Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 596 items for :

  • water-holding capacity x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Andrew G. Reynolds and Andrew P. Naylor

Glasshouse-grown `Pinot noir' and `Riesling' grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) were subjected to one of four water stress durations [no water deficit (control); and water deficits imposed postbloom, lag phase, and veraison] in combination with three soil water-holding capacities (0%, 26%, and 52% gravel, by volume). Vines subjected to increasing water stress duration had less cumulative lateral shoot length and lower shoot count, leaf size, and berry weights than those not stressed. Soluble solids concentration (SSC) during maturation and pH at harvest also increased with increasing water stress duration, but titratable acidity was not affected. Transpiration and stomatal conductance also were reduced with increased water stress duration, but soil water increased, reflecting the larger leaf surface on vines with veraison-imposed deficits. Reducing water-holding capacity (by increasing the percentage of gravel in the soil) tended to increase berry weight and SSC but reduced lateral shoot growth. The 52% gravel treatments increased transpiration rate and stomatal conductance for `Riesling' but reduced them slightly in `Pinot noir'. Percentage of soil moisture was reduced linearly with reduced water-holding capacity. These results indicate that early irrigation deficits may advance fruit maturity of wine grapes with concomitant reductions in vegetative growth. Differential responses of these cultivars to soil water-holding capacity also should help to identify suitable wine grape cultivars as the wine grape industry expands into areas with low water-holding capacity soils.

Free access

William R. Argo and John A. Biernbaum

Hybrid impatiens were grown in 15 cm pots containing one of six root medium. After seven weeks, plant available water holding capacity (AWHC) was measured as the difference between the drained weight of the plant and pot after a one hour saturation and the weight of the pot when the plant wilted. Water absorption potential (WAP) was calculated as the capacity of each root medium to absorb applied irrigation water up to the AWHC and was measured at two moisture levels with top watering (two leaching fractions), drip irrigation (two leaching fractions) and flood subirrigation. Top watering moist media (initial AWHC = 35%) with leaching fractions of 30+ % was me most efficient method of rewetting media and was the only irrigation method tested to obtain WAP's of 100%. In comparison, flood subirrigation was the least efficient method of rewetting media with WAP of 27% for dry media (initial AWHC = 0%), and obtained a total WAP of 55% for moist media (initial AWHC = 23%). In media comparisons, the incorporation of a wetting agent into a 70% peat/30% bark mix at planting increased the WAP compared to the same media without a wetting agent with nine of the ten irrigation treatments.

Free access

Michael R. Evans, Giampaolo Zanin, and Todd J. Cavins

properties of substrates are bulk density, total pore space, air-filled pore space, and water-holding capacity. Bulk density refers to the weight of a given volume of substrate and is most commonly reported as grams of dry weight per 100 cm 3 of substrate

Free access

Adel F. Ahmed, Hongjun Yu, Xueyong Yang, and Weijie Jiang

transplanting. Irrigation treatments and experimental design The maximum amount of water can held by soil or medium is known as water-holding capacity (WHC). Water-holding capacity of medium was calculated from the following equation: water-holding capacity

Full access

Michael R. Evans and Mary M. Gachukia

compare total pore space (% by volume), air-filled pore space (% by volume), water-holding capacity (% by volume and weight per weight), and bulk density (weight per volume) of sphagnum peat-based substrates amended with various amounts of PBH or perlite

Free access

James S. Owen Jr and James E. Altland

materials and added components. Mechanical analysis ( Dane and Topp, 2002 ) of substrate particle size distribution is routinely performed to make inferences on infiltration, pore size and distribution, and, subsequently, water-holding capacity ( Argo, 1998

Free access

George C. Elliott

Abbreviations: CCAP, container capacity; EWHC, effective water-holding capacity. 1 Assistant Professor. Scientific contribution no. 1381 of the Storm Agricultural Experiment Station. Univ. of Connecticut. This work was supported: in part, with a

Free access

Martin P.N. Gent and Richard J. McAvoy

water to 90% or more of effective water-holding capacity. It should be noted that subirrigation results in a lower effective water-holding capacity than when pots are watered from overhead ( Elliot, 1992 ) as a result of the limitation of capillary

Free access

Nastaran Basiri Jahromi, Forbes Walker, Amy Fulcher, James Altland, and Wesley C. Wright

, nutrient management practices are built on the “Sprengel–Liebig law of the minimum” ( Epstein and Bloom, 2005 ). Excessive nutrients are supplied to prevent plant growth restriction. This, in combination with the low water and nutrient-holding capacity of

Full access

Michael R. Evans and Leisha Vance

-filled pore space, water-filled pore space, water-holding capacity, and bulk density of sphagnum peat-based substrates amended with feather fiber. The substrates were air-dried in a greenhouse at 32 to 35 °C until they no longer lost weight over a 24-h period