Abstract
Precision irrigation management is based on the accuracy and feasibility of sensor data assessing the plant water status. Multispectral and thermal infrared images acquired from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) were analyzed to evaluate the applicability of the data in the assessment of variants of subsurface irrigation configurations. The study was carried out in a Cabernet Sauvignon orchard located near Benton City, Washington. Plants were subsurface irrigated at a 30, 60, and 90 cm depth, with 15%, 30%, and 60% irrigation of the standard irrigation level as determined by the grower in commercial production management. Half of the plots were irrigated using pulse irrigation and the other half using continuous irrigation techniques. The treatments were compared to the control plots that received standard surface irrigation at a continuous rate. The results showed differences in fruit yield when the control was compared to deficit irrigated treatments (15%, 30%, 60% of standard irrigation), while no differences were found for comparisons of the techniques (pulse, continuous) or depths of irrigation (30, 60, 90 cm). Leaf stomatal conductance of control and 60% irrigation treatments were statistically different compared to treatments receiving 30% and 15% irrigation. The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI), green normalized difference vegetation index (GNDVI), and canopy temperature were correlated to fruit yield and leaf stomatal conductance. Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.68, 0.73, and −0.83, respectively), and with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.56, 0.65, and −0.63, respectively) at 44 days before harvest. This study demonstrates the potential of using low-altitude multispectral and thermal imagery data in the assessment of irrigation techniques and relative degree of plant water stress. In addition, results provide a feasibility analysis of our hypothesis that thermal infrared images can be used as a rapid tool to estimate leaf stomatal conductance, indicative of the spatial variation in the vineyard. This is critically important, as such data will provide a near real-time crop stress assessment for better irrigation management/scheduling in wine grape production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yield differed between the control and deficit-irrigated treatments (15%, 30% and 60% of standard irrigation).
- Material
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigated treatments (15%, 30%, 60% of standard irrigation)e1
- Outcome
- fruit yielde1
- Comparator
- controle1
- Setting
- Benton City, Washingtone0
VitisNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e0“The study was carried out in a Cabernet Sauvignon orchard located near Benton City, Washington”
e1“The results showed differences in fruit yield when the control was compared to deficit irrigated treatments (15%, 30%, 60% of standard irrigation)”
Claim · model-written summary
No difference in fruit yield between pulse and continuous irrigation techniques.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e2“The results showed differences in fruit yield when the control was compared to deficit irrigated treatments (15%, 30%, 60% of standard irrigation), while no differences were found for comparisons of the techniques (pulse, continuous) or depths of irrigation (30, 60, 90 cm)”
Claim · model-written summary
No difference in fruit yield between irrigation depths of 30, 60 and 90 cm.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e2“The results showed differences in fruit yield when the control was compared to deficit irrigated treatments (15%, 30%, 60% of standard irrigation), while no differences were found for comparisons of the techniques (pulse, continuous) or depths of irrigation (30, 60, 90 cm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf stomatal conductance differed between the control and 60% irrigation treatments versus the 30% and 15% irrigation treatments.
- Treatment
- 30% and 15% irrigatione3
- Outcome
- Leaf stomatal conductancee3
- Comparator
- control and 60% irrigation treatmentse3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e3“Leaf stomatal conductance of control and 60% irrigation treatments were statistically different compared to treatments receiving 30% and 15% irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
NDVI was significantly correlated with fruit yield (r = 0.68).
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e0“The study was carried out in a Cabernet Sauvignon orchard located near Benton City, Washington”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.68, 0.73, and −0.83, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
GNDVI was significantly correlated with fruit yield (r = 0.73).
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e0“The study was carried out in a Cabernet Sauvignon orchard located near Benton City, Washington”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.68, 0.73, and −0.83, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy temperature was significantly correlated with fruit yield (r = -0.83).
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e0“The study was carried out in a Cabernet Sauvignon orchard located near Benton City, Washington”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield (Pearson’s correlation coefficient, r = 0.68, 0.73, and −0.83, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
NDVI was significantly correlated with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.56) at 44 days before harvest.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield”
e2“with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.56, 0.65, and −0.63, respectively) at 44 days before harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
GNDVI was significantly correlated with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.65) at 44 days before harvest.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield”
e2“with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.56, 0.65, and −0.63, respectively) at 44 days before harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy temperature was significantly correlated with leaf stomatal conductance (r = -0.63) at 44 days before harvest.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Subsurface Irrigated Grapevines”
e1“Significant correlations (p < 0.01) were observed between NDVI, GNDVI, and canopy temperature with fruit yield”
e2“with leaf stomatal conductance (r = 0.56, 0.65, and −0.63, respectively) at 44 days before harvest”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.