Water Into Wine: Implications of Vineyard Water Dynamics in Israel

Water Into Wine: Implications of Vineyard Water Dynamics in Israel

Water Into Wine: Studying Vineyard Water
Dynamics in Israel and North Carolina
Josh Heitman
NC State University Soil Science Dept.
Wine-Grape Vineyards
• Domesticated grape production
began 8,000 ybp
• Culturally significant
• Produced worldwide
(6 of 7 continents)
North Carolina Wine-Grape Vineyards
• Relatively long history – introduced in 17th century
• Recent boom (since early 1990s)
• Currently: $1.2 B/yr impact, >100 wineries, >400
vineyards
Canopy Architecture and Management
• Widely-spaced rows
• Trained canopies
• Sensitive to too much and/or too
little water
• Both irrigated (typically drip)
and rain-fed systems common
Wide-Ranging Growing Conditions
Negev, Israel
North Carolina
• Rainfall = 93 mm/yr
• Rainfall = 1120 mm/yr
• Concerns: water stress
• Concerns: excess
vegetative growth, fungal
disease pressure
• Management aims to
increase water use
efficiency
• Management aims to lower
water availability
Complex Water Use
rain-fed
irrigated
transpiration
from vines
evapotranspiration
from inter-row and
beneath vines
drip
emitter
inter-row
grass
U.S.-Israel BARD
Separating Components of Evapotranspiration to Improve
Vineyard Water Management
PI: Heitman, NC State Univ.; Co-PI: Ben-Gal Israel ARO
• Develop techniques to identify components of ET in
temperate and semi-arid vineyard systems
• Evaluate and refine strategies for excess water removal
in temperate, rain-fed vineyards (North Carolina, U.S.A)
• Evaluate and refine strategies for water conservation for
semi-arid, irrigated vineyards (Negev, Israel)
Project Site: North Carolina
Upper Piedmont
Research Station
n
Surry Community College
G
G
Upper Mountain
Research Station
Yadkin Valley
Appellation
G
NC A&T SU
Research Farm
n
RayLen Vineyard
Monitoring Station
Piedmont
Research Station
G
Boone
ASU Station
G
G
Monitoring Station
UNCG
Lindale Farm Station
Project Site: Northern Negev, Israel
Site Comparison
• Both: V. vinifera grapes; ~ 3 m row width, oriented N-S
• Negev: Drip irrigated, bare inter-rows, too little moisture
leads to high cost for irrigation
• North Carolina: Rain-fed, fescue inter-rows, too much
moisture leads to disease pressure and poor quality
grapes
Northern Negev, Israel
North Carolina
Measurement Overview
• Inter-row evapotranspiration measured with micro
Bowen ratio systems (two positions)
Measurement Overview
• Whole system evapotranspiration measured by eddy
covariance
Measurement Overview
Outline for Remainder of Talk
I. Positional Below-Canopy Potential Evapotranspiration
II. Water Management Challenges for North Carolina
III. General Conclusions from the Negev and North
Carolina
I. Positional Below-Canopy
Potential Evapotranspiration
Positional Below-Canopy Potential
Evapotranspiration (PET)
Sub-experiment
PET measured with micro pan lysimeters; below canopy
radiation measured with pyranometers
Negev, Israel
North Carolina, USA
N
0
0.3 m
micro pan lysimeter
1.5 m
3.0 m
vine row
Radiation (W/m2)
1000
Global radiation
800
600
400
Negev
North Carolina
200
0
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time
1600
1800
2000
Negev
1.6
Evaporation (mm/h)
1.4
1.2
1.0
Micro pan evaporation
row
0.8 m
1.5 m (mid row)
2.2 m
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Radiation (W/m2)
1000
row
0.8 m
1.5 m
overhead
Global radiation
800
600
400
200
0
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time
1600
1800
2000
Negev
North Carolina
0.8
1.6
1.2
1.0
Micro pan evaporation
row
0.8 m
1.5 m (mid row)
2.2 m
Evaporation (mm/h)
Evaporation (mm/h)
1.4
Micro pan evaporation
0.8
0.6
0.4
row
0.7 m
1.4 m (mid row)
2.1 m
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
Global radiation
800
600
400
800
600
Global radiation
row
0.7 m
1.4 m
2.1 m
overhead
400
200
200
0
600
1000
Radiation (W/m2)
Radiation (W/m2)
1000
row
0.8 m
1.5 m
overhead
800
1000
1200
1400
Time
1600
1800
2000
0
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Time
1600
1800
2000
PET Sub-experiment:
Conclusions
• Diurnal shading produces spatially variable belowcanopy PET; PET is well correlated to radiation.
• PET directly under the vines is significant – potential
evaporative water loss under the vines >72% of that
observed at mid row.
• Peak evaporation under the vine did not occur at midday
– avoiding midday drip irrigation does not necessarily
provide an advantage for water conservation.
PET Sub-experiment:
Modeling
HYDRUS 2D Model – incorporated spatially variable conditions
to assess water loss via evaporation (Kool et al., 2014)
II. Water Management Challenges for
North Carolina
Model analysis including 205 site-seasons from western NC.
• Moderate water stress is desirable to produce high
quality grapes; >70% of days have mild to no stress
conditions.
• Too much water is a primary challenge!
Water Management Challenges for NC
Field Experiment
A. Standard management
• Does having grassed
inter-rows help with too
2.7 m
fescue interrow
much water?
• Assessed effects of interfescue interrow
1.8 m
row management: fescue
vs. bare soil on water
B.use.
Plot area
vine row
vine row
vine row
7.6 m
vine row
2.7 m
bare
fescue
bare
vine row
1.8 m
fescue
bare
fescue
vine row
Cumulative Evapotranspiration and Precipitation (mm)
180
Bare Soil
Fescue
Precipitation
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
125
130
135
140
145
150
Day of Year
Fescue had 60% greater summertime ET than bare soil – but
water used in either case was far below precipitation.
0.4
30
25
0.3
20
Bare Soil
Fescue
PWP
FC
Precip.
0.2
15
10
0.1
5
0.0
0
100
150
200
250
300
350
Day of Year (2011)
Greater fescue interrow ET had a modest effect on water
availability.
Precipitation (mm)
Volumetric Water Content (cm3 cm-3)
35
4.0
3.8
Vapor Pressure (kPa)
3.6
Bare Soil
Fescue
3.4
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
193.0
193.2
193.4
193.6
Day of Year
193.8
194.0
But…fescue inter-row ET increased humidity by 2-5%,
possibly resulting in increased potential for fungal disease.
General Conclusions
Negev
• Current drip-irrigation management strategies are
generally effective – soil water evaporation was typically
<10% of total ET within the vineyard.
• Timing of irrigation according to canopy shading patterns
may help to further reduce evaporation.
5
Vineyard
Fescue cover crop
Grape water use
60
50
4
40
3
30
2
20
1
Water use (%)
Evapotranspiration (mm/d)
General Conclusions
North Carolina
10
0
0
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Inter-row cover crops use a large fraction of water, but
current management practices do not produce desired
water stress in most years.
Acknowledgements
• Co-Investigators: Alon Ben-Gal, Nurit Agam, Tom Sauer,
John Havlin
• Students: Dilia Kool, Stephen Holland, Adam Howard
• Collaborators and Support: Gill Giese, Naftali
Lazorovitch, Xinhua Xiao, Shelton Vineyards
• Funding: Grant No. US-4262-09 from BARD, The United
States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and
Development Fund.
Additional Reading
Giese, Wolf, Velasco-Cruz, Roberts, Heitman. 2015. Cover Crop and Root
Pruning Impacts on Vegetative Growth, Crop Yield Components, and Grape
Composition of Cabernet Sauvignon. Am. J. Enol. Vit. doi:
10.5344/ajev.2014.14100.
Giese, Velasco-Cruz, Roberts, Heitman, Wolf. 2014. Complete Vineyard Floor
Cover Crops Favorably Limit Grapevine Vegetative Growth. Scientia
Horticulturae. 170:256-266.
Holland, Howard, Heitman, Sauer, Giese, Sutton, Agam, Ben-Gal, Havlin. 2014.
Implications of Tall Fescue for Inter-row Water Dynamics in a Vineyard.
Agron. J. 106:1267-1274.
Kool, Agam, Simunek, Heitman, Sauer, Lazarovitch, Ben-Gal. 2014. Spatial
and Diurnal Below Canopy Evaporation in a Desert Vineyard: Measurements
and Modeling. Water Resour. Res. 50:7035-7049.
Kool, Agam, Lazorovitch, Heitman, Sauer, and Ben-Gal. 2014. A Review of
Approaches for Evaporation Partitioning. Ag. For. Meteor. 184:56-70.
Holland, Heitman, Howard, Sauer, Giese, Ben-Gal., Agam, Kool, Havlin. 2013.
Micro-Bowen Ratio System for Measuring Evapotranspiration in a Vineyard
Interrow. Ag. For. Meteor. 177:93-100.
Water Into Wine: Studying Vineyard Water
Dynamics in Israel and North Carolina
Josh Heitman
NC State University Soil Science Dept.