Evaluation of partial root-zone drying for potential field use as a deficit irrigation technique in commercial vineyards according to two different pipeline layouts

The use of partial root-drying (PRD) irrigation implies doubling pipelines instead of using a conventional single pipeline. However, pipelines can be spaced a short distance apart (e.g. 1 m) along the vine row ("D" layout) or joined with cable ties and laid as a single pipeline ("S" layout). Pipelines in "S" configuration are laid under the vine row, and in "D" at both sides of the vine row. These two different layouts can change the wetted soil zone and affect grapevine response to irrigation. The focus of this study was therefore on establishing the role of pipeline layout in vine-grape (cv. 'Tempranillo') response under semi-arid conditions in which PRD is managed as a deficit irrigation technique. Six irrigation treatments were applied, which resulted from the combination of Control (C, full irrigation), PRD and seasonal sustained deficit irrigation (SSDI), and "S" and "D" pipeline layouts. SSDI and PRD were irrigated to 50% C throughout the irrigation season, and C irrigation was scheduled according to a crop water balance technique. Midday stem water potential (Psi(stem)) and leaf conductance (g(1)) indicated that, on the whole, PRD treatments had a slightly higher water status than SSDI treatments, but a substantially lower status than C treatments. Use of the "D" pipeline layout significantly reduced Psi(stem) in both PRD and SSDI treatments and in some instances for Control conditions, too. Berry yield, vine intercepted radiation, leaf abscisic acid (ABA) and g(1) were highly correlated with Psi(stem). Differences in water status between PRD-S and SSDI-S, according to a sub-surface irrigation test, seemed to be more related to changes in soil evaporation losses and irrigation efficiency than to any intrinsic PRD effect. PRD-S accounted for water savings equivalent to 10% according to the ratio between applied water and grape production for the SSDI-S treatment, whereas PRD-D berry yield was not significantly different from that associated with the SSDI-S treatment. In conclusion, under the growing conditions of this experiment, PRD-S offered the possibility of slightly improving water conservation when irrigation was applied to the soil surface.