837 766 779 868 670 689 683 678
T 101 999 956 849 843 824 781 688 657
T 102 1 161 1 039 1 016 915 936 770 781 734
s.e. 5.91 9.56
Pod yield (g/m2)
T 100 226 231 238 328 233 236 233 284
T 101 295 306 272 303 311 270 236 282
T 102 303 322 304 344 311 293 284 324
s.e. 60.0 67.7
Harvest index (%)
T 100 26 29 30 37 31 31 30 38
T 101 35 32 31 38 29 31 31 38
T 102 29 31 32 40 30 34 33 39
s.e. 0.70 0.85
Shelling outturn (%)
T 100 74 72 70 75 74 70 71 75
T 101 73 72 72 75 72 73 70 74
T 102 74 73 75 76 75 74 73 76
s.e. 0.64 0.30
TABLE 5
Field water use efficiency for groundnut pod production in 1989 and 1990
Ak 12-24 J 11 GAUG 1 GG 2 Mean
Irrigation Water ––––––––––––– (kg/ha/mm) –––––––––––––
treatments used (mm)
1989
T 100 600 3.5 3.5 3.7 5.0 3.9
T 101 500 5.9 6.1 5.4 6.0 5.9
T 102 550 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.7 5.3
Mean –– 4.8 5.0 4.7 5.5 ––
1990
T 100 600 3.6 3.6 3.6 4.4 3.8
T 101 500 6.2 5.4 4.7 5.6 5.5
T 102 550 5.2 4.9 4.7 5.4 5.0
Mean –– 5.0 4.6 4.3 5.1 ––
TABLE 6
Effect of soil moisture deficit stress on groundnut cultivar GG 2, summer 1999
Irrigation Total water Pod yield Haulm Harvest Total 100- 100- Shelling
treatment applied (kg/ha) yield index biomass seed wt pod outturn
(mm) (kg/ha) (%) (kg/ha) (g) wt (g) (%)
T 200 550 2 056 4 511 31.3 6 567 31.7 75.9 63.6
T 201 450 1 836 4 557 28.7 6 393 30.5 73.9 62.1
T 202 400 1 716 3 963 30.2 5 679 27.8 69.7 61.1
s.e. –– 75 125 1.50 122 0.71 1.27 0.49
and pod yield (Table 6). Reductions in biomass and pod yield were greater with T 202 than with
T 201. The significant reduction in HI with T 201 suggests that the reduction in economic yield
due to prolonged moisture deficit stress was more than the reduction in biological yield. Stress
during the vegetative phase was beneficial in terms of economic yield. The available soil moisture
at 0-15 cm soil depth was consistently higher in T 200 than T 201 (Figure 4). These results tend
to support those obtained in Experiment 1, indicating that mild stress during vegetative growth
may be beneficial to groundnut biomass FIGURE 4

accumulation and pod yield; the trend might Available soil moisture at 0-15 cm depth,
have been clearer in Experiment 2 if the Experiment 2, in 1999
control plants had not been exposed to
stress. Prolonged stress (T 202), even when
mild, was detrimental to crop development
and final yield production. Thus, the water
requirement of a groundnut crop during the
vegetative phase is relatively low, and higher
during the flowering, pegging and initial pod
development periods.
CONCLUSION
Climate, agronomic and variatal facators determine total water use by a crop. The data presented
here show that by water deficit stress during the vegetative phase of development, can increase
WUE significantly. Soil moisture deficit stress during vegetative growth increased total biomass
accumulation and pod yield. These increases were due mainly to increases in leaf area during
reproduction, and partitioning of more dry matter to the reproductive parts. In addition, the yield
advantage due to water stress in the vegetative phase was due to improved synchrony in flowering
and the increased peg-to-pod conversion. Moreover, stress during vegetative growth may have
promoted root growth, an area which requires further study.
The results presented here show it is possible to increase field WUE and dry matter production,
including the economic yield of groundnut crops cultivated under irrigated conditions by the
imposition of transient soil moisture deficit stress during the vegetative phase. However, exact
scheduling may differ in different environments.
REFERENCES
Angus, J.F., Hasegawa, S., Hsiao, T.C., Liboon, S.P. & Zandstra, H.G. 1983. The water balance of post-
monsoonal dryland crops. Journal of Agricultural Science (UK) 101: 699-710.
Barrs, H.D. & Weatherly, P.E. 1962. A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for estimating
water deficits in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Science 15: 413-428.
FAO. 1999. FAO production yearbook. Rome.
Nageswara Rao, R.C., Singh, S., Sivakumar, M.V.K., Srivastava, K.L. & Williams, J.H. 1985. Effect of
water deficit at different growth phases of peanut. I. Yield response. Agronomy Journal 77: 782-786.
Nautiyal, P.C., Ravindra, V., Zala, P.V. & Joshi Y.C. 1999. Enhancement of yield in groundnut following
the imposition of transient soil-moisture-deficit stress during the vegetative phase. Experimental
Agriculture 35: 371-485.
Deficit irrigation of potato
SUMMARY
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) can respond to water stress with yield reductions and loss of tuber
grade. The economic opportunities to practise deficit irrigation are more limited for potato than for
some other crops. Four potato varieties were grown under four, season-long, sprinkler irrigation
treatments during three successive years (1992-1994) on a silt loam soil in eastern Oregon, United
States of America. The check treatment was irrigated when soil water potential (SWP) at the 0.2-m
depth reached -60 kPa. This treatment received at most the accumulated evapotranspiration (ETc)
to avoid exceeding the water holding capacity of the top 0.3 m of soil. The three deficit irrigation
treatments were irrigated when SWP at the 0.2-m depth reached -80 kPa and had the following
percent of the accumulated ETc applied at each irrigation: (i) 100 percent, (ii) 70 percent, and (iii) 50
percent, with 70 percent during tuber bulking. Based on regression of applied water over three
years, potatoes lost both total yield and grade when irrigations were reduced. Based on regression
of applied water reductions in irrigation, gross revenues declined more than production costs,
resulting in reduced profits. The results of this case study suggest that deficit irrigation of potatoes
in the semi-arid environment of eastern Oregon would not be a viable management tool because
the small financial benefits would not offset the high risks of reduced yields and profits from the
reduced water applications. Results from eastern Oregon are compared with those obtained
elsewhere.
Political constraints, rising costs, and groundwater scarcities are resulting in less water being
available for agriculture. In some areas, groundwater supplies are being exhausted. Competition
for water supplies is a worldwide phenomenon. In the Pacific northwest of the United States,
political pressures are growing to reallocate water from irrigation to provide instream flows for
preserving native fish populations, to provide for water and power needs of growing urban
areas, and to reduce non-point source pollution of groundwater and surface water. Deficit irrigation
may be one approach to address these issues.
Deficit irrigation is a strategy which allows a crop to sustain some degree of water deficit in
order to reduce irrigation costs and potentially increase revenues. English and Raja (1996)
described three deficit irrigation case studies in which the reductions in irrigation costs were
greater than the reductions in revenue due to reduced yields. Deficit irrigation can lead, in
principle, to increased profits where water costs are high or where water supplies are limited. In
these case studies, crop value was associated closely with yield, and crop grade and marketability
were not germane. Under these circumstances, deficit irrigation can be a practical choice for
growers.
C.C. Shock and E.B.G. Feibert,

Malheur Experiment Station,
Oregon State University,
Oregon, United States of America
48 Deficit irrigation of potato
Deficit irrigation has proved successful with a number of crops in various parts of the world.
These crops are relatively resistant to water stress, or they can avoid stress by deep rooting,
allowing access to soil moisture lower in the soil profile. However, deficit irrigation of potatoes
may be difficult to manage because reductions in tuber yield and quality can result from even
brief periods of water stress following tuber set (Eldredge et al., 1992; Lynch et al., 1995;
Shock et al., 1993; Wright and Stark, 1990). For cv. Russet Burbank, which is predominant in
the Pacific northwest of the United States of America, short-duration shortages in water supply
during early tuber bulking induced losses in tuber grade (Robins and Domingo, 1956; Salter and
Goode, 1967; Thompson and Kelly, 1957) and internal quality directly related to market value
(Eldredge et al., 1996). However, in some circumstances, potatoes can tolerate limited deficit
irrigation before tuber set without significant reductions in external and internal tuber quality
(Shock et al., 1992). Potato varieties differ in tolerance to water stress (Jefferies and MacKerron,
1993a, b; Lynch and Tai, 1989; Martin and Miller, 1983; Miller and Martin, 1987a, b). The
adoption of new potato cultivars by growers and processors makes it desirable to re-examine
deficit irrigation.
The advent of more efficient irrigation methods allied with the use of soil moisture monitoring
devices can make deficit irrigation of potatoes more manageable. Sprinkler irrigation and
subsurface drip irrigation (SDI) permit more precise control of the amount of water applied than
does furrow irrigation, allowing accurate management of crop rootzone soil moisture. Irrigation
scheduling with estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and a target soil water potential (SWP)
level can provide the feedback for managing irrigations. Careful irrigation scheduling has resulted
in optimum potato yield and quality. For silt loam, the soil water potential in the top 0.3 m should
remain wetter than -60 kPa (Eldredge et al.,1996).
The objectives of this research were: (i) to determine potato response to mild, season-long
precision deficit irrigation by partial ETc replacement at a SWP of -80 kPa; (ii) to compare the
responses of several major commercial varieties to deficit irrigation; and (iii) to evaluate the
potential for deficit irrigation to improve the economic efficiency of potato production.

Deficit irrigation trials at Oregon State University’s Malheur Experiment Station, Ontario, Oregon,
United States of America, were conducted in three successive years on an owyhee silt loam
(coarse-silty, mixed, mesic, xerollic camborthid). As the cultural practices are described elsewhere
(Shock et al., 1998), this section includes only the details related to the irrigation treatments,
irrigation scheduling, and the evaluation of the potato crops.
In the experimental design, irrigation treatments were the main plots, replicated five times.
The varieties were split plots within the main plots. The varieties were: Russet Burbank, Shepody,
Frontier Russet, and Ranger Russet. Irrigation treatments were arranged in randomzied complete
blocks and consisted of an adequately irrigated check and three progressively drier deficit irrigation
treatments (Table 1). The control treatment was irrigated when the soil water potential at 0.2-m
depth reached -60 kPa and received no more water than the accumulated ETc since the previous
irrigation. The deficit irrigation treatments were irrigated when the SWP at 0.2 m reached -80
kPa and had a percentage of the accumulated ETc since the last irrigation applied at each
irrigation: i) 100 percent; ii) 70 percent; and iii) 50 percent until tuber set, then 70 percent for six
weeks, and 50 percent thereafter.
TABLE 1
Irrigation treatments for potato
Treatment 1992 1993 1994
Irrigation Irrigation Total water Average Time, w/ Total Ave. Time w/ Total Ave. Time w/
a
criterion amount applied SWP SWP water SWP SWP water SWP SWP
(kPa) (% ETc ) (mm) (kPa) <–60 kPa applied (kPa) <–60 kPa applied (kPa) <–60 kPa
(d) (mm) (d) (mm) (d)
-60 100 589 –50 11 466 –30 3 544 –37 4
-80 100 566 –64 25 255 –41 12 380 –54 26
-80 70 411 –58 35 259 –51 21 356 –59 26
b
-80 50,70,50 368 –72 44 259 –63 36 327 –60 31
LSD0.05 46 22 18 39 14 12 70 17 14
a
Average daily, 0800 hours measurements at 0.2-m depth, from five plots, recorded a few days before tuber set
through to 7 September each year
b
50% of accumulated ETC replaced until tuber set, then 70% of ETC replaced for six weeks, then 50% of ETC replaced
until last irrigation
ETc estimates: 1992 - 66 mm; 1993 - 491 mm; 1994 - 622 mm.
To reduce the risk of water losses through leaching, each irrigation was limited to avoid
exceeding the water holding capacity of the soil to a depth of 0.3 m. For the control treatment,
individual water applications did not exceed 30 mm, and for the plots irrigated at -80 kPa with
100 percent ETc replaced, individual water applications did not exceed 35 mm. The level of
-80 kPa was chosen as it was the SWP at which a single episode of water stress, during tuber
bulking, had been previously reduced Russet Burbank tuber grade and quality at the experimental
site (Eldredge et al.,1996).
Plots were 13 rows wide (12 m) and 12 m long. Each plot was irrigated using sprinkler heads
adjusted to cover a 90o angle at each corner of the plot. The water application rate was 10 mm/
h and the coefficient of uniformity for the sprinkler system, calculated according to Christiansen
(1942), was 86 percent. All plots with the same treatment were irrigated when the average
SWP of the sensors for those plots reached the treatment threshold value. Each year, the irrigations
were initiated no earlier than one week before tuber set.
Soil water potential was measured in each plot by two granular matrix sensors (GMSs;
Watermark Soil Moisture Sensors, Model 200SS, Irrometer Co., Riverside, California, United
States of America) centred at the 0.2-m depth and two GMSs centred at the 0.5-m depth. The
four GMSs in each plot were offset 0.15 m from the hill centre (Stieber and Shock, 1995).
Sensor readings had been calibrated against tensiometer measurements of SWP (Eldredge et
al., 1993). The GMSs were read at 0800 hours daily starting a few days before tuber set each
year. Potato ETc was estimated daily and recorded from crop emergence until the final irrigation,
using an AgriMet (United States Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho, United States of America)
weather station at the Malheur Experiment Station and a modified Penman equation (Wright,
1982). Treatments could be irrigated daily, as needed, because sensor readings and Etc calculations
were available daily.
Tubers were harvested and graded by market class (U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2) and size
(113-170 g, 170-283 g, and >283 g). They were graded as U.S. No. 2 where any of the following
conditions existed: growth cracks, bottleneck shape, abnormally curved shape, or two or more
knobs.
Tuber specific gravity and stem-end fry colour were determined (Shock et al., 1994).
Monetary values for the crops were calculated according to a 1996 potato growing and sales
contract for processing potatoes (ORE-IDA Foods, Inc., Boise, Idaho, United States of America).
Potato production costs were calculated from data prepared by Malheur County Extension
(Oregon State University, Ontario, Oregon, United States of America) and were considered the
same for all treatments except for harvest costs, which were calculated per unit of total yield.
Irrigation costs were calculated from data prepared by Patterson et al. (1996) and were
considered the same for all treatments except for pump power costs, calculated per millimetre
of water applied. Total yields and U.S. No. 1 yields and net profits averaged across varieties
were regressed against applied water plus rainfall for the three years.
RESULTS
Water applications over time for all
FIGURE 1
treatments were close to, and less
Cumulative ETc and water applied plus rainfall for potatoes
than, the target ETc values each submitted to four irrigation treatments, 1994
year (Table 1 and Figure 1). Preci- 700
pitation during the tuber bulking
Potato ETc
period was 46, 57 and 7 mm for 600
Cumulative water applied, mm
1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively.

500 Treatment 1
The number of days with SWP at
0.2-m depth below -60 kPa 400
Treatment 2
increased with the change in the
irrigation criterion from -60 to -80 300
Treatment 3
kPa and with the decreases in 200
applied water (Table 1). The
accumulated growing degree days 100 Treatment 4
(10-30oC) during the tuber bulking

0
period were 931, 695 and 946 for 141 158 175 192 209 226 243
Day of year
1992, 1993 and 1994, respectively.
Treatment 1 was irrigated at -60 kPa and had a target of 100% of
Tuber yields in the well-irrigated ETc applied. Treatments 2, 3 and 4 were irrigated at -80 kPa and had
treatments of this trial averaged targets of 100%, 70%, and <70% of ETc applied, respectively; data
for 1992 and 1993 were similar.
57 Mg/ha, while Malheur County
growers had an average yield of
46 Mg/ha over the same years with
FIGURE 2
the cultivars Shepody and Russet
Effect of irrigation plus precipitation on potato tuber yield
Burbank. Reductions in total yield for three years averaged over four varieties
due to the progressive deficit
irrigation treatments averaged 6.7, 70 _
10 and 14 percent with 60
corresponding water savings of 25, 50

Yield, Mg ha-1
36 and 40 percent. Total yield and

40
U.S. No. 1 yield both increased
with increases in water supply in 30
each of the three years (Figure 2). 20 _
10 _
The irrigation x cultivar
interaction was significant only in 0
_
100 200 300 400 500 600 700

1992 for total and U.S. No. 2 yields. Irrigation plus precipitation, mm
In 1992, U.S. No. 2 yield of Russet Regression equations are:

Burbank increased with deficit Total yield: Y = 29.84 + .0595xX (R2 = 0.63, P = 0.001)
U.S. No. 1 yield: Y = 15.28 + .0484xX (R2 = 0.39, P = 0.001)
irrigation whereas total yield was
insensitive. In contrast, U.S. No. 2 yields for Frontier Russet, Ranger Russet, and Shepody
were insensitive to deficit irrigation, whereas total yields declined.
Deficit irrigation had small effects on tuber stem-end fry colour in 1992 and 1993, and was
associated with reduced tuber specific gravity only in 1994. The market value of the crop
includes considerations of marketable yield, tuber size and grade, fry colour, and specific gravity.
Based on the prevailing market contract, estimated profit to the grower decreased on average
by 32, 41 and 68 percent with corresponding average water savings of 25, 36 and 40 percent.
DISCUSSION
Potato water requirements
Potato ETc averaged 593 mm over the three years of the study. Potato ETc requirements are
well established and are based on weather data, the timing of the stages of plant development,
canopy coverage, and crop coefficients during development (Wright and Stark, 1990). They
range broadly from less than 300 to 700 mm, depending on the environment, the year, and rate
of crop growth.
Yield responses to irrigation deficits

Yield and grade responded linearly to applied water. In arid regions, studies have shown that
potato yield responds linearly to applied water where irrigation plus rainfall is less than or equal
to ETc (Hane and Pumphrey, 1984; Hegney and Hoffman, 1997; Martin et al., 1992; Shalhevet
et al., 1983). Losses in potato yield and grade in response to deficit irrigation were in agreement
with previous observations, e.g. Eldredge et al. (1992) and Stark and McCann (1992).
Tuber grade responses to irrigation deficits

External tuber defects that cause loss of grade are consistent with water stress during early
formation and bulking of the tubers (Robins and Domingo, 1956; Salter and Goode, 1967; Thompson
and Kelly, 1957).
Tuber internal quality responses to water stress

Short-term deficit irrigation intensities (driest SWP experienced) in this study were within the
ranges of SWP for a silt loam that resulted in dark stem-end fry colour and loss in tuber specific
gravity in previous work (Eldredge et al., 1996). The lack of consistent stem-end fry colour
response or loss in tuber specific gravity to the season-long deficit irrigation in this study indicates
that the potato plants may have become drought hardened in the manner hypothesized by van
Loon (1981). The use of sensors for SWP feedback allowed the regulation of stress, such that
it reoccurred at the same level throughout the growing season.
In contrast, well-watered potato plants, subjected to irrigation deficits after tuber initiation
during the middle of the growing season, produced tubers with reduced specific gravity (Hang
and Miller, 1986; Miller and Martin, 1987b). Miller and Martin (1987a) found that the specific
gravity of Russet Burbank fell following deficit irrigation at 80 percent of ETc on a sandy soil.
Stark and McCann (1992) reported reduced specific gravity and darker stem-end fry colour for
Russet Burbank subjected to deficit irrigation at 80 percent of ETc on a silt loam soil. In the
present study, irrigation management maintained rootzone SWP higher than -80 kPa, thus
attenuating the intensity of water stress resulting from the deficit irrigation treatments. The
aforementioned studies, despite using daily irrigations, did not use SWP feedback for irrigation
scheduling.
Differential response of varieties to deficit irrigation

The variety x irrigation-treatment interactions were not consistently strong in the present study.
Other authors have found strong potato-genotype x water-stress interactions (Jefferies and
MacKerron, 1993b).
Economic outcome
Deficit irrigation reduced gross revenues more than production costs (Shock et al., 1998).
Reductions in water applied resulted in small decreases in irrigation costs, because only electrical
power for the pumping was saved. Water costs independent of pumping did not diminish with
decreased irrigation because the district charged a fixed fee per hectare of water. Cost reductions
with deficit irrigation would be greater than in the present study if the pumping lift were high or
the water more costly. Over the three years, profits rose with increases in applied water. These
results are complementary to those of Stark and McCann (1992), who observed declines in
yield, grade, specific gravity, and fry colour for processing potatoes grown at Kimberly, Idaho,
United States of America, with deficit irrigation.
In this study, the environmental benefits of the well watered control treatment were significant,
with 10 percent less water applied than full estimated ETc and with a low leaching potential.
Because the reductions in production costs due to reduced water applications were small and
because the check treatment resulted in significant environmental benefits, there would be no
benefit from deficit irrigation drier than the check treatment. In eastern Oregon, deficit irrigation
after tuber set could lead to greater risk to potato growers and could reduce the processing
industry’s competitiveness due to deficiencies in tuber yield and quality.
Opportunities to conserve water through irrigation scheduling

In the present study, the leaching potential, as determined by the SWP treatments, was low,
even for the wettest treatment. In each year, SWP at 0.5-m depth remained lower (drier) than
at 0.2 m for all treatments, and total water applied (irrigation plus precipitation) was less or
slightly less than the estimated ETc, suggesting that loss of water by leaching was minimal
(Figure 3). Irrigation scheduling, using both a target SWP and controlled water application that
did not exceed the water holding capacity of the top 0.3 m of soil, resulted in total seasonal
water applied being slightly less than estimated ETc, even wirh irrigation at -60 kPa. Stored
moisture at lower depths in the soil profile can in part supply this small water deficit, as suggested
by the increasing dryness of the soil at 0.5 m for the check treatment in 1993 and 1994 (Figure
3). Alternatively, small water savings may accrue by limiting irrigations before tuber set (Shock
et al., 1992). Where feasible, SDI can improve water use efficiency for potato compared to
sprinkler irrigation, by reducing evaporative losses of water (DeTar et al., 1995; Sammis, 1980;
Shea et al., 1999).
The ideal SWP for irrigation sche- FIGURE 3

duling varies from -20 to -60 kPa, Soil water potential for potatoes irrigated at: -60 kPa
depending on soil type, irrigation replacing ETC
system, production area, and variety 0
(Holder and Cary, 1984; van Loon,
-20
1981). For silt loam in eastern
Oregon, the soil water potential in the -40
top 0.3 m should remain wetter than -60
-60 kPa. Irrigation of Russet Burbank -80

on sandy soils in Australia required - -100
1992
20 kPa during early tuber bulking and 0 155 174 193 212 231 250
-20 to -40 kPa after-wards (Hegney Soil water potential, kPa -20
and Hoffman, 1997). Careful -40
irrigation scheduling with an
-60
appropriate local SWP irrigation
criterion and ETc replacement can -80
1993
achieve efficient water use, while -100
0 155 174 193 212 231 250
maintaining profitability in a crop
sensitive to deficit irrigation. -20
-40
-60
REFERENCES -80
1994
-100
155 174 193 212 231 250
Christiansen, J.E. 1942. Irrigation by Day of year
sprinkling. California Agriculture Solid line: 0.2 m depth, broken line: 0.5 m depth
Experiment Station Bulletin 670.
Berkeley, California, United States of
America, University of California.
DeTar, W.R., Browne, G.T., Phene, C.J. & Sanden, B.L. 1995. Real-time irrigation scheduling of potatoes
with sprinkler and subsurface drip systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on
Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling, San Antonio, St. Joseph, Michigan, United States of
America, TX. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, .
Eldredge, E.P., Holmes, Z.A., Mosley, A.R., Shock, C.C. & Stieber, T.D. 1996. Effects of transitory water
stress on potato tuber stem-end reducing sugar and fry color. American Potato Journal 73: 517-530.
Eldredge, E.P., Shock, C.C. & Stieber, T.D. 1993. Calibration of granular matrix sensors for irrigation
management. Agronomy Journal 85: 1228-1232.
Eldredge, E.P., Shock, C.C. & Stieber, T.D. 1992. Plot sprinklers for irrigation research. Agronomy Journal
84: 1081-1084.
English, M. & Raja, S.N. 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 32: 1-
14.
Hane, D.C. & Pumphrey, F.V. 1984. Yield-evapotranspiration relationships and seasonal crop coefficients
for frequently irrigated potatoes. American Potato Journal 61: 661-668.
Hang, A.N. & Miller, D.E. 1986. Yield and physiological responses of potatoes to deficit, high frequency
sprinkler irrigation. Agronomy Journal 78: 436-440.
Hegney, M.A. & Hoffman, H.P. 1997. Potato irrigation – development of irrigation scheduling guidelines.
Horticulture Research and Development Corporation Project NP 6. Western Australia, Australia,
Department of Agriculture of Western Australia.
Holder, C.B. & Cary, J.W. 1984. Soil oxygen and moisture in relation to Russet Burbank potato yield and
quality. American Potato Journal 61: 67-75.
Jefferies, R.A. & MacKerron, D.K.L. 1993a. Responses of potato genotypes to drought. I. Expansion of
individual leaves and osmotic adjustment. Annals of Applied Biology 122: 93-104.
Jefferies, R.A. & MacKerron, D.K.L. 1993b. Responses of potato genotypes to drought. II. Leaf area
index, growth and yield. Annals of Applied Biology 122: 105-112.
Lynch, D.R., Foroud, N., Kozub, G.C. & Farries, B.C. 1995. The effect of moisture stress at three growth
stages on the yield components of yield and processing quality of eight potato cultivars. American
Potato Journal 72: 375-386.
Lynch, D.R. & Tai, G.C.C. 1989. Yield and yield component response of eight potato genotypes to water
stress. Crop Science 29: 1207-1211.
Martin, M.W. & Miller, D.E. 1983. Variations in responses of potato germplasm to deficit irrigation as
affected by soil texture. American Potato Journal 60: 671-683.
Martin, R.J., Jamieson, P.D., Wilson, D.R. & Fransis, G.S. 1992. Effects of soil moisture deficits on the
yield and quality of ‘Russet Burbank’ potatoes. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural
Science 20: 1-9.
Miller, D.E. & Martin, M.W. 1987a. The effect of irrigation regime and subsoiling on yield and quality of
three potato cultivars. American Potato Journal 64: 17-26.
Miller, D.E. & Martin M.W. 1987b. Effect of declining or interrupted irrigation on yield and quality of
three potato cultivars grown on sandy soil. American Potato Journal 64: 109-118.
Miller, D.E. & Martin, M.W. 1983. Effect of daily irrigation rate and soil texture on yield and quality of
Russet Burbank potatoes. American Potato Journal 60: 745-757.
Patterson, P.E., King, B.A. & Smathers, R.L. 1996. Economics of sprinkler irrigation systems: handline,
solid set, and wheelline. University of Idaho Cooperative Extension System Bulletin 788. Moscow,
Idaho, United States of America, University of Idaho.
Robins, J.S. & Domingo C.E. 1956. Potato yield and tuber shape as affected by severe soil-moisture
deficits and plant spacing. Agronomy Journal 48: 488-492.
Salter, P.J. & Goode, J.E. 1967. Crop responses to water at different stages of growth. Farnham Royal,
The United Kingdom, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau.
Sammis, T.W. 1980. Comparison of sprinkler, trickle, subsurface, and furrow irrigation methods for row
crops. Agronomy Journal 72: 701-704.
Shae, J.B., Steele, D.D. & Gregor, B.L. 1999. Irrigation scheduling methods for potatoes in the Northern
Great Plains. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 42: 351-360.
Shalhevet, J., Shimshi, D. & Meir, T. 1983. Potato irrigation requirements in a hot climate using sprinkler
and drip methods. Agronomy Journal 75: 13-16.
Shock, C.C., Feibert, E.B.G. & Saunders, L.D. 1998. Potato yield and quality response to deficit irrigation.
Hort. Science 33:655-659.
Shock, C.C., Holmes, Z.A., Stieber, T.D., Eldredge, E.P. & Zhang P. 1993. The effect of timed water stress
on quality, total solids and reducing sugar content of potatoes. American Potato Journal 70: 227-241.
Shock, C.C., Stieber, T.D., Zalewski, J.C., Eldredge, E.P. & Lewis M.D. 1994. Potato tuber stem-end fry
color determination. American Potato Journal 71: 77-88.
Shock, C.C., Zalewski, J.C., Stieber, T.D. & D.S. Burnett. 1992. Impact of early-season water deficits on
Russet Burbank plant development, tuber yield and quality. American Potato Journal 69: 793-803.
Stark, J.C. & McCann, I.R. 1992. Optimal allocation of limited water supplies for Russet Burbank potatoes.
American Potato Journal 69: 413-421.
Stieber, T.D. & Shock, C.C. 1995. Placement of soil moisture sensors in sprinkler irrigated potatoes.
American Potato Journal 72:533-543.
Thompson, H.C. & Kelly, W.C. 1957. Vegetable crops. New York, United States of America, McGraw Hill,
Inc.
van Loon, C.D. 1981. The effect of water stress on potato growth, development, and yield. American
Potato Journal 58: 51-69.
Wright, J.L. 1982. New evapotranspiration crop coefficients. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 108: 57-74.
Wright, J.L. & Stark J.C. 1990. Potato. In: B.A. Stewart and D.R. Neilsen, eds. Irrigation of Agricultural
Crops – Agronomy. Monograph No. 30, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, ASA-CSSA-
SSSA.
Management of supplemental irrigation

of winter wheat for maximum profit
SUMMARY
Irrigation scheduling to manage supplemental water for maximum net profit of winter wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) in the North China Plain was investigated under variable water applications at two
sites from 1992 to 2000. The effects of number and timing of irrigation applications on yields were
examined. Based on determinations of sensitivity indices to water stress at various growth stages,
a dynamic model was used to calculate the net profits of the irrigation treatments. The results
indicate that one, two and three irrigations of 60 mm in wet, normal and dry years, respectively,
achieve relatively high yields and maximum net profits. Therefore, the four irrigations generally
applied to winter wheat may be reduced to three, two or one, with concomitant water savings.
The North China Plain (NCP) is one of the most important grain producing areas in the People’s
Republic of China, especially for winter wheat. Its output accounts for more than 19 percent of
national wheat production. Due to serious water shortages in the NCP, available irrigation is
decreasing rapidly. Where groundwater is used, the amounts pumped in recent years have
caused serious depletion. At the sites of the experiment the water table is declining at a rate of
1-1.5 m/year. For winter wheat, average rainfall during the growing season from October to
May ranges from approximately 60-200 mm. Supplemental irrigation is required because the
water consumption is about 450-500 mm. Farmers generally irrigate winter wheat three to five
times, with 180-300 mm of the total water application for each season, from wells, rivers or
reservoirs.
Despite these serious shortages, wastage of irrigation water is common in the NCP because
of inefficient methods and poor scheduling, resulting in decreased water use efficiency (WUE)
and profits. The purpose of this research was to determine rational irrigation scheduling for
winter wheat with limited availability of water to obtain optimum yields and maximize profits.
The relationships between crop yields and water use are complicated. Yield may depend on
when water is applied or on the amount. Information on optimal scheduling of limited amounts of
water to maximize yields of high quality crops is essential if irrigation water is to be used most
efficiently (Al-Kaisi et al., 1997). The various crop development stages possess different
sensitivities to moisture stress (FAO, 1979; English and Nakamura, 1989; Ghahraman and
Sepaskhah, 1997). Timing, duration and the degree of water stress all affect yield.
X. Zhang and D. Pei, Institute of Agricultural Modernization,

Shijiazhuang, The People’s Republic of China
Z. Li and J.Li, Dryland Farming Institute, Hengshui, The People’s Republic of China
Y. Wang, Hebei Institute of Hydrology, Shijiazhuang, The People’s Republic of China
58 Management of supplemental irrigation of winter wheat for maximum profit
This paper describes field experiments in which winter wheat yields and profits were examined
under various irrigation scheduling regimes. Crop yield/water relations were determined. Water
sensitivity indices were analysed at various growth stages. Based on the results, optimum irrigation
schedules for maximum net profit for winter wheat were established using a dynamic
mathematical model.

Sites and experiments
Irrigation scheduling TABLE 1
experiments were carried Rainfall and water requirements during winter wheat growth at the
out with winter wheat at two experimental sites
1991–92 1992–93 1994–95 Ave. 1960–1995
Luancheng Eco-Agro- Site Component
–––––––––––––––––– (mm) ––––––––––––––––––
System Experimental Rainfall 229 47.7 125 126
Station (in a high- Hengshui WR –– –– –– 452
production region) and at 1997–98 1998–99 1999–2000 Ave. 1975–2000
Hengshui Dryland Farming Rainfall 127 60.4 54.1 117
Luancheng
Institute (relatively low- WR –– –– –– 468
production region) from
1991 to 1993, 1994 to 1995,
and 1997 to 2000, i.e. six growing seasons. The stations are located in the central part of the
NCP. At Luancheng, there is loamy soil of high organic content; field capacity of 35.5 percent
and wilting point of 11.3 percent by volume, for the surface to 100-cm soil layer. At Hengshui,
the sandy loamy soil is of relatively low fertility; field capacity is at 30.4 percent and wilting point
at 11.0 percent by volume for the same soil layer. Table 1 lists rainfall at the two sites during the
experiments. Seasonal rainfall is far less than the water requirement (WR) of winter wheat
calculated by the Penman-Monteith equation.
The experiments had a
randomized design with various TABLE 2
combinations of number and Number and scheduling of irrigations applied to winter wheat
timing of irrigations (Table 2), with Irrigation scheduling
four replications of each No. of Before Booting
irrigations Milky
over- Recovering Jointing to
treatment. Surface irrigation was wintering heading
filling
used with plastic tubes, and 0
irrigation water was recorded. 1 x
Meteorological stations at the 2 x x
3 x x x
experimental sites recorded
4 x x x x
temperature, rainfall, wind 5 x x x x x
velocity, evaporatio, and solar
radiation. Plots were 5x8 m, 2 m
apart.
Crops and management

The experiments used common varieties. Planting is generally in early October with a row
spacing of 16 cm and a seeding density of 300/m2. Harvest is in early June. The straw is
returned to the soil. Chemical N, P, and K were applied as base fertilizer, and N was re-applied
at the jointing stage. Plots were hand-harvested individually, with a thresher used to separate the
grain.
Soil water measurements

Soil water contents were monitored using a neutron probe (IH-II, the United Kingdom) at
intervals of 7 days for each 20-cm layer; aluminium access tubes were installed to a depth of
200 cm for each plot. Evapotranspiration (ET) was calculated by the following equation:
ET = DS + P + I – D – R (1)
where: DS = the change in soil water storage (mm)
P = rainfall (mm)
I = irrigation (mm)
D = drainage from the bottom of root zone (mm)
R = runoff (mm).
As rainfall intensity is low during winter wheat growth, no runoff occurs and the drainage
from the rootzone is negligible, in which case ET is the sum of rainfall, irrigation and the change
in soil water storage.
Crop sensitivity to water stress

Yield decrease is related to the sensitivity of the crop to water stress at various stages of
growth. Jensen (1968) proposed a mathematical relationship between relative yield and the
relative amount of evapotranspiration as follows:
n
Y ET
= ∏ ( i ) λi (2)
Ym i =1 ETim
where: Y = the actual yield under partial irrigation (kg/ha)

Ym = the yield under non-limiting water use from full irrigation (kg/ha)
n = the number of growth stages
ETi = the actual amount of water used by the crop at growth-stage i (mm)
ETim = the non-limiting crop water use or potential water requirement at
growth-stage i (mm)
λi = the relative sensitivity (sensitivity index) to water stress during
growth-stage i.
The value of λi for a given crop changes with growth stage. A more sensitive growth stage
has a higher value of λi.

Relation of crop yield to water consumption
Tables 3 and 4 show the six years of results at the two sites. Different combinations of irrigation
number and timing achieved various yields. The largest number of irrigations did not generate
the highest yield. A single irrigation produced the highest yield during the 1997–98 season (relatively
more rainfall), and four irrigations in the 1999-2000 season (least rainfall) produced the highest
yield at Luancheng. Other studies FIGURE 1

have reported that the relationship Relation of winter wheat yield with water consumption
between yield and water during two seasons at Luancheng
consumption, including irrigation, is
not linear (Yuan et al., 1992). The
results of the present study showed
that crop yields initially improved
with increased water consumption,
but that beyond a certain water use
level yields decreased (Figure1)
over irrigation reduced winter-wheat
production.
TABLE 3
Effects of timing and number of irrigations on winter wheat
Irrigation water use efficiency
yields at Luancheng
The relation of irrigation to crop yield Season Number of Total Total water Grain yield
irrigations irrigation consumption (kg/ha)
is called the irrigation-production (mm) (mm)
function. Many researchers (Zhang 0 0 299 5 414
et al., 1993) have reported that this 1997–98
1 84.7 334 6 088
function can be described with a 2 95.0 338 5 955
3 176 376 5 651
quadratic relationship:
0 0 323 5 326
1 60 359 5 751
Y = b 0 + b 1 W + b 2 W2 (3) 2 120 412 6 999
1998–99
3 180 474 7 064
4 240 478 6 937
where: 5 300 532 6 449
Y = crop yield (kg/ha) 0 0 283 5 104
1 60 325 6 181
W = total irrigation during the 2 120 377 7 249
1999–2000
whole crop-growth period 3 180 433 7 593
(mm) 4 240 489 7 770
5 300 512 7 590
b 0 , b 1 and b 2 are coefficients (kg/
ha, kg/ha/mm, kg/ha/mm 2 , TABLE 4
respec-tively). Effects of timing and number of irrigations on winter wheat
yields at Hengshui
Season Number of Total Total water Grain yield
It is possible to divide yield irrigations irrigation consumption (kg/ha)
increases with irrigation into three (mm) (mm)
phases. In the first phase, the value 0 0 279 5 235
1 60 347 5 869
of the increased yield exceeds the
1991–92 2 120 394 5 955
increase in cost; in the second phase, 3 180 424 5 720
the value of the increased yield is 4 240 477 5 478
equal to the increase in cost; and in 0 0 145 1 959
the third phase, the increase in yield 1 60 205 2 825
is of less value that the increase in 1992–93 2 120 264 3 495
3 180 324 4 545
cost. The following equations 4 240 370 4 170
express these situations: 0 0 179 3 128
1 60 282 4 204
First phase ? YxPy > ? WxPw 1994–95 2 120 352 5 775
Second phase ? YxPy = ? WxPw 3 180 408 5 940
Third phase ? YxPy < ? WxPw 4 240 463 5 730
where: ∆Y = yield increase from irrigation (kg/ha)

Py = unit price of the crop (price/kg)
Pw = unit price of the water (price/ha/mm)
∆W = increase in irrigation (mm).
In the first phase, net output value increases with irrigation. In the second phase, the net
profit from irrigation is maximum. In the third phrase, the net profit from irrigation decreases.
Therefore, the irrigation quantity for maximum profit is that for the second phase. By derivation
of Equation (3) and combination of it with ∆Y xPy = ∆WxPw, the following equation yields the
irrigation amount to maximize profit:.
W = (Pw/Py-b1)/2b2 (4)
Table 5 provides correlations of yield with irrigation at the two sites for the various seasons.
The total irrigation amount for maximum profit was lower than the irrigation amount for maximum
yield. Therefore, it it possible to change the general practice of irrigation for maximum yield in
the NCP for increased profit savings in large volumes of water. With the worsening water-
shortage problem, irrigation costs may increase in the future, and then further reductions in
water use may actually increase profits.
TABLE 5
Irrigation production function and economic irrigation quota for winter wheat
Irrigation for max. profit
Irrigation for max. (mm)
Site Season Irrigation production function
yield (mm)
Low fee High fee
1997–98 Y = -0.0632W2 + 12.4W + 5 418* 98.3 90.4 58.7
2
Luan. 1998–99 Y = -0.0499W + 19.4W + 5 162 194 184 144
1999-2000 Y = -0.0489W2 + 23.0W + 5 075 235 225 184
2
1991–92 Y = -0.0411W + 9.43W + 5 288 115 103 53.9
Heng. 1992–93 Y = -0.0417W2 + 19.2W + 1 870 231 219 171
2
1994–95 Y = -0.0789W + 29.5W + 2 999 187 181 155
*Y = yield (kg/ha) W = total irrigation (mm)
Note: when calculating irrigation for maximum profit, the price of winter wheat was US$0.11/kg; low water fee=
US$0.118/m3; and high water fee= US$0.0588/m3.
Optimizing irrigation scheduling for maximum profit

The effect of water stress on the TABLE 6
yield of winter wheat depends on Sensitivity indices of winter wheat to water stress at ivarious
growth stages
the growth stage during which the
stress is imposed. Table 6 shows li at growth stage
sensitivity indices to water stress Before Heading

over- Recovering Jointing Booting to milky Maturing
from the Jensen model based on wintering filling
water deficit field experiments at
0.0781 -0.1098 0.2984 0.2366 0.1102 -0.0541
Luancheng (Zhang et al., 1999). In
the NCP, rainfall varies greatly
during the winter growing season. Taking account of the sensitivity index and rainfall, a dynamic
model can be used to programme the irrigation schedule for maximum profit.
Target function
The target function is that which maximizes net profit per unit area, according to the following
equation:
max I = I* = max(B-C) (5)

where: I = net income per unit area (value/ha)
B = total output value per unit area (value/ha)
C = total input value per unit area (value/ha).
The following equations yield the values for B and C:
B = (PY1+PY2xL)Y (6)
C =(PW1+PW2)W+K( W + 4 ´ Y )+Fc (7)

50 250
where: Y = grain yield of winter wheat (kg/ha)
L = ratio of straw yield to grain yield
W = total irrigation water (m3/ha)
K = daily labour cost (cost/person)
PY1, PY2 = grain and straw price (value/kg)
P W1 , P W2 = water fee and irrigation energy cost (cost/m3 and
cost/unit energy)
W/50 = days needed for irrigation (50 m3 irrigation per day)
4xY/250 = harvesting cost (250 kg grain per four days)
Fc = seed, sowing, fertilizer and other costs (cost/ha)
The Jensen model calculates the effect of water deficit on crop yields:
n
ETi
Y = Ymx Õ ( ET ) (i=1, 2, 3,…, n)
i =1
li
(8)
im
where: ETi = water consumption at growth stage i (m3/ha)

li = sensitivity index to water stress at growth stage i
ET im = water consumption at growth stage i without water stress (m3/ha)
Ym = grain yield without water stress (kg/ha).
Combining Equations (6), (7) and (8) into (5) yields:
I* = max(B-C)
= max{(PY1+PY2xL)Y-[(PW1+PW2)W+K( W + 4 ´ Y )+FC]}
50 250
n
ETi K
= max{(PY1+PY2xL )Ymx Õ ( ET
i =1
) li -(PW1+PW2 +
50
)W-Fc}
im
And letting:
4´ K
(PY1+PY2xL - )=M
250
K
(PW1+PW2 +
50
)=N
n
W= å W i = 1, 2,…, n
i =1
i
Then, the following equation yields the target function.

n n
ETi
I* = max{MxYm x ∏ ( ET
i=1
) λi -Nx ∑ W -FC}
i=1
i
(9)
im
where: M, N = target coefficients (price/ha)

Wi = irrigation at stage i (m3 /ha)
λi = the value in Table 6.
The calculation of growth stage water consumption without water stress uses the Penman-
Menteith equation recommended by FAO, based on average meteorological parameters for
1960 to 1990. The crop coefficient is from field experiments (Liu et al., 1998). The irrigation
scheduling for maximum profit in different rainfall years, dry, normal and wet years are
programmed. The type of seasonal rainfall is classified by the meteorological statistical method
based on the seasonal rainfall data from 1951 to 1999 in the central part of the NCP, with P = 75,
50 and 25 percent, respectively. The quantity of water for each irrigation is assumed to be 60
mm, which is common in the well-pumping irrigation region of the NCP.
Determining the variables

The equation for calculating water allocation for different growth stages is:
q i+1 = qi - Wi 10)
where: qi = water allocated at the beginning of growth stage i
q i+1 = water allocated at the beginning of growth stage i+1
The equation for calculating the soil water that can be used at the beginning of a stage:
S i+1 = S i +Poi +Wi +Ki +ETi +Ei (11)
where: Si = soil water that can be used by the crop at the beginning of growth
stage i (m3 /ha)
S i+1 = soil water that can be used at the beginning of growth stage i+1
(m3 /ha)
Wi = irrigation at growth-stage i (m3 /ha)
P0i = effective rainfall at growth stage i (m3 /ha)
ETi = evapotranspiration at growth stage i (m3 /ha)
Ki = groundwater replenishment to soil water at growth stage i (m3 /ha)
Ei = percolation from rootzone at growth stage i (m3 /ha).
The programming uses the following binding conditions:
0 = Wi =q i i = 1, 2,…, n (12)
n
∑W
i =1
i =W (13)
ß w = ß = ßf (14)
where: W = available irrigation water during the whole growth period (m3 /ha).
ßf = field capacity (v/v)
ßw = low limit of soil water content
ß = soil water content.
TABLE 7
Simulated irrigation scheduling for maximum profit of winter wheat
Growth stages of winter wheat Total Simulated
Seasonal rainfall (mm) maximum profit
pattern Sowing to Jointing Booting Heading to Maturing
recovering milky filling (US$/ha)*
Average
30.7 3.5 6.3 12.9 6.4 59.6
rainfall (mm)
Dry 182
Simulated
60 0 60 60 0 180
irrigation (mm)
Average
52.3 10.9 17.4 16.3 8.1 105
rainfall (mm)
Normal 189
Simulated
0 60 0 60 0 120
irrigation (mm)
Average
67.9 17.4 22.8 34.2 12.1 154
rainfall (mm)
Wet 213
Simulated
0 0 60 0 0 60
irrigation (mm)
*Based on current prices and costs
In most years, the water content (0-200 cm) at sowing time is about 85 percent of field
capacity. This value was used for initial soil water content. At the beginning of the first growth
stage, available irrigation water is equal to the planned irrigation water for the whole growth
period.
An asymptotic approximation method was used to programme the number of irrigations and
their timing. Table 7 lists the simulated scheduling with maximum net profits for different seasonal
rainfall conditions. The simulated results were similar to those from the field experiments. The
irrigations were timed when winter wheat is most sensitive to water stress.
CONCLUSIONS
Crop yields and net profits are important considerations in selecting an irrigation management
policy in the water deficient NCP region of China. Winter wheat, has a high water requirement.
Supplemental irrigation is essential. Farmers generally irrigate for maximum yield but sometimes
over irrigate, reducing the yield. With the increasing shortage of water in the NCP, irrigation
water fees may rise, whereas grain prices may decrease because of current overproduction in
China. The simulated results showed that a single irrigation in wet years, two irrigations in
normal years and three in dry years produced maximum profits. The timing of the irrigations
would be: at jointing to booting for the single irrigation, at jointing and heading to milky filling for
the two irrigations; and before over wintering, jointing, and heading to milky filling for the three
irrigations.
REFERENCES
Al-Kaisi, M.M., Berrada, A. & Stack, M. 1997. Evaluation of irrigation scheduling program and spring
wheat yield response in southwestern Colorado. Agricultural Water Management 34: 137-148
English, M.J. & Nakamura, B. 1989. Effects of deficit irrigation and irrigation frequency on wheat yields.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, ASCE 115: 172-184.
FAO. 1979. Yield response to water by J. Doorenbos & A. Kassam, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33,
Rome.
Ghahraman, B. & Sepaskhah, A.R. 1997. Use of a water deficit sensitivity index for partial irrigation
scheduling of wheat and barley. Irrigation Science 18:11-16.
Jensen, M.E. 1968. Water consumption by agricultural plants. In: T.T. Kozlowski, ed. Water deficit and
plant growth, Vol. 2. New York, United States of America, Academic Press.
Liu, C., Zhang, X. & You, M. 1998. Determination of daily evaporation and evapotranspiration of winter
wheat field by large-scale weighing lysimeter and micro-lysimeter. Journal of Hydrology 10: 36-39. (in
Chinese)
Yuan, X., Wang, H., Zhang, X. & You, M. 1992. The relationship between winter wheat yield and water
consumption. In: Researches on the Relationship of Crop with Water. Sci. & Tech. Beijing, Publishing
House (in Chinese)
Zhang, H., Liu, X. & Zhang, X. 1993. Theoretical base for water-saving agriculture. In: X. Wang, C. Zhao
and H. Chen eds. Water-saving agriculture and water-saving technology. Beijing, Meteorological
Publishing House (in Chinese)
Zhang, X., You, M. & Wang, X. 1999. Effects of water deficits on winter wheat yield during its different
development stages. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Sinica 14: 79-83. (in Chinese)
Scheduling deficit irrigation of fruit trees

for optimizing water use efficiency
SUMMARY
Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) of fruit trees in the Goulburn Valley of southeastern Australia has
increased water use efficiency by approximately 60 percent with no loss in yield or substantial
reductions in vegetative vigour. Original techniques to schedule RDI were based on a 12.5 percent
(peach) and 20 percent (pear) replacement of US Class A pan evaporation. Subsequent research
into soil moisture measurement led to a recommended soil suction of 400 kPa to trigger irrigation.
To extend the application of RDI to other environments and fruit crops, practical scheduling steps
have been developed. Firstly, fruit growth is measured to determine when to apply RDI. Secondly,
an irrigation plan is developed to estimate irrigation run time and interval based on soil type, root
distribution, wetting pattern and average daily water use. Thirdly, soil moisture sensors are installed
and irrigation is applied when soil suction reaches 200 kPa. Irrigation run time is adjusted by
measuring soil moisture immediately following irrigation. Finally, US Class A pan evaporation is
measured or reference crop evapotranspiration is calculated to estimate irrigation interval for
scheduling in later years.
Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) was developed to improve control of vegetative vigour in
high-density orchards in order to optimize fruit size, fruitfulness and fruit quality. RDI is usually
applied during the period of slow fruit growth when shoot growth is rapid. However, it can also
be applied after harvest in early-maturing varieties. Furthermore, RDI can generate considerable
water savings. Thus, it is useful for reducing excessive vegetative vigour, and also for minimizing
irrigation and nutrient loss through leaching.
Increasingly, orchards are being planted with compact, closely spaced trees. Higher density
improves profitability as trees bear earlier, yields are higher, and production costs are lower
(Chalmers, 1986). While the benefits of high-density orchards are well known, excessive
vegetative vigour in badly managed high-density orchards can lead to shading and associated
barrenness (Chalmers et al., 1981). Fruitlet retention, fruit size and fruit colour can be reduced
in the current season while fruit-bud formation in the following season can be inhibited (Purohit,
1989). Therefore, when full canopy cover is reached, it is critical that excessive vegetative
growth minimized.
Techniques for controlling vegetative vigour include branch manipulation, mechanical shoot
and root pruning, the application of chemical growth regulators, manipulating crop load, fertilizer
management, and RDI (Chalmers et al., 1984). Of these, RDI is arguably the most economical,
as less water is applied with no loss in fruit size or total yield. Genetic control methods such as
I. Goodwin and A.-M. Boland,

Department of Natural Resources and Environment,
Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Tatura, Australia
68 Scheduling deficit irrigation of fruit trees for optimizing water use efficiency
the use of dwarfing rootstocks will control vegetative vigour for the life of an orchard and are
widely used in apple production. However, vigour management based on cultural practices
ensures that trees remain inherently vigorous and are capable of rapidly filling their allotted
space and producing high early yields (Chalmers et al).
Extensive research means that the effects of regulated water deficits on tree growth and
development are well understood. Most studies have shown that mild water stress applied during
the period of slow fruit growth controlled excessive vegetative growth while maintaining or
even increasing yields. These included studies on peach (Prunus persica) (Li et al., 1989;
Williamson and Coston, 1990), European pear (Pyrus communis) (Brun et al., 1985a, 1985b;
Chalmers et al., 1986; Mitchell et al., 1984, 1986, 1989), Asian pear (Pyrus serotina) (Caspari
et al., 1994) and apple (Malus domestica) (Irving and Drost, 1987). In addition, water stress
applied after harvest reduced vegetative growth of early-maturing peach trees (Larson et al.,
1988; Johnson et al., 1992). RDI applied to olives over a ten-week period following pit hardening
had no adverse effect on oil production (Alegra et al., 1999). Moderate levels of water stress
applied to prunes (Prunus domestica), by withholding irrigation in a deep soil during stage II of
fruit growth, increased return fruit bloom, crop load, and total fruit dry matter yield (Lampinen et
al., 1995).
The application of RDI improves water use efficiency (WUE). Mitchell and Chalmers (1982)
found WUE, expressed as yield per unit irrigation, increased from 4.9 to 8.0 t/Ml under RDI in
canning peaches that yielded 48 t/ha. Similarly, Mitchell et al. (1989) found WUE increased
from 12.5 to 22 t/Ml under RDI in WBC pears that yielded approximately 90 t/ha. In the Goulburn
Valley in southeastern Australia these improvements in WUE would lead to water savings of 3
Ml/ha and 2 Ml/ha for peaches and pear, respectively. Even larger water savings have been
reported for peaches in China (Goodwin et al., 1998). In this case, total irrigation applied was
reduced from 3.0 Ml/ha to 1.4 Ml/ha without any effect on yield. Goldhamer (1999) reported
water savings of 25 percent for RDI applied to olives in California, United States of America.
with no yield reduction.
Increased WUE under RDI is due largely to reductions in transpiration, which might be as
much as 50 percent (Boland et al., 1993b). Reduced transpiration appears attributable to partial
stomatal closure. Despite reduced transpiration, measured increases in fruit osmotic potential
(Jerie et al., 1989) indicate that fruit dry weight accumulation is not impaired. This also holds for
Asian pear (Behboudian et al., 1994), grapefruit (Cohen and Goell, 1988) and apple (Failla et
al., 1992), and is thought to be a mechanism of adaptation to water stress (Mitchell et al., 1994).
Both the timing and level of water stress are critical to the success of RDI. These factors
need to be considered in relation to what is understood of the growth and development of the
species in question. In addition, it is necessary to adopt modern techniques for scheduling irrigation
that allow adequate assessment of water stress in any environment. This paper describes how
to determine the timing and frequency of RDI, and it presents practical scheduling techniques
for estimating water application rates.
Timing of RDI
The development of RDI was not possible without first understanding patterns of tree and fruit
growth. Initially, RDI experiments focused on peach and pear, and a comparison of the
development of these fruits illustrates the importance of the timing of RDI application. Although
patterns of growth and development may vary in other horticultural crops, the basic principle of
applying RDI when fruit growth is minimal remains the same.
FIGURE 1
Typical shoot and fruit growth pattern for (a) peach and (b) European pear
(a) Fruit cell Slow fruit Rapid fruit (b) Fruit cell Slow fruit Rapid fruit
division growth growth division growth growth
Pear Fruit or Shoot Growth (% of total)

Peach Fruit or Shoot Growth (% of total)
RDI Full Irrigation RDI Full Irrigation

100 100
75 75
50 50
FRUIT FRUIT
SHOOT SHOOT
25 25
0 0
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
The growth curve of peach is double-sigmoidal with two periods of increasing growth rate.
Three phases are commonly attributed to fruit growth. Stages I and III are separated by a phase
of decreasing growth rate (Stage II) known as the lag phase (Chalmers and van den Ende,
1975, 1977). Changes in the relative sink strengths of the seed and pericarp govern development.
Only 25 percent of total fruit growth occurs when vegetative parts are growing rapidly; the
majority of fruit growth occurs in the final 6-8 weeks before harvest when vegetative growth is
almost complete (Chalmers et al., 1975, 1984) (Figure 1a). This asynchronous growth of fruit
and shoots reduces competition for resources at critical stages, and provides a sound basis for
the application of the RDI, which relies on water stress during Stage II having a small effect on
fruit growth but a significant effect on vegetative growth.
The growth of pear fruit is curvilinear with less than 20 percent occurring by midway from
bloom to harvest (Mitchell, 1986). The majority of shoot growth occurs during this period of
slow fruit growth (Mitchell et al., 1986). Thus, RDI is applied for the first 70-80 days after
bloom. The majority of fruit growth occurs in the remaining 6-8 weeks to harvest (Figure 1b).
The above generic descriptions of fruit and shoot growth of peach and pear are useful for
explaining the theoretical basis for RDI and the general timing of RDI. However, to implement
RDI for a particular variety requires a more accurate description of the growth periods. Stages
of fruit growth for different fruit varieties can be readily determined by tagging several fruit and
shoots on a tree and making weekly determinations of their circumference (or diameter) and
length with a tape measure. Fruit circumference can be converted to relative volume by cubing.
Scheduling RDI –– history

Understanding of when and how to apply RDI has improved substantially over the past 20 years.
Scheduling has evolved from the initial recommendations based on US Class A pan evaporation
(Epan) toward measuring both soil moisture and tree responses before making management
decisions. Although the original simple recommendations may still work for many orchards, the
emphasis on measuring soil moisture to estimate orchard water use and tree water stress allows
more precise control over vegetative vigour and fruit growth.
Under trickle irrigation, the original recommendation for scheduling RDI was to irrigate daily
and calculate irrigation amount from a percent replacement of Epan. The formula used to calculate
irrigation run time was:
( Epan - Rain) ( mm) ´ % Re placement ´ Row spacing ( m) ´ Tree spacing ( m)
Run time (h) =
Emitter rate per tree (litres / h)
Replacement amounts were derived from the original RDI experiments at Tatura (Mitchell
et al., 1989). For peaches, the recommended replacement was 12.5 percent from flowering
until the start of rapid fruit growth. From the start of rapid fruit growth to harvest, the recommended
replacement was 100 percent. The start of rapid fruit growth was based on a date for different
varieties, e.g. Golden Queen was mid-January. With William Bon Chretien (WBC) pears the
strategy was slightly different, consisting of a period of withholding irrigation during spring until
attaining a cumulative deficit of 100-125 mm of evaporation from 1 October. After this, a
replacement of 20 percent Epan was used until mid-December to calculate required irrigation
application. From mid-December to harvest, the recommended replacement was 100-120 percent
for pears.
Adapting these recommendations to fit other irrigation systems concentrated on altering the
interval between irrigations. During the RDI period, the recommended intervals were 7 days
for microjets (40 litres/h/tree in 3x5 m planting) and 21 days for sprinklers (120 litres/h/tree in
6x6 m planting) (Goodwin, 1995). Applying RDI using flood irrigation was based on increasing
the interval between irrigations or irrigating every second row.
The next improvement was to estimate irrigation interval for systems other than trickle.
Estimates were based on the volume of water in the rootzone and average daily water use, and
utilized the measurement of soil moisture to adjust the interval. Calculation of run time was
essentially unchanged, although soilmoisture measurements following irrigation were
recommended to adjust run time. Mitchell and Goodwin (1996) recommended a formula to
calculate interval based on average daily pan evaporation:
Volume of water in rootzone ( litres )
Interval ( days ) =
Average daily water use (litres / day )
Where: volume of water in rootzone (litres) = width of wetted strip (m) x tree spacing (m)
x 0.3 m wetting depth (m) x soil type factor ranging from 60 (sandy soils) to 80
(loams and clays) average daily water use (litres/day) = row spacing (m) x tree
spacing (m) x replacement factor x average daily Epan (mm).
This method of scheduling remains well suited to the Goulburn Valley. However, it is not
applicable to other soil types and climates. RDI experiments in China on peaches, with root
systems up to 2.5 m deep, emphasized the need to measure soil moisture over the entire rootzone
depth to trigger the initial irrigation in spring or early summer (Goodwin et al., 1998).
In conjunction with the above formulae to estimate run time and interval based on pan
evaporation, recommendations to measure soil moisture were developed to ensure soil dryness
was sufficient but not excessive. Measurements of rootzone soil moisture were included in the
scheduling of RDI to adjust irrigation interval and run time. Recommendations were based on
intensive soil suction monitoring with gypsum blocks in an RDI experiment on pears at Tatura
(Goodwin et al., 1992). Under trickle irrigation, soil suction of 400 kPa at 0.1-0.25 m depth,
0.15 m from the emitter, was recommended to trigger irrigations with irrigation run time based
on the above formula. Soil moisture measurements after irrigation at 0.6 m from the tree line
were recommended to adjust irrigation run time.
Work undertaken on RDI of wine grapes across a range of climates and soil types (Goodwin
and Jerie, 1992) highlighted the need for adjustments in soil moisture values to trigger irrigation
depending on rootzone depth, soil texture and climate. Recommendations for wine grapes were
as follows. In sandy soils with shallow rootzones (<0.4 m) and hot climates (e.g. average January
daily evaporation >8 mm), soil suction under RDI should not exceed 100 kPa. In loam soil with
intermediate rootzones (0.4-0.8 m) and mild climates (e.g. average January daily evaporation
5-8 mm), soil suction under RDI should not exceed 200 kPa. In clay soil with deep rootzones
(>0.8 m) and cool climates (e.g. average January daily evaporation <5 mm), soil suction under
RDI should not exceed 400 kPa.
Scheduling RDI –– current recommendations

The following is a list of necessary steps implementing RDI successfully:
• Measure fruit and shoot growth to determine the RDI period for fruit species/varieties in an
orchard.
• Dig up a tree to determine the rootzone distribution –– width and depth (80 percent of total).
• Determine the wetting pattern of the irrigation system and estimate wetted rootzone.
• Develop a season irrigation plan for run time and interval based on soil type and average Epan
or reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo).
• Install soil moisture sensors (preferred measure is soil suction using gypsum blocks)
- at 0.3 m and bottom of rootzone in shallow soil,
- at 0.3 m, 0.6 m and bottom of rootzone in deep soil.
During RDI period
1. Measure and record soil suction and irrigate when the entire rootzone dries out to a minimum
of 200 kPa.
2. Irrigate to wet the top 0.3 m of the root zone.
3. Measure and record soil moisture 6-12 h after irrigation and, where necessary, adjust the
amount applied in previous irrigations.
4. Irrigate when the wetted rootzone soil at 0.3 m depth dries out to 200 kPa.
5. Measure evaporation (or ETo) interval between irrigations –– irrigate in future years based
on this evaporation interval.
6. Repeat steps 3-6.
During rapid fruit growth

1. Irrigate to wet at least the top 0.6 m of rootzone.
2. Measure and record soil suction 6-12 h after irrigation, and, if the soil is dryer than 30 kPa
(sandy soil) or 50 kPa (clay soil) at 0.6 m, apply more irrigation.
3. Irrigate when the wetted rootzone soil suction at 0.3 m depth dries out to 30 or 50 kPa.
4. Measure evaporation (or ETo) interval between irrigations –– irrigate in future years based
on this evaporation interval.
5. Repeat steps 2-5.
Measuring shoot and fruit growth

An understanding of the changes in fruit and shoot growth for different varieties is critical for
the timing of RDI. Water stress should be applied only during the vegetative growth period
when fruit is growing slowly. Water stress must be avoided or minimized (where water is limited)
during rapid fruit growth. The stages of fruit growth for a given variety can be determined by
tagging several fruit and shoots and weekly measuring their circumference and length with a
tape measure. Converting fruit circumference to volume [volume = 0.02 x (circumference)3]
gives a true indication of fruit weight. This technique is simple and the measurements are useful
for adjusting irrigations, especially where shoot growth continues despite high soil water deficits.
Root distribution
Root distribution is an important component for RDI scheduling because of the potential store of
available moisture in the soil. The best method for determining root distribution is to dig a pit next
to an orchard tree and estimate the amount of roots in 0.2-m depth increments until the bottom
of the rootzone (80 percent of roots). Root depth is important for determining the volume of
water in the rootzone when the profile is wet from rainfall, and for deciding where to site soil
moisture sensors.
Wetted root zone

It is critical to determine the volume of the wetted rootzone. This can be estimated from the root
distribution and the wetted volume of soil. To determine the wetting volume, it is necessary to
observe the wetted surface area and depth following an irrigation event.
A hole is dug to observe wetting at depth. The wetted rootzone is then estimated from the
volume of roots that are wet following irrigation. The calculation in the following irrigation plan
assumes that the wetting pattern is a continuous strip of soil with a wetting depth of 0.3 m. This
wetted strip pattern will occur with closely spaced microjets or drippers where the wetting
pattern overlaps. For other irrigation systems where the wetting patterns are separate, the
wetted rootzone is calculated assuming the shape of a cylinder.
Irrigation plan
The aim of setting out a season irrigation plan for the approximate interval and run time is to
provide a theoretical basis for irrigation scheduling and water budgeting. For each month of a
growing season, the interval between irrigations is calculated based on the equation:
Volume of water in root zone ( litres / tree )
Interval ( days ) =
Average daily water use (litres / tree / day )
At the start of the season, the interval between irrigations is equivalent to the withholding
irrigation period where the volume of water in the rootzone (i.e. stored soil moisture) can be
calculated by substituting the wetted volume with the root volume:
Volume of water in rootzone (litres/tree) = Lateral root distribution width (m) x Tree spacing
(m) x Root depth (m) x Deficit available water ranging from 9 percent (sandy soils) to 13
percent (loams and clays) x 1 000.
Once irrigation commences, the volume of water in the root zone is equivalent to the irrigation
amount to be applied:
Volume of water in rootzone (i.e. irrigation amount) (litres/tree) = Width of wetted
strip (m) x Tree spacing (m) x 0.3 m wetting depth (m) x Deficit available water
ranging from 9 percent (sandy soils) to 13 percent (loams and clays) x 1 000
Run time calculations use the emitter rate per tree and the system irrigation efficiency:
éVol. of water in rootzone(litres) ù
Run time (h) = ê ú
ë Emitter rate per tree (litres / h) û
[Efficiency(%) / 100]
To estimate average daily water use, the plan uses local long-term average USA Class A pan
evaporation data and appropriate crop factors for RDI (Mitchell and Goodwin, 1996). Alternatively,
it is possible to use ETo and crop coefficients (Kc) (Allen et al., 1998) and appropriate percent
replacements for RDI to estimate daily water use.
Soil moisture
RDI scheduling requires measurements of soil moisture. In shallow rootzones, soil moisture is
measured at two depths (Figure 2). In deep rootzones (>0.6 m), soil moisture is measured at
three depths. The aim is to dry out the soil throughout the rootzone to a minimum suction of
200 kPa by withholding irrigation (positions A, B and C). If there is no rain, the soil in the upper
rootzone (positions A and B) will become much drier than the soil towards the bottom of the
rootzone (position C). If the entire rootzone becomes drier than 200 kPa, stress levels on the
tree will cause loss in productivity. Irrigation is necessary.
Once irrigation commences, the objective is to maintain a moderate level of stress on the
trees. This is best achieved by irrigating with less water than the usual full recommendation.
Irrigations should aim to wet to 0.3 m depth (position A).
FIGURE 2
Position of soil moisture sensors in (a) shallow and (b) deep rootzone soils
(a) (b)
A A
B B
C
It is necessary to measure soil moisture 6-12 h after irrigation to adjust the amount of water
applied in proceeding irrigations. If the soil in the top rootzone (position A) remains dry then the
irrigation amount must be increased. If the soil in the mid-rootzone (position B) becomes wet
immediately following irrigation then irrigation amount must be cut back.
The gypsum block is preferred over other methods of determining moisture because it measures
soil water suction, which relates to the level of water stress on the trees. It is the only instrument
capable of measuring soil suction in the range suitable for RDI. It is relatively inexpensive,
robust to handle, and simple to install. It requires a portable hand-held meter to measure the
resistance between the two electrodes embedded in the block of gypsum. The electronics in the
meter convert the resistance automatically to suction. The measurement is simple: requiring the
connection of the two wires to the meter and a button to be pushed to directly measure soil
suction.
Alternatively, soil samples may be collected with an auger and the moisture content assessed.
This is much less accurate than the gypsum block method, but may be useful to assess wetted
depth and moisture below the top 0.05 m depth.
RDI in practice
As part of an extension programme in the Goulburn Valley, sites were established on growers
properties to demonstrate RDI. Growers were interested in controlling vegetative vigour in
high-density orchards and saving water. One site consisted of 6-year-old Golden Queen peach
trees on Tatura Trellis (van den Ende et al., 1987) irrigated with 45 litres/h microjets (one every
second tree). Thirty trees (three rows each of ten trees) received normal irrigation and 30 (also
three rows of ten) received the deficit irrigation. Measurements recorded to indicate WUE and
vigour control included water applied, soil moisture (tensiometers and gypsum blocks), butt
diameter and fruit growth (mm).
RDI was applied from the first week of November to the last week of December, to provide
approximately 40 percent of evaporation; control trees received full irrigation. Soil suction was
maintained between 0 and 65 kPa on the control treatment and between 0 and 200 kPa on the
RDI treatment. For the remainder of the season, soil suction was maintained between 0 and
50 kPa on all of the trees.
Fruit growth was measured over the season (four fruits per tree, 120 per treatment). There
was no apparent difference in fruit size between the RDI-treated trees and the controls. Tree
butt size was used as an indicator of vigour. The 30 trees irrigated under the RDI strategy
exhibited an overall reduction in measured butt diameter at the end of the season. The grower
also noted a reduction in tree vigour, with more fruiting wood established. There was a reduction
in the water applied under RDI management with a saving of 2.3 Ml/ha: total irrigation for the
control was 7.9 Ml/ha, whereas that for the RDI treatment was 5.6 Ml/ha.
The demonstration site showed that RDI can generate considerable savings. Fruit size and
yield were maintained, and vegetative vigour appeared to be reduced.
Other issues related to RDI –– root volume and salinity

It is evident that root volume is an important factor in the tree growth response to RDI. Some
studies have suggested that the success of RDI in controlling vigour and maintaining yield arises
from both an adaptation to moderate water stress developed in a shallow soil volume (Jerie et
al., 1989) and/or restricted wetted root volume (Richards and Rowe, 1977a, 1977b).
To further explore this effect, an experiment was established to determine the interaction of
RDI and root volume on Golden Queen peaches (Boland et al., 1994, 2000a, 2000b). This study
demonstrated that the effect of root volume was independent of the RDI water stress response.
However, there are important implications for the practical application of RDI under various
conditions. In the Goulburn Valley, shallow root volume assists the development of water stress
under RDI. In a deep soil with an unrestricted root system, it takes considerably longer to
develop water stress; under these conditions it may be necessary to physically restrict the
volume of roots.
Therefore, the control of vegetative growth and establishment of RDI depends on the
interaction between rainfall/evaporation, available soil volume for root exploration and the readily
available water (time taken to develop water stress).
The application of RDI in a saline environment presents potential advantages and
disadvantages. Management of orchards irrigated with saline water has traditionally relied on
leaching to prevent accumulation of salts, in order to maintain a soil volume that will permit root
development. Leaching is regarded as the key to salinity control (Hoffman and van Genutchen,
1983). Although, RDI does not provide the same degree of leaching, it does have the potential to
improve salinity management, firstly by a reduction in the importation of salt, and secondly by
control of the rising water table (Shalhavet, 1994).
An experiment that assessed the impact of saline irrigation when applying RDI (Boland et
al., 1993a) demonstrated significant adverse effects on the productivity of peach trees, with
similar results expected on other fruit trees that are generally sensitive to salinity. Therefore,
while RDI may lessen the volume of drainage and applied salts, the detrimental effects on
productivity would generally outweigh these benefits. Where RDI is applied in a saline environment
to either save water or control vegetative vigour, it is necessary to adopt specific management
strategies: strategic leaching irrigations (e.g. every five to seven irrigations), and careful monitoring
of soil salinity.
CONCLUSION
Although the control of vegetative vigour in high-density orchards was the original objective of
RDI, increased WUE has become a critical issue in areas where water scarcity is a problem.
RDI is an ideal water saving technique. Its application and adaptation in various environments
have led to improved understanding of the process, the benefits, and the requirements for adoption.
Scheduling has evolved to include weather and soil-based monitoring. As a consequence, this
wealth of knowledge has enabled the implementation of a practical and achievable programme
for grower adoption of RDI.
REFERENCES
Alegra, S., Girona, J., Marsal, J., Arbones, A., Mata, M., Montagut, D., Teixido, F., Motilva, M.J. &
Romero, M.P. 1999. Regulated deficit irrigation in olive trees. Acta Horticulturae 474: 373-375.
Behboudian, M.H., Lawes, G.S. & Griffiths, K.M. 1994. The influence of water deficit on water relations,
photosynthesis and fruit growth in Asian pear (Pyrus serotina Rehd.). Scientia Horticulturae 60: 89-
99.
Boland, A.-M., Jerie, P.H., Mitchell, P.D., Goodwin, I. & Connor, D.J. 2000a. Long-term effects of restricted
root volume and regulated deficit irrigation on peach I. Growth and mineral nutrition. Journal of the
American Society of Horticultural Science 125: 135-142.
Boland, A.-M., Jerie, P.H., Mitchell, P.D., Goodwin, I. & Connor, D.J. 2000b. Long-term effects of restricted
root volume and regulated deficit irrigation on peach II. Productivity and water use. Journal of the
Boland, A.-M., Mitchell, P.D., Goodwin, I. & Jerie, P.H. 1994. The effect of soil volume on young peach
tree growth and water use. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 119: 1157-62.
Boland, A.-M., Mitchell, P.D. & Jerie, P.H. 1993a. Effect of saline water combined with restricted irrigation
on peach tree growth and water use. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 44: 799-816.
Boland, A.-M., Mitchell, P.D., Jerie, P.H. & Goodwin, I. 1993b. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on
tree water use and growth of peach. Journal of Horticultural Science 68: 261-274.
Brun, C., Raese, J.T. & Stahly, E.A. 1985a. Seasonal responses of ‘Anjou’ pear trees to different irrigation
regimes. I. Soil moisture, water relations, tree and fruit growth. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science 110: 830-834.
Brun, C., Raese, J.T. & Stahly, E.A. 1985b. Seasonal responses of ‘Anjou’ pear trees to different irrigation
regimes. I. Mineral composition of fruit and leaves, fruit disorders and fruit set. Journal of the American
Society of Horticultural Science 110: 835-840.
Caspari, H.W., Behboudian M.H. & Chalmers, D.J. 1994. Water use, growth and fruit yield of ‘Hosui’
Asian pears under deficit irrigation. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 119:
383-388.
Chalmers, D.J. 1986. Research and progress in cultural systems and management in temperate fruit
orchards. Acta Horticultura 175: 215-225.
Chalmers, D.J., Burge, G., Jerie, P.H. & Mitchell, P.D. 1986. The mechanism of regulation of ‘Bartlett’
pear fruit and vegetative growth by irrigation withholding and regulated deficit irrigation. Journal of
the American Society of Horticultural Science 111: 904-907.
Chalmers, D.J., Canterford, R.L., Jerie, P.H., Jones, T.R. & Ugalde, T.D. 1975. Photosynthesis in relation
to growth and distribution of fruit in peach trees. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 2: 635-645.
Chalmers, D.J. & van den Ende, B. 1977. The relationship between seed and fruit development in peach.
Annals of Botany 41: 707-714.
Chalmers, D.J. & van den Ende, B. 1975. A reappraisal of the growth and development of peach fruit.
Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 2: 623-634.
Chalmers, D.J., Mitchell, P.D. & van Heek, L. 1981. Control of peach tree growth and productivity by
regulated water supply, tree density and summer pruning. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science 106: 307-12.
Chalmers, D.J., Mitchell, P.D. & Jerie, P.H. 1985. The relationship between irrigation, growth and
productivity of peach trees. Acta Horticulturae 173: 283-288.
Chalmers, D.J., Mitchell, P.D. & Jerie, P.H. 1984. The physiology of growth control of peach and pear
trees using reduced irrigation. Acta Horticulturae 146: 143-149.
Cohen, A. & Goell, A. 1988. Fruit growth and dry matter accumulation in grapefruit during periods of water
with holding and after reirrigation. Australian Journal of Plant. Physiology 15: 633-639.
van den Ende, B., Chalmers, D.J. & Jerie, P.H. 1987. Latest developments in training and management of
fruit crops on Tatura Trellis. Hortscience 22: 561-568.
Failla, O., Zocchi, G., Treccani, C. & Cocucci, S. 1992. Growth, development and mineral content of apple
fruit in different water status conditions. Journal of Horticultural Science 67: 265-271.
FAO. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration – guidelines for computing crop water requirements by R.G. Allen,
L.S. Pereira, D. Raes and M. Smith. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Rome.
Goldhamer, D.A. 1999. Regulated deficit irrigation for California canning olives. Acta Horticulturae 474:
373-375.
Goodwin, I. 1995. Irrigation scheduling for regulated deficit irrigation (RDI). Agricultural Notes #AG0299.
Melbourne, Australia. Department of Natural Resources and Environment.
Goodwin, I. & Jerie, P.H. 1992. Regulated deficit irrigation: From concept to practice. Aust. and N.Z. Wine
Industry Journal 4: 258-61.
Goodwin, I., Jerie, P.H. & Boland, A.-M. 1998. Water saving techniques for orchards in Northern China. In:
Water is Gold, Irrigation Association of Australia 1998 National Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane,
19–21 May 1998. Brisbane, Australia, Department of Natural Resources.
Goodwin, I., Mitchell, P.D. & Jerie, P.H. 1992. Measurement of soil matric potential under William Bon
Chretien pear comparing regulated deficit with normal irrigation. Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 32: 487-92.
Hoffman, G.J. & van Genuchten, M.Th. 1983. Soil properties and efficient water use: water management for
salinity control. In: Limitations to efficient water use in crop production, H.M. Taylor, W.R. Jordan &
T.R. Sinclair eds. Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, American Society of Agronomy.
Irving, D.E. & Drost, J.H. 1987. Effects of water deficit on vegetative growth, fruit growth and fruit quality
in Cox’s Orange Pippin Apple. Journal of Horticultural Science 62: 427-432.
Jerie, P.H., Mitchell, P.D. & Goodwin, I. 1989. Growth of William Bon Chretien pear fruit under Regulated
Deficit Irrigation. Acta Horticulturae 240: 271-274.
Johnson, R.S., Handley, D.F. & DeJong, T.M. 1992. Long-term response of early maturing peach trees to
postharvest water deficits. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 117: 881-886.
Lampinen, B.D., Shackel, K.A., Southwick, S.M., Olson, B., Yeager, J.T. & Goldhamer, D. 1995. Sensitivity
of yield and fruit quality of French prune to water deprivation at different fruit growth stages. Journal
of the American Society of Horticultural Science 120: 139-147.
Larson, K.D., DeJong, T.M. & Johnson, R.S. 1988. Physiological and growth responses of mature peach
trees to postharvest water stress. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 113: 296-
300.
Li, S-H., Huguet, J-G., Schoch, P.G. & Orlando, P. 1989. Response of peach tree growth and cropping to
soil water deficit at various phenological stages of fruit development. Journal of Horticultural Science
64: 541-552.
Mitchell, P.D. 1986. Pear fruit growth and the use of diameter to estimate fruit volume and weight.
Hortscience. 21: 1003-1005.
Mitchell, P.D. & Chalmers, D.J. 1982. The effect of reduced water supply on peach tree growth and
yields. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 107: 853-56.
Mitchell, P.D., Chalmers, D.J., Jerie, P.H. & Burge, G. 1986. The use of initial withholding of irrigation
and tree spacing to enhance the effect of regulated deficit irrigation on pear trees. Journal of the
Mitchell, P.D., van den Ende, B., Jerie, P.H. & Chalmers, D.J. 1989. Response of “Bartlett” pear to
withholding irrigation, regulated deficit irrigation, and tree spacing. Journal of the American Society
of Horticultural Science 114: 15-19.
Mitchell, P.D. & Goodwin, I. 1996. Micro-irrigation of vines and fruit trees. Melbourne, Australia, Agmedia.
Mitchell, P.D., Goodwin, I. & Jerie, P.H. 1994. Pear and quince. In: B. Schaffer and P. C. Anderson eds.
Handbook of environmental physiology of fruit crops Volume 1 Temperate crops. Boca Raton,
Florida, United States of America, CRC Press, Inc.
Mitchell, P. D., Jerie, P. H. & Chalmers, D. J. 1984. The effect of regulated water deficits on pear tree
growth, flowering, fruit growth and yield. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science
109: 15-19.
Purohit, A.G. 1989. High density planting of fruit tree – a review II. Control of vegetative growth and tree
size and deciding critical space. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University 14: 133-136.
Richards, D. & Rowe, R.N. 1977a. Root-shoot interactions in peach: The function of the root. Annals of
Botany 41: 1211-1216.
Richards, D. & Rowe, R.N. 1977b. Effects of the root restriction, root pruning and 6-benzylamino-purine
on the growth of peach seedlings. Annals of Botany 41: 729-740.
Shalhavet, J. 1994. Using water of marginal quality for crop production: major issues. Agricultural Water
Management 25: 233-269.
Williamson, J.G. & Coston, D.C. 1990. Planting method and irrigation rate influence vegetative and
reproductive growth of peach planted at high density. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural
Science 115: 207-212.
Regulated deficit irrigation and partial

rootzone drying as irrigation
management techniques
for grapevines
SUMMARY
Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI), an irrigation scheduling technique originally developed for
pome and stone fruit orchards, has been adapted successfully for winegrape production. Water
deficit is applied during the post-set period of berry development to reduce vegetative growth
and, as necessary, berry size of red-winegrape varieties. However, water deficit is avoided during
the berry-ripening period, and precise irrigation management is required to ensure minimal
competition between ripening berries and vegetative growth. For the variety Shiraz, in particular,
this irrigation practice has resulted in significant improvements in wine quality. Partial rootzone
drying (PRD) is a new irrigation technique that improves the water use efficiency of winegrape
production without significant crop reduction. The technique was developed on the basis of
knowledge of the mechanisms controlling transpiration, and requires that approximately half of the
root system be always in a dry or drying state while the remainder is irrigated. The wetted and dried
sides of the root system are alternated on a 10- to 14-day cycle. PRD irrigation reduced significantly
stomatal conductance of vines when compared with vines receiving water to the entire root
system. Both systems require high management skills, and accurate monitoring of soil water
content is recommended. Drip and other forms of micro-irrigation facilitate the application of RDI
and PRD.
There is increasing global demand for high-quality wine and declining demand for wines of
lower quality and lower value. Therfore, the challenge facing winegrowers is to improve winegrape
quality.
In many regions, in particular in New World vineyards, irrigation is an integral feature of
winegrape production. Traditionally, winegrowers have used irrigation maximizes productivity,
as is reflected in recommended crop coefficients (FAO, 1977; FAO, 1998). Such coefficients
help predict peak water requirement, and therefore are useful in the design stage of vineyard
development. However, use of these values will result in water application rates in excess of
those that may be optimal for the most appropriate balance between vegetative and reproductive
development required for the production of premium quality grapes.
The key to improving winegrape quality in irrigated vineyards is to achieve an appropriate
balance between vegetative and reproductive development, as an excess of shoot vigour may
M.G. McCarthy,
South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, Australia
B.R. Loveys, CSIRO Plant Industry, Adelaide, Australia
P.R. Dry and M. Stoll, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia
80 Regulated deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying
have undesirable consequences for fruit composition. Water stress has a major influence on
shoot growth, and, in general, vegetative growth is more sensitive to water stress than is berry
(fruit) growth. For some winegrape varieties, control of berry size is of importance. However,
rrigation is not the only vineyard practice contributing to an inappropriate balance between
vegetative and reproductive growth. Others include the use of rootstocks that impart high shoot
vigour, improved plant nutrition and soil management, and the tendency to grow vines in cooler
regions, which may favour vegetative growth at the expense of fruit growth. However, in many
localities, the key to achieving the correct balance is irrigation management.
In recent years, the two main approaches for developing practical solutions to manipulate
grapevine vegetative and reproductive growth have been: regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) and
partial rootzone drying (PRD). However, these developments have been possible only as a
consequence of better understanding of physiological responses to water deficit and the
widespread use of drip and other forms of micro-irrigation that enable the precise control of
water application rate and timing. RDI and PRD have become established water management
techniques, both in New and in some Old World regions.
REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION

RDI uses water stress to control vegetative and reproductive growth. It was initially applied in
peach and pear orchards to control growth by imposing water stress at key stages of fruit
development. In an experiment on pear trees (Mitchell et al., 1989), irrigation application was
reduced from 93 percent of the water evaporated from free water surface equivalent to the tree
planting square to either 23 or 46 percent for a period of 19 d between November and December
(southern hemisphere). After rapid fruit growth commenced, irrigation amount was returned to
120 percent. Compared with non-RDI trees, fruit growth was stimulated and vegetative growth
reduced. The effectiveness of the RDI treatments was greater at higher tree density with the
associated increased root competition.
In grapevines, reduced irrigation prior to veraison caused a greater reduction in berry size
than did less irrigation after veraison, compared with control vines (Matthews et al., 1987).
Wine made from fruit of continually drip-irrigated vines was unlike wine from early- or late-
season deficit treatments, and distinctions were evident between ‘early-deficit’ and ‘late-deficit’
wines in appearance, flavour, taste and aroma (Matthews et al., 1990). Tasters of these wines
indicated that ‘late-deficit’ wines had a greater intensity of blackcurrant aroma compared with
‘fully irrigated’ counterparts. The concentrations of anthocyanins and phenolics were higher in
‘deficit’ wines although levels of residual sugar, titratable acid, pH and ethanol were similar to
‘fully irrigated’ wines. The volume of water applied weekly to the least stressed treatment was
about 50 percent of ETo for the site, and the most stressed vines received about 11 percent of
ETo (Matthews and Anderson 1988).
In an experiment on winegrapes, Goodwin and Macrae (1990) reported that reduced irrigation
during defined periods of berry growth after veraison reduced berry fresh and dry weights and
sugar concentration. However, control vines in the experiment were not irrigated at full crop
replacement and, consequently, in comparison to the initial work with RDI on stone and pome
fruit, were deficit irrigated for the whole of the experiment. The question arises as to whether
this practice is actually RDI. Less than full ETo replacement is often practised for the entire
growing season in vineyards where water supply may be limited or in cooler districts where
cropping level needs to be controlled to ensure adequate ripeness levels. In such situations,
irrigation practice should perhaps more correctly, and simply, be termed ‘deficit irrigation.’
To compare the effects of

FIGURE 1
water stress during berry Idealized curves of vegetative and reproductive growth
developmental stages with well- of Vitis vinifera
irrigated vines, a large long-term Reproduced with permission - Coombe and M.G. McCarthy (2000)
field experiment was established on
mature vines near Waikerie in the Lateral shoots
South Australian Riverland in the Primary shoots
Murray-Darling Basin. Water

stress treatments were imposed by Shoots length Deficit
Berry
Berry volume period

withholding irrigation during four
periods of berry development after Berry formation Berry ripening
sugar flavour
flowering of Vitis vinifera cv. anthocyanin
compounds
Shiraz. Control vines were irrigated

such that water stress was Flowering
minimized by regular monitoring of & setting
soil water content throughout the Time
growing season and the use of a Note: dashed berry growth line represents weight loss period in Shiraz berries
modern irrigation system that

supplied water on demand
(McCarthy 1997a, b, 1999, 2000). Coombe and McCarthy (2000) integrated these and previous
findings into the figure reproduced here (Figure 1), with the addition of lines representing vegetative
growth and the suggested period of water deficit. These findings were:
• Berry growth was most sensitive to water stress during pericarp cell division.
• Higher levels of water stress were needed to reduce berry size compared with vegetative
growth.
• A reduction in berry size and, hence cropping level, resulted in earlier fruit maturity.
• Smaller berries resulted in higher anthocyanin concentration.
• Water stress during the early stages of berry ripening may enhance anthocyanin concentration.
• Water stress during the ripening period (post veraison) reduced solute accumulation in berries.
• Accumulation of flavour compounds occurred relatively late in the ripening process and was
sensitive to water stress.
• With modern irrigation systems, it was possible to manipulate soil water availability to the
degree necessary to influence vegetative and reproductive growth precisely.
Practical application
Many Australian winegrape vineyards normally use soil water monitoring to assist in the
implementation of RDI. A variety of proven instrumentation is available. Where soil water
content is measured with a neutron probe, for example, the available rootzone soil water content
is kept below the irrigation refill line during the period of water deficit. The total available water
in the rootzone should not decline by an amount greater than the difference between the full and
refill lines (Figure 2). In practice, this may necessitate a light irrigation to prevent excessive
water deficit. To control vegetative and reproductive growth, water stress should be limited to
the period after fruit set in winegrape vineyards. This strategy is more applicable for red-wine
varieties rather than white for which control of berry size and canopy size is considered less
important. Monitoring shoot extension or comparing the rate of increase in berry weight with
non-stressed vines can assess the effectiveness of the water deficit.
In practice, reduced irrigation

FIGURE 2
application during the post-set period Use of a neutron probe to monitor changes in soil water
may not achieve the desired outcome. content
The site may be unresponsive to 180
irrigation due to factors such as: 160 Buburst Flowering Veraison Harvest
• the presence of perched or regional
mm soil water in 1.2 m depth

140
Irrigation full line
water tables, 120
• deep soil with high water-holding 100 Refill line

..............
capacity from winter rainfall, 80

Suggested maximum soil water depletion
• weather conditions such as rain 60

Water deficit
40 period
and/or low temperatures resulting
20
in low evaporative demand,
0
• inadequate knowledge of changes 1 Sep 1 Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Apr
in soil water content during periods
of reduced irrigation, due to lack
of reliable soil water monitoring.
There are various approaches for making sites with high water-holding capacity from winter
rainfall responsive to post-set deficit:
• use of deep-rooted, spring-active cover crops to remove soil water,
• mounding soil along vine rows to increase evaporation from the soil,
• root pruning to reduce water uptake,
• high plant density,
• minimal pruning to increase crop water use early in the growing season as a result of an
earlier canopy development.
The use of irrigation water containing moderate to high levels of salt (sodium chloride) may
necessitate monitoring soil salinity during periods of reduced irrigation, and potentially the
application of a leaching irrigation at the end of the period of reduced application. Other factors
that may limit the successful adoption of water deficit during the post crop-set period are:
• inability to re-schedule irrigation and application quantities,
• excessive variability in soil water-holding characteristics within each irrigation shift,
• poor distribution uniformity of the irrigation system,
• excessively high soil water availability from furrow and flood irrigation systems,
• general management skills; a more-than-basic understanding of vegetative and berry growth
is required in relation to the effects of water abundance or deficit during each stage of
vegetative and fruit growth, for example the effect of excessive water stress on floral initiation.
Conclusions –– RDI
In Australia, numerous vineyards have adopted the concept of applying water stress immediately
after fruit set to control vegetative growth, and, in particular for the variety Shiraz, to control
berry size. In many instances this practice has resulted in significant improvement in red-wine
quality, albeit sometimes at the expense of yield. In addition, experimental work has demonstrated
that, contrary to the existing practice in many vineyards, controlled irrigation is recommended to
avoid water stress during the fruit ripening period (post veraison). Minimizing water stress,
whilst controlling vegetative growth, has resulted in more rapid ripening and a changed wine
flavour profile. The continuance of controlled levels of irrigation during berry ripening is more
necessary in drip-irrigated vineyards, where, as a result of drying of deeper soil layers and a
reduced wetted soil volume compared with furrow irrigation, drought stress can rapidly develop
during periods of high evaporative demand. This is particularly relevant in parts of Australia,
United States of America, South America and South Africa, where the ripening period occurs
under warm and dry conditions. Maintenance of higher levels of soil water content prior to, and
after, harvest is now considered beneficial to post-harvest root growth and ensures vines do not
enter dormancy under water stress, a condition that results in susceptibility to damage from cold
weather. As a consequence, winegrape growers are now encouraged to use the term ‘strategic
irrigation management’ rather than RDI.
PARTIAL ROOTZONE DRYING

PRD uses biochemical responses of plants to water stress to achieve a balance between vegetative
and reproductive development. By doing so, it achieves a secondary goal of significant
improvement in production per unit of irrigation water applied. It has been a consistent feature
of all trials that, even though the irrigation amount was halved, there was no significant reduction
in yield due to PRD treatment. This contrasts with RDI experiments, where savings in irrigation
application have often been at the expense of yield.
Research into the physiological changes that occur during water stress has led to improved
understanding of plant response to stress in terms of chemical signals passing from roots to
leaves. The vine’s first line of defence when faced with water shortage is to close its stomata to
conserve moisture. One of the principal compounds that elicits this response is abscisic acid. As
soil water availability falls following the cessation of irrigation, this acid is synthesized in the
drying roots and transported to the leaves in the transpiration stream (Loveys et al., 1999).
Stomata respond by reducing aperture, thereby restricting water loss. Improvement in WUE
results from partial stomatal closure. However, an inevitable consequence is reduced
photosynthesis, as carbon dioxide and water vapour share the stomatal pathway through the
leaf surface.
The challenge was to devise ways of controlling the amount of water available to grapevines,
to maximize the production of root-derived chemical signals that reduce canopy transpiration,
and, therefore, improve WUE. A methodology was developed to permit drying of part of the
root system while keeping the remainder well watered. However, early attempts with grapevines
were confounded by the transient nature of the response to drying part of the root system. By
simply switching the wet and dry sectors of the rootzone on a regular basis, this transient response
was overcome (Dry et al., 1996; Dry and Loveys, 1998).
A number of long-term, large-scale field experiments on Shiraz, Cabernet sauvignon, and
Riesling, using a range of irrigation methods, have now been completed (Loveys et al., 1997,
1998, 1999; Dry et al., 2000). These included standard drip emitters (2 or 4 litres/h), two per
vine in the inter-vine space and placed about 450 mm from the vine trunk (Figure 3) and
subsurface drip lines, one on each side of the vine row at a depth of 200-250 mm and 350-400
mm from the centre of the row. In all cases, the intention was to create two wetted zones per
vine that could be alternately irrigated on a cycle of approximately two weeks, i.e., while one
zone was wetted, the other zone would be dried. Soil moisture sensors installed within each
wetted zone assessed whether water applied to one side infiltrated to the other, supposedly dry,
side. In all cases, there was

satisfactory separation of wet and FIGURE 3
Partial rootzone drying using two above-ground drip lines
dry zones in a range of soil types in a vineyard
under field conditions. Partial
rootzone drying with furrow/flood
irrigation has been successful in
experiments with pears and citrus
and in commercial vineyards in the
Riverina district of New South
Wales, Australia (Clancy, 1999), and
with other perennial row-crop fruits.
In vines subject to PRD, there
were reductions in vegetative growth
as measured by pruning weight
(Table 1). Much of the reduction in TABLE 1
canopy biomass was due to reduced Effect of PRD on pruning weight of vines, percent of control
leaf area associated with lateral Cabernet sauvignon – mean of four seasons 77
shoots. Total leaf area of PRD vines Minimally pruned Riesling (total all lengths) 60**
was significantly (P<0.05) less, canes >500 mm 47**
largely the result of reduction in the canes 250–500 mm 82ns
area of leaves on lateral shoots canes <250 mm 103ns
(Figure 4). In another trial, minimally **Significantly different from control, P<0.01
pruned Riesling vines were nsNot significant
subjected to PRD and in July
(southern hemisphere) the canes
from three control panels (fully FIGURE 4
irrigated) and three PRD panels Main and lateral leaf area of control and PRD vines,
were removed and allocated to three post flowering and near harvest
length categories. Only the current
season’s growth was removed. The
PRD treatment resulted in a
significant reduction in the weight of
canes in the >500-mm-size category
and in the total pruning weight.
Another measure of canopy density
is the amount of light reaching the
bunch zone and this figure was
consistently higher in PRD than in
control vines.
A consistent feature of all trials was that there was no significant reduction in yield due to
PRD treatment, even though irrigation amount was halved. As a result, yield per unit of water
applied doubled in response to PRD (Table 2). Moreover, there was no effect on berry size in
response to a halving of irrigation amount whereas there is usually a significant decrease in
berry size in response to a substantial reduction in the amount of irrigation applied (Smart and
Coombe, 1983; Williams and Matthews, 1990), particularly with deficit imposed between flowering
and veraison (McCarthy, 1997a).
The results of PRD on fruit composition in respect to wine-making attributes indicate that
quality is at least maintained if not improved. Some experiments revealed no apparent effect on
TABLE 2
Yield and water use of winegrapes
Variety/Location/Season Variable Control PRD
Shiraz, Adelaide, 1997–98 Yield (t/ha) 22.6 21.5
Water applied (Ml/ha) 1.4 0.7
Yield/Ml irrigation 16.1 30.7
Cabernet sauvignon, Adelaide, 1997–98 Yield (t/ha) 15.2 15.4
Riesling, Waikerie, 1996–97 Yield (t/ha) 29.1 28.9
Riesling, Waikerie, 1997–98 Yield (t/ha) 30.6 28.7
fruit quality as indicated by concentrations of anthocyanins and phenolics in fruit. In these cases,
the control vines were well balanced with relatively open canopies: PRD did not substantially
alter the canopy microclimate. In earlier experiments, the PRD treatment qualitative changes in
the anthocyanin pigments of Cabernet sauvignon. For several seasons and at two sites, the
concentration of the derivatives of delphinidin, cyanidin and petunidin in berries from PRD vines
increased relatively more than the derivatives of malvidin and peonidin. Furthermore, PRD
enhanced the formation of the coumarate forms of anthocyanins. This may be a response to
bunch exposure, because shading of Shiraz bunches in a hot climate was found to enhance the
proportion of coumarate forms.
Commercial trials have shown that if PRD is applied properly, there should be no significant
yield reduction, although irrigation amount may be halved. A critical irrigation management practice
with PRD is to ensure adequate rewetting of the dry side. Failure to ensure adequate replenishment
of deep soil layers after switching sides may result in water stress, which may significantly
reduce berry size during the early stages of berry development. Provided an overall favourable
vine water status is maintained with PRD, berry size, and thus yield, will be maintained, despite
reductions in water of up to 50 percent of conventional irrigation. A simple indication of whether
the soil moisture status of the wet side was adequately maintained is the absence of reduction in
berry weight. Similar to RDI, the responsiveness of the site to irrigation determines the successful
application of PRD. Where the site is not responsive to irrigation, it is unlikely that part of the
rootzone can be dried sufficiently during the initial stages of vegetative growth to control primary
and lateral shoot extension. While savings in irrigation application may occur later in the season
they may not be sufficient to economically justify the higher capital cost of installing PRD.
Conclusions –– PRD
There has been much interest from New World viticultural industries in the PRD concept and its
potential for influencing water use, vine vigour and grape quality. The implications for sustainable
and profitable winegrape production are, well recognized. The successful adoption of PRD on a
large scale has a number of consequences.
A reduction in consumption of water for irrigation is desirable from an economic viewpoint,
although market forces will determine whether this ultimately translates to a reduction in district
use or to the planting of additional vines or of other crops, to use the water saved. Further
restrictions in water availability are probable and, in order to maintain productivity, irrigation
practices and WUE will have to improve. Nevertheless, PRD does provide the vineyard manager
with an additional management tool for tailoring crop quality to market needs.
The cost of implementing PRD varies depending on the irrigation system employed and
whether it is applied to a new or existing vineyard. One of the most successful experiments in
these projects utilized a pre-existing irrigation system consisting of two subsurface drip lines,
one on each side of the row. In this case, the implementation cost was restricted to a few valves
to allow switching water from one side to the other. At the other end of the cost scale, a
development with the addition of a second drip line may cost about US$1 100/ha to install. Drip
irrigation is in widespread use in vineyards throughout the world and, for example, in Australia a
drip irrigation system may constitute half of the capital development cost. The additional outlay
of installing PRD, is economical where the cost of irrigation water is high and as water becomes
an increasingly valuable and scarce resource. The true environmental cost of irrigation water
justifies the cost of implementing PRD.
The evaluation of PRD has progressed TABLE 3
beyond the experimental stage with Relevant factors in choosing RDI or PRD as a
vineyard management system
significant areas of PRD installed in
vineyards in Australia, New Zealand, RDI PRD
Spain, Israel, the United States, and South Site must be responsive to irrigation
Africa. To date, most installations have Can be used with furrow Drip irrigation preferred,
irrigation alternate row furrow possible
involved a second drip line either above
Water must be available on demand
or below ground. Several irrigation-
equipment manufacturers are working to Control of berry size No effect on berry size
eliminate the need to install two separate Vegetative growth control Vegetative growth control
drip lines and to improve methods of Potential for yield loss No loss of yield
installation and reduce root penetration in Positive effects on grape Possible improvement in
and wine quality grape and wine quality
buried systems. Further research is
underway in Australia to determine the Marginal water savings Significant water savings
optimum configuration for above- and No irrigation hardware Significant changes

modification required. Can be retrofitted.
below-ground installations, such as
Soil water monitoring recommended
spacing of ‘on’ and ‘off’ drippers relative
High-level management skills required
to vine spacing.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
Table 3 summarizes the factors that determine the choice of RDI and/or PRD as an irrigation
method in an individual vineyard.
REFERENCES
Clancy, A. 1999. Riverina has the capacity to deliver diverse requirements. Australian Viticulture 3: 38-42.
Coombe, B.G. & McCarthy, M.G. 2000. Dynamics of grape berry growth and physiology of ripening.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6: 131-135.
Dry, P.R., Loveys, B.R., During, H. and Botting, D.G. 1996. Effects of partial root-zone drying on grapevine
vigour, yield composition of fruit and use of water. In: C.S. Stockley, A.N. Sas, R.S. Johnstone & T.H.
Lee, eds. Proceedings 9th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference. Adelaide,
Australia,Winetitles.
Dry, P.R. and Loveys, B.R. 1998. Factors influencing grapevine vigour and the potential for control with
partial rootzone drying. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 4: 140-148.
Dry, P.R., Loveys, B.R., Stoll, M., Stewart, D. & McCarthy, M.G. 2000. Partial rootzone drying - an update.
Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 438a: 35-39.
FAO. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration by R.G. Allen, L.S. Pereira, D. Raes & M. Smith. Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56, Rome.
FAO. 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements by J. Doorenbos and W.O. Pruitt. Irrigation
and Drainage Paper No. 24. Rome.
Goodwin, I. & Macrae, I. 1990. Regulated deficit irrigation of Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines. Australian
and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 5: 131-133.
Loveys, B.R., Dry, P.R., & McCarthy, M.G. 1999. Using plant physiology to improve the water use efficiency
of horticultural crops. Acta Horticulturae 537: 187-199.
Loveys, B.R., Grant, W.J.R., Dry, P.R. & McCarthy, M.G. 1997. Progress in the development of partial
root-zone drying. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 403: 18-20.
Loveys, B.R., Stoll, M., Dry, P.R. & McCarthy, M.G. 1998. Partial rootzone drying stimulates stress responses
in grapevine to improve water use efficiency while maintaining crop yield and quality. The Australian
Grapegrower and Winemaker 414a: 108-113.
Matthews, M.A. & Anderson, M.M. 1988. Fruit ripening in Vitis vinifera L.: Responses to seasonal water
deficits. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 39: 313-320.
Matthews, M.A., Anderson, M.M. & Schultz, H.R. 1987. Phenological and growth responses to early and
late season water deficits in Cabernet franc. Vitis 26: 147-160.
Matthews, M.A., Ishii, R., Anderson, M.M. & O’Mahony, M. 1990. Dependence of wine sensory attributes
on vine water status. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 51: 321-335.
McCarthy, M.G. 2000. Developmental variation in sensitivity of Vitis vinifera L. (Shiraz) berries to soil
water deficit. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6: 136-140.
McCarthy, M.G. 1999. Weight loss from ripening berries of Shiraz grapes (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz).
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 5: 10-16.
McCarthy, M.G. 1997a. Effect of Timing of Water Deficit on Fruit Development and Composition of Vitis
vinifera cv. Shiraz (Ph.D. Thesis). Adelaide, Australia, Department of Viticulture, Horticulture and
Oenology University of Adelaide.
McCarthy, M.G. 1997b. The effect of transient water deficit on berry development of cv. Shiraz (Vitis
vinifera L.). Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 3: 102-108.
Mitchell, P.D., van den Ende, B., Jerie, P.H. & Chalmers, D.J. 1989. Responses of ‘Barlett’ pear to
withholding irrigation, regulated deficit irrigation, and tree spacing. Journal of the American Society
for Horticultural Science 114: 15-19.
Smart, R.E. & Coombe, B.G. 1983. Water relations in grapevines. In: T.T. Kozlowski ed. Water deficits and
plant growth. New York, United States of America, Academic Press Inc.
Williams, L.E. & Matthews, M.A. 1990. Grapevine. In: B.A Stewart and D.R. Nielsen, eds. Irrigation of
Agricultural Crops. Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America, American Society of Agronomy.
Regulated deficit irrigation as a water

management strategy in
Vitis vinifera production
SUMMARY
An initial six-year study in a commercial vineyard located in the Columbia River Valley of Washington
State, United States of America, examined the management practices and potential benefits of
regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) on Vitis vinifera cv. Sauvignon blanc. The objective of the treatments
was to evaluate the effect of deficit irrigation prior to, compared with after, veraison. Each of four
irrigation treatments was applied to 1.6 ha and replicated four times for a total 27.0 ha. Irrigation
treatments were based on desired soil moisture levels in the top metre of the profile where most of
the root system is found. Soil moisture was monitored using a neutron probe and the information
was combined with calculations of evaporative demand to determine the irrigation required on a
weekly basis. Vine growth, yield, fruit quality and cold hardiness were monitored throughout the
study. The results indicated that RDI prior to veraison was effective in controlling shoot growth,
as determined by shoot length and elongation rate, as well as pruning weights. Sixteen wine lots,
each of approximately 12 000 litres, were prepared each season. Although there was some effect on
berry weight, yield was not always significantly reduced. Full irrigation prior to veraison resulted
in excessive shoot growth. RDI applied after veraison to vines with large canopies resulted in
greater water deficit stress. Fruit quality was increased by pre-veraison RDI compared to post-
veraison RDI based on wines made. Regulated deficit irrigation applied at anytime resulted in
better early-season lignification of canes and cold hardening of buds. There was a slight
improvement in mid-winter cold hardiness of vines subjected to RDI. However, this effect was
inconsistent. Studies on Cabernet Sauvignon and White Riesling are underway to confirm these
results and to investigate the impact of RDI on fruit quality and winemaking practices.
The introduction of grapevines, especially Vitis vinifera cultivars, into new growing regions, has
led to an increasing focus on irrigation to maintain or increase vine productivity and fruit quality.
Irrigation and the developing strategies for using irrigation as a management tool in winegrape
production have been ongoing for at least 20 years. Therefore, an understanding of plant water
relations and soil water management is essential to use irrigation successfully to produce consistent
yields of high-quality grapes. Effective irrigation management results in better control of plant
growth and more efficient and economical crop production. A number of studies examining the
effects of decreasing levels of irrigation on vine growth and physiology (Smart and Coombe,
1983; Mullins, et al., 1992; Williams and Matthews, 1990; Goldberg et al., 1971) have found that
drip irrigation resulted in improved WUE based on fruit production and pruning weights per unit
of water applied.
R.L. Wample, Dept. of Viticulture and Enology,

California State University, Fresno, California, United States of America
R. Smithyman, Stimson Lane Vineyards and Estates, Paterson, Washington,
United States of America
90 Regulated deficit irrigation as a water management strategy in “Vitis vinifera” production
In 1972, Peacock et al. (1977) compared drip, sprinkler and flood irrigation, and found that
drip used less water while achieving good vine vigour, fruit production and quality. However,
there was evidence of salt accumulation in a smaller wetted rootzone compared to flood and
sprinkler irrigation. In 1985, Bucks et al. (1985) reported similar results for the production of
table grapes in Arizona. Finally, Araujo et al. (1995a, 1995b) found that similar crop production
of Thompson Seedless could be achieved with either furrow or drip irrigation. However, they
reported a reduction in the nitrogen content of drip irrigated fruit and they found a restricted
rootzone associated with daily applications of drip irrigation. This led them to propose the use of
drip irrigation to control vine vigour by restricting nitrogen uptake and restricting root volume.
In a study examining the potential benefit of using drip irrigation on Concord vines trained to
various trellis systems, Cline et al. (1985) found that during dry years in New York, United
States of America, drip irrigation improved yields, especially on higher density plantings and with
trellis-training systems with higher cropping potential. They found drip to be more compatible
than sprinkler irrigation on heavier clay soils with lower infiltration rates. Neja et al. (1977)
found that timing of irrigation when combined with variations in trellis type resulted in differences
in yield and quality of Cabernet Sauvignon grown in the Salinas Valley, California, United States
of America. However, their results showed a higher yield with an intermediate level of irrigation
when combined with a more elaborate trellis system.
Bravdo and Hepner (1987) showed that drip irrigation was an effective way to apply fertilizer
to grapevines with the potential for influencing fruit and must composition. They found a significant
response to phosphorus applied through the irrigation system, with higher yields, higher cluster
numbers, improved wine sensory characteristics, wine colour and monoterpene levels in the
must. They suggested that restriction of the rootzone by irrigation management could be used to
control grapevine vigour. Irrigation systems have also had limited success for the application of
herbicides (Fourie, 1988).
Irrigation management as a tool for use in the production of grapes has continued to receive
attention in many regions of the world. In Australia, the use of regulated deficit irrigation (RDI)
has been explored to control vegetative growth and improve the consistency of fruit production
and quality (Goodwin and Jerie, 1992). In Spain, Nadal and Arola (1995) reported increased
yield, malic and total acidity, and earlier ripening of irrigated Cabernet Sauvignon.
There is a growing need and desire to understand the effects of irrigation (water management)
on grapevine growth, development, productivity, and fruit quality. The continued expansion of
agriculture, including grape production, into low-rainfall regions compels a response to these
issues. Furthermore, increased competition for this increasingly scarce resource will impose
greater efficiency in irrigation management practices.
When considering using irrigation management as a tool, it is essential to establish a clear set
of goals and to determine where water management may have an impact on them. Possible
goals may include controlling vine vigour, preventing occasional water deficit stress, attempting
to manage fruit development (berry size), or attempting to alter fruit quality by influencing soluble
solids, pH, or titratable acidity. Careful selection of the most appropriate irrigation system for the
vineyard site is also a high priority. The irrigation system must match soil type, depth, water
holding capacity, infiltration rate, and the effective rooting zone of the vines. This latter point
may require detailed knowledge of the cultivar or the rootstock in question. The amount of
water available and its cost also demand careful consideration. Vineyards planted on hillsides or
rolling terrain are not amenable to furrow or flood irrigation practices. Soils with low infiltration
rates and significant slope also present runoff problems for overhead sprinkler systems with
high delivery rates. Drip irrigation can accommodate all of these situations, but has higher initial
capital investment costs and generally requires a higher level of management. Additional factors
that warrant consideration are water quality, filtration requirements, system automation, and
local availability of equipment, supplies, and support. Because of the number of variables involved,
growers should contact companies dealing in irrigation design and equipment for recommendations
tailored to the vineyard site.
Deciding when and how much to irrigate requires a thorough understanding of the factors
that contribute to vine water status and the effects of various water management strategies on
grapevine development and productivity. Grapevine water stress develops when the supply of
water from the soil through the root system to the growing shoots is less than the evaporative
demand. The cause for this imbalance may be: low available soil moisture; a poorly developed,
injured, or otherwise restricted root system; unbalanced development of shoot and root systems;
and/or high evaporative demand conditions. Salts in the irrigation water or in the soil can also
reduce the water available to vines. Extensive trellis systems may contribute to leaf exposure
and consequently a higher rate of transpiration than can be supplied by the roots. This latter type
of stress is more likely to be transient in nature and less of a concern when adequate soil
moisture is available.
The following are some observations and comments regarding the response of grapevines to
water stress/management. Some of these statements are supported by research, whereas others
are observations that appear to be consistent over several production regions.
Grapevines, especially Vitis vinifera, do not generally exhibit immediate signs of water stress,
but will show symptoms of repeated stress by cumulative effects on shoot or fruit development.
Williams et al. (1994) reviewed the effects of water stress and other environmental factors on
grapevines. Depending upon the phenological stage at which it occurs, water stress has a wide
range of effects on grapevine growth, development and physiology.
Water stress occurs infrequently during bud break and early shoot development due to low
water use. However, water stress during this time may result in uneven bud break and stunted
shoot growth. More severe and prolonged water stress may result in poor flower-cluster
development and reduced pistil and pollen viability and subsequent berry set (Hardie and Considine,
1976). Nutritional deficiencies, especially in N, Mg and Ca, might also become evident under
severe water stress (Falcetti et al., 1995). Most of the nutrients required by grapevines early in
the season are derived from stored sources, thus reducing the likelihood of early-season deficiency
symptoms. Early-season deficiencies in Zn and or B are often the result of water stress the
previous season, causing reduced root growth and nutrient uptake (Christensen, 1962).
Following berry set, severe water stress may cause flower abortion and cluster abscission,
possibly associated with hormone changes (During, 1986). Uncorrected water stress during this
stage of development may result in reduced canopy development and, consequently, insufficient
leaf area to adequately support fruit development and maturation. Because initiation of clusters
at nodes 1-4 for the following season begins about two weeks prior to full bloom and continues
for about two weeks, water stress during this stage may reduce the following season’s crop
potential. The predominant effect at that stage is believed to be a reduction in the number of
clusters per shoot and not the number of flowers per cluster, which develop later in the season
and throughout the dormant season as conditions permit.
Immediately after fruit set, water stress may restrict berry cell division and enlargement,
resulting in smaller fruit and lower yield. The lag phase of berry development, which follows
early berry development, is less susceptible to water stress. However, shoot development, which
normally continues during this stage of development, would be reduced by water stress. Insufficient
canopy development during this time will limit the photosynthetic capacity of the vine and may
restrict fruit development and quality. Aside from reduced yield potential and fruit soluble-solids
accumulation, the fruit may have higher pH, decreased acidity, and reduced colour development
in red varieties. Problems associated with fruit sunburn are also more likely.
Rapid senescence of lower leaves, leaf abscission, and progressive loss of canopy, are
consequences of water stress that may occur at any stage of development, but are more likely
where a larger canopy is present. Sunburn of both red and white varieties can be a consequence
of sudden fruit exposure caused by senescence of lower leaves and sudden loss of canopy and
reduced canopy cooling caused by low evapotranspiration. Slow development of stress is
associated with a loss of acidity and a rise in pH and soluble solids. More rapid onset of stress
causes these processes to be arrested as fruit dehydration and raisining occur. Late-season
water stress contributes to acclimation of one-year-old wood that begins from the base towards
the tip of the cane. High levels of stress will result in abscission of shoot tips, which, if followed
by over-irrigation, may stimulate lateral shoot growth. Such growth creates a competitive sink
for photosynthates and delays fruit maturation. Late-season irrigation, following water stress,
can also reduce cane and vine acclimation increasing the potential for low-temperature injury.
Such vines are unlikely to have adequate viable buds the following season. Were exposed to
extremely low temperatures, they often show reduced survival of buds, trunks and cordons.
The most detrimental effect of water stress following harvest is the potential for reduced
root growth, resulting in decreased nutrient uptake and micronutrient deficiencies the following
spring. Low-temperature injury of roots is also a concern if the soil remains dry, thereby increasing
the depth of frost during long periods of cold weather. This is more likely in areas with lighter
soils and little or no precipitation prior to winter conditions. Root injury is often expressed the
following spring as delayed and erratic bud break, and eventual collapse of the developing
shoots.
Careful water management is recognized as a tool for achieving some control of grapevine
growth and development. The adoption of such a management strategy involves moderate stress
at specific stages of development to achieve specific results. The decision to use such an irrigation
strategy requires well-defined goals including effects on yield, grape quality, canopy structure,
and protection against winter injury. To achieve these goals in the face of variable weather
conditions requires both a thorough understanding of the effects of water stress on grapevines
at various phenological stages, and also a good understanding of soils and soil water management.
This understanding must include knowledge of total and available water holding capacities of
the soil and the potential, as well as actual, rooting depths. The role and water use characteristics
of cover crops also require careful consideration. Where most of the available moisture during
root development is from irrigation water, irrigation methodology and scheduling can influence
the distribution of the roots, both vertically and horizontally. Vineyard managers should be familiar
with the characteristics of the rootstocks they use.
It is possible to use established crop coefficients (Kc) and measurements or calculations of
potential evapotranspiration to estimate water use by vines (ETp). Grapevine crop coefficients
have been developed in several different locations (Evans et al., 1993; Grimes and Williams,
1990; FAO, 1977) and reflect the development of leaf surface area and vine water demand as
the growing season progresses. The Kc represents the fraction of the potential evapotranspiration
used by the vines, and its value is typically less than one. Variability in vine development from
year to year has resulted in referencing the values of Kc with accumulated growing-degree-
days (GDD) rather than calendar dates. Crop coefficients are low early in the season due to
small leaf area and hence low water use, and approach unity as the canopy reaches maximum
development in July and August in northern climates (January and February in the southern
hemisphere). The calculation of daily water use (DWU) uses the published Kc for the appropriate
accumulated GDD multiplied by the ETp, a value based on the water use of a well watered,
mowed, grass-covered area:
DWU = ETp x Kc
The availability and use of computers make these calculations and record keeping easy, and
facilitate improved water management. The calculations must also account for any rainfall that
occurs during the irrigation cycle. It is important to recognize that not all rainfall reaches the
vine’s rootzone, and may, therefore, be considered as effective rainfall.
On a worldwide basis, the estimated range TABLE 1
for total water use for wine-, table- and raisin- Water use by stage of development
grape production, with or without irrigation, Stage of development Fraction of
annual water use
might vary from 10 to 31 ha-cm/year.
Bud break to flowering <5%
Recognizing that grapevine water use increases
Flowering to fruit set 15%
through the season to a peak shortly after
Fruit set to veraison 60%
veraison, it is possible to further estimate the
Veraison to harvest 20%
fractional water use during the major
Harvest to leaf fall 3-5%
phenological stages (Table 1).
Using these estimates in conjunction with the annual precipitation for a given geographical
location provides a sound basis for determining when and how much irrigation may be necessary
in that area. It is also necessary to consider the suitability of the precipitation pattern for grape
production.

The study took place in the period 1992 - 1997, with the objective of evaluating the potential of
using irrigation management to control wine grape vegetative growth and development, while
maintaining yield and potentially improving fruit quality. The general approach to achieving these
goals was to utilize the inherent growth characteristics and physiology of Vitis vinifera in
combination with various irrigation schedules.
The vineyard site is in the rain shadow of mountains, and consequently receives about
20-25 cm of precipitation per year; the majority occurs between October and April. Rainfall
during the growing season is considered to be ineffective as it occurs in small amounts and is
frequently followed by high winds that increase evaporative demand. The number GDD (base
10oC) accumulated at the vineyard site averaged 1 600, with extremes of around 1 400 and
1 800.
The vineyard, 27 ha of Sauvignon blanc, is located at the Columbia Crest Estate Vineyard
and Winery in south-central Washington, near Paterson, United States of America,. It was
planted in 1979 with a 3.1x1.8 m spacing. Vines were trained to a bilateral cordon system, and
spur pruned. The vineyard, originally irrigated using a centre-pivot system, was converted to
drip irrigation in the mid-1980s. Drip irrigation lines consisted of pressure compensating
2-litre/h emitters at a 100-cm spacing.
Irrigation strategies were applied from 1992. They involved high irrigation (H) defined as
5.6 cm of water and low irrigation (L) defined as 3.1 cm of water per 30 cm of soil in the top
1 m of the soil profile. The H treatment is near field capacity, while the L treatment is near the
permanent wilting point for the Quincy soil type found on most of this vineyard. The strategies
were:
• (HL) High irrigation applied early in the growing season followed by low irrigation from the
point when control of canopy development was achieved in the early-season low-irrigation
treatment. The high-irrigation treatment phase typically occurred from bud break to early or
mid-July, which is similar to the standard irrigation practice for wine grapes in the State.
• (HH) High irrigation maintained throughout the growing season. This extreme treatment
was applied primarily for comparative purposes. However, it was suspected that some growers
were using this practice.
• (LL) Low irrigation applied throughout the growing season. This extreme treatment was
applied primarily for comparative purposes.
• (LH) Low irrigation applied early in the growing season until control of canopy development
was achieved, which typically occurred by early to mid-July, followed by high irrigation
through harvest.
At the end of each season, all treatments were irrigated to bring the top 40-60 cm of soil to
near field capacity. This provided winter protection for the root system and adequate moisture
for early season growth the following year. It was anticipated that there would be sufficient
precipitation during the dormant season to fill the soil profile to the 1-m level. Where adequate
precipitations did not occur, additional irrigation was applied prior to, or during, budbreak, to fill
the soil profile to a depth of one metre.
There were four replicates of
FIGURE 1
each treatment of 1.6 ha each. Treat- Experimental plot design of the Clore vineyard irrigation
ments were randomized within each experiment
6.5-ha set of replicates (Figure 1).
Each 1.6-ha replicate was irrigated
independently and equipped with a
flow meter. Sixteen neutron-probe
sites within each replicate (128 in
total) provided weekly readings
during the growing season. At each
of the neutron-probe sites, four vines
were selected for collection of data
on growth and yield, i.e. a total of
512 data vines. Vines were spur
pruned, leaving 36-40 buds per vine
for all treatments. Pruning weights
were taken from designated plot
vines and randomly selected vines
within each treatment-replicate.

Over the six years of the study, soil moisture measurements taken during the third week of April
indicated no differences among treatments in the top 1 m of the soil. Hence, there was uniform
soil moisture for early-season growth,

and a uniform starting point for FIGURE 2
Crop coefficient for determining irrigation requirements
irrigation planning. Irrigation
schedules were determined using a
combination of established Kc for
winegrapes in Washington,United
States of America (Figure 2) and
(ETp). The product of these values
estimated the actual evapotranspi-
ration ETa. The ETa and measured soil
moisture were used to determine the
hours of irrigation to achieve the
desired soil moisture. The average
cumulative irrigation over six years
for the HH vines was about 50 ha-
cm. The average for the LH vines Modified from Evans et al.1993
was about 40 ha-cm, while the LL
vines received about 30 ha-cm and
the HL vines about 36 ha-cm. FIGURE 3
The HL vines received only about Cumulative irrigation applied to the four treatments in
2.5-5.1 ha-cm more than the LL vines 1995
because of low irrigation require- 700
ments early in the season (the Kc 1995 25
CUMULATIVE IRRIGATION (mm)
600
and ETp values are lower during HL
CUMULATIVE IRRIGATION (in)

HH
April - June than in July and August). 500 LL 20
LH
Although the HH vines received
400
50 ha-cm of water, this was still con- 15
siderably less than the 76-90 ha-cm 300

typically used previously in the 10
200
Yakima Valley. The data provided in
Figure 3 are indicative of the amounts 100
5
of water applied annually to each of

0 0
these treatments. Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Irrigation maintained the HH and

HL soils near 5.6 cm of water per
33 cm of soil until the first week of July, whereas the moisture in the LL and LH soils declined
to 3.0 cm of water per 33 cm of soil in the top 1 m of the soil profile as determined by neutron-
probe measurement. Irrigation, based on weekly consumption, was applied to maintain this level
of soil moisture. Once shoot growth decreased in the LL and LH vines, the transitions in irrigation
treatments were made, generally during the first or second week of July (Figure 4).
Measurements of shoot length and node number were taken from data vines located near
the neutron-probe sites. Individual shoots were selected on each cordon and marked for repeated
measurements taken on a weekly basis. Shoot length of current-season growth was measured
from the junction with 1-year-old wood to the shoot tip. Node number included all nodes from
the base of the shoot to the last discernable node at the tip of the cane.
Leaf area measurements, achieved non-destructively by measuring the widest part of the
leaf, were regressed against measured leaf area each season as determined with a LiCor leaf
area meter. Repeated measurements

taken weekly from the same shoots FIGURE 4
Soil moisture profiles determined by neutron-probe
and leaves provided an indication of analysis 1992-94
dynamic vine growth and
3.0
development. 1992
2.5
Fruit and wine quality analyses 2.0
SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT, INCHES OF WATER PER FOOT

were based on harvesting the fruit
1.5
from the various irrigation treatments
at 23 percent soluble solids. All 1.0
replicates were sampled and data 0.5

were kept separate for statistical 0.0
purposes. Harvest was based on the 1993
2.5
(AVG TOP 3 FT)
average of all replicates for a

treatment reaching 23 percent soluble 2.0
solids. Harvests commenced at about 1.5 HL
2100 hours, with completion by 0900 HH
hours the next day. The fruit of each 1.0 LL
LH
replicate was kept separate for yield 0.5
and winemaking purposes, thus 1994
2.5
allowing statistical analysis of these
large-scale plots. Fruit from each 2.0
treatment-replicate was crushed and
1.5
pressed separately and a 114-h/litre
sample placed in separate 1.0
fermentation tanks. Plot vines for any
0.5
given treatment were hand-harvested Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
before mechanical harvest. Cluster
counts and weights were based on
hand-harvested fruit. Post-harvest soluble solids measurements were based on samples taken
from the fermentation tanks for each of the four replicates of each treatment.
Measurements of shoot length, node number and pruning weight all demonstrated the ability
to control shoot growth by irrigation management. Plates 1 and 2 represent typical differences
in canopy development between the HH and LL irrigation treatments.
Data indicate that, regardless of the previous year’s irrigation, there was essentially no
difference in shoot length from bud break until approximately 30 d after bloom. This was despite
significant differences in weather conditions over the four years and the lower irrigation in the
LL and LH treatments. This suggests several things. First, water was not a limiting factor early
in the season. Second, because there were nearly 20 nodes present by the time differences in
shoot growth developed, there was sufficient leaf area to mature the crop. Third, as even the
HH irrigation treatment showed a change in shoot length around 30 d after bloom, fruit set and
early cluster development reduced shoot growth. In general, the HL vines stopped initiating
nodes shortly after the change in irrigation treatment, whereas there was an increase in shoot
growth in the LH vines. Leaf area measurements also showed that the sizes of leaves up to
about leaf-number 15 were similar regardless of irrigation treatment. This further supports the
suggestion that early-season soil moisture was not limiting and that there was little difference in
the water status of the irrigation treatments until late June or early July. Leaf area development
was more sensitive to soil moisture depletion with differences occurring 10-14 d prior to differences
in shoot elongation. Thus, changes in leaf area enlargement can serve as an early indicator of
PLATE 1
Canopy characteristics of the high
irrigation (HH) treatment, August 1996
PLATE 2
Canopy characteristics of the continuously
low (LL) treatment, August 1996
soil moisture depletion and, if carefully monitored, may be of use in scheduling irrigation. By
mid- to late August, there was interior leaf senescence and defoliation in the HL treatment
associated with water stress. However, in the LL vines there was less leaf senescence, indicating
physiological adjustments resulting in increased WUE. From late July until the end of the season,
following the change in irrigation, although there was no difference in soil moisture between the
LH and HH treatments, the LH vines showed less stress as indicated by leaf and xylem water
potential measurements. This is presumed to be the result of smaller canopy and physiological
adjustments associated with the early-season low irrigation. Although the LL treatment often
showed high levels of water stress, these vines showed less leaf senescence and loss than the
HL vines.
The irrigation treatments had little effect on TABLE 2
the number of clusters. The similarity in cluster Fruit yield for each of the four irrigation
treatments
number indicates that early-season low irrigation
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
was not detrimental to the cluster initiation
Treatment (t/ha)
process.
HL 9.2B* 14.6A 9.2A 12.0B 12.1A
During the first year of the study, which was HH 10.6 A
16.3A
9.2A
16.0 A
14.3A
very hot, the LL and LH vines averaged LL 6.5C
14.5A
7.8B
11.5 B
13.3A
1.5-2 t/ha less yield than the HH vines (Table 2). LH 6.7C 15.2A 7.1B 12.0B 13.3A
*Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are
Higher yields in the HH vines were due not significantly different
primarily to larger berries. Throughout the study,
there tended to be more berries per cluster in
the LL and LH treatments.
Fruit and wine-quality analyses were based TABLE 3

on harvesting the fruit from the different Influence of the four irrigation treatments on fruit
irrigation treatments at the same soluble solids soluble solids
content. Post-harvest soluble solids 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
measurements were based on samples taken Treatment (% soluble solids)

from 114-hl tanks for each of the four HL 22.6A* 22.5A 22.6A 23.2A 22.4 A
A A A A
replicates of each treatment. There were no HH 22.3 22.2 22.3 21.9 22.1 A
A A A A
differences among treatments in any of the LL 22.9 23.0 23.2 23.3 22.9 A
five years of the study (Table 3). In 1995, the LH 23.4A 23.1A 21.8A 22.8A 23.8 A
HH treatment was harvested at about 22 *Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are
not significantly different
percent soluble solids, while the other
treatments were all near 23 percent. Late-
season high irrigation (HH and LH) tended to
delay harvest and lower the soluble solids TABLE 4
slightly, throughout the study. In 1993, the HH Influence of the four irrigation treatments on fruit
titratable acidity
vines were harvested nearly a week after the
LH vines which tended to be the first to reach 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
23 percent soluble solids. In cool, wet years Treatment (mg tartaric acid equivalents
per 100 ml of juice)
like 1995, earlier harvest can be an advantage
HL 0.73A* 0.75BC 0.60B 0.68B 0.76B
by avoiding fruit-rot problems. A A A A A
HH 0.81 0.93 1.07 1.01 1.03
The eitratable acidity of 1995 tank samples LL 0.74A 0.67C 0.59B 0.70B 0.67C
was significantly higher in the HH and LH LH 0.68 A
0.78 B
0.90 A
0.96 A
0.84B
must (1.0) than in the HL and LL must (0.7) *Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are not
(Table 4). Although this was due in part to the significantly different
lower soluble solids for the HH treatment in
1995, this trend was seen in at least four of
the five years. The lack of significant effects TABLE 5
Influence of the four irrigation treatments on fruit
in 1992 was probably due to the high acidity (pH)
temperatures that prevailed throughout the Treatment 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
season. Differences were generally
(pH)
accompanied by lower pH in the HH and LH
HL 3.38A* 3.28A 3.40A 3.41A 3.17AB
musts than in the HL and LL musts (Table 5).
HH 3.31A 3.11B 3.27A 3.16B 3.10B
Fruit and must analyses over the past five A A A A
LL 3.40 3.35 3.43 3.30 3.23A
years have shown similar results. The lack of A B A B
LH 3.41 3.28 3.29 3.20 3.13B
differences in soluble solids, while consistent *Numbers in a column followed by the same letter are
differences occurred in pH and acidity, seems not significantly different
to indicate the effect of irrigation practices on
these fruit, and potentially on wine
characteristics.
Vine evaluation during early August typically showed that treatments involving reduced
irrigation had more lignified nodes than did HH. This was consistent over the five years of the
study, indicating better cold hardiness during late summer and early fall. Although not important
in most years, it could be a significant advantage in a year with an exceptionally early killing
frost. Evaluations of cold hardiness of buds, undertaken each year from October to March,
indicated no differences as a function of irrigation treatment.
The information produced by this study demonstrates that, given the variety and location, it is
possible to produce a satisfactory crop of winegrapes with between 30 and 50 ha-cm of water
per year including a post-harvest irrigation to bring the soil to a moisture level that will protect
the root system from cold injury.
Several points from this study are applicable to vineyard water management in general. First,
the water requirements of grapevines change as the season progresses and, second, their
responses to changes in water availability at different stages of development are an important
consideration.
The decision to adopt the concept of irrigation as a management practice should be based on
well-defined objectives and on a clear idea of how irrigation management will overcome any
problems. Where the problem is vine water stress, and irrigation water is available, the question
is one of economics associated with the installation of an appropriate irrigation system and the
expected improvement in vine growth and productivity. Depending upon when and why the
stress occurs, soil and site characteristics, and grape variety, the decision to irrigate and the
choice of irrigation system will vary significantly.
Based on information derived from this study, the only vine-related expense of using regulated
deficit irrigation as a management tool is a potential loss of yield if stress becomes excessive.
Leaving more buds at pruning can compensate for this, although it would be preferable to
improve water management. Other costs are those associated with establishing, maintaining
and operating the irrigation system. These costs require careful evaluation based on the potential
for more consistent, balanced vine growth and fruit production of higher quality that would result
in higher net returns to the grower. In addition to direct improvements in fruit quality, additional
benefits observed in this and other studies include improved control of disease and pests. This is
associated with a more open canopy that is less susceptible to pathogens and insects. Such an
open canopy also facilitates better coverage with chemical sprays. In red varieties, there are
increases in phenolics and tannins that contribute to flavour and complexity of the wine. Some
remaining concerns include the development of undesirable flavour compounds in some white
varieties and possible reduction in vine productivity. Additional studies are underway in Washington,
United States of America, and at other North American locations in order to address these
problems.
REFERENCES
Araujo, F., Williams, L.E., Grimes, D.W. & Matthews, M.A. 1995a. A comparative study of young
‘Thompson Seedless’ grapevines under drip and furrow irrigation. I. Root and soil water distributions.
Scientia Horticulturae 60: 235-249.
Araujo, F., Williams, L.E., Grimes, D.W. & Matthews, M.A. 1995b. A comparative study of young
‘Thompson Seedless’ grapevines under drip and furrow irrigation. II. Growth, water use efficiency and
nitrogen partitioning. Scientia Horticulturae 60: 251-265.
Bravdo, B.A. & Hepner, Y. 1987. Irrigation management and fertigation to optimize grape composition and
vine performance. Acta Horticulturae 206: 49-67.
Bucks, D.A., French, O.F., Nakayama, F.S. & Fangmeier, D.D. 1985. Trickle irrigation management for
grape production. Drip/Trickle Irrigation In Action 1: 204-211.
Christensen, P.L. 1962. Boron deficiency in vineyards in Fresno county. Cooperative Extension Bulletin.
Davis, California, United States of America, University of California.
Cline, R.A., Fisher, K.H. & Bradt, O.A. 1985. The effects of trickle irrigation and training system on the
performance of Concord grapes. Drip/Trickle Irrigation in Action 1: 220-230.
During, H. 1986. ABA and water stress in grapevines. Acta Horticulturae 179: 413-420.
Evans, R.G., Spayd S.E., Wample R.L., Kroeger M.W. & Mahan M.O. 1993. Water use of Vitis vinifera
grapes in Washington. Agricultural Water Management 23: 109-124.
Falcetti, M., Stringari, G., Bogoni, M. & Scienza, A. 1995. Relationships among pedo-climatic conditions,
plant available water and nutritional status of grapevines. Acta Horticulturae 383: 289-297.
FAO. 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements by J. Doorenbos & W.O. Pruitt. Irrigation
and Drainage Paper 24. Rome.
Fourie, J.C. 1988. Herbigation in a vineyard through a microjet irrigation system. South African Journal
of Enology and Viticulture 9: 37-42.
Goldberg, S.D., Rinot, M. & Karu, N. 1971. Effect of trickle irrigation intervals on distribution and utilization
of soil moisture in a vineyard. Soil Science Society of American Proceedings 35: 127-130.
Goodwin, I. & P. Jerie. 1992. Regulated deficit irrigation: from concept to practice. Wine Industry Journal
7: 258-261.
Grimes, D.W. & Williams L.E. 1990. Irrigation effects on plant water relations and productivity of
Thompson Seedless grapevines. Crop Science 30: 255-260.
Hardie, W.J. & Considine, J.A. 1976. Response of grapes to water deficit stress in particular stages of
development. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 27: 55-61.
Mullins, M.G., Bouquet, A., & Williams, L.E. 1992. Biology of the grapevine. Cambridge, United Kingdom,
Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
Nadal, M. & Arola, L. 1995. Effects of limited irrigation on the composition of must and wine of Cabernet
Sauvignon under semi-arid conditions. Vitis 34: 151-154.
Neja, R.A., Wildman, W.E., Ayers, R.S., & Kasimatis, A.N. 1977. Grapevine response to irrigation and
trellis treatments in the Salinas Valley. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 28: 16-26.
Peacock, W.L., Rolston, D.E., Aljibury, F.K. & Rauschlolb, R.S. 1977. Evaluating drip, flood, and sprinkler
irrigation of wine grapes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 28: 193-195.
Smart, RE. & Coombe, B.G. 1983. Water relations of grapevines. In: T.T. Kozlowski ed. Water deficits and
plant growth, Vol. 7. New York, United States of America, Academic Press.
Williams, L.E., Dokoozlian, N.K. & Wample, R.L. 1994. Grape. In: B. Schaffer & P.C. Andersen eds.
Handbook of environmental physiology of fruit crops, Volume 1, Temperate crops, Boca Raton,
Florida, United States of America, CRC Press.
Williams, L.E. & Matthews, M.A. 1990. Grapevine. In: B.A. Stewart and D.R. Nielsen eds. Irrigation of
agricultural crops, agronomy Monograph No. 30, Madison, Wisconsin, United States of America,
ASA-CSSA-SSSA.
List of contributors
A.-M. Boland L.K. Heng

Department of Natural Resources International Atomic Energy Agency
and Environment, Agency’s Laboratories,
Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Seibersdorf,
Tatura, Austria
Australia
J.C. Henggeler
D. Dayal Department of Biological and Agricultural
National Research Centre for Groundnut, Engineering
Gujarat, University of Missouri,
India Columbia, MO,
P.R. Dry
University of Adelaide, Y.C. Joshi
Adelaide, National Research Centre for Groundnut,
Australia Gujarat,
India
D. Pei
Institute of Agricultural Modernization, C. Kirda
Shijiazhuang, Cukurova University,
People’s Republic of China Adana,
Turkey
J.M. Enciso
Agricultural and Biological Systems D. Kivumbi
Engineering Department Land and Water Development Division,
Texas A&M University, Food and Agriculture Organization,
College Station, TX, Rome,
United States of America Italy
E.B.G. Feibert J. Li
Malheur Experiment Station, Dryland Farming Institute,
Oregon State University, Hengshui,
OR, United States of America People’s Republic of China
I. Goodwin B.R. Loveys

Department of Natural Resources CSIRO Plant Industry,
and Environment Adelaide,
Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Australia
Agriculture,
Tatura,
Australia
102 List of contributors
Z. Li R. Smithyman
Dryland Farming Institute, Stimson Lane Vineyards and Estates,
Hengshui, Paterson, WA,
People’s Republic of China United States of America
M.G. McCarthy M. Stoll

South Australian Research and Development University of Adelaide,
Institute, Adelaide,
Adelaide, Australia
Australia
B.L. Unruh
P. Moutonnet Agronomy and Soils Department,
Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Texas A&M University,
Techniques in Food and Agriculture, College Station, TX,
International Atomic Energy Agency, United States of America
P.O. Box 100,
A-1400 Vienna, R.L. Wample
Austria Department of Viticulture and Enology,
California State University,
W.L. Multer Fresno, CA,
Texas Agricultural Extension Service, United States of America
Garden City, TX,
United States of America Y. Wang
Hebei Institute of Hydrology,
P.C. Nautiyal Shijiazhuang,
National Research Centre for Groundnut, People’s Republic of China
Gujarat,
India X. Zhang
Institute of Agricultural Modernization,
C.C. Shock Shijiazhuang,
Malheur Experiment Station, Oregon State People’s Republic of China
University, OR,
M. Smith
Land and Water Development Division,
Food and Agriculture Organization,
Rome,
Italy
ISSN 1020-1203
Water Reports 22
22
The scope for further irrigation development to meet food
requirements in the coming years has been strongly
diminished as a result of decreasing water resources and
growing competition for clean water. The great challenge for
the future will be the task of increasing food production with
less water, particularly in countries with limited water and land
resources. In the context of improving water productivity, there
is a growing interest in “deficit irrigation” – an irrigation practice
whereby water supply is reduced below maximum levels and
DEFICIT IRRIGATION PRACTICES

mild stress is allowed with minimal effects on yield. This
publication presents a range of studies, carried out for several
crops and under different ecological conditions, showing the
various options and practices of deficit irrigation and the
impacts of reduced irrigation water supply on crop yield. The
synthesis shows that deficit irrigation can result in substantial
water savings with little impact on the quality and quantity of
the harvested yield. However, to be successful, an intimate DEFICIT IRRIGATION
knowledge of crop behaviour is required, as crop response to
water stress varies considerably. PRACTICES
ISBN 92-5-104768-5 ISSN 1020-1203
FAO
9 7 8 9 2 5 1 0 4 7 6 8 2
TC/M/Y3655E/1/5.02/1300

Deficit Irrigation Practice - Fao 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deficit Irrigation Practice - Fao 2002

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deficit Irrigation Practice - Fao 2002

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ISSN 1020-1203

DEFICIT IRRIGATION PRACTICES

ISBN 92-5-104768-5 ISSN 1020-1203

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this

DEFICIT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING BASED ON PLANT GROWTH STAGES SHOWING

YIELD RESPONSE FACTORS OF FIELD CROPS TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION

USE OF THE FAO CROPWAT MODEL IN DEFICIT IRRIGATION STUDIES

DEFICIT SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION OF COTTON 29

RESPONSE OF GROUNDNUT TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION DURING VEGETATIVE GROWTH

DEFICIT IRRIGATION OF POTATO

MANAGEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION OF WINTER WHEAT FOR MAXIMUM PROFIT

REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION AND PARTIAL ROOTZONE DRYING AS IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION AS A WATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IN VITIS VINIFERA

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS 101

CRP coordinated research project

Deficit irrigation scheduling based on

GENERAL CONCEPTS AND RATIONALE

DEFICIT IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

DEFICIT IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

proportionately less than the decreased

Y = crop yield (kg/ha) ky = ER 0.6

WUE can be derived from Equation

where E c varies depending on

shows probable increases in

Yield response factors of field crops

MATERIALS AND METHODS

percent) for the CRP series than for the FAO

0.43) and the range of variation of ky TABLE 3

published FAO data, particularly for 1.75 1.1 Variable 1 Variable 2

irrigation (intercept = 0.44). At the 0.08 0.20 Variance 0.192 0.082

Use of the FAO CROPWAT model

M. Smith and D. Kivumbi, Land and Water Development Division,

THE CROPWAT MODEL

stress, previously reported in FAO 0.4

CROPWAT input data

Sugar beet – Morocco

irrigation of cotton in Turkey (eight 25

The cotton crop was subjected 75 Dep 1 level

to deficit irrigation by imposing 100

water stress in one or more growth 125 RAM

to achieve water stress in the Days after planting

In the various treatments,

Soil water depletion in mm

Sugar beet – Morocco

Figure 4 shows the water

irrigations at the establishment 10

treatments and the yield reductions 90

of the beet yield obtained with full

studies raise questions that require -20

further scrutiny of the original field 0

experiment, the irrigation application 30

Deficit subsurface drip irrigation

MATERIALS AND METHODS

J.C. Henggeler, Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering,

Yield for 0.76-m patterns plus UNR

Water resource allocated to SDI system (mm/d)

US$100 000 2-and-1

US$150 000 1-and-1