Abstract
Site-specific irrigation management for perennial crops such as grape requires water use assessments at high spatiotemporal resolution. In this study, small unmanned-aerial-system (UAS)-based imaging was used with a modified mapping evapotranspiration at high resolution with internalized calibration (METRIC) energy balance model to map water use (UASM-ET approach) of a commercial, surface, and direct-root-zone (DRZ) drip-irrigated vineyard. Four irrigation treatments, 100%, 80%, 60%, and 40%, of commercial rate (CR) were also applied, with the CR estimated using soil moisture data and a non-stressed average crop coefficient of 0.5. Fourteen campaigns were conducted in the 2018 and 2019 seasons to collect multispectral (ground sampling distance (GSD): 7 cm/pixel) and thermal imaging (GSD: 13 cm/pixel) data. Six of those campaigns were near Landsat 7/8 satellite overpass of the field site. Weather inputs were obtained from a nearby WSU-AgWeatherNet station (1 km). First, UASM-ET estimates were compared to those derived from soil water balance (SWB) and conventional Landsat-METRIC (LM) approaches. Overall, UASM-ET (2.70 ± 1.03 mm day−1 [mean ± std. dev.]) was higher than SWB-ET (1.80 ± 0.98 mm day−1). However, both estimates had a significant linear correlation (r = 0.64–0.81, p < 0.01). For the days of satellite overpass, UASM-ET was statistically similar to LM-ET, with mean absolute normalized ET departures (ETd,MAN) of 4.30% and a mean r of 0.83 (p < 0.01). The study also extracted spatial canopy transpiration (UASM-T) maps by segmenting the soil background from the UASM-ET, which had strong correlation with the estimates derived by the standard basal crop coefficient approach (Td,MAN = 14%, r = 0.95, p < 0.01). The UASM-T maps were then used to quantify water use differences in the DRZ-irrigated grapevines. Canopy transpiration (T) was statistically significant among the irrigation treatments and was highest for grapevines irrigated at 100% or 80% of the CR, followed by 60% and 40% of the CR (p < 0.01). Reference T fraction (TrF) curves established from the UASM-T maps showed a notable effect of irrigation treatment rates. The total water use of grapevines estimated using interpolated TrF curves was highest for treatments of 100% (425 and 320 mm for the 2018 and 2019 seasons, respectively), followed by 80% (420 and 317 mm), 60% (391 and 318 mm), and 40% (370 and 304 mm) of the CR. Such estimates were within 5% to 11% of the SWB-based water use calculations. The UASM-T-estimated water use was not the same as the actual amount of water applied in the two seasons, probably because DRZ-irrigated vines might have developed deeper or lateral roots to fulfill water requirements outside the irrigated soil volume. Overall, results highlight the usefulness of high-resolution imagery toward site-specific water use management of grapevines.
Highlights
Wine grape production at the desired quantity and quality is critical for commercial growers, factors that are strongly influenced by irrigation management
Canopy transpiration (T) was statistically significant among the irrigation treatments and was highest for grapevines irrigated at 100% or 80% of the commercial rate (CR), followed by 60% and 40% of the CR (p < 0.01)
A high spatial variation in crop water use could be assessed by the UASM approach (CV = 68 ± 6.67%), which other standard or point measurement approaches could not assess
Summary
Wine grape production at the desired quantity and quality is critical for commercial growers, factors that are strongly influenced by irrigation management. Vineyards are mostly located in arid and semi-arid regions that receive low rainfall and are irrigated using under-vine surface drip systems. Mapping of vine-level crop water use, i.e., evapotranspiration (ET), and pertinent spatial variation in commercial production is critical for irrigation management. In the absence of large-scale precision ET-mapping techniques, growers rely on destructive plant- and field-intensive methods such as leaf water potential [3], sap flow sensing [4,5], and soil moisture measurements [6]. Methods based on eddy covariance systems [7,8] or interpolated standard crop coefficients with reference ET from local weather data [9] are useful
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
