Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Relationships between soil water content, evapotranspiration, and irrigation T

measurements in a California drip-irrigated Pinot noir vineyard
Tiffany G. Wilsona, William P. Kustasa,*, Joseph G. Alfieria, Martha C. Andersona, Feng Gaoa,
John H. Pruegerb, Lynn G. McKeea, Maria Mar Alsinac, Luis A. Sanchezc, Karrin P. Alstadd
a
USDA ARS, Hydrology and Remote Sensing Laboratory, Beltsville, MD, 20705-2350, USA
b
USDA ARS, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, IA, 50011, USA
c
E.&J. Gallo Winery, Viticulture, Chemistry and Enology, Modesto, CA, 95354, USA
d
UC Davis Viticulture and Enology, Davis, CA, 95616, USA

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

Keywords: The Central Valley of California relies on irrigation for crop production, but water resources, particularly
actual evapotranspiration groundwater, have reached a critical state due to extended drought periods and overuse by irrigated agriculture.
reference evapotranspiration The purpose of the Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX)
irrigation project is to improve efficiency in vineyard irrigation through field measurements and modeling efforts using
root zone soil moisture
remote sensing. In this study, we analyze multi-year timeseries of ground-based soil moisture and evapo-
precipitation
transpiration (ET) measurements collected during GRAPEX to identify patterns that may inform future irrigation
vine water status
recommendations based on remotely sensed ET. The study focuses on field data collected in two adjacent Pinot
noir vineyards near Lodi, CA from 2013 to 2017. The data used for this analysis are reference evapotranspiration
(ETref), actual evapotranspiration (ETa), mean daytime soil water content (SWC) measured to a depth of 90 cm,
precipitation, and irrigation. The relationship between SWC and the ratio of ETa/ETref (used as a soil moisture
proxy indicator) changes throughout the spring and summer months due to advancing phenological stages and
management practices. In early spring, when the interrow cover crop is the primary source of ET, ETa is strongly
correlated with SWC. As the vine canopy grows in, the strong correlation breaks down as the vines begin to
access to water beyond the depth of the soil moisture sensors. As the soil profile dries out during the summer, the
correlation between ETa and SWC once again emerges as the vines become strongly dependent on irrigation. The
dynamic interaction between the upper and lower root zone profile and evaporative demand means that the key
to understanding vineyard water status using relatively shallow SWC observations is to use them in conjunction
with ETa data, so that when both SWC and ETa timeseries are highly correlated vine water status is well defined.
This suggests, delaying the initiation of irrigation during the period of rapid vine growth until a clear re-
lationship between SWC and ETa emerges would both reduce the total amount of water used and give the grower
more control over vine growth and grape quality affected by water status.

1. Introduction Evapotranspiration eXperiment (GRAPEX) project is a partnership be-

tween scientists at the USDA Hydrology and Remote Sensing
Agriculture is the largest consumer of water in California, using an Laboratory, E&J Gallo Wineries, and several other university and re-
estimated 75% of the total water supplied to the state in 2005-2010 search entities to develop practical remote sensing techniques for
(California Department of Water Resources 2015). The Central Valley is monitoring plant water status and developing efficient irrigation plans
a highly prioritized user of water due to the high economic value of in vineyards. An overview of the GRAPEX project is provided by Kustas
crops produced, but resources are still limited, as highlighted by et al. (2018). The ultimate goal of GRAPEX is to reduce water usage
drought in recent years. It is therefore beneficial, from both an eco- while maintaining or improving grape yield and quality for wine pro-
nomic and environmental perspective, for growers to reduce the duction.
amount of water used for irrigation. Micrometeorological measurements relevant for vineyard irrigation
The Grape Remote sensing Atmospheric Profile and management include soil water content (SWC), actual

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bill.kustas@usda.gov (W.P. Kustas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106186
Received 4 February 2020; Received in revised form 28 March 2020; Accepted 3 April 2020
Available online 29 April 2020
0378-3774/ Published by Elsevier B.V.
T.G. Wilson, et al.
evapotranspiration (ETa), and the ratio of actual to reference ET (ETa/
ETref). SWC is a key variable governing the decision to commence ir-
rigation in the spring; this irrigation decision is typically triggered
when available water content falls below a fixed threshold (e.g., 50%).
After irrigation starts, ETa provides a measure of water consumed by the
vineyard throughout the growing season, guiding decisions on rate of
replenishment via irrigation. The ratio of daily values of actual to re-
ference ET (ETa/ETref) is used in viticulture as a measure of vegetative
stress, often referred to as the crop coefficient. Optimal guidelines have
been developed by grape varietal for target stress levels, quantified in
terms of ETa/ETref, for different phenological stages of vine develop-
ment. Furthermore, remotely sensed ETa/ETref has been used as a proxy
indicator or metric of the soil moisture status, reflecting the control of
soil moisture on evaporative fluxes (Hain et al. 2009; Hain et al. 2011).
The GRAPEX project has collected field measurements of these and
other micrometeorological and biophysical variables in vineyards
nearly continuously since April 2013, providing a long baseline for
assessing interrelationships between SWC, ETa/ETref, and remote sen-
sing indicators. Initial assessments of the relationship between SWC and
ETa/ETref for study years 2013-2016 indicated that ETa/ETref decreases
with SWC below a mean SWC threshold of about 0.35 m3 m-3 (see Fig. 8
in Kustas et al. 2018). The relationship between these two variables also
depends on phenological stage; ETa/ETref and SWC show correlations
both before bloom and after harvest, but not during the main part of the
growing season when ETa/ETref is largely independent of SWC.
The primary purpose of this paper is to explain these changes in the
ETa/ETref vs SWC relationship throughout the growing season by way of
a detailed study of the soil moisture, evapotranspiration, and irrigation
timeseries data collected during GRAPEX. After a review of the field site
and measurement methods, we present the overall trends of ET and
SWC throughout the study period of 2013-2017. Then, we analyze the
relationship of these two quantities by month, which roughly aligns
with phenological stage. Finally, we put these results into context using
the quantities and timing of precipitation and applied irrigation.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
The study site, part of the GRAPEX project, consists of two adjacent
Vitis vinifera L. vineyards of the pinot noir variety in the California
Central Valley near the city of Lodi (38.29 N 121.12 W, see Fig. 1).
These vineyards were originally associated with the Borden ranch
(Kustas et al., 2018), but currently are considered part of Sierra Loma
ranch. The first growing seasons for the north and south vineyards were
2
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
2009 and 2011, respectively. Both vineyards are drip irrigated with a
dripper ∼ 0.35 m distance on either side of each vine, and the vines are
planted in east-west rows spaced 3.35 m apart with 1.5 m between vines
along each row. The soils in the two vineyards are slightly different. The
north vineyard has an average texture content of 29% sand and 32%
clay, making it a clay loam in the USDA soil texture triangle. In the
south vineyard, the average texture is 39% sand and 22% clay, hence
classified as loam. A more complete description of the vineyards, in-
cluding canopy structure, may be found in Kustas et al. (2018).
2.2. Seasons and phenology
Fig. 2 shows a general timeline of phenology and management in
these vineyards, providing temporal context for the measurements and
findings presented below. During February and early March, which is
typically the end of the rainy season, the interrow grass cover crop (a
perennial mixture) is active while the vines are dormant. The cover
crop grows and actively transpires thought April and is typically mowed
several times in April and early May. By end of May/early June with no
rain and into the dry season the cover crop undergoes senescence and
turns into dry grass stubble through the remainder of the growing
season (see Fig. 2). On the other hand, March through June is the period
of active vine canopy growth and contains the phenological events of
bud break, bloom, and fruit set. Sufficient soil water is critical during
this period to achieve appropriate canopy size and berries per cluster.
Veraison, the stage where berry color changes and the grapes start to
mature, occurs in July, during the canopy maintenance period when
there is typically less irrigation. Finally, harvest occurs in late August or
early September, about a month before the next rainy season begins.
2.3. Eddy Covariance Towers
Starting in 2013, continuous eddy covariance and surface energy
balance measurements as well as standard meteorological observations
have been collected in each vineyard. Table 1 is a description of the
instrumentation and measurement height used in determining the sur-
face energy balance and estimates of ET. A complete description of
instrumentation on the towers is provided by Kustas et al. (2018). Post
processing of the raw 20 Hz eddy covariance data and soil heat flux and
net radiation data is described in detail in Alfieri et al. (2019). Towers
in the north (site 1) and south (site 2) vineyards are approximately
1.5 km apart and are located at the east edge of the vineyards (see
Fig. 1) to maximize fetch since winds are predominately from the west
(Alfieri et al. 2019).
Fig. 1. Location of the study areas. The north
vineyard (Site 1) and south vineyard (Site 2)
are outlined in red with the locations of the
micrometeorological towers shown as red
dots. The yellow dots represent the locations
of the soil moisture profile measurements.
The photographs of the two vineyards were
taken on 6 August 2013. Figure reproduced
with permission from Alfieri et al. (2019).
T.G. Wilson, et al. Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186

Fig. 2. General timeline of phenology, management, and precipitation for the study vineyard. The photographs are from the phenocam in the north vineyard during
March-June 2015.

2.4. Precipitation

As shown in Table 1, tipping bucket rain gauges were initially in-

stalled at 5 m above ground level (agl) at each tower. However, during
the 2016 growing season it was discovered that the rain gauges were
substantially under-capturing water at this height, likely due to the
effect of wind as described by Pollock et al. (2018). The rain gauges
were lowered to 3 m following the 2016 growing season. Precipitation
input prior to January 2017 used in this study is a combination of data
from another rain gauge onsite maintained by NASA and the Fair Oaks
station of the California Irrigation Management Information System
(CIMIS). Fig. 3 shows the cumulative precipitation recorded by the
NASA and CIMIS stations for the overlapping period of October 2013
through February 2015; while the two series are not identical, they are
similar enough to use the CIMIS for gap filling in the NASA data.

Fig. 3. Cumulative precipitation for the onsite NASA rain gauge and CIMIS Fair
2.5. Soil moisture profiles Oaks station for October 2013 through February 2015.

In addition to the surface soil moisture measured for the soil heat permittivity of the soil and calculate volumetric soil water content
flux installations, three vertical profiles of soil moisture measurements (SWC, m3 m-3) using a calibration curve of the following form (Stevens
were established in each vineyard near the tower locations. Each profile Water Monitoring Systems Inc 2007):
consists of Hydra Probe sensors (Stevens Water Monitoring Systems,
Portland, Oregon) at depths of 30, 60, and 90 cm below ground level
(bgl) under the irrigation drip line. Hydra Probes measure the dielectric θ = A Er + B (1)

Table 1
Instrumentation at or near the micrometeorological tower in each vineyard. Measurements are indicated as being above ground level (agl) or below ground level
(bgl).
Measured quantity Instrument Measurement height (agl) or depth Model and Manufacturera
(bgl)

Wind velocity Sonic anemometer 5 m agl CSAT3, Campbell Scientific, Logan, Utah
Water vapor and carbon dioxide Infrared gas analyzer 5 m agl EC-150, Campbell Scientific
Air pressure Barometric pressure sensor 5 m agl CS-106, Campbell Scientific
Net radiation 4-component radiometer 6 m agl CNR-1, Kipp and Zonen, Delft, Netherlands
Soil heat flux Heat flux plates (5) 8 cm bgl HFT-3, Radiation Energy Balance Systems, Bellevue,
Washington
Surface soil moisture TDR soil moisture sensor 5 cm bgl HydraProbe, Stevens Water Monitoring Systems,
Portland, Oregon
Temperature and humidity Combined temperature and humidity 5 m agl HMP45C, Vaisala, Helsinki, Finland
sensor
Precipitation Tipping bucket rain gauge 5 m agl TE525, Texas Electronics, Dallas, Texas

a
The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this article is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute official endorsement
or approval by the US Department of Agriculture or the Agricultural Research Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

3
T.G. Wilson, et al. Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186

where θ is SWC, Er is the real dielectric permittivity, and A and B are
constants. For this study, the standard loam calibration constants of
A = 0.110 and B = -0.180 (Seyfried et al. 2005) were used.
2.6. Leaf Area Index
The leaf area index (LAI) of vine and interrow cover crop (when
green and active) was estimated on a 30-m spatial scale for the GRAPEX
project using satellite imagery and the method of Gao et al. (2012).
Briefly, this method uses a regression tree based on homogenous MODIS
LAI retrievals to obtain LAI estimates at 30-m resolution from the re-
flectance bands measured by Landsat. Application of this remote sen-
sing-based LAI retrieval over the two vineyards was evaluated by Sun
et al. (2017) and found to give fairly reliable estimates compared to
ground-based LAI measurements derived from LiCor LAI-2000 and LAI-
2200 measurements (White et al., 2019).
2.7. Evapotranspiration
Daily evapotranspiration (ET) changes throughout the year due to
varying radiation and meteorological inputs, soil moisture content, and
biophysical characteristics of the vines and cover crop. The reference
evapotranspiration (ETref), which varies due radiation and meteor-
ological conditions, is viewed as the maximum actual evapotranspira-
tion (ETa) a crop can achieve under well-watered conditions and is used
to normalize ETa. The resulting quantity, ETa/ETref, is therefore a
practical indicator of water stress in the vineyards. ETref is calculated
using the local meteorological data from the tower and the FAO
Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration equation (Allen et al.
1998):
is to close the energy balance using either the Bowen ratio or residual
technique (Twine et al. 2000). For daily values, using the Bowen ratio
method for nighttime fluxes can cause spurious LE estimates when the
Bowen ratio is near -1. Therefore the residual method was used, com-
puting LE = Rn − G − H , where Rn, G, and H are the net radiation, soil
heat flux, and sensible heat flux, respectively. Since ETa is likely to fall
somewhere between the uncorrected LE derived from eddy covariance
measurements (LEEC) without invoking energy balance closure and
energy balance closure using residual limits, namely LERE =Rn – G – H
(e.g., Leuning et al., 2012), for this analysis we used the average of the
residual LERE and LEEC computed directly from the eddy covariance
measurements, or
LEavg = 0.5(LERE + LEEC ) (6)
-2 -1
LEavg was then converted from W m to ETa in mm d using the ex-
pression shown for Rn and G in Table 2.
In these vineyards, there are three possible sources of latent heat: ET
from vines, ET from the cover crop, and bare soil evaporation. While we
are primarily concerned with vine ET, we cannot easily separate this
source from the other two. Attempts at quantifying the transpiration
and evaporation partitioning between the vine canopy, interrow bare
soil, and cover crop using both modeling and measurement methods
have been applied to this vineyard site (Kustas et al. 2019a; Kustas et al.
2019b). The results suggest that during the initial emergence of the vine
canopy in April, ET is a combination of all three sources. However, once
the cover crop senesces by late May/Early June (see Fig. 2), these
studies suggest that the vines are main source of ET on the order of 80
to 90 percent.
2.8. Soil moisture

ETref =
(Δ × (Rn − G )) + γ × ( ( 900
(Ta + 273) ) × u × VPD) Field dataloggers for the soil moisture profiles recorded mean
hourly soil moisture for each of the three sensors in each profile. The
Δ + (γ × (1 + 0.34 × u)) (2) winter month measurements were used to estimate the field capacity, or
where maximum amount of water the soil can hold without losing water to
gravity drainage. Since the vines and cover crop are dormant during the
4098 × esat
Δ= winter months, the decrease in soil moisture at the below-ground sen-
(237.3 + Ta )2 (3)
sors is primarily due to drainage which stops when the soil moisture
and reaches field capacity. Therefore, a visual inspection of the data was
performed to find the level at which, following a precipitation event,
P
γ = 0.0016286 × the 24 -h change in soil moisture became zero. These values were
λ (4)
averaged for each sensor in a profile to obtain a mean field capacity for
Equation 2 is evaluated at the hourly scale using the hourly post-pro- each measurement location.
cessed tower data, and the daily ETref is the sum of hourly values for The main analysis of the soil moisture data requires an estimate of
each day. This method of calculating ETref results in a “local” reference the SWC as it would be sensed by the vines. Drip-irrigated grapevines
rather than a reference for a standard grass surface since the tower such as the ones in the Sierra Loma study vineyards are known to have
measurements are used as input to Eqs (2)–(4). The quantities and units roots concentrated close to the surface, and with sensors at 30, 60, and
for the symbols in Equations (2 ) through (4 ) are shown below in 90 cm below the surface, we do not know SWC above 30 cm depth.
Table 2. However, we do have surface soil moisture (5 cm bgl) under the drip
There are two ways of arriving at the actual daily evapotranspira- line associated with the soil heat flux transects within 10 meters of the
tion (ETa) based on the tower data. The first is to use the latent heat (LE) flux towers (see Table 1). While not in the exact same location as the
measured directly from the eddy covariance measurements. The second soil moisture profile sensors (see Fig. 2 from Kustas et al. 2018), this
surface value is a reasonable estimate for SWC under the drip line
Table 2 throughout the vineyard. Proceeding with the readings at 5, 30, 60, and
Hourly quantities used to calculate ETref in Equation (2 ) 90 cm, the hourly values between 0700 and 1800 hrs local time were
Symbol Quantity Units averaged to get a daily value for each sensor for the hours when the
vines were actively transpiring during the growing season. To get a
Rn Net radiation W m-2 * 1/λ * 0.0864 = mm d-1 single daily value for the entire profile, the values for each two adjacent
G Soil heat flux W m-2 * 1/λ * 0.0864 = mm d-1
sensors (5 and 30 cm, 30 and 60 cm, 60 and 90 cm) were averaged to
Ta Air temperature °C
u Wind speed m s-1 estimate the SWC for the soil layer between the two sensors. Finally, the
VPD Vapor pressure deficit kPa resulting values for the three layers were weighted according to an
esat Saturation vapor pressure kPa assumed root distribution of (0.6, 0.3, 0.1) based on the work of Bassoi
P Air pressure kPa et al. (2003). We initially assume minimal root presence beyond the soil
λ Latent heat of vaporization of water MJ kg-1
measured by the 90 cm sensor for two reasons: these vineyards have
Δ Saturated vapor pressure gradient kPa °C-1
γ Psychometric constant kPa °C-1 been drip-irrigated since planting, leading to most roots developing
near the surface where water is applied; and a known hard pan layer on

4
T.G. Wilson, et al. Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186

the order of 1.5 to 2 meters with high clay content prevents most roots
from penetrating deeper into the soil.

2.9. Irrigation

Irrigation is typically reported by the growers in gallons of water

applied per vine per day. To compare this value to precipitation and ET
fluxes, irrigation is converted to mm day-1 using the area formed by
vine and row spacing of 1.5 and 3.35 m, respectively:

Irr [mm day-1] = Irr [gal vine-1 day-1] * 1/(v•r) * 3.79, (6)

where v is the vine spacing (1.5 m), r is the row spacing (3.35 m), and
the constant 3.79 is the combined conversions of gallons to cubic me-
ters and meters to millimeters. It is worth noting here that while pre-
cipitation is an area source of soil water over the entire vineyard, ir-
rigation is a line source along the center of each vine row. Additionally,
the soil moisture sensors are located in the vine row. Therefore, a given
depth of irrigation will cause a larger increase in recorded soil moisture
under the vine than the same depth of precipitation.

2.10. Time scale

As described above, most values are initially recorded or calculated

at an hourly or daily increment. However, fluctuations in meteor-
ological variables and the resulting ETref and ETa make trends and
patterns of SWC in the root zone and ET difficult to discern from daily Fig. 5. Weekly daytime mean soil moisture for one profile in each vineyard and
the weighted average assuming root distribution of 0.6, 0.3, and 0.1 in the three
data. As a result, the majority of analyses and visualizations in this
layers. Dashed vertical lines indicate 1 April and 1 October of each year, and the
study use a weekly time scale.
tick marks indicate 1 July. The shaded areas represent the non-growing season
(1 Oct - 1 Apr).
3. Results and Discussion
down. As ETref peaks in the summer months, ETa remains similarly high
3.1. Annual ET Cycle
due to the irrigation applied to maintain ETa/ETref at or above 0.7.
Comparing the two vineyards, we see that ETa in the south vineyard
Fig. 4 shows the annual cycle of weekly ETref, ETa, and ETa/ETref
was lower than that of the north vineyard in the first year of the study
over the 2013-2017 timeframe at both vineyard sites. Since ETref is
period, but this difference diminished over time. One possible reason
driven primarily by radiation, it peaks during the summer months and
for the difference and trend is the relative age and maturity of the vi-
is lowest during the winter. Additionally, since ETref includes meteor-
neyards: the 2013 season was the fifth season for the north vineyard but
ological conditions such as temperature, wind speed, and VPD, ETa for a
only the third for the south, so the north vineyard would be expected to
given biomass level is widely viewed as a function of ETref and water
have a larger canopy and be more productive than the south. This is
availability. As such, for these vineyards, ETa roughly follows ETref due
verified by Alfieri et al. (2019) relating differences in ET between the
to generally well-watered conditions. In the wet winter months, typi-
north and south vineyards to differences in LAI. By 2017, the ninth and
cally November through March, the main sources of ETa are the rain-fed
seventh seasons for the north and south vineyards, respectively, the
grass interrow cover crop and bare soil evaporation. As the cover crop
two-year age difference would have a smaller impact on differences in
grows vigorously followed by vine canopy growth during March and
canopy and productivity.
April, ETa/ETref increases during this period due to increased photo-
synthetically active area and high available water reserves. This beha-
vior continues through May as the winter reserves are slowly drawn

Fig. 4. Weekly ETref, ETa, and ETa/ETref for each 7-day period for 2013-2017. Vertical lines are 1 April and 1 October, delineating the main growing season. The year
tick marks are 1 July. The shaded areas represent the non-growing season (1 Oct - 1 Apr).

5
T.G. Wilson, et al.
3.2. Soil moisture profiles
While the two vineyards have three soil moisture profiles each, only
one profile in each vineyard has near-continuous measurements for the
full study period. Accordingly, Fig. 5 gives the summary of soil moisture
at the study site with one profile per vineyard along with the weighted
average previously described.
The field capacity values estimated from winter soil moisture values
are 0.37 m3 m-3 for the north vineyard and 0.29 m3 m-3 for the south
vineyard, consistent with the higher clay content of the north vineyard
and higher sand content in the south. The primary significance of this
difference in field capacity is that, given the same assumed root zone
depth, the north vineyard could have a 31% larger store of available
water at the start of the growing season than the south vineyard. This
difference can affect when irrigation needs to begin.
Fig. 5 reveals several insights regarding soil moisture at these two
vineyards. First, from the perspective of the soil, there are two “wet
seasons”: one that is driven by precipitation in the winter months, and
one that is irrigation-fed in the summer months. In the south vineyard,
soil moisture tends to be mostly uniform throughout the root zone
during the winter months, but in the summer there tends to be some
separation between the soil moisture of the 5 cm and 30 cm depths
compared to the 60 cm and 90 cm depths, with the 90 cm probe often
showing little increase from irrigation in the 2015-2017 growing sea-
sons. In the north vineyard, on the other hand, all four sensors generally
show increases in soil moisture from irrigation. This difference in soil
moisture behavior with depth between the two vineyards reflects the
higher rate of irrigation applied in the north vineyard (see Fig. 9), de-
spite the south vineyard having less ability to store water in the root
zone.
The weighted averages in Fig. 5 show that soil moisture is con-
sistently higher in the north vineyard than in the south vineyard, which
follows from the lower capacity and apparently lower irrigation in the
south vineyard. This difference in soil moisture is another probable
cause of the difference between ETa of the two vineyards; Alfieri et al.
(2019) also reached this conclusion regarding differences in the eddy
covariance LE measurements at these sites.
3.3. ET and soil moisture
The relationship between SWC and ET changes throughout the year
based on meteorological conditions, vineyard management, and vine
phenological stage. Weekly ETa/ETref versus SWC, along with weekly
values of ETref, in the north vineyard for the months of February
through September are shown in Fig. 6. In February and early- to mid-
March, the shallow-rooted cover crop and bare soil are the primary
sources of ET, so ETa is strongly dependent on soil water content of the
Fig. 6. North vineyard root zone soil water content against ETa/ETref separated by month. Shape indicates year and color indicates weekly mean ETref.
6
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
upper layer of soil during this period. Furthermore, since the soil re-
mains relatively wet due to frequent precipitation, the measured soil
moisture is generally uniform throughout the root zone during these
months (see Fig. 5). In other words, the measured SWC is representative
of the soil water available to be evaporated into the atmosphere. April,
characterized by vigorous canopy growth and flowering, is a transition
month from the cover crop to the vine canopy as the primary source of
ET and also a transition from lower to higher ETref values. This transi-
tion leads to difficulty in determining a clear relationship between SWC
and ET. In May, when rapid canopy growth continues and fruit set
occurs, we begin to see SWC dropping into the range of 0.2 to 0.3 m3 m-
3
as the root zone dries out and before consistent irrigation has begun.
Despite the rapid drop in SWC, ETa/ETref generally remains above 0.7.
While there is still a contribution to ET from the interrow/bare soil, the
shallow cover crop roots and drying soil make it unlikely that these
sources significantly contribute to the high ETa/ETref. This maintenance
of high ETa/ETref at low values of SWC therefore implies vine access to
deeper moisture pools under the vines and in the interrow, i.e., that the
measurements are not representative of the full effective root zone. This
result is significant because in these vineyards, a single soil moisture
sensor at approximately 90 cm depth is commonly used to determine
the amount of available water in the root zone. Indeed, Pellegrino et al
(2004) indicate that total transpirable soil water (TTSW) for vines
should be calculated from measurements of soil moisture content over
the rooting profile of the plant, which they suggest to a depth of at least
2.5 m. Consequently, if more water is available to the vines than the
90 cm sensor indicates, irrigation may start too early in the season,
causing the application of more water than required for vine develop-
ment. Vines using water from deeper than the measured zone im-
mediately calls into question our assumption of minimal root presence
below the 90 cm sensor, but since both the root distribution and SWC
below this depth are currently unknown, we continue with our
weighted SWC estimate.
Continuing with Fig. 6, the months of June and July show similar
behavior, with ETa coming primarily from the vines and with the year’s
highest values of ETref. Consistent irrigation, typically 5 to 6 days per
week, begins in June, and veraison occurs in July. A weak positive
relationship emerges between SWC and ETa/ETref in the north vineyard
during this period, but irrigation keeps SWC generally above 0.25 m3
m-3 and ETa/ETref above 0.7. The lack of decrease in ETa/ETref with SWC
also seems to indicate continued access to water deeper than the 90 cm
measurement. By August, we see a lower range of SWC values and a
stronger relationship between ETa/ETref and SWC. This stronger re-
lationship may also indicate that the measured soil moisture is more
indicative of what is available to the vines, or that the deeper stores are
becoming depleted and the vines are more dependent on irrigation than
in earlier months. Harvest occurs in late August or early September, and
T.G. Wilson, et al.
Fig. 7. South vineyard root zone soil water content against ETa/ETref separated by month. Shape indicates year and color indicates weekly mean ETref.
Fig. 8. Cumulative increase in soil water storage deficit (ETa less precipitation [P] and irrigation [Irr]) in the north and south vineyards for each study year starting 1
April. No irrigation data are available for the south vineyard in 2013 and 2014.
a combination of reduced canopy biomass and lower evaporative de-
mand result in lower ET values. The sharp drop in ETa/ETref in Sep-
tember 2017, for example, indicates full dependence of the vines on
irrigated water. Essentially, the intensive irrigation during the main
part of the growing season delays the drying out of the root zone,
preventing observations of very low soil moisture and low ETa/ETref
until after harvest in September.
Fig. 7 shows an analogous representation of seasonal behavior in
ETa/ETref with SWC for the south vineyard. While the relationships are
similar to those of the north vineyard, there is one prominent differ-
ence: the apparent negative correlation between SWC and ETa/ETref in
May and June within the south vineyard is not observed in the north
vineyard.
At both the north and the south vineyards, May and June are ty-
pically the months associated with a rapid increase in vine biomass or
LAI (Sun et al., 2017) and as a result causes an increase in ETa (Alfieri
et al., 2019). At the same time, SWC in the measured portion of the soil
profile for the south vineyard shows a decrease in SWC with increasing
ETa/ETref for these two months (Fig. 7) whereas the north vineyard
shows little or slightly positive trend. These contrasting ETa/ETref versus
SWC relationships strongly suggest that vines in the south vineyard
must have access to available water deeper in the soil profile in the vine
row and possibly in the interrow than what the current array of soil
moisture probes measured, which was only in the vine row and to a
depth of 90 cm can detect. Since the contribution to ET from the drying
interrow cover crop is typically minimal in May and June (Kustas et al.,
2019a,b), this could not account for the trend observed in May and
7
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
June for the south vineyard. Taking June 2017 as an example, the vines
would not be able to maintain ETa/ETref above 0.8 for an entire month
with SWC near or below 0.2 m3 m-3.
While the data in these two figures reveal that the relationship be-
tween SWC and ETa/ETref are driven by vine phenological stage and/or
point in time during the growing season, there are also clear clusters by
years that correspond with management activities. For example, the
2013 SWC values (circles) for both vineyards are higher than the SWC
values of other years from May through September; this observation is
consistent with the reported irrigation for the north vineyard (see Fig. 9
below). Conversely, the 2017 SWC values (plus symbols) tend to be
lower than other years for May through September in both vineyards,
which is consistent with the lower irrigation levels observed that year.
Taken together, Figs. 6 and 7 indicate that the array of soil moisture
probes used in this study are not fully representative of the root zone
SWC and that the irrigation regime can significantly influence the re-
lationships between SWC and ETa/ETref.
3.4. Annual soil water storage
To further investigate the differences in the SWC and ETa/ETref re-
lationships between years, Fig. 8 shows the cumulative increase in soil
water storage deficit starting 1 April for each study year in each vine-
yard, where the weekly storage deficit is ETa less precipitation (P) and
irrigation (Irr). 1 April was chosen as the start date for accumulation
because rainfall has typically stopped by this point and the vine canopy
has not yet emerged significantly, meaning the soil water storage is
T.G. Wilson, et al. Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186

typically near its maximum value at this point. The storage deficit is
shown as a positive value because, for any given year, its maximum
value indicates the minimum amount of water stored in the soil at the
beginning of the growing season. These plots demonstrate two general
behaviors. First, an increasing storage deficit value typically indicates
ETa > Irr with a steeper slope indicating less irrigation. In other words,
an increasing storage deficit means non-irrigated water is being con-
sumed by the vines in the soil profile. Second, a flatter temporal trend
or plateau indicates irrigation approximately equal to ETa, which is an
intentional management practice. The sharp drop in the deficit in most
years observed before DOY 250 indicates harvest and subsequent irri-
gation to recharge the soil profile.
For all years across both vineyards, the deficit increases through
April and May as the canopy develops and irrigation has not yet begun.
In the north vineyard, the deficit remained mostly flat for the remainder
of the growing season in 2013-2015 and continued to increase in 2016
and 2017. The south vineyard showed a general increase in the deficit
until harvest in each year. For both vineyards, 2017 had the greatest
cumulative storage deficit. While the actual root zone depth is not
known, the maximum storage deficit allows us to estimate a minimum Fig. 9. Water balance estimates for the north and south vineyard for June-
total root zone depth using zr = dmax/(θf - θr), where dmax is the August of each study year. Irrigation data are not available for the south vi-
maximum storage deficit, θf is the estimated SWC at field capacity, and neyard in 2013 and 2014.
θr is the residual SWC based on the soil type (Rawls and Brakenseik,
1985). For the north vineyard, respective values of these quantities of 3.6. Precipitation and LAI
285 mm, 0.37 m3 m-3, and 0.08 m3 m-3 yield a minimum root zone
depth of approximately 0.98 m. For the south vineyard, the values of The soil water storage at the start of the growing season determines
353 mm, 0.29 m3 m-3, and 0.03 m3 m-3 yield a minimum root zone how long onset of irrigation can be delayed, and is a direct result of the
depth of approximately 1.4 m, which supports the earlier conclusion amount and timing of precipitation that occurs during the winter rainy
that the roots extend beyond the assumed rooting depth of 90 cm. It is season. Additionally, spring water availability affects canopy develop-
important to keep in mind that these estimates represent a lower bound ment; generally, higher SWC will lead to a larger canopy. More leaf area
on the total root zone depth. Once irrigation matches or exceeds ETa, leads to higher transpiration rates and higher total ET. In other words,
the storage deficit cannot increase, making it difficult to know how winter precipitation can have a direct effect on the maximum ETa/ETref
much more additional water was available in the soil. Moreover, the during the summer.
water stored at deeper layers in the interrow from winter precipitation Accordingly, Fig. 10 shows the maximum LAI for each year of the
is also unknown. study period in relation to the full rainy season (Oct-May) precipitation,
along with date of peak LAI (marker color) and the amount of spring
(Mar-May) precipitation (marker size). In general, maximum LAI in-
3.5. Precipitation and irrigation deficit creases with the amount of Oct-May precipitation. The exceptions to
this trend are 2015 and especially 2013 in the south vineyard, when the
As previously mentioned, during the peak growing season of June spring precipitation was relatively low. The lack of precipitation late in
through August, the typical irrigation practice for these vineyards is to the rainy season combined with the lower field capacity of the south
keep ETa/ETref at or above 0.7. As shown in Fig. 8, the change in the vineyard, means less water was available to support canopy growth,
storage deficit flattens out in June when irrigation typically begins, leading to low peak LAI on dates earlier in the growing season. By
particularly for the north vineyard. Fig. 9 illustrates the annual varia- contrast, 2017 had the largest wet season precipitation leading to high
bility in water balance components (storage, inputs, and outputs) for
the June-August irrigation period for both vineyards. Specifically, the
figure shows the starting storage estimate given by October through
May precipitation plus irrigation less ETa, along with June-August ETa
and irrigation. Each year with irrigation data has a deficit of irrigation
compared to ETa during this time period. Comparing this deficit to the
starting storage estimate can indicate how much available water in the
root zone was not used. For example, the north vineyard had nearly
depleted soils by 1 June in 2014 (Fig. 9), and the little available water
was used up by the deficit between ETa and irrigation (June-Au-
gust)This scenario is water efficient, but leaves little room for error in
avoiding stress conditions. On the other hand, in 2016 for both the
north and south vineyards the June-August deficit was small compared
to the available storage on 1 June (Fig. 9), indicating that there was
likely water available in the soil profile that could have been used in-
stead of the applied irrigation. In 2017, the high winter and spring
precipitation led to a large surplus of available water on 1 June, and the
lower irrigation for that year in both vineyards appears to indicate that
the vineyard manager took this into account in scheduling the irriga- Fig. 10. Maximum LAI as a function of rainy season (Oct-May) precipitation for
tion. This result shows that given rainfall measurements and estimates the north and south vineyards. Color indicates the day of year of the maximum
of ETa, the irrigation strategy can be adjusted to account for increased LAI value and size of the marker is the amount of spring (Mar-May) pre-
or decreased stored water. cipitation relative to other years.

8
T.G. Wilson, et al.
Fig. 11. Synthesis of measurements for the north vineyard, separated by study year, for March through October. The dotted vertical line indicates 1 June, when
irrigation typically commences. The color on the ETa/ETref solid circles indicates root zone SWC; light is low and dark is high.
LAI peaking later in the growing season. In addition to the 708 mm of
precipitation in October-February, 114 mm of precipitation fell be-
tween March and May. As a result, the root zone was likely completely
full when the vine canopy emerged and hence able to fuel an extended
period of canopy growth. Therefore, both the amount and timing of the
rainy season precipitation affect the amount of stored water in the soil
and resulting maximum LAI.
3.7. Synthesis: ETa/ETref, SWC, Precipitation, Irrigation, and LAI
We have seen that the relationship between SWC and ETa/ETref in
the Sierra Loma study vineyards varies based on phenology, local
conditions, and management practices. We have also observed differ-
ences between the two vineyards and between years regarding the
amount of water that can be stored in the soil and the impacts of that
stored water on canopy growth. These observations are synthesized in
Figs. 11 and 12 , showing weekly timeseries of precipitation (P), irri-
gation (Irr), and ETa, all as fractions of as a fraction of weekly ETref,
along with LAI and the weighted root zone soil moisture. Each year and
vineyard have their own unique relationship between these variables
based on the conditions present and irrigation actions taken. Some
generalized comments regarding these figures will facilitate inter-
pretation. In each figure, precipitation (blue bars) and high SWC (dark
color of the ETa/ETref dots) in the spring is followed by a period of no or
little precipitation or irrigation as LAI (green triangles) increases and
SWC is drawn down by the developing vines. Once irrigation begins,
ETa/ETref in excess of Irr/ETref (orange bars) indicates that water is
9
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
being drawn from storage; conversely, Irr/ETref larger than ETa/ETref
means excess water was applied that week. Finally, the drop in ETa/
ETref in each year near DOY 240 is due to harvest.
Starting with the north vineyard (Fig. 11), in 2013 high winter
precipitation (383 mm) combined with high irrigation levels led to high
ETa/ETref and SWC throughout the growing season. ETa/ETref values
near 1 in July and August indicate that there was likely stored water
available in the soil. In 2014, which had substantially less winter pre-
cipitation (182 mm) and slightly lower irrigation, significant rainfall
late in the wet season fueled another year of high ETa/ETref values. In
2015 there was greater annual precipitation compared to 2014, but
most of the precipitation occurred during the winter months rather than
in the spring. The upper root zone dried out early as a result, but ETa/
ETref remained high, presumably due to deeper available water. For
both 2016 and 2017 the LAI was greater than the other years; for 2016
it was due to spring precipitation and irrigation and for 2017 it was due
to the combined winter and spring precipitation being nearly twice the
amount of other years. In these two years, ETa is greater than irrigation
for the entire growing season until harvest, and 2017 does so with less
irrigation than 2016. Therefore, not only was the 2017 precipitation
and resulting water store large enough for the vines to produce a larger
canopy, but it was also large enough to maintain high ETa/ETref that
was uncorrelated to SWC in the upper layer of soil throughout the
growing season.
In Fig. 12, the south vineyard ET-SWC relationship differs from the
north vineyard due to the combination of different soil and different
management decisions. In 2013 and 2014, the two years without
T.G. Wilson, et al.
Fig. 12. Same as Fig. 11 but for the south vineyard. Irrigation data are not available for 2013 and 2014.
irrigation data, SWC and ETa/ETref are high during the main part of the
growing season despite low LAI. We attribute this to the relatively
young age of the vineyard combined with the high irrigation that would
have been required to maintain the high SWC. For growing seasons
2015-2017, the south vineyard received less irrigation than the north
vineyard. In 2015, as a result of the lower irrigation, there is a stronger
relationship between ETa/ETref and SWC. ETa was greater than irriga-
tion for most weeks, indicating the use of stored water. In 2016 and
2017, as in the north vineyard, ETa/ETref remained high despite low
irrigation and the resulting low SWC. However, 2017 seems to be a
special case, as there was little irrigation until August. Notice the de-
cline in LAI and ETa/ETref prior to the start of irrigation, which indicates
depletion of plant available water deeper in the root zone profile than
the measured 0-90 cm depth. Once irrigation commenced there was an
immediate response in increased ETa/ETref and LAI. Additionally, de-
spite the delay of irrigation onset, there were still weeks in which ETa
exceeded irrigation, implying that the full root zone profile was not yet
completely depleted. These results indicate that in 2017, ETa/ETref and
SWC for the 0-90 cm depth were almost completely uncorrelated for
most of the growing season due to the entire root zone profile starting
the season at field capacity.
Combined, Figs. 11 and 12 show that the relationships between ir-
rigation, ETa, and measured SWC are highly variable and are strongly
dependent on the late winter/spring precipitation. In years with pre-
cipitation that is lower than average or more skewed towards the winter
instead of spring (e.g. 2014 and 2015), the period before irrigation
begins allows SWC to decrease to the point that irrigation and ETa are
more tightly coupled. This is particularly evident in the north vineyard.
10
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
On the other hand, in years such as 2016 and 2017 with more spring/
overall precipitation, ETa remains higher than irrigation due to the
larger amount of stored water in the soil.
4. Conclusion
The preceding analysis of soil water content, ET, precipitation, ir-
rigation, and LAI for two adjacent vineyards revealed several inter-
esting features. First, there is typically a disconnect between the SWC
measured by the installed soil moisture profile sensors and the ETa/ETref
estimated for the vines, with the latter showing little response to sig-
nificant changes in SWC. This result, particularly the maintenance of
high ETa/ETref for low measured SWC values, suggests that the vines can
access water deeper than the 90 cm measured by the installed soil
moisture profiles in the vine row and perhaps access to available water
in the interrow. Indeed, the minimum root zone depths estimated by the
maximum growing season storage deficit are approximately 1 m and
1.4 m for the north and south vineyards, respectively. There are a
number of assumptions that underpin these estimates, including the
estimated field capacity, residual SWC, and starting point for the sto-
rage deficit calculations. Therefore, these season storage deficit esti-
mates suggest that future investigations should include deeper soil
moisture measurements down to at least 1.5 m close to the nominal
depth of the hard pan and soil profile measurements in the interrow to
determine if there is available water for the vines in the interrow from
winter precipitation. With these observations, a significant correlation
between vine stress and SWC might be achieved as suggested by the
findings from Pellegrino et al (2004) where a single relationship
T.G. Wilson, et al.
between predawn leaf water potential (a metric for vine stress) and
fraction of total transpirable soil water (FTSW) was obtained for two
vineyards. They concluded that FTSW could be used as an indicator of
the water deficit experienced in vineyards, provided that TTSW can be
accurately determined. More recently, using FTSW as a stress indicator
simulated by a water balance model yielded significant correlations
with yield and berry quality for various cultivars and pedoclimatic
conditions in Mediterranean vineyards (Gaudin et al., 2014).
Another primary conclusion is that control over ETa can only be
achieved when the soil water profile is depleted to the point that the
vines do not have abundant access to deeper stores of water. Estimating
the available water depends on the root zone depth as discussed above
as well as the amount and timing of precipitation during the rainy
season. In wetter years, particularly those with more precipitation in
the early spring months, delaying the start of irrigation helps achieve
the depletion necessary to control ETa. One possible way to deplete the
water to a desired level would be to test the water status by comparing
weekly SWC, ETa, and any applied water, looking for the point at which
changes in SWC have a measurable effect on ETa. However, one must
still be cognizant of the critical period surrounding fruit set, when water
stress would have a significant negative impact on berry development.
4.1. Future work
As part of the GRAPEX project, several other field sites have been
established throughout California with the same data being collected at
each site. The next step along this line of study will be to perform the
analyses of the present work on the data from the other field sites to
observe similarities and/or differences in the patterns observed at the
Sierra Loma vineyards. The ultimate goal is to develop a strategy for
when to initiate irrigation based on rainy season precipitation, SWC,
ETa, and LAI. Ideally these hydrometeorological and biophysical states
of vineyards can be derived from remote sensing in order to have the
capability of applying an irrigation strategy over multiple vineyards
(Knipper et al. 2019).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Funding provided by E. & J. Gallo Winery made possible the in-
stallation and collection of the soil moisture profile and flux tower
measurements for the GRAPEX project. In addition, we thank the staff
of Viticulture, Chemistry and Enology Division of E. & J. Gallo Winery
for the collection and processing of field data. This project would not
have been possible without the cooperation of Mr. Ernie Dosio of Pacific
Agri Lands Management, along with the Sierra Loma vineyard staff, for
logistical support of GRAPEX field and research activities. Finally, the
authors would like to acknowledge financial support for this research
from the NASA Applied Sciences–Water Resources Program (grant
award NNH17AE39I). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
11
Agricultural Water Management 237 (2020) 106186
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106186.
References
Alfieri, J.G., Kustas, W.P., Prueger, J.H., McKee, L., Hipps, L.E., Gao, F., 2019. A Multi-
Year Intercomparison of Micrometeorological Observations at Adjacent Vineyards in
California’s Central Valley during GRAPEX. Irrigation Science 37, 345–357. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0599-3.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration - Guidelines
for Computing Crop Water Requirements - FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nationshttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eja.2010.12.001.
Bassoi, Luis Henrique, Hopmans, Jan W., de Castro Jorge, Lúcio André, de Alencar,
Cristina Miranda, Moura e Silva, José Antonio, 2003. Grapevine Root Distribution in
Drip and Microsprinkler Irrigation. Scientia Agricola 60 (2), 377–387. https://doi.
org/10.1590/S0103-90162003000200024.
California Department of Water Resources, 2015. California’s Groundwater: Update 2013.
. https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Water-Basics/
GroundWater/Files/Resources-And-Reports/Californias–Groundwater-Update-2013.
pdf.
Gao, F., Anderson, M.C., Kustas, W.P., Wang, Y., 2012. Simple Method for Retrieving Leaf
Area Index from Landsat Using MODIS LAI Products as Reference. Journal of Applied
Remote Sensing 18 (6), 63515–63554.
Gaudin, R.K., Kansou, J.-C., Payan, A. Pellegrino, Gary, C., 2014. A water stress index
based on water balance modelling for discrimination of grapevine quality and yield.
J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 48 (1), 1–9.
Hain, C.R., Mecikalski, J.R., Anderson, M.C., 2009. Retrieval of an available water-based
soil moisture proxy from thermal infrared remote sensing. Part I: Methodology and
validation. J. Hydrometeorology 10, 665–683.
Hain, C.R., Crow, W.T., Mecikalski, J.R., Anderson, M.C., Holmes, T., 2011. An inter-
comparison of available soil moisture estimates from thermal-infrared and passive
microwave remote sensing and land-surface modeling. J Geophys. Res. 116, D15107.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JD015633.2011.
Knipper, K.R., Kustas, W.P., Anderson, M.C., Alfieri, J.G., Prueger, J.H., Hain, C.R., Gao,
F., Yang, Y., McKee, L.G., Nieto, H., 2019. Evapotranspiration Estimates Derived
Using Thermal-Based Satellite Remote Sensing and Data Fusion for Irrigation
Management in California Vineyards. Irrigation Science 37, 431–449. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00271-018-0591-y.
Kustas, W.P., Agam, N., Alfieri, J.G., McKee, L.G., Prueger, J.H., Hipps, L.E., Howard,
A.M., Heitman, J.L., 2019a. Below Canopy Radiation Divergence in a Vineyard:
Implications on Interrow Surface Energy Balance. Irrigation Science 37, 227–237.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0601-0.
Kustas, W.P., Alfieri, J.G., Nieto, H., Wilson, T.G., Gao, F., Anderson, M.C., 2019b. Utility
of the Two-Source Energy Balance (TSEB) Model in Vine and Interrow Flux
Partitioning over the Growing Season. Irrigation Science 37, 375–388. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00271-018-0586-8.
Kustas, P., Anderson, M.C., Alfieri, J.G., Knipper, K., Torres-Rua, A., Parry, C.K., Hieto, H.,
et al., 2018. The Grape Remote Sensing Atmospheric Profile and Evapotranspiration
eXperiment (GRAPEX). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.
org/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0244.1. BAMS-D-16-0244.1.
Leuning, R., van Gorsel, E., Massman, W.J., Isaac, P.R., 2012. Reflections on the Surface
Energy Imbalance Problem. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 156. Elsevier B.V.,
pp. 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.12.002.
Pellegrino, A., Lebon, E., Voltz, M., Wery, J., 2004. Relationships between plant and soil
water status in vine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant and Soil 266, 129–142.
Pollock, M.D., O’Donnell, G., Quinn, P., Dutton, M., Black, A., Wilkinson, M.E., Colli, M.,
et al., 2018. Quantifying and Mitigating Wind-Induced Undercatch in Rainfall
Measurements. Water Resources Research 54 (6), 3863–3875. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2017WR022421.
Rawls, W.J., Brakenseik, D.L., 1985. Prediction of Soil Water Properties for Hydrologic
Modeling. Watershed Management in the Eighties. ASCE, pp. 293–299.
Seyfried, M.S., Grant, L.E., Du, E., Humes, K., 2005. Dielectric Loss and Calibration of the
Hydra Probe Soil Water Sensor. Vadose Zone Journal 4 (4), 1070–1079. https://doi.
org/10.2136/vzj2004.0148.
Stevens Water Monitoring Systems Inc, 2007. The Hydra Probe ® Soil Sensor Users
Manual. no. July. pp. 1–63.
Sun, L., Gao, F., Anderson, M.C., Kustas, W.P., Alsina, M.M., Sanchez, L., Sams, B., et al.,
2017. Daily Mapping of 30 M LAI and NDVI for Grape Yield Prediction in California
Vineyards. Remote Sensing 9 (4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040317.
Twine, T.E., Kustas, W.P., Norman, J.M., Cook, D.R., Houser, P.R., Meyers, T.P., Prueger,
J.H., Starks, P.J., Wesely, M.L., 2000. Correcting Eddy-Covariance Flux
Underestimates over a Grassland. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 103 (3),
279–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00123-4.
White, W.A., Alsina, M.M., Nieto, H., McKee, L.G., Gao, F., Kustas, W.P., 2019.
Determining a Robust Indirect Measurement of Leaf Area Index in California
Vineyards for Validating Remote Sensing-Based Retrievals. Irrigation Science 37,
269–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0614-8.