Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Scientia Horticulturae
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Thermal imaging to monitor the crop-water status in almonds by using the T

non-water stress baselines
⁎
García-Tejero I.F. , Gutiérrez-Gordillo S., Ortega-Arévalo C., Iglesias-Contreras M., Moreno J.M.,
Souza-Ferreira L., Durán-Zuazo V.H.
Instituto Andaluz de Investigación y Formación Agraria y Pesquera (IFAPA) – Centro “Las Torres-Tomejil”. Ctra. Sevilla-Cazalla km. 12,2. 41.200, Alcalá del Río, Sevilla,
Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Thermal imaging has been progressively introduced as a promising technique for irrigation scheduling and the
Thermal readings assessment of the crop-water status, especially when deficit irrigation (DI) strategies are being implemented.
Water stress However, up to day, one of the most important limitations of this technique is related to the data interpretation
Irrigation scheduling derived from these sensors; which is in many cases, a severe limitation to its practical usage by farmers and
Data acquisition
technicians. This work evaluates the potential and usefulness of the non-water stress baselines (NWSB) extracted
Thermal indexes
from thermal information, in order to define a practical protocol for taking decisions related to irrigation
scheduling in almond plantations. The present study was developed during the kernel-filling period of three
cultivars of mature almond trees (cvs. Guara, Lauranne, and Marta), subjected to different irrigation treatments.
Thermal information was obtained by using a Thermal Camera (Flir SC660) with a high resolution, and sub-
sequently, confronted with other related plant physiological parameters [leaf water potential (Ψleaf) and sto-
matal conductance (gs)]. Moreover, once defined the NWSB, there were obtained similar functions taking as
reference the information from those irrigation treatments under different water stress levels. Finally, and taking
into account the yield values, there were defined the most advisable functions in order to maximize the water
savings, minimizing the yield losses. Here we demonstrate that the findings allow concluding that thermal
information is enough robust to know the crop-water status and define a proper irrigation scheduling for almond
plantations, being necessary to consider different thermal functions depending on the cultivar.

1. Introduction
Mediterranean irrigated agriculture is characterized by the scarcity
and irregularity of water resources availability, together with a pro-
gressive climate change that is promoting scenarios of water-resources
depletions, with more severe periods of lower rainfall during the wet
periods and more pronounced hot waves during the maximum evapo-
transpirative demand period (IPCC, 2014). Under this scenario, it is
necessary to implement different strategies and methodologies to in-
crease the irrigation water productivity, stablishing the best strategies
for an efficient and sustainable water management (García-Tejero and
Durán-Zuazo, 2018).
Deficit irrigation (DI) strategies have been traditionally used in
many arid and semi-arid irrigated areas, mainly when the available
water resources have not been enough to cover the crop water re-
quirements, although these have not been always properly managed.
This fact has been associated with the absence of a correct assessing of
crop-water status, especially when water depletions are applied in dif-
ferent crop stages (Costa et al., 2007). Traditionally, crop water mon-
itoring has been developed by means of punctual measurements of leaf
water potential at midday (Ψleaf) or pre-dawn (Shackel, 2011; Nortes
et al., 2005), or by means of gas-exchange parameters such as tran-
spiration, stomatal conductance (gs) or net photosynthetic rate (Jones,
2007; Fernández, 2014). By the contrast, these punctual measurements
are characterized by the time- and labour-consuming (Jiménez-Bello
et al., 2011). By the contrast, thermal imaging has been progressively
introduced to monitor the crop water status at different scales (García-
Tejero et al., 2016).
Many works have studied the befallen changes in terms of canopy
temperature (TC) of different woody crops when these are subjected to
DI strategies; such as citrus (García-Tejero et al., 2011); almonds
(García-Tejero et al., 2012), vines (Costa et al., 2012; García-Tejero
et al., 2016) or olives (García-Tejero et al., 2017). In this sense, TC can
be considered as a good source of information to assess the plant-water

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ivanf.garcia@juntadeandalucia.es (I.F. García-Tejero).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.04.045
Received 14 February 2018; Received in revised form 21 April 2018; Accepted 23 April 2018
Available online 28 April 2018
0304-4238/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
I.F. García-Tejero et al.
status (Jones, 2004; Berni et al., 2009; Jones et al., 2009), although
many times the relationships between thermal indicators and other
crop physiological parameters are required and these are not always
enough robust, especially when these have been obtained under field
conditions. This fact is promoted by the large influence of meteor-
ological variables (air temperature (Tair), solar radiation, the angle of
incident radiation, wind speed, or relative humidity (RH); among
others) (Jones, 2004; Grant et al., 2006) or morphological factors (Maes
and Steppe, 2012).
With the aim of establish a simple methodology to quantify the
crop-water status taking the thermal readings as the main source of
information, and minimizing the effects of environmental factors, there
were created different thermal ‘stress indices’. In this sense, Idso et al.
(1981) evidenced high positive differences in temperature values be-
tween TC and Tair in plants under water stress, while these differences
were much more stable and negative in well-irrigated plants, defining
the difference between canopy and air temperature as a simple thermal
index (ΔTcanopy-air).
The main constraints of using thermal information to assess the
crop-water status are focused in the proper interpretation of thermal
information (Maes and Steppe, 2012). Because of this, many times
different relationships between infrared thermal information and other
physiological parameters such as gS or Ψleaf are required. This fact
many times difficulties a proper making decision, because these re-
lationships are not always stable, and vary from place to place, for
different cultivars, and even for different crop phenological stages
(García-Tejero et al., 2016).
A simple way of interpreting the thermal information is by means of
the non-water-stressed baselines (NWSBs); a linear function that as-
sociates the ΔTcanopy-air when the crop is transpiring at the potential
rate, with the values of vapour pressure deficit (VPD) simultaneously
measured with TC. NWSB allows knowing the optimum value of
ΔTcanopy-air, stablishing certain threshold values able to manage prop-
erly the irrigation scheduling, especially when DI strategies are being
applied (Egea et al., 2017).
Considering these aspects, the aims of this work were i) to de-
termine the NWSB for studied almond cultivars during the kernel-filling
and postharvest periods; ii) define the water stressed baselines (WSBs)
subjected to different degrees of water stress; iii) and establish a useful
protocol to apply these functions for a proper irrigation scheduling,
especially when the almond plantations are subjected to DI practices.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Experimental site
The trial was conducted during 2017, from 153 to 224 day of the
year (DOY) in a commercial orchard of almonds (Prunus dulcis Mill.
(D.A. Webb)) cvs. Guara, Marta and Lauranne; grafted onto GN15
rootstock), located in the Guadalquivir river basin (37° 29′ 3.19″ N; 5°
59′ 55.1″ O) (Seville, SW Spain). Trees were planted in 2007, spaced
8 × 7 m, and drip irrigated using two pipe lines with emitters of
2.3 L h−1, spaced 0.75 m.
The soil is silty loam, typical Fluvisol (USDA, 2010), 2.5 m deep,
fertile, and organic matter content < 15.0 g kg−1. Roots are located
predominately in the first 50 cm of soil, corresponding to the intended
wetting depth, although these exceed more than one meter in depth.
Soil-water content values at field capacity (–0.33 MPa) and permanent
wilting point (–1.5 MPa) are 0.42 and 0.17 m3 m–3 respectively, with an
allowable soil-water depletion level of 0.35 m3 m–3.
The climatology in the study area is attenuated meso-
Mediterranean, with an annual ET0 rate of 1400 mm and accumulated
rainfall of 540 mm, mainly distributed from October to April.
The total rainfall and evapotranspiration registered during the
monitoring period were 1.2 and 585 mm, respectively. Daily tempera-
tures during the monitoring times ranged between 24.8 and 36.0 °C,
92
Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97
whereas the relative humidity ranged between 22.1 and 61.0%.
2.2. Irrigation treatments
Three irrigation treatments were defined in the three cultivars
considered: i) a full irrigated treatment (FI), which received 100% of
the crop evapotranspiration (ETC) during the irrigation period, ii) a
moderate deficit irrigation (MDI65), which received 100% of ETC during
the whole of irrigation period, except during the kernel-filling stage and
pre-harvest, when this treatment was irrigated with 65% of ETC; iii) and
a severe deficit irrigation (SDI40) which received the 100% ETC during
the irrigation period, except during the kernel-filling stage and pre-
harvest; when this treatment was irrigated at 40% of ETC.
Irrigation doses were calculated according to the methodology
proposed by Allen et al. (1998), obtaining the values of reference
evapotranspiration (ET0) by using a weather station installed in the
same experimental orchard. The local crop coefficients used during the
experimental period ranged between 1.0 and 1.2, according to the re-
sults obtained by García-Tejero et al. (2015).
2.3. Plant measurements
During the kernel filling period, when water restrictions were ap-
plied, crop-water monitoring was done throughout the measurements
of leaf water potential (Ψleaf) in shaded leaves; the stomatal con-
ductance to water vapour (gs) in well exposed sunny leaves; and canopy
temperature (TC), in the sunny side of monitoring tree. These readings
were taken between 12:00 and13:30 GTM, and with a periodicity of
7–10 days.
Measurements of Ψleaf were developed by using a pressure chamber
(Soil Moisture Equipment Corp., Sta. Barbara, CA, USA), monitoring 8
trees per irrigation treatment (one leaf per tree), located in the north
side of the tree and being totally mature, fresh and shaded, at 1.5 m of
height, approximately. This measurement integrates the effects of soil,
plant and atmospheric conditions on the measure of water availability,
within the plant itself (Shackel, 2011). Considering the suggestions
reported by Nortes et al. (2005), leaf water potential measured on fully
exposed leaves is not a suitable indicator under field conditions, be-
cause of the effects that leaf microclimate exerts on this measurement.
By the contrast, leaf-water potential measured in uncovered shaded
leaves is a suitable and proper choice to monitor the crop-water status,
minimizing the effects of climatic parameters in this measurement
(Goldhamer and Fereres, 2017), reducing the measurements variability,
and hence, not being necessary a large number of measurements and
reducing the time-consuming (García-Tejero and Durán-Zuazo, 2018).
Additionally, in these same trees, it was measured the gs, using a
porometer SC-1 (Decagon Devices, INC, WA, USA), these measurements
being done in one leaf completely exposed to the sun per monitored tree
completely exposed, and at 1.5 m of height, following the methodology
proposed by the manufacturer (Decagon Devices, 2011). In this sense,
the readings should be taken at least in three leaves per plot or treat-
ment (in or case n = 8), in fully exposed leaves to the sun, and con-
sidering that, those readings taken for similar conditions (for instance, a
same irrigation treatment), should be within 10% or approximately
50 mmol m2 s−1 of each other.
The TC was measured by thermal imaging at the same time of the
remaining readings, with ThermaCam (Flir SC660, Flir Systems, USA,
7–13 μm, 640 × 480 pixels), using an emissivity (ε) set at 0.96. Each
pixel corresponds to an effective temperature reading (Jones, 2004).
The images were taken in the sunlit side of the trees, with the imager
placed at 4 m of the canopy. Images were analysed using the Flir Re-
search Pro Software (Flir Systems, USA), that allows to select different
areas of the image (in our case 3–4 sunlit areas within the same image).
Considering the TC values obtained at tree level, for each variety,
irrigation treatment and monitoring day, it was calculated the differ-
ence between canopy and the surrounding air (ΔTcanopy-air) as follows:
I.F. García-Tejero et al.
ΔTcanopy-air = TC−Tair
where ΔTcanopy-air is the difference between canopy and air temperature
for the crop in the moment of the measurement, TC is the canopy
temperature and Tair the temperature of the surrounding air.
Taking in consideration the ΔTcanopy-air values obtained in FI, there
were defined the non-water stress baselines (NWSBs) as follows:
ΔTcanopy-air = a + b*VPD according to Idso et al. (1981).
2.4. Experimental design and statistical analysis
The experimental design was of randomized blocks, with four re-
plications per irrigation treatment and cultivar. Each replication had 12
trees (3 rows and 4 trees per row), being monitored the two central
rows for each replication (n = 8).
Relating to the statistical analysis, it was developed by using the
SPSS statistical software (SPSS Inc., 15.0 Statistical package; Chicago,
IL, USA). First of all, was done an exploratory descriptive analysis of
data (Ψleaf, gs and TC), applying a Levene’s test to check the variance
homogeneity of the studied variables, and subsequently, it was devel-
oped a multivariate analysis is order to define the differences in the
physiological parameters in terms of cultivar, irrigation treatment and
the crossing effect of these factors.
Finally, considering the VPD and ΔTcanopy-air, there were obtained
the NWSB for each cultivar, as it has been previously described.
Additionally, there were obtained the remaining WSBs for the moderate
and severe deficit irrigation treatments in each cultivar. WSBs were
obtained by using the readings taken during the kernel-filling period
during the days 153, 164, 172, 178, 184, 192, 199, 213, 220, 234 and
241 DOY (n = 11). Moreover, for the case of the NWSBs, there were
considered three additional measurements, taken during the days 250,
251 and 254 DOY (n = 14). To evaluate the robustness of the re-
lationships between VPD and ΔTcanopy-air, a linear correlation analysis
was done for each cultivar and irrigation treatment, and subsequently,
the obtained regression lines were compared (slope and intercept) using
a covariance analysis in order to decide if a single function could be
accepted for all the considered cultivars, or if these have to be in-
dependently used.
3. Results
Fig. 1 shows the accumulated ETC and irrigation applied for each
treatment during the studied period. In this regard, during the kernel-
filling period FI received 564 mm, whereas MDI65 and SDI40 received
376 and 241 mm, which represented 67 and 43% of irrigation water
Fig. 1. Accumulated crop evapotranspiration (ETC) and irrigation doses applied
in each treatment. FI, full irrigated treatment; MDI65, moderate deficit irriga-
tion at 70% of ETC; SDI40, severe deficit irrigation at 40% of ETC.
Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97
(1)
Fig. 2. Climatic conditions during the data acquisition. Tair, air temperature;
RH, relative humidity; VPD, vapour pressure deficit.
supplied in FI.
Fig. 2 shows the weather conditions during the data collection. The
air temperature in which the plant-physiological variables were mea-
sured ranged between 24.8 and 36 °C; whereas the RH oscillated be-
tween 24.3 and 59%. This promoted VPD values between 1.3 and 4.4
KPa, although, on overall, these values were up to 2 kPa, except in three
of the monitoring days.
Before of stablishing the different NWSBs for each cultivar, it was
studied the physiological response in terms of Ψleaf, TC and gs for each
cultivar and irrigation treatment. In this regard, in terms of cultivar,
significant differences were obtained considering the Ψleaf (p = 0.037),
and gs values (p = 0.044), not being evidenced this same result in terms
of TC (p = 0.634). By the contrast, when considering the effects in
terms of irrigation treatment, significant differences were observed in
terms of Ψleaf, gs, and TC (p < 0.001).
Taking into account these results, it was applied a Tukey’s test for
means separation (p < 0.05), with the aim of identifying the sig-
nificant differences in terms of Ψleaf, gs and TC between cultivars and
irrigation treatments (Table 1).
In view of the findings, significant differences were obtained in
terms of the cultivar. In this sense, the highest values of Ψleaf were
obtained for cv. Marta, which was accompanied with the lowest values
in terms of gs. By the contrast, cv. Guara recorded the lowest values of
Ψleaf (together with cv. Lauranne), and the highest values of gS.
When comparing the effects promoted in terms of irrigation treat-
ment, important differences were fixed in terms of Ψleaf, TC and gs. In
this regard, FI was the treatment that offered the lowest values of Ψleaf,
followed by MDI65 and SDI40. Moreover, FI was again the treatment
that offered the highest values of gS, this being significant different to
those obtained by MDI65 and SDI40. Finally, and in accordance to the
previous results, FI showed the lowest values of TC in comparison to
MDI65 and SDI40.
Considering the temporal progression of Ψleaf, TC and gs in the
different irrigation treatments for each cultivar, the crop response was
in accordance to the irrigation strategy imposed in each of the studied
treatments (Fig. 3). Regarding to cv. Marta, significant differences be-
tween FI and DI treatments were detected specially in Ψleaf and gs, not
being as evident the differences in terms of TC. By the contrast, cv.
Guara reached the highest differences in terms of Ψleaf among the ir-
rigation treatments. This fact was in tune with more attenuated dif-
ferences in terms of gs in this cultivar. Finally, cv. Lauranne had a
pattern more similar to Guara than Marta.
On overall Ψleaf was the physiological parameter that registered the
major differences between treatments, being very similar the differ-
ences reached in gs and TC. In this sense, the highest differences in
terms of TC coincided with those days in which were reached the
highest differences in terms of gs; whereas Ψleaf was able to reach dif-
ferences between treatments even those days in which these differences
were not as evident in terms of gs or TC.
93
I.F. García-Tejero et al. Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97

Table 1
Average values of Ψleaf, TC and gs for each cultivar and irrigation treatment.
Parameter Cultivar Irrigation treatment

Marta Lauranne Guara FI MDI65 SDI40

Ψleaf −1.56 ± 0.06b −1.65 ± 0.06a −1.65 ± 0.05a −1.33 ± 0.06c −1.65 ± 0.05b −1.88 ± 0.05a
TC 31.6 ± 0.5a 32.1 ± 0.5a 31.4 ± 0.5a 31.0 ± 0.5b 32.0 ± 0.4a 32.1 ± 0.5a
gs 112.13 ± 4.2b 118.1 ± 4.2ab 125.4 ± 4.1a 129.4 ± 4.3a 110.8 ± 4.1b 115.4 ± 4.1b

Ψleaf, leaf-water potential at midday measured in shaded leaves (MPa); TC, canopy temperature (ºC); gs, stomatal conductance (mmol m−2 s-1); FI, full irrigated
treatment; MDI65, moderate-deficit irrigation treatment at 65% ETC; SDI40, severe-deficit irrigation treatment at 40% ETC.

Once studied the temporal evolution of physiological variables;
there were calculated the values of ΔTcanopy-air and the relation between
them and the values of VPD registered during the measuring days
(Fig. 4, Table 2).
According to the covariance analysis, similar functions in terms of
slope and intercept point were obtained between the different cultivars.
In this sense, for the case of FI, the covariance analysis evidenced si-
milar slopes for the case of Marta and Lauranne, these being significant
different to the obtained for the case of Guara. However, for the case of
the intercept point, this was similar for the three cultivars in the case of
FI treatment. Comparing the obtained functions for MDI65, the covar-
iance analysis evidenced that obtained slopes for each cultivar could be
considered as similar. Something similar occurred for the case of SDI40
between Lauranne and Guara. On overall, the obtained results not al-
lowed to define a single function for each irrigation treatment without
differing between cultivars. More interesting was the absence of

Fig. 3. Temporal evolution of leaf-water potential (Ψleaf), stomatal conductance (gs) and canopy temperature (TC) for studied almond cultivars. FI, full irrigated
treatment; MDI65, moderate deficit irrigation at 65% of ETC; SDI40, severe deficit irrigation at 40% of ETC. DOY, day of the year.

94
I.F. García-Tejero et al. Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97

Fig. 4. Non-Water Stress Baselines and Water Stress Baselines for each irrigation treatment (FI, full irrigated treatment; MDI65, moderate deficit irrigation at 65% of
ETC; SDI40, severe deficit irrigation at 40% of ETC). VPD, vapour pressure deficit; ΔTcanopy-air, difference between canopy and air temperature.

Table 2
Fitted parameters for the Non-Water Stress Baselines and Water Stress Baselines (ΔTcanopy-air = n + m*VPD) for almond cultivars and irrigation treatments.
Irrigation cv. Marta cv. Lauranne cv. Guara

Intercept Slope R2 Intercept Slope R2 Intercept Slope R2

FI 4.78 −1.65 0.95 3.56 −1.24 0.92 3.89 −1.32 0.94

MDI65 5.40 −1.66 0.90 4.40 −1.17 0.80 4.60 −1.32 0.76
SDI40 5.29 −1.66 0.86 5.18 −1.13 0.92 4.95 −1.35 0.76

FI, full irrigated treatment; MDI65, moderate deficit irrigation at 65% of ETC; SDI40, severe deficit irrigation at 40% of ETC.

differences within each cultivar when compared the different functions
obtained for each irrigation treatment. That is, taking into account the
obtained results, for each cultivar, the slope obtained for each irrigation
treatment was similar, not happening the same for the case of intercept
point. Nevertheless, there were observed some trends similar for the
whole of cultivars. In this sense, overall was observed an increasing
trend for value of intercept point in the deficit irrigation treatments, in
comparison to FI. Moreover, the goodness-of-fit was worse in the ob-
tained linear regression of MDI65 and SDI40 than FI. In this regard,
especially interesting were the obtained relationships for FI in the three
monitoring cultivars, with R2 up to 0.85 (n = 14); whereas for the case
of SDI40 R2 values ranged between 0.49 and 0.65 (n = 11).
Finally, once estimated these functions, there were analysed the
final yield values obtained for each irrigation treatment and cultivar, in

95
I.F. García-Tejero et al.
Table 3
Nut-yield values in each cultivar and irrigation treatments defined during the experimental period.
Irrigation cv. Marta cv. Lauranne
−3
Nut yield Unit weight WUE (kg m ) Nut yield
(kg ha−1) (g) (kg ha−1)
FI 2394.7a 1.36a 0.20b 2599.7a
MDI65 1797.1b 1.19b 0.22ab 2481.9a
SDI40 1736.9b 1.09c 0.26a 2239.7b
FI, full irrigated treatment; MDI65, moderate deficit irrigation at 65% of ETC; SDI40, severe deficit irrigation at 40% of ETC.
order to decide what function would be the most appropriate to irri-
gation scheduling, aiming maximize the water saving and nut yield
(Table 3). These data were analysed within each cultivar with the aim
of choosing the most appropriate function for irrigation scheduling
independently for each cultivar.
Regarding to cv. Marta, significant differences in terms of nut yield
and unit weight were observed, being the FI the best of them. However,
in terms of water-use efficiency (WUE), the best results were recorded
in SDI40. Likewise, taking into account exclusively the yield values, the
most appropriate function would be the NWSB for the case of cv. Marta,
because of, if irrigation scheduling were developed using other WSBs,
probably, reductions in terms of yield would be obtained.
For the case of cv. Lauranne the yield values in terms of nut yield
were similar in FI and MDI65, with similar values in the unit weight of
nut, and improvements in terms of WUE. In this regard, considering
these results, it could be assumed that an irrigation restriction close to
35% of ETC during the kernel-filling period in this cultivar would not
promote a significant reduction, and hence, the WSB obtained for
MDI65 could be used for irrigation scheduling in this cultivar; even
more taking into account that the representativeness of this function
(0.69) could be assumed enough good. Moreover, by using this function
for irrigation scheduling during the kernel-filling period would promote
water savings up to 4000 m3 ha−1 and a significant improvement in
terms of WUE, comparing to the obtained results in FI for this cultivar.
More interesting were the obtained results for the case of cv. Guara.
In this sense, no differences in terms of yield and unit weight of kernel
were observed between the irrigation treatments. Taking into account
this aspect, it could be assumed that, for the case of this cultivar, no
effects in terms of yield would be obtained with water restrictions be-
tween 35–60%, and hence, irrigation scheduling could be done by using
the WSBs defined for MDI65 or SDI40, achieving water savings between
4000 and 6000 m3 ha−1.
4. Discussion
This paper gathers the most relevant findings related to the possi-
bility of managing the irrigation water by using thermal information in
almond plantations, confronting the thermal data with other physio-
logical parameters most commonly used such as Ψleaf or gs. Ψleaf has
been the most-used physiological measurement, in spite of its con-
straints, related to the time consuming, and the necessity of developing
a representative number of measurements previous to take decisions.
However, authors such as Mirás et al. (2016) reported that stem-water
potential would be a proper physiological indicator in Prunus species,
evidencing the possibility of using this indicator for irrigation sche-
duling in almond trees. However, this measurement requires of cov-
ering the leaf prior to measurement during a time between
30–120 minutes, depending on the recommendation of some authors
(Shackel et al., 1997; Fereres and Goldhamer, 2003). Obviously, this
fact could be a determinant limitation for taking decisions in com-
mercial orchards, in spite of being the most representative indicator of
crop-water status (Shackel, 2011).
Observing the obtained results in this work, it was observed that
Ψleaf was the physiological indicator in which the clearest differences
96
Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97
cv. Guara
−3
Unit weight WUE (kg m ) Nut yield Unit weight WUE (kg m−3)
(g) (kg ha−1) (g)
1.06a 0.22b 2329.0a 1.14a 0.19c
0.90a 0.31a 2144.3a 1.07a 0.27b
0.91a 0.33a 2249.9a 1.19a 0.34a
between irrigation treatments were reported, especially in comparison
to gs. In this sense, many times along the monitoring period, significant
descends in terms of Ψleaf were not accompanied with similar effects in
terms of gs. This fact would be related with the scarce capacity of al-
monds for stomatal regulation under situations of mild-to-moderate
water stress as was stated by Egea et al. (2011) and Eicchi (2013). Thus,
previous to a significant depletion of gs, almond responds with a sig-
nifficant reduction in Ψleaf, making necessary to impose more severe
water stress situations and during a longer period to detect a sharp
reduction of gs (Spinelli et al., 2016). Authors such as Torrecillas et al.
(1988) or Shackel et al. (1997) have concluded that gs descends are
usually associated to the Ψleaf evolution; although gs is more affected by
other variables (such as air temperature, radiation, or vapour pressure
deficit, among others). This promotes that the crop response in terms of
gs is more evident when the imposed water stress level is enough severe,
and hence, the stomatal response is mainly governed by the crop water
status (Espadafor et al., 2017).
To solve these constraints related to the use of Ψleaf or gs for irri-
gation scheduling, several authors have developed different works to
define protocols and strategies for using the thermal imaging to assess
the crop-water status under field conditions, especially when DI stra-
tegies are being applied (Jones et al., 2009, Möller et al., 2007; García-
Tejero et al., 2016). Canopy temperature can be considered as a good
source of information in estimating the gS, and Ψleaf (Jones et al., 2009;
Berni et al., 2009), although the relationships between canopy tem-
perature and crop physiological parameters are not always straight-
forward, especially in the field due to the large variation of weather
variables (air temperature, solar radiation, the angle of incident ra-
diation, wind speed, vapour pressure deficit) (Maes and Steppe, 2012;
Costa et al., 2013).
With the aim of minimizing the effects of environmental factors,
normalizing their variation, and establishing a simple methodology to
quantify the level of crop-water status, different thermal indexes can be
estimated and implemented for a proper explanation. In this line, Idso
et al. (1981) evidenced high differences in temperature values between
canopy and air temperature in plants under water stress, defining the
difference between canopy and air temperature as a simple thermal
index. Moreover, ΔTcanopy-air not only represents a simple thermal index
but the basis to define the NWSBs, which are necessary to obtain other
related thermal index such as the crop-water stress index (CWSI) or the
relative index to stomatal conductance (IG) (Maes and Steppe, 2012;
Egea et al., 2017). In this sense, combining the thermal information
derived from ΔTcanopy-air and the meteorological information by means
of the vapour pressure deficit (VPD); it is possible to define the NWSBs
to stablish a proper irrigation scheduling by using the thermal in-
formation as the main source of information (Egea et al., 2017). As it
was previously discussed by other authors such as Testi et al. (2008) or
Bellvert et al. (2014) reported that for a single crop, different NWSBs
can be obtained, although the main differences would be associated to
the intercept point. These differences would be associated to variations
in the weather conditions such as the solar radiation (Idso et al., 1981),
this fact being corroborated by Egea et al. (2017) in olive trees. Even
more, these authors concluded that other variations in the intercept
point can be associated with the crop phenological stage in which these
I.F. García-Tejero et al.
functions were obtained, and the moment of the day. In our case, si-
milar slopes were obtained within each cultivar, being the differences
associated to the intercept point. But considering that these functions
were obtained taking measurements with the same weather conditions,
during the kernel-filling period and at midday; the obtained differences
in the intercept point derived from the crop water status. Moreover, not
clear differences were obtained between cultivars, being especially si-
milar those obtained in cvs. Marta and Lauranne.
5. Conclusions
This paper was developed with the aim of defining a single protocol
for irrigation scheduling in three different almond cultivars, exclusively
by using thermal information. Considering the set of results obtained in
this work, we can conclude that, in spite of Ψleaf was the most sensitive
parameter to detect differences in terms of crop water status, TC re-
sulted a proper parameter able to detect differences between irrigation
treatments that had received different irrigation amounts.
Moreover, in relation to the possibility of defining a threshold value
of TC or ΔTcanopy-air, we were able to obtain the NWSBs and the WSBs,
which would allow us to stablish this threshold value, depending on the
VPD, and hence, define an irrigation scheduling depending on the water
availability.
Relating to the possibility of obtaining a single function, the ob-
tained results did not allow to define it, and hence different NWSBs and
WSBs should be used, depending on the cultivar.
Finally, within each cultivar the obtained results allowed us to
conclude that the slope of the NWSB and the WSBs were very similar,
being the differences in terms of the intercept point. These results allow
us to conclude that the slope of this functions is determined by the
cultivar, whereas the intercept point is highly dependent on the crop
water status and other environmental factors.
Acknowledgements
Part of this work was sponsored by the research project “Integrated
management of almond crop and other nuts (INNOVA-Nuts)"
(AVA.AVA201601.18), within the Operational Program FEDER
2014–2020 "Andalusia moves with Europe ". The author I.F. García-
Tejero has a contract co-financed by the Operational Program of the
European Social Fund (ESF) 2007–2013 "Andalusia moves with
Europe".
References
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. FAO Irrig.
Drain. Pap. 56 FAO, Rome.
Bellvert, J., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Girona, J., Fereres, E., 2014. Mapping crop water stres-
sindex in a Pinot-noir vineyard: comparing ground measurements with thermalre-
mote sensing imagery from an unmanned aerial vehicle. Precis. Agric. 15, 361–376.
Berni, J.A.J., Zarco-Tejada, P.J., Sepulcre-Cantó, G., Fereres, E., Villalobos, F., 2009.
Mapping canopy conductance and CWSI in olive orchards using high resolution
thermal remote sensing imagery. Remote Sens. Environ. 113, 2380–2388.
Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Chaves, M.M., 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save
water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. J. Int. Plant Biol. 49,
1421–1434.
Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Lopes, C.M., Chaves, M.M., 2012. Grapevine varieties ex-
hibiting differences in stomatal response to water deficit. Funct. Plant Biol. 39,
179–189.
Costa, J.M., Grant, O.M., Chaves, M.M., 2013. Thermography to explore plant-environ-
ment interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 64, 3937–3949.
Decagon Devices. 2011. Available at:http://www.decagon.com/(Accessed 21 May,
2018).
Egea, G., Dodd, I.C., González-Real, M.M., Domingo, R., Baile, A., 2011. Partial rootzone
drying improves almond tree leaf-level water use efficiency and afternoon water
status compared with regulated deficit irrigation. Funct. Plant Biol. 38, 372–385.
Egea, G., Padilla-Díaz, C.M., Martinez-Guanter, J., Fernández, J.E., Pérez-Ruiz, M., 2017.
Assessing a crop water stress index derived from aerial thermal imaging and infrared
97
Scientia Horticulturae 238 (2018) 91–97
thermometry in super-high density olive orchards. Agric. Water Manage. 187,
210–221.
Eicchi, V.R., 2013. Water Use Efficiency in Almonds (Prunnus dulcis (Mill)D.A. Web) Phd.
Thesis. School of Agriculture, Food and Wine. Available at:. Faculty of Science. Univ.
of Adelaide, pp. 77. . [12 December 2016]. https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/
dspace/bitstream/2440/87112/8/02whole.pdf.
Espadafor, M., Orgaz, F., Testi, L., Lorite, I.J., González-Dugo, V., Fereres, E., 2017.
Responses of transpiration and transpiration efficiency of almond tres to moderate
wáter déficits. Sci. Hort. 225, 6–14.
Fereres, E., Goldhamer, D.A., 2003. Suitability of stem diameter variations and water
potential as indicators for irrigation scheduling of almond trees. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech.
78, 139–144.
Fernández, J.E., 2014. Understanding olive adaptation to abiotic stresses as a tool to
increase crop performance. Environ. Exp. Bot. 103, 158–179.
García-Tejero, I.F., Durán-Zuazo, V.H., 2018. Water Scarcity and Sustainable Agriculture
in Semiarid Environment. Tools, Strategies Challenges Woody Crops. pp. 582.
García-Tejero, I.F., Durán-Zuazo, V.H., Muriel-Fernández, J.L., Jiménez-Bocanegra, J.A.,
2011. Linking canopy temperature and trunk diameter fluctuations with other phy-
siological water status tools for water stress management in citrus orchards. Funct.
Plant Biol. 38, 106–117.
García-Tejero, I.F., Durán-Zuazo, V.H., Arriaga, J., Hernández, A., Vélez, L.M., Muriel-
Fernández, J.L., 2012. Approach to assess infrared thermal imaging of almond trees
under water-stress conditions. Fruits 67, 463–474.
García-Tejero, I.F., Hernández, A., Rodríguez, V.M., Ponce, J.R., Ramos, V., Muriel, J.L.,
Durán-Zuazo, V.H., 2015. Estimating almond crop coefficients and physiological re-
sponse to water stress in semiarid environments (SW Spain). J. Agric. Sci. Tech. 17,
1255–1266.
García-Tejero, I.F., Costa, J.M., Egipto, R., Lima, R.S.N., Durán, V.H., Lópes, C., Chaves,
M.M., 2016. Thermal data to monitor crop-water status in irrigated Mediterranean
viticulture. Agric. Water Manage. 176, 80–90.
García-Tejero, I.F., Hernández, A., Padilla-Diaz, C.M., Diaz-Espejo, A., Fernández, J.E.,
2017. Assessing plant water status in a hedgerow olive orchard from thermography at
plant level. Agric. Water Manage. 188, 50–60.
Goldhamer, D.A., Fereres, E., 2017. Establishing an almond water production function for
California using long-term yield response to variable irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 35,
169–179.
Grant, O.M., Chaves, M.M., Jones, H.G., 2006. Optimizing thermal imaging as a technique
for detecting stomatal closure induced by drought stress under greenhouse condi-
tions. Physiol. Plant 127, 507–518.
Idso, S.B., Jackson, R.D., Pinter, P.J.J., Reginato, R.J., Hatfield, J.L., 1981. Normalizing
the stress degree-day parameter for environmental variability. Agric. Meteorol. 24,
45–55.
IPCC, 2014. In: Barros, V., Field, C.B. (Eds.), Climate Change 2014. Impacts, Adaptations
and Vulnerabilities. Part B. Regional Aspects. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Jiménez-Bello, M.A., Ballester, C., Castel, J.R., Intrigliolo, D.S., 2011. Development and
validation of an automatic thermal imaging process for assessing plant water status.
Agric. Water Manage. 98, 1497–1504.
Jones, H.G., 2004. Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods.
J. Exp. Bot. 55, 2427–2436.
Jones, H.G., 2007. Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods
revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 58,
119–130.
Jones, H.G., Serraj, R., Loveys, B.R., Xiong, L., Wheaton, A., Price, A.H., 2009. Thermal
infrared imaging of crop canopies for the remote diagnosis and quantification of plant
responses to water stress in the field. Funct. Plant Biol. 36, 978–979.
Maes, W.H., Steppe, K., 2012. Estimating evapotranspiration and drought stress with
ground-based thermal remote sensing in agriculture: a review. J. Exp. Bot. 63,
4671–4712.
Mirás-Avalos, J.M., Pérez-Sarmiento, F., Alcobendas, R., Alarcón, J.J., Mounzer, O.,
Nicolás, E., 2016. Using midday stem water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation
in mid–late maturing peach trees under Mediterranean conditions. Irrig Sci. 34,
161–173.
Möller, M., Alchanatis, V., Cohen, Y., Meron, M., Tsipris, J., Naor, A., Ostrovsky, V.,
Sprintsin, M., Cohen, S., 2007. Use of thermal and visible imagery for estimating crop
water status of irrigated grapevine. J. Exp. Bot. 58, 827–838.
Nortes, P.A., Pérez-Pastor, A., Egea, G., Conejero, W., Domingo, R., 2005. Comparison of
changes in stem diameter and water potential values for detecting water stress in
young almond trees. Agric. Water Manage. 77, 296–307.
Shackel, K., 2011. A plant-based approach to deficit irrigation in trees and vines.
HortScience 46, 173–177.
Shackel, K.A., Ahmadi, H., Biasi, W., Buchner, R., Goldhamer, D., Gurusinghe, S., et al.,
1997. Plant Water Status as an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit tree. Hort.
Tech. 7, 23–29.
Spinelli, G.M., Snyder, R.L., Sanden, B.L., Shackel, K.A., 2016. Water stress causes sto-
matal closure but does not reduce canopy evapotranspiration in almond. Agric. Water
Manage. 168, 11–22.
Testi, L., Goldhamer, D.A., Iniesta, F., Salinas, M., 2008. Crop water stress index is
asensitive water stress indicator in pistachio trees. Irrig. Sci. 26, 395–405. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/s00271-008-0104-5.
Torrecillas, A., Ruiz, S.M.C., del Amor, F., León, A., 1988. Seasonal variations on water
relations of Amygdalus communis L. Under drip irrigated and non-irrigated condi-
tions. Plant Soil 106, 215–220.