Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Vines physiological status in the irrigation treatments

From: Integrative field scale phenotyping for investigating metabolic components of water stress within a vineyard

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  
  1. 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)