Treatment | A (µmol CO2 m−2 s−1) | E (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) | gsw (mol m−2 s−1) | Sap flow (l min−1 m−2) | Ψpd (MPa) | Ψmd (MPa) |
|---|
W | 12.26 ± 2.2 a | 7.44 ± 1.2 a | 0.15 ± 0.037 a | 0.04 ± 0.024 a | − 0.24 ± 0.06a | − 1.00 ± 0.04a |
D | 2.24 ± 0.6 b | 1.27 ± 0.26 c | 0.02 ± 0.003 b | 0.01 ± 0.005 b | − 0.85 ± 0.06b | − 1.88 ± 0.03b |
C | 3.66 ± 1.9 b | 2.54 ± 0.42 b | 0.04 ± 0.007 b | | − 0.71 ± 0.08b | |
- Gas-exchange and hydric status of the vines in our experimental vineyard under three different irrigation treatments (W is well-watered, D is drought and C is cover crop), mean values ± SE are shown of net CO2 assimilation (A), transpiration (E), stomatal conductance of water vapour (g
sw
) at leaf level, and sap flow fluxes and pre-dawn and midday water potential (Ψ
pd
and Ψ
md
, respectively) at stem level. Different letters denote significant differences by multiple’s comparisons Tukey’s test (p < 0.05, n = 6)
