Technology

Estimation of actual evapotranspiration for a drip-irrigated Merlot vineyard using a three-source model

Description
Estimation of actual evapotranspiration for a drip-irrigated Merlot vineyard using a three-source model
Categories
Published
of 14
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  ORIGINAL PAPER Estimation of actual evapotranspiration for a drip-irrigatedMerlot vineyard using a three-source model Carlos Poblete-Echeverrı´a   Samuel Ortega-Farias Received: 3 November 2008/Accepted: 30 April 2009   Springer-Verlag 2009 Abstract  A study was performed in order to evaluate thethree-source model (Clumped model) for direct estimationof actual evapotranspiration (ET a ) and latent heat flux (LE)over a drip-irrigated Merlot vineyard trained on a verticalshoot positioned system (VSP) under semi-arid conditions.The vineyard, with an average fractional cover of 30%, islocated in the Talca Valley, Region del Maule, Chile. Theperformance of the Clumped model was evaluated using aneddy covariance system during the 2006/2007 and 2007/ 2008 growing seasons. Results indicate that the Clumpedmodel was able to predict ET a  with a root mean squareerror (RMSE), mean bias error (MBE), and model effi-ciency (EF) of 0.33,  - 0.15 mm day - 1 and 74%, respec-tively. Also, the Clumped model simulated the daytimevariation of LE with a RMSE of 36 W m - 2 , MBE of  - 8 W m - 2 , and EF of 83%. Major disagreement (under-estimated values) between observed and estimated valuesof ET a  was found for clear days after rainfall or foggy days,but underestimated values were less than 10% of the dataanalysis. The results obtained in this study indicate thatthe Clumped model could be used to directly estimatevine water requirements for a drip-irrigated vineyardtrained on a VSP. However, application of the Clumpedmodel requires a good characterization of the drip-irrigatedvineyard architecture. Keywords  Actual evapotranspiration    Clumped model   Three-source model    Merlot vineyard    Sparse canopy Introduction Accurate prediction of the actual evapotranspiration (ET a )of the vineyard is needed to estimate vine water require-ments, which are used to optimize water application andgrape quality (Intrigliolo and Castel 2008; Shellie 2006; Sivilotti et al. 2005). The direct estimation of ET a  is com-plex because in many vineyards the vegetative cover of thesoil surface is usually incomplete or sparse due to the rowstructure imposed by the training systems (Yunusa et al.2004). Also, in sparse canopies such as the vineyards,aerodynamic turbulence and advection of moist air work differently from the way they do in closed canopies (Hun-tingford et al. 2000; Lloyd et al. 1992). Similarly, it has been described that the degree of aerodynamic mixing insparse canopies is greater than that of closed canopies(Shuttleworth and Wallace 1985). In the particular case of  vineyards trained on a vertical shoot-positioned system(VSP), bare soil often makes up the largest part of thesurface area, due to wide row spacing that increases thesoil’s contribution to the vineyard energy balance (Ortega-Farias et al. 2007). Thus, estimates of ET a  or latent heat flux(LE) from vineyards should take into account soil evapo-ration ( E  s ), vine canopy transpiration ( T  c ), and the interac-tion of fluxes from these two sources (Heilman et al. 1994;Sene 1994; Trambouze et al. 1998). Additionally, for a drip- irrigated vineyard trained on a VSP, it is necessary to takeinto account two different soil evaporation sources: (1) soilunder the vine canopy, and (2) bare soil between rows.The most common and practical approach used forestimating crop evapotranspiration is the FAO-56 method Communicated by R. Evans.C. Poblete-Echeverrı´a    S. Ortega-Farias ( & )Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Centro de Investigacio´n yTransferencia en Riego y Agroclimatologı´a (CITRA),Universidad de Talca, Talca, Chilee-mail: sortega@utalca.cl  1 3 Irrig SciDOI 10.1007/s00271-009-0183-y  (Allen et al. 1998). This approach is often preferred due toits simplicity and its applicability at operational basis.However, the FAO-56 method requires accurate values of crop coefficients ( K  c ) which depend on climatic conditions,soil type, and the phenological stage of crops (Ortega-Farias et al. 2005). The use of standard  K  c  values obtainedfrom literature is not recommended due to the fact that it ispossible to find differences of about 40% when these val-ues are compared with values obtained experimentally(Rana and Katerji 2008).Recent investigations have indicated that the Clumpedmodel developed by Brenner and Incoll (1997) could beused to directly estimate ET a  from sparse clumped canopies(Domingo et al. 1999; Were et al. 2008). The Clumped model is based on the Penman–Monteith approach, whichconsiders that ET a  depends on the energy balances andvapor concentration gradient controlled by surface andaerodynamic resistances (Brenner and Incoll 1997; Shut-tleworth and Wallace 1985; Were et al. 2008). The Clumped model was derived from combining the approa-ches of the sparse-crop model of Shuttleworth and Wallace(1985) where vegetation is assumed to be uniformly dis-tributed over a surface, and that of Dolman (1993) whereenergy was partitioned between plant and bare soil based ontheir respective fractional covers. The Clumped model is athree-source model which considers: (1) vine canopy tran-spiration, (2) soil evaporation under vine canopy, and (3)soil evaporation between rows. Also the model takes intoaccount the surface and aerodynamic resistance of eachsource and it assumes that the different sources interact atmean surface flow height (  z m ) (Brenner and Incoll 1997). Inthis model, ET a  is calculated as the sum of the Penman–Monteith equation for evaporation of each source, weightedby their fractional covers (  f  ), plus a set of coefficients thatrepresent the combination of these resistances. Therefore,the Clumped model differentiates the surface into vegeta-tive and non-vegetative components, and presents a dis-tinction between soil under vine canopy and bare soilbetween rows (Blyth 1995; Blyth et al. 1999; Brenner and Incoll 1997; Dolman 1993; Domingo et al. 1999). Inthisregard,Domingoetal.(1999)andWereetal.(2008) suggested that the Clumped model could be used to directlysimulate ET a  for a sparse clumped Retama sphaerocarpashrub. Also, recently Zhang et al. (2008), who tested theClumped model over a furrow-irrigated vineyard in an ariddesert region of north-west China, obtained good results.However, the potential use of the Clumped model toestimate ET a  over drip-irrigated vineyards has not beenevaluated yet. Consequently, the objective of this study isto evaluate the Clumped model to estimate ET a  and LEover a drip-irrigated Merlot vineyard trained on a VSPunder semi-arid conditions. Materials and methods Model descriptionThe comparison between the latent heat flux values(W m - 2 ) obtained by the eddy covariance system (LE ec )and those simulated by the Clumped model (LE c ) wasrealized at 30-min time intervals. 30-min values of latentheat flux were converted to daily actual evapotranspirationusing the following expression:ET a  ¼ P ii ¼ 1  LE ec kq w 1 : 8  ð 1 Þ where ET a  is the actual evapotranspiration from vineyard(mm day - 1 ), 1.8 a conversion factor,  k  the latent heat of vaporization (MJ kg - 1 ),  q w  the density of water(1,000 kg m - 3 ), LE ec  is the latent heat flux obtained byeddy covariance (W m - 2 ),  i  the number of measurementsin the daylight time period (25 measurements from 8:00 to20:00 hours).The Clumped model computes LE as the sum of vinecanopy transpiration, evaporation from soil under the vinecanopy, and evaporation from soil between rows weightedby their fractional covers (  f  ) (Brenner and Incoll 1997):LE c  ¼  f C  c PM c þ  C  s PM s ð Þ þ  1    f  ð Þ  C  bs PM bs    ð 2 Þ where LE c  is the latent heat flux computed by theClumped model (W m - 2 ). PM c , PM s and PM bs arePenman–Monteith type combination equations for esti-mating the canopy transpiration, evaporation from soilunder vine canopy, and bare soil between rows (all inW m - 2 ), respectively.  C  c is the canopy resistance coef-ficient,  C  s the soil resistance coefficient under plant, and C  bs the soil resistance coefficient between rows (alldimensionless).The values of PM c , PM s , PM bs and  C  c ,  C  s , and  C  bs arecomputed by the following equations:PM c ¼ D  A  þ  q C  p  D  D r  ca  A s r  aa þ r  ca h i D þ  c  1 þ r  cs r  aa þ r  ca h i  ð 3 Þ PM s ¼ D  A  þ  q C  p  D  D r  sa  A c r  aa þ r  sa h i D þ  c  1 þ r  ss r  aa þ r  sa h i  ð 4 Þ PM bs ¼ D  A  þ  q C  p  Dr  aa þ r  bsa h i D þ  c  1 þ r  bss r  aa þ r  bsa h i  ð 5 Þ C  c ¼  R bs  R s  R c  þ  R a ð Þ  R s  R c  R bs  þð 1   f  Þ  R s  R c  R a ð Þþ  f R bs  R s  R a ð Þþ  f R bs  R c  R a ð Þð 6 Þ Irrig Sci  1 3  C  s ¼  R bs  R c  R s  þ  R a ð Þ  R s  R c  R bs  þ ð 1   f  Þ  R s  R c  R a ð Þ þ  f R bs  R s  R a ð Þ þ  f R bs  R c  R a ð Þð 7 Þ C  bs ¼  R s  R c  R bs  þ  R a ð Þ  R s  R c  R bs  þð 1   f  Þ  R s  R c  R a ð Þþ  f R bs  R s  R a ð Þþ  f R bs  R c  R a ð Þð 8 Þ where  A  is the total energy available above the vineyard(W m - 2 ),  A s  the available energy of soil under vinecanopy (W m - 2 ),  A c  the available energy of vine canopy(W m - 2 ),  D  the slope of the vapor pressure versustemperature curve (kPa   C - 1 ),  C  p is the specific heatcapacity of the air at constant pressure (1,013 J kg - 1  C - 1 ), q  the air density (kg m - 3 ),  c  the psychrometric constant(kPa   C - 1 ),  D  the water vapor deficit of the air at thereference height (  z r ) (kPa),  r  ac the aerodynamic resistanceof the vine from the leaf surface to mean surface flowheight (  z m ) (s m - 1 ),  r  aa is the aerodynamic resistancebetween  z m  and  z r  (s m - 1 ),  r  abs the aerodynamic resistancebetween the bare soil surface between rows and  z m (s m - 1 ),  r  as the aerodynamic resistance between the soilunder vine canopy and  z m  (s m - 1 ),  r  sc the canopy resistance(s m - 1 ),  r  ss the soil surface resistance under vine canopy(s m - 1 ), and  r  sbs is the soil surface resistance between rows(s m - 1 ). The values of   R c ,  R s ,  R a , and  R bs  are estimated asfollows:  R c  ¼  D þ  c ð Þ r  ca  þ  c r  cs  ð 9 Þ  R s  ¼  D þ  c ð Þ r  sa  þ  c r  ss  ð 10 Þ  R a  ¼  D þ  c ð Þ r  aa  ð 11 Þ  R bs  ¼  D þ  c ð Þ r  bsa  þ  c r  bss  ð 12 Þ The values of   A ,  A c , and  A s  are computed using thefollowing expressions:  A  ¼  Rn    G avg  ð 13 Þ  A c  ¼  Rn    Rn s  ð 14 Þ  A s  ¼  Rn s    G uv  ð 15 Þ where Rn is the net radiation from the vineyard (W m - 2 ), G avg  the average soil heat flux (W m - 2 ),  G uv  the soil heatflux under the vine canopy (W m - 2 ), and Rn s  the netradiation under the vine canopy (W m - 2 ), which can becalculated using Beer’s law as follows:Rn s  ¼  Rnexp  CLAI ð 16 Þ where LAI is leaf area index (m 2 m - 2 ), and  C   theextinction coefficient of the canopy for net radiation(dimensionless). The values of canopy resistance ( r  sc ) of avineyard with hipostomatous leaves are computed asfollows (Lafleur and Rouse 1990): r  cs  ¼  r  st LAI  ¼  1 g s LAI  ð 17 Þ where  r  st  is the mean stomatal resistance (s m - 1 ),  g s  themean stomatal conductance. Using the Shuttleworth andGurney (1990) approach, values of   r  ac are estimated by thefollowing expressions: r  ca  ¼  r  b LAI  ð 18 Þ r  b  ¼  n  a    wu h   0 : 5 1    e  n 2 ð Þ    1 ð 19 Þ u h  ¼  u  k    ln  h    d  z o    ð 20 Þ u  ¼  ku r ln  ð  z r  d  Þ  z o h i  ð 21 Þ  z o  ¼  z 0 o  þ  0 : 3 h c d LAI ð Þ 0 : 5 ð 22 Þ d   ¼  1 : 1 h ln 1  þ  c d LAI ð Þ 0 : 25    ð 23 Þ where  r  b  is the mean boundary layer resistance of hipost-omatous leaf per unit surface area of vegetation (s m - 1 );  n *the attenuation coefficient for wind speed (dimensionless), n  the eddy diffusivity decay coefficient (dimensionless),  w the average leaf width (m),  a  constant (Choudhury andMonteith 1988),  u h  the wind speed at the top of the canopyaverage height (m s - 1 ),  d   the displacement height (m),  h the height of the vine canopy (m),  k   the von Karman’sconstant (dimensionless),  z o  the roughness length (m),  u *the friction velocity (m s - 1 ),  u r  the wind speed at  z r (m s - 1 ),  c d  the drag coefficient (dimensionless),  z 0 o  is theroughness length of the bare soil (m).The values of   r  aa and  r  as are estimated by the followingexpressions: r  aa  ¼  1 ku    ln  z r    d h    d    þ  hnK  h    e n  1   Z  0 þ d  p ð Þ h      1   ð 24 Þ r  sa  ¼  he n nK  h    e  nz 0 0 h      e  n ð  Z  0 þ d  p h   !  ð 25 Þ K  h  ¼  ku  ð h    d  Þ ð 26 Þ where  d  p  is the zero plane displacement height (m) (takenas 0.63 h),  Z  0  the zero roughness length of the surface (m)(taken as 0.13 h) and  K  h  the diffusivity at the top of thecanopy (m 2 s - 1 ). The values of aerodynamic resistance( r  abs ) between the bare soil surface and  z m  can be calculatedassuming a linear variation between  r  ab and  r  as with f changing from 0 to 1 (Brenner and Incoll 1997; Villagarciaet al. 2007): Irrig Sci  1 3  r  bsa  ¼  fr  sa  þ ð 1    f  Þ r  ba  ð 27 Þ r  ba  ¼ ln  z m  z 0 0   2 k  2 u m ð 28 Þ where  r  ab is the aerodynamic resistance of bare soil totallyunaffected by vegetation (s m - 1 ), and  u m  is wind speed at  z m . Figure 1 shows a diagram of resistance network used inthe Clumped model including the different heights (  z  =  0,  z m  and  z r ) and  f   value. Finally, the constant input param-eters used to test the Clumped model are indicated inTable 1.Study siteData used to test the Clumped model were collected from adrip-irrigated Merlot vineyard located in the Talca Valley,Region del Maule, Chile (35 8 25 0 LS; 71 8 32 0 LW; 125 mabove sea level) during 2006/2007 (season 1) and 2007/ 2008 (season 2) growing seasons. The climate of the studyarea is Mediterranean semi-arid with an average dailytemperature of 17.1  C and an average annual rainfall of 679 mm. The summer period is usually dry and hot (2.2%of annual rainfall) while the spring is wet (16% of annualrainfall). The soil at the vineyard is classified as Talcaseries (Fine family, mixed, thermic Ultic Haploxeralfs)with a clay loam texture and average bulk density of 1.5 g cm - 3 . For the effective rooting depth (0–60 cm), theaverage volumetric soil water content at field capacity( h FC ) and wilting point ( h WP ) were 0.36 and 0.22 m 3 m - 3 ,respectively. The vineyard plot (4.25 ha) used for themeteorological and micrometeorological measurementswas mostly homogeneous and flat. Also, the vineyard plotis surrounded by other vineyard plots with the same con-ditions. The soil surface was maintained free of cover cropduring the study periods (Fig. 1).The vineyard was irrigated daily using 4 L h - 1 drippersspaced at intervals of 1.5 m. The Merlot vines were plantedin 1999 in North–South rows, 2.5 m apart, with 1.5 mwithin-row spacing and were trained on a vertical shoot-positioned system (VSP) with the main wire 1 m above thesoil surface. The shoots were maintained on a verticalplane by three wires, the highest one was located 2 mabove the soil surface. The average vine trunk diameterswere 0.117 m ( ± 0.08 m) for the first season and 0.129 m( ± 0.01 m) for the second season.Field measurementsThe irrigation management of the Merlot vineyard wasdone using a maximum allowed depletion (MAD) of 29%(174 mm). In this regard, the volumetric soil water content( h ) at the rooting depth (0.6 m) ( h rd ) was monitored weeklyin 12 sampling points distributed inside the vineyard usinga portable TDR unit (TRASE, Soil Moisture Corp., SantaBarbara, CA, USA). Also,  h  of the upper soil layer(0.08 m) was measured both under the vine canopy ( h uv )and in the soil between rows ( h bs ) using a Theta Probe(ML2x, Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, England). Values of  h  were measured in four sampling points for each  h uv  and h bs . Additionally, the inter-comparison indicated that dif-ferences between TDR and Theta Probe sensors were lessthan 0.4%.Vine water status was evaluated weekly using the mid-day stem water potential ( w x ) measured by a pressurechamber (PMS 600, PMS Instrument Company, Corvallis,OR, USA).  w x  was measured on 12 young fully expandedleaves (two leaves per vine), wrapped in aluminum foil,and encased in plastic bags at least 2 h before measurement(Chone et al. 2001). Also, the stomatal conductance ( g s )was measured ten times during each season on 16 youngfully expanded leaves (four leaves per vine) in their naturalorientation around midday (from 11:00 to 14:00 hours) bya portable gas-exchange system (LI-6400, LI-COR Inc.,Lincoln, NE, USA).The leaf area index (LAI) was estimated using the fol-lowing equation (Johnson et al. 2003; Ortega-Farias et al.2007):LA shoot  ¼  634 : 86  þ  3543 : 92 ð SL)  ð 29 Þ LAI  ¼ P  j 1  LA shoot  A v ð 30 Þ where LA shoot  is the total leaf area per shoot (m 2 ),  A v  thevine area (m 2 ), SL the shoot length (m), and  j  the total Fig. 1  Schematic representation of resistance network and heightsused in the Clumped modelIrrig Sci  1 3  shoot number per vine. The total shoot length per vine wasmeasured once a week on four representative vines duringeach seasons. Thirty vines were totally defoliated todevelop Eq. 29 and total leaf area per shoot was calculatedby a digital image analysis of the leaves.The average fractional cover (  f  ) for the vineyard wasestimated ten times during each season by measuring theprojected area occupied by the vine (shaded area at mid-day) over 64 vines. The average height of the vineyard ( h )and the reference height (  z r ) were 2.1 and 4.7 m, respec-tively. Also, the mean surface flow height (  z m ) was 1.6 m(  z m  =  0.76  h ) (Brenner and Incoll 1997).Measurements of meteorological variables and energybalance components were made from November 2006 [dayof year (DOY) 319] to April 2007 (DOY 93) and December2007 (DOY 345) to March 2008 (DOY 62). The air tem-perature ( T  a ) and relative humidity (RH) were monitored at  z r  and  z m  using two Vaisala probes (HMP45C and HMP3C,Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, Utah, USA). The windspeed ( u ) and wind direction (wd) were measured at thesame height by two cup anemometers and two wind vanes(YOUNG, 03101-5, Michigan, USA), respectively. Thesolar radiation (Rs) was measured with a Silicon Pyra-nometer (LI200X, Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, UT,USA) and precipitation (pp) was measured with a pluvi-ometer (RGB1, Campbell Scientific Inc., Logan, UT, USA)both at  z r . The net radiation over the vineyard (Rn avg ) wasmeasured at  z r  by a four-way net radiometer, which con-sists of two pyranometers (CM-3) and two pyrgeometers(CG-3) (CNR1, Kipp&Zonen Inc., Delft, Netherlands). Allmeteorological variables were recorded every 10 s by a Table 1  List of constants used in the clumped modelSymbol Name Value Units Source n  Eddy diffusivity decay coefficient 2.5 Dimensionless Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) n * Attenuation coefficient for wind speed 2.5 Dimensionless Choudhury and Monteith (1988) r  st  Mean stomatal resistance 201 s m - 1 Measured in season 1 r  st  Mean stomatal resistance 204 s m - 1 Measured in season 2 h  Height of the canopy 2.1 m Measured  f   Fractional vegetative cover 0.3 Dimensionless Measured a  Constant in Eq. 18 0.01 Dimensionless Choudhury and Monteith (1988) k   Von Karman’s constant 0.41 Dimensionless Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985)cd Drag coefficient 0.07 Dimensionless Shuttleworth and Gurney (1990) C   Extinction coefficient 0.38 Dimensionless Measured r  ss Resistance of the soil under vine 20 s m - 1 Brenner and Incoll (1997) r  sbs Resistance of the bare soil surface 2,000 s m - 1 Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985)  z m  Mean surface flow height 1.60 m Brenner and Incoll (1997) w  Mean width of the leaf 0.018 m Measured  z r  Reference height 5.0 m Measured  z 0 o  Roughness length of bare soil 0.01 m Sene (1994) d  p  Zero plane displacement 1.32 m Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) d   Displacement height 0.80 m Brenner and Incoll (1997)  z o  Roughness length 0.12 m Brenner and Incoll (1997)  Z  o  Zero roughness length 0.27 m Shuttleworth and Wallace (1985) Fig. 2  Aerial photography of the study site and eddy covariancetowerIrrig Sci  1 3
Search
Similar documents
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks