1 / 1

Continuous observations (every 30 minutes):

Infrared temperature to assess plant transpiration reduction Angelica Durigon 1* , Quirijn de Jong van Lier 1 and Klaas Metselaar 1 Department of Biosystems Engineering, ESALQ-University of São Paulo, Brazil. *adurigon@esalq.usp.br

davina
Download Presentation

Continuous observations (every 30 minutes):

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Infrared temperature to assess plant transpiration reduction Angelica Durigon1*, Quirijn de Jong van Lier1 and Klaas Metselaar 1Department of Biosystems Engineering, ESALQ-University of São Paulo, Brazil. *adurigon@esalq.usp.br 2Department of Environmental Sciences, Wageningen University and Research Centre, The Netherlands. EGU General Assembly, April 3-8, 2011, Vienna, Austria HS 8.3 Subsurface Hydrology - Unsaturated Zone HS 8.3.1: Soil-plant interactions from the rhizosphere to field scale University of São Paulo • Introduction • Resistances in the soil-plant-atmosphere pathway determine transpiration rate. Stomatal conductance can be changed by the plant in a reaction to environmental conditions, e.g. a dry soil or a dry atmosphere. • A direct effect of stomata closure is increased stomatal resistance leading to reduced transpiration and CO2-uptake rate. Indirect consequences are a reduction in energy dissipation and photosynthesis and an increase in leaf temperature. • Leaf temperature can be used to evaluate plant water status and transpiration reduction. • Objective • Study the physical mechanisms and the interaction between factors related to soil and atmosphere that lead to crop water stress. • Identify plant water stress occurrence using canopy temperature Tcanopy. • Determine how pressure head h, ∆Tcanopy-air and vapor pressure deficit VPD in field conditionsare related with plant water stress. • Use mechanistic models of root water extraction and CO2 assimilation by leaves to determine which part (soil and/or atmosphere) is responsible for plant water stress occurrence. Theoretical Aspects of Crop Water Stress • Root water uptake rate is determined by root water uptake dynamic and soil water content → Root water extraction model (De Jong van Lier et al., 2008) • Transpiration rate is determined by stomatal conductance and microclimatic elements, as VPD (Vapor Pressure Deficit) → CO2 Assimilation model (Jacobs et al., 1996) How to identify plant water stress? • Relationship ∆Tcanopy-air x VPD: linear when there is enough water supply to plants. • Difference of ∆Tcanopy-air between irrigated and non irrigated plot. • Comparison between Tcanopy x wet-bulb temperature Twb: if resistances in healthy plants are low, Tcanopy must be constantly higher than Twb; as soon as plant resistance to transpiration increases, Tcanopy become even higher than Twb. • Field Experiment • Field experiment was performed in Brazil (UTM 253.300E, latitude 153.400N) from June/2010 to September/2010. Identifying Plant Water Stress • ∆Tcanopy-air x VPD (02-Aug to 02-Sep) 1 - Plants of non irrigated plot were water stressed. 4 - Water stress decreased in 16-Aug as VPD reduced. 5 - Even with a high VPD difference in 25-Aug, water stress reduced as soil water content increased. 02/07/2010 19/07/2010 BEANS (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Area: 990 m2 (22 m x 45 m) Two plots: 22 m x 22,5 m (one irrigated) Dry period: 02-Aug to 02-Sep 2 - Plants of irrigated plot were not water stressed (linear relationship). 3 - Water stress started on 5-Aug (comparing both plots and considering plants in irrigated plot were non water stressed). Fig. 1: Experimental site. Fig. 3: Difference of ∆Tcanopy-air and VPD between non irrigated (nir) and irrigated (ir) plots Continuous observations (every 30 minutes): • Pressure head h(Polymer Tensiometers measuring till -1.6 MPa): 2 observation points each plot at 0.05, 0.15 and 0.30 m depth. • Tair and RH: 1 observation point each plot. • Tcanopy: 1 observation point each plot (infrared thermometry). • ∆Tcanopy-air and VPD between plots • Pressure head h - non irrigated plot Campaign observations: • Root density: 3 times each plot. • Stomatal resistance and transpiration rate: 11 days at midday. • Leaf Area Index (LAI): 5 times with a ceptometer. Fig. 2: ∆Tcanopy-air x VPD for irrigated plot (above) and non irrigated plot (below). Next steps • Simulate the dry period with the root water extraction model of De Jong van Lier et al. (2008): • Data of root density, matric flux potential M and soil hydraulic parameters. • Simulate the dry period with the CO2 assimilation model of Jacobs et al. (1996) to identify the midday depression in photosynthesis in plants of both plots: • Meteorological data. • Data of Ds (specific humidity difference between atmosphere and leaves) and LAI. • Tcanopy and Twb Fig. 4: Pressure head h for both observation points of non irrigated plot 6 - Tcanopy is higher than Twb for both plots. 7 - ΔTcanopy-wb is approximately constant during whole period for irrigated plot but increases for non irrigated plot. 8 - At the end of the month, Tcanopy of non irrigated plot becomes even higher than Twb indicating an increment in stomatal resistance to transpiration. 9 - Although atmospheric demand was the same for both plots, hydrological parameters differed significantly between them. 10 - Pressure head dropped down to -150.0 m in non irrigated plot and at this time Tcanopy presented its maximum values (~ 38.0°C). Preliminar conclusion:Sometimes observed plant water stress was a combined effect of soil and atmosphere, on other ocassions it has been a single effect of soil or atmosphere. Fig. 5: Difference between Tcanopy and Twb for non irrigated and irrigated plots. Main Bibliographic References Bakker et al. (2007). New polymer tensiometers: measuring matric pressures down to wilting point. Vadose Z.J., 6, 196-202. De Jong van Lier et al. (2008) Macroscopic root water uptake distribution using a matric flux potential approach. Vadose Z. J., p. 1065-1078. Ehrler (1973). Cotton leaf temperatures as related to soil water depletion and meteorological factors. Agron. J., 65, 404-409. Fucks (1990). Infrared measurement of canopy temperature and detection of plant water stress. Theor. Appl. Climatol., 42, 253-261. Idso et al. (1981). Normalizing the stress-degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agricultural Meteorology, 24, 45–55. Jacobs et al. (1996) Stomatal behavior and photosynthetic rate of unstressed grapevines in semi-arid conditions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2, 111-134. Shimoda and Oikawa (2006). Temporal and spatial variations of canopy temperature over a C3-C4 mixture grassland. Hydrol. Process., 20, 3503-3516. Tanner (1963). Plant temperature. Agron. J., 55, 210-211. Van der Ploeg et al. (2008). Matric potential measurements by polymer tensiometers in cropped lysimeters under water-stressed conditions. Vadose Z. J., 7, 1048-1054. Acknowledgements CAPES-WUR Agreement (proj. n.° 019/06) WUR/The Netherlands (proj. n.° 5100184-01) FAPESP (proj. n.° 2009/02117-7) University of São Paulo - Post-Graduation Section

More Related