Handbook For Irrigation of Wine Grapes in SA - Digital

HANDBOOK FOR
IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

IN SOUTH AFRICA
PA Myburgh
The book is in essence a summary of the wine grape irrigation research
carried out in South Africa over a period of more than 50 years. The research
was carried out to develop irrigation guidelines, particularly with respect to
optimising wine quality and maximizing water use efficiency. Therefore, the
primary focus of the book is on practical irrigation, rather than the physiology
concerning grapevine water relations. In addition to irrigation strategies,
and the scheduling thereof, related aspects such as climate, soil properties,
water quality, irrigation systems, as well as frost protection are also
addressed. It is envisaged that the book will be a useful guide for present
and future generations of wine grape growers, as well as viticulture students.
HANDBOOK FOR
IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES
IN SOUTH AFRICA
PA MYBURGH
Handbook for irrigation of wine grapes in South Africa
All rights reserved
Copyright© 2018 Agricultural Research Council
1134 Park Street, Hatfield Pretoria, PO Box 8783, Pretoria 0001
Tel: +27 (0)12 427 9700
E-mail: enquiry@arc.agric.za
The author has made every effort to obtain permission for and acknowledge the
use of copyrighted material. Please refer enquiries to the author.
No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any
electronic, photographic or mechanical means, including photocopying and
recording on record, tape or laser disk, on microfilm, via the Internet, by e-mail,
or by any other information storage and retrieval system, without prior written
permission by the author.
First edition 2018
ISBN 978-0-620-80402-8 (print)
ISBN 978-0-620-80405-9 (e-book)
Set in Arial MT Light 9/12
LAYOUT AND DESIGN by VR Graphics, www.vrgraphics.co.za
PRINTING by Shumani Mills Communications, Tygerberg
Cover
Without cold, wet winters,
neither man, nor grapevine
can thrive in the long, dry
summers.
Disclaimer
Unless indicated otherwise, all photographs and graphic material belong to
ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij.
2 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

I dedicate this book to the youth of today
who will be responsible for the wine of tomorrow.
Philip Myburgh
IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 3

Foreword
I met Philip Myburgh in 1976 and we worked

together for a number of years on the irrigation
of wine grapes. It was also my privilege to
keep track with his outstanding research over
a period of 42 years. He dedicated his whole
career life to irrigation research and the result
is clear for everyone to see and appreciate.
In my opinion there is no one better equipped
and experienced to have written this book on
a topic of critical importance for South Africa.
The Western Cape of South Africa is in the
midst of the most serious drought since the
recording of weather data started in the 19th
Dr Johan van Zyl
century. The scarcity of water as well as
the competition for water between users other than agriculture forces everybody,
including the wine industry to use this finite resource optimally. This book therefore
comes at a most opportune time.
“Handbook for irrigation of wine grapes in South Africa” brings together information
that has been “fragmented” among many articles, projects, observations and
reports and over a long period of time. But the book offers much more. The author
succeeded in converting information into knowledge that he then presents as
practical recommendations. The book is furthermore also testimony and a tribute
to the excellent quality and growth in the volume of irrigation research for the wine
industry in South Africa. A substantial portion of the contents is based on Dr Philip
Myburgh’s own research, but also includes all other South African research and

Foreword
relevant international work. The work is up to date, relevant and fluently written in
a very readable style.
This new book covers the entire continuum from climate and soil through to the
grapevine and finally to the wine in the bottle. It is a comprehensive work that
addresses all the aspects that wine growers, advisors and planners would like to
know. At an academic level, lecturers can use this handbook with confidence as
study material for students. Over and above the chapters on irrigation systems
and irrigation scheduling, the chapter on irrigation water quality deserves special
mentioning. Waste water use for irrigation is becoming a reality to relieve the
pressure on other water resources. Philip Myburgh gives us guidelines based on
experimental data on how to use such water without harm to the grapevine, the
wine or the environment.
Although the author never loses sight of his end goal namely, practical
recommendations, useful and interesting background information is given in all
chapters. The reader will enjoy reading more about terms such as water potential,
deficit irrigation, anisohydric water stress; terms often used, but not well-understood
by us all. The astonishing ability of grapevines to adapt to a changing environment
by varying the number of stomata that it forms, should amaze us all and is one of
the unique findings in the book.
It is not difficult to foresee that “Handbook for irrigation of wine grapes in South
Africa” will become a standard reference book and a landmark in the often muddy
waters of irrigation recommendations and practices. I wish to congratulate Philip on
an excellent and valuable product. In my opinion this book is a must for everyone
involved in some aspect of the irrigation of wine grapes.

VILLA AND MONASH:
Bridging the agricultural
skills gap in SA
The 2017 World Economic Forum Report South Africa, a world class educational
states that Africa’s skills gap at secondary institution dedicated to supporting South
school level is high. In most African Africa and the continent to meet its
countries, local business executives are diverse economic and educational needs
of the opinion that secondary school by providing internationally recognised
graduates do not possess, on average, qualifications.
the skills employers demand from a
productive workforce. THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE
SOUTH AFRICAN ECONOMY
Add to this the fact that leading South
African farming entities share the common The South African economy is heavily
sentiment that agricultural colleges are reliant on the agricultural sector.
no longer delivering the well-rounded, Agriculture delivers more jobs per Rand
technically skilled professionals that is invested than any other productive sector,
critical in the role of not only production and remains critical in the face of rural
managers, but also lesser skilled workers. poverty and food insecurity (DAFF, 2016).
The primary production component of
It’s clear that young Africans deserve the agricultural sector contributes about
urgent and tangible actions to be taken 3% to the country’s GDP, but if the entire
to adequately equip them for future roles value chain of agriculture is taken into
in the agri-industry. They need an enabling account, its contribution to GDP increases
environment that will prepare them for to about 12%.
competing in the ‘global village’ where
Agriculture is often neither a study
interconnectivity and technology-dense
direction, nor a career, of first choice.
work environments define labour markets.
Partly to blame for this reality is limited
State intervention and support on the awareness and understanding of the
African continent is generally slow and vast number of agri-business and
fraught with bureaucratic impediment. entrepreneurship career opportunities
The logical solution is to involve private that exist along the entire length of the
industry, i.e. the required skills, experience food and nutrition value chain. Much
and funding – effective public-private can be, and should be, done to change
collaboration can contribute to reduce perceptions, which are currently evident at
skill-gaps at national and regional levels. both school and higher education levels.
VILLA IS TAKING ACTION APPROPRIATELY TRAINED

It’s against this backdrop that Villa GRADUATES: SOUTH AFRICA
is introducing the new Monash / Villa The NQF (National Qualification
partnership in training – a private enterprise Framework) of South Africa abounds
partnership aimed at addressing some of with registered qualifications in the field of
the key issues highlighted above. The Villa agriculture, but they predominantly focus
Academy is joining forces with Monash on primary production and research.
In light of the variety of components is skewed focus towards commercial
comprising the total agricultural supply agriculture; however, the reverse is true
chain, it should be recognized that not in certain other African countries, or
only skills linked with university degrees perceived as more equitable. Where
are required, but that skills should also there is consensus, across all levels of
come from a wider range of disciplines agricultural endeavour, is that socio-
outside of the traditional agriculture- economic aspects get too little attention.
focused qualifications.
MORE PRACTICAL EXPOSURE
The ‘boundary’ of agriculture is pliable NEEDED IN STUDENT STUDIES
– there are numerous qualifications
The South African agri-industry, over a
and courses with links to the field of
prolonged period, has lamented the lack
agriculture. In order to be relevant,
of practical exposure and experience
Agricultural Education and Training (AET)
of university graduates in particular.
needs to focus on building capacities not
This unfortunate chasm in practical
only for agricultural production, but also
experience vested in graduates, which
to equip a broader range of professionals
exist between university and industry,
and practitioners with the necessary
puts the brake, temporarily at least, on
skills to engage successfully with the
not only a company’s competitiveness
key nodes (links) in the agricultural value
but also that of the country.
chain.
In addition to relevance, curricula FUNDING AND RESOURCE
should be multi- and transdisciplinary ALLOCATION
in order to build capacity for solving Funding for education is a contentious
modern-day challenges such as evolving issue. In all forums where AET have been
environments (e.g. climate change), workshopped, the need for increased
new weeds and pests, resistance to funding is raised – top of the item list
pesticides, improved crops and livestock slated for increased funding is “practical,
through classical breeding and genetic vocationally relevant training”.
modification, etc.
Lack of funding is a debilitating factor for
A challenge facing AET in South Africa schools delivering agricultural science as
and other countries on the continent a programme or subject. Shortcomings
is how to allocate scarce resources include lack of adequate infrastructure for
towards both commercial and small- practical training. Inefficient channelling
scale farming. The argument, in particular and management of funding has been
for South Africa, is that currently there identified as problematic.
The new partnership between Villa and Monash will go some distance to bridging not only
the funding gap, but the skills gap as well… giving a vast number of young Africans the
opportunity to pursue long and successful careers across all spheres of the agri-industry.
INSTITUTE FOR GRAPE
AND WINE SCIENCES
The Institute for Grape and Wine Sciences (IGWS) is an initiative of the wine and
table grape industries and Stellenbosch University. The aims of the IGWS are the
establishment of world class training in grape and wine science, the promotion of
research relevant to the local industry, as well as technology transfer to the wine
and table grape industries. The initial focus was especially on the improvement
of the infrastructure of training cellars and the purchase of modern research
equipment. The establishment of critical human resources in training and research
at the University, relevant to the wine and table grape industries, is a priority. Seven
platforms have been established, and each platform is managed by a coordinator
to give effect to the aims of the IGWS. These include an analytical, internship,
sensory, viticulture, oenology, viticulture technology transfer, as well as an oenology
technology transfer platform.
One of the chief focuses of the IGWS is technology transfer and to communicate
existing as well as new research and information to the industry. The purpose of
this is to expand and reinforce the knowledge of people involved in the industry
and thus improve the quality of South African viticulture and oenology. This
contributes to an industry which is more competitive internationally.
A needs assessment was done in the wine industry to identify priority themes
for technology transfer. One of the great needs was the packaging of available
information on the irrigation of wine grapes. As a result, the IGWS initiated and
coordinated a project which led to the publication of this book. Due to the
involvement of Netafim and Villa-Monash in technology transfer, they kindly also
contributed financially to make the publication possible.
In addition, in future the IGWS will focus on ensuring much closer ties between
academics and the industry by initiating innovation projects and to further
development initiatives originating from research. Specific attention will be given
to projects which can have relevance for the industry if they can be developed
into products, services or courses.
For more information on the IGWS,

visit the website www.igws.co.za.
The website also contains articles,
e-books, fact sheets and a variety
of information and resources for
winemakers and viticulturists.

Acknowledgements
The Institute for Grape and Wine Sciences for initiating and
co-funding of the book.
Lucinda Heyns for her skillful organisation and liaison

to make this book possible.
Jan Booysen for his guidance.
Leandri van Heerden for the design and layout of this book,
as well as her patience.
Netafim and Villa-Monash for their financial support

to make hard copies of the book possible.
The South African wine industry via Winetech, as well as the

Water Research Commission for co-funding
wine grape irrigation research projects.
Growers for permission to work in their vineyards,

as well as technical assistance.
The ARC for the opportunity and infrastructure

to carry out the research.
The irrigation research team at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

for their collaboration and assistance over the years.
Carolyn Howell for her dedicated review of the manuscript.

Contents
4.2.2 Micro-sprinklers .................................79

1 Climate 4.2.3 Moveable sprinklers ..........................85
1.1 Introduction ......................................14 4.2.4 Flood irrigation ...................................87
1.2 Climate classification ......................15 4.3 Subsurface irrigation systems .......91
1.3 Climatic indices for viticulture .......19 4.4 Maintenance of irrigation systems ....95
1.3.1 Growing degree days ........................19 4.5 Conclusive remarks ......................100
1.3.2 Mean February temperature ..............20
1.3.3 Heliothermal index .............................22 5 Irrigation water quality
1.3.4 Cool night index ................................23 5.1 Introduction ....................................102
1.3.5 Comparison between the Köppen- 5.2 Comparing rain, river and
Geiger classification and viticulture- municipal water quality .................103
based indices ......................................24 5.3 Water quality norms ......................105
1.4 Interaction between climate, 5.3.1 pH ....................................................105
wine quality and irrigation ..............24 5.3.2 Nitrogen ...........................................106
1.5 Climate change ................................26 5.3.3 Phosphorus .....................................107
1.6 Conclusive remarks ........................28 5.3.4 Sodium ............................................107
5.3.5 Calcium and magnesium ................109
2 The dynamics of water in 5.3.6 Bicarbonate and carbonate ............109
and around vineyards 5.3.7 Chloride ...........................................110
5.3.8 Fluoride ............................................110
2.1 Introduction ......................................30
5.3.9 Copper ............................................111
2.2 The hydrological cycle ....................32
5.3.10 Boron ................................................111
2.3 The water balance in vineyards ........33
5.3.11 Iron ..................................................113
2.4 Evapotranspiration ..........................35
5.3.12 Manganese ......................................113
2.4.1 Evaporation from the soil ...................35
5.3.13 Zinc ..................................................114
2.4.1.1 Factors that affect evaporation ..........36
5.3.14 Cadmium .........................................114
2.4.2 Transpiration ......................................41
5.3.15 Chromium ........................................115
2.4.2.1 Factors that affect transpiration .........41
5.3.16 Lead ................................................115
2.4.2.1.1 Viticultural aspects ............................41
5.3.17 Mercury ...........................................115
2.4.2.1.2 Edaphic factors .................................45
5.3.18 Molybdenum ....................................115
2.4.3 Effect of wetted soil volume on
5.3.19 Other elements ................................116
evapotranspiration .............................47
5.4 Irrigation with saline water ...........116
2.5 Conclusive remarks ........................53
5.4.1 Quantification and classification
of water salinity/sodicity ..................116
3 Water related soil 5.4.2 Leaching salts from the root zone .....119
properties 5.4.3 Dilution of saline water ....................120
3.1 Introduction ......................................54 5.4.4 Treatment of saline water ................120
3.2 Texture ..............................................54 5.4.5 Effect of irrigation systems ..............122
3.3 Bulk density .....................................59 5.4.6 Recommendations ..........................122
3.4 Water content ...................................59 5.5 On-farm water treatment ...............123
3.5 Matric potential ................................60 5.6 Using treated wastewater for
3.6 Soil water characteristic curves .......60 irrigation ...............................................123
3.7 Water holding capacity ...................63 5.6.1 Municipal wastewater ......................124
3.8 Infiltration rate .................................65 5.6.2 Winery wastewater ..........................127
3.9 Permeability .....................................66 5.7 Conclusive remarks ......................144
3.10 Hydraulic conductivity ....................68
3.11 Conclusive remarks ........................71 6 Grapevine water status
6.1 Introduction ....................................146
4 Irrigation systems 6.2 Quantification of grapevine water
4.1 Introduction ......................................72 status ..............................................151
4.2 Surface irrigation systems .............74 6.2.1 Grapevine water potential ...............151
4.2.1 Drip ....................................................74 6.2.2 Carbon isotope discrimination ........152

Contents
6.3 Factors affecting grapevine 8.2 Qualitative assessment of

water status ....................................155 root systems ..................................236
6.3.1 Cultivars ...........................................155 8.3 Indirect estimation of
6.3.2 Atmospheric conditions ...................158 evapotranspiration ........................238
6.3.3 Soil water status ..............................160 8.3.1 Crop coefficients .............................240
6.3.4 Soil salinity .......................................161 8.3.2 Evapotranspiration models ..............241
6.3.5 Trellis system ...................................162 8.4 Direct soil and plant based
6.3.6 Canopy management ......................163 measurements ...............................250
6.3.7 Crop load .........................................164
8.4.1 Soil based measurements ...............250
6.3.8 Leaf damage by pests ....................166
8.4.1.1 Wetting front detectors ....................250
6.4 Grapevine water status
8.4.1.2 Gravimetric samples .......................251
classification ..................................168
8.4.1.3 Neutron probes ...............................253
6.5 Grapevine responses in relation to
midday stem water potential ..........172 8.4.1.4 EnviroScan® sensors .......................256
6.5.1 Class I – No water constraints .........173 8.4.1.5 Diviner 2000® probes ......................257
6.5.2 Class II – Low water constraints ......173 8.4.1.6 DFM® probes ...................................258
6.5.3 Class III – Moderate water 8.4.1.7 Tensiometers ...................................260
constraints .......................................173 8.4.1.8 Watermark® sensors ........................265
6.5.4 Class IV – High water constraints ......175 8.4.2 Plant based measurements .............267
6.5.5 Class V – Severe water constraints ...175 8.4.2.1 Grapevine water potential ...............267
6.6 Conclusive remarks ......................175 8.4.2.2 Diurnal trunk shrinkage and
expansion ........................................271
7 Irrigation strategies 8.4.2.3 Infrared thermometry .......................273
7.1 Introduction ....................................178
8.4.2.4 Remote sensing ...............................277
7.2 Irrigation strategies .......................180
8.5 Setting refill lines for irrigation
7.2.1 Irrigation of newly planted
strategies based on grapevine
grapevines .......................................181
water status ......................................279
7.2.2 Low frequency irrigation ..................184
8.6 Conclusive remarks ......................282
7.2.3 Medium frequency irrigation ...........189
7.2.4 High frequency irrigation .................193
7.2.5 Pulse irrigation .................................195 9 Preventing cold
7.2.6 Deficit irrigation ...............................197 damage in
7.2.7 Different pre- and post-harvest
vineyards
irrigation frequencies .......................198
9.1 Introduction ....................................284
7.2.8 Partial root zone drying ...................206
9.2 Types of cold damage ...................285
7.2.9 Irrigation during the post-harvest
9.3 Prediction of cold damage ............287
and dormancy periods ....................209
7.2.10 Irrigation strategies during critical 9.4 Measures to reduce the risk
drought periods ...............................213 of cold damage ..............................293
7.2.11 Practices to reduce unnecessary 9.4.1 Viticultural aspects ..........................293
water losses .....................................214 9.4.2 Soils and tillage ...............................294
7.2.11.1 Reducing evaporation losses ..........215 9.4.3 Overhead sprinkler irrigation ...........296
7.2.11.2 Reducing excessive transpiration ......221 9.4.4 Other methods .................................297
7.2.11.3 Preventing irrigation system losses ....226 9.5 Managing vineyards following
7.3 Possible ways to use irrigation cold damage ...................................298
water more efficiently ....................229 9.6 Conclusive remarks ......................299
7.4 The water footprint of wine ..............233
7.5 Conclusive remarks ......................234
References ..................................... 300
8 Practical irrigation
scheduling Abbreviations, acronyms
8.1 Introduction ....................................236 and symbols ........................................307

Chapter 1
Climate
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Since elements such as incoming solar radiation and air temperature can affect
wine quality or style in a positive way, the climate of a region is important in wine
production. On the other hand, high levels of humidity can increase the occurrence
of diseases and pests, whereas strong winds may cause physical damage to
grapevines. Given that vineyards for wine production are primarily planted in a
Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and limited rainfall (Table 1.1), their
water requirements must be replenished by irrigation. For example, vineyards in
the Breede River and Lower Olifants River regions depend totally on irrigation. In
most cases, irrigation water is obtained from winter rainfall stored in on-farm dams,
or large dams which feed irrigation schemes. Where possible, irrigation water is
pumped from rivers or bore holes.
TABLE 1.1. Long term mean annual rainfall in grape growing regions. Data supplied by the
ARC Institute for Soil, Climate and Water in Pretoria.
Region District Rainfall (mm)
Autumn & winter Spring & summer Total
Coastal Grabouw 645 366 1 011
Stellenbosch 490 254 744
Piketberg 580 263 843
Breede River Tulbagh 392 182 574
Robertson 164 116 280
Little Karoo Montagu 176 149 325
Barrydale 204 154 358
Lower Olifants River Lutzville 93 47 140
Lower Orange River Upington 56 183 239
It is only in some areas of the Coastal region where grapevines can be grown
without irrigation, i.e. if they have deep, well-developed root systems. These
dryland, or rainfed, vineyards survive on the winter rainfall stored in the root zone
and rainfall in spring. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that winter rainfall is by
far the most important climatic variable with regard to sustainable viticulture. The
14 CHAPTER 1 – CLIMATE
Chapter 1
dependency of rainfed grapevines on rainfall in the Coastal region is illustrated

by the positive yield response to rainfall, particularly the cumulative rainfall in July
and August (Fig. 1.1). Furthermore, the regression equation indicates that the yield
will be almost zero if no rain occurs in July and August under the given conditions.
Figure 1.1
12
2014
10
8
Yield (t/ha)
2015
2017
6
4 2016
2018
2
y = 0.0625x – 0.0519
R² = 0.9925
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Rainfall (mm)
FIGURE 1.1. The effect of rainfall during July and August on the yield of dryland Cabernet
Sauvignon near Philadelphia in the Coastal region. The dashed vertical line indicates the
71-year mean rainfall.
1.2 CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION

In South Africa, wine grapes are grown in two broad climatic regions. Most of
the wine grape vineyards occur in the Western Cape which has a Mediterranean
climate. Wine grapes are also grown under summer rainfall conditions in the
Northern Cape and on a limited scale in the other provinces. However, if a more
accurate climate classification is used, there are distinct climatic differences within
the two broader climate regions. The internationally accepted Köppen-Geiger
classification separates climates into five primary groups based on latitude, i.e.
tropical, arid, temperate, cold and polar (Peel et al., 2007). In South Africa, wine
grapes are only grown under arid and temperate conditions (Table 1.2). Each of
the primary groups are further divided into secondary and tertiary groups based
on air temperature and precipitation relationships. Furthermore, the Köppen-
Geiger classification uses a so-called precipitation threshold, which is calculated
according to the annual rainfall distribution as described in Table 1.2. The climate
types for South Africa are indicated in Figure 1.2, but it should be noted that limited
climate variation may occur within the demarcated areas.

TABLE 1.2. Description of Köppen climate symbols and defining criteria according to Peel
et al. (2007).
1st 2nd 3rd Description Criteria
A Tropical Not applicable to South African grape growing

regions
B Arid Mean annual precipitation < 10 x precipitation

threshold(1)
W – Desert Mean annual precipitation < 5 x precipitation

threshold
S – Steppe Mean annual precipitation ≥ 5 x precipitation

threshold
h – Hot Mean annual temperature ≥ 18
k – Cold Mean annual temperature < 18
C Temperate Hottest month Tmean > 10 and 0 < coldest month

mean temperature < 18
s – Dry summer Precipitation in driest month of summer < 40 and

precipitation in driest summer month < (precipi-
tation in wettest winter month ÷ 3)
w – Dry winter Precipitation in driest winter month < (precipita-

tion in wettest summer month ÷ 10)
f – Without dry season Not (Cs) or (Cw)
a – Hot summer Hottest monthly mean temperature ≥ 22
b – Warm summer Not (a) and number of months where mean tem-
perature is above 10 ≥ 4
c – Cold summer Not (a) or (b) and 1 ≤ number of months where

Tmean is above 10 < 4
D Cold Not applicable to South African grape growing

regions
E Polar Not applicable to South African grape growing

regions
(1)
Precipitation threshold (Pthreshold) varies according to the following rules: If 70% of mean
annual precipitation (MAP) occurs in winter then Pthreshold = 2 x mean annual temperature
(MAT), if 70% of MAP occurs in summer then Pthreshold = 2 x MAT + 28, otherwise Pthreshold =
2 x MAT + 14.
Chapter 1
Hot semi-arid Hot & dry summer Humid subtropical Humit subtropical
Hot arid desert steppe (Mediterranean) with dry winter without dry season
Cold semi-arid Warm & dry summer Subtropical highland Temperate oceanic
Cold arid desert steppe (Mediterranean) with dry winter without dry season
FIGURE 1.2. Climate types for South Africa according to the Köppen-Geiger classification
with average summer and winter temperatures in major cities and towns (downloaded from
https://maps-southafrica.com/weather-map-south-africa).
Using the Köppen-Geiger classification can be explained by means of the following

examples for Stellenbosch, Robertson and Lutzville: (i) At Stellenbosch less than
70% of the annual precipitation occurs in winter (Table 1.3). Therefore, the Pthreshold
= (2 x mean annual temperature) + 14 = (2 x 17.3) + 14 = 48.7. Since the mean
annual precipitation is more than 487 mm (= 10 x 48.7), it is not an arid climate. Given
that the temperature of the hottest month is more than 10°C, and the temperature
of the coldest month is between 0° and 18°C (Table 1.3), it is a temperate climate.
Since precipitation in the driest summer month is less than 40 mm, and less than the
precipitation in the wettest winter month divided by 3 (122.3 ÷ 3 < 40), it is regarded
as a dry summer. Furthermore, the locality has a warm summer since the hottest
monthly mean temperature is less than 22°C (Table 1.3), and the monthly mean

temperature is above 10°C for at least four months. Based on the foregoing, the
climate at Stellenbosch is temperate with dry, warm summers, i.e. “Csb” in short.
TABLE 1.3. Long term mean monthly air temperature (Tn) and total precipitation (Ptot)
recorded at three localities in the Western Cape.
Month Stellenbosch Robertson Lutzville
Tn (°C) Ptot (mm) Tn (°C) Ptot (mm) Tn (°C) Ptot (mm)
January 21.5 21.0 23.2 12.2 22.3 2.1
February 21.8 23.6 23.0 16.4 23.0 3.3
March 20.3 41.6 21.5 15.7 22.0 6.9
April 18.4 62.0 18.4 30.4 20.2 10.5
May 15.9 98.9 15.1 32.5 17.6 17.9
June 13.9 122.3 12.6 31.9 15.5 24.8
July 13.1 103.0 12.0 26.9 14.6 19.6
August 13.5 104.1 12.8 41.8 15.0 19.8
September 14.4 67.4 14.9 19.8 16.3 11.5
October 16.4 40.1 17.5 21.5 18.2 7.7
November 18.7 29.3 20.0 18.4 20.2 6.6
December 20.2 31.0 22.0 12.2 21.3 8.6
Mean 17.3 – 17.8 – 18.9 –
Total – 744.3 – 279.7 – 139.3
(ii) At Robertson, less than 70% of the annual precipitation occurs in winter.
Therefore, the Pthreshold = (2 x mean annual temperature + 14) = 49.5. Since the
mean annual precipitation is less than 495 mm (Table 1.3), it is an arid climate.
Given that the mean annual precipitation is more than five times the Pthreshold, it is
regarded as steppe. Furthermore, the temperature is regarded as cold, since the
mean annual temperature is less than 18°C (Table 1.3). Therefore, Robertson has
an arid, steppe, cold or “BSk” climate.
(iii) Since less than 70% of the annual precipitation occurs in winter at Lutzville,
the Pthreshold is 51.7 as calculated from the mean annual temperature. Given that
the mean annual precipitation is way below 517 mm (Table 1.3), it is also an arid
climate. Since the mean annual precipitation is less than five times the Pthreshold,
it is desert. Furthermore, the locality is regarded as hot, since the mean annual
temperature exceeds 18°C (Table 1.3). Therefore, Lutzville has an arid, desert,
hot or “BWh” climate.
Chapter 1
1.3 CLIMATIC INDICES FOR VITICULTURE

Climate classifications such as the Köppen-Geiger system only provide a broad
regional to global generalization of climates. Unfortunately, they do not provide
specific details on atmospheric variables that are important for viticulture and wine
production. Atmospheric variables that affect grapevine growth, yield and wine
quality are solar radiation, air temperatures, day-night temperature fluctuations,
heat accumulation, wind speed, precipitation and humidity. Consequently, the
following classification systems have been developed specifically for viticulture
potential.
1.3.1 GROWING DEGREE DAYS

This index describes the potential for wine quality based on heat summation
(Amerine & Winkler, 1944). The criteria were adapted for the Western Cape wine
producing regions by Le Roux (1974). The growing degree days are calculated
as the summation of the daily mean air temperature above 10ºC through the seven
months growing season, i.e. from September to March (Table 1.4). The GDD can
be used to identify different areas for potential wine quality within a wine region
(Fig. 1.3). For instance, wine quality potential in the Lower Olifants River improves
as the distance to the Atlantic Ocean decreases (Bruwer, 2010).
TABLE 1.4. Wine quality potential classification according to the GDD as proposed by Le
Roux (1974).
GDD Class Wine quality potential
< 1 389 I Quality red and white table wine
1 389 - 1 666 II Good quality red and white table wine
1 667 - 1 943 III Red and white wine and port
1 944 - 2 220 IV Dessert wine, sherry and standard wine
> 2 220 V Dessert wine and brandy

Figure 1.3
2 900
Klawer
2 700
2 500
GDD (ºC)
2 300 Region V Vredendal

Lutzville
2 100 Region IV
1 900 Ebenaeser
Region III
1 700
R2 = 0.9529
1 500
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (km)
FIGURE 1.3. Effect of distance to the Atlantic Ocean on wine quality potential in the Lower Olifants
River region according to the GDD as proposed by Bruwer (2010).
1.3.2 MEAN FEBRUARY TEMPERATURE

Since temperature plays an important role in determining wine quality, analysis of
long term weather data can be used to demarcate the potential wine quality of a
region (Bruwer, 2010 and references therein). The MFT classification, i.e. for the
warmest month of the year, was adapted by De Villiers et al. (1996) for the Western
Cape wine regions (Table 1.5). The variability of MFT in the Coastal region of the
Western Cape is shown in Figure 1.4.
TABLE 1.5. Wine quality potential classification for the Western Cape according to the MFT
as proposed by De Villiers et al. (1996).
MFT (ºC) Region Wine quality potential
17 - 18.9 Cold High quality white table wine

19 - 20.9 Cool High quality white and red table wine
21 - 22.9 Moderate High quality red table wine
23 - 24.9 Warm Low acid, high pH
> 25 Very warm Low acid, high pH
It was also shown that altitude and the proximity of the Atlantic Ocean affect
the MFT in the Western Cape Coastal region over distances as far as ca. 60 km
inland (Myburgh, 2005). The effects of sea breezes play a prominent role in the
Chapter
Chapter 11
temperature
temperature variation
variation of
of the
the Coastal
Coastal region (Bonnardot et
region (Bonnardot et al.,
al., 2002).
2002). The
The altitude
altitude
and
and distance to the ocean can be used to estimate MFT for localities where there
distance to the ocean can be used to estimate MFT for localities where there
are
are no
no weather
weather stations
stations by
by means
means of
of the
the following
following equation:
equation:
MFT
MFT == 20.9
20.9 -- 0.0052341A
0.0052341A + + 0.06369D
0.06369D (R (R2 =
2
= 0.9983;
0.9983; s.e.
s.e. =
= 0.04°C)
0.04°C) Eq.
Eq. 1.1
1.1
where
where A is the altitude (m) and D is the distance to the Atlantic Ocean (km). In
A is the altitude (m) and D is the distance to the Atlantic Ocean (km). In
practical
practical terms,
terms, the
the model
model shows
shows that
that MFT
MFT declines
declines atat aa rate of ca.
rate of ca. 0.5°C
0.5°C with
with aa
100
100 mm increase
increase in in altitude,
altitude, and
and that
that air
air temperature
temperature increases
increases by by ca.
ca. 0.6°C
0.6°C per
per
10
10 km increase in distance to the ocean. According to Equation 1.1, the MFT at
km increase in distance to the ocean. According to Equation 1.1, the MFT at the
the
Atlantic
Atlantic Ocean
Ocean coastline
coastline isis estimated
estimated to to be
be around
around 20.9°C.
20.9°C.
Figure 1.4
No Station District MFT
(°C)
1 1 Lutzville Lutzville 23.0

Lutzville
2 Klawer Winery Klawer 24.7
2
3 Nortier Lamberts Bay 18.9
4 Graafwater Co-op Graafwater 22.9
3 5 Ideal hill Piketberg 25.0
4 6 Heldervue Piketberg 19.1
7 Vredenburg Co-op Vredenburg 20.6
8 Mo rreesburg Co-op Mo rreesburg 24.0
9 Porterville Co-op Porterville 24.2
St. Helena Bay 10 Langgewens Mo rreesburg 23.6
6 5 11 Riebeeck Wes Co-op Riebeeck Wes 24.4
7 12 Grasrug Malmesbury 23.4
Vredenburg
9
Porterville 13 Landau Wellington 24.3
8
14 HS Boland Agter Paarl 23.7
10 15 Philadelphia Philadelphia 22.8
11
12 16 Nederburg Paarl 24.5
13 17 Bellvue Paarl 23.2

Atlantic Ocean
15 14
1716
18 Bien Donne Groot Drakenstein 22.6
18 19 Elsenburg Stellenbosch 21.8

19 22 20 21
Table Bay 20 Mountain Vineyard Groot Drakenstein 22.5
23 24
25
21 La Motte Franschhoek 22.8
False Bay 22 Nietvoorbij Stellenbosch 21.5

23 Helderfontein Helderfontein 21.8
24 Bethlehem Groot Drakenstein 22.1
30 0 30 Kilometers
25 Welgevallen 4 Stellenbosch 22.1
FIGURE 1.4. The

FIGURE 1.4. The variability
variability in
in mean
mean MFT
MFT asas recorded
recorded at
at selected
selected weather
weather stations
stations in
in the
the
Coastal region of the Western Cape (after Myburgh,
Coastal region of the Western Cape (after Myburgh, 2005).2005).
IRRIGATION
IRRIGATION OF
OF WINE GRAPES 21
WINE GRAPES 21
1.3.3 HELIOTHERMAL INDEX
The HI can be calculated to describe the thermal character of the climate with
respect to potential for viticulture within a specific wine growing area (Bruwer,
2010 and references therein). In South Africa, the HI is based on the summation
of the mean and maximum monthly temperatures from October to March (Table
1.6). The HI includes a length of day coefficient to compensate for the greater
photosynthetic active radiation occurring during longer days at latitudes higher
than 40º. For latitudes lower than 40º, a value of one is used. An example where
thermal character of the Lower Olifants River region was analysed by Bruwer
(2010) is presented in Figure 1.5. This classification clearly shows how the climate
becomes warmer as the distance to the Atlantic Ocean increases.
TABLE 1.6. The HI used to describe the thermal character of the climate (Tonietto &
Cabonneau, 2004 and references therein).
Viticultural climatic class Class code Class interval (ºC)

Very cool HL-3 <1 500
Cool HL-2 > 1 500 < 1 800
Temperate HL-1 > 1 800 < 2 100
Temperate warm HL+1 > 2 100 < 2 400
Warm HL+2 > 2 400 < 3 000
Very warm HL+3 > 3 000
Figure 1.5
3 800
3 600 Klawer
3 400 Class HI+3
3 200
HI (ºC)
Vredendal
3 000
Lutzville
2 800
Class HI+2
2 600 Ebenaeser
2 400
Class HI+1 R2 = 0.9984
2 200
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (km)
FIGURE 1.5. Effect of distance to the Atlantic Ocean on the thermal character in the Lower
Figure 1.6
Olifants River region according to the HI (Bruwer, 2010).
17
Klawer
16
Chapter 1
1.3.4 COOL NIGHT INDEX

The CI′ is based on the minimum mean night temperatures during the month
preceding harvest (Bruwer, 2010 and references therein). The objective of the CI′
is to assess the qualitative potential ofFigure
a wine region
1.5with respect to wine colour and
aroma. The CI′ is based on the minimum daily temperature during March (Table
1.7). An example where the CI′ in the Lower Olifants River region was analysed by
Bruwer (2010)3 800
is presented in Figure 1.6. Unlike the GDD and HI, only two regions
could be demarcated
3 600 according to the CI′. This suggestsKlawer
that the CI′ might not be
sensitive enough for viticultural purposes in South Africa.
3 400 Class HI+3
TABLE 1.7. The CI′ used to classify the climate with respect to potential for viticulture based
3 200 in the month preceding harvest (Tonietto & Cabonneau, 2004 and
on night temperature
HI (ºC)
Vredendal
references therein).
3 000
Lutzville
Viticultural climatic class Class code Class interval (ºC)
2 800
Warm nights Class HI+2 CI′-2 > 18
2 600 Ebenaeser
Temperate nights CI′-1
> 14 < 18
2 400
Cool nights CI′+1 > 12 < 14
Class HI+1 R2 = 0.9984
2 200
Very cool nights CI′+2 < 12
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (km)
Figure 1.6
17
Klawer
16
15 Class CI -1
14
CI (ºC)
Lutzville
13 Class CI +1
Ebenaeser Vredendal
12
Class CI +2
11
10
0 10 20 30 40
Distance (km)
FIGURE 1.6. Effect of distance to the Atlantic Ocean on viticultural potential in the Lower
Olifants River region according to the CI′ (Bruwer, 2010).

1.3.5 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE KÖPPEN-GEIGER
CLASSIFICATION AND VITICULTURE-BASED INDICES
According to the Köppen-Geiger classification, Stellenbosch, Robertson and
Lutzville have three distinct climates as discussed in Section 1.2. This implies
that grapevine growth, yield and wine quality are likely to be affected differently
in the three localities. However, in the case of GDD, MFT, HI and CI′, some of the
indices are the same in more than one region, although the climate differs (Table
1.8). This means that grapevines could respond differently in regions that have
the same viticultural index. Furthermore, the viticultural indices only focus on the
wine quality and do not give an indication of grapevine water requirements. In
contrast, the Köppen-Geiger classification provides an indication of the intensity of
irrigation needed. At Stellenbosch with its “dry summers”, low frequency irrigation,
e.g. once a month, would be adequate for sustainable viticulture. In fact, vineyards
with deep, well-developed root systems in sandy loam or clay loam soils might be
able to produce economically viable yields and wine quality. On the other hand,
vineyards in similar soils under “arid” conditions in the Breede River Valley will
require irrigation at a medium frequency, i.e. every two to three weeks. Under the
almost “desert” conditions in the Lower Olifants River region, grapevines will need
high frequency irrigation, e.g. more than once a week, particularly in the sandy
soils away from the river.
TABLE 1.8. Comparison of the climate classification according to Köppen-Geiger and the
climatic indices for viticulture at three localities in the Western Cape.
Climate classification Stellenbosch Robertson Lutzville
(Coastal region) (Breede River (Olifants River
Valley) Valley)
Köppen-Geiger Temperate, dry, warm Arid, steppe, Arid, desert, hot
summer (Csb) cold (BSk) (BWh)
Growing degree days III (1914°C) IV (2029°C) IV (2217°C)
Mean February temperature Moderate (21.8°C) Moderate Warm (23.0°C)
(22.4°C)
Heliothermal index Temperate warm (HI+1) Warm (HI+2) Warm (HI+2)
Cool night index Temperate nights (CI′-1) Temperate Cool nights
nights (CI′-1) (CI′+1)
1.4 INTERACTION BETWEEN CLIMATE,

WINE QUALITY AND IRRIGATION
The climate plays a prominent role in the wine style or quality produced in a specific
terroir. Comparing results obtained by means of irrigation studies carried out with
Merlot near Wellington (Myburgh, 2011a & b), Ashton (Lategan & Howell, 2010b)
and Lutzville (Myburgh, 2011i) showed that the sensorial overall wine quality seems
to be better where the HI is higher and the CI′ is lower (Fig. 1.7). However, within a
Chapter 1
region, the opposite is also possible. Wine quality potential of Cabernet Sauvignon
in the Lower Olifants River region tended to be better where the HI, as well as CI′,
are lower near the coastline (Bruwer, 2010). This trend was probably due to the
extremely high HI and cool CI′ near Klawer (Figs. 1.5 & 1.6). Traditionally, the terroir
concept was developed for non-irrigated vineyards. Therefore, hydraulic properties
of the soil, such as water holding capacity, within a terroir also play an important
role in the wine style or quality. This is probably the reason for the trend towards
better overall wine quality of Merlot in a heavier soil near Wellington compared to
a sandy soil on Dorbank
60 near Lutzville (Fig. 1.8). 60
A B
60 55 60 55
Wine quality (%)
Wine quality (%)

A B
55 55
Wine quality (%)
Wine quality (%)

50 50
50 45 50 45
45 45
40 40
Wellington Ashton Lutzville Wellington Ashton Lutzville
40 40
Wellington Ashton Lutzville Wellington Ashton Lutzville
FIGURE 1.7. The sensorial overall quality of Merlot wine (A) tends to increase where the
heliothermal index is higher and (B) tends to decline where the cool night index is lower.
60
60
55
Wine quality (%)
55
Wine quality (%)
50
50
45
45
40
Wellington Ashton Lutzville
40
FIGURE 1.8. The sensorial overall quality of Merlot wine tends to increase where the clay
content of the soil is higher.
Basically, the wine characteristics within a terroir are induced by the prevailing
climate and soil properties under non-irrigated conditions. Therefore, it is important
to note that the climate and soil seem to have a general terroir effect on wine
quality although the vineyards need to be irrigated in the above-mentioned regions.
However, it is important to note that the level of irrigation will affect wine quality

irrespective of the climate or soil. Generally, more irrigation will produce more
grapes with a concomitant decline in wine quality and vice versa if less irrigation is
applied (Fig. 1.9). These effects of irrigation on wine quality at the various localities
are discussed in more detail in Chapter 7. It is also interesting that the Merlot wine
quality seems to better where the grapes were harvested earlier (Fig. 1.9). This
was probably due to higher HI and CI′ near Wellington (Fig. 1.7).
Figure 1.9
60
8 Feb 21 Feb 27 Feb
55
Wine quality (%)
50
45
40
FIGURE 1.9. The sensorial overall quality of Merlot generally tends to decrease where the
harvest date is later at a specific locality. The arrows illustrate how less irrigation will improve
wine quality, and vice versa if more irrigation is applied.
1.5 CLIMATE CHANGE

Climatic changes have occurred in the history of the Earth and are bound to happen
again. Various mathematical models indicate towards global warming which goes
hand in hand with lower rainfall. Higher air temperatures and lower rainfall will have
a huge negative impact on the sustainability of viticulture, particularly in terms of
water supply to the grapevine. The dilemma will be aggravated if lower rainfall
reduces the available irrigation resources. Furthermore, climate change will most
probably result in reduced irrigation water allocations and increased water tariffs.
Since mankind is unlikely to prevent or stop possible climate change(s), certain
adaptations need to be made, particularly with respect to vineyard irrigation.
Firstly, vineyards should not be established in low potential soils, i.e. with low water
holding capacity and low cation exchange capacity. Secondly, soil preparation
must be carried out properly to ensure deep, well-developed root systems that can
absorb water from the largest possible soil volume. Since large volumes of irrigation
water are lost to evaporation in the case of full surface wetting, growers will have
Chapter 1
to revert to strip wetting or drip irrigation. Drought tolerant scion cultivars that are
more adapted to drier and warmer atmospheric conditions should be selected and
planted. However, it is important that wines for export markets should be made
from such cultivars.
Another aspect that could play a role is the ability of grapevines to adapt if climate
change occurs. In this regard, it appears that stomatal density of Shiraz grapevines
responds to the mean daily maximum air temperature during the three months
following budbreak (unpublished data). Stomatal density decreases substantially
if the climate is warmer in the period following budbreak (Fig. 1.10). This indicates
that the grapevine is capable of reducing its number of stomata per unit leaf area
as a primary water saving mechanism in warmer climates. The adaptation of
grapevine stomatal density to air temperature seems to occur irrespective of the
cultivar. Stomatal densities of Shiraz, Merlot and Sauvignon blanc were lower near
Lutzville in the Lower Olifants River region compared to cooler conditions following
budbreak near Wagga Wagga in Australia (Fig. 1.11). The foregoing suggests that
it is possible for grapevines to undergo changes in order to adapt to environmental
conditions. The adaptation of stomatal density will be important if climate change
results in warmer atmospheric conditions. Any similar physiological adaptations
will reduce the negative effect of climate change.
500
Wagga Wagga, Australia ( Rogiers et al., 2009)
450 Estremoz, Portugal ( Costa et al., 2012)

Nuriootpa, Australia ( Sadras et al., 2012)
400 T orres Vedras, Portugal ( Monteiro et al., 2013)
T hessaloniki, Greece ( T heodorou et al., 2013)
350
Glasshouse, Nevada, U SA ( Hopper et al., 2014)
Stomata per mm2
Glasshouse, Bet-Dagan, Israel ( Gerzon et al., 2015)

300
Stellenbosch, South Africa ( Venter, 2015)
250 Glasshouse, Mendoza, Argentina ( Gonzá lez et al., 2016)
Lutzville, South Africa ( unpublished data)
200
150
100
50 y = -19 837x + 613 31

R² = 0 9186
0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Temperature (°C)
FIGURE 1.10. The relationship between stomatal density of Shiraz at different localities and
the mean maximum daily air temperature during the three months following budbreak at
each locality.
250
Lutzville IRRIGATION
Wagga WaggaOF WINE GRAPES
a 27
200
ab
0
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Temperature (°C)
Figure 1.11
250
Lutzville Wagga Wagga a
200
b ab
Stomata per mm2
150 a
b
b
100
50
0
Shiraz/99 R Merlot/99 R Sauvignon blanc/99 R
FIGURE 1.11. Comparison of stomatal density of three grapevine cultivars near Lutzville in
the Lower Olifants River region (unpublished data) and Wagga Wagga in Australia (Rogiers et
al., 2009). For each locality, columns designated by the same letter do not differ significantly
(p ≤ 0.05).
If climate change results is less water being available for irrigation, alternative
water resources need to be exploited. Expanding urbanization is increasingly
producing large volumes of treated sewage. Likewise, wineries produce between
2 m3 and 5 m3 wastewater per tonne of grapes crushed (Myburgh & Howell, 2014b
and references therein). Therefore, irrigating vineyards with treated municipal or
winery wastewater could be a useful way to re-use the water. Re-using treated
wastewaters could be beneficial to vineyards for which no other irrigation water
is available. Furthermore, irrigation with treated wastewater will reduce the
pressure on existing water resources used for irrigation. Sustainable re-use of
treated wastewater for irrigation of vineyards or other crops will contribute towards
environmentally sound wastewater management. This will enhance the image of the
wine industry, particularly if it can be proved that it has no detrimental effects on
wine quality. Using treated municipal wastewater for irrigation is not an uncommon
practice. Currently ca. 2 000 ha vineyards are being irrigated with treated municipal
wastewater in the Coastal region of the Western Cape. Refer to Chapter 5, Section
5.6 for more details concerning the effects of irrigation with treated municipal and
diluted winery wastewater on soils and grapevines.
1.6 CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

Since the climate is so important for viticulture, it is essential to have accurate and
reliable weather data. This applies to long term data banks, as well as real time
weather information. Therefore, the wine industry must invest in a weather station
network that covers all the wine producing regions. However, the investment should
Chapter 1
also cover the maintenance of existing and new weather stations. It must be noted
that the weather elements are recorded automatically, and that maintenance is
carried out manually. Furthermore, electronic instrumentation does not last forever
and should be replaced where and when necessary. Based on the foregoing, it
is critical that every weather station must be inspected regularly and repaired to
avoid incomplete, unreliable data sets.
Given the advantages of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification compared to
the seemingly less sensitive viticultural indices, it should be adopted by the wine
industry. Furthermore, the ideal situation would be if a viticultural and/or wine quality
index could be linked to the Köppen-Geiger classification. Linking grapevine water
requirements in more detail to the latter classification would also be useful for
irrigation planning and management.
It seems that grapevines will undergo physical changes in response to climate
change. Therefore, it could be that moderate climate changes might not be as
critical to the physiological functioning of grapevines as expected. However, it
is essential to determine in what way grapevines will adapt, as well as to identify
rootstock cultivars and economically viable scion that will be able to adapt more
readily than others.

Chapter 2
The dynamics
of water in
and around
vineyards
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Sufficient water is essential for irrigated agriculture. Irrigation water can be obtained
from a number of resources. In addition to rainfall, water for vineyard irrigation
may be abstracted from rivers or collected in on-farm dams (Fig. 2.1). In some
regions, irrigation water is allocated from government irrigation schemes where
water from large reservoirs is distributed via extensive canal systems (Fig. 2.2).
Groundwater may also be abstracted from aquifers deep below the Earth’s surface
by means of boreholes or wells (Fig. 2.3). All the water resources form part of the
Earth’s hydrological cycle. Therefore, it is important to understand the hydrological
cycle, and how irrigation water resources are created. Since plant root systems
absorb water from the soil, its ability to absorb, conduct and store water is also
an important consideration when it comes to practical irrigation management.
Due to the variability in climate and soils, the dependency of viticulture on water
resources may differ substantially between grape growing regions, or even within
such a region.
A B
FIGURE 2.1. River water (A) and water collected in on-farm dams (B) can be used for
vineyard irrigation.
30 CHAPTER 2 – THE DYNAMICS OF WATER IN AND AROUND VINEYARDS

Chapter 2
A B
FIGURE 2.2. Water in large reservoirs (A) can be allocated for irrigation and distributed via
canal systems (B).
FIGURE 2.3. An example where a borehole is being sunk to abstract groundwater from an
aquifer.

2.2 THE HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE
The hydrological cycle describes the dynamics of water on, above and below
the surface of the Earth (Fig. 2.4). The mass of water remains fairly constant over
time, but can be partitioned into ice, fresh water, saline water and atmospheric
water changes depending on climatic variables (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
water_cycle). The sun, which drives the water cycle, heats water in oceans and
other large water bodies (Fig. 2.4). Water evaporates as water vapour (gas) into
the air. Rain (liquid), as well as ice and snow (solids) can sublimate directly into
water vapour. Evapotranspiration (ET) occurs when water simultaneously transpires
from plants and evaporates from the soil.
Solar energy
Rain
Snow ET Rain
& ice
Evaporation
ET
Evaporation
Rivers/ Lakes
O cean
FIGURE 2.4. Schematic representation of the Earth’s hydrological cycle, where ET is

evapotranspiration by vegetation, e.g. forests and crops (redrawn from Hillel, 1980).
Water vapour molecules are less dense, compared to the major components of the
atmosphere, i.e. nitrogen and oxygen. Due to the difference in molecular mass,
water vapour rises in open air as a result of buoyancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/water_cycle). However, as altitude increases, air pressure decreases and the
temperature drops. The lower air temperature causes water vapour to condense
into liquid water droplets which are heavier than the air. Consequently, these
small droplets fall unless they are supported by an updraft. A huge concentration
of these droplets over a large space in the atmosphere becomes visible as a
cloud. On the other hand, fog is formed (i) when water vapour condenses near the
ground, (ii) as a result of moist air and cool air collision or (iii) an abrupt decrease
in air pressure.
As air currents transport water vapour around the Earth, cloud particles collide,
grow, and fall out of the upper atmospheric layers as precipitation (https://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water_cycle). Some precipitation falls as snow, sleet or hail,

Chapter 2
and can accumulate as ice caps and glaciers. The latter can store frozen water
for thousands of years. Most water falls back into the oceans or onto land as
rain, where the water flows over the ground as surface runoff. A portion of runoff
flows into rivers in valleys, with streamflow moving water towards the oceans (Fig.
2.4). Runoff and water emerging from the ground (groundwater) may be stored
as freshwater in lakes. Not all runoff flows into rivers; much of it infiltrates into the
ground. Some water percolates deep into the ground and replenishes aquifers,
which can store freshwater for long periods of time. Some infiltration stays close
to the land surface and can seep back into surface-water bodies as groundwater
discharge. Some groundwater finds openings in the land surface and comes out
as freshwater springs. In river valleys and flood plains, there is often continuous
water exchange between surface water and groundwater in the hyporheic zone.
Over time, the water returns to the ocean to continue the water cycle.
Since the hydrological cycle involves the exchange of energy, it leads to
temperature changes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/water_cycle). For instance,
when water evaporates, it absorbs energy from its surroundings which subsequently
cools the environment. As water condenses, energy is released which warms
the environment. These heat exchanges influence climate. Furthermore, the
evaporative phase of the cycle purifies water which in turn replenishes freshwater
resources. The flow of liquid water and ice also transports minerals across the
Earth. These movements may also involve reshaping the geological features of
the Earth, through processes such as erosion and sedimentation. Considering the
foregoing, it is clear that the hydrological cycle is essential for the maintenance of
most life and ecosystems.
2.3 THE WATER BALANCE IN VINEYARDS

The water balance in a vineyard depends on a number of water gains and losses.
The gains are water coming into the root zone. They are primarily rainfall and
irrigation water infiltrating and percolating into the root zone (Fig. 2.5). Water
moving upwards from deeper layers or a groundwater table via the capillary fringe
into the root via capillary rise can also be considered as a gain. Depending on the
extent to which capillary rise occurs, it can be an important source of water in the
case of dryland vineyards. In the case of vineyards on slopes, sub-surface lateral
flow from higher ground into the root zone is also a gain. However, if excessive
lateral water flow occurs, it might be necessary to intercept it by means of cutoff
drains to prevent waterlogging in the root zone. Losses in the water balance
comprise evaporation from the soil surface, as well as water extracted via the
roots and lost to the atmosphere (Fig. 2.5). Deep percolation or drainage beyond
the lower limit of the root zone are also losses that commonly occur in vineyards,
particularly after heavy rainfall or in the case of over-irrigation. The drainage water
may eventually recharge deep groundwater bodies. Surface runoff usually occurs
when the rate of rainfall and/or irrigation application exceeds the infiltration capacity

Figure 2.5
Transpiration
Evaporation
Runoff
Root zone
Infiltration
Unsaturated zone
Root
extraction
Deep percolation
Capillary rise
Capillary fringe
Saturated zone
Water
table
Groundwater recharge & flow
FIGURE 2.5. Schematic representation of the water balance in a vineyard (redrawn from
Hillel, 1980).
of soils (Fig. 2.5). Not only is runoff a serious water loss, but it may cause soil losses
due to water erosion where soils are unstable.
The gains and losses over a given period of time usually balance out to zero as
indicated in the following so-called “Universal soil water balance equation”.
0 = SWCi - SWCe + P + I - D - R - ET Eq. 2.1
where SWCi and SWCe are the soil water contents at the beginning and end of
the period, respectively, P is the precipitation or rainfall, I is irrigation applied,
D is drainage beyond the root zone, R is surface runoff and ET is vineyard
evapotranspiration. The unit for all components is millimeter. It must be noted that
Equation 2.1 can be rewritten to calculate ET of vineyards as follows:
ET = SWCi - SWCe + P + I - D - R Eq. 2.2
The ET calculated by means of Equation 2.2 is related to a reference ET for a given
period to determine crop coefficients which can be used to estimate irrigation

Chapter 2
requirements of vineyards. Refer to Chapter 8 for more details concerning the use
of crop coefficients and a reference ET for irrigation scheduling.
2.4 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Water use of a vineyard refers to the amount of water lost during a specific period
of time. This is usually expressed in millimeters per day, week, month or year. Water
use is primarily the combination of two processes viz. (i) transpiration from leaves
and (ii) evaporation from the soil surface (Fig. 2.5). The term evapotranspiration is
mostly used instead of water use. Consequently, the acronym “ET” is commonly
used in literature and practice. The purpose of the following section is to explain
the basic principles of evaporation and transpiration in order to understand water
use differences between vineyards.
2.4.1 EVAPORATION FROM THE SOIL

After rain or irrigation, evaporation from the wetted soil surface can be divided into
two phases (Fig. 2.6). During the first phase, the rate of Es is mainly influenced
by the prevailing weather conditions. In other words, the warmer and windier,
the higher the rate of Es will be and vice versa. In Phase I, Es is relatively high
and equates to evaporation from free water surfaces, e.g. dams or lakes. Phase
I persists normally for a day or two only, depending on the weather conditions.
During the second phase, however, the rate of Es is governed by the physical
characteristics of the soil, e.g. the hydraulic conductivity. Therefore, Es in Phase II
is considerably lower, compared to Phase I (Fig. 2.6).
50
Phase I Phase II Phase III

40
Cumulative Es (mm)
Atmospheric
conditions
30 Soil properties
Vapour
Liquid phase
phase
20
10
0
0 5 10 15
Time (days)
FIGURE 2.6. Cumulative Es following an irrigation.

2.4.1.1 FACTORS THAT AFFECT EVAPORATION
Soil texture: For each soil, the rate of Es losses depends on a so-called β value
which describes the relation between Es and a reference evaporation (Myburgh,
2015). The β value is related to soil texture (Fig. 2.7). Due to the high number of
coarse pores, water evaporates quicker from sandy soils, compared to heavier
soils following rainfall or irrigation, particularly during Phase I. This explains why
sandy soils generally dry out faster than heavier soil under the same conditions.
Measuring Es in a pot experiment showed that the effect of soil texture can be
substantial, e.g. 32 mm water evaporated from the coarse sand over 12 days
following an irrigation, compared to only 15 mm from the clay loam soil (Fig. 2.8).
Consequently, vineyards in sandy soils need to be irrigated more frequently,
compared to heavier soils under the same atmospheric conditions. Since there is
a concomitant high Es peak with each irrigation, seasonal evaporation losses from
frequently irrigated vineyards in sandy soils will be substantially higher, compared
to less frequently irrigated vineyards in heavier soils. Therefore, it is essential that
root systems of grapevines in sandy soils must be deep to allow the intervals
between irrigations to be as long as practically possible. Such root systems can
only be achieved by deep tillage and amelioration of chemical limitations.
5 (i)
(vi)
value (mm0.5)
4 (v) (iv)
(ii)
3
(iii)
2
1
y = -0.113x + 4.877 (R2 = 0.7861)
0
0 5 10 15 20
Clay (%)
FIGURE 2.7. Relationship between β values and clay content for (i) coarse sand, (ii) fine
sandy loam, (iii) coarse sand clay loam, (iv) fine sandy loam, (v) fine sand and (vi) fine sandy
loam (Myburgh, 2015).

Chapter 2
35
Coarse sand
30 Fine sandy loam
Cumulative Es (mm)
25
20
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Days following irrigation
FIGURE 2.8. Evaporation Es following an irrigation is substantially higher from sandy soils,
compared to heavier soils under the same conditions (after Myburgh, 1998).
Irrigation system: Drip irrigation or furrows wet a smaller percentage of the surface,
compared to systems that wet the total surface, e.g. overhead sprinklers or full
surface flood irrigation (Fig. 2.9). Therefore, smaller volumes of water will be lost
via evaporation in the case of fractional wetting of the soil surface. This aspect will
be discussed in more detail in Section 2.4.3.
A B
C D
FIGURE 2.9. Examples where different soil volumes are being wetted by (A) drippers,
(B) furrows, (C) moveable sprinklers and (D) flood irrigation.

Irrigation frequency: As mentioned above, Es from a bare soil surface is usually
high after a rainfall event or irrigation, after which it reduces quickly. If the irrigation
cycles are short (e.g. 5 days), the Es peaks will occur more frequently and the
contribution of soil surface evaporation to ET will be considerably higher, compared
to longer periods (e.g. 21 days), when fewer high Es peaks will occur (Fig. 2.10).
If canopies are comparable, Es alone can constitute ca. 80 and ca. 20% of ET for
high and low frequency irrigation, respectively.
Soil water content
Es = 18 x 15 mm
= 270 mm
PAW
Time
Es = 4 x 15 mm
Soil water content
= 60 mm
PAW
Time
FIGURE 2.10. Schematic illustration of Es losses during Phase I under high frequency
irrigation (top) and low frequency irrigation (bottom), i.e. if it is assumed that both soils have
similar PAW, and that Phase 1 Es is 15 mm.
Mulching and tillage: Organic mulches, e.g. straw or wood chips, will reduce Es
losses, compared to bare surfaces (Fig. 2.11). However, the effect of the surface
cover is usually effective only for a short period, i.e. the initial Phase I evaporation.
Consequently, the water saving effect of mulches will be more pronounced in
vineyards where frequent irrigations are required, e.g. in shallow sandy or gravelly
soils, compared to deeper, heavier soils which need to be irrigated less frequently.
In dryland vineyards, mulches will only reduce Es during Phase I when rainfall
occurs. The water saving effect increases with the thickness of the mulch layer (Fig.
2.12). However, thick mulches are only economically viable if the material is readily
available from a nearby source. Transport of lightweight material over long distances
will not be cost effective. Furthermore, visual observations near Philadelphia and
Rawsonville revealed that ca. 8 t/ha wheat straw mulches on the under-vine banks
had weathered away within two seasons. In this regard, more durable organic
materials such as tree bark or wood chips will probably last longer.

Figure 2.11 Chapter 2
10 1 Day 3 Days 10 Days
Bare soil Mulched soil

8
a a a
Es (mm/d)
a a
6
b b b b b b
b b b
4 b
bc bc bc c c
2 c c c c c c
c c c c 1
3 Days
0 10
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Position number
FIGURE 2.11. The Es from a coarse sandy soil in the days following irrigation as measured
at five positions across the work row. The mulch consisted of an 8 t/ha wheat straw layer
(Myburgh, 1998).
35
T1 - Bare soil
T2 - Shallow tillage
30 T3 - 4 t/ha Straw mulch
Cumulative water loss (mm)
T4 - 8 t/ha Straw mulch

25 T5 - 12 t/ha Straw mulch
20
15
11 mm
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (days)
FIGURE 2.12. Effect of thickness of wheat straw mulches and tillage on water losses from
the 0-20 cm soil layer in a vineyard following irrigation on 26 November 1995. Vertical bars
indicate LSD (p ≤ 0.05) and arrow indicates rainfall (Myburgh, 2013). Figure 2.13
Another possible way to reduce Es losses is by frequent, shallow tillage. The
rationale behind this practice is that the layer of loose topsoil initially dries rapidly,
and then acts as a mulch. However, there is some controversy regarding the use
of shallow tillage to reduce Es losses. In fact, shallow tillage tended to increase
evaporation losses, compared to bare, untilled soil in a vineyard near Stellenbosch
(Fig. 2.12). Furthermore, it is well documented that frequent tillage will have
negative effects on soil structure which may result in poor water infiltration and

20 20
Cumulative wate
Cumulative wat
15 15
11 11
mmmm
10 10
5 5
runoff. Therefore, tillage is not recommended for South African vineyard soils
0 0
except for seedbed preparation to establish winter cover crops (Fig. 2.13A).
0 0 2 2 44 66 88 1010 1212 14
14 16
16
Another concern is that frequent tillage
Time may
(days)
Time
destroy biological activity in the soil.
(days)
For example, birds often prey on insects and earthworms in newly tilled soil (Fig.
2.13B). In many cases, the burrows created by biological activity will enhance
Figure
Figure2.13 2.13
water infiltration in the generally poorly structured topsoils in the Western Cape.
A B
FIGURE 2.13. Examples where (A) a seedbed for a cover crop is being prepared in a
vineyard and (B) weeds are being disked in as means of weed control in fallow land.
Trellis system: Although evaporation from the soil was not measured directly,
previous studies showed that higher temperature, more wind flow and less
shading of the soil surface in the case of bush vines (goblet) probably caused
more Es losses, compared to grapevines trained onto a slanting trellis (Table 2.1).
Since leaf area of the bush vines were smaller, Es losses must have made a more
pronounced contribution to ET than transpiration under the prevailing conditions.
Evaporation studies with different soil types showed that Es tended to be higher
under a slanting trellis, compared to a vertical trellis (Myburgh, 2015). This agrees
with a previous conclusion that higher resistance to air flow by the vertical trellis
produces a windbreak effect, whereas a slanting trellis allows air to flow more
freely (Van Zyl & Van Huyssteen, 1980b). In fact, the daily wind run measured in
the middle of the work row at bunch height was 27.6 km/d under a slanting trellis,
as opposed to 15.9 km/day for a vertical trellis.
TABLE 2.1. Effect of canopy structure on leaf area, mean shading of the soil surface per day,
mean midday air temperature in the canopy, daily wind run at bunch height and seasonal ET
of micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines near Robertson (Van Zyl & Van Huyssteen, 1980a).
Trellis system Leaf area Shading Mean midday Wind run ET

(m2/grapevine) (%) temperature (°C) (km/day) (mm)
Bush vine 10.21 58 26.30 31.4 404.1

Slanting trellis 13.66 87 24.86 27.6 351.3

Chapter 2
2.4.2 TRANSPIRATION
This is the process whereby the water that is absorbed by roots flows through the
grapevine and escapes through the stomata on the ad-axial side (lower side) of
leaves into the atmosphere (Fig. 2.14). At the single leaf level, transpiration rate
(mmole/m2/s) is usually measured to assess stomatal activity. In contrast, stomatal
resistance (s/cm) indicates to what extent partial stomatal closure occurs. In fact,
stomatal resistance is the reciprocal
Figure 2.14 rate, i.e. stomatal resistance
of transpiration
decreases as transpiration rate increases. It is also possible to quantify whole plant
transpiration by measuring sap flow through the grapevine trunks.
Petiole
L4 L4
L5 L5
L3 L3
L2 L2
L1
FIGURE 2.14. An example of stomata on the ad-axial side of a grapevine leaf. The square on
the left indicates the area where the specific stomata occurred (unpublished data).
Stomatal density, i.e. the number of stomata per unit leaf area, differs between
cultivars, irrespective of the locality. Furthermore, stomatal density is lower at
localities where the air temperatures are higher during the three months following
budbreak as discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.5. This adaption is probably to
reduce transpiration under warm, dry conditions. Stomatal density also appears
to be a function of the water supply to grapevines. In this regard, it was reported
that the stomatal density of Pinotage/99 R subjected to water constraints under
greenhouse conditions amounted to 109.5±6.2 pores per mm 2, compared
to 95.7±6.2 per mm2 of frequently irrigated grapevines (Serra et al., 2013).
Furthermore, guard cell lengths of the stomata were 13.5±0.24 µm and 12.6±0.24
µm for grapevines with, and without, water constraints, respectively. In contrast to
the temperature effect, it seems that grapevines experiencing water constraints
may have more stomata to enhance a possible cooling effect.
2.4.2.1 FACTORS THAT AFFECT TRANSPIRATION

2.4.2.1.1 Viticultural aspects
Plant spacing: If the inter-row spacing is reduced, more grapevines can be planted
per hectare which will increase the leaf area concomitantly. For example, if the plant
spacing of grapevines bearing 9 m2 leaf area is 3 m × 1.5 m, the leaf area will be

20 000 m2 per hectare. If the row width is reduced to 2.5 m, the leaf area will be
24 000 m2 per hectare, i.e. 20% more. If the spacing in the row is reduced, e.g.
from 1.5 m to 1.2 m, the number of grapevines per hectare will also increase.
However, the leaf area per grapevine usually decreases as the cordon length
decreases. Therefore, the leaf area per unit row length will tend to remain the same.
This implies that row width will have a more pronounced effect on leaf area per
hectare than spacing in the grapevine rows.
Leaf area per grapevine: The volume of water that is lost due to transpiration at a
certain stage is largely determined by the amount of leaves per grapevine (Fig.
2.15). Over-irrigation and/or -fertilization, particularly excessive nitrogen, causes
vigorous grapevine growth which increases leaf area. In such cases, vigorous
growth will definitely increase transpiration due to higher leaf area (Fig. 2.16A).
Leaves on sucker shoots will also cause unnecessary transpiration losses, and
should therefore be removed as soon as possible (Fig. 2.16B).
500
Leaf area = 3.2 m2/grapevine
Sap flow rate (m/grapevine/h)
Leaf area = 9.6 m2/grapevine

400 Leaf area = 13.7 m2/grapevine
Overcast
300
200
100
0
01 Dec
03 Dec 02 Dec
04 Dec 05 Dec
Date
FIGURE 2.15. Transpiration based on sap flow rates through three grapevines having
different leaf areas (Myburgh, 2016).
A B
FIGURE 2.16. Examples where (A) too vigorous vegetative growth and (B) sucker shoots
may cause unnecessary transpiration losses.

Chapter 2
Grapevine training system: Due to the sprawling vegetative growth of untrained

grapevines (bush vines), more leaves are exposed to the sun over the course of
the day (Fig. 2.17A). Therefore, more water will transpire, compared to trellised
grapevines with comparable leaf area, since leaves on the periphery of the
canopies of trellised grapevines are partially shaded for a certain part of the day
(Fig. 2.17B). Obviously, the extent of the shading, and the subsequent transpiration
reduction, will depend on the row direction.
A B
FIGURE 2.17. Over the course of the day, outer leaf layers of un-trellised grapevines (A) are
more exposed to solar radiation, compared to those on vertical trellises (B).
Canopy orientation: As mentioned above, leaves on the periphery of grapevine

canopies on a vertical trellis are partially in the shade for a certain period of the
day (Fig. 2.18). Consequently, less leaves will be exposed to radiation, compared
to grapevines on horizontal trellises. When canopies of equal total leaf area on
vertical and horizontal trellises are compared, the vertical canopies would lose
less water through transpiration (Fig. 2.19). Grapevines on the horizontal trellis will
extract more water from the soil under the same conditions. The amount of water
lost during a day from small vertical trained grapevines is ca. 1 to 2  per day
and between 3 to 4  per day on larger VSP systems. On large horizontal training
systems, transpiration may be up to 8  per grapevine per day. For a vineyard
planted at 2.75 m × 1.2 m, and with a transpiration rate of 6  per day, the extraction
of water from soil by transpiration can therefore be calculated as 6  ÷ 1.2 m ÷
2.75 m = 1.8 mm water per day. The extent of the shading, and the subsequent
transpiration reduction, will depend on the row direction.

Figure
Figure 2.18
2.18
A B
FIGURE 2.18. Over the course of the day, outer leaf layers of (A) grapevines with horizontal
canopies are more exposed to solar radiation, compared to (B) ones with vertical canopies.
7
Horizontal canopies: y = 0.328x + 0.195
( n = 3 7 ; R 2 = 0 .9 0 1 0 ; s. e. = 0 .6 3 ; p < 0 .0 0 1 )
6 Vertical canopies: y = 0.185x + 0.016
( n = 3 8 ; R 2 = 0 .8 7 3 0 ; s. e. = 0 .3 5 ; p < 0 .0 0 1 )
Sap flow ( grapevine d)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
2
Leaf area (m /grapevine)
FIGURE 2.19. The effect of canopy orientation and leaf area per grapevine on the daily
transpiration of grapevines (Myburgh, 2016).
Crop load per grapevine: The amount of fruit on a grapevine will not make a
significant difference to the water use of the grapevine. Research has shown that
the transpiration tempo did not change after the removal of the grapes shortly
before harvest (Myburgh, 1996). Furthermore, it was calculated that the volume
of water accumulated in the bunches of a 40 t/ha crop at harvest amounts to ca.
6 mm of water. Since the latter only amounts to fractions of a millimetre per day,
the water required by the bunches is therefore practically insignificant, compared
to the volume of water lost by daily transpiration. Since transpiration by grapes is
insignificantly small, the berries per se are unlikely to cause excessive transpiration

Chapter 2
losses. However, in the case of grapevines bearing high crop loads, crop reduction
may indirectly increase ET (Table 2.2). It is hypothesised that more water is being
absorbed and stored during the night in high crop loads, compared to grapevines
bearing lower crop loads (Van Zyl, 1987). During daytime, water stored in the
7
high crop load flows into the transpiration stream, thereby reducing the soil water
content more rapidly,
6 compared to grapevines bearing fewer bunches.
TABLE 2.2. The effect of crop load on yield, the difference in SWC during a 27 day drying
Sap flow ( grapevine d)
5
cycle and mean daily ET of Colombar near Robertson in the Breede River valley (adapted
from Van Zyl, 1987).
4
Crop load (%) Yield (t/ha) ΔSWC (mm) ET (mm/d)
100 3 39.4 67.2 5.5
75 27.8 64.1 2.4
2
50 19.9 52.9 2.0
– 1 – LSD = 11.2 (p ≤ 0.05) –
2.4.2.1.2 Edaphic
0 factors
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Atmospheric conditions: Stomatal opening
Leaf is, amongst other things, induced by
area (m2/grapevine)
solar radiation. Therefore, transpiration occurs mainly during the day. Overcast
conditions and fog during the day (Fig. 2.20) will also have a significant effect by
reducing transpiration due to partial stomatal closure, irrespective of leaf area per
grapevine (Fig. 2.15).
A B C
FIGURE 2.20. Optimal transpiration will occur under sunny skies (A) compared to clouds (B)
and fog (C) that will induce partial stomatal closure, thereby reducing vineyard transpiration.
Soil water status: The decline in grapevine transpiration as the soil dries out is well
documented. In sandy soil, transpiration will decrease more rapidly, compared
to soil with a higher water holding capacity (Fig. 2.21). In the case of field grown
Colombar/99 R near Robertson in the Breede River Valley region, the effect of soil
water deficits on stomatal resistance of sunlit leaves became more prominent in
the afternoon, compared to earlier in the day (Table 2.3). Stomatal resistance of
shaded leaves followed the same trend. Due to partial stomatal closure, shading
increased the stomatal resistance, compared to sunlit leaves except around noon,
irrespective of the level of plant available water depletion. Higher soil water content

due to irrigation increased transpiration rate of Pinot noir grapevines, compared
to no irrigation (Table 2.4). It must be noted that this trend only occurred where
the soil preparation depth was 80 cm or less. In the deeper soil, the higher plant Figure 2.21
available water was probably sufficient to allow transpiration at a similar rate as the
irrigated grapevines (Table 2.3). These results emphasize the benefit of deep soil
preparation to create well-developed root systems that can absorb adequate water.
40 40
A
35 35 PWP
Stomatal resistance (s/cm)

30 30
PWP FC
25 25
20 20
15 15
Figure 2.21
10 10
5 5
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 6 8 10 1
Soil water content (mass%)
40
A B
35 PWP FC
30
FC
25
20
15
10
0
4 16 18 20 22 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
nt (mass%) Soil water content (mass%)
FIGURE 2.21. Relationship between stomatal resistance of Colombar/99 R grapevines and

soil water content (A) in sandy soil near Robertson and (B) in a sandy loam soil in a pot
experiment (Van Zyl, 1984). Vertical lines indicate FC and PWP.

Chapter 2
TABLE 2.3. Effect of PAW and leaf exposure on stomatal resistance of Colombar/99 R
grapevines measured during berry ripening on 4 February 1982 near Robertson in the Breede
River Valley (adapted from Van Zyl, 1987).
Leaf Level of PAW Stomatal resistance (cm/s)

exposure depletion (%)
10:00 12:00 14:00
Sunlit 10% 2.0 a* 2.5 a 3.0 a

75% 2.5 ab 9.0 ab 16.5 b
Shaded 10% 3.5 b 5.0 ab 18.5 b
75% 7.5 c 13.5 b 35.0 c
* Values followed by the same letter within a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
TABLE 2.4. Effect of weekly irrigation and PAW per soil preparation depth (mm/cm) on
transpiration of young Pinot noir/99 R grapevines in a gravelly soil measured around noon
prior to harvest in the 1987/88 season near Stellenbosch (Myburgh et al., 1996).
Treatment Transpiration (mmole/m2/s)
17.6 mm/40 cm 35.7 mm/80 cm 54.2 mm/120 cm
Non-irrigated 2.75 b* 4.93 b 5.53 a

Irrigated weekly 6.36 a 7.17 a 6.78 a
2.4.3 EFFECT OF WETTED SOIL VOLUME ON

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
As discussed above, the total water use of vineyards consists of transpiration and
evaporation from the soil surface. In the case of full surface wetting, e.g. under
micro-sprinklers, overhead sprinklers or flood irrigation, ET is basically the sum
of soil evaporation over the full surface plus grapevine transpiration. However,
sometimes confusion exists around ET when the total soil surface is being wetted,
compared to fractional wetting. This section is aimed at explaining what happens
to ET if only a fraction of the soil is wetted. Typical examples of fractional wetting
are drip and furrow irrigation (Fig. 2.22). The substantial difference in wetted area
between micro-sprinkler and drip irrigation is illustrated in Figure 2.23.

A B
FIGURE 2.22. In the case of (A) drip and (B) furrow irrigation, water evaporates primarily
from the relatively small wetted fraction of the soil surface.
FIGURE 2.23. Grapevines in the foreground were irrigated by means of micro-sprinklers,

whereas those in the background were drip irrigated at the same time.
The effect of fractional surface wetting will be explained by means of schematic

diagrams. First, it must be noted the soil water content is seen as the depth of water,
e.g. mm per meter of root depth, and that 1 mm = 10 m3 = 10 000  per ha. The
depth of water in mm, lost by evaporation from containers of different diameters, will
not differ (Fig. 2.24). Likewise, the depth of water in mm, lost by Es from a vineyard,
will not be influenced by the size of the wetted soil area. This means that, under the
same conditions, the same depth of water will be lost from 1 hectare as from 0.25
hectare. However, the volume of water evaporating from the smaller wetted area will
be substantially less, compared to full surface wetting (Fig. 2.24).
On the other hand, if a given volume of water is removed from containers with the
same height, but differing in diameter, the water level will decrease much less in a
wider container, compared to one having a smaller diameter (Fig. 2.25). Vineyards
trained onto the same trellis system and with the same leaf area will transpire the
same volume of water, i.e. if none of them experience serious water constraints.
Therefore, the water extracted by transpiration from a large wetted soil volume will
reduce the mm soil water content less than extraction from a small wetted volume

Chapter 2
Evaporation Evaporation
A B
15 mm
evaporated
45 mm
60 mm remains
per root
depth
100% Wetting 25% Wetting

Volume evaporated per ha Volume evaporated per ha
= 100 m × 100 m × 0.015 m = 100 m × 100 m × 0.015 m × 25%
= 150 m3 = 37.5 m3
= 150 000  = 37 500 
FIGURE 2.24. Schematic representation where the same depth of water is lost from the soil
via surface evaporation from (A) full surface and (B) partially wetted soil volumes.
Figure 2.25
(Fig. 2.25). It must be noted that the volume of water lost by transpiration is usually
considerably less than the volume of water lost through Es. However, the difference
between Es and transpiration volumes will decrease as the rate of Es declines when
the soil surface layers becomes drier following rainfall or irrigation as illustrated in
Figure 2.6.
AA Transpiration B Transpiration
100% Wetting 25% Wetting

Volume transpired per ha Volume transpired per ha
= 3 333 grapevines × 2  = 3 333 grapevines × 2 
= 6 667 /ha/day = 6 667 /ha/day
FIGURE 2.25. Schematic illustration of soil water depletion where the same volume of water
is removed by transpiration from (A) full surface and (B) fractional wetted soil volumes.
Calculations are based on a plant spacing of 1.2 m × 2.5 m, and that daily transpiration was
2  per grapevine.

If transpiration is assumed to be 2  per grapevine per day, the volume of
transpired water can be converted to mm as follows:
mm transpired = ( ÷ plant spacing) × (100 ÷ fw) Eq. 2.3
where the plant spacing is (m × m) and fw is the wetted soil fraction (%). Therefore,
0.7 mm of water was extracted by transpiration when the grapevine spacing is 2.5
m × 1.2 m, and the full soil surface was wetted (Fig. 2.26A). If we assume that 5
mm is lost during the same day due to soil evaporation, the total water extraction
would be 0.7 mm + 5 mm = 5.7 mm. In other words, the soil water content will
decrease by 5.7 mm. If only 25% of the soil surface is wetted, the 2  used for
transpiration will be extracted from a smaller soil volume. According to Equation
2.3, transpiration will extract a depth of 2.8 mm soil water from the wetted volume if
the grapevine spacing is also 2.5 m × 1.2 m (Fig. 2.26B). If we assume that 5 mm
is lost during the same day due to soil evaporation, the total water extraction from
the smaller volume would be 2.8 mm + 5 mm = 7.8 mm. In other words, the soil
water content will decrease by 7.8 mm. If the latter water use is based on the total
soil surface, it would only be ca. 1.4 mm per day, which is appreciably less than 5.7
mm in the case of the total soil surface being wetted. The foregoing illustrates the
dramatic effect of reduced evaporation losses from the soil on vineyard water use
in the case of fractional surface wetting. In practical terms, it means that the volume
of water evaporating in the case of fractional wetting is much less, compared to
full surface wetting.

Chapter 2
Figure 2.26
• 2  T ranspiration/ grapevine = 0.7 mm soil water depletion

• Surface evaporation = 5 mm soil water depletion
• T otal soil water depletion = 0.7 + 5 = 5.7 mm/ day
B
B
• 2  T ranspiration/ grapevine = 2.8 mm soil water depletion

• Surface evaporation = 5 mm soil water depletion
• T otal soil water depletion in wetted zone = 2.8 + 5 = 7.8 mm/ day
• T otal soil water depletion based on full surface = 7.8  ÷ 4 = 1.4 mm/ day
FIGURE 2.26. Schematic illustration of evapotranspiration on the difference in soil water

depletion where (A) 100% and (B) 25% of the soil volume is wetted. Calculations are based
on a plant spacing of 2.5 m × 1.2 m.
In practice, the combined effects of evaporation and transpiration will determine

the rate of soil water depletion by grapevines. Therefore, in drip irrigated vineyards
the soil water in the smaller wetted volumes will be depleted much quicker,
compared to micro-sprinkler irrigated vineyards (Fig. 2.27). However, the overall
effect of evaporation losses dominate to such an extent that the ET of drip irrigated
vineyards will be considerably less over the growing season, compared to micro-
sprinkler irrigated vineyards under the same conditions (Fig. 2.28). It must be noted
that the effect of fractional wetting on ET is more pronounced in summer than in
winter. This trend is primarily due to the effect of warmer atmospheric conditions
in summer on evaporation losses from the soil, compared to winter.

13 October 14 October 15 October 16 October 17 October
00
-0 1
-0 2
-0 3
ψm (MPa)
-0 4
-0 5 Drip irrigation
Micro-sprinkler irrigation
-0 6
-0 7 Irrigation Irrigation
-0 8
FIGURE 2.27. Effect of irrigation with drippers and micro-sprinklers, respectively, on the rate
of soil water extraction in a vineyard as determined by measuring Ψm hourly during the day
by means of tensiometers (Myburgh, 2012a).
Figure 2.28
10
Drip irrigation
9
Micro-sprinkler irrigation
8
7
ET (mm/d)
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
FIGURE 2.28. Mean daily ET of grapevines that were irrigated with drippers and micro-
sprinklers, respectively, near Augrabies in the Lower Orange River region (Myburgh, 2012a).

Chapter 2

The water use of vineyards is part of the evapotranspiration component of the
Earth’s hydrological cycle. Together with climate, the hydrological cycle determines
whether rainfall will be adequate for sustainable viticulture, or if irrigation is required
to sustain optimal grapevine functioning. Evaporation from the soil and transpiration
are the two most important components of vineyard water use. Various factors
affect these processes, for example, the effect of prevailing atmospheric conditions
on transpiration, or the effect of soil texture on evaporation. However, growers
cannot readily control these factors. On the other hand, growers can manage
excessive vegetative growth in order to avoid unnecessary transpiration losses.
Likewise, organic mulches can reduce evaporation from the soil surface. Since
fractional soil wetting has a huge impact on the volume of water that evaporates
from the soil, drip irrigation requires less water than micro-sprinklers. However,
depending on the soil texture and root depth, drip irrigated vineyards will require
smaller, but more frequent irrigations than vineyards under micro-sprinklers.

Chapter 3
Water
related
soil
properties
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Plant root systems absorb water containing dissolved nutrients from the soil
via the fine hair roots. Consequently, the soil’s ability to absorb, conduct,
store and lose water are important considerations when it comes to practical
irrigation management for sustainable wine production. Naturally, soils may differ
substantially within a region, or even within a vineyard block. The soil variation will
have an impact on the way irrigation needs to be managed with respect to irrigation
intervals, volumes of water per irrigation, etc. Therefore, it is necessary to know,
and understand, the different soil properties that are related to water. Since the
other water related soil properties are all related to soil texture, it is one of the most
important soil properties, as will be discussed below.
3.2 TEXTURE
Texture refers to the size distribution of the particles smaller than 2 mm in diameter
that constitute the solid component of soils. The latter can be separated into
clay, silt and sand. The sand fraction is further separated into fine, medium and
coarse sand. Soil texture can be classified into various classes according to the
percentages of the particles present in a soil sample. The percentages are referred
to as the particle size distribution. Furthermore, soil texture triangles can be used
to determine the nature of the sand (Fig. 3.1A), as well as the soil textural class
(Fig. 3.1B). Determining particle size distribution for accurate texture classification
is a tedious process, and needs to be carried out by soil laboratories. However,
soil texture can also be classified according to the physical appearance and
properties when the soil is manipulated by hand in a certain way (Fig. 3.2). Such
“hand” texture classifications are commonly used, particularly when soils are being
mapped. With a bit of experience, hand classification can provide fairly accurate
textural classes rapidly at a low cost.
54 CHAPTER 3 – WATER RELATED SOIL PROPERTIES

Figure 3.1 Figure 3.1
Chapter 3
coarseA sand 2.0 - 0.5 mm coarse sand 2.0 - 0.5 mm

medium sand 0.5 - 0.25 mm 100 medium sand 0.5 - 0.25 mm
100
fine + very fine sand 0.25 mm - 0.05 mm fine + very fine sand 0.25 mm - 0.05 mm
90 10 90 10
80 20 80 20
fine sand fine sand
70 30 70 30
60 40 60 40
50 50 50 50
6040 60
medium
coarse sand medium
sand coarse sand
70 sand
30 70
80
20 80
90
10 90
100
0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 100
100
% COARSE SAND 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10
% COARSE SAND
B sand 2.0 - 0.05 mm

100 silt 0.05 - 0.002 mm sand 2.0
clay <0.002 mm silt 0.05
100
90 10 clay
80 20 90 10
70 30
80 20
clay
60 40 70 30
clay
50 silty 50 60 40
sandy clay
40 clay 60 50 silty
clay loam sandy clay clay
sandy
30 sandy clay loam 40
70 clay
loam clay loam sandy c
20 loam
loam 30 80sandy clay
silt loam loam
sandy loam
sand10 loamy 20 90 loam
pure sand silt silt lo
sand sandy loam
10 100
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 sand30 20 10
loamy
pure sand sand
% SAND
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
FIGURE 3.1. Soil texture triangles used in South Africa to determine (A) the sand grade, as
% SAND
well as (B) the soil textural class (Soil Classification Working Group, 1991).

Figure 3.2
ca. 2.5 cm diam.
soil at the sticky
point
Textural class Comments
N Sand Sandy feel. Hardly adheres to fingers.
Forms a cohesive
ball? (S)
Y
Y
Ball falls apart Loamy sand Very sandy feel. Very little adhesion
easily (LS) to fingers, but more than pure sand.
N
N
Ball roll into short,
thick cylinder?
Y
N Y
Ball rolls into Sandy feel Sandy loam Sandy feel. Adheres to at least one
thread? predominates? (SL) finger. Not soapy or sticky. Readily
worked.
Y N
Y N
Silky/soapy feel Very silky/soapy Silty loam Soapier feel than SL, but not as
predominates? feel? (Z L) smooth and or less readily worked as
Z . Adheres to at least one finger.
N Y
Silt Rare as a texture. Silky/soapy feel
(Z )
Thread bends into N Loam No predominating feel. Roughly

U? (L) equal quantities of S, Z & C. Adheres
to finger and thumb. Readily worked.
Y N
N Y
Is the “U” Significantly silky/ Significantly sandy Sand clay loam Moderately silky and sandy feel.
cracked? soapy feel? feel? (SCL) Adheres to finger and thumb.
Y
N Y
Thread rolls into a Silt clay loam Moderately sticky with soapy feel.
ring? N (Z CL) Adheres to finger and thumb.
Moderately stiff workability.
Y
Y
Is the ring Y Significantly silky/ Clay loam Stickier and harder to work. Less
cracked? soapy feel? (CL) soapy than Z CL and less sandy than
SCL. Adheres to finger and thumb.
N
Significantly sandy Y Sandy clay Sticky with sandy feel. Takes a rough
feel? (SC) polish. Stiff to work.
N
Significantly silky/ Y Silty clay Very sticky with silty soapy feel.
soapy feel? (Z C) Takes a polish. Stiff workability.
N
Clay Extremely sticky and difficult to
(C) work.
Sticky point: Moisture content at which dry soil being wetted just Cylinder: Approx. 5 cm long and 2.5 cm diameter.
begins to adheres to fingers.
Thread: Approx. 13 cm long and 0.6 cm diameter.
Workability: Ease with which the soil can be moulded between the Ring: Approx. 2.5 cm diameter formed from about 8 cm of thread as
fingers. Because consistency varies greatly with moisture, samples described above.
must be properly and uniformly wetted up.
FIGURE 3.2. A hand identification chart for soil texture analysis as proposed by Northcliff
and Lang (redrawn from Rowell, 1994).
If the soil texture is more or less homogeneous within the profile, it will not
impede root development and distribution (Fig. 3.3). However, physical and/or
chemical limitations such as compaction or low pH in the subsoil will restrict root
development, although the texture is fairly homogeneous (Fig. 3.4). Where these
limitations occur, it must be ameliorated by deep soil preparation before a vineyard
is planted. This will ensure deep, well-developed root systems.

Chapter 3
A B
FIGURE 3.3. Examples of well-developed grapevine root systems in soils where the texture
is more or less homogenous throughout the profile near (A) Stellenbosch and (B) Robertson.
A B
FIGURE 3.4. Examples where compact subsoils limit grapevine root systems near (A)
Lutzville and (B) Groblershoop.
In some cases, soil texture may vary considerably within the profile. This will have a
limiting effect on root development and distribution, and subsequently, the availability
of water and nutrients. Root penetration, or root depth, will be restricted where light
textured topsoil overlies heavy clay (Fig. 3.5). These so-called duplex soils commonly
occur in the Coastal region of the Western Cape. In its natural state, the clay is
generally too hard, or compact for roots to penetrate. The subsoil must be loosened
by deep tillage to allow root penetration. Since the clays are generally unstable, it
will slake if the soil is mixed in such a way that the subsoil lands on the surface. The
slaked clay will cause poor infiltration and/or runoff. Therefore, the right implement,
e.g. a finger plough, should be used to prepare duplex soils. Grapevine roots are
unlikely to grow from a heavier textured layer down into one that has a lighter texture,
i.e. even if there are no limitations. This occurs merely because the water availability
is higher in the heavier layer. These inverted textural layers commonly occur in alluvial
soils (Fig. 3.6). In order to allow deep root development, these alluvial soil layers need
to be mixed thoroughly before planting.

A B
FIGURE 3.5. Examples of soils where heavy clay in the subsoil restricts grapevine root
development near (A) Stellenbosch and (B) Wellington.
FIGURE 3.6. An example of a layered alluvial soil near De Doorns where layers of different
texture will limit root distribution.

Chapter 3
3.3 BULK DENSITY

Density refers to the mass of a substance per unit volume, e.g. g/cm3 or kg/m3. In
soils, particle density is the mass of solid particles per unit volume. The solid particles
do not contain pores and their density is determined by the nature of the dominant
mineral. Mean particle density for 71 soil samples collected all over the wine growing
regions was 2.65±0.03 g/cm3 (Van Huyssteen, 1989). The small standard deviation
from the mean value implies that the particle density does not vary substantially
between these soils. Since quartz has a particle density of 2.65 g/cm3, it means that
it is the dominant mineral in most vineyard soils. Soil bulk density refers to the soil
mass, i.e. including the pores, per unit volume. Therefore, bulk density is lower than
particle density for a specific soil. Bulk density is used to describe the compactness
of soil. For soils in the wine growing regions, a bulk density of 1.4 g/cm3 is considered
to be loose, whereas 1.8 g/cm3 means that the soil is severely compact, and may
impede root penetration (Van Huyssteen, 1989 and references therein). In fact, it was
previously reported that grapevine root development progressively declined as the
bulk density in the subsoil increased (Fig. 3.7).
60
Root mass (g/grapevine)
50
40
30
20
10 y = -91 714x + 180 19

R² = 0 9863
0
13 14 15 16 17 18
3
b (g/cm )
FIGURE 3.7. The relationship between root mass of potted Chenin blanc/99 R grapevines
and ρb in the subsoil (after Van Huyssteen, 1989).
3.4 WATER CONTENT

Soil water occurs in the pores between the solid particles. If the soil is saturated, all
the pores are filled with water. At saturation, the water in the coarse pores drains
rapidly due to gravity. The SWC at which the rapid drainage stops is referred to
as field capacity. Following this, the soil loses water via evaporation or absorption
by roots. As the soil dries out, the water is replaced by air. Since less energy is
required, water will first be absorbed from the bigger pores. As the soil becomes

drier, the water that remains in the smaller pores are held tighter by increasing
capillary forces. The capillary force will increase upon further drying until the water
is held so tight that roots cannot absorb it. This soil water content is referred to as
permanent wilting point.
Soil water content can be expressed as mass of water per unit mass of oven dry
soil. This ratio is referred to as gravimetric soil water fraction (ϴm). This ratio can
be multiplied by 100 to obtain mass% soil water content. Soil water content can
also be expressed as volume of water per unit volume of soil, and is referred to as
volumetric soil water fraction (ϴv). The latter can be calculated as follows:
ϴv = (ϴm) x ρb Eq. 3.1
where ρb is in g/cm . The ϴv value is multiplied by 100 to obtain volume% soil
3
water content. With respect to irrigation management, the SWC must preferably be
expressed as mm per soil depth. This can be calculated as follows:
SWC = ϴv x 100 x d Eq. 3.2
where d is in decimeter (1 dm = 10 cm). For example, if ϴv is 0.12 in a 30 cm deep
soil layer, the SWC = 0.12 x 100 x 3 = 36 mm. Details of measuring soil water
content are discussed in Chapter 8.
3.5 MATRIC POTENTIAL

The Ψm refers to the capillary forces that bind soil water in the pores. Therefore, Ψm
is a measure of the energy that grapevine roots must exert in order to absorb water
from the pores in the soil. Since the water in the pores is held under suction, or
negative pressure, Ψm has a negative value. Consequently, Ψm is usually expressed
as -kPa or -MPa. Matric potential is commonly measured by means of tensiometers
as an indicator of soil water status for irrigation scheduling purposes. Details of
measuring Ψm are discussed in Chapter 8.
3.6 SOIL WATER CHARACTERISTIC CURVES

Soil water characteristic curves describe the relationship between soil water
content and matric potential. Therefore, it indicates the concomitant decrease
in soil water content and matric potential as the soil becomes drier. Soil water
characteristic curves determined by means of undisturbed soil cores in high
pressure pots are usually more accurate than in situ measurements. Soil cores
are extracted from soil profiles in the field using a specifically designed auger so
that each core is retained in a brass cylinder (Fig. 3.8A). The soil cores are placed
onto ceramic plates inside the pots, and then subjected to a range of increasing
pressures (Fig. 3.8B). As soon as the water outflow at a given pressure stops, the
soil cores are weighed to determine the water content at that specific pressure.
The initial pressure is usually 2.5 kPa, and the process is repeated up to a pressure
of 1 500 kPa, which is equivalent to permanent wilting point. Since determining

Chapter 3
the water holding capacity up to PWP is a time consuming procedure, the water
holding capacity is only determined to 100 kPa in commercial laboratories.
For many vineyard soils, it is the range where most of the plant available water
occurs. Since water can be readily absorbed by grapevine roots in this range, it
is referred to as readily available water. A soil water characteristic curve is then
calculated by plotting soil water content against pressure (Fig. 3.9).
A B
FIGURE 3.8. Undisturbed soil cores in brass rings (A) and high pressure pots (B) used to
determine soil water characteristic curves in the laboratory.
140
Sandy loam
Soil water content (mm/30 cm)
120
Coarse sand
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
m (-kPa)
FIGURE 3.9. Examples of laboratory determined soil water characteristic curves for two
differently textured soils.
It is sometimes impractical to extract undisturbed soil cores from gravelly or loose

soil. As an alternative, soil water characteristic curves can be determined in situ.
Figure 3.10
Soil water characteristic curves can be obtained by measuring soil water content

50
45
Sandy loam
Coarse sand
and Ψm simultaneously (Fig. 3.10). Due to the limited Ψm range that tensiometers
can measure, the in situ soil water characteristic curves are limited to ca. -70 kPa.
However, computer software can be used to fit a regression model to the data.
Figure 3.10
The regression model can be used to calculate the soil water content at -100 kPa,
or even lower Ψm.
50
A 45

40
35
30
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
25
m (-kPa)
20
15
10
Figure 3.10 5
0
0
50
45 B
40
35
30
25
20
y = 43 77x-0 368
R² = 0 8204
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
m (-kPa)
FIGURE 3.10. Due to the gravelly nature of the weathered gneiss soil (A), the soil water
characteristic curve (B) had to be determined in situ.

Chapter 3
3.7 WATER HOLDING CAPACITY

Similar to a sponge, the soil can absorb and retain water. Water holding capacity
designates the ability of a soil to hold water that is available to plants. It is useful
information for irrigation scheduling and to determine when grapevines will begin
to experience water constraints. The water holding capacity, or RAW, is calculated
as the difference between SWC at FC and -100 kPa, respectively (Fig. 3.11).
Experience has shown that FC is ca. -5 kPa for sandy and -10 kPa for heavier soils
in the wine growing regions. To determine the water holding capacity for the soil
profile, the available water in each horizon must be determined separately, and
then added together.
140
Sandy loam
120
Coarse sand
100
SWC (mm/30 cm)
RAW = 26 mm
80
60
40
20 RAW = 16 mm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
m (-kPa)
FIGURE 3.11. Soil water characteristic curves, i.e. the relationship between SWC and Ψm,
for two differently textured soils. For the sandy loam soil, RAW is between -10 and -100 kPa,
whereas RAW for the coarse sand is between -5 and -100 kPa.
In the case of sandy soils, the water holding capacity depends on the sand grade,
i.e. whether it consists of fine, medium or coarse sand. Fine sand usually has
higher water holding capacity than coarse sand (Fig. 3.12). The fine, red sand,
which occurs in the Lower Olifants River region, is wind-blown material, whereas
the coarse, light coloured sand is alluvial material near De Doorns. It is interesting
to note that the water holding capacity of the fine sand is comparable to the sandy
loam soil shown
40 in Figure 3.11.
Fine sand
Coarse sand
35
30

m/30 cm)
25
20
40
Fine sand
Coarse sand
35
30
SWC (mm/30 cm)
25
20 RAW = 28 mm
RAW = 16 mm
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
m (-kPa)
FIGURE 3.12. Soil water characteristic curves i.e. the relationship between SWC and Ψm, for
two sandy soils. For both soils, RAW is between -5 and -100 kPa.
Water holding capacity can also be estimated from soil texture (http://passel.unl.edu/
pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1130447039&topicorder=10).
Medium textured soils, i.e. fine sandy loam, silt loam and silty clay loam, have the
highest water holding capacity, while coarse soils, i.e. sand, loamy sand and sandy
loam, have the lowest water holding capacity (Table 3.1). Medium textured soils
with a blend of silt, clay and sand particles, as well as strong aggregation, create
a large number of fine pores that can hold water by means of capillary forces. Due
to the high sand content and very little silt and clay, coarse soils have almost no
aggregation or fine pores that can hold water. Fine textured, clayey soils have many
fine pores that can hold water. However, the water is held tightly by capillary forces
in the fine pores making it difficult for grapevines to absorb it. Since soil texture may
vary with depth, so will water holding capacity. A duplex soil may have a sandy
surface layer with a low water holding capacity, and clayey B horizon with a higher
water holding capacity.

Chapter 3
TABLE 3.1. Water holding capacity according to soil textural class.
Soil texture Water holding capacity (mm/m)

Coarse sand 20-65
Fine sand 65-85
Loamy sand 90-100
Sandy loam 105-115
Fine sandy loam 125-165
Silt loam 165-210
Silty clay loam 150-165
Silty clay 125-140
Clay 100-140
3.8 INFILTRATION RATE

The movement of water into soil is called infiltration. Since water enters the soil
via pores, it is related to the soil texture, particularly the clay content (Fig. 3.13).
Water infiltration can be measured in the field by means of the double ring method
(http://www.fao.org/docrep/s8684e/s8684e0a.htm). The equipment consists of two
concentric stainless steel rings that are knocked into the soil (Fig. 3.14). Water is
supplied to both rings. The purpose of the water in the outer ring is to minimize
lateral flow from the inner ring. The water level in the inner ring is kept constant by
means of a Mariotte tube in the container from which the water is siphoned. The
infiltration rate is calculated from the volume of water that flows from the container
over a certain time interval that will depend on the infiltration rate. Since the quality
of the water, e.g. salt content, can affect the rate of infiltration, it is essential to use
water from the same source as the irrigation water for infiltration measurements.
60
50
(i)
Infiltration rate (m/h)
40
30
20
(ii) y = 27.245x-0.847 (R2 = 0.991)

10
(iii)
(iv)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Clay (%)
FIGURE 3.13. Relationship between constant head water infiltration and clay content
measured in (i) aeolian sand from Lutzville and (ii) alluvial sand from Rawsonville, as well as
(iii) granitic and (iv) shale-derived soils from Stellenbosch (unpublished data).

FIGURE 3.14. Measuring infiltration rate in a vineyard near Vredendal by means of the
constant head, double ring method.
Water infiltration rates can be near zero for compacted soils, or well in excess
of 100 mm/h for well aggregated soils. Soil conditions, particularly sodicity, may
reduce water infiltration (Myburgh & Howell, 2012b). Low infiltration rates lead to
ponding on nearly level ground. In vineyards, infiltration problems are aggravated
by compaction on the wheel track (Fig. 3.15). Low infiltration rates also result
in water runoff on sloping ground, and may cause soil erosion. Therefore, poor
infiltration generally causes inefficient use of irrigation water. In this regard, it is
important that the application rate of the irrigation system does not exceed the
water infiltration rate. Organic matter, particularly crop residues and decaying roots,
promotes aggregation so that larger soil pores develop, allowing water to infiltrate
more readily (Fig. 3.16).
3.9 PERMEABILITY
The downward movement of water within the soil is called percolation or permeability.
Similar to infiltration, this flow rate depends on the pore space in the soil. Therefore,
permeability also varies with soil texture and structure (http://passel.unl.edu/
pages/informationmodule.php?idinformationmodule=1130447039&topicorder=10).
Permeability is generally rated from very rapid to very slow (Table 3.2). This is the
mechanism by which water reaches the subsoil and rooting depth of plants. It
also refers to the movement of water below the root zone. Water that percolates
deep into the soil may reach a perched water table or groundwater aquifer. If the
percolating water carries chemicals such as nitrates or pesticides, these water
reservoirs may become contaminated.

Chapter 3
FIGURE 3.15. An example of poor irrigation water infiltration caused by compaction in the
wheel track in a vineyard near Stellenbosch. Figure 3.16
800
700
Infiltration rate (mm/h)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Control Furrows + Root pruning Root puning +
compost compost
FIGURE 3.16. Effect of compost placed in furrows and covered with soil, as well as compost
incorporated during root pruning into the soil by means of a small excavator, compared to a
control and root pruning without compost on water infiltration in the work rows in a vineyard
near Stellenbosch (Moffat, 2017).

TABLE 3.2. Classification of downward water permeability through soils.
Permeability class Permeability rate (mm/h)

Very rapid >254
Rapid 125-255
Moderately rapid 65-125
Moderate 20-65
Moderately slow 5-20
Slow 1-5
Very slow <1
3.10 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY

Hydraulic conductivity designates the soil’s ability to conduct water through its pore
network. In contrast to permeability where only downward flow is considered, K is
applicable to soil water in more dimensions, i.e. downward, lateral and upward flow.
Saturation hydraulic conductivity usually occurs following heavy rainfall or irrigation.
Similar to infiltration and permeability, Ks is high in coarse textured materials, e.g.
gravel or sand, and appreciably lower in fine textured materials, e.g. silt and clay
(Fig. 3.17). For most soil textures occurring in the wine growing regions, Ks can
Figure 3.17
be determined by means of the constant head or falling head methods. It should
be noted that these methods require special equipment and must be carried out
by skilled persons.
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY (cm/s)

Water at 20°C
101 100 10-1 10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9
Practically
CLASS High Medium Low Very low
impermeable
Fine Loess Homogenous

sand Loam Structured clay
MATERIAL Gravel Sand
clay
Sandy clay
Silt
Mixtures of sand, silt & clay
Tri-axial
Constant head cell
Falling
METHOD head
Transducer
response
10-4 10-5 10-6 10-7 10-8 10-9 10-10 10-11 10-12 10-13 10-14
FIGURE 3.17. Saturation hydraulic conductivity (Ks) of various soil materials, as well as
methods proposed for determining Ks (redrawn from Klute & Dirksen, 1986).

Chapter 3
The unsaturated conductivity is surely one of the most important soil properties,
since it determines the rate at which water flows through the soil towards the roots.
Near saturation, K is high, but falls drastically as the soil becomes drier, irrespective
of soil texture (Fig. 3.18). The reason for the decline is that water flows appreciably
slower in the finer pores. Since sandy soils contain more coarse pores than heavier
soils, K is higher in sandy soils near saturation. However, the coarse pores lose
water more rapidly than the finer pores. Consequently, the decline of K in sandy
soils is much steeper, compared to heavier soils. At a certain matric potential, K in
the sand will become lower, compared to the heavier soil. From this point onwards,
K will be lower in the sandy soil, compared to the heavier soil, although the matric
potential is the same in both soils (Fig. 3.18). The practical implication of this is
that grapevines in a sandy soil will experience more water constraints, compared
to ones in heavier soil at the same matric potential. Therefore, it is evident that
guidelines for irrigation scheduling by means of tensiometers will differ between
sandy and heavier soils. Based on the foregoing, the ideal situation would be if
grapevine water status could be related to K for different soils. Unfortunately, the
methods used to determine K are complicated and time consuming. Therefore, K
cannot be determined for soils on a routine basis by commercial laboratories. Due
to this, there is almost no K data available for soils in the grape growing regions.
10-3 Sand
10-4
Clay
(cm/sec)
10-5
10-6
K
10-7
100 200
m (-cm)
FIGURE 3.18. Examples of the relationship between K and Ψm as sand and clay dry out,
respectively (redrawn from Hillel, 2004). The vertical dashed line illustrates the similarity in K
when Ψm reaches a suction of -50 cm.
Since K is closely related to soil texture, very little can be done to improve the
unsaturated flow of water in soils, particularly in the fine pores. Where naturally
compact soil is loosened during soil preparation, the fine pores will probably

remain unchanged. On the other hand, it seems that near-saturation K increased
in the surface layer approximately two years after a 50 cm wide compost mulch
was applied on the grapevine rows (Fig. 3.19). A mini disc permeameter was used
to measure K at a suction of 0.5 cm (Fig. 3.20). Visual observations revealed that
the soil at the surface appeared more porous under the mulch, compared to the
control without mulch. It must be noted that the 16 cm thick mulch did not increase
K substantially, compared to 8 cm. Since the thicker mulch will double the cost, it
will probably not be economically viable, compared to the 8 cm mulch.
300
250
200
(mm/h)
150
K
100
50
y = 33.414x - 1.1518x2 + 30.042 (R2 = 0.9887)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Mulch thickness (cm)
FIGURE 3.19. The effect of compost mulch thickness on near-saturation K on the under-vine
bank in a vineyard near Stellenbosch (Moffat, 2017).
A B
FIGURE 3.20. Measuring near-saturation K by means of a mini disk permeameter (A) in the
laboratory and (B) in the field.

Chapter 3

Since texture is such an important soil property, it should be determined as
accurately as possible when land is being surveyed for vineyard developments.
This will allow growers to estimate water holding capacity, infiltration rate and
saturated hydraulic conductivity. With respect to irrigation, water infiltration rate is
also critical. During droughts, the limited rainfall that might occur must be able to
infiltrate into the soil. Ponding and runoff will result in poor water use efficiency of
this scarce resource. Furthermore, runoff may also cause soil erosion which can
be disastrous to the environment in terms of soil losses. It is also expensive to
reclaim land that was damaged by erosion, i.e. if at all possible. Therefore, growers
must make sure the application rate of the irrigation system does not exceed the
infiltration rate of the soil. Where the problem occurs in existing vineyards, growers
can address the problem by incorporating organic material such as compost into
the topsoil in the work rows. The positive effect of such a practice will probably
last longer than mulches which tend to decay and weather rather rapidly. Cover
crops in every work row instead of alternating rows will also reduce runoff losses
caused by poor water infiltration.
An effort should be made by research institutions to collect extensive unsaturated
hydraulic conductivity data for soils in the grape growing regions. The objective
must be to develop mathematic models for estimating the decline in K as the soil
dries out. Preferably, the inputs should be soil properties that are easier to measure
than K. Once reliable K functions are readily available, grapevine water status
can be related to the water flow in the soil. To reach this objective, the research
fraternity will need financial support from the industry for these basic studies. At
the end of the day, the rate of water supply to the roots is the most important soil
property for sustainable viticulture.

Chapter 4
Irrigation
systems
4.1 INTRODUCTION
When a grapevine absorbs water from the soil, it cannot distinguish by which
irrigation system the water was supplied. The same argument applies to rainfall.
Therefore, the irrigation system per se will not influence the physiological
functioning of grapevines. The only exception may be where the irrigation system
wets the foliage with poor quality water. This may cause damage to the foliage,
or cause the uptake of toxic elements through the leaves. Globally, 95% of all
irrigation is applied by surface irrigation, i.e. basin, furrow and border, whereas
4% is applied by means of drippers and 1% primarily by means of various types
of sprinkler systems (http://12.000.scripts.mit.edu/mission2017/irrigation/). In South
Africa, large areas of dryland (non-irrigated) vineyards were converted to irrigation
the early 1980’s. Initially, overhead sprinklers were most commonly used, but in the
early 1990’s the area under overhead sprinklers steadily declined (Fig. 4.1). On the
other hand, the area under drip irrigation consistently increased, particularly from
around 1997 until 2015. The area under micro-sprinklers also steadily increased
until 2006, whereafter a steady decline occurred (Fig. 4.1). The area under flood
irrigation reached a peak around 1990, followed by a steady decline. The afore-
mentioned trends clearly show that drip irrigation had become by far the most
popular system, compared to the other systems. In fact, most of the new wine
grape vineyards are being established under drip irrigation.
Although irrigation projects also consist of other important components, e.g.
pumps, filters and main line networks, this chapter will focus on the components
of the irrigation system used in the vineyard. It is important to note that the latter
will only function properly if the design of the entire irrigation project is up to
standard. In this regard, it is essential to consult with irrigation designers who are
accredited to the South African Irrigation Institute. It is important that irrigation
system designers use the appropriate crop coefficients for the different scenarios
as discussed in Chapter 8. In many cases, the different components of irrigation
systems are exposed to harsh conditions and/or aggressive water. Therefore, the
quality of components used for irrigation systems is another important aspect.
Ideally, all components should be tested and approved by the SABS. If equipment
is only labelled “SABS tested”, it does not necessarily imply that it was approved
72 CHAPTER 4 – IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Chapter 4
70 000
Dryland
60 000 Drippers
Micro-sprinklers
50 000 Overhead sprinklers
Flood irrigation
Area (ha)
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015
Year
FIGURE 4.1. Temporal changes in dryland viticulture, as well as irrigation systems used in
South African wine grape vineyards (Data supplied by SAWIS).
Figure 4.2
by the SABS. Poor water quality can also affect the longevity of irrigation systems.
Refer to Chapter 5 for guidelines concerning irrigation water quality, and the
management thereof.
Since irrigation water resources are generally limited, it is essential that water
losses during application should be as low as possible. In this regard, irrigation
systems inherently differ with respect to water losses while irrigations are being
applied. In fact, the so-called “irrigation system efficiency” differs considerably
between the systems used in vineyards (Table 4.1). For example, given that the
efficiency is 80% for micro-sprinklers, it means that only 80% of the water leaving
the micro-sprinkler will reach the soil surface. The 20% loss is usually caused by
evaporation as the water droplets travel through the air. These losses will increase
if high air temperature and/or strong winds prevail.
TABLE 4.1. Irrigation system efficiencies according to Ley (1994).
Irrigation system Efficiency (%)
Flood (border, rill) 45 to 60

Sprinklers - portable 60 to 70
Micro-sprinklers 75 to 85
Drip (trickle) 85 to 90
Subsurface drip 90 to 95

Irrigation amounts are most commonly indicated as mm water applied. In contrast,
irrigation volumes are expressed as m3 or M of water per unit land. The latter
is preferred in some overseas countries. It must be noted that 1 mm equals
10 m3 per ha, and that 1 M equals 1 000 m3 or 100 mm. The rate at which irrigation
water is being applied, is referred to as the precipitation rate. The latter is usually
in millimeters per hour (mm/h). Calculation of precipitation rate for the various
irrigation systems is discussed below.
4.2 SURFACE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

4.2.1 DRIP
There are basically two types of drippers, i.e. non-pressure compensating (Non-
PC) and pressure compensating (PC). Pressure in the irrigation lines may vary
according to the topography, length of the laterals, etc. Therefore, PC drippers
are preferred to ensure more even water application within an irrigation block.
Drippers can be attached to the laterals, or pre-molded drippers can be inserted
inside the laterals while they are being extruded in the factory (Fig. 4.2). The latter
are referred to as “in-line” drippers. Conventional “high” dripper discharge rates
vary from 1.6 to 4 /h. However, drippers with discharge rates of less than 1 /h are
also available. These “low flow” drippers are primarily used where permanent row
crops, e.g. citrus, are continuously irrigated during daytime. The discharge rates
most commonly used for vineyard irrigation are 3.5 to 4 /h for sandy soils and 2 to
FIGURE 4.2. Examples of a dripper attached onto the lateral (top) and the orifice of an in-
line dripper (bottom).

Chapter 4
2.3 /h for heavier soils. The spacing between drippers along the lateral lines
should be set according to the soil texture. In heavier soils, water will spread wider
under a dripper, compared to sandy or gravelly soils. Therefore, the basic principle
is that the spacing between drippers should be narrower as the soil becomes
sandier. For example, the spacing between drippers would usually be 1 m for a
clay loam soil and 0.6 m for a sandy soil.
Drip precipitation rates on the small wetted areas are substantially higher,
compared to irrigation systems where the total area is wetted, e.g. overhead
sprinklers or micro-sprinklers. Consequently, the water precipitation rate could
easily exceed the water infiltration rate of most soils. That is why water generally
accumulates in small puddles under drippers irrespective of the soil texture (Fig.
4.3). Since the puddles are usually round, and assuming that most of the water
infiltrates from the puddles into the soil, the precipitation rate under drippers can
be estimated as follows:
Precipitation rate (mm/h) = Discharge rate (/h) ÷ Area of puddle (m2) Eq. 4.1
For example, if the diameter of the puddle is 20 cm and the discharge rate of the
dripper is 3.5 /h, the precipitation rate is 3.5 /h ÷ [(22 ÷ 7) x (20 cm ÷ 2 ÷ 100)]2
= 111.4 mm/h. In the case of ridged soil, water runoff may occur under drippers
which will cause ineffective soil wetting (Fig. 4.4). In such cases, it would be better
to use drippers with lower discharge rates. If the dripper in the example is replaced
with a 2.3 /h dripper, the precipitation rate reduces to 73.2 mm/h.
For the purpose of irrigation scheduling, the precipitation rate of drippers can be
based on the total area or the fraction of the land that is being wetted. For one
hectare of grapevines, the drip precipitation rate is calculated as follows:
Precipitation rate = (Discharge rate x (1002/(dR x dD)) ÷ 1002) Eq. 4.2
where the discharge rate is in /h, dR is the row spacing (m) and dD is the spacing
between the drippers (m). For example, if the row spacing is 2.4 m and 3.5 /h
A B
FIGURE 4.3. Examples of water puddles under drip irrigation in (A) clayey soil and (B)
sandy soil.

Figure 4.4
FIGURE 4.4. An example where drip precipitation exceeded infiltration rate causing water
running off ridged soil.
drippers are spaced 0.6 m apart on the laterals, the precipitation rate of the system
will be 2.43 mm/h on the total area. However, if only 20% of the soil is wetted, dR
must be divided by 5. The precipitation rate on the wetted fraction will then be
12.15 mm/h.
The water distribution patterns under drippers are primarily a function of soil
texture, irrigation duration and dripper discharge rate. Sandy or gravelly soils
contain more coarse pores than loamy or clayey soils. Therefore, the gravitational
water flow usually exceeds the capillary flow in sandy soils. This results in deep,
but narrow distribution patterns over time (Fig. 4.5A). In the case of heavier soils,
where smaller pores dominate, capillary flow is usually higher than gravitational
water flow. Therefore, the distribution patterns tend to have “onion-like” shapes
as the irrigation proceeds (Fig. 4.5B). Due to the high variability in the factors
that determine water distribution from a point source, the prediction distribution
patterns by means of mathematical calculations is complicated. Consequently,
such calculations are not commonly applied in practice. If there is uncertainty about
the expected distribution patterns, it will be better to carry out in-field tests using
drippers that have different discharge rates.

Chapter 4
A
A Dripper
B Dripper
Fc Fc Fc Fc
Fc
Fc
Fg
Fg
FIGURE 4.5. Diagrams illustrating the water distribution under drippers (A) in sandy
or gravelly soil and (B) in loamy or clayey soils. Solid arrows indicate capillary (F c) and
gravitational (Fg) flow, respectively.
Grapevine root system development tends to follow the wetted pattern under
drippers. Restricted root development is more likely to occur in sandy or gravelly
than in heavier soils (Fig. 4.6). However, in some sandy soils a restrictive layer, e.g.
Dorbank, causes lateral water distribution in the lower part of the root depth. If there
are no other limitations, the deeper roots will also spread laterally (Fig. 4.7A). In drip
irrigated vineyards on slopes, gravitational water flow causes the water distribution
pattern to be lopsided towards the lower side of the rows. In some cases, this may
concentrate root development to the lower side (Fig. 4.7B).
Due to leaching, acidification under drippers may occur if the pH of the soil is not
well-buffered, particularly in sandy soils. Excessively high acidity can be avoided
by lime application based on frequent soil sampling (Fig. 4.8). In really poorly
buffered sandy soils, liming could become an annual practice to restore the soil
Figure
pH in the root zone above the threshold value 4.6
Figure 4.6grapevines (Fig. 4.9).
for
A B
FIGURE 4.6. Grapevine root distribution under drip in (A) a red, sandy soil near Vredendal
and (B) in a sandy loam soil near Robertson.
Figure 4.7
Figure
Figure 4.7
4.7
A B
FIGURE 4.7. Grapevine root distribution under drip in (A) a red, sandy soil on Dorbank near
Vredendal and (B) in a vineyard in sandy loam soil on a slope near Stellenbosch.
7
l)
6
p(
5
0-30 c
4
30-60 c
3
ul 06 May 07 Oct 07 Mar 08
FIGURE 4.8. Effect of applying 5 t/ha lime on the grapevine rows on the pH(KCl) in a sandy,
drip irrigated vineyard soil in the Lower Olifants River region (unpublished data). Arrows
indicate lime application, and the shaded zone is the lower pH(KCl) threshold for grapevines
(Conradie, 1983; Conradie, 1994).
Figure 4.9
FIGURE 4.9. Lime being applied on the grapevine rows to ameliorate acidification in a sandy
soil under drip irrigation in the Lower Olifants River region.

Chapter 4
4.2.2 MICRO-SPRINKLERS
Micro-sprinklers are often incorrectly referred to as “Micro-jets”. The latter is a
brand name for a certain type of micro-sprinkler. Micro-sprinklers have much lower
discharge rates, compared to overhead sprinklers. Their discharge rates can vary
from ca. 30 to 80 /h. Micro-sprinklers can be divided into two broad groups, i.e.
those with static nozzles (Fig. 4.10) and ones with spinning or rotating nozzles
(Fig. 4.11). Micro-sprinklers with self-cleaning, wobbling heads are also available
(Fig. 4.12).
FIGURE 4.10. Examples of static micro-sprinklers.
FIGURE 4.11. Examples of micro-sprinklers with rotating nozzles.

FIGURE 4.12. Examples of micro-sprinklers with self-cleaning, wobbling heads.
The radii of micro-sprinkler wetting patterns may vary from approximately 2 to

4 m. The radius will depend on the design of the micro-sprinkler nozzle and the
discharge rate. The latter depends on the orifice of the micro-sprinkler base. In
most cases, micro-sprinkler systems are designed to wet the total area in vineyards.
However, some static micro-sprinklers are designed to distribute the water in
strips on the grapevine rows or in fractions of a circle. Wetting patterns of micro-
sprinklers may vary from 360° to as narrow as 40° (Fig 4.13). In practice, static
micro-sprinklers with strip or fractional wetting patterns are rarely used in vineyards.
However, strip wetting can be useful to reduce the risk of runoff losses if the soil is
ridged. It must be noted that strip or fractional wetting can only be obtained with
static micro-sprinklers. The pros and cons of attachments used to restrict the water
distribution patterns around micro-sprinklers are discussed in Chapter 7.
360 360 300

(15 strea s) (12 strea s) (10 strea s)
280 270 180

(open) (open) (8 strea s)
180 90 40 strip
(open) (open)
FIGURE 4.13. Examples of micro-sprinkler wetting patterns.

Chapter 4
Each micro-sprinkler design has a unique water distribution pattern. Within a specific
design, the distribution pattern is primarily a function of (i) the water discharge rate
through the base or nozzle, (ii) the design of the cap or spreader and (iii) the pressure
head within the irrigation system (Fig. 4.14). Micro-sprinklers with high discharge
bases or nozzles should be avoided on soils where the high precipitation rate could
cause runoff losses (Fig. 4.14A). Preferably, micro-sprinklers should spread the
water evenly across the wetting pattern to wet the soil homogenously. However, in
practice, this is not the case. The precipitation rate generally tends to be high near
the micro-sprinkler, and low near the edge of the wetted area (Fig. 4.14A, B & C). This
usually results in unevenly wetted soil (Myburgh & Piaget, 1990). Furthermore, it must
be noted that an increase in water pressure may only increase the precipitation rate
near the micro-sprinkler (Fig. 4.14C). Therefore, micro-sprinklers with more uniform
distribution patterns are preferred to obtain homogeneous soil wetting. For most
micro-sprinklers, details of the technical specifications are readily obtainable from
the irrigation equipment manufacturers or dealers.
12
10 o lo no le ediu range s ivel

AA
h)
igh lo no le ediu range s ivel

8
recipitation (
0
0 0 25 05 0 75 1 1 25 15 1 75 2 2 25 25 2 75 3 3 25 35
Distance ro icro-sprinkler ( )
10
9 o lo no le ediu range s ivel BB
8 o lo no le long range s ivel
h)
7
6
recipitation (
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0 25 05 0 75 1 1 25 15 1 75 2 2 25 25 2 75 3 3 25 35 3 75 4
8
7
C
C
10 ressure lo lo no le ediu range s ivel
h)
6
5
recipitation (
0
0 0 25 05 0 75 1 1 25 15 1 75 2 2 25 25 2 75 3
FIGURE 4.14. Examples of (A) nozzle size, (B) swivel range and (C) water pressure effects
on water distribution patterns around micro-sprinklers.

The mean precipitation rate of a micro-sprinkler (mm/h) is calculated from the
discharge rate (/h) and radius of the wetting pattern (m) as follows:
Precipitation rate = Discharge rate ÷ A Eq. 4.3
where A is the wetted area which is calculated as follows:
A = (22 ÷ 7) x r2 Eq. 4.4

where r is the radius (m) of the wetted area. For example, if a micro-sprinkler has a
discharge rate of 32 /h, and the radius of the wetted area is 1.5 m, the precipitation
rate will be 4.53 mm/h. However, due to the inherent, non-uniform distribution
patterns, micro-sprinkler systems should be designed to allow overlapping of the
wetting patterns to enable more uniform water distribution. If this is the case, the
precipitation rate is a function of the discharge rate, number of micro-sprinklers and
the area that is being irrigated. For one hectare, the precipitation rate is calculated
as follows:
Precipitation rate = (Discharge rate x (1002/(dR x dD)) ÷ 1002) Eq. 4.5
where dR is the row spacing (m) and dD is the spacing between the micro-sprinklers
(m). For example, if the row spacing is 2.4 m and the 32 /h micro-sprinklers are
spaced 2 m apart on the laterals, the precipitation rate of the system will be 6.67 mm/h.
If the water pressure in the irrigation system is too high, micro-sprinklers will
produce a fine mist spray (Fig. 4.15). This will increase evaporation losses as
the fine droplets travel from the micro-sprinkler orifice to the ground. Warm,
windy conditions will cause further evaporation losses. This is one of the major
reasons why the system efficiency of micro-sprinklers is lower than that of drippers
(Table 4.1). For optimum results, micro-sprinklers should be installed horizontally.
However, in many cases the water is distributed at an angle which causes uneven
water distribution. This usually happens if the lateral line warps around the wire
to which it is attached. To ensure even water distribution, micro-sprinklers can
be installed on plastic pegs. For optimum results, the micro-sprinkler pegs must
be planted to the design depth as indicated on most pegs (Fig. 4.16). To ensure
uninterrupted, horizontal water distribution, micro-sprinklers can also be suspended
from a high lateral (Figs. 4.17 & 4.18). Insects nesting in micro-sprinklers may
cause clogging or interfere with the water distribution pattern. The occurrence of
this problem can be reduced by installing micro-sprinklers that are fitted with anti-
bug caps (Fig. 4.19).

Chapter 4
FIGURE 4.15. Excessive pressure in a micro-sprinkler system may result in a fine mist spray
that will increase evaporation losses, particularly under warm, windy conditions.
FIGURE 4.16. Markers on a micro-sprinkler peg indicating the depth to which it should be
planted for optimal water distribution.

FIGURE 4.17. Example of a micro-sprinkler suspended from a high lateral.
FIGURE 4.18. Example of a suspended micro-sprinkler.

Chapter 4
FIGURE 4.19. An example of a micro-sprinkler fitted with an anti-bug cap in the closed and
the open position on the left and right, respectively.
4.2.3 MOVEABLE SPRINKLERS

Due to high labour inputs and relatively low system efficiency, compared to drip
and micro-sprinklers, overhead sprinklers became less popular over time (Fig. 4.1).
Overhead sprinklers distribute the water over larger areas than micro-sprinklers.
Consequently, the discharge rates and radii of overhead sprinklers are substantially
higher, compared to micro-sprinklers. It must be noted that Equation 4.5 can also
be used to calculate the precipitation rate for overhead sprinklers. For example,
if overhead sprinklers are spaced 6 by 6 m, and the discharge rate is 450 /h, the
precipitation rate of the system will be 12.5 mm/h. Since the orifices are wider,
overhead sprinklers are less prone to clogging than micro-sprinklers. To reduce
the risk of theft, plastic overhead sprinklers should be installed rather than the more
conventional brass ones (Fig. 4.20). Since overhead sprinklers inevitably wet the
grapevine canopies (Fig. 4.21), it is not suitable where the irrigation water quality
is poor. Excessive salt accumulation may damage leaves if the water is saline.
Furthermore, elements such as chlorine may be absorbed to toxic levels over time
if the leaves are wetted.
FIGURE 4.20. Example of a plastic overhead sprinkler.

Figure 4.21
A B
FIGURE 4.21. Examples of vineyards Figure

being 4.21
irrigated by means of overhead sprinklers
(A) near Stellenbosch and (B) near Hermanus.
Figure
Overhead sprinkler irrigation systems 4.22
can be fully moveable (Fig. 4.22A). In order
to reduce labour inputs, the lateral system could be permanent, but with moveable
sprinklers (Fig. 4.22B). The latter systems are commonly referred to as “hop-along”
sprinkler irrigation. In the case of permanently installed overhead sprinklers, labour
inputs are reduced to a minimum (Fig. 4.23). However, it must be noted that the cost
of the systems will increase as the labour requirements decrease. Overhead sprinkler
irrigation is sometimes used when a vineyard is being established before a permanent
system such as drip or micro-sprinklers is installed (Fig. 4.24). This approach is
useful if the establishing costs of a vineyard need to be distributed over more than
one year. In regions where frost commonly occurs, overhead sprinkler irrigation is
sometimes also applied to prevent damage to vineyards, as is discussed in Chapter
9. These irrigations are usually necessary during spring when the new growth is most
vulnerable to frost damage. Figure 4.22
A B
FIGURE 4.22. Examples of a (A) fixed overhead sprinkler on a moveable lateral and
(B) moveable overhead sprinkler on a permanent lateral.

Chapter 4
Figure
Figure
4.244.24
FIGURE 4.23. Example of an overhead sprinkler permanently attached to a trellis post.
A B
FIGURE 4.24. An example where grapevines were established under overhead sprinklers
(A) and later irrigated by means of drippers (B).
4.2.4 FLOOD IRRIGATION

Flood irrigation is applied over the full surface, and is also referred to as “border”
or “rill” irrigation. It is primarily applied on the alluvial soils along rivers where
water is supplied via irrigation schemes. Since flood irrigation has the lowest
irrigation system efficiency (Table 4.1), it is only sustainable if ample, relatively
cheap irrigation water is available. Furthermore, it requires intensive, skilled labour
to apply flood irrigation effectively (Fig. 4.25). In addition to high evaporation
losses while irrigation is being applied, water infiltration is usually uneven along
flood irrigation beds. Since irrigation water flows for a longer period through the
head of the bed, water tends to infiltrate deeper, compared to the rest of the bed.

Water also infiltrates deeper if it dams up at the end of the bed. Any water that
percolates beyond the root depth is considered as over-irrigation, and will impact
negatively on the already low system efficiency. Therefore, it is absolutely essential
to use LASER technology when land is being levelled for flood irrigation (Fig. 4.26).
The uneven infiltration problem is worse in the case of long beds, compared to
shorter ones. Given the high infiltration rates of sandy soils, vineyards in such soils
should preferably not be flood irrigated. Based on the foregoing, flood irrigation is
increasingly becoming unpopular. Even the traditional flood irrigated vineyards on
alluvial soils are increasingly being converted to drip irrigation, e.g. in the Lower
Olifants River region.
FIGURE 4.25. Flood irrigation being applied in a vineyard near Lutzville in the Lower Olifants
River region.
FIGURE 4.26. Where beds for flood irrigation were levelled using a scraper behind a tractor,
water flow and distribution was slow and uneven (left) compared to levelling with LASER
equipment (right).

Chapter 4
In situations where irrigation water is limited, full surface flood irrigation can be
converted to furrows (Fig. 4.27). Irrigation water can be applied more efficiently by
using furrows (Fig. 4.28) instead of full surface irrigation (Table 4.2). Another possible
option is to make borders on each grapevine row, and then apply the irrigation in
alternate work rows (Fig. 4.27C). After two to three weeks, the irrigation is applied in
the “dry” work rows. This means that a set of alternative work rows will be irrigated
every four to six weeks. Irrigation in alternate rows has some similarity to the PRD
approach where the objective is to reduce vegetative growth and improve water
use efficiency in drip irrigated vineyards without compromising yield. In fact, it was
shown that it is possible to reduce vegetative growth, improve WUE and maintain
comparable yields with furrows or by means of irrigation in alternate work rows
(Table 4.2). Since furrows wet a smaller fraction of the available soil volume, it may
lead to water deficits that could cause reduced vegetative growth and yield losses.
However, this can be prevented by applying the irrigations more frequently (Table
4.3). Where flood irrigation was applied either at 14 day or 21 day intervals on the
grapevine row in 1.5 m wide furrows (Fig.4.28A), it had no effect on grapevine
C
C
FIGURE 4.27. Schematic illustration of the difference between (A) full surface border,
(B) furrows and (C) irrigation in alternate rows.

Figure
Figure 4.28
4.28
A B
FIGURE 4.28. Examples of vineyards being flood irrigated by means of (A) 1.5 m wide
furrows and (B) 0.6 m wide furrows in the Lower Orange River region.
water status, vegetative growth or yield, compared to full surface border irrigation
(Myburgh, 2003a). This suggested that the wetted soil fraction was large enough
to prevent water constraints in the grapevines, irrespective of irrigation frequency
under the prevailing conditions. Likewise, irrigation in alternate work rows had no
negative effects on grapevine water status, vegetative growth or yield, compared to
full surface border irrigation (Myburgh, 2003a).
TABLE 4.2. The effect of three flood irrigation systems on irrigation volume, cane mass,
yield and WUE of Sultanina grown for dried grape production near Upington. Irrigations were
applied every 14 days. Data are means for three seasons (after Myburgh, 2003a).
Irrigation system Irrigation Cane mass Yield WUE
applied (m3) (t/ha) (t/ha) (kg/m3)
Border (full surface) 12 718 a* 3.0 a 24.5 a 1.9 b
1.5 m Wide beds 7 932 b 2.2 b 26.6 a 3.3 a
Irrigation in alternating rows 7 386 b 1.9 b 24.6 a 3.3 a
* Values designated by the same letter within each column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
TABLE 4.3. The effect of two flood irrigation systems on yield and cane mass of Colombar
near Oudtshoorn (after Van Zyl & Van Huyssteen, 1988).
Period Method Frequency Yield Cane mass
(days) (t/ha) (t/ha)
1978/79 to 1981/82 Furrow 21 17.7 b* 5.4 b
Border (full surface) 21 26.2 a 8.4 a
1983/84 to 1985/86 Furrow 14 30.3 a 3.8 a

Border (full surface) 21 27.7 a 4.2 a
* For each period, values designated by the same letter within each column do not differ
significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

Chapter 4
As for any other irrigation system, it is essential to know how much water is applied
with flood irrigation. In order to calculate irrigation applications, the stream flow
must be known. The standard stream flow supplied by government irrigation
schemes is usually ca. 150 m3/h. This means that 100 mm irrigation will be
applied per hectare if the water flows for 6.7 hours. However, it is more accurate
to calculate the irrigation application (mm) for a specific bed or furrow as follows:
Application = (Q x (t ÷ 60)) ÷ (l x w) x 1 000 Eq. 4.6
where Q is the stream flow (m /h), t is the time (minutes), l is the length (m) and
3
w the width (m) of the bed or furrow. For example, if Q is 150 m3/h, and it takes
20 minutes to irrigate a 6 m wide and 100 m long bed, the irrigation application
will be ca. 83 mm. If the irrigation needs to be applied in 1 m wide furrows along
the grapevine rows, Q must be split in three to obtain the same application. This
means that the stream flow will be 50 m3/h per furrow, and that three furrows can
be irrigated at the same time. Furthermore, it must be noted that the time will be
reduced to 10 minutes for this example.
4.3 SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

The rationale behind subsurface irrigation is primarily to reduce evaporation
losses from the surface in order to improve irrigation WUE. A further advantage is
that nutrients can be applied directly to the roots. However, subsurface irrigation
systems are not commonly found in South African vineyards. A field trial in the
Lower Orange River region showed that subsurface drip installed at 15, 30, and
45 cm depths had no advantage on the yield of Sultanina/143B Mgt over furrows
or conventional above-ground drip irrigation (Table 4.4). Due to the silty nature of
the soil, roots did not concentrate under the above-ground and 15 cm subsurface
drip (Fig. 4.29A & B). In contrast, roots concentrated around the dripper lines at
30 and 45 cm depths (Fig. 4.29C & D).
TABLE 4.4. Effect of irrigation system on irrigation volume, yield and WUE of Sultanina near
Upington. Data are means for three seasons (Myburgh, 2007a & b).
Irrigation system Irrigation Yield WUE
applied (m3) (t/ha) (kg/m3)
Furrows 6 930 40.2 a* 5.8 a
Above-ground drippers 7 030 36.2 a 5.2 a
Subsurface drip, 15 cm deep 6 770 35.6 a 5.3 a
Subsurface drainage pipes, 15 cm deep 6 740 35.6 a 5.3 a

rapevine
0
A
Depth (c )
30
60
90
150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0
B
Depth (c )
30
60
90
150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0
C
Depth (c )
30
60
90
150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150
0
D
Depth (c )
30
60
90
150 120 90 60 30 0 30 60 90 120 150
Distance ro grapevine (c )
200 200 - 400 400 - 600 600
FIGURE 4.29. Root distribution of Sultanina under (A) surface drip compared to subsurface
drip irrigation installed at (B) 15 cm, (C) 30 cm or (D) 45 cm depths in alluvial soil in the Lower
Orange River region (Myburgh, 2007a). Legend indicates roots per m2.

Chapter 4
Visual observations revealed that the water flowed upwards to the soil surface
by means of capillary rise, irrespective of installation depth. This suggested that
surface evaporation occurred even where the dripper lines were 45 cm below the
soil surface. It must be noted that the root systems were slightly lopsided since the
subsurface dripper lines were installed ca. 20 cm from the grapevine rows. Low
frequency, subsurface drip irrigation also did not have any positive effect on yield
and water use efficiency, compared to conventional, single line above-ground drip
(Table 4.5). The particular field trial was carried out with Merlot near Wellington
(Myburgh, 2011a & b). A full surface straw mulch was applied for the duration of
the field trial to avoid tillage that could cause damage to the dripper lines. Since the
dripper lines were only 15 cm deep in the work rows, there was a risk that they could
be damaged if a winter cover crop had to be established. Based on the foregoing,
it can be assumed that subsurface drip will not necessarily prevent evaporation
losses to the extent that it would improve irrigation water use efficiency appreciably.
TABLE 4.5. Effect of low frequency above-ground and subsurface drip irrigation on irrigation
volume applied, yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of Merlot near Wellington in the Coastal
region during the 2006/07 season.
Irrigation strategy Irrigation Yield WUE
volume (m3) (t/ha) (kg/m3)
Three irrigations on grapevine row 948 9.7 a* 10.2 a
Three irrigations subsurface in work row 948 9.9 a 10.4 a
Five irrigations on grapevine row 1 275 11.7 a 9.2 a
Five irrigations subsurface in work row 1 275 11.0 a 8.7 a
The study in the Lower Orange River region revealed that clogging of the
subsurface drippers was substantially higher, compared to above-ground
drip. Laboratory tests carried out by NETAFIM SA indicated that ca. 12% of the
subsurface drippers at 15 and 30 cm depths were clogged after a period of six
years. There is no explanation why subsurface drip at 45 cm did not show any
clogging. The primary reasons for the clogging was slime formation inside the
drippers, as well as roots growing into the drippers via the orifices (Fig. 4.30).
It should be noted that trifluralin was applied through the subsurface drip lines.
By adsorbing to the soil around the drippers, this particular herbicide repels
roots growing towards the drippers. Apparently this practice did not prevent root
penetration completely, but if it was not done, the clogging might have been much
worse.

PHOTO: NETAFIM SA
Figure 4.30
PHOTO: NETAFIM SA
A B
FIGURE 4.30. Examples of (A) slime and (B) rotten roots plus slime in drippers that had been
installed 30 cm below the soil surface for four years.
In order to improve the water use efficiency of full surface flood irrigation, the water
can be applied by means of slotted 50 mm ø PVC drainage pipes buried ca. 30
Figure 4.31
cm deep alongside the grapevine rows. The objective of this practice is to create
a high volume, low pressure irrigation system. However, the above-mentioned field
trial showed that this subsurface system also had no advantage in terms of yield or
water use efficiency, compared to furrows or conventional drip irrigation (Table 4.4).
Similar to the subsurface drip, the drainage pipes showed considerable clogging
after four years. In this case, the clogging was not due to root penetration, but by
deposits of fine soil in the drainage pipes (Fig. 4.31). It is uncertain whether the
soil was sucked into the pipes when irrigations were stopped, or merely seeped
into the pipes while irrigations were being applied. Subsurface porous pipe (Fig.
4.32), also referred to as “Leaky pipe”, became completely clogged within two
years. Consequently, the porous pipe had to be replaced by above-ground drip
to prevent the grapevines from dying. In contrast, porous pipe did not become
clogged where saline borehole water was used for irrigation of table grapes near
Vanrhynsdorp (Myburgh, 2012b). In fact, porous pipe induced no negative effects
on yield or fruit quality, compared to micro-sprinklers or above-ground drippers.
FIGURE 4.31. An example of severe clogging where irrigation was applied by means of
50 mm slotted drainage pipe that was installed 30 cm below the soil surface for six years.

Chapter 4
Figure 4.32
A B
21 mm 2.2 mm
FIGURE 4.32. An example of porous pipe used for subsurface irrigation showing (A) the
rough outside of the wall and (B) a cross section through the wall.
4.4 MAINTENANCE OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

Due to the narrow flow paths, compared to other irrigation systems, drippers are
more likely to become clogged if the system is not properly maintained. Therefore, it
is essential to follow the prescriptions as presented in the NETAFIM SA maintenance
guide that is accessible at www.netafim.co.za. Although there are international
guidelines, growers are advised to rather follow the ones adapted for local
conditions. It must be noted that many of these maintenance aspects will also apply
to other irrigation systems. Water quality is one of the most import aspects that affects
reliable functioning of irrigation systems, particularly drippers and micro-sprinklers.
The primary factors that cause clogging are physical, chemical and biological (Table
4.6). It must be noted that clogging may be caused by a combinations of these
factors. Other water quality aspects that may affect functioning of irrigation systems
are discussed in Chapter 5.

TABLE 4.6. Criteria for clogging potential of water sources (Haman, 2017 and references
therein).
FACTOR Clogging hazard based on concentration
Slight Moderate Severe

PHYSICAL
Suspended solids – filterable (mg/) <50 50-100 >100
CHEMICAL
pH <7.0 7.0-8.0 > 8.0
Dissolved solids/salts (mg/) <500 500-2 000 >2 000
Manganese (mg/) <0.1 0.1-1.5 >1.5
Iron (mg/) <0.2 0.2-1.5 >1.5
Hydrogen sulphide (mg/) <0.5 0.5-2.0 >2.0
Hardness as ppm CaCO3 <150 150-300 >300
BIOLOGICAL
Bacteria (per m) <10 000 10 000-50 000 >50 000
Filtering is an important pre-requisite for good quality water flowing into the
irrigation system, particularly in the case of drip and micro-sprinkler systems.
Firstly, irrigation water filters must be designed to suit the systems, i.e. whether they
should be sand, ring, or disk filters. Secondly, irrigation filters must be inspected
regularly and maintenance carried out accordingly, no matter how big or small the
filter bank (Fig. 4.33). Solid particles in irrigation water commonly cause clogging
of filters (Fig. 4.34). Algae and slime in the water can also cause severe clogging of
filters (Fig. 4.35). The latter primarily depends on factors such as water temperature
and nutrient status in the water, particularly if soluble fertilisers are applied through
the irrigation system.
FIGURE 4.33. Irrigation filter banks, no matter how big or small, require regular maintenance.

Chapter 4
FIGURE 4.34. An example of a disk filter clogged by sludge and solid material in the irrigation
Figure 4.35
water.
A B
FIGURE 4.35. Algae and slime in irrigation water (A) can cause severe filter clogging (B).
In order to reduce maintenance inputs and allow almost uninterrupted water flow,
Figure 4.36
filters that flush automatically when they become clogged while irrigation is being
applied, are preferred (Fig. 4.36). These filters can either be flushed automatically
at regular intervals by means of a time switch, or the flushing can be triggered
when the pressure difference up- and downstream of the filter reaches a pre-set
value. Irrigation water containing high levels of silt may also cause clogging. In
many cases, the risk of sludge deposits in irrigation systems can be reduced by
suspending the suction pipe from a float (Fig. 4.37). By doing so, less sludge will
be sucked from the bottom of the dam or reservoir.

FIGURE 4.36. An example of an irrigation filter that will automatically flush when the up- and
downstream pressure differential reaches a pre-set value.
Figure 4.37
A B
FIGURE 4.37. Examples where (A) the suction pipe or (B) the pump is mounted on a float to
minimize the risk of sludge entering the irrigation system.

Figure 4.38
Chapter 4
Laterals should also be flushed regularly to get rid of sludge deposits (Fig. 4.38). For
best results, only two to three laterals should be opened at a time to maintain enough
pressure in the system to force the sludge out. Since it will make regular flushing
difficult, the ends of laterals should not be tied or bundled (Fig. 4.39). Off-cut pieces
of polyethylene can be used to keep the folded lateral ends in place (Fig. 4.40). This
makes it easy to open the lateral ends while flushing is being carried out.
FIGURE 4.38. Irrigation laterals must be flushed regularly to get rid of sludge deposits.
A B
FIGURE 4.39. Lateral ends should not be (A) bundled and tied or (B) knotted.

A B
FIGURE 4.40. Folded lateral ends can be held in place using (A) folded retainers or
(B) narrow rings made from polyethylene pipe off-cuts to allow easier flushing.
Clogged drippers are sometimes opened by pinching them with a pair of pliers.
If the pinching is repeated, it may deform the drippers causing the flow rate to deviate
from the original design (Fig. 4.41). It was previously shown that the flow rate of
4 /h drippers varied between 6 and 21 /h after they had been repeatedly opened
by pinching (Myburgh, 1989a). Since this level of variation within an irrigation
system is unacceptable, mechanical opening of clogged drippers is unacceptable.
Growers are referred to the NETAFIM SA maintenance guide for chemical cleaning
of clogged irrigation systems
FIGURE 4.41. The dripper on the right has been deformed by repeated pinching using a pair
of pliers.

The choice of an irrigation system depends on the preference of the grape grower.
However, given the limited irrigation water resources, periodic droughts, as well
as indications of a possible shift towards a drier and warmer climate, higher
irrigation system efficiency is becoming more important. Drip irrigation has the

Chapter 4
best system efficiency, and is by far the preferred method for the irrigation of wine
grape vineyards. In traditionally flood irrigated areas, full surface irrigation can be
converted to furrow irrigation to improve water use efficiency. Flood irrigation can
also be applied in alternating rows in order to save water. Since drip irrigation or
furrows only wet a fraction of the soil volume, it needs to be managed accordingly
to ensure that the grapevines’ water requirements are met. Maintenance of all
irrigation systems is essential to ensure efficient functioning, and to lengthen their
lifespan. Although grapevines cannot distinguish between irrigation systems,
they will surely show when water deficits resulting from malfunctioning or poor
maintenance occurs. Due to the high risk of clogging, and the fact that they do
not seem to improve water use efficiency, subsurface irrigation systems cannot be
recommended for vineyard irrigation.

Chapter 5
Irrigation
water quality
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Irrigation water is an essential, but limited, resource in most grape growing regions,
particularly in the semi-arid parts. In many cases, quality of irrigation water is
declining due to pollution caused by poor waste management. Over-irrigation and
-fertilization also cause water pollution. Water quality is defined in terms of the
physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic properties that determine its suitability
for use, and for the protection of aquatic ecosystems (Van Zyl, 1981; DWAF, 1996).
In agriculture, water quality is related to its effects on soils, and crops, as well as
management inputs necessary to overcome quality related problems (Kirda, 1997).
In addition to TDS and SAR, the toxicity thresholds of other elements and the pH
also determine irrigation water quality for vineyard irrigation (Van Zyl, 1981). These
threshold values are almost identical to the general water quality guidelines for
agriculture in South Africa (DWAF, 1996).
Irrigation of grapevines with poor quality water can result in the accumulation of
elements, which will depend on factors such as soil texture, soil composition,
drainage, rainfall and volume of irrigation water applied. Since poor quality water
can reduce yields of commercial crops or damage irrigation equipment (DWAF,
1996), permissible levels of elements in water must be known. This will enable
growers to apply available water judiciously to avoid negative effects and promote
long term sustainable use. Therefore, irrigation water should be analysed at least
twice a year, i.e. at the beginning and in the middle of the grape growing season.
Two litres of water should be collected in a suitable glass or plastic bottle (Kirda,
1997), which has been rinsed with the same water which is being sampled. The
water sample must be taken from where the water exits the dam. In the case of
rivers, samples should be collected in the fastest flowing part (Kirda, 1997). In the
case of lakes or ponds, the sample should be taken from the centre in such a way
that it represents the variation over depth at that point. For this purpose, a simple
water sampler can be made by attaching a plastic sample bottle to a length of
PVC conduit (Fig. 5.1A). Samples can be taken deeper and further from the bank
(Fig. 5.1B) if the handle is telescopic (Fig. 5.1C). The latter will also allow easier
transport. It must be noted that the sample bottle should also first be rinsed with
the same water before the actual sample is taken. Water samples should be taken
to the laboratory as soon as possible to minimize the risk of biological changes.
102 CHAPTER 5 – IRRIGATION WATER QUALITY

Chapter 5
A B C
FIGURE 5.1. A 500 m plastic bottle attached to a length of PVC conduit by means of cable
ties (A) makes a simple, useful water sampler (B). The handle can be telescopic (C) to extend
the reach of the sampler.
5.2 COMPARING RAIN, RIVER AND MUNICIPAL

WATER QUALITY
Rainfall and river water are regarded as natural water resources. However, rainfall
is considered to be one of the purest natural water resources. This is illustrated
by the fact that rain collected at Citrusdal and Cape Town contained considerably
less basic cations, compared to water from the Holsloot River near Rawsonville
(Fig. 5.2). In contrast, rainwater harvested at Kleinmond unexpectedly tended to
contain more Na, K, and Ca than the water abstracted from the Holsloot River.
Being so close to the ocean, the atmosphere at Kleinmond probably contained
salts which dissolved in the rainwater. In most cases, municipalities first need
to treat water obtained from natural resources before it is suitable for human
consumption. Therefore, municipal water is not regarded as a true natural water
resource. However, the cation levels in the water obtained from the Stellenbosch
municipality were comparable to the levels in the Holsloot River (Fig. 5.2). It must
be noted that this particular river runs through farmland where the pollution risk
is low. It is also noteworthy that the levels of Na in all the waters were invariably
higher, compared to the other basic cations, i.e. irrespective of the water source.
Interestingly, air masses moving inland from the ocean are not necessarily the
source of Na in rainwater (Vieira-Filho et al., 2013). It was previously shown that
Na concentrations in rainwater may be substantially more than K concentrations
(Larson & Hettick, 1956; Vieira-Filho et al., 2013). Higher levels of Ca than K is also
common, but the actual amounts seem to depend on the type of cloud from which
the rain precipitates (Khemani & Ramana Murty, 1968). The foregoing suggests
that the relatively high levels of Na and Ca in water from the Holsloot River and
Stellenbosch municipality (Fig. 5.2) were most likely contributed by the rainfall.

The pH in the river and municipal water tended to be slightly higher than in the
rainwater (Fig. 5.3). Higher levels of cations in the river and municipal water caused
the EC to be higher, compared to the rainwater. The SAR in all the waters was
Figure 5.2
generally less than 1.5, which is farFigure
below 5.2
the norm of 5 units (Fig. 5.3).
18
18 Na K Ca Mg
Element concentration (mg )
16 Na K Ca Mg
Element concentration (mg )
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0 Rain at Rain at Rain at Holsloot River Stellenbosch
Rain at
Citrusdal Rain Town
Cape at Rain at
Kleinmond Holsloot River Stellenbosch
municipality
Citrusdal Cape Town Kleinmond municipality
FIGURE 5.2. Basic cation concentration in rainwater collected at Citrusdal and Cape Town,
rainwater harvested at Kleinmond, as well as water from the Holsloot River near Rawsonville
and the Stellenbosch municipality (Mulidzi, 2016 and references therein).
Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3
20
20 pH EC SAR
18
18 pH EC SAR
16
16
14
pH, EC & SAR
14
pH, EC & SAR
12
12
10
10
8
8
6
64
42
20
0 Rain at Rain at Rain at Holsloot River Stellenbosch
Citrusdal
Rain at Cape
Rain Town
at Kleinmond
Rain at Holsloot River municipality
Stellenbosch
Citrusdal Cape Town Kleinmond municipality
FIGURE 5.3. The pH, EC (mS/m) and SAR in rainwater collected at Citrusdal and Cape Town,
rainwater harvested at Kleinmond, as well as water from the Holsloot River near Rawsonville
and the Stellenbosch municipality (Mulidzi, 2016 and references therein). The EC was not
determined at Kleinmond.

Chapter 5
5.3 WATER QUALITY NORMS

Most of the following water quality norms and guidelines for vineyard irrigation
with respect to pH, N, P, cations, anions, trace elements and heavy metals were
previously summarised and published by Howell and Myburgh (2013a & b).
5.3.1 pH
Recommended pH for irrigation water ranges from 6.5 to 8.4 (Table 5.1). Water pH
can give an indication of a number of water quality related problems (ANZECC, 2000).
Unsuitable water pH may cause corrosion and fouling of irrigation infrastructure. In
addition, solubility and availability of plant nutrients and potentially toxic elements
depend on pH (DWAF, 1996).
TABLE 5.1. Effects of pH on crop yield and quality, sustainability of the soil and irrigation
equipment (adapted from DWAF, 1996).
pH range Crop yield and quality Sustainability Irrigation equipment
< 6.5 Increasing problems Increasing problems Increasing problems

with foliar damage when with availability of with corrosion of
crop foliage is wet, several micro- and metal and concrete in
could reduce yield or macro-nutrients in toxic irrigation equipment.
quality of marketable concentrations over the There are no problems
products. long term. with clogging of drip
irrigation systems.
6.5-8.4(1) Even when crop foliage Soil pH within this range Mostly no major
is wetted, this should not does not present major problems with either
cause foliar damage in problems with either corrosion or encrustation
plants which will result unavailability of plant of irrigation equipment.
in yield reduction or a nutrients or toxic levels Slight to moderate
decrease in quality of of elements. problems with clogging
marketable products. of drip irrigation
systems.
> 8.4 Increasing problems Increasing problems Increasing problems
with foliar damage with unavailability of with encrustation
affecting yield or several micro- and of irrigation pipes
reducing visual quality macro-nutrients over the and clogging of drip
of marketable products. long term. irrigation systems.
(1)
Optimum water quality range.
Most micro-nutrients and heavy metals are unavailable for uptake at high soil pH,
and are only available at lower pH levels. A water pH above 8.3 may indicate the
presence of HCO3-, CO32- and Na, and the availability of trace elements may be
reduced, causing nutrient imbalances (ANZECC, 2000). In contrast, acidic water
may result in Al, Mn and heavy metals being mobilized in concentrations high
enough to be toxic to plants (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). Although it is not a

common practice, water pH can be adjusted by the addition of an alkali such as
agricultural lime, or with acidic reagents such as CO2, S or H2SO4 (DWAF, 1996).
These chemicals are hazardous and special precautions should be taken when
using them.
Furthermore, changes in soil pH caused by irrigation water will take place slowly
(Ayers & Westcott, 1985). Therefore, it is often easier to treat the soil pH problem
that develops rather than the irrigation water. Steps that growers can take to
minimise the effects of extreme pH are to (i) use an irrigation method that will
not wet foliage or products, (ii) apply agricultural lime to maintain soil pH when
irrigating with low pH water and (iii) use soil acidifiers such as S and reduced
nitrogenous fertilizers when irrigating with high pH water (DWAF, 1996).
5.3.2 NITROGEN
Nitrogen refers to all inorganic N forms present in the water, i.e. NO3-, NO2-, NH4+
and NH3 (DWAF, 1996). All of these must be added together to quantify water N.
Nitrate is the usual form found in natural waters (Ayers & Westcott, 1985; DWAF,
1996; ANZECC, 2000), whereas NH4+ commonly occurs in wastewater (ANZECC,
2000). High levels of irrigation water N can promote plant growth, leach out, and
contaminate groundwater resources as well as stimulate algae and aquatic plant
growth in irrigation structures (DWAF, 1996). Permissible N levels for sensitive
crops, such as grapevines, are less than 5 mg/ (Table 5.2).
TABLE 5.2. Effects of N on crop yield and quality and groundwater contamination (adapted
from DWAF, 1996).
Concentration Crop yield and quality Groundwater contamination
range (mg/)
≤ 5(1) The N application should, at The N application should, at
normal irrigation applications, normal irrigation applications, be
be low enough not to affect even low enough so that most of it would
sensitive crops such as grapes be utilised by the irrigated crop
and most fruit trees. and little be available for leaching
to groundwater.
5-30 Sensitive crops increasingly Likelihood of ground water
likely to be affected, depending contamination increases,
on magnitude of irrigation. Other depending on volume of irrigation
crops remain largely unaffected water applied and uptake by
in the lower concentration range, irrigated crop.
but are increasingly affected as
concentration increases.
> 30 Most crops are affected and only Increasingly serious likelihood of
a limited range of crops can utilise groundwater contamination.
the N applied. There are severe
restrictions on utilisation of these
waters.
(1)
Optimum water quality range.

Chapter 5
Grapevines irrigated with high levels of N may have extended vegetative growth
with delayed poor yield of grapes with low sugar (Ayers & Westcott, 1985). When
grapevines experience N toxicities, the leaf surface becomes shiny and the leaf
edges become necrotic (Fig. 5.4). Although most other crops are unaffected
until N levels are higher than 30 mg/, levels lower than 5 mg/ can still stimulate
algae growth. To reduce the effects of high levels of N in irrigation water, growers
can (i) reduce N fertilizer by the amount of N added through the water, (ii) dilute
water if there is an additional water source, (iii) use a water source that is low in N
Figure 5.4
when crop requirements are low, (iv) limit leaching and (v) control algae growth in
irrigation equipment with CuSO4 (DWAF, 1996).
PHOTO: D. SAAYMAN
FIGURE 5.4. An example of grapevine leaf N toxicity symptoms where a vineyard was drip
irrigated near Tesslaarsdal.
Figure 5.5
5.3.3 PHOSPHORUS
Although there are no guidelines for P levels in irrigation water, there is a long term
critical value recommended by ANZECC (2000) of 0.05 mg/. This norm has been
established to minimise the risk of algal blooms developing in storage facilities and
to reduce the likelihood of bio-fouling in irrigation equipment.
5.3.4 SODIUM
This element commonly accumulates in saline soils, particularly in low rainfall areas
where leaching might be limited. Low flow can also cause increased levels of Na in
river water (Myburgh & Howell, 2014b). Sampling water at three places along the
course of the Holsloot River during the 2012/13 season showed that the Na content

remained almost constant in the mountain and the beginning of the floodplain,
respectively (Table 5.3). However, the level of Na increased substantially along
the floodplain up to Rawsonville during summer. In contrast, the Na concentrations
were comparable along the course of the river when the flow was high in winter.
Since no definite point of contamination could be identified, the Na probably
became more concentrated when the river flow was reduced along the floodplain
as water was being abstracted for vineyard irrigation.
TABLE 5.3. Temporal and spatial variation in Na content in water of the Holsloot River,
a tributary of the Breede River.
Sampling date Locality
In mountain Beginning of floodplain Near Rawsonville

4 December 2012 2.3 3.0 16.6
28 March 2013 1.8 2.2 11.6
30 September 2013 2.3 2.4 3.0
Sodium accumulates in leaves and can be toxic to plants. Root uptake and leaf
burn are therefore important considerations (DWAF, 1996). Root uptake is mainly
determined by the concentrations of Na in the soil solution. Plants irrigated with
water containing high levels of Na are exposed to the root zone Na as well as
absorption by the leaves, i.e. in the case of overhead irrigation. Accumulation of
Na in the soil can cause Ca and Mg deficiencies in plants (ANZECC, 2000), as
well as affect soil physical conditions. Excessive Na in irrigation water promotes
soil dispersion and structural break-down when the Na levels are more than three
times the Ca levels (Ayers & Westcott, 1985). Sodium toxicity is reduced if there
is sufficient Ca in the soil. An important consideration for growers is the legal limit
of Na for South African wine, which is 100 mg/ (DWAF, 1996). Grapevines are
moderately sensitive to foliar injury. Therefore, a Na concentration of 115 mg/ is the
upper threshold for overhead irrigation (Table 5.4). In order to minimise Na effects
on grapevines, growers should (i) use irrigation systems that don’t wet leaves, (ii)
ameliorate the water and/or soil with Ca and Mg and (iii) reduce irrigation frequency
by using long irrigation cycles (DWAF, 1996).

Chapter 5
TABLE 5.4. Effects of Na on foliar crop yield and quality (adapted from DWAF, 1996).
Concentration Crop yield and quality

range (mg/)
≤ 70 Should prevent the accumulation of Na to toxic levels in all, but the most
sensitive plants, even when crop foliage is wet.
70-115(1) Crops sensitive to foliar absorption accumulate toxic levels of Na when
crop foliage is wetted and display symptoms of foliar injury and yield
decreases.
115-230 Crops moderately sensitive to foliar absorption accumulate toxic levels
of Na when crop foliage is wetted and display symptoms of foliar injury
and yield decreases.
230-460 Crops moderately tolerant to foliar absorption accumulate toxic levels of
Na when crop foliage is wetted and display symptoms of foliar injury and
yield decreases.
> 460 Crops tolerant to foliar absorption increasingly accumulate toxic levels of
Na when crop foliage is wetted and display symptoms of foliar injury and
yield decreases.
(1)
Threshold for acceptable water quality range.
5.3.5 CALCIUM AND MAGNESIUM

There are no guidelines for Ca and Mg levels in water. However, it is important that
the levels of these elements are determined so that the SAR of the water can be
calculated (Myburgh, 2012c). If the Ca to Mg ratio in the water is less than one, the
potential negative effect of Na may be exacerbated (Ayers & Westcott, 1985). In
addition, crops irrigated with water containing high levels of Mg may produce low
yields due to a Mg-induced Ca deficiency. Although there are still insufficient data
to make the Ca to Mg ratio an evaluation factor, should this ratio be less than one, or
the Ca to total cation ratio less than 0.15, a further evaluation of the water is required.
5.3.6 BICARBONATE AND CARBONATE

Although high levels of HCO3- in irrigation water can affect plants, soils and irrigation
equipment, there are no recommended guidelines (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000).
Irrigation water containing high levels of HCO3- and CO32- can increase HCO3- in the
soil solution. Consequently, Ca and Mg can precipitate as insoluble CO32- when the
soil dries out (Van Zyl, 1981; McCarthy et al., 1988). Relative Na increases, and
therefore higher SAR levels, may have an impact on soil physical properties (Van
Zyl, 1981; McCarthy et al., 1988; ANZECC, 2000). High soil pH, which can occur
when HCO3- levels in irrigation water are high, can also be detrimental to plants as
uptake of certain ions can be limited (ANZECC, 2000). Although HCO3- in water
applied by overhead sprinklers may cause unsightly crystalline deposits on grapes
and leaves, these are not necessarily toxic to grapevines (McCarthy et al., 1988).

5.3.7 CHLORIDE
Toxicity caused by irrigation water containing Cl- is most common (Ayers &
Westcott, 1985). Furthermore, NaCl, KCl, CaCl2 and MgCl2 are highly soluble in
water (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). Growers need to consider both root and leaf
uptake of Cl-. In the case of root uptake, Cl- levels of less than 700 mg/ in the soil
solution are not considered to be harmful to grapevines (Van Zyl; 1981). Since the
rate of leaf uptake is greater than that of root uptake, grapevines are more sensitive
to foliar injury from direct contact with Cl- (Van Zyl, 1981; DWAF, 1996; ANZECC,
2000). For South African vineyards, Cl- levels of 150 mg/ are considered to be
the upper threshold for overhead irrigation (Van Zyl, 1981). However, it has been
reported that irrigation water Cl- levels of 70 to 175 mg/ can still cause foliar injury
(Van Zyl, 1981). Crops sensitive to foliar absorption accumulate toxic levels of
Cl- when crop foliage is wetted when levels range from 100 to 175 mg/ (DWAF,
1996) and display foliar injury and yield can decrease. Recommended guidelines
are less than 140 mg/ (DWAF, 1996). Chloride also forms a series of complexes
with Cd in the soil solution (ANZECC, 2000). Therefore, as soil Cl- increases above
400 mg/, CdCl+ will be more abundant in solution than Cd2+. Due to the increased
mobility of Cd in this form, Cd concentrations in plants are increased. The risk of
increasing plant Cd concentrations is low when irrigation water Cl- levels are lower
than 350 mg/. However, there is a high risk of increasing plant Cd concentrations
when irrigation water Cl- levels are higher than 750 mg/. Management practices to
minimise Cl- uptake as proposed by DWAF (1996) are to (i) use irrigation methods
that do not wet leaves, (ii) reduce the number of wetting and drying cycles, i.e.
reduce irrigation frequency, (iii) irrigate at night when temperature and evaporation
are lower and (iv) apply surplus irrigation in order to leach Cl- from the soil as
described by Myburgh (2012c).
5.3.8 FLUORIDE
Fluoride is the most reactive halogen, and is only weakly absorbed by the soil
(DWAF, 1996). Important factors determining F uptake are soil type, soil pH, Ca
and P. In this regard, neutral and alkaline soils deactivate F, which restricts root
uptake. Recommended levels are presented in Table 5.5.

Chapter 5
TABLE 5.5. Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements and heavy metals in
irrigation water as proposed by Van Zyl (1981).
Element Continuous irrigation on Irrigation of fine textured soil for
all soils (mg/) 20 years (mg/)
Boron 0.75 2.00-10.00
Cadmium 0.01 0.05
Chromium (VI) 0.10 1.00
Copper 0.20 5.00
Fluoride 1.00 15.00
Iron 5.00 20.00
Lead 5.00 10.00
Manganese 0.20 10.00
Molybdenum 0.01 0.05
Zinc 2.00 10.00
5.3.9 COPPER
Copper is an essential micro-nutrient, as well as an important component of several
plant enzymes (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). The solubility of Cu decreases with
increasing soil pH (DWAF, 1996). Recommended levels are presented in Table
5.5. There are no known negative effects of Cu on irrigation systems (DWAF, 1996).
5.3.10 BORON
Boron is essential for plant growth and is required for the correct functioning
of meristems, cell division and enlargement, and is thought to play a role in the
synthesis of hormones such as auxins (Saayman, 1981). However, B is toxic to
plants at low concentrations (DWAF, 1996). Grapevines range from very sensitive
(Van Zyl, 1981) to sensitive (Ayers & Westcott, 1985; DWAF, 1996; ANZECC,
2000) to B toxicity. Excess B accumulates in grapevine leaf edges and older
leaves develop necrotic spots (Saayman, 1981). Leaf edges do not grow, whereas
the middle leaf part continues to grow normally and the leaf curls to the bottom
(Fig. 5.5). Boron concentrations are generally low in South African waters (Van
Zyl, 1981). Although surface waters rarely contain B, well water and springs
occasionally contain toxic amounts (Ayers & Westcott, 1985). Recommended
levels are presented in Table 5.5. In general, irrigation water containing B levels
less than 0.50 mg/ are considered to be suitable for grapevines (McCarthy et
al., 1988), whereas levels lower than 0.75 mg/ are recommended by Ayers and
Westcott (1985).

Figure 5.5
PHOTO: D. SAAYMAN
FIGURE 5.5. Chardonnay leaves exhibiting typical B toxicity symptoms.

Chapter 5
5.3.11 IRON
Iron is an essential micro-nutrient (DWAF, 1996). However, plants can be sensitive
to Fe deposits on leaves and fruit. Furthermore, Fe can precipitate in irrigation
equipment (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). Iron deficiencies can develop in alkaline
soils, where Fe(OH)2 precipitates (ANZECC, 2000). The Fe2+ dissolved in irrigation
water is relatively unavailable to plants as it oxidises and precipitates upon aeration
when applied to soil. However, under reducing conditions, precipitated Fe3+ can be
reduced to the more soluble Fe2+. Precipitated Fe in soil binds P and Mo rendering
them unavailable to plants and contributes to soil acidification (Ayers & Westcott,
1985; ANZECC, 2000). General guidelines are presented in Table 5.5, whereas
the effect of Fe on irrigation equipment is given in Table 5.6.
TABLE 5.6. Effects of Fe on drip irrigation systems (DWAF, 1996).
Concentration range (mg/) Clogging of irrigation equipment

< 0.2 Only minor problems encountered.
0.2-1.5 Moderate problems encountered.
> 1.5 Severe problems encountered.
5.3.12 MANGANESE
Manganese is essential to plants where it is involved in N metabolism and
chlorophyll synthesis (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). Under waterlogged conditions
Figure 5.6
in association with low pH, soil Mn is reduced and its solubility increased (DWAF,
1996). Consequently, concentrations in the soil solution can accumulate to levels
that are toxic to plants. In grapevines, this manifests as dark coloured, raised spots
on shoots, tendrils and leaves (Fig. 5.6). Oxides of Mn are known to clog irrigation
systems. General guidelines are presented in Table 5.5, whereas the effect of Mn
on irrigation equipment is given in Table 5.7.
PHOTO: D. SAAYMAN
FIGURE 5.6. Manganese toxicity observed in a vineyard growing near Goudmyn.

TABLE 5.7. Effects of Mn on drip irrigation systems (DWAF, 1996).
Concentration range (mg/) Clogging of irrigation equipment

< 0.1 Only minor problems encountered.
0.1-1.5 Moderate problems encountered.
> 1.5 Severe problems encountered.
5.3.13 ZINC
Zinc is an essential plant nutrient that is required in small amounts (DWAF, 1996;
ANZECC, 2000). At higher concentrations, Zn induces Fe deficiencies in plants
(DWAF, 1996). The low solubility of Zn under alkaline soil conditions can also
induce plant Zn deficiencies. Toxicity symptoms are illustrated in Figure 5.7. Zinc
is more readily available to plants in acid, light textured soils (ANZECC, 2000).
Figure 5.7
Guidelines are presented in Table 5.5.
PHOTO: D. SAAYMAN
Z n Z n
Z n
Z n N
Z n
FIGURE 5.7. An example of grapevine leaf Zn and N toxicity symptoms of grapevines

growing in Gauteng.
5.3.14 CADMIUM
Cadmium is readily taken up by plants even though it is not an essential nutrient
(DWAF, 1996). Because of its chemical similarity to Zn, it can interfere with plant
metabolic processes since it may block Zn binding sites (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC,
2000). Soils can contain high Cd levels due to the addition of P-fertilisers, manures,
composts or bio-solids which contain Cd as an impurity (ANZECC, 2000). Cadmium

Chapter 5
uptake increases with soil acidity, salinity and total Cd content. Conservative
limits are recommended due to its potential to accumulate in plants and soils to
concentrations that are harmful to humans (Ayers & Westcott, 1985). Permissible
Cd levels are presented in Table 5.5.
5.3.15 CHROMIUM
Chromium is not essential for plant growth, but is toxic at high concentrations
(DWAF, 1996). Acceptable levels are presented in Table 5.5. Recommended limits
are conservative as there is a lack of knowledge on its toxicity to plants (Ayers &
Westcott, 1985).
5.3.16 LEAD
Lead has many industrial applications which can give rise to Pb contamination
in water resources (DWAF, 1996). Furthermore, atmospheric sources, fertilisers,
manures, sludges and agricultural chemicals can cause Pb deposits in soils
(ANZECC, 2000). Soil pH has a major effect on Pb in soil solution and its solubility
decreases with increasing pH (DWAF, 1996; ANZECC, 2000). The permissible Pb
levels proposed for grapevines (Table 5.5) are considerably higher, compared to
the DWAF (1996) thresholds of 0.2 mg/ for continuous irrigation on all soils and
2.0 mg/ for fine textured soils over a 20-year period.
5.3.17 MERCURY
Recommended levels for mercury are less than 0.002 mg/ (ANZECC, 2000). The
Hg dissolves other metals forming amalgams and is strongly retained by soils,
especially those high in organic matter.
5.3.18 MOLYBDENUM
The occurrence of Mo toxicity in plants is rare. High levels of Mo will cause
accumulation of anthocyanins in tomato and cauliflower leaves causing them to
turn purple (Kaiser et al., 2005 and references therein). In contrast, legume leaves
turn yellow in response to excessive Mo. The permissible Mo levels proposed for
grapevines are presented in Table 5.5. It must be noted that this norm only applies
to fine textured acidic soil, or acidic soil with a high content of iron oxide.

5.3.19 OTHER ELEMENTS
In addition to the elements discussed above, there are permissible levels for the
elements listed in Table 5.8. However, there is no information on how grapevines
and soils would respond if irrigation water contains excessive levels of these
elements. Nevertheless, they should be included in water quality analyses.
TABLE 5.8. Recommended maximum concentrations of trace elements and heavy metals in
irrigation water as proposed by Van Zyl (1981).
Element Continuous irrigation Irrigation of fine textured soil
on all soils (mg/) for 20 years (mg/)
Aluminium 5.00 20.00
Arsenic 0.10 2.00
Berillium 0.10 0.50
Cobalt 0.05 5.00
Lithium 2.50 2.50
Nickel 0.20 2.00
Selenium 0.02 0.02
Vanadium 0.10 1.00
5.4 IRRIGATION WITH SALINE WATER

The following water quality norms and guidelines for vineyard irrigation with respect
to salinity and sodicity were previously summarised and published by Myburgh
(2012c).
Growers are often forced to use saline water for irrigation in the viticultural regions
of South Africa, notably in the semi-arid regions. If climate change reduces rainfall
over the short or long term, salinity problems will increase where groundwater is
not diluted. Saline irrigation water is not only detrimental to grapevine growth and
yield (Fig. 5.8), but can also result in accumulation of sodium to harmful levels in
soils (Moolman et al., 1998; De Clercq et al., 2001). Consequently, it is important
to know how soils and grapevines will be affected by saline water, and how to
manage such water so that its negative impacts will be minimal. The objective
of this section is to provide broad guidelines for situations where vineyards are
irrigated with saline water.
5.4.1 QUANTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF WATER

SALINITY/SODICITY
Irrigation water is classified according to its total salt and sodium contents, as well
as the effect thereof on soils and plants (Table 5.9). The salt content of water is
quantified in terms of EC, whereas the SAR provides an indication of the sodium
hazard (Richards, 1954). A SAR of 5 is considered to be a more realistic lower limit.

Chapter 5
Figure 5.8
A B
FIGURE 5.8. Examples where high levels of salinity caused typical scorched grapevine leaf
edges in vineyards (A) in the Strandveld and (B) near Vanrhynsdorp.
The preferred unit for EC is deci-Siemens per meter (dS/m). Some laboratories
quantify salinity in terms of electrical resistance, but R can be converted to EC as
follows:
EC ≈ 250 ÷ R Eq. 5.1
where 250 relates to the cell constant of a standard USDA soil cup used to measure
R in Ohms. Actual amounts of salts deposited in soils via saline irrigation water can
also be determined. The TDS in mg/ can be estimated from the EC of irrigation
water by using the following formula:
TDS ≈ 640 x ECiw Eq. 5.2
For example, if the ECiw is 0.8 dS/m, approximately 128 kg salt will be deposited
per hectare if 25 mm irrigation is applied. Inputs required for salinity management
primarily depend on climate, the permeability and chemical properties of soils, as
well as the salt sensitivity of crops. Grapevines are considered to be moderately
salt tolerant (Richards, 1954) or moderately salt sensitive (Ayers & Wescott, 1985).

TABLE 5.9. Classification of irrigation water according to EC and SAR as proposed by
Richards (1954).
Class Limits Hazard Implication for use
EC (dS/m) Salinity
C1 < 0.25 Low Can be used for irrigation with most crops with little like-
lihood that soil salinity will develop. Some leaching is re-
quired, but this occurs under normal irrigation practices,
except in soils of extremely low permeability.
C2 0.25 - 0.75 Medium Can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs.
Plants with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in most
cases without special practices for salinity control.
C3 0.75 - 2.25 High Cannot be used on soils with restricted drainage. Even
with adequate drainage, special management for salinity
control may be required and plants with good salt toler-
ance should be selected.
C4 > 2.25 Very high Is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions, but
may be used occasionally under very special circum-
stances. The soils must be permeable, drainage must be
adequate, irrigation water must be applied in excess to
provide considerable leaching, and very high salt tolerant
crops should be used.
SAR Sodium
S1 < 10 Low Can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little dan-
ger of the development of harmful levels of exchangeable
sodium. However, sodium-sensitive crops such as stone
fruit trees may suffer injury as a result of accumulation
in plant tissues when exchangeable sodium values are
lower than those effective in causing deterioration of the
soil physical conditions.
S2 10 - 18 Medium Will present an appreciable sodium hazard in fine-tex-
tured soils having high cation exchange capacity, espe-
cially under low-leaching conditions, unless gypsum is
present in the soil. This water may be used on coarse-tex-
tured or organic soils with good permeability.
S3 18 - 26 High May produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in
most soils and will require special soil management, i.e.
good drainage, high leaching and organic matter addi-
tions. Gypsiferous soils may not develop harmful levels
of exchangeable sodium from such waters. Chemical
amendments may be required for replacement of ex-
changeable sodium, except that amendments may not
be feasible with C1 waters.
S4 > 26 Very high Is generally unsatisfactory for irrigation purposes, except
at low and perhaps medium salinity, where the solution of
calcium from the soil or use of gypsum or other amend-
ments may make the use of these waters feasible.

Chapter 5
During periodic droughts, natural water resources, e.g. rivers and boreholes,
may become substantially more saline, compared to periods when higher annual
precipitation occurs. There is some evidence that grapevines still seem to perform
reasonably well if the EC does not exceed 2.5 dS/m (Table 5.10). Therefore, it might
be possible to use saline water for one or two seasons if better quality water is not
available. When the water quality returns to normal, it will be critical to leach any
salts that could have accumulated in the soil via the high salinity water. Frequent
soil sampling and analyses are essential to quantify the extent of salt accumulation
where vineyards were irrigated using high salinity water. Any accumulated salts
can be leached out as discussed below. It must be emphasized that using high
salinity irrigation water is considered to be a temporary measure to manage survival
of vineyards during critical droughts.
TABLE 5.10. The effect of irrigation with saline water on relative yield of Colombar/99 R near
Robertson (adapted from Moolman et al., 1998).
Year Irrigation water EC (dS/m)
0.25 0.75 1.5 2.5 3.5 5.0

1992 100 a* 83 ab 88 ab 97 ab 77 ab 73 b
1993 100 a 78 ab 75 abc 87 a 52 bc 48 bc
1994 100 a 70 ab 73 ab 96 a 45 b 34 b
1995 76 ab 71 ab 64 abc 100 a 41 bc 29 c
* Values within each row followed by the same letter do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
5.4.2 LEACHING SALTS FROM THE ROOT ZONE

When saline water is used for irrigation, the most common practice is to apply
controlled over-irrigation. With this approach, it is assumed that salts in irrigation
water which end up in the soil can be leached from the root zone. The salinity of
the drainage water at the bottom of the root zone depends on ECiw, as well as the
amount of leaching that occurs, and can be calculated as follows (DWAF, 1996):
ECdw = ECiw ÷ LF Eq. 5.3

where LF is the fraction of the applied irrigation water that is leached below the root
zone. The leaching fraction is derived as follows:
LF = Ddw ÷ Diw Eq. 5.4

where Diw and Ddw are depths (mm) of irrigation and drainage water, respectively.
The depth of additional water required to obtain sufficient leaching when the water
requirement of a vineyard is replenished, is calculated as follows:
Ddw = [ECiw ÷ (ECdw – ECiw)] x ET Eq. 5.5

The permissible ECdw for vineyards is approximately 24 dS/m (Van Zyl, 1981). If the
ET of a vineyard requires 50 mm irrigation, and the ECiw is 1.4 dS/m, 3 mm additional

irrigation needs to be applied. The leaching requirement for this example will be
0.06 (3 mm ÷ 50 mm). It is important to note that leaching is primarily applicable for
full surface irrigation. Where flood irrigation is applied by means of narrow furrows,
leaching can occur (Van Zyl, 1981). In such cases, or where a wetted strip is
obtained with micro-sprinklers, the leaching approach can also be followed. In the
case of drip irrigation, salts do not leach readily from soils. Salts usually accumulate
on the perimeter of the wetted volume. Under such conditions, salts can be washed
back into root zones if rainfall occurs. Therefore, it is recommended that drip
irrigation should be applied during rainfall to reduce negative backwash effects.
This approach has practical limitations, since it is not always possible to irrigate all
vineyards on a farm simultaneously while it rains. Reducing backwash will probably
be more effective where wetted volumes have small diameters (< 30 cm), and salt
concentrations around the root zone are high (EC > 0.75 dS/m).
5.4.3 DILUTION OF SALINE WATER

Sometimes growers mix water that contains less salts with saline water, i.e. if the
latter does not meet water requirements of their vineyards. In such cases, it is
advisable to calculate the EC of the mixed water (ECm) to determine if it will be
suitable for irrigation. The ECm is calculated as follows:
ECm ≈ [(EC1 x V1) + (EC2 x V2)] ÷ (V1 + V2) Eq. 5.6
where EC1 and EC2 are electrical conductivities (dS/m) of the two sources, and
V1 and V2 are volumes of water (m3) from each source, respectively. Mixing saline
borehole water with fresh dam water is illustrated by the following example. If the
EC of 90 000 m3 water in a dam is 0.1 dS/m and the EC of borehole water is 1.2
dS/m, ECm (i.e. ECiw) will be approximately 0.21 dS/m if 10 000 m3 borehole water
is pumped into the dam. The EC of the dam water will still be within the limits of
the low salt hazard class (C1). If 30 000 m3 borehole water is added to the dam,
ECm will be approximately 0.38 dS/m. The dam water will now have a medium salt
hazard (C2), but could still be used for moderately salt tolerant/sensitive crops such
as grapevines, provided leaching is applied (Table 5.9).
5.4.4 TREATMENT OF SALINE WATER

Reverse osmosis or electro-dialysis can be used to remove salts from saline
water (DWAF, 1996). However, these technologies are expensive and therefore
not economically viable to desalinize large volumes of water for irrigation.
Other commercially available water treatment equipment includes an electro-
mechanical catalytic conditioner (Fig. 5.9). According to the manufacturers, the
latter equipment holds promise, since “un-useable borehole water containing
elevated TDS levels can be used for irrigation” after the treatment. However, a
field trial carried out for two seasons near Vanrhynsdorp showed that ca. 3.5 dS/m
borehole water treated with this equipment did not improve grapevine growth or

Chapter 5
yield, compared to untreated water (Myburgh, 2012b). Irrigation water can also be
enriched with micro-fine gypsum. Such treatment can only be beneficial if high soil
Na in relation to Ca and Mg causes water infiltration problems. If gypsum is added
to water that already contains high levels of salt, it can only aggravate the situation
by increasing the amount of salts in the soil.
Figure 5.9
A B
FIGURE 5.9. Example of (A) an inline unit for electro-mechanical, catalytic water treatment
and (B) its inlet port showing the grid to create turbulent water flow.
Figure 5.10
5.4.5 EFFECT OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Experience has shown that salt-containing fog caused leaf damage in vineyards
close to the ocean near Strandfontein along the West Coast (C. Malan, personal
communication, 2002). Therefore, saline water should preferably not be applied by
overhead sprinklers to prevent direct contact with the leaves. Under-vine irrigation
systems, e.g. micro-sprinklers and drippers, can deposit salts on grapevine trunks
(Fig. 5.10), but trunks can be shielded to avoid possible salt damage (Fig. 5.11).
FIGURE 5.10. Salt deposits on grapevine trunks where saline water was applied through
drippers near Vanrhynsdorp.

FIGURE 5.11. Tufts of grass tied around grapevine trunks to prevent possible salt damage
caused by saline irrigation water near Stampriet in Namibia.
5.4.6 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Classification of irrigation water according to EC and SAR should be used as
the basis for management decisions should saline water be used for irrigation.
• Controlled leaching can be applied to limit root zone salt accumulation if soil
permeability and irrigation system allow it.
• Avoid pollution of relatively fresh water by first calculating what the salt content
would be after it has been mixed with saline water.
• There are no economically viable methods to desalinate or treat saline water
for agricultural use.
• Since salts may damage leaves, saline water should not be applied by means
of overhead sprinklers.
• Under a given set of climatic and soil conditions, the best strategy is to keep
salts that could eventually end up in the soil to a minimum.

Chapter 5
5.5 ON-FARM WATER TREATMENT

Poor water quality is one of the primary causes of clogging in irrigation systems,
particularly drip and micro-sprinkler systems. Precipitates of iron and/or manganese
oxides in the flow paths or the orifices can reduce flow rates substantially. High
levels of Ca and/or Mg can cause the same problem. Eventually the precipitates
can block water flowing though the drippers or micro-sprinklers. Once this has
happened, it is almost impossible to clean the system. The best practice would
be to have the irrigation water analysed on a regular basis. If the levels exceed
the quality norms, acid can be injected into the irrigation system to prevent
precipitation, or to dissolve oxides which had already precipitated. Acids for use
in irrigation systems are hazardous chemicals. Therefore, injection systems should
be designed by experts in the irrigation industry. Personnel responsible for the
operation of the injection systems must be properly trained to reduce the risk of
unnecessary mishaps or spills. Excessive growth, or blooms, of micro-organisms
can cause irrigation system malfunctioning or clogging. When this problem occurs,
chlorine gas can be injected into the irrigation system. Chlorine gas is hazardous
and should also be handled, and applied, with care.
Aeration of the irrigation water at the source before it is being pumped into the
irrigation system will also reduce the risk of clogging. Breaking a stream of water
into smaller volumes will increase the area of water exposed to the atmosphere,
which will increase the formation and precipitation of oxides. If more water comes
into contact with the oxygen in the atmosphere, a bigger fraction of the unwanted
elements can be oxidized. Where possible, irrigation water can be aerated by
cascading it over a bed of stones or rocks. Mechanical churning may also be used
to aerate the water (Refer to Section 5.6.2).
5.6 USING TREATED WASTEWATER FOR

IRRIGATION
Due to low and irregular summer rainfall, grapevines require irrigation water for
sustainable yields and quality. Unfortunately, irrigation water is a limited resource
in South Africa. On the other hand, expanding urbanization and industries are
increasingly producing large volumes of wastewater. Therefore, irrigating vineyards
with treated wastewater could be a useful way to re-use the water, particularly
winery wastewater (Howell & Myburgh, 2018). Unfortunately, the quality of most
wastewaters exceeds the legislated limits presented in Table 5.11. Consequently,
wastewater needs to be treated before it can be used for irrigation of agricultural
crops. The purpose of this section is to discuss the viability of using treated
wastewater with respect to soil conditions and grapevine responses, based on
observations and research studies.

TABLE 5.11. Legislated limits for COD, faecal coliforms, pH, EC and SAR for irrigation with
wastewater in South Africa (Matthews, 2008).
Parameter Maximum irrigation volume allowed (m3/day)
< 50 < 500 < 2 000
COD (mg/) 5 000 400 75

Faecal coliforms (per 100 m) 1 000 000 100 000 1 000
pH 6-9 6-9 5.5-9.5
EC (mS/m) 200 200 70-150
SAR <5 <5 Other criteria apply
5.6.1 MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER

Using treated municipal wastewater for irrigation is not an uncommon practice.
Currently ca. 2 000 ha vineyards in the Swartland region are being irrigated with
treated wastewater from the city of Cape Town, i.e. the Potsdam irrigation scheme,
and the Malmesbury municipality. Analyzing the treated wastewaters during mid-
summer in vineyards near Philadelphia and Malmesbury for ten and five years,
respectively, revealed that most element concentrations were within acceptable
limits (Fig. 5.12). Likewise, the pH, EC and SAR, as well as Fe, B and Mn were
within acceptable limits (Fig. 5.13). Levels of P, N, trace elements and heavy
metals were only determined in the treated municipal wastewater from the Potsdam
scheme. The average PO4, NH4-N and NO3-N concentrations were 4.1, 2.7 and 2.1
mg/, respectively. Trace element, i.e. Cu and Zn, as well as heavy metal, i.e. Cr,
Pb and Hg concentrations were extremely low or undetectable (data not shown).
Figure 5.12
300
Philadelphia Malmesbury
250
Concentration (mg )
200
150
100
50
0
Ca Mg K Na HCO3
HCO3 SO4
SO4 Cl
FIGURE 5.12. Element concentrations in treated municipal wastewater used for irrigation of
vineyards near Philadelphia and Malmesbury, respectively.
Figure 5.13
9
8
0
Ca Mg K Na HCO3
HCO3 SO4
SO4 Cl
Chapter 5
Figure 5.13
9
8
6
Level in water
0
pH EC SAR Fe B Mn
FIGURE 5.13. The pH, EC in dS/m and SAR, as well as Fe, B and Mn concentrations in
mg/ in treated municipal wastewater used for irrigation of vineyards near Philadelphia and
Malmesbury, respectively.
The soil chemical status at budbreak was also monitored over ten years in
three drip irrigated vineyards near Philadelphia. Soil analyses showed that the
Figure 5.14
ESP varied considerably over time, and reached excessively high levels in the
subsoil (Fig. 5.14). This is an alarming trend, since the water SAR was on average
less than 10, i.e. within the quality norms for wastewater irrigation (Table 5.11).
However, results indicated that the accumulation of Na 8 in the soil profile depended
0-30 cm A
on the winter rainfall, i.e. between May and September (Fig. 5.14B). In general,
30-60 cm 6
this implies that some of the salts will accumulate if the winter rainfall is low, and
60-90 cm
some will be leached into deeper layers following high winter rainfall. It must be
Change in ESP (%)
4
noted that the nature of the rainfall could affect the amount of salts that will be
leached. Although the total rainfall could be high, 2 it could consist of numerous
small showers. Therefore, less salts will be leached, compared to a few heavy
downpours adding up to the same total. This probably 0 explains the outlier value
indicated in Figure 5.14B. 50 100 150
-2
-4
-6
Y = -0.0802 + 13.87 (R2 = 0.920
-8
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rainfall (mm

9
8
6
Level in water
5 18 8
0-30 cm
4 16 30-60 cm A 6
3 60-90 cm
14
Change in ESP (%)

4
2
12
2
ESP (%)
1
0
10
pH EC SAR Fe B Mn
0
8 50 100 150
-2
6
4 -4
2 -6
Y = -0.0802 + 13.87 (R2 = 0.920
0 -8
06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rainfall (mm
8
m 6 B
m
Change in ESP (%)
4
2
0
50 100 150 200 250
-2
-4
-6
Y = -0.0802 + 13.87 (R2 = 0.9206)
-8
09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Rainfall (mm)
FIGURE 5.14. Temporal variation in ESP in the soil at budbreak (A) and the effect of winter
rainfall from May to September on the change in ESP (B), where vineyards near Philadelphia
have been irrigated using treated municipal wastewater from the Potsdam scheme.
The encircled value was regarded as an outlier.
Irrigation with treated municipal wastewater almost doubled the vegetative growth of
drip irrigated grapevines, compared to no irrigation near Philadelphia (Table 5.12).
On average, the annual irrigation amounted to ca. 300 mm. Except for rainfall, the
vineyards received no other water. This confirmed that re-using treated wastewater
could be beneficial to vineyards where no other irrigation water is available. However,
it still needs to be determined whether irrigation with treated municipal wastewater
will have any negative effects on wine quality, e.g. taste or aroma, or induce any
other atypical characteristics. Although leaching of salts from the root zone could
be positive in terms of grape growing, over-irrigation with any wastewater should be
avoided at all times to reduce the risk of negative impacts on the ecology, particularly
natural water resources and soils. Irrigation with treated wastewater will reduce the
pressure on existing water resources used for irrigation. Furthermore, sustainable
re-use of treated wastewater for irrigation of vineyards, or other crops, will contribute
towards environmentally sound wastewater management. This will enhance the
image of the wine industry, particularly if it can be proved that treated municipal
wastewater has no detrimental effects on wine quality.

Chapter 5
TABLE 5.12. The effect of irrigation with treated municipal wastewater on the cane mass and
yield of two grapevine cultivars, compared to no irrigation (dryland) near Philadelphia. Cane
mass and yield data are means for four and five years, respectively.
Cultivar Cane mass (t/ha) Yield (t/ha)
Dryland Irrigated Dryland Irrigated
Sauvignon blanc 0.6±0.3 1.6±0.7 6.9±4.4 11.2±3.8

Cabernet Sauvignon 1.1±0.8 2.1±0.6 6.6±3.6 12.3±2.7
5.6.2 WINERY WASTEWATER

Wine production is an important industry in the Western Cape and the Lower
Orange region in the Northern Cape. Wineries inevitably produce large volumes
of low quality wastewater, particularly during the harvest period. International
requirements, as well as national legislation, are putting pressure on wine
producers regarding the responsible management of winery wastewater, which
may have a large-scale detrimental impact on the environment. The wine industry
has co-funded various projects in the past in an effort to develop technology that
will contribute to responsible management of distillery and winery wastewater.
Reducing the problem has already initiated technological innovation with regard to
winery wastewater treatment. The latter is not necessarily a sustainable solution, as
wastewater treatment may result in high energy use and emission of greenhouse
gasses, contributing to global warming. Furthermore, constantly increasing
electricity costs will be a challenge to the economic viability for high energy-
demanding processes required for wastewater treatment.
In many cases, wineries will only (i) remove coarse particles such as stems and
pips by screening, (ii) adjust the pH and (iii) allow sedimentation before it is sprayed
onto grazing paddocks (Fig. 5.15). Sometimes, additional wastewater treatment
such as aeration is also carried out in order to reduce the excessively high COD
concentrations. Vanes driven by electric motors mounted on floats can be used for
mechanical aeration to reduce the level of COD (Fig. 5.16). Aeration can reduce
the COD in a fairly large body of wastewater below the highest permissible level
throughout the year (Fig. 5.17). During the annual harvesting and crushing peaks,
i.e. when vineyards still need irrigation, the permissible volume of wastewater per
day is extremely limited (Table 5.11). Consequently, it does not allow much scope
for irrigation of large areas under grapevines. If the water could be stored in large
enough dams, it could be used for irrigation of larger areas during the first part of
the following season. However, finding suitable dam sites near wineries might be
difficult. Furthermore, initial capital layout and high energy requirements will make
large scale aeration and storage a costly practice.

Figu
Figure 5.15
5.15 Figu
Figure 5.16
FIGURE 5.15. Basic winery wastewater treatment usually consists of (A) screening of coarse
particles and pH adjustment, (B) settling solids in a sedimentation pond and (C) disposing
the water onto a grazing paddock.

Chapter 5
ure 5.16
FIGURE 5.16. An example of an electric motor and vanes on floats (A) used to churn up the
water in order to aerate winery wastewater mechanically (B).

16 000
14 000
12 000
10 000
C D (mg )
8 000
6 000
4 000
2 000
0
15-Jan-06 15-May-06 15-Sep-06 15-Jan-07 15-May-07 15-Sep-07 15-Jan-08 15-May-08
FIGURE 5.17. Seasonal variation in COD in aerated winery wastewater after aeration
commenced in January 2006 (data supplied by the courtesy of the Botha winery). Brackets
indicate annual harvesting and crushing peaks. Dashed lines are the permissible COD levels,
Figure
depending on the volume irrigated per day 5.18 in Table 5.11.
as indicated
In most wine producing regions, vineyards need irrigation. Therefore, the ideal
situation would be to implement sustainable re-use of winery wastewater for
irrigation by adding it to existing irrigation water resources. The dilution of
winery wastewater could become a necessity in the future, as water shortages
and/or costs escalate. However, knowledge on the impact of irrigation with
diluted winery wastewater on soil chemical and physical properties, as well
as grapevine performance and wine quality, is limited. An important aspect
is that the General Authorization for using winery wastewater first needs to be
adapted by the Department of Water and Sanitation to legalize the use of diluted
winery wastewater. However, before any changes can be made to the General
Authorization there must be scientifically based proof for the sustainability of using
diluted winery wastewater for crop irrigation.
As part of the process to motivate for changing the General Authorization for
wineries, the possibility of using diluted winery wastewater for vineyard irrigation
was investigated in a field trial near Rawsonville in the Breede River Valley
(Myburgh & Howell, 2014b). Wastewater obtained from a co-operative winery was
diluted with fresh river water to COD levels of 100, 250, 500, 1 000, 1 500, 2 000,
2 500 and 3 000 mg/, respectively (Myburgh et al., 2015). Irrigation with only river
water served as the control. The irrigation treatments were applied to Cabernet
Sauvignon grapevines planted in a sandy, alluvial soil. Parallel to the field trial,
effects of diluted winery wastewater on the chemical properties of different soils
were studied in a pot trial under a rain shelter at Stellenbosch. Four soils, i.e. (i)
alluvial sand from Rawsonville, (ii) aeolic sand from Lutzville, (iii) shale-derived soil
from Stellenbosch and (iv) granite-derived soil from Stellenbosch, were irrigated
with wastewater diluted to 3 000 mg/ COD (Mulidzi et al., 2015a). In a follow-up
study, the four soils, plus a sandy loam soil from Robertson and a duplex soil from
Stellenbosch, were first irrigated with 3 000 mg/ COD winery wastewater, and then

Chapter 5
subjected to simulated winter rainfall (Mulidzi, 2016). A third pot experiment was
carried out to determine the effect of diluted winery wastewater on the hydraulic
properties of the same soils used in the first pot experiment. In contrast to the
other two pot experiments, these soils were subjected to different levels of diluted
wastewater in the vineyard where the field trial was carried out (Howell, 2016).
Soil analyses carried out after harvest in May and at budbreak in September showed
no clear trends in pH(KCl). However, ECe was substantially higher after the seasonal
wastewater irrigations, compared to budbreak. This was probably due to the higher
salt content in the diluted wastewaters. There was a close correlation between P
applied via the irrigation water and the P levels in the 0 to 30 cm soil layer in the work
row. Under the prevailing conditions, soil K (Bray II) increased with a decrease in the
dilution of the wastewater during all four seasons. Taking soil samples to a depth of
3 m (Fig. 5.18) showed that even soils irrigated using wastewater containing 3 000
mg/ℓ COD maintained baseline K levels after four years (Fig. 5.19A). On the other
hand, irrigation with the 3 000 mg/ℓ COD water tended to increase soil Na, compared
to river water (Fig. 5.19B). However, the level of Na was substantially lower than the
threshold of 0.4 cmol(+)/kg proposed by (W.J. Conradie, personal communication
2010) throughout the 3 m deep profile. Since there were no substantial differences
in the amounts of Ca and Mg applied via the irrigation water, these elements did not
show any consistent or significant responses in the soil (data not shown).
FIGURE 5.18. Collecting soil samples over 30 cm increments to a depth of 3 m.

Bray 2 - K (mg/kg) Na (cmol(+)/kg)
0 50 100 150 200 0 00 0 10 0 20
0 0
30 River water 30 River w
3000 mg  C D 3000 m
60 60
90 C
90
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
120 o 120
n
150 r 150
a
180 180
d
210 i 210
e
240 240
270 270
300 300
A
330 330
Bray 2 - K (mg/kg) Na (cmol(+)/kg)

50 100 150 200 0 00 0 10 0 20 0 30 0 40
0
River water 30 River water
3000 mg  C D 3000 mg  C D
60
C
90
Depth (cm)
o 120
n
r 30 150 30
Rawsonville sand - 3.3% clay
a
180
Lutzville sand - 0.4% clay
d 25 25
Stellenbosch shale - 21% clay
i 210
e Stellenbosch granite - 13% clay
240
Kex (cmol(+)/kg)
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
20 20
270
15 300 15
B
330
10 10
FIGURE 5.19. Soil K (Bray II) and extractable Na contents over 3 m depth in a sandy soil in
September 2013 0 5following irrigation with river water and winery wastewater diluted
0 5to 3 000 mg/
for four seasons.
00 00
0 500 1 000 1 500 0 200
Although irrigation with winery Applied
wastewater
element had relatively little effect on
K (kg/ha) Applied Na
accumulation in the sandy soil under field conditions, considerable amounts of K
and Na accumulated in the absence of rainfall (Mulidzi et al., 2015b). It must be
noted that these elements
30 accumulated, irrespective of clay content (Fig. 5.20).
d - 3.3% clay
.4% clay Since the pot experiment was carried out under a rain shelter, it reflects a worst
ale - 21% clay case scenario, i.e. where
25 no leaching due to rainfall occurred. As expected,
nite - 13% clay
leaching occurred when the soils were subjected to simulated rainfall (Mulidzi,
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
20
2016). However, the leaching appears to depend on the clay content and the
amount of rainfall as 1illustrated
5 in Figure 5.21. This implies that salts applied via
10
05
d
210 i 210
e
240 Chapter 5
240
270 270
300 300
winery wastewater will not necessarily leach more readily from sandy soils than
2 - K (mg/kg) 330 Na (cmol(+)/kg) 330
100 150 heavier200
soils under
0 00 field 0conditions.
10 According
0 20 to Mulidzi
0 30 0 40(2016), irrigation with
diluted winery0wastewater did not increase soil organic C, compared to irrigation
with clean water
River water 30 under the prevailing conditions,
River waterirrespective of the clay content
3000 mg(data
C D not shown). It was concluded that3000 mg  C ofDorganic material applied via
breakdown
60
the winery wastewater occurred between irrigations, although the COD level was
C approximately90hundred times higher in the winery wastewater than in the clean
Depth (cm)
o water. This 120

emphasizes the importance of effective irrigation scheduling if winery
n
r
wastewater 150
is used for irrigation.
a
180
d 30
30
210 Rawsonville sand - 3.3% clay
e Lutzville sand - 0.4% clay
240
25 25
Stellenbosch shale - 21% clay
270 Stellenbosch granite - 13% clay
Kex (cmol(+)/kg)
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
20
300 20
330
15 15
10 10
05 05
A
00 00
0 500 1 000 1 500 0 2
Applied K (kg/ha)
30
25
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
20
15
10
05
B
00
1 000 1 500 0 200 400 600
g/ha) Applied Na (kg/ha)
FIGURE 5.20. Accumulation of extractable (A) K and (B) Na in four differently textured soils
irrigated with winery wastewater diluted to 3 000 mg/ COD over four simulated seasons in
a pot experiment under a rain shelter (Mulidzi et al., 2015b).

Stellenbosch
469 mm Rainfall
7 to 21% Clay
} Adequate leaching
Rawsonville
548 mm Rainfall
3.3% Clay
} Adequate leaching
35% Clay 0.4% Clay
Robertson - 135 mm - Inadequate leaching Lutzville - 94 mm - Inadequate le

Robertson
135 mm Rainfall
35% Clay
} Inadequate leaching
35%Clay
0.4% Clay 0.4% Clay
ing Robertson - 135

Lutzville - 94 mmmm - Inadequate
- Inadequate leaching
leaching Lutzville - 94 mm - Inadequate le
Lutzville
94 mm Rainfall
0.4% Clay
} Inadequate leaching
FIGURE 5.21. Effect of winter rainfall (May to September) and clay content on the probability
and Na applied via irrigation with diluted winery wastewater will be leached from the
that KClay
0.4%
soil at four localities in the Western Cape (adapted from Mulidzi, 2016).
ng Lutzville - 94 mm - Inadequate leaching
Chapter 5
If soils are irrigated with diluted winery wastewater over time, the soil pH(KCl) can
increase by approximately 1 to 2 units in the absence of rainfall, irrespective of
clay content (Mulidzi et al., 2015b). The high amount of basic cations, particularly K
and Na, applied via the wastewater seems to be the reason for the pH(KCl) increase
(Fig. 5.20). In soils where leaching occurred upon the application of simulated
rainfall, the pH(KCl) tended to decline slightly, whereas in the Lutzville sand and
Robertson clay where no leaching occurred, the pH(KCl) showed a slight incline
(data not shown). Since winery wastewater used for irrigation contained a high
organic load, compared to the river water (Mulidzi, 2016), these cations were
probably present in the form of organic salts. Such salts can produce OH- anions
via decarboxylation that will increase the soil pH as illustrated in Figure 5.22
(Rukshana et al., 2011). Organic acids present in the wastewater may also be a
source of organic anions via the dissociation of H+ which can increase the soil pH
via decarboxylation (Fig. 5.22). If this happens, the soil might initially contain higher
levels of H+, but the pH will increase over time as more OH- is formed (Rukshana et
al., 2011). The organic load in the wastewater could be a further source of organic
N. These compounds will also produce OH- anions which can increase the soil pH
if ammonification occurs in soil (Fig. 5.22).
Plant residues Soil matrix

O HO O O HO O O HO O O HO O O HO O O HO O O HO O O HO O O
Effect of initial soil pH & pHBC

and pKa of compound
Soluble compounds
O rganic acids H+ OH-

R-CO O H Dissociation
O rganic anions R-H + CO
( Acetic, malic, citric 2
R-CO O - Decarbox ylation
& benzoic acids) Association
H+
O rganic anions R-CO O -
( Potassium citrate)
OH- 2H+
O rganic N NH4+ NO 3-
( Glucosamine) Ammonification Nitrification
CO 2
O ther compounds H+/OH- ?
Initial effect Temporal effect

( Physiochemical process) ( Biological process)
FIGURE 5.22. Diagram illustrating possible mechanisms of soil pH changes upon addition
of model compounds (redrawn from Rukshana et al., 2011).
Figure . Diagram illustrating possible mechanismsIRRIGATION

of soil pH changes
OF WINEupon
GRAPES 135
addition of model compounds ( after Rukshana et al., 2014) .
After three years in the vineyard, the near-saturation hydraulic conductivity of the
shale-derived and sandy soils decreased substantially with a decrease in the
level of winery wastewater dilution (Howell, 2016). In contrast, there was no effect
on the K of the granite-derived soil after three years (Fig. 5.23). Furthermore, its
water permeability was low, compared to the other soils. The pots in the vineyard
were covered when river water was applied in the early part of the season and to
flush the system after wastewater irrigations. Therefore, fresh water could not have
affected K responses to the wastewater. Likewise, the granite-derived soil under
the rain shelter showed poor infiltration, compared to the other soils, although it was
irrigated with clean municipal water (Mulidzi et al., 2015a). A previous study also
showed that K of this particular soil was not in line with its clay content, compared
to other vineyard soils (Myburgh, 2015). At this stage, there is no explanation for
the hydraulic behaviour of the granite-derived soil. However, this does not rule out
the possibility that severe reductions in K will occur in the long run if diluted winery
wastewater is used for irrigation on these soils. Similar to the pot experiment under
the rain shelter, the potted soils in the field trial were not exposed to rainfall which
could have caused leaching. Therefore, the salt accumulation reported by Mulidzi
et al. (2015b) probably explains why the diluted wastewater reduced K even on
the sandy soils after only three years. In fact, visual observations in the field trial
revealed no infiltration problems where the sandy soil was irrigated with wastewater
for four years and confirmed that winter rainfall prevented salt accumulation that
could have reduced K.
1 000
Lutzville sand - 0.4% clay (R2 = 0.8459)
100
K (mm/h)
Rawsonville sand - 3.3% clay (R2 = 0.7685)
10
Stellenbosch shale - 21% clay (R2 = 0.8706)
Stellenbosch granite - 13% clay (R2 = 0.0317)

1
0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000
COD (mg/ℓ)
FIGURE 5.23. The near-saturation K in four differently textured soils after being irrigated with
diluted winery wastewater for three seasons in a pot experiment (Howell, 2016). It must be
noted that the y-axis is a logarithmic scale.

12
Pearl millet Oats
Chapter 5
Avena sativa L. cv. Pallinup (oats) established in the work rows during winter
tended to increase the dry matter production when irrigated with diluted winery
wastewater, compared to clean river water irrigation (Fig. 5.24). However, this
trend only occurred if the oats was not preceded by Pennisetum glaucum L. cv.
1 000
Babala (pearl millet) as a summer interception crop (Myburgh & Howell, 2014b).
Oats continuously produced acceptable2amounts of dry fibre. The different levels of
Lutzville sand - 0.4% clay (R = 0.8459)
winery wastewater dilution had no effect on the Ca, Mg and K in the above-ground
growth. Although differences in N and Na occurred, it was not related to the level
100
of dilution. However, the Na levels increased over time. Sowing pearl millet on 10
(mm/h)
January allowed its growth to peak while approximately 90% of the diluted winery
Rawsonville sand - 3.3% clay (R2 = 0.7685)
wastewater was applied. The latter improved the DMP of pearl millet. The diluted
winery wastewater did not affect the levels of N, P, Ca and Mg in the above-ground
K
10
growth, but increased the level of Na slightly over time. Although the levels of K
differed between treatments,
Stellenbosch it was
shale - 21%not related
clay to the level of wastewater dilution.
(R2 = 0.8706)
By planting both species in sequence, too much of the nutrients applied via the
wastewater were intercepted,
Stellenbosch particularly
granite - 13% clayK(R(Fig. 5.25). Furthermore, the amounts
2 = 0.0317)
1
of Na removed 0 by the cover
500 crops
1 000 were insignificant.
1 500 2 000 This2 is
500a matter of concern,
3 000
since Na is one the most problematicCOD elements
(mg ) in many winery wastewaters. The
slash and removal costs will also contribute to the already high production costs
of vineyards. Based on the foregoing, the sustainability of using cover crops to
intercept elements applied via winery wastewater is questionable.
12
Pearl millet Oats
10
8
DMP (t/ha)
0
5 100 250 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000
COD (mg/)
FIGURE 5.24. Effect of irrigation with winery wastewater containing different levels of COD
on the DMP of pearl millet grown in summer and oats grown in winter. Pearl millet and oats
data are means for three and four years, respectively.

300
250
Applied K (kg/ha/year)
200
150
100
50
y = 0 0563x + 9 316
R² = 0 9975
0
0 1 000 2 000 3 000 4 000 5 000
COD (mg/)
FIGURE 5.25. Relationship between the amounts of K applied via winery wastewater and the
level of dilution as indicated by the COD. The horizontal band indicates K removed by pearl
millet and oats ± standard deviation. Data are means for three years.
A more viable alternative would be to intercept elements applied via winery

wastewater in vineyards by means of halophytic cover crops. To investigate this
possibility, fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L. ‘Brigadier’) was irrigated with Na-enriched
water in a pot experiment (Myburgh & Howell, 2014a). The water was enriched
to Na levels found in winery wastewater. Visual observations revealed that the
plants appeared healthy (Fig. 5.26). There were no deficiency symptoms, except
nitrogen, which could be corrected by fertilizer application. Although irrigation
with Na-enriched water caused Na accumulation in the fodder beet (Fig. 5.27A), it
did not affect fresh, or dry matter production of fodder beet if compared to clean
water. Furthermore, fodder beet absorbed 38% of the Na applied via irrigation with
Na-enriched water (Fig. 5.27B). Since the bulk of the plant can be harvested for
fodder, Na will be removed more effectively, compared to crops where the roots
remain in the soil. Therefore, this halophyte holds promise as an interception crop
to reduce Na accumulation in soils where winery wastewater is used for irrigation.
However, the foregoing does not rule out the possibility that other halophytic crops
could be just as effective, or even better.

Chapter 5
Figure 5.26
re 5.26
C Figure
30
25
20
(+)
Na (%)
FIGURE 5.26. Visually, irrigating fodder beet with Na-enriched water did not affect
1 5development or (C) tuber quality.
(A) vegetative growth, (B) tuber
Figure 5.27
10 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 139
Figure 5.27
30 10
A 09
25
08
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
07
20
06
Na (%)
15 05
04
10 03
02 c
05
01
Figure0 5.27
0 00
No Na Plus Na No Na Plus Na No Na Plu
Leaves Tubers Without fodde

10
09 B
08
Naex (cmol(+)/kg)
07 a
06
05
b
04
03
02 c
c
01
00
No Na Plus Na No Na Plus Na No Na Plus Na
Tubers Without fodder beet With fodder beet

FIGURE 5.27. The effect of irrigation with Na-enriched water on (A) the Na in fodder beet
leaves and tubers and (B) the Naex in soil with and without fodder beet (Myburgh & Howell,
2014a). Vertical bars indicate standard deviation, and columns designated by the same letter
do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
Soil microbial activity in different soil depth layers was assessed by (i) enzyme
analysis using a colorimetric assay, (ii) coarse-level comparisons of total
heterotrophic and actinomycete populations by dilution plating on growth media
monitoring shifts in microbial communities using the ARISA method and (iii)
measuring soil glomalin by a simple Bradford assay (Myburgh & Howell, 2014b

Chapter 5
and references therein). Soil microbial enzyme activity was most sensitive to
changes triggered in the topsoil layers. It was highest in the 0 to 10 cm layer
and gradually decreased with increasing depth. Since this gradient in enzyme
activity was observed before and after irrigations, it implies that irrigation with
winery wastewater had no negative consequences on organic matter in soil. In
fact, it suggests that easily decomposable organic matter added to the soil via
irrigation promoted soil enzyme activity. Enzyme activity also seemed to have been
stimulated over time as more irrigation was applied (Fig. 5.28). When assessed
over the entire trial period, microbial population sizes also decreased with depth,
but the impact of irrigation with winery wastewater on general microbial counts and
shifts in soil microbial communities were inconclusive (data not shown). Glomalin
content also decreased with an increase in soil depth, but did not respond to level
of COD in the diluted wastewater (data not shown). Given that both glomalin and
soil microbial enzyme activity are considered good indicators of soil microbial
health, irrigation with winery wastewater should be of little to no consequence to
general soil health. Furthermore, soil fertility may even be improved, given the
positive effects of winery wastewater on soil microbial enzyme activity under the
prevailing conditions. However, the foregoing should be received with caution, as
Figure 5.28
some of the findings need to be substantiated by further research.
70
-glucosidase activity (µg/g soil/h)
2011 2012 2013

60 a
ab a
50 ab
ab
ab ab
b b ab
40
30 a
ab
20
b b
b
10
0
5 500 1 000 2 000 3 000
COD (mg/)
FIGURE 5.28. Effect of irrigation with diluted winery wastewater on mean β-glucosidase
activity. Data are annual means, irrespective of irrigation cycle or soil depth. Columns
designated by the same letter do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
Irrigation of grapevines using winery wastewater diluted up to a maximum COD

level of 3 000 mg/ did not affect the grapevine water status, vegetative growth or
Figure 5.29
any of the yield components, compared to the river water control (Howell et al.,
2016). The mean mid-day stem water potential was -0.6 PMa, which indicated that
A
2012 2013
the grapevines experienceda almost no water constraints. Mean cane mass and
ab a respectively. These levels of vegetative growth and yield
yield were 2.5 and 15 t/ha,
ab
were ab
comparable to those previously reported for Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards
ab without a summer cover crop. Therefore, the results suggested that the grapevines’
growth vigour and yield were not affected by the pearl millet in the work rows during
summer. The primary reason is probably because the pearl millet was sown after
a most of the bunch initiation and differentiation, as well as vegetative growth, had
occurred. Furthermore, visual observations revealed that the root system of this
ab
cover crop was shallow, compared to that of the grapevines. Therefore, competition
for water and nutrients
b was probably not strong enough to have induced negative
effects on grapevine growth and yield.
The fact that organic carbon did not accumulate in the soil during the study
period indicated that the soil was sufficiently aerated between irrigations to allow
1000 organic
2000 3000 via oxidation (Howell, 2016). This probably explains why
matter breakdown
COD (mg/L) grapevine growth and yield did not respond to level of COD per se. Furthermore, it
must be noted that the salinity and sodicity levels in the diluted winery wastewater
were below the thresholds for grapevines. Therefore, accumulation of elements
in the leaves and shoots was not expected, which was confirmed by the lack of
response to the element levels in the diluted winery wastewater. This is a further,
and maybe more realistic reason, why the grapevines did not respond to the
wastewater irrigation. Since vegetative growth did not differ, ET was not affected
by the wastewater irrigation under the prevailing conditions (Myburgh & Howell,
2014b). However, due to the vigorous pearl millet growth (Fig. 5.29), ET showed
an unexpectedly high peak during berry ripening (Fig. 5.30).
FIGURE 5.29. Pearl millet planted between grapevine rows as an interception crop.
n Jul Aug
Chapter 5
6
ET (mm/day)
0
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
FIGURE 5.30. Mean monthly daily ET of grapevines irrigated using diluted winery wastewater
over four seasons. Bracket indicates the period of pearl millet growth.
Under the prevailing conditions, irrigation of grapevines using winery wastewater

diluted to a maximum COD of 3 000 mg/ did not have any detrimental effects on
juice quality characters (Howell et al., 2016). At harvest, the mean total soluble
solids, total titratable acidity and pH were 23.3°B, 5.1 g/ and 3.6, respectively.
Although sensorial wine quality characters were also not affected, mean overall
wine quality was only 37%. This indicated that the high and frequently applied
irrigation volumes were detrimental to wine quality. Since quality is an important
aspect, particularly if wine needs to be exported, the poor overall quality is of great
concern. However, there is ample evidence that less frequent irrigation, which
allows higher levels of plant available water depletion between irrigations, will
enhance wine quality (Refer to Chapter 7). This implies that the winery wastewater
will probably have to be applied over large areas to allow sufficient PAW
depletion between irrigations. Unfortunately, such a practice will need additional
infrastructure and management, which might not be economically viable.
A pilot study carried out in the field trial indicated that grapevine bunches exposed
to direct contact with winery wastewater may decrease in spicy character,
increase wine volatile acidity and cause a winery wastewater-like off-odour in
wines (Schoeman, 2012). Furthermore, as the quality of the water decreases,
these off-odours may increase. Therefore, even though wine colour and common
sensory wine descriptors were not affected by the various treatments, any further
increase in wine VA or wastewater off-odours may reduce wine quality. Although
wastewater odours may differ from winery to winery, the risk for off-flavours cannot
be excluded. The foregoing also clearly demonstrates that overhead sprinkler
irrigation will not be suitable if winery wastewater is re-used for vineyard irrigation.

Based on results of the field and pot experiments, irrigation of vineyards with winery
wastewater diluted to a maximum COD of 3 000 mg/ will only be sustainable if:
• there is adequate clean water available for dilution.
• the EC in the diluted water is less than 0.75 dS/m.
• the SAR in the diluted water is less than 5.
• it is a sandy soil with low CEC.
• the internal drainage is unrestricted.
• the irrigation water does not percolate beyond the root depth.
• the irrigation is applied with micro-sprinklers in such a way that the bunches
are not wetted.
• a summer interception crop and a winter cover crop are grown, slashed and
removed.
• the irrigation frequency and volumes (schedule) enhance, rather than negate,
wine quality characteristics.
The practical implication of these criteria is illustrated by the following example.
If a winery crushes 30 000 tons, and uses ca. 2 m3 raw water per ton, it would
produce 60 000 m3 wastewater annually. To dilute this wastewater to 3 000 mg/
COD for irrigation would require an additional 215 400 m3 clean irrigation water. Six
irrigations of 40 mm each applied with micro-sprinklers during the harvest period
would require 2 400 m3 water per hectare. This means that the diluted winery
wastewater needs to be distributed over 90 ha sandy soil during the harvest period.
Based on the foregoing, and logistical challenges of mixing large volumes of water,
irrigation with diluted winery wastewater can most likely only be implemented by
boutique or estate wineries where small volumes of wastewater are produced.

Since low quality water is not suitable for irrigation, analyses are necessary to avoid
irreversible damage to soils, grapevines and irrigation equipment. Furthermore, water
quality may change substantially within a short period of time. Therefore, frequent
analyses are essential to pick up rapid deterioration in water quality. Fortunately,
there are internationally proven thresholds and norms for water quality variables.
If irrigation water quality conforms to these criteria, growers can be assured that no
negative effects will occur.
Water resources are becoming limited, particularly during periods of droughts.
In many cases, irrigation water quality decreases during droughts. In addition
to this, irrigation water allocations are unlikely to increase, and may become
more expensive where new resources need to be developed. Therefore, the
use of treated wastewater for vineyard irrigation is an important consideration in
situations where low water availability and high water costs are threatening the
sustainability of growing grapes for wine production. Furthermore, it must be noted
that wastewater generation, particularly municipal water, may decrease during
droughts when authorities restrict the use of potable water.

Chapter 5

Chapter 6
Grapevine
water status
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Plants need to absorb water stored in the soil to allow sustainable physiological
functioning. When plants experience water constraints, it will have negative effects
on a number of plant physiological processes. However, the level of water constraints
where these processes begin to respond negatively differs substantially (Fig. 6.1). For
example, cell growth and wall synthesis that determine root, shoot and fruit growth, are
more sensitive to water constraints than sugar accumulation. In practice, this means
that a grapevine will show strong vegetative growth and produce large berries if it
is well watered. On the other hand, less irrigation, i.e. more water constraints, might
be necessary to enhance sugar accumulation. In some plants, stomatal opening
and CO2 assimilation that are prerequisites for photosynthesis, i.e. one of the most
important physiological processes that depends on water (Fig. 6.2), can be relatively
insensitive to water constraints. The foregoing implies that subjecting grapevines to
water constraints will prevent excessive vegetative growth, produce smaller berries
and enhance sugar accumulation without compromising on photosynthesis. This is
Figure 6.1
of particular importance if high quality wine production is the objective.
Sensitivity to stress
Very sensitive Relatively insensitive
Tissue osmotic potential required to affect process
Process 0 MPa -1 MPa -2 MPa
Cell growth
Wall synthesis
Protein synthesis
Protochlorophyl formation
Nitrate reductase
ABA accumulation
Cytokinin level
Stomatal opening
CO2 assimilation
Respiration
Proline accumulation
Sugar accumulation
FIGURE 6.1. Schematic illustration of the level of water constraints that will induce negative
effects on plant physiological processes (adapted from Hsiao, 1973).
146 CHAPTER 6 – GRAPEVINE WATER STATUS

Chapter 6
Light
energy
Carbon dioxide + water Light Sugar + oxygen

Light
(6CO2 + 6H2O C6H12O6 + 6O2)
Water
FIGURE 6.2. Schematic illustration of photosynthesis in grapevines.
To manage water supply to grapevines by means of irrigation, it is essential to

understand the diurnal water status of grapevines. On a normal sunshine day, water
uptake by the roots is slower than the volume of water lost by transpiration. As a
result, a water deficit, or negative water potential gradient, evolves between the
grapevine roots and leaves (Fig. 6.3A). In order to maintain adequate transpiration
during daytime, water is extracted temporarily from plant cells into the transpiration
stream. The cells begin to shrink upon this water loss. The net effect of this cell
shrinkage is that grapevine organs such as trunks, shoots, petioles and laminae
also shrink during daytime (Fig. 6.4). When the transpiration rate begins to decline
in the late afternoon, water uptake by the roots continues. Consequently, the water
potential gradient becomes less. At the same time, water flows back into the cells
and they begin to expand (Fig. 6.4). During night time when almost no transpiration
occurs, the roots continue to absorb water from the soil, and the water potential
gradient continues to decline throughout the night (Fig. 6.3B). By predawn, the
cell water is replenished and the cells have regained full turgidity, i.e. if sufficient
soil water is available. As soon as the sun comes out, the water potential gradient
begins to increase as transpiration exceeds water absorption from the soil, and
the next diurnal water status cycle begins.

Figure 6.3
A B
Water Water
uptake uptake
FIGURE 6.3. Schematic illustration

Figurewhere
6.4the vertical arrows indicate water potential
gradients (A) during daytime and (B) in the night.
0.30
Trunk diameter (mm)
0.25
0.20 DG
DC
0.15
0.10
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00
Day 1 Day 2 Day 3
FIGURE 6.4. Diurnal variation in grapevine trunk diameter where DC and DG indicate daytime
contraction for Day 1 and daily growth for Day 2, respectively (adapted from Myburgh, 1996).
It must be noted that water potential actually reflects the suction by which water is
held by the plant cells. Therefore, it has a negative numeric value. Under normal
atmospheric conditions, the highest water potential, i.e. the least negative value,
occurs during the predawn period around 04:00 irrespective of soil water content
(Fig. 6.5). If the soil is wet, and high humidity and windless conditions prevail in the

Chapter 6
early morning, minimum evaporation occurs from leaf surfaces. Consequently, a

positive sap pressure in the grapevine can cause water droplets to form on the tips
of the serrations on the edge of young leaves (Fig. 6.6). This physiological condition
is known as guttation (Latin: gutta = drop). When the water droplets evaporate, they
may leave slight salt deposits on the edge of the leaves. However, the latter is unlikely
to be harmful to plants (Kramer, 1983). In fact, guttation indicates that the grapevines
experience no water constraints. Under normal atmospheric conditions, the lowest
water potential in grapevines usually between 12:00 and 14:00, i.e. irrespective
occurs 6.5
Figure
of the soil water content (Fig. 6.5).
Time
02:00 04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00 00:00 02:00 04:00
0,0
-0 2 T1 - 35% PAW depletion
T4 - 75% PAW depletion
-0 4
T8 - Continuous deficit irrigation
-0 6
-0 8
(MPa)
-1 0
L
-1 2
-1 4
-1 6
-1 8
-2 0
-2 2
FIGURE 6.5. Diurnal ΨL in Shiraz irrigated at two different levels of PAW depletion, as well as
continuous deficit irrigation near Robertson (Lategan, 2011). Vertical bars indicate LSD (p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 6.6
FIGURE 6.6. Grapevine leaves showing early morning guttation.

As the soil dries out, and water uptake becomes slower, the daytime water potential
gradient increases (Fig. 6.7). Since the daytime water deficit in the grapevines
increases, more water needs to flow from the cells into the transpiration stream.
Consequently, shrinking of the plant cells also increases as the plant available
water becomes less (Fig. 6.8). Details of measuring the diurnal shrinkage are
presented in Chapter 8. If the soil becomes so dry that the roots cannot absorb
enough water during the night to return the cells to their turgid state, grapevines
will show signs of wilting the next day. If the wilting symptoms do not recover upon
irrigation, the soil water content at this particular stage is referred to as permanent
wilting point.
A Transpiration B Transpiration
Water
uptake Water
uptake
FIGURE 6.7. Schematic illustration where the vertical arrows indicate the water potential
gradient in grapevines in (A) wet soil and (B) dry soil.

Chapter 6
Figure 6.8
0.12
0.10
Daily contraction (mm)

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PAW depletion (%)
FIGURE 6.8. Effect of PAW depletion on the daily shrinkage of grapevine trunks (Myburgh,
1996).
6.2 QUANTIFICATION OF GRAPEVINE WATER

STATUS
6.2.1 GRAPEVINE WATER POTENTIAL
Grapevine water status is usually quantified by measuring the predawn water
potential in leaves when water constraints are the lowest, or around midday when
the constraints are the highest on normal sunshine days (Fig. 6.9). The midday
measurements can be carried out using mature leaves that are fully exposed to
the sun to obtain leaf water potential. Alternatively, leaves can be covered in bags
to assess the stem water potential. Since the stomata are partially closed due to
less radiation, the water potential in shaded leaves is usually higher, compared to
leaves that are fully exposed to the sun (Fig. 6.9). Given the fact that the amount
of light or the degree of shading can be quite variable within grapevine canopies,
measuring water potential in shaded leaves is not recommended. Details of the
procedures for measuring grapevine water status are presented in Chapter 8.

Predawn Shade Sun Stem
00
-0 2
(MPa) -0 4
-0 6
-0 8
-1 0
-1 2
-1 4
FIGURE 6.9. Comparison between predawn and midday leaf water potential in shaded
leaves and ones fully exposed to the sun, as well as midday stem water potential in Sauvignon
blanc. Data are means for five grapevines (Myburgh, 2010). Vertical bars indicate ± one
standard deviation.
6.2.2 CARBON ISOTOPE DISCRIMINATION

Carbon isotope discrimination in grape juice sugar at ripeness can serve as
indicator of the extent to which grapevines experienced water constraints during
ripening (Van Leeuwen et al., 2009 and references therein). The carbon isotope
ratio (13C/12C) is usually stable. However, 12C is preferentially used by enzymes
during photosynthesis. Since 12C is preferred over 13C, this process is referred to
as “isotope discrimination”. When grapevines experience no water constraints, the
carbon isotope discrimination is less severe. Consequently, juice sugar contains
more 13C, compared to juice of grapevines that experience water constraints
(Van Leeuwen et al., 2009). Based on the foregoing, the so-called δ13C index, i.e.
according to the 13C/12C ratio in juice sugar, can serve as an indicator of cumulative
grapevine water constraints during berry ripening (Fig. 6.10). The 13C/12C ratio is
determined by means of mass spectrometry. It is compared to a standard and
ranges between -27 ‰, i.e. indicating no grapevine water constraints, and -20 ‰,
i.e. indicating severe water constraints (Van Leeuwen et al., 2009).

Chapter 6
" Wet" " Dry"

-22
-23
C -24
13
-25
-26
-27
FIGURE 6.10. Comparison between δ13C of Merlot/110 R in “wet” and “dry” plots within the
same vineyard near Stellenbosch (adapted from Strever & Myburgh, 2018). Vertical bars
indicate ± one standard deviation.
Since δ13C measurements can only be carried out by specialized laboratories, it

may take some time to obtain the results. Therefore, it is not suitable for determining
grapevine water status for irrigation management. However, δ13C measurements can
be useful in research studies to compare the degree of cumulative water constraints
between different irrigation strategies, and the effect thereof on grapevine growth,
yield and wine quality characteristics. The relationships between selected grapevine
responses and δ13C, as well as midday ΨS, are illustrated in Figure 6.11. In this
particular study, the effects of low and high frequency irrigation on grapevine rows
or in work rows, as well as partial root zone drying on Merlot/99 R, were compared to
no irrigation. Measuring δ13C in terroir studies can also be of great value to compare
cumulative grapevine water constraints between different localities.

FIGURE 6.11. Relationship between berry mass, sensorial overall wine quality and cane mass
at pruning of Merlot/99 R and δ13C (A, C & E), as well as midday ΨS (B, D & F) as determined
in the 2006/07 season near Wellington (Strever & Myburgh, 2018).

Chapter 6
6.3 FACTORS AFFECTING GRAPEVINE WATER

STATUS
6.3.1 CULTIVARS
The fact that water potential in different grapevine cultivars may respond differently
to water constraints is well documented. Under comparable soil and atmospheric
conditions, grapevine water status can also differ inherently between cultivars
(Winkel & Rambal, 1993; Medrano et al., 2003; Schultz, 2003). In certain cultivars,
leaf water potential remains more or less constant during the day, i.e. it does not
respond to changes in soil and/or atmospheric water status (Fig. 6.12). Such
cultivars are referred to as being “isohydric”. Leaf water potential rarely falls
below -1.5 MPa in isohydric grapevines (Lovisolo et al., 2010 and references
therein). In contrast, when leaf water potential in grapevines follows a distinct
diurnal pattern, and decreases in response to soil water deficits it is referred to as
being “anisohydric” (Schultz, 2003 and references therein). Isohydric wine grape
cultivars include V. vinifera cultivars such as Grenache, Trincadeira Preta and
Tempranillo (Lovisolo et al., 2010 and references therein). Anisohydric grapevine
cultivars include the species V. labrusca and V. californica Benth., as well as many
V. vinifera cultivars, including Chardonnay, Cabernet franc, Cabernet Sauvignon,
Syrah, Riesling, Carignan, Muscat, Thompson Seedless and Touriga Naçional.
However, it appears that the same cultivar can show iso- or anisohydric behaviour,
depending on the prevailing conditions, e.g. V. labruscana (Lovisolo et al., 2010
and references therein). The same study showed that Pinot noir was anisohydric
in response to pre-véraison water constraints, but responded isohydrically to
post-véraison water constraints. On the other hand, Tempranillo and Manto Negro
seem to be isohydric during most of the growing season, but depending on the
year, they exhibited iso- or anisohydric behaviour later in the season (Lovisolo et
al., 2010 and references therein).

Figure 6.12
Cultivars and treatments

Isohydric Isohydric Anisohydric Anisohydric
irrigated water stress irrigated water stress
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
(MPa)
-0.8
-1.0
L
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
FIGURE 6.12. Mean midday ΨL in isohydric and anisohydric grapevine species or cultivars
that were either well-watered or experienced some degree of water stress (after Lovisolo et
al., 2010). Vertical bars indicate ± one standard deviation.
Measuring midday ΨS in commercial vineyards growing in deep, red soils in

the Devon valley near Stellenbosch revealed that cultivars differ slightly in their
response to soil water depletion under the same atmospheric conditions. In this
case, readily available water was taken as the difference between the highest
neutron probe count ratio measured after heavy rainfall in winter, and the CR
measured when the water content in all soil layers reached a plateau as the soil
dried out. Since the slopes of the ΨS vs readily available water depletion were
comparable (ca. 0.022), the rate at which water constraints developed was more or
less the same in the four cultivars (Fig. 6.13). However, the y-axis interception, i.e.
the ΨS when the readily available water had been depleted, was lowest in Shiraz,
followed by Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinotage. This means that for a given
level of soil water depletion, water constraints were the highest in the Shiraz and
the lowest in the Pinotage grapevines.

Chapter 6
Figure 6.13
RAW (%) RAW (%)

0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
00 00
-0 2 A -0 2 B
-0 4 -0 4
-0 6 -0 6
(MPa)
-0 8 -0 8
-1 0 -1 0
S
-1 2 -1 2
-1 4 -1 4
-1 6 -1 6
y = 1.6 + -0.0218x y = 1.3 + -0.0223x
-1 8 -1 8
R2 = 0.869 R2 = 0.786
-2 0 -2 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
00 00
-0 C -0 2 D
-0 4 -0 4
-0 -0 6
-0
(MPa)
-0 8
-1 0 -1 0
S
-1 2 -1 2
- 4 -1 4
-1 6 -1 6
y = 1.4 + -0.0234x y = 1.5 + -0.022x
-1 8 -1 8
R2 = 0.902 R2 = 0.861
-2 0 -2 0
FIGURE 6.13. The relationship between midday ΨS and RAW in commercial (A) Shiraz,
(B) Pinotage, (C) Cabernet Sauvignon and (D) Merlot vineyards in the Devon valley near
Stellenbosch (unpublished data).
Grapevine cultivars inherently have different stomatal densities as discussed in

Chapter 1. The effect of different stomatal densities is in part reflected by the
variation in level of water constraints experienced by different cultivars under the
same set of soil and atmospheric conditions (Fig. 6.14). In fact, the ΨS is closely
related to stomatal density, i.e. the lower the stomatal density, the lower the ΨS,
irrespective of soil water content (Fig. 6.15). This trend implies that under a given
set of conditions, partial stomatal closure of Merlot and Sauvignon blanc will occur
to a higher degree and/or begin earlier, compared to Shiraz. More pronounced
stomatal control is likely to reduce water loss via transpiration, thereby avoiding
excessive water constraints in cultivars such as Merlot and Sauvignon blanc.

Figure 6.14
Shiraz/99 R Merlot/99 R Sauvignon blanc/99 R

00
-0 2
-0 4
-0 6
-0 8
(MPa)
-1 0
S
-1 2
-1 4
-1 6
-1 8
30% RAW depletion 75% RAW depletion
-2 0
FIGURE 6.14. Effect of RAW depletion on midday ΨS in three grapevine cultivars during
Figure
berry ripening in a sandy soil near Lutzville 6.15Olifants River region (after Myburgh,
in the Lower
2011h).
Stomata per mm2

100 110 120 130 140 150
-1 0
30% Depletion: y = 0.0104x - 2.7312 (R2 = 0.9494)
-1 2 75% Depletion: y = 0.0115x - 3.1219 (R2 = 0.9973)

(MPa)
-1 4
S
-1 6
-1 8
-2 0
FIGURE 6.15. Relationships between midday ΨS in Shiraz (), Merlot () and Sauvignon
blanc () and stomatal density at two levels of plant available water depletion in a sandy soil
near Lutzville (unpublished data).
6.3.2 ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS

Since stomata respond to light, grapevine transpiration is closely related to net
solar radiation. Consequently, radiation plays an important role in the grapevine’s
water status, e.g. the diurnal water potential cycle. Any other interruption in

Chapter 6
radiation (Fig. 6.16A) will cause partial stomatal closure, or a reduction in stomatal
aperture, which will lower water constraints in grapevines (Fig. 6.16B). The vapour
pressure deficit is a measure of the moisture content of the atmosphere. The higher
the VPD, usually expressed in kPa, the drier the atmosphere. In the grape growing
regions of South Africa, maximum daily VPD is around 3 kPa on normal sunshine
days. Grapevine leaf water potential generally declines with an increase in VPD, i.e.
water constraints tend to increase as the air becomes drier (Fig. 6.17). However,
the effect of VPD recedes as grapevine water constraints increase, whereas the
role of soil water becomes more prominent (Williams & Baeza, 2007). According to
the data in Figure 6.17, ΨL will decrease
Figure by ca. 0.08 MPa per 1 kPa VPD increase
6.16
if the soil is wet, and only by ca. 0.02 MPa per 1 kPa VPD increase if grapevines
experience water deficits.
5
A
4
Radiation ( M J / m / s )
Veld fire
2
Clouds
1
0
04 00 08:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 24:00 04:00
00
-0 2 B
-0 4
-0 6
ΨL (MPa)
-0 8
-1 0
-1 2
-1 4
-1 6
-1 8
FIGURE 6.16. The decline in net radiation caused by clouds and the smoke column of a veld
fire (A) and the concomitant increase in Merlot ΨL near Wellington (after Myburgh, 2011a).

-0.4
C.S. 1.12ET
C.S. Deficit irrigated
-0.6 T.S. 1.0ET
T.S. No water applied
-0.8
L (MPa)
-1.0
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
0 2 4 6 8 10
VPD (kPa)
FIGURE 6.17. The effect of VPD on ΨL in Cabernet Sauvignon (C.S.), either irrigated at 1.12
times the reference ET, or receiving only deficit irrigation, as well as Thompson Seedless
(T.S.), either irrigated at 1.0 times the reference ET, or receiving no irrigation (redrawn from
Williams & Baeza, 2007).
6.3.3 SOIL WATER STATUS

The decrease in grapevine transpiration by means of partial stomatal closure as
the soil dries out, is well documented. Likewise, there is a concomitant increase in
grapevine water constraints as the plant available water in the soil becomes less
(Williams & Araujo, 2002; Myburgh, 2011a). Grapevine water status is well related
to soil water status in anisohydric grapevines, and can be used as an indication
of when irrigation is required (Patakas et al., 2005). However, the rate at which
water constraints develop in grapevines depends on the soil texture. When the
soil water matric potential is higher than -30 kPa, grapevines in some sandy soils
tend to experience less water constraints, compared to ones in heavier soils (Fig.
6.18). This indicates that the water supply to grapevines is also a function of the
hydraulic conductivity of soils. In fact, when the Ψm in sandy soil is above -30 kPa,
the hydraulic conductivity is higher than in heavier soil (Chapter 3, Fig. 3.17). This is
due to the high flow rate through the coarse pores in the sandy soil when the water
content is high. If the soil water matric potential is less than -30 kPa, grapevines
in sandy soils will experience more water constraints at a given Ψm, compared to
grapevines in heavier soils (Fig. 6.18). In this case, a higher volume of water flowing
through the many fine pores of heavier soils will result in lower grapevine water
constraints, compared to lower volume of water flowing through the lower number
of fine pores in sandy soils.

Chapter 6
Figure 6.18
m (kPa)
-500 -400 -300 -200 -100 0
00
Stellenbosch - Sandy loam/Loamy sand
-0 2
Swartland - Sand
Swartland - Sandy loam
-0 4
Lower Olifants River - Sand
Lower Olifants River - Sandy loam/Loamy sand -0 6
Lower Orange River - Sand
Lower Orange River - Sandy loam -0 8
S
(MPa)
-1 0
-1 2
-1 4
-1 6
-1 8
-2 0
FIGURE 6.18. The relationship between midday ΨS in Cabernet Sauvignon and Ψm in
differently textured soils in various grape growing regions in South Africa (Myburgh, 2011l).
6.3.4 SOIL SALINITY

The level of dissolved salts in the soil solution determines how strong the osmotic
potential will be. In addition to Ψm, Ψo controls the rate of water uptake by grapevine
roots. In nature, water will flow from a solution with a low Ψo to one with a higher
Ψo via the process of osmosis. Consequently, water will begin to flow from the root
cells into the soil solution if the Ψo in the soil solution becomes higher than the Ψo
in the root cells. When this happens, soil salinity can have the same devastating
effect on grapevine water uptake as severe soil water deficits (Fig. 6.19). In fact,
soils can be wet, but if the Ψo is excessively high, grapevines can begin to die back
due to insufficient water uptake.

Figure 6.19
0.00
-0.25
S (MPa)
-0.50
Control
Water-Deficit
-0.75
Salinity
-1.00
0 4 8 12 16
Day
FIGURE 6.19. Effect of water deficits and irrigation with saline water on ΨS in potted Cabernet
Sauvignon grapevines where the salinity in the water was gradually increased until day 16
(redrawn from Cramer et al., 2007).
6.3.5 TRELLIS SYSTEM

It can be expected that grapevines trained onto trellis systems that allow more leaf
exposure, e.g. gable or T-trellises, will transpire more, which could cause more
water constraints, compared to vertically trained grapevines. In fact, it was shown
that Shiraz trained onto a horizontally divided canopy trellis system experienced
more water constraints when the trellis was opened, compared to the closed
position (Galat Giorgi et al., 2011). However, the difference in leaf exposure had no
effect on ΨPD. It was concluded that the higher leaf exposure increased grapevine
water use, i.e. if other aspects related with plant water status were unchanged.
When trained onto vertical trellis systems, Pinotage grapevines on a 2-Tier system
did not appear to induce more water constraints, compared to grapevines on a
single cordon VSP trellis, irrespective of soil water status (Fig. 6.20). This trend
occurred in spite of the fact that the cordon length per grapevine on the 2-Tier
system was almost double the cordon length of the single cordon VSP grapevines.
Due to the shorter cane lengths on the 2-Tier system, leaf area per grapevine was
probably comparable to the VSP grapevines. It should be noted that the effect of
soil water depletion dominated ΨL in the grapevines over the course of the day.
Although Scott Henry trellises may allow more leaf exposure, compared to VSP
trellises, it did not have any effect on midday ΨL in Cabernet Sauvignon (Williams
& Heymann, 2017). In this case, the level of irrigation, rather than the trellis system,
also seemed to dominate grapevine water status.

Time
04:00 06:00 08:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
00
VSP - 50% RAW water depletion
-0 2 2-Tier - 50% RAW water depletion
VSP - 75% RAW water depletion
-0 4 2-Tier - 75% RAW water depletion
-0 6
ΨL ( M P a )
-0 8
-1 0
-1 2
-1 4
FIGURE 6.20. Variation of ΨL in Pinotage/99 R trained onto a 6-strand VSP and a 2-Tier
vertical trellis, and irrigated at two levels of RAW depletion near Robertson (after Myburgh,
2011d).
6.3.6 CANOPY MANAGEMENT

Canopy management can determine the extent to which grapevine leaves will
be exposed to radiation. Consequently, manipulation of the canopy will affect
the level of transpiration, which in turn, will play a role in grapevine water status.
For example, in the case of grapevines with sprawling canopies and box pruned
grapevines more leaves will be exposed to radiation, compared to VSP grapevines
(Fig. 6.21). Therefore, water constraints in grapevines with more exposed leaves
will be higher, compared to grapevines where less leaves are exposed (Fig. 6.22).
This trend seems to occur irrespective of cultivar, soil or prevailing atmospheric
conditions.

A B C
FIGURE 6.21. Examples of (A) VSP, (B) sprawling and (C) mechanical or “box” pruning.
FIGURE 6.22. Effect of VSP, as well as sprawling canopies and box pruning, on midday ΨS
during berry ripening in Merlot/99 R near Stellenbosch (unpublished data) and Shiraz near
Robertson (Lategan & Howell, 2016).
6.3.7 CROP LOAD

The ΨS in daily drip irrigated Sauvignon blanc bearing two bunches per shoot was
higher, compared to grapevines bearing one bunch per shoot (Naor et al., 1997).
Measuring stomatal conductance revealed that two bunches per shoot enhanced
transpiration of these well-watered grapevines. Since the higher transpiration was
not related to berry shrinkage during the day, the higher crop load did not provide
additional water for transpiration. Therefore, in the case of the higher crop load,
higher transpiration was probably due to an increase in root permeability, root
length, or root diameter (Naor et al., 1997). It must be noted that the bunch thinning
was carried out before flowering, which allowed enough time for these physiological

Chapter 6
adaptations of the roots. In contrast, 36% bunch thinning had no effect on midday
ΨS where Tempranillo received 100% of the crop water requirement, although the
yield was reduced from 23.6 to 13.8 t/ha (Esperanza Valdés et al., 2009). Likewise,
29% less bunches had no effect on grapevine water status where only 25% of the
water requirement was applied. In the latter case, yield was reduced from 13.6 to
9.0 t/ha.
In a pilot study, six levels of crop load ranging between zero and 20 bunches
per grapevine did not have any effect on midday ΨS in Cabernet Sauvignon (Fig.
6.23). The VSP trained grapevines were planted in a duplex soil near Stellenbosch.
Bunches were removed during berry ripening, and each crop load treatment was
replicated four times in a randomized block design. It must be noted that the
highest crop load was one bunch per shoot, which amounted to a relatively low
yield of 8.2 t/ha. This suggested that water stored in bunches did not make any
contribution to transpiration underFigure
the prevailing
6.23 conditions. The different crop
loads were probably too small to act as a significant sink for water.
Bunches per grapevine

0 4 8 12 16 20
00
-0 2
-0 4
-0 6
(MPa)
-0 8
-1 0
S
-1 2
a a a a a
-1 4 a
-1 6
-1 8
FIGURE 6.23. Effect of crop load on midday ΨS during berry ripening in Cabernet Sauvignon
near Stellenbosch (unpublished data). Bars designated by the same letter do not differ
significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
In another scenario, one bunch per primary shoot and the full crop load did not
affect midday ΨS in high yielding Mourvèdre, compared to grapevines bearing
no grapes, when the soil was wet at the beginning of a drying cycle (Fig. 6.24).
The VSP trained grapevines were drip irrigated in a sandy soil near Rawsonville.
Crop load treatments were applied at véraison, and were replicated seven times
in a fully randomized block design. At harvest, the actual yields of one bunch per
shoot and the full crop load amounted to 20 and 31 t/ha, respectively. At the end
of a three week drying cycle, midday ΨS in the Mourvèdre grapevines bearing the
full crop load was lower than in the ones bearing no grapes (Fig. 6.24). A possible

explanation could be that the full crop load became a more competitive sink for
water at the cost of transpiration, thereby reducing ΨS. However, this does not rule
out the possibility that the high crop load could have increased ET, compared
to grapevines bearing no grapes. In fact, micro-sprinkler irrigated Colombar
grapevines bearing a full crop load of 39.4 t/ha extracted more soil water during
a drying cycle, compared to ones where the crop load was reduced by 50% to
19.9 t/ha (Van Zyl, 1984). In this case, it was hypothesized that the higher crop
load absorbed more soil water during the night, and that this water was lost
via transpiration in the day. This suggests that the higher crop load could have
Figure
enhanced transpiration losses during the 6.24
initial stages of the drying cycle in the
sandy loam to sandy clay loam soils with a high level of PAW.
SWC (mm/60 cm)

103 32
00
-0 2
-0 4
-0 6 a
(MPa)
a a
-0 8 a
-1 0 ab
S
b
-1 2
No bunches
-1 4
1 Bunch per shoot
-1 6 Full crop load
-1 8
FIGURE 6.24. Effect of crop load and SWC on midday ΨS during berry ripening in Mourvèdre
in a sandy soil near Rawsonville (unpublished data). For each level of SWC, bars designated
by the same letter do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
6.3.8 LEAF DAMAGE BY PESTS

Erinose mites are a common pest which may cause extensive leaf damage in
vineyards (Fig. 6.25). A pilot study was carried out by measuring midday ΨL in 20
damaged, as well as undamaged Cabernet Sauvignon leaves from four different
grapevines. The damaged leaf area was determined by measuring the mean
diameter of 100 felt galls on the ad-axial leaf sides. Leaf damage caused by
erinose mites does not seem to affect grapevine water status (Table 6.1). Although
there was substantial variation in the number of blisters per leaf, there was also no
relationship between ΨL and the percentage leaf damage (data not shown).

A B
FIGURE 6.25. Examples of grapevine leaves showing (A) blisters on the adaxial side and
(B) felt galls on the abaxial side caused by erinose mite.
Figure 6.26
TABLE 6.1. Effect of leaf damage caused by erinose mite on midday ΨL in Cabernet
Sauvignon near Philadelphia.
Leaf Number of Leaf area Infected area Leaf water potential
status leaves (cm2) (%) (MPa)
Unscathed 20 138±19 0 -1.28±0.07
Infected 20 131±21 2.4±2.1 -1.32±0.12
Black vine weevils are another common pest which may cause extensive leaf
damage in vineyards (Fig. 6.26). A pilot study, similar to the one mentioned above,
was carried out to determine the effect of leaf damage on midday ΨL in Mourvèdre
grapevines. Under the prevailing conditions, leaf damage caused by black vine
weevils did not affect grapevine water status (Fig. 6.27). Since erinose mites or
black vine weevils do not seem to damage the veins of laminae, it is unlikely to
impair water supply to the rest of the leaf. This probably explains why grapevine
ΨL was not affected.
FIGURE 6.26. Example of damage caused by black vine weevil to Mourvèdre leaves.

Figure 6.27
Unscathed Damaged
00
-0 2
-0 4
(MPa) -0 6
-0 8
L
-1 0
-1 2
-1 4
-1 6
FIGURE 6.27. Effect of black vine weevil damage on midday ΨL during berry ripening in
Mourvèdre leaves near Rawsonville.
6.4 GRAPEVINE WATER STATUS CLASSIFICATION

Water status in anisohydric grapevines can be classified according to ΨPD
thresholds (Table 6.2). It was proposed that ΨPD values of -0.2, -0.4, and -0.6
MPa, respectively, could serve as upper thresholds for “weak”, “medium” and
“strong” water deficits in Shiraz (Ojeda et al., 2002). A similar, but more general
classification was proposed by Deloire et al. (2004). It was also suggested that
grapevines experience no water constraints if ΨPD is higher than -0.2 MPa, whereas
-0.3 to -0.5 MPa indicate moderate water constraints (Carbonneau et al., 2004).
Based on the close relationship between soil water content and ΨPD, the latter
is the preferred indicator of grapevine water status for some researchers. For
practical irrigation scheduling, the predawn time span is usually too short if the
water potential in a number of vineyards needs to be assessed. Therefore, it is
more practical to measure midday ΨL or ΨS. Similar to ΨPD, midday ΨL could also
be used to indicate the level of water constraints in grapevines (Winkel & Rambal,
1993; Girona et al., 2006; Sousa et al., 2006). In this regard, Greenspan (2005)
proposed ΨL values of approximately -1, -1.2, -1.4 and -1.6 MPa, respectively, as
lower thresholds for “no”, “mild”, “moderate” and “high” water constraints (Table
6.2). Likewise, -0.8, -1.2 and -1.5 MPa were considered to be ΨL thresholds for
“low”, “moderate” and “severe” water constraints, respectively (Girona et al., 2006
and references therein). Midday ΨS may also be used as a measure of grapevine
water status (Choné et al., 2001; Patakas et al., 2005; Olivo et al., 2009). It should
be noted that midday ΨS is considered to be a better indicator of grapevine water
status in relation to soil water status than ΨL (Naor et al., 1997; Van Leeuwen et al.,
2009). In this regard, it was also reported that midday ΨS in Cabernet Sauvignon
in the Lower Olifants River region was more closely related to soil water status than
ΨL (Bruwer, 2010).

Chapter 6
TABLE 6.2. Thresholds for water constraint classes for predawn leaf water potential (ΨPD)
according to Ojeda et al. (2002) and Deloire et al. (2004), as well as midday leaf water
potential (ΨL) according to Greenspan (2005) and stem water potential (ΨS) according to
Van Leeuwen et al. (2009).
Class Water Water potential (MPa)
constraints
ΨPD ΨL ΨS
I No ΨPD ≥ -0.2 ΨL ≥ -1.0 ΨS ≥ -0.6

II Low -0.2 > ΨPD ≥ -0.4 -1.1 > ΨL ≥ -1.2 -0.6 > ΨS ≥ -0.9
III Moderate -0.4 > ΨPD ≥ -0.6 -1.2 > ΨL ≥ -1.4 -0.9 > ΨS ≥ -1.1
IV High -0.6 > ΨPD ≥ -0.8 -1.4 > ΨL ≥ -1.6 -1.1 > ΨS ≥ -1.4
V Severe ΨPD < -0.8 ΨL < -1.6 ΨS < -1.4
More recently, cultivar specific water potential thresholds were determined for
Merlot, Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon in field studies under local conditions.
In these studies, thresholds for midday leaf and stem water potentials were
determined. This was achieved by measuring ΨPD, as well as midday ΨL and ΨS on
the same day, and repeating the measurements as the soil dried out. The water
constraint thresholds were obtained by plotting midday ΨL and ΨS against ΨPD.
An example of the midday ΨS vs ΨPD plot in Merlot is presented in Figure 6.28.
The proposed ΨPD thresholds in Table 6.2 were then used to deduct thresholds
of the different water constraint classes for midday ΨS (Table 6.3). Thresholds
for midday ΨL in Merlot were determined in a similar way. A water constraint
classification based on the ΨPD classification was also determined under field
conditions near Robertson for Shiraz (Lategan, 2011). The thresholds were also
obtained by plotting midday ΨL and ΨS against ΨPD (Fig. 6.29), and are presented in
Table 6.4. Thresholds for the water constraint classification for Cabernet Sauvignon
are presented in Table 6.5.

ΨP D (MPa)
-1 2 -1 0 -0 8 -0 6 -0 4 -0 2 00
00
-0 2
Class I
(no) -0 4
Class II
(low)
-0 6
ΨS (MPa)
Class III
-0 8
(moderate)
-1 0
Class IV
-1 2
(high)
Class V -1 4
(severe)
-1 6
-1 8
-2 0
FIGURE 6.28. The relationship between midday ΨS and ΨPD in Merlot (after Myburgh, 2011a).
TABLE 6.3. Thresholds for water constraint classes for midday ΨL and ΨS water potential in
Merlot (Myburgh, 2011a).
constraints
ΨL ΨS
I No ΨL ≥ -1.1 ΨS ≥ -0.5
II Low -1.1 > ΨL ≥ -1.4 -0.5 > ΨS ≥ -1.0
III Moderate -1.4 > ΨL ≥ -1.6 -1.0 > ΨS ≥ -1.4
IV Strong -1.6 > ΨL ≥ -1.8 -1.4 > ΨS ≥ -1.6
V Severe ΨL < -1.8 ΨS < -1.6

Chapter 6
ΨPD (MPa)
ΨL y = -[ (1.55074 - 0.090622/x)2] (n = 15; R2 0 9474 s e 0 0 p 0 00 )

ΨS y = -[ (1.60736 - 0.190138/x)2] (n = 24; R2 = 0.9711; s.e. = 0.04; p 0 00 )
Class I
Class II (no)
(mild)
ΨL/ΨS (MPa)
Class III
(moderate)
Class IV
(strong)
Class V
(severe)
FIGURE 6.29. The relationships between midday ΨS and ΨS water potential and ΨPD in Shiraz
(Lategan, 2011).
Shiraz (adapted from Lategan, 2011).
constraints
ΨL ΨS
I No ΨL ≥ -1.2 ΨS ≥ -0.45
II Low -1.2 > ΨL ≥ -1.75 -0.45 > ΨS ≥ -1.1
IV High -1.95 > ΨL ≥ -2.1 -1.65 > ΨS ≥ -1.9
V Severe ΨL < -2.1 ΨS < -1.9

Cabernet Sauvignon (Myburgh et al., 2016).

constraints
ΨL ΨS
I No ΨL ≥ -1.15 ΨS ≥ -0.6
II Low -1.15 > ΨL ≥ -1.3 -0.6 > ΨS ≥ -0.85
IV High -1.45 > ΨL ≥ -1.6 -1.15 > ΨS ≥ -1.4
V Severe ΨL < -1.6 ΨS < -1.4
Similar to water potential, grapevine water constraints can be classified according

to the carbon isotope discrimination in the juice of ripe grape berries (Table 6.6).
According to this classification, the non-irrigated, dryland Merlot grapevines as
discussed in Section 6.2.2 (Fig. 6.10) experienced moderate to severe water
constraints. On the other hand, grapevines irrigated twice a week, or according
to the partial root zone drying concept, only experienced weak water constraints.
TABLE 6.6. Thresholds for water constraint classes for carbon isotope discrimination (δ13C)
determined in ripe grape berries as proposed by Van Leeuwen et al. (2009).
Class I II III IV V
Water constraints No Weak Moderate to Moderate to Severe
weak severe
δ13C < -26 -24.5 to -26 -23 to -24.5 -21.5 to -23 > -21.5
6.5 GRAPEVINE RESPONSES IN RELATION TO

MIDDAY STEM WATER POTENTIAL
When water potential is being used to improve vineyard irrigation, it is essential to
know how grapevines will respond to water constraints. Grapevine growth and yield,
as well as juice and sensorial wine quality characteristics differ in their responses to
increasing levels of water constraints. In this regard, Cabernet Sauvignon responses
were related to midday ΨS in 54 experiment plots. These plots were located around
Stellenbosch and in the Lower Orange River region (Myburgh, 2011l), as well as
in the Swartland (Mehmel, 2010) and Lower Olifants River region (Bruwer, 2010).
In order to increase variation, grapevines were either grown dryland, or irrigated
by means of single or double dripper lines. In some plots, grapevines were also
subjected to water deficits by reducing irrigation frequencies to expand the range of
responses. For further details of the study, refer to Myburgh (2011l). The responses
to the different midday ΨS water constraint classes and soil texture were previously
summarized as shown below (Myburgh et al., 2016).

Chapter 6
6.5.1 CLASS I – NO WATER CONSTRAINTS

Based on midday ΨS, grapevines in only one plot fell in Class I. This was insufficient
to identify consistent grapevine response trends. However, vegetative growth is
expected to be more vigorous, compared to Class II, i.e. mild water constraints.
Usually, shoot growth tips are active throughout the season and internodes are long.
Light penetration into the bunch zone is poor and older leaves in the bunch zone may
turn yellow. Berry mass could exceed 1.3 g. Due to excessive shading of buds early
in the season and competition with vegetative vigour, yield may be lower than Class
II. If leaves are shaded, juice K is usually high, TTA low and pH high (Iland, 1989).
If berry temperature is reduced by shading, juice TTA could be high and pH low.
Sugar accumulation might be delayed and juice dilution may occur. Wine colour and
overall quality is expected to be less than 45%. In fact, where mean ΨS of Cabernet
Sauvignon in a sandy soil was higher than -0.6 MPa over three seasons, juice pH was
3.6 and wine quality 38% (Howell et al., 2016). As a result of no water constraints,
mean berry mass was 1.4 g and yield 14.6 t/ha in the sandy soil (Howell et al., 2016).
6.5.2 CLASS II – LOW WATER CONSTRAINTS

Active growth tips occurred late in the growing season. Light penetration into the
bunch zone was poor and leaf yellowing occurred inside the canopy. Strongest
growth, biggest berries and highest yield were obtained in all soils, compared to
the other classes (Fig. 6.30A, B & C). Berry mass was between 1.2 and 1.4 g. Juice
K ranged from 1 600 to 1 800 mg/, TTA from 7.3 to 8.0 g/ and pH from 3.4 to 3.6
(Fig. 6.30D, E & F). Since vigorous growth caused more shaded leaves, juice TTA
was lower and pH higher in heavier than in sandy soils. Sugar accumulation may
be retarded and juice dilution may occur. In sandy soils, wine colour was 65 to 70%
and overall quality 45 to 50% (Fig. 6.30G & I). In heavier soils, wine colour was 50
to 55% and overall quality 40 to 45%. Berry character was more prominent in sandy
soil than in heavier soil (Fig. 6.30H).
6.5.3 CLASS III – MODERATE WATER CONSTRAINTS

In the pre-véraison period, drooping of the second tendril from the shoot apex may
occur. Limited active shoot tips occurred in the post-véraison period. Leaves could
show para-helionastic movement. Leaves did not show yellowing. Vegetative growth
was reduced by ca. 25 and 30% in sandy and heavier soils, respectively, compared
to Class II (Fig. 6.30A). Berry mass was between 1.1 and 1.3 g. In heavier soils,
yield was comparable to Class II, but was reduced by ca. 5% in sandy soils. Juice K
ranged from 1 200 to 1 400 mg/, TTA from 7 to 7.5 g/ and pH from 3.4 to 3.5 (Fig.
6.30D, E & F). Since the stronger growth reduced berry temperature, juice TTA was
higher and pH lower in heavier than in sandy soils. In sandy soils, wine colour was 75
to 80% and overall quality 55 to 65%. Wine colour was 60 to 70% and overall quality
45 to 55% in heavier soils (Fig. 6.30G & I). Berry character was stronger in sandy
soil, compared to heavier soil (Fig. 6.30H).

FIGURE 6.30. Cane mass (A), berry mass (B) and yield (C), as well as juice (D, E & F) and
wine (G, H & I) characteristics of Cabernet Sauvignon within different water constraint classes
based on midday stem water potential. Vertical bars indicate ± one standard deviation
(Myburgh et al., 2016).

Chapter 6
6.5.4 CLASS IV – HIGH WATER CONSTRAINTS

Shoot tips were inactive in the pre-véraison period. Limited drying of tendrils
occurred in some plots. Leaf folding, drooping and para-helionastic movement
may occur. Basal leaves showed limited yellowing. Bunch exposure was increased.
Vegetative growth was reduced by ca. 30 and 40%, respectively, in the sandy and
heavier soils, compared to Class II (Fig. 6.30A). Limited berry shrinkage occurred.
Berry mass was between 1 and 1.2 g. Yield was reduced by ca. 35 and 15% in the
sandy and heavier soils, respectively, compared to Class II (Fig. 6.30C). Juice K
ranged from ca. 1 200 to 1 300 mg/, TTA from 6.5 to 7.5 g/ and pH from 3.35 to
3.45 (Fig. 6.30D, E & F). Juice TTA was higher and pH lower in heavier soils than
in sandy soils, since stronger growth reduced berry temperature (Iland, 1989).
Wine colour was 65 to 75%, irrespective of soil texture (Fig. 6.30G). In sandy soil,
overall quality was 50 to 55%, compared to 55 to 60% in heavier soil (Fig. 6.30I).
Berry character was lower in the sandy soil, compared to heavier soil (Fig. 6.30H).
6.5.5 CLASS V – SEVERE WATER CONSTRAINTS

Shoot elongation stopped when berries reached pea size. Desiccated shoot tips
occurred in the pre-véraison period, particularly in sandy soils. Basal and bunch
zone leaves showed yellowing. General tendril drying and leaf shedding may
occur. Bunches were excessively exposed, particularly in sandy soils. Vegetative
growth was reduced by ca. 50%, compared to Class II in all soils (Fig. 6.30A).
Berries showed shrinkage or shrivelling. Berry mass was between 0.9 and
1.1 g. Yield was reduced by ca. 40%, compared to Class II in all soils (Fig. 6.30C).
Negative carry-over effects to the following season’s yield may occur, particularly
in sandy soil. Juice K ranged from ca. 900 to 1 000 mg/ and TTA from 6.5 to
7.5 g/ (Fig. 6.30D & E). Juice pH was ca. 3.5 and 3.35 in sandy and heavier soils,
respectively (Fig. 6.30F). Since the sparse growth allowed berry temperatures to
increase, juice TTA was lower and pH higher in sandy than in heavier soils (Iland,
1989). Sugar accumulation is likely to be limited. In sandy soil, sensorial wine colour
was 70 to 75% and overall quality 50 to 55% (Fig. 6.30G & I). In heavier soil, wine
colour was 75 to 85% and overall quality 55 to 65%. Berry character was stronger
in heavier soil, compared to sandy soil (Fig. 6.30H).

It is important to note that water potential, like many other plant based
measurements, does not indicate how much irrigation is required. In addition to
soil water content, prevailing atmospheric conditions also influence grapevine
water potential. Viticultural practices may also play an indirect role in determining
grapevine water status. Since midday ΨS is better related to soil water content than
ΨL, and more convenient to measure than ΨPD, it is recommended for commercial
application. According to midday ΨS, when grapevines in sandy soil experience
no water constraints, yield might be slightly higher, but wine quality will be low.

Ideally, they should experience moderate water constraints to obtain high wine
quality with ca. 5% reduction in yield. Since high to severe water constraints will
reduce yield substantially in sandy soil, it must be avoided. Grapevines in heavier
soil should experience high water constraints to obtain high wine quality with
ca. 15% reduction in yield. If yield is the primary objective, grapevines should
experience mild water constraints to obtain a balance between yield and wine
quality. In this regard, -0.6 MPa is considered as a critical midday ΨS threshold.
Although high wine quality is expected where grapevines experience severe water
constraints, i.e. midday ΨS lower than -1.4 MPa, it will only be economically viable if
high wine prices can compensate for the expected ca. 40% yield loss. Since water
potential responses to soil and atmospheric conditions can vary between cultivars,
all cultivars might not respond in exactly the same way to water constraints as
Cabernet Sauvignon. For example, water potential in Shiraz is lower, compared
to other cultivars under comparable soil and atmospheric conditions. Therefore,
anisohydric behaviour of water potential, as well as related growth, yield and quality
responses of the more popular cultivars, should be determined in more detail by
further research.

Chapter 6

Chapter 7
Irrigation
strategies
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Due to the Mediterranean climate, summer rainfall alone is too low for grape
production in most districts, particularly where winter rainfall is also low, as
discussed in Chapter 1. In addition to the natural limitation, water restrictions
are imposed during the droughts that periodically occur in the grape growing
regions. Furthermore, the South African Water Act enables catchment management
authorities to terminate water use licences if growers misuse their allocated water
resources. Based on the drive towards more environmentally friendly practices, a
general reduction in the water “footprint” of wine production will certainly improve
the public image of the South African wine industry. The foregoing is increasingly
putting growers under pressure to adopt practices which will contribute towards
more efficient use of irrigation water. This means that the primary objective of
grape growers must be to apply the right amount of irrigation at the right time to
avoid insufficient vegetative growth and to prevent crop losses (Fig. 7.1). On the
other hand, not only does over-irrigation waste valuable water, but it could have
devastating effects on the environment. The latter occurs particularly where salts
are leached into natural water resources or lower lying land (Fig. 7.2). In severe
cases, the damaged land might not be reclaimable.
Figure
Figure7.1
7.1
A B
FIGURE 7.1. Under-irrigation may cause extremely poor vegetative growth (A) and crop
losses due to severe berry shrivelling (B).
178 CHAPTER 7 – IRRIGATION STRATEGIES

Figure 7.2
Chapter 7
Figure 7.2
Figure 7.2
B
FIGURE 7.2. An example where over-irrigation leached salts from a vineyard (A) and severe
salt accumulation where vineyards on higher ground were over-irrigated (B).

Winter rainfall stored in the soil, as well as rainfall during the growing season, are
the only water sources of dryland (non-irrigated) grapevines. Therefore, the ET of
non-irrigated vineyards can be considered as the baseline water requirements for
wine grapes. In this regard, it was shown that the ET of dryland Cabernet Sauvignon
near Stellenbosch amounted to ca. 300 mm from budbreak in September until
harvest in February (Table 7.1). It must be noted that adequate rainfall occurred
during winter, and that these vineyards had deep, well-developed root systems.
Rainfall and subsequent evaporation losses contributed to the relatively high ET
during the first part of the season. During berry ripening, the relatively low ET was
primarily a function of transpiration. The rainfall plus soil water depletion of dryland
Merlot near Wellington and Pinotage near Stellenbosch was also approximately
300 mm (Table 7.2). The foregoing indicates that vineyards will require irrigation if
(i) winter rainfall does not saturate the root zone at budbreak, (ii) rainfall during the
growing season is less than ca. 150 mm, (iii) deep root development is restricted
due to poor soil preparation or (iv) the plant available soil water is limited due to
high sand, gravel or stone contents.
TABLE 7.1. Long term mean monthly rainfall, as well as mean ET of dryland Cabernet
Sauvignon in four plots near Stellenbosch (after Laker, 2004).
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Total
Rainfall (mm) 56.7 44.2 23.9 24.6 21.4 20.7 191.5

ET (mm) 64.1 66.7 53.1 65.5 26.0 18.0 293.4
TABLE 7.2. Rainfall and soil water depletion from September until February for dryland Merlot
near Wellington (Myburgh, 2011b) and Pinotage near Stellenbosch (Moffat, 2017).
Cultivar Locality Rainfall (mm) Soil water depletion (mm) Total (mm)
Merlot Wellington 143 150 293

Pinotage Stellenbosch 153 165 318
7.2 IRRIGATION STRATEGIES

Over the past decades, the focus of wine production in South Africa has shifted a
number of times between either a production driven or a quality driven industry.
The consequence of this is that irrigation strategies aimed at achieving maximum
yields may not necessarily be applicable when high wine quality is the primary
objective. Irrigation strategies for newly planted vineyards, during the post-harvest
and dormancy periods, as well as irrigation during critical drought periods are also
important considerations. Irrigation strategies for bearing vineyards can be divided
into the following basic categories:
(i) Low frequency irrigation, i.e. where six or less irrigations are applied during
the growing season. This strategy is often referred to as “supplementary

Chapter 7
irrigation”. Since all irrigations are applied to supplement inadequate rainfall,

the term “low frequency irrigation” is preferred to “supplementary irrigation”.
(ii) Medium frequency, i.e. where intervals between irrigations range from one
to four weeks.
(iii) High frequency irrigation, i.e. where more than one irrigation is applied per
week, including daily irrigation.
(iv) Pulse irrigation, i.e. where more than one irrigation pulse is applied per day.
(v) Deficit irrigation (DI), where vineyards only receive a fraction of their optimum
water requirements.
(vi) Different irrigation frequencies in the pre- and post-véraison periods. For
example, low frequency up to véraison can be followed by high frequency
irrigation during berry ripening.
(vii) Partial root zone drying (PRD) where consecutive irrigation is applied
alternatively on each side of the grapevine row.
Grapevine responses to a specific irrigation strategy under a prevailing set of
climate, soil and viticultural conditions will be demonstrated at the hand of research
results collected over a ca. fifty year period, as well as some case studies.
7.2.1 IRRIGATION OF NEWLY PLANTED GRAPEVINES

Mistakes made during the establishing phase can reduce the lifespan of the
grapevines and/or complicate future vineyard management. Experience has
shown that grapevine root systems will develop where water is most available,
irrespective of rootstock cultivar. Therefore, pampering young grapevines by
means of small, frequent irrigations where only the topsoil is wetted, will induce
shallow root systems. Many vineyard soils tend to re-compact naturally upon
irrigation or rainfall after deep soil preparation. Consequently, root development
into the subsoil will be restricted if larger irrigations are applied at a later stage to
encourage deep root development. This means that frequent, shallow irrigation
can undo all the benefits of the deep soil preparation carried out before planting.
To ensure sufficient root development, newly planted grapevines should only
receive frequent, shallow irrigations until all the grapevines in the block are
growing (Fig. 7.3A). When the shoots are generally 20 to 30 cm long (Fig. 7.3B),
the schedule can be switched to long irrigations further apart, i.e. as for mature, full
bearing grapevines. The objective is to apply irrigation over the total available root
depth that was created during deep soil preparation. As the topsoil dries out, the
roots will be forced to grow into the subsoil to absorb water from the deeper layers.
In this way, the root system will be able to fully utilize the available soil volume.
The less frequent irrigation is unlikely to reduce grapevine development, since
newly planted grapevines have a longer vegetative growing season, compared to
mature grapevines. Under comparable conditions, leaf functioning of young, non-
bearing grapevines remains active when the leaves of mature grapevines begin
to show senescence (Fig. 7.4).

Figure 7.3
A B
FIGURE 7.3. When all the newly planted grapevines are growing (A) and the shoots are
ca. 20 to 30 cm long (B), deeper irrigations can be applied further apart, i.e. as for mature
grapevines.
Figure 7.4
FIGURE 7.4. Leaves of mature Cabernet Sauvignon show senescence in early June on
the left compared to continued vegetative growth of newly planted grapevines of the same
cultivar on the right.

Chapter 7
A useful guideline for irrigation of young grapevines is the qualitative, visual

assessment of the shoot tips. Since there are usually no bunches on newly planted
grapevines, shoot elongation will continue for a longer period, compared to mature,
full-bearing grapevines. As long as the young grapevines experience no water
constraints, shoot elongation will continue. The growth tips will appear to be “ahead”
of the older, more matured leaves (Fig. 7.5A & B). If soil water becomes limited, shoot
elongation will slow down, but the older leaves will continue to enlarge. At this stage,
the older leaves seem to cover the growth tip (Fig. 7.5C). This symptom is often
referred to as the “Christmas tree” effect, and serves as an indication that irrigation
should be applied. At this stage the shoot tip should still be active, i.e. light green
(Fig. 7.5C). When following this approach, it must be remembered that the young
Figure 7.5
grapevines are not bearing any crop that could be damaged.
A B C
FIGURE 7.5. Grapevine shoot tips indicating (A) no water constraints, (B) little water
constraints and (C) the onset of water constraints.
Flat plastic caps or “Mexican hats” are sometimes fitted onto micro-sprinklers to
restrict the wetting pattern (Fig. 7.6). Figure
Consequently,
7.6 only a fraction of the available
soil volume will be wetted, e.g. as in the case of drip irrigation. If this practice
is applied in newly planted vineyards, root development will be limited to the
wetted soil volume. The caps are usually removed in the second or third year to
increase the wetted soil volume. At that stage, root development might not extend
concomitantly due to natural re-compaction of the soil after deep preparation as
discussed above. In many vineyards, inevitable wheel track compaction will cause
an additional restriction to lateral root development into the work row.

Figure 7.6
A B
FIGURE 7.6. Example of a micro-sprinkler (A) without a cap and (B) fitted with the cap to
restrict the water distribution pattern.
7.2.2 LOW FREQUENCY IRRIGATION

Irrigations are usually applied to wine grapes at low frequencies, i.e. six or less
irrigations per season, in regions where water resources are limited, e.g. the
Coastal region of the Western Cape (Fig. 7.7). Under low frequency irrigation,
grapevines are normally subjected to strong, or even severe water constraints.
Yield generally increases with the number of low frequency irrigations, compared
to dryland conditions. This trend is not only valid at the single vineyard level
(Fig. 7.7A), but also at the regional level (Fig. 7.7B). It is important to note that
yields do not increase linearly with the number of irrigations, i.e. the volume of water
applied. A major reason for this trend is that the pruning and/or training systems
restrict the bearing capacity of grapevines. Therefore, when the effect of irrigation
reaches its maximum effect on berry Figure
and 7.7
bunch mass, yield will show no further
increase if additional irrigations are applied, i.e. if the crop load remains the same.
3030 20
A B
2525
(t/ha)
15
Yield (t/ha)
Yield (t/ha)
Yield (t/ha)
2020
Yield
10
10
1515
1010 5
5
00 11 22 33 00 11 22 33 44 55
Numberof
Number ofirrigations
irrigations Number
Numberof
ofirrigations
irrigations
FIGURE 7.7. Yield increases with the number of irrigations for (A) Chenin blanc in the Coastal
region and (B) various cultivars based on a survey carried out in the Upper-Berg River region
(adapted from Van Zyl, 1981).
Figure 7.8
Figure 7.8

4 16
4 Sauvignon blanc 16 Sauvignon blanc
Sauvignon blanc 14 Sauvignon blanc
30
30 20
20
25
25 Chapter 7
Yield (t/ha)
(t/ha)
15
15
Yield (t/ha)
(t/ha)
20
20
Yield
Yield
Cane mass measured at pruning of low frequency drip irrigated Sauvignon blanc
10
10
in shallow,
1515 shale derived soil, as well as that of Cabernet Sauvignon in deep
red and yellow soil near Philadelphia in the Coastal region, increased linearly
as 10the
10 irrigation volume increased (Fig. 7.8A). 55 In contrast to vegetative growth,
yield of00 both cultivars
11 22
showed no 3significant
3 00 increase
yield 11 22as the
33 low44frequency
55
Number
Numberofofirrigations
irrigations Number
Numberofofirrigations
irrigations
irrigation increased from 300 to 600 mm (Fig. 7.8B). In this example, the higher
irrigation volume will probably produce higher yields if the bearing capacity of the
grapevines could be extended. In practice, it means that the excessive growth
must be converted to yield. By doing so, more grapes can be produced with
the same volume of irrigation water, thereby
Figure
Figure 7.8 improving the irrigation water use
7.8
efficiency as discussed in Section 7.3 below.
44 16
16
Sauvignon
Sauvignonblanc
blanc Sauvignon
Sauvignonblanc
blanc
Cabernet
CabernetSauvignon
Sauvignon A 14
14 Cabernet
CabernetSauvignon
Sauvignon B
mass (t/ha)
(t/ha)
33 12
12
Yield (t/ha)
(t/ha)
10
10
Cane mass
22 88
Yield
Cane
66
11 44
22
00 00
Dryland
Dryland 300
300mm
mm 600
600mm
mm Dryland
Dryland 300
300mm
mm 600
600mm
mm
FIGURE 7.8. Effect of low frequency irrigation on the (A) cane mass at pruning and (B) yield
of two cultivars near Philadelphia in the Coastal region (unpublished data). Data are means
for three seasons.
Although three irrigations applied at pea size, véraison and post-harvest, respectively,
resulted in wetter soil conditions, compared to no irrigation (Fig. 7.9), it did not affect
the water status of Merlot/99 R near Wellington in the Coastal region (Table 7.3).
However, the three irrigations tended to increase berry mass and yield, compared to
non-irrigated grapevines. These trends indicate that low frequency irrigation is likely
to reduce the risk of yield losses during heat waves. In fact, when a severe heat spike
occurred in the Western Cape on 6 February 2005, the dryland Merlot grapevines
yielded only 9.3 t/ha, compared to 12.2 t/ha where two irrigations had been applied
at that stage. More frequent irrigations, i.e. at pea size, midway between pea size
and véraison, at véraison, midway between véraison and harvest and post-harvest
increased berry mass and yield (Table 7.3).

Figure 7.9
250
Budbreak Pea size Véraison Harvest
Soil water content (mm/0.9 m)
200 FC
150
No irrigation
100
Three irrigations
Five irrigations
50 PWP
0
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb
FIGURE 7.9. The effect of non-irrigated (dryland) conditions and low frequency drip irrigation
on the variation in soil water content over the season near Wellington, where FC and PWP
indicate field capacity and permanent wilting point, respectively (after Myburgh, 2011a).
TABLE 7.3. The effect of low frequency irrigation on midday ΨS at harvest, cane mass,
berry mass, yield and sensorial wine quality of Merlot near Wellington in the Coastal region
(Myburgh 2011b). Data are means for three seasons.
Parameter Number of irrigations
0 3 5
PAW depletion at harvest (%) 95 90 66

ΨS (MPa) -1.4 b* -1.4 b -1.2 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 1.2 a 1.3 ab 1.5 b
Berry mass (g) 0.9 b 1.1 ab 1.2 a
Yield (t/ha) 8.2 b 9.7 ab 11.7 a
Juice pH 3.32 a 3.36 a 3.36 a
Juice TTA (g/ℓ) 6.0 a 5.9 a 5.7 a
Colour (%) 80.0 a 78.0 a 71.0 b
Berry character (%) 50.7 b 57.3 a 51.3 b
Wine quality (%) 57.0 a 57.7 a 51.3 b
* Values followed by the same letter within a row do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
Irrigation affects the juice pH and TTA indirectly via the effect of water constraints
on the vegetative growth (Iland, 1989). The subsequent effects of shading or
exposure of leaves and berries on the pH and TTA depend on which process
is dominant under the prevailing conditions (Fig. 7.10). Since the low frequency

Chapter 7
irrigation increased vegetative growth of the Merlot grapevines, it probably

caused more shaded leaves and berries, compared to no irrigation. The tendency
towards higher pH and lower TTA suggests that the effect of more shaded leaves
dominated the effect of more shaded berries under the prevailing conditions (Fig.
7.10). In contrast to dryland conditions or three irrigations, five irrigations reduced
sensorial wine colour and berry character (Table 7.3). Furthermore, five irrigations
Figure 7.10
produced poorer overall wine quality than dryland conditions or three irrigations. It
must be noted that three irrigations will reduce the risk of yield losses without any
detrimental effects on wine quality (Table 7.3). It is also important that, although
non-irrigated grapevines produced the smallest berries, it did not necessarily
improve the wine quality.
A
High water constraints
More exposed leaves More exposed berries
More efficient photosynthesis Higher berry temperature
Leaves export less K+ to berries Malic acid respiration higher
Lower pH & higher TTA Lower malic acid, higher pH & lower TTA
Lower pH & higher TTA Higher pH & lower TTA

if leaf exposure dominates if berry exposure dominates
Lower pH & lower TTA
if leaf exposure dominates the pH equilibrium
and berry exposure dominates the TTA
measure
Low water constraints

B
More shaded leaves More shaded berries
Less efficient photosynthesis Lower berry temperature
Leaves export more K+ to berries Malic acid respiration is slowed
Higher pH & lower TTA Higher malic acid, lower pH & higher TTA
Higher pH & lower TTA Lower pH & higher TTA

if leaf shading dominates if berry shading dominates
Higher pH & higher TTA
if leaf shading dominates the pH equilibrium
and berry shading dominates the TTA measure
FIGURE 7.10. Schematic illustration of pH and total titratable acid (TTA) dynamics in the juice
when grapevines experience (A) high and (B) low levels of water constraints (Iland, 1989).
Low frequency drip irrigation caused extremely dry conditions, i.e. close to field
capacity, in a fine sandy loam soil near Robertson in the Breede River valley,
compared to high frequency irrigation (Fig. 7.11). The dry soil induced substantially

more water constraints in Shiraz/110 R (Table 7.4). This resulted in lower cane
mass at pruning, smaller berries and lower yield, compared to high frequency
irrigation. The fact that low frequency irrigation reduced juice pH and TTA (Table
7.4) indicates that leaf exposure dominated the effect on pH, whereas higher berry
temperatures caused a decrease in the malic acid (Fig. 7.10). Low frequency
irrigation improved sensorial wine colour, as well as the berry and spicy character
(Table 7.4). These trends caused a substantial increase in sensorial overall wine
quality, compared to high frequency irrigation.
Figure 7.11
200
180 A
160 FC
140
(40)
120
100
80
PWP
60
40
20
0
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
200
180 B
160 FC
140
120
100
80 (90)
PWP
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7.11. Seasonal soil water content where Shiraz in a fine sandy loam soil was drip
irrigated (A) at 30 to 40% PAW depletion and (B) at 90% PAW depletion in the 2008/09 season
in the Breede River valley (Lategan, 2011). Dashed lines indicate field capacity, permanent
wilting point and PAW depletion level.

Chapter 7
TABLE 7.4. The effect of high and low frequency irrigation on ΨS, cane mass, berry mass and
yield, as well as juice and wine quality characteristics of Shiraz in the Breede River valley.
Data are means for three seasons (Lategan, 2011).
Irrigation frequency High Low
Irrigations per season ca. 50 ca. 3

ΨS (MPa) -0.8 a* -1.7 b
Cane mass (t/ha) 3.6 a 2.6 b
Berry mass (g) 1.4 a 1.1 b
Yield (t/ha) 25.6 a 21.3 b
Juice pH 3.8 a 3.7 b
Juice TTA (g/) 5.2 a 5.1 b
Wine colour (%) 38.6 b 65.0 a
Berry character (%) 42.0 b 55.4 a
Spicy character (%) 36.7 b 47.3 a
Wine quality (%) 40.2 b 56.6 a
7.2.3 MEDIUM FREQUENCY IRRIGATION

Medium frequencies, i.e. one to four week intervals between irrigations, are
generally applied to wine grape vineyards in heavier soils with high plant available
water. These frequencies normally induce low to moderate water constraints in
grapevines. However, medium irrigation frequencies can be adapted to suit the
end product objective, e.g. more frequent irrigation if maximum yield is required,
and vice versa if high wine quality is the objective. Near Robertson in the Breede
River valley, weekly micro-sprinkler irrigation resulted in ca. 50% RAW depletion,
compared to ca. 75% depletion where irrigations were less frequently applied.
The soil water matric potentials were ca. -30 and -65 kPa, respectively, when the
irrigations were applied (Fig. 7.12). Less frequent irrigation induced more water
constraints, compared to weekly irrigation in Pinotage/99 R, as well as Sauvignon
blanc/99 R (Table 7.5). In the case of the Pinotage, less water did not reduce
vegetative growth, but resulted in smaller berries and lower yield. Although berry
mass of Sauvignon blanc responded in a similar way, less frequent irrigation did
not reduce yield. This suggested that the higher water constraints were detrimental
to vegetative growth, whereas yield seemed to be less sensitive. Less frequent
irrigation did not affect the Sauvignon blanc juice pH and TTA (Table 7.5). In the
case of Pinotage, higher juice pH and a tendency towards lower TTA indicated
that berry exposure due to less vigorous vegetative growth dominated under
the prevailing conditions (Fig. 7.10). For both cultivars, higher water constraints
improved overall wine quality (Table 7.5). In general, the response to different levels
of medium frequency irrigation tended to be similar for the two cultivars.

Figure 7.12

0
-10
Soil water matric potential (kPa)
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
50% RAW depletion
-80
75% RAW depletion
-90
FIGURE 7.12. Seasonal variation in soil water matric potential where Sauvignon blanc and
Pinotage in the Breede River Valley region were irrigated at two RAW depletion levels which
correspond to medium irrigation frequencies (Myburgh, 2011c).
200
180
160 FC
140
120
100
(80)
80
PWP
60
40
20
0

Chapter 7
TABLE 7.5. The ΨPD at harvest, cane mass, berry mass, yield and wine quality of two cultivars
subjected to two medium irrigation frequencies under the same conditions in the Breede River
valley. Data are means for three seasons (Myburgh, 2011d, e, f & g).
Cultivar Irrigation frequency Medium Medium
Interval ca. 7 days ca. 14 days

Sauvignon blanc ΨPD (MPa) -0.2 a* -0.3 b
Yield (t/ha) 15.8 a 15.8 a
Juice pH 3.2 a 3.2 a
Juice TTA (g/) 10.0 a 9.3 a
Vegetative character (%) 37.0 a 35.4 a
Fruity character (%) 40.0 a 41.8 a
Pinotage ΨPD (MPa) -0.2 a -0.4 b
Cane mass (t/ha) 2.0 a 1.7 a
Yield (t/ha) 21.1 a 18.6 b
Juice pH 3.27 b 3.34 a
Juice TTA (g/) 8.0 a 7.3 a
Anthocyanin (mg/) 377 b 458 a
Cultivar character (%) 58.3 a 59.6 a
* For each cultivar, values followed by the same letter within a row do not differ significantly
(p ≤ 0.05).
High yielding, micro-sprinkler irrigated Colombar grapevines on a T-trellis in fertile,

alluvial soil near Grootdrink in the Lower Orange River region were less vigorous
when irrigated at a range of medium frequencies, compared to weekly irrigation
(Table 7.6). Likewise, berry mass and yield were reduced when the irrigation
intervals were fourteen days or longer. However, these high yielding grapevines
only tended to produce better wine as the irrigation intervals increased, and
less water was applied. As expected, the ET decreased as irrigation frequency
decreased, but was comparable for the two lowest frequencies (Table 7.6). The
foregoing indicated that Colombar yield and wine quality were fairly insensitive
over the range of medium irrigation frequencies under the prevailing conditions.

Figure
TABLE 7.6. Cane mass at pruning, berry mass, 7.12
yield, overall wine quality and ET of Colombar
grapevines subjected to four irrigation frequencies in the medium range in the Lower Orange
River valley. Data are means for four seasons (Myburgh, 2007c).
0
Irrigation Cane mass Berry mass Yield Quality ET
cycle (days) (t/ha) (g/berry) (t/ha) (%) (mm/year)
-10
7 3.8 a* 1.7 a 44.0 a 46.6 a 1020

-20
14 3.3 b 1.5 b 39.4 b 47.2 a 880
-30
21 3.2 b 1.5 b 38.3 b 47.1 a 770
-40
28 3.1 b 1.4 b 36.4 b 52.9 a 770
Values followed by the same letter within a column do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
* -50
-60
Medium frequency drip irrigation caused relatively dry conditions in a fine sandy
loam
-70 soil in the Breede River valley near Robertson (Fig. 7.13), compared to high
frequency
-80
irrigation
50% RAW(Fig. 7.11A). As expected, the drier soil induced more water
depletion
constraints in theRAW
75% Shiraz/110 R grapevines (Table 7.7). This resulted in lower cane
depletion
mass
-90 at pruning, smaller berries and lower yield. The fact that medium frequency
irrigation reduced juice pH and increased TTA (Table 7.7) indicates that more
exposed leaves dominated the effect on pH and TTA (Fig. 7.10). Similar to low
frequency irrigation (Table 7.4), medium frequency irrigation improved overall
sensorial wine quality, compared to high frequency irrigation (Table 7.7).
200
180
160 FC
140
120
100
(80)
80
PWP
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7.13. Seasonal soil water content where Shiraz in a fine sandy loam soil was drip
irrigated at ca. 75% PAW depletion in the 2008/09 season in the Breede River valley (Lategan,
2011). Dashed lines indicate field capacity, permanent wilting point and PAW depletion level.

Chapter 7
TABLE 7.7. The effect of high and medium frequency irrigation on midday ΨS prior to harvest,
cane mass, berry mass and yield, as well as juice and wine quality characteristics of Shiraz
near Robertson in the Breede River valley. Data are means for three seasons (Lategan, 2011).
Irrigation frequency High Medium
Irrigations per season ca. 50 ca. 7

ΨS (MPa) -0.8 a* -1.5 b
Yield (t/ha) 25.6 a 19.8 b
Juice pH 3.8 a 3.7 b
Juice TTA (g/) 5.2 b 5.7 a
Wine colour (%) 38.6 b 55.9 a
Spicy character (%) 36.7 b 45.8 a
7.2.4 HIGH FREQUENCY IRRIGATION

With this strategy, more than one irrigation per week is applied. High frequency
irrigation also includes daily irrigation. In the warmer, semi-arid regions such as the
Lower Olifants River and Lower Orange River regions, high frequency irrigation might
be necessary, particularly in shallow, sandy or gravelly soils with low plant available
water. Due to the low PAW of the sandy soils, these frequencies normally induce low
to moderate water constraints in grapevines. High frequency irrigation has already
been compared to low and medium frequency irrigation in Sections 7.2.2 and 7.2.3.
The different scenarios showed that high frequency irrigation invariably reduces
water constraints, stimulates vegetative growth and increases yield (Tables 7.4 &
7.7). On the other hand, high frequency irrigation generally reduces wine colour and
other quality characteristics, compared to less frequent irrigation.
In the warm, dry climate of the Lower Olifants River region, high frequency
irrigation reduced water constraints in three cultivars grown in the same sandy
soil, compared to medium frequency irrigation (Table 7.8). Vegetative growth
responded positively to the lower water constraints. However, with the exception
of Shiraz, yield only tended to be higher where water constraints were lower.
High frequency irrigation did not affect juice pH in any of the cultivars, compared
to medium frequency irrigation. In contrast, lower water constraints resulted in
higher juice TTA (Table 7.8). In the case of Sauvignon blanc, high frequency
irrigation reduced the sensorial fresh vegetative character and overall wine quality,
compared to medium frequency irrigation. Likewise, the berry and spicy character
of the Merlot and Shiraz wines tended to be reduced by high frequency irrigation.

TABLE 7.8. Effect of high and medium irrigation frequencies on midday ΨS, cane mass, berry
mass and yield, as well as juice and wine quality characteristics of three cultivars under the
same conditions near Lutzville in the Lower Olifants River region (Myburgh, 2011h, i, j & k).
Data are means for two seasons.
Cultivar Irrigation frequency High Medium
Interval between irrigations ca. 3 days ca. 14 days

Merlot Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.0 a* -1.2 b
Post-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.1 a -1.4 b
Yield (t/ha) 8.9 a 7.5 a
Juice TTA (g/) 5.1 a 4.8 a
Colour (%) 52.3 a 58.2 a
Spicy character (%) 20.9 a 25.5 a
Wine quality (%) 44.2 ab 53.8 a
Shiraz Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.1 a -1.4 b
Cane mass (t/ha) 1.6 a 1.3 a
Yield (t/ha) 13.0 a 10.4 b
Colour (%) 78.0 ab 82.8 a
Berry character (%) 57.5 a 65.0 a
Spicy character (%) 43.0 ab 45.8 a
Sauvignon blanc Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.0 a -1.3 a
Yield (t/ha) 12.2 a 10.0 a
Vegetative character (%) 43.2 b 48.6 a
Fruity character (%) 52.3 a 32.7 a
(p ≤ 0.05).

Chapter 7
7.2.5 PULSE IRRIGATION

When more than one short irrigation is applied per day, it is referred to as pulse
irrigation. When applying pulse irrigation, only an extremely small volume of the
soil is wetted. These small wetted volumes might be insufficient if heat waves last
for a couple of days. Pulse irrigation also creates a huge risk of severe grapevine
water constraints if unforeseen failures in the water supply occur. The latter may
be caused by dripper clogging, breakages in the irrigation system, or unreliable
electricity sources, particularly where the water needs to be pumped as opposed
to gravity feed. A further concern is that evaporation losses from the wetted soil
will be almost continuous. Phase 1 evaporation, i.e. high water losses, will prevail
during, as well as between the irrigation pulses. This implies that the irrigation water
use efficiency will be unacceptably low. The fact that the irrigation system needs
to remain filled between irrigation pulses, also poses practical, as well as financial
challenges. Considering the foregoing, pulse irrigation is not recommended for
wine grape vineyards.
In certain cases, the reason for pulse irrigation is to apply water and fertilizers
according to the crops’ daily requirements. The irrigation consists of a number of
carefully timed irrigation pulses with nutrient enriched water, usually applied by
means of drippers. The objective of this strategy is to minimize water and nutrient
constraints in the grapevine. Due to its similarity to the hydroponic systems used in
glass houses or plastic tunnels, this concept is referred to as an “open” hydroponic
system. A field trial with table grapes in the Agter-Paarl region showed that irrigation
with nutrient enriched water held no advantage in terms of yield over (i) low
frequency fertigation where the same amounts of fertilizers were either applied in
three increments during the season or (ii) weekly fertigation applied from two weeks
after budbreak until ten weeks after harvest, except during berry ripening. The only
advantage of the OHS strategy seemed to be notably less berry crack following
rainfall during ripening, compared to the conventional fertigation strategies. It must
be noted that the field trial was carried out with Dan-Ben-Hannah (Black Emperor)
which is highly susceptible to berry crack, compared to other cultivars. A matter of
concern is that the pulse irrigation required ca. 490 mm irrigation, compared to ca.
260 mm for the weekly drip irrigation (Myburgh & Howell, 2012a). This illustrates
the huge evaporation losses due to frequent wetting of the soil.
As a result of the short drip irrigation pulses during daytime, root systems had
adapted to the small wetted volumes (Fig. 7.14). Such limited root systems increase
the risk of serious damage to yield and quality if breakdowns in the water supply
occur. A further problem is that the soil may become acidic directly beneath the
drippers (Fig. 7.15A). Excess nutrients could cause salt accumulation around the
small wetted volume, i.e. even in non-saline soil (Fig. 7.15B). Although nutrition
was applied according to the relatively conservative norms of Conradie (1994),
it appeared to be slightly excessive under the prevailing conditions. The acidity
and salinity, respectively, below and around the root system may restrict root

distribution if the management is changed to conventional drip irrigation where
larger soil volumes are wetted. Bearing in mind that irrigation with nutrient enriched
water was initially developed to maximise fresh fruit production, this strategy is
likely to induce excessive vegetative growth which may cause poor quality in the
case of wine grapes. Furthermore, irrigation with nutrient enriched water requires
sophisticated, expensive equipment, as well as skilled management inputs on a
daily basis. Therefore, the OHS strategy cannot be recommended for wine grape
production. However, it might be useful on a limited scale for drip irrigation in
Figure
vineyards in extremely poor soils, e.g. 7.14soil with very low PAW and almost
gravelly
no cation exchange capacity.
FIGURE 7.14. Concentration of roots in the small wetted volume where grapevines had been
drip irrigated with nutrient enriched water for three years. Irrigation was applied via a number
of short pulses during daytime. Figure 7.15
70 00 77
0-15 cm 0-15 aa
0-15 cm
cm
65 15-30 cm
a A 00 66 15-30
15-30 cm
cm ab
ab
B
30-60 cm 30-60
30-60 cm
cm
00 55
60 abc
ECe (dS/m)
bc bc
ab bc
bc
(KCl)
pH(KCl)
00 44
55 cd
00 33
d cd
cd
50 d d
d dd
00 22 d
d dd dd
45 00 11
e
40 00 00
Beneat dripper 5 cm away 30 cm away Beneat dripper
dripper 55 cm
cm away
away 30
30 cm
cm away
away
FIGURE 7.15. The pH(KCl) (A) and electrical conductivity of the saturated extract (ECe) (B)
at three depths beneath and around drippers where grapevines were irrigated with nutrient
enriched water for three years (Howell & Conradie, 2013). For each graph, bars designated
by the same letter do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).

Chapter 7
7.2.6 DEFICIT IRRIGATION

The primary objective of a deficit irrigation (DI) strategy is to improve wine quality
without compromising on yield by deliberately reducing the irrigation requirement
so that the soil dries out gradually (Fig. 7.16). Research has shown that the latter
is possible, but that the effects of pre- or post-véraison deficits may be slightly
different, depending on the cultivar and viticultural conditions. However, the general
trend is that continued DI (Fig. 7.16A), i.e. pre- and post-véraison, will enhance
wine quality, but slightly reduce yield (Table 7.9). Given the negative impact of
deficit irrigation on shoot growth, more exposed leaves resulted in lower juice pH
and higher TTA, compared to high frequency irrigation (Table 7.9). The positive
effect on wine quality is primarily caused by reduced vegetative vigour and smaller
berries resulting from the longer period of higher water constraints. However, drier
irrigation strategies can only be justified if higher grape and/or wine prices will
compensate for the possible yield losses.
200
180 A
160 FC
140
120
100
80 (90)
PWP
60
40
20
0
200
180 B
160 FC
140
120
100
80 (90)
PWP
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7.16. Seasonal soil water content where drip irrigated Shiraz/110 R in a fine sandy
loam soil received (A) continued DI throughout the season and (B) where the soil water
content was restored to FC at véraison in the 2008/09 season near Robertson (Lategan,
2011). Dashed lines indicate field capacity, permanent wilting point and PAW depletion level.

TABLE 7.9. The effect of high frequency irrigation and two DI strategies on midday ΨS prior
to harvest, cane mass, berry mass, yield and sensorial wine quality of Shiraz near Robertson
in the Breede River valley (Lategan, 2011). Data are means for three seasons.
Irrigation strategy High frequency DI1 DI2
Seasonal irrigation (mm) 422 137* 77*
ΨS (MPa) -0.8 a** -1.6 b -1.8 c

Cane mass (t/ha) 3.6 a 2.6 b 2.3 c
Berry mass (g) 1.4 a 1.1 b 0.9 c
Yield (t/ha) 25.6 a 20.1 b 16.0 c
Juice pH 3.80 a 3.70 b 3.55 c
Juice TTA (g/) 5.2 b 5.1 b 6.2 a
Wine colour (%) 38.6 c 54.2 b 72.4 a
Berry character (%) 42.0 b 45.6 b 54.7 a
Spicy character (%) 36.7 b 40.4 b 47.1 a
Wine quality (%) 40.2 b 45.4 b 59.4 a
* In the case of DI1, the soil water content was restored to field capacity at véraison.
** Values followed by the same letter within a row do not differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05).
7.2.7 DIFFERENT PRE- AND POST-HARVEST IRRIGATION

FREQUENCIES
The primary objective for combining different irrigation frequencies is to improve
wine quality without severe yield losses. This strategy can basically be approached
in two ways. The one approach is to induce water constraints before véraison to
reduce vegetative growth and obtain smaller berries for better wine quality. From
véraison onwards, adequate irrigation is applied to prevent water constraints during
berry ripening. The other approach is to avoid water constraints before véraison to
optimize yield, followed by the induction of water constraints during berry ripening
to improve wine quality.
Low frequency irrigation before or after véraison tended to reduce vegetative
growth and reduced berry mass of Sauvignon blanc in a sandy loam soil near
Robertson in the Breede River valley, compared to medium frequency irrigation
throughout the season (Table 7.10). Low frequency irrigation after véraison reduced
yield, which suggested that the sudden subjection to water constraints was
probably a shock to the grapevines. Under the prevailing conditions, juice pH and
TTA, as well as wine characteristics and overall quality of Sauvignon blanc seems
to be insensitive to water constraints induced before or after véraison (Table 7.10).
This was probably because the water constraints did not reduce vegetative growth
significantly, compared to more frequent irrigation. In contrast, where Pinotage was

Chapter 7
subjected to similar pre-véraison water deficits, the reduced vegetative growth

caused more exposed berries which increased juice pH and decreased TTA (Table
7.10). Pinotage wine characteristics and overall quality appeared to be better
where post-véraison water constraints occurred, compared to pre-véraison water
constraints (Table 7.10).
TABLE 7.10. Effect of pre- or post-véraison low frequency micro-sprinkler irrigation,

compared to medium frequency irrigation throughout the season on cane mass, berry mass,
yield and sensorial wine quality of two cultivars under the same conditions in the Breede River
valley (Myburgh, 2011f & g). Data are means for three seasons.
Cultivar RAW depletion pre-véraison→post-véraison
50%→50% 75%→50% 50%→75%

Sauv. bl. Cane mass (t/ha) 3.2 a* 2.9 a 2.9 a
Berry mass (g) 2.0 a 1.8 b 1.8 b
Yield (t/ha) 15.8 a 16.5 a 14.0 b
Juice pH 3.22 a 3.16 a 3.19 a
Juice TTA (g/) 10.0 a 9.9 a 9.3 a
Vegetative character (%) 37.0 a 38.1 a 35.7 a
Fruity character (%) 40.0 a 37.7 a 38.9 a
Wine quality (%) 45.4 a 48.1 a 48.4 a
Pinotage Cane mass (t/ha) 2.1 a 1.5 b 1.8 ab
Berry mass (g) 1.6 a 1.5 b 1.5 b
Yield (t/ha) 21.1 a 19.7 a 18.9 a
Juice pH 3.27 b 3.33 a 3.28 ab
Juice TTA (g/) 8.0 a 7.1 b 7.8 ab
Anthocyanin (mg/) 377 b 380 b 429 a
Cultivar character (%) 58.2 a 52.3 b 59.9 a
Wine quality (%) 49.4 ab 45.5 b 51.7 a
(p ≤ 0.05).
Medium frequency irrigation before véraison reduced cane mass, but only tended
to reduce yield of Sauvignon blanc in a sandy soil near Lutzville in the Lower
Olifants River region, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season
(Table 7.11). However, the pre-véraison water deficits resulted in more exposed
berries causing higher juice pH and lower TTA (Table 7.11). Although pre-véraison
water deficits enhanced the vegetative character and suppressed the fruity
character, it did not reflect in the overall wine quality. On the other hand, where

Sauvignon blanc experienced post-véraison water deficits, the vegetative character
and overall wine quality were lower, compared to high frequency irrigation in
the post-véraison period (Table 7.11). This indicated that Sauvignon blanc wine
quality seems to be more sensitive to suddenly induced water constraints during
berry ripening in the sandy soil, compared to the heavier soil near Robertson as
discussed above.

Chapter 7
TABLE 7.11. Effect of pre- or post-véraison medium frequency irrigation, compared to high
frequency irrigation throughout the season on midday ΨS, cane mass, berry mass and yield,
as well as juice and wine quality characteristics of three cultivars in a sandy soil in the Lower
Olifants River region (Myburgh, 2011h, i, j & k). Data are means for two seasons.
Cultivar Parameter RAW depletion pre-véraison→post-véraison

30%→30% 75%→30% 30%→75%
Sauv. bl. Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.0 a* -1.2 b -1.1 a
Post-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.1 a -1.0 a -1.4 b
Cane mass (t/ha) 1.2 a 0.9 b 1.1 ab
Berry mass (g) 1.6 a 1.5 a 1.5 a
Yield (t/ha) 12.2 a 9.8 a 11.7 a
Juice pH 3.42 b 3.64 a 3.52 a
Juice TTA (g/) 6.9 a 6.3 b 6.6 ab
Vegetative character (%) 43.2 b 48.8 a 42.0 b
Fruity character (%) 52.3 a 42.7 b 53.4 a
Wine quality (%) 53.3 a 51.9 a 48.8 b
Merlot Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.0 a -1.3 b -1.0 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 1.0 a 0.8 a 0.9 a
Berry mass (g) 1.2 a 1.2 a 1.1 a
Yield (t/ha) 8.9 a 7.9 a 8.7 a
Juice pH 3.85 a 3.88 a 3.86 a
Juice TTA (g/) 5.1 a 5.1 a 5.2 a
Colour (%) 52.3 a 56.4 a 57.5 a
Berry character (%) 42.4 b 38.8 c 45.7 a
Spicy character (%) 20.9 b 22.5 ab 29.3 a
Shiraz Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -1.1 a -1.5 b -1.2 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 1.6 a 1.3 b 1.5 ab
Berry mass (g) 1.2 a 1.3 a 1.1 b
Yield (t/ha) 13.0 a 11.5 b 11.8 b
Juice pH 4.15 a 4.05 a 4.13 a
Juice TTA (g/) 4.4 b 3.9 c 5.1 a
Colour (%) 78.0 ab 74.8 b 80.5 a
Berry character (%) 57.5 a 55.2 a 57.3 a
Spicy character (%) 43.0 ab 35.5 b 47.1 a
Wine quality (%) 50.9 b 47.3 b 58.2 a
(p ≤ 0.05).

The vegetative growth and yield of Merlot in the sandy soil near Lutzville did not
respond to medium frequency irrigation before, or after véraison (Table 7.11). Pre-
or post-véraison water constraints also had no effect on juice pH and TTA, as well
as sensorial wine colour. In contrast, pre-véraison medium frequency irrigation
reduced the berry character, whereas post-véraison water constraints had the
opposite effect, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season
(Table 7.11). Post-véraison water constraints also enhanced the berry and spicy
character of the wine. Consequently, medium frequency irrigation in the post-
véraison period produced the best overall wine quality. Similar to the Pinotage near
Robertson, water constraints before véraison reduced wine quality of the Merlot,
compared to higher water constraints during berry ripening (Table 7.11).
In the sandy soil, pre-véraison water deficits reduced the vegetative growth of
Shiraz, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season (Table
7.11). Unlike the Sauvignon blanc and Merlot, medium frequency irrigation during
ripening reduced the berry mass of the Shiraz, compared to the other strategies
(Table 7.11). Visual observation revealed typical berry shrivelling upon soil water
deficits where more water deficits occurred in the post-véraison period. Medium
frequency irrigation in the pre- or post-véraison periods did not affect the pH of
the Shiraz juice (Table 7.11). However, post-véraison water constraints increased
juice TTA, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season and post-
véraison. Similar to the Merlot, pre-véraison water constraints resulted in the lowest
TTA. This suggested that berries were more exposed to the sun due the lower
vegetative growth, which caused higher malic acid respiration (Fig. 7.10). Post-
véraison water constraints also improved sensorial wine colour and spicy character,
compared to pre-véraison water constraints, but did not affect the berry character
(Table 7.11). Medium frequency irrigation in the post-véraison period enhanced
the overall wine quality of the Shiraz. In this case, better wine quality was related
to smaller berries. Furthermore, berry shrivelling did not seem to have a negative
effect on wine quality.
In another scenario, Shiraz in a fine sandy loam soil near Robertson in the Breede
River valley was irrigated at a low frequency, i.e. 75 or 90% PAW depletion,
followed by high frequency irrigation during berry ripening (Fig. 7.17). Irrigating
at the high level of PAW depletion before véraison reduced vegetative growth,
compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season (Table 7.12). It
must be noted that the vegetative growth of the Shiraz was substantially stronger
in the heavier soil near Robertson, compared to the sandy soil near Lutzville
(Table 7.11). Low frequency irrigation before véraison reduced berry mass,
compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season (Table 7.12). Pre-
véraison water constraints only caused a yield reduction where the PAW was
depleted to 90%. Due to less vigorous growth, more exposed leaves probably
caused the lower juice pH where pre-véraison water constraints occurred. The
juice TTA seemed to be unaffected by the water constraints. Irrigation at 75 or 90%

Chapter 7
PAW depletion before véraison did not improve sensorial wine colour, compared
to high frequency irrigation throughout the season (Table 7.12). However, better
colour, as well as more intense berry and spicy character, resulted in higher wine
quality where the PAW was depleted to 90%, compared to 75% depletion before
véraison. Similar to the Shiraz in the sandy soil near Lutzville, pre-véraison water
constraints did not improve wine quality, compared
Figure 7.17 to high frequency irrigation
throughout the season (Table 7.11).
200
180 A
160 FC
140
120 (40)
100
80 (80)
PWP
60
40
20
0
200
180 B
160 FC
140
120 (40)
100
80 (90)
PWP
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7.17. Seasonal soil water content where Shiraz/110 R in a fine sandy loam soil was
drip irrigated (A) at 70-80% PAW depletion before véraison followed, by 30-40% depletion
during ripening and (B) at 90% PAW depletion before véraison, followed by 30-40% depletion
during the 2008/09 season in the Breede River valley (Lategan, 2011). Dashed lines indicate
field capacity, permanent wilting point and PAW depletion levels.

TABLE 7.12. Effect of low frequency irrigation until véraison, followed by high frequency
irrigation during berry ripening, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season
on midday ΨS, cane mass, berry mass, yield and sensorial wine quality of Shiraz in the Breede
River valley (Lategan, 2011). Data are means for three seasons.
Parameter RAW depletion pre-véraison→post-véraison
40%→40% 75%→40% 90%→40%

Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -0.89 a* -1.27 b -1.29 b
At harvest ΨS (MPa) -0.82 a -0.79 a -0.79 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 3.6 a 2.6 b 2.7 b
Berry mass (g) 1.4 a 1.2 b 1.1 c
Yield (t/ha) 25.6 a 25.4 ab 22.5 b
Juice pH 3.84 a 3.74 ab 3.70 b
Juice TTA (g/) 5.2 a 5.0 a 5.0 a
Wine colour (%) 38.6 ab 34.4 b 48.5 a
Spicy character (%) 36.7 ab 33.0 b 39.0 a
Considering the three scenarios above, wine quality of the red cultivars was almost
consistently reduced where low water constraints before véraison were followed by
more frequent irrigation during berry ripening. The only exception was the Shiraz
near Robertson where the PAW was depleted to 90% before véraison, followed by
high frequency irrigation during berry ripening. Wine quality of Sauvignon blanc
seemed to be less sensitive to different pre- and post-harvest irrigation frequencies,
except where sudden water deficits after véraison in the sandy soil near Lutzville
resulted in poorer wine quality.
The Shiraz near Robertson was also subjected to low frequency irrigation before
véraison, followed by a top up irrigation at véraison and deficit irrigation until harvest
(Fig. 7.18). This combination of strategies reduced cane mass, berry mass and yield
where irrigation was applied at 90% PAW depletion before véraison, compared
to irrigation at a high frequency throughout the season (Table 7.13). Irrigation
at 75% PAW depletion before véraison caused similar trends. Low frequency
irrigation followed by deficit irrigation reduced the juice pH, but had no effect on
the TTA (Table 7.13). In fact, irrigation at 90% PAW depletion caused a further pH
reduction, compared to 75% depletion. Irrigation at 90% PAW depletion before
véraison followed by DI during berry ripening almost invariably improved the wine
colour, berry character, spicy character and overall wine quality, compared to high
frequency irrigation throughout the season, as well as 75% depletion before véraison
(Table 7.13). In this case, better wine quality was also related to smaller berries.

200
180 A
160 FC
140
120
100
80 (80)
PWP
60
40
20
0
200
180 B
160 FC
140
120
100
80 (90)
PWP
60
40
20
0
FIGURE 7.18. Seasonal soil water content where Shiraz/110 R in a fine sandy loam soil was
drip irrigated (A) at 75% PAW depletion followed by DI during ripening and (B) at 90% PAW
depletion followed by DI during ripening in the 2008/09 season near Robertson in the Breede
River valley (Lategan, 2011). Dashed lines indicate field capacity, permanent wilting point
and PAW depletion level.

TABLE 7.13. Effect of low frequency irrigation until véraison, followed by deficit irrigation
(DI) during berry ripening, compared to high frequency irrigation throughout the season on
midday ΨS , cane mass, berry mass, yield and sensorial wine quality of Shiraz in a fine sandy
loam soil in the Breede River valley (Lategan, 2011). Data are means for three seasons.
Parameter RAW depletion pre-véraison→post-véraison
35%→35% 75%→DI 90%→DI
Pre-véraison ΨS (MPa) -0.9 a* -1.2 a -1.4 a

At harvest ΨS (MPa) -0.8 a -1.4 a -1.3 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 3.6 a 2.7 a 2.2 b
Berry mass (g) 1.4 a 1.2 a 1.0 b
Yield (t/ha) 25.6 a 21.4 a 16.0 b
Juice pH 3.84 a 3.74 b 3.66 c
Juice TTA (g/) 5.2 a 5.2 a 5.3 a

Wine colour (%) 38.6 b 45.3 b 61.6 a
Spicy character (%) 36.7 b 38.0 ab 42.2 a
Overall wine quality (%) 40.2 b 42.4 b 49.5 a
7.2.8 PARTIAL ROOT ZONE DRYING

Previous studies suggested that irrigation of vineyards according to the PRD
strategy required substantially less water without reducing yield and grape
quality, compared to conventional drip irrigation. With the PRD strategy, one half
of a grapevine’s root system is irrigated using the “A” lines while the other half is
allowed to dry out (Fig. 7.19). After approximately 10 to 14 days, depending on the
soil and atmospheric conditions, the irrigation is switched to the dry half of the root
system, i.e. the irrigation is applied via the “B” lines. The switching between the
“A” and “B” lines is continued through the season (Fig. 7.20). The key principle of
the PRD strategy is that hormones, e.g. abscisic acid, which are produced by the
roots when the one half of the soil dries out, only restrict vegetative growth, but not
yield. Therefore, it can be assumed that the more open canopies resulting from the
limited shoot growth could be beneficial to wine quality.

Chapter 7
A B A B A B
A B A B A B
FIGURE 7.19. Schematic presentation of the PRD strategy where irrigation is being applied
through the ”A” set of subsurface dripper lines while the soil around the “B” lines is allowed
to dry out. Figure 7.20
250
Budbreak Pea size Véraison Harvest
Soil water content (mm/0.9 m)
200 FC
150
PRD - “A” line irrigation
100 PRD - “B” line irrigation
PRD - In grapevine row
50 PWP
0
FIGURE 7.20. Variation in SWC where PRD irrigations were applied subsurface in the middle
of the work rows, compared to SWC in the grapevine rows (Myburgh, 2011a). Dashed lines
indicate field capacity and permanent wilting point.
Field trials with Merlot near Ashton in the Breede River region and Wellington in the
Coastal region have shown that the PRD strategy required more irrigation water,
and had no advantage regarding yield and wine quality, compared to conventional
single line drip irrigation (Tables 7.14 & 7.15). In the Ashton trial, the time intervals
between the PRD switches also had no effect on grapevine performance. Near
Wellington, the PRD strategy only required less irrigation during one season when
it was compared to conventional drip irrigation where the grapevines received
unnecessarily large volumes of irrigation water (Table 7.16).

TABLE 7.14. Effect of partial root zone drying (PRD) on irrigation volume, midday ΨS, cane
mass, berry mass, yield and overall sensorial wine quality of Merlot near Ashton in the Breede
River valley (Lategan & Howell, 2010a & b). Data are means for three seasons.
Irrigation strategy Irrigation ΨS Cane mass Berry Yield Quality

volume (MPa) (t/ha) mass (t/ha) (%)
(m3) (g)
Conventional, single line drip 1 614 -1.0 a* 4.1 a 1.5 a 20.5 a 44.0 b
PRD – switched every 7 days 1 972 -1.1 a 3.9 a 1.4 a 21.5 a 50.0 a
TABLE 7.15. Effect of low frequency drip irrigation and the PRD strategy on irrigation volume,
midday ΨS at harvest, cane mass, berry mass, yield and overall sensorial wine quality of
Merlot near Wellington in the Coastal region (Myburgh, 2011a & b). Data are means for
2003/04, 2004/05 and 2005/06 seasons.
Irrigation strategy Irrigation ΨS Cane mass Berry Yield Quality

volume (MPa) (t/ha) mass (t/ha) (%)
(m3) (g)
Five irrigations during season 1 272 -1.2 b* 1.5 a 1.2 a 11.7 a 51 a
PRD – switched every 14 days 1 746 -1.1 a 1.5 a 1.3 a 12.4 a 51 a
TABLE 7.16. Effect of high frequency drip irrigation and the PRD strategy on irrigation
volume, cane mass, berry mass, yield and sensorial wine quality of Merlot near Wellington in
the Coastal region during the 2006/07 season (Myburgh, 2011b).
Irrigation strategy Irrigation Cane Berry Yield Quality

volume mass mass (t/ha) (%)
(m3) (t/ha) (g)
High frequency, single line drip 3 667 1.9 a* 1.5 a 17.1 a 46 a
PRD – switched every 14 days 2 392 1.9 a 1.4 b 17.1 a 51 a
In many of the overseas research studies, the PRD strategy was also compared
to control strategies where unnecessarily large volumes of irrigation water were
applied by means of double line drip irrigation systems. Apparently the latter was
used to match the double lines of the PRD strategy. Irrigating the double line control
and the PRD strategy at the same frequency created the perception that the PRD
strategy requires 50% less irrigation water. In reality, the same volume of water that
would have been applied by means of single line drip irrigation had been applied
by the PRD strategy. Furthermore, when the irrigation is switched to the “dry” side in
the case of the PRD strategy, the soil water needs to be restored to field capacity.

Chapter 7
If this water is accounted for, the PRD strategy will certainly save less than 50%
water. In fact, the PRD strategy used only 35% less water when compared to the
high frequency single line drip irrigation (Table 7.16).
7.2.9 IRRIGATION DURING THE POST-HARVEST AND

DORMANCY PERIODS
During these periods, dry soil conditions or PAW depletion close to permanent
wilting point will obviously not have any negative effects on grape yield, or end
product quality. However, it reduced bud fertility, bunch mass and yield of
Sultanina grapevines in a sandy soil in the Lower Orange River region drastically in
the subsequent season (Table 7.17). This indicated that severe soil water deficits
may affect bunch initiation, as well as differentiation in a negative way. Furthermore,
the grapevines that were subjected to water deficits during the post-harvest and
dormancy periods showed delayed budbreak symptoms (Fig. 7.21). There are
indications that the low soil water content causes lower cane water content prior
to budbreak (Fig. 7.22). In some cases, the unusually low yield is followed by
vigorous vegetative growth after the grapes have been picked. The cane mass of
Sultanina subjected to dry soil conditions was almost doubled due to the strong
shoot growth after harvest, compared to grapevines that were irrigated during
winter (Table 7.17). It is important to note that the strong growth in the post-harvest
period did not reduce reserve accumulation, as quantified at the hand of cane
starch content at pruning (Table 7.17). Excessively dry soil conditions during the
post-harvest period and winter may not only reduce yield in sandy soils, but also
in heavier soils (Myburgh, 2003a).
TABLE 7.17. Effect of stage at which irrigation was terminated during the post-harvest period
in 1997 on the 1998 fertility, bunch mass and yield, as well as cane mass and starch content
at pruning of Sultanina in the Lower Orange River region (Myburgh, 2003b).
Parameter Period following harvest when irrigation was terminated (weeks)

Not
3 5 11 15
terminated
Bunches/grapevine 14 cd* 8d 20 bc 25 b 48 a
Bunch mass (g) 150 b 146 b 181 b 199 b 299 a
Yield (t/ha) 3.9 b 1.9 b 6.5 b 8.7 b 23.9 a
Cane mass (t/ha) 4.1 b 4.1 b 3.3 b 4.4 b 2.0 a
Cane starch content 16.9 a 16.5 a 14.1 a 14.2 a 14.6 a
(mg/g dry mass)

Figure 7.21
A B
Figure 7.22
FIGURE 7.21. Effect of low frequency irrigation during winter (A) and severe water deficits
during post-harvest and dormancy periods (B) on budbreak of Sultanina in a sandy soil in the
Lower Orange River region. Photographs were taken on 11 September 2007.
48 Figure 7.22
47
48
46
Cane water content (%)
47
45 46
Cane water content (%)
44 45
44
43
43
42 42
41
41 y = 4.106lnx + 38.49 (R2 = 0.996)
40 y = 4.106lnx + 38.49 (R2 = 0.996)
0 2 4 6 8 10
40
0 2 4 6 8 10
FIGURE 7.22. Relationship between cane and soil water content before budbreak where
Sultanina grapevines experienced severe water deficits during the post-harvest and
dormancy periods in the Lower Orange River region (after Myburgh & Van der Walt, 2005).
The negative effect of low soil water content appears to be aggravated by low
relative humidity, or high vapour pressure deficit, of the atmosphere during
the post-harvest and dormancy periods. Relatively dry atmospheric conditions
frequently occur in the Lower Orange River region, and are considered to
contribute to the yield variation between seasons (Fig. 7.23). In this regard, it was
shown that low frequency irrigation in combination with overhead pulse irrigation
during winter slightly increased the cane water content of Sultanina grapevines in a

Chapter 7
sandy soil in the Lower Orange River region near Upington (Fig. 7.22). This practice
improved grapevine fertility (Fig. 7.24A), and subsequently the yield (Fig. 7.24B),
compared to no irrigation during the dry winter. However, it must not be confused
with “hydro cooling”, which is overhead irrigation applied to reduce ambient
air temperature. The lower temperature is necessary to increase the cold units
Figure 7.23
required by grapevines in winter. Being a summer rainfall region, hydro cooling is
primarily applied to table grape vineyards in the Lower Orange River region.
160 Figure
Figure7.23
7.23
140
1997
120 160
160
140
140
100 1997
1997
1995
120
120
80 100
100
1995
1995
60 8080 1999
6060
40 1996 1998 1999
1999
4040 1996
1996 1998
1998
20 2020
y y=y=3.35x
=3.35x
3.35x
- 120 - (R
- 120(R 120
2 =
2 = (R2 = 0.937)
0.937)
0.937)
0 00
4040 4545 5050 5555 6060 6565 7070 7575 8080
40 45 50 55 RHRH(%)
60
(%)
65 70 75 80
RH (%)
FIGURE 7.23. Relationship between grapevine fertility of Sultanina in a sandy soil and mean
relative humidity (RH) in the Lower Orange River region over five seasons (Myburgh, 2003b).
5050 2525
A B
4040 2020
50 25
Yield (t/ha)
Yield (t/ha)
3030 1515
40 20
2020 1010
Yield (t/ha)
30 1010 55 15
2 2 y y= =0.538x
0.538x
- 3.061 2 2
- 3.061(R(R = =0.8413)
0.8413)
y y= =6.808x
6.808x
- 321
- 321(R(R = =0.9486)
0.9486)
00 00
20 4848 5050 5252 5454 5656 0 10
0 2020 4040 6060
Cane
Canewater
watercontent
content(%)
(%) Bunches
Bunchesper
pergrapevine
grapevine
10 FIGURE 7.24. Relationships between (A) bunches per 5 grapevine and cane water content
at pruning, as well as (B) yield and bunches per grapevine of Sultanina in the Lower Orange
River region (after Myburgh & Van der Walt, 2005). y = 0.538x - 3.061 (R2 = 0.8413)
y = 6.808x - 321 (R2 = 0.9486)
0 0
48 50 52 54 56 0 20 40 60
Cane water content (%) IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES
Bunches 211
per grapevine
Since overhead pulse irrigation requires a fair amount of irrigation water, as well as
an additional irrigation system, it is not a viable option. The best growers can do in
regions where winter rainfall is normally low, or where abnormally dry winters occur,
is to apply irrigations at a low frequency, i.e. 80 to 90% PAW depletion, depending
on the soil texture and root depth (Fig. 7.25). Irrigation at these frequencies will
suppress physiological activity that could cause re-growth of shoots in the post-
harvest period. It will also allow proper ripening of the canes. Furthermore, irrigation
will prevent unnecessary drying out of the canes, spurs and roots during winter and
the period before budbreak. At this stage, it can only be speculated that the low
bud fertility and poor bunch differentiation are either caused by hormones not being
produced in roots if the soil is extremely dry, or insufficient hormone translocation
to the dormant buds if the cane water content falls below a critical level.
PHOTO: M. CORNELISSEN.
FIGURE 7.25. Vineyards being flood irrigated during winter in the Lower Olifants River region.

Chapter 7
7.2.10 IRRIGATION STRATEGIES DURING CRITICAL DROUGHT

PERIODS
During dry winters, storage dams for irrigation water might not fill to their
full capacity. In the long run, low winter rainfall could also cause the level of
groundwater, e.g. in boreholes, to fall. The drought conditions will become worse
if spring rainfall is also lower than usual. Although rainfall could occur in summer,
it will most probably be insufficient to meet the water requirements of vineyards.
Where vineyards have deep, well-developed root systems, winter water stored in
the root zone will normally be adequate to to meet the grapevines’ needs until the
end of December. Lower than usual rainfall during winter can cause low soil water
content, particularly in the layers below the root zone, when grapevine growth
begins in September. In summer, water stored in these deep soil layers can move
into the root zone via capillary rise to serve as a buffer against grapevine water
constraints during drought periods. In certain areas, water quality can decline
drastically during periods of drought, particularly with respect to the level of
salinity or sodicity. If the water quality is outside the norms presented in Chapter
5, it should not be used for irrigation to avoid permanent damage to the soil and
the grapevines. In such cases, a possible solution would be to “mothball” the
vineyards, i.e. to remove all bunches and only leave three or four shoots to keep
the rest of the grapevine physiologically active.
When the water resources are limited, irrigation should be aimed at reducing
grapevine water constraints during critical phenological phases. Sufficient water
at budbreak will allow even budding and vegetative growth. An irrigation before
budbreak will be crucial if the preceding winter was exceptionally dry. If the water
resources are limited, e.g. only enough for one irrigation, it should be applied as
close as possible to véraison (Fig. 7.26). The irrigation must be applied to wet the
root zone as deep as is practically possible. Cultivars that ripen first should be
irrigated first, followed by cultivars that ripen later. The objective of this approach
is to reduce the time between the irrigation and picking of the late cultivars. If the
winter rainfall is below normal, or in regions where winter rainfall is usually low,
the single irrigation must be applied before flowering to reduce water constraints
during berry development. This may reduce the drought impact on yield, i.e. if heat
waves do not occur later in the season.

Budbreak Flowering Pea size Véraison Harvest
1 Irrigation - normal winter

- drier winter
2 Irrigations - normal winter

- drier winter

- drier winter

- drier winter
FIGURE 7.26. Schematic illustration of irrigation based on phenological phases when

irrigation water is limited.
If there is enough water for two irrigations, and the winter rainfall was normal,
the irrigations should be applied at pea size berries and véraison (Fig. 7.26).
If the soils are relatively dry at budbreak, the two irrigations should be applied
before flowering and at véraison. Irrigation at these stages will reduce the risk of
small berries and possible yield losses caused by excessively warm conditions
during berry ripening. If there is enough water for three irrigations, and the winter
rainfall was normal, the irrigations can be applied at pea size, véraison and half
way through berry ripening (Fig. 7.26). In the case of low winter rainfall, the three
irrigations can be applied before flowering, at pea size and at véraison. The
application of a fourth irrigation is illustrated in Figure 7.26.
If there is not enough irrigation water available to irrigate all the blocks as discussed
above, the water must only be used for high income and young vineyards. The
latter are important since the future sustainable production of the farm depends
on the well-being of the young vineyards. If possible, planting of new vineyards
should be postponed until the irrigation water resources have been restored. In
situations where the water reservoir(s) that feed the irrigation scheme did not fill
sufficiently during relatively dry winters, it is possible that water allocations could be
drastically restricted, or even cut off. If there is enough time for a round of irrigations
in the period between the announcement of the cut-off and the actual cut-off date,
a single, deep irrigation should be applied during that period.
7.2.11 PRACTICES TO REDUCE UNNECESSARY WATER

LOSSES
A number of long or short term measures can be implemented to reduce water
losses, particularly when drought conditions prevail, or when periodic droughts

Chapter 7
occur. These measures are primarily aimed at reducing or preventing excessive

evaporation and/or transpiration losses. Poorly managed irrigation systems may
also cause unnecessary water losses.
7.2.11.1 REDUCING EVAPORATION LOSSES

Soil preparation: Deep tillage before a vineyard is planted will show its benefits
during critical drought periods. In most soils, grapevines will have shallow, poorly
developed root systems if soil preparation is not carried out properly (Fig. 7.27A).
Deep soil preparation before planting is essential for the development of deep, well-
distributed root systems that can effectively absorb winter rainfall that is stored in the
root zone (Fig. 7.27B). Furthermore, water absorption will be more efficient if the root
system consists predominantly of fine roots. Vineyards with deep root systems will
require less frequent irrigation than ones with shallow roots in the same soil, since
more water can be depleted between irrigations. Consequently, the number of high
Phase 1 evaporation peaks following irrigations will be less. InFigurethis way, reduced
7.27
evaporation losses can save a substantial amount of water, compared to vineyards
with poor root systems due to shallow soil preparation (Fig. 7.28).
Figure 7.27
E
Soil water content
FIGURE 7.27. Examples of (A) a shallow, poorly developed grapevine root system, compared
to (B) a deep, well developed root system with an abundance of fine roots.

Es = 12 x 15 mm = 180 mm
Preparation
Soil water content
depth
Potential
root
depth
Time
Es = 3 x 15 mm = 45 mm
Soil water content
Preparation Potential
depth root
depth
Time
FIGURE 7.28. Schematic illustration of Phase 1 Es losses in the case of shallow soil
preparation (top) and where the soil preparation depth is equal to the potential soil depth
(bottom), i.e. if it is assumed that the soils are similar, and that Phase 1 ES is 15 mm.
In many cases, grapevines are planted on ridges that were constructed as a

means of soil preparation (Myburgh, 1994). Since ridges increase the soil surface
(Fig. 7.29), the additional evaporation will cause the soil to be drier, compared to
unridged soil throughout the growing season (Fig. 7.30). Therefore, ridged soils
are usually drier and warmer than unridged soil (Myburgh & Moolman, 1991;
Myburgh & Moolman, 1993). Consequently, grapevines on ridges will require
more irrigation, compared to unridged soil. Vineyard soils should only be ridged
where (i) a high water table occurs during early spring, (ii) heavy subsoil does not
allow conventional drainage or (iii) the topsoil is shallow and the subsoil cannot be
loosened by means of conventional deep soil preparation.

Chapter 7
FIGURE 7.29. Ridges increase the soil surface area which will enhance evaporation losses
from soil.
Figure 7.30
300
Budbreak Véraison Harvest
250
200
SWC (mm/90 cm)
150
100
Control (unridged)
60 cm High, double row ridge
50
0
87-09-12 87-10-03 87-10-24 87-11-14 87-12-05 87-12-26 88-01-16 88-02-06
FIGURE 7.30. Variation in soil water in the 0 to 90 cm soil layer of unridged soil and
60 cm high double row ridges in the 1987/88 season (adapted from Myburgh, 1989b).
The grapevines were grown without irrigation.

Growers should dig soil pits to determine the root depth in order to prevent over-
irrigation beyond the root zone in established vineyards. Irrigation must be applied
where most of the roots occur. For example, if most roots occur to a depth of 60
cm, but a few roots penetrate to 120 cm, water will be wasted if the soil is irrigated
to 120 cm. One of the worst mistakes that growers can make under drought
conditions is to “pamper” the grapevines by applying small irrigations frequently. If
only 5 to 10 mm irrigation is applied, most of it will be lost to the atmosphere during
Phase I evaporation as discussed in Chapter 2.
Tillage and mulching: Surface management practices can also affect evaporation
losses from the soil. Shallow tillage does not seem to reduce evaporation losses,
compared to bare, undisturbed soil (Fig. 7.31). In fact, it tends to increase evaporation
losses, and is therefore not recommended as a water saving practice in vineyards.
Unnecessary tillage will also contribute to destruction of the soil structure near the
surface in the long run. Poor soil structure will impair water infiltration which will cause
runoff losses. Furthermore, shallow tillage may destroy shallow roots that could have
absorbed light rainfall in early spring and summer. A surface mulch, consisting of
organic material, e.g. straw or wood chips, will reduce evaporation losses, particularly
during the period of high evaporation following irrigation or rainfall (Fig. 7.31).
Evaporation losses will decrease with an increase in the thickness of the mulch. In the
beginning of the season, water saving will be limited to the surface layer, but as the
season progresses mulching will also result in higher soil water contents in deeper
layers, compared to bare, undisturbed soil or shallow tillage (Fig. 7.32).
35
4 mm
30
Cumulative water loss (mm)
25
20
15
10 Bare soil
Shallow tillage
4 t/ha Straw mulch
5 8 t/ha Straw mulch
12 t/ha Straw mulch
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18
Time (days)
FIGURE 7.31. Effect of tillage and thickness of wheat straw mulches on water losses from
the 0-20 cm soil layer in a vineyard following irrigation on 19 January 1997 (Myburgh, 2013).
Arrow indicates rainfall and vertical bars indicate LSD (p ≤ 0.05).

Chapter 7

0 5 10 15
0
Bare soil
Shallow tillage
15 4 t/ha Straw mulch
8 t/ha Straw mulch
12 t/ha Straw mulch
30
Depth (cm)
45
60
75
90
FIGURE 7.32. Effect of shallow tillage and thickness of wheat straw mulches on soil water
content on 1 December in a vineyard near Stellenbosch during the 1995/96 season (Myburgh,
2013). Horizontal bars indicate LSD (p ≤ 0.05).
It is important to note that a dry mulch will absorb rainfall or irrigation water.
Consequently, the water will only reach the soil surface once the mulch becomes
saturated. In the event of light rainfall or small irrigations, the water might not
reach the soil at all and could evaporate into the atmosphere. This interception
effect appears to increase as mulch thickness increases (Fig. 7.33). Therefore,
small, frequently applied irrigations will be ineffective, and must be avoided where
relatively thick mulches are applied in vineyards.

140
120
SWC (mm/120 cm)

100
80
60
40
20
y = -15.88lnx +133.18 (R2 = 0.9985)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Mulch thickness (cm)
FIGURE 7.33. Effect of the thickness of compost mulches on soil water content (SWC) on the
grapevine row following a series of small rainfall events (Moffat, 2017).
Adapt irrigation systems: Since the water use efficiency of conventional full surface
flood irrigation is lowest, compared to most other systems, it can be temporarily
adapted to save water during drought periods. Irrigation water can be applied in
narrow furrows along the grapevine rows or in alternating work rows as discussed
in Chapter 4. In both cases, the fractional wetting of the soil surface will reduce the
evaporation losses, compared to full surface flood irrigation, but the grapevines will
still receive enough water to maintain comparable yields (Table 7.18). At the same
time, WUE will be higher. However, in the case of fractional wetting, it is critical
to avoid excessively dry conditions in the post-harvest and dormancy periods,
particularly in the summer rainfall regions (Myburgh, 2003a). In the case of extreme
drought, short pieces of poly pipe can be slit open and clamped over micro-
sprinklers. This will reduce the distribution pattern to a tricle of water under the
micro-sprinklers. These “super drippers” will allow the water to penetrate deeper
into the soil, compared to a small, full surface irrigation, and reduce evaporation
losses. If only used for a short period, the limited soil wetting is unlikely to cause
any changes to the root system in established vineyards.

Chapter 7
TABLE 7.18. The effect of different flood irrigation systems on the yield, irrigation applied and
WUE of Sultanina grapevines in the Lower Orange River region (Myburgh, 2003a).
Irrigation system Irrigation Yield Irrigation WUE

cycle (days) (t/ha) applied (m3) (kg/m3)
Wide beds 14 24.5 12 718 1.9

21 25.1 12 718 2.0
Furrows 14 26.6 7 932 3.3
21 22.1 7 932 2.8
Alternating rows 14 24.6 7 386 3.3
21 19.9 7 386 2.7
7.2.11.2 REDUCING EXCESSIVE TRANSPIRATION

Transpiration losses increase with grapevine leaf area as shown in Chapter 2.
Consequently, unnecessary vigorous vegetative growth (Fig. 7.34), particularly
during the first part of the season, will cause unnecessary water losses. Therefore,
canopy management, e.g. removal of excessive shoots by means of suckering, as
well as timely tip and top actions must be carried out to reduce transpiration losses.
Only apply the recommended amounts of fertilisers, particularly nitrogen, to prevent
stimulation of excessive vegetative growth that will increase transpiration losses.
PHOTO: M. CORNELISSEN.
Vine row Work row Vine row
A B
FIGURE 7.34. Examples of excessive vegetative growth (A) near Stellenbosch and (B) in
the Lower Olifants River region.
Since transpiration by grape berries is insignificantly small, high crop loads per
se are unlikely to cause excessive transpiration losses. The possibility that crop
reduction in grapevines bearing high crop loads, may indirectly increase ET
Figure 7.35
is discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.2.1.1 (Table 2.2). However, grapevines
growing in sandy soil might not be able to absorb adequate water during the night
as the soil dries out. Consequently, grapevines bearing high crop loads in sandy
soil could experience more water constraints, compared to grapevines without
grapes, as discussed in Chapter 6, Section 6.3.7. Given that bunch removal had

no effect on midday ΨS in grapevines where the maximum crop load was one
bunch per shoot, (Chapter 6, Fig. 6.23), less bunches will probably not reduce
ET significantly. Furthermore, one bunch per shoot did not increase midday ΨS,
compared to total crop removal of high yielding grapevines where the crop load
was ca. two bunches per shoot (Chapter 6, Fig. 6.24).
Another possibility is that high crop loads could delay sugar accumulation when
grapevines experience severe water constraints. Therefore, it is advisable to
remove unnecessary bunches before véraison. If the drought conditions caused
a substantial reduction in vegetative growth, but not in fertility, bunches should
be removed to improve the balance between vegetative growth and yield to
prevent possible physiological stresses. Based on the foregoing, it seems that
one bunch per shoot is unlikely to induce excessive water constraints or increase
ET. Consequently, one bunch per shoot can be considered as a norm for bunch
removal where irrigation water is limited or during critical droughts.
Cover crops may use a substantial amount of winter water stored in the soil for
transpiration, particularly if they grow vigorously (Fig. 7.35). If the cover crop
continues to grow after budbreak, it will deprive the grapevines of crucial soil water
resources, compared to bare or mulched soil (Fig. 7.36). The water lost during
spring can be crucial in regions where irrigation resources are limited, e.g. in the
Swartland region. The extent of soil water use by the growing cover crop will also
depend on its growth vigour (Fig. 7.37). The effect of the growing cover crop will be
less severe on the grapevine row, compared to the work row where it usually grows
(Fig. 7.38). Soil water content in the topsoil layer was substantially higher 28 days
after a Triticale cover crop was killed and rolled flat at budbreak, compared to the
actively growing Triticale (Fig. 7.38B). During this period, the growing cover crop
used ca. 44 mm more water, compared to the killed cover crop (unpublished data).
In this particular case, the dried matter of the Triticale amounted to 5.1 t/ha based
on the total vineyard area. Since the soil water content was higher, compared to
clean cultivated soil, it suggested that the flattened cover crop effectively served
as a mulch. If the cover crop is slashed instead of controlling it chemically, there
will probably be no mulch effect with respect to soil water losses. Channels formed
where cover crop roots have died back will also improve water infiltration into the
soil and reduce the risk of runoff if rainfall occurs during summer. Based on the
foregoing, growers are advised to kill cover crops earlier than usual if winter rainfall
was abnormally low. Likewise, timely chemical control of winter weeds is crucial for
reducing transpiration losses (Fig. 7.39).

Chapter 7
Figure
Figure7.35
7.35
A B
FIGURE 7.35. Examples of vigorously growing (A) Triticale and (B) Oats winter cover crops
in vineyards.
280 6 kPa = Field capacity
260
Rain = 23.9 mm Irr. Irr. Irr.
240
220
200
180
160
140
120 Bare soil

Growing cover crop
100 Single mulch layer
Double mulch layer Permanent wilting point
80
8 29 6 27 3 24 1 29 5 25 1 10
Date
FIGURE 7.36. The effect of a growing Rye grass (Lolium multiflorum) cover crop on soil
water depletion in a flood irrigated Colombar vineyard near Oudtshoorn (redrawn from
Van Huyssteen et al., 1984).

30 40 50
0
10
20
Depth (cm) 30
40
50
60 DMP = 1.5 t/ha

DMP = 2.5 t/ha
70 DMP = 5.2 t/ha
80
FIGURE 7.37. Effect of Triticale cover crop vigour as quantified in terms of DMP on soil water
content at budbreak in the work row of a dryland Pinotage vineyard near Stellenbosch during
the 2016/17 season (Moffat, 2017). Figure 7.38
A Soil water content (mm/30 cm) B Soil water content (mm/30 cm)
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
0 0
10 10
20 20
30 30
Depth (cm)
Depth (cm)
40 40
50 50
60 60
70 70
80 No cover crop 80 No cover crop

Cover crop killed at budbreak Cover crop killed at budbreak
Growing cover crop Growing cover crop
90 90
FIGURE 7.38. Effect of a growing Triticale cover crop on soil water content at budbreak
(A) in the grapevine row and (B) in the work row of a low frequency drip irrigated Cabernet
Sauvignon vineyard near Philadelphia during the 2016/17 season. The DMP of the Triticale
amounted to 5.1 t/ha (unpublished data).

Chapter 7
Figure 7.39
A B
FIGURE 7.39. Poor weed control (A) will cause unnecessary water losses via transpiration
in a vineyard, compared to clean tillage (B).
It is advisable to terminate irrigation of windbreaks when water resources are

limited. In this regard, it will be useful if windbreaks have separate irrigation valves.
If there are indications that a windbreak competes with the adjacent grapevines for
nutrients and water, the trees should be removed. Water plants, reeds and trees
growing in, or on the banks of irrigation dams are further causes of substantial,
unnecessary water losses via transpiration (Fig. 7.40). For example, it is estimated
that Common reed uses approximately 500 mm water during the summer (Kabenge
& Irmak, 2012). This implies that a 3 m wide and 300 m long stretch of Common
reed on the banks of a dam, as indicated in Figure 7.41, will waste 450 000  of
irrigation water via transpiration during summer. Therefore, it is essential to remove
any unwanted vegetation in and around irrigation dams. This can be carried out
when dams are empty at the end ofFigure 7.40 season, or during dry winters.
the irrigation
A B
FIGURE 7.40. Water plants (A), as well as reeds and trees (B) will cause unnecessary water
losses from dams via transpiration.
Figure 7.41

FIGURE 7.41. Vigorous reed growth in a dam will cause unnecessary water losses via
transpiration.
7.2.11.3 PREVENTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM LOSSES

Large volumes of water will be wasted if leaks occur in any of the components in
the irrigation system, i.e. between the water supply and the sprinklers or drippers.
To avoid unnecessary leaks, continuous inspection and maintenance are essential.
Make sure that micro-sprinklers are on the upright position, i.e. on laterals or pegs,
to prevent uneven wetting patterns. Remove any weeds or down growing shoots
that can disturb the distribution pattern of micro-sprinklers (Fig. 7.42). Sagging
dripper lines will also cause uneven wetting along the grapevine row. Make sure
that the dripper lines are attached to the wires. It is critical that irrigation systems
operate at the design pressure. Therefore, water filters should be cleaned regularly
to avoid a decrease in pressure and water flow in the laterals. On the other hand,
excessive pressure in micro-irrigation systems will cause a fine mist that will
result in substantial evaporation losses as the water droplets travel through the air
(Fig. 7.43). Furthermore, water lossesFigure
due 7.42
to excessive pressure in the irrigation
system will increase under windy conditions.
A B
FIGURE 7.42. The water distribution of micro-sprinklers should be uninterrupted (A) and not
be interrupted by weeds or cover crops (B).

Figure 7.43
Chapter 7
FIGURE 7.43. Example where excessive pressure causes a fine mist that will increase
evaporation losses.
Since less energy is available for evaporation from the soil surface during the night,
compared to daytime, evaporation losses will be less if irrigation is applied during
the night. In some areas, wind speeds are also lower during the night, compared
to daytime conditions. Therefore, irrigation water will be applied more efficiently at
night, particularly where the full surface is wetted by means of overhead sprinklers
or micro-sprinklers. Evaporation losses between the orifice and the soil will also
increase under windy conditions, particularly if the air temperature is high (Fig.
7.44). Therefore, it would be better to irrigate during the night where strong winds
usually prevail during daytime. Evaporation losses from the soil surface will also be
less when atmospheric conditions are cooler during the night.

FIGURE 7.44. When strong winds prevail during daytime, it is advisable to irrigate during
the night.
Dams used for catching and/or storage of irrigation water should also be
considered as part of the irrigation infrastructure. In many cases, silt sediments
can accumulate in dams over time, thereby reducing the storage capacity. The
amount of sediment that accumulates will depend on the nature and usage of
soils in the catchment, or the quality of the water obtained from irrigation schemes.
The sediments need to be excavated from time to time in order to restore the
storage capacity of dams. As water is becoming scarcer, growers should consider
increasing dam capacities to increase the volume of stored winter water where
possible (Fig. 7.45A). It must be noted that the enlargement of dams is subject to
limitations as laid down by the authorities. Substantial volumes of irrigation water
can be lost via seepage losses through water permeable dam floors. If the latter
occurs, dams must be lined with impermeable material (Fig. 7.45B).

Chapter 7
Figure 7.45
Figure 7.45
FIGURE 7.45. An example where (A) an existing irrigation dam is being enlarged and
(B) a lining was installed in a dam to prevent seepage losses.
7.3 POSSIBLE WAYS TO USE IRRIGATION WATER

MORE EFFICIENTLY
When it comes to the implementation of irrigation strategies, the actual irrigation
water use efficiency for vineyards becomes an important consideration, and needs
to be optimised. The WUE is defined as unit of fresh grapes produced per unit of
irrigation water applied. For grapes it is usually a kilogram grapes per cubic meter
water (kg/m3). This specific WUE must not be confused with other definitions, e.g.
dried matter produced per unit water in the case of grain crops. Economists might
define WUE as income (R) per unit irrigation water. Plant physiologists commonly
refer to WUE as the ratio of photosynthesis to transpiration.

Since grapevine yield generally declines with the volume of irrigation water,
irrigation strategies where the irrigation water is reduced are unlikely to improve
WUE. However, comparing different pre- and post-véraison irrigation frequencies,
PAW depletion levels and DI showed that the WUE of drip irrigated Shiraz near
Robertson in the Breede River Valley region only increased where less grapes
were produced with less water (Fig. 7.46). In reality, the WUE can only be higher
if (i) more grapes are produced with the same amount of irrigation water without
compromising on wine quality, or if (ii) the same grape yield and quality are
maintained with less irrigation. One way to achieve these objectives is to adapt
the trellis and/or training systems in order to increase the bearing capacity per
grapevine. For example, the cordon arm length of grapevines trained onto a two-
tier vertical trellis will be almost double, compared to single cordon grapevines on
a six-wire vertical trellis (Fig. 7.47). The two levels of cordon arms will increase the
bearing capacity substantially (Fig. 7.48).
25
25
20
WUE (kg/m3)
20 15
WUE (kg/m3)
15 10
5
10
0
5 10 15 20 25 30
Yield (t/ha)
0
10 15 20 25 30
Yield (t/ha)
FIGURE 7.46. Relationship between irrigation WUE and yield of Shiraz that were subjected
to different irrigation strategies in a field trial
Figurein the7.47
Breede River valley (after Lategan, 2011).
A B
Figure 7.47
65 c m
70 c m
65 c m
FIGURE 7.47. Examples of grapevines trained onto (A) a six-wire vertical trellis and (B) a
two-tier vertical trellis. Dashed lines indicate trunks and cordon arms of the two-tier trellis.
230 CHAPTER 7 – IRRIGATION STRATEGIES 70 c m

Chapter 7
Figure 7.48
A B C
FIGURE 7.48. Pinotage/99 R irrigated with micro-sprinklers at 50% PAW depletion on (A) a
six-wire vertical trellis and (B) a two-tier vertical trellis, as well as (C) grapevines irrigated at
75% PAW depletion on a two-tier vertical trellis near Robertson.
Research results have shown that the yield of micro-sprinkler irrigated Pinotage/99
R grapevines on a two-tier vertical trellis in the Breede River valley near Robertson
was approximately 40% more, compared to grapevines on a six-wire vertical
trellis (Myburgh, 2011f). It is important to note that the yield increased without any
reduction in wine quality (Table 7.19). Where grapevines were irrigated at 50%
PAW depletion, the WUE improved from 3.6 kg/m3 for the six-wire vertical trellis,
compared to 5.1 kg/m3 for the two-tier vertical trellis. This conforms to the norm
that more grapes were produced with the same volume of irrigation water without
compromising on wine quality. On the other hand, where irrigation was applied at
75% PAW depletion, approximately 25% more grapes were produced, compared
to grapevines on the six-wire vertical trellis irrigated at 50% PAW depletion (Table
7.19). Since the WUE increased to 6.6 kg/m3, it shows that more grapes can indeed
be produced with less water if the trellis and/or pruning systems are adapted.
Furthermore, wine quality improved concomitantly with the higher WUE where
irrigation was applied at 75% PAW depletion (Table 7.19).
TABLE 7.19. Combined effects of trellis system and PAW depletion on yield and overall
sensorial wine quality micro-sprinkler irrigated Pinotage/99 R near Robertson. Data are means
for three seasons (Myburgh, 2011c & f).
Trellis system Irrigation PAW depletion Irrigation Yield Wine quality

frequency (%) (mm) (t/ha) (%)
Six-wire vertical Weekly 50 584 21.1 b* 49.4 b

Two-tier vertical Weekly 50 584 30.1 a 49.7 b
Two-tier vertical Fortnightly 75 407 26.7 ab 58.7 a

In another example, low frequency irrigated mechanically pruned Shiraz/110 R
grapevines produced almost the same yield as high frequency irrigated vertical
shoot positioning (VSP) trained grapevines near Robertson in the Breede River
valley (Fig. 7.49A). The irrigation amounts were 483±45 and 139±64 mm,
respectively, for the high and low frequency irrigation. The low frequency irrigation
not only produced better overall sensorial wine quality than the high frequency
irrigation (Fig. 7.49B), but increased the WUE substantially (Fig. 7.49C). Low
frequency irrigated, mechanically pruned grapevines also increased the gross
margin water use efficiency, compared to VSP trained grapevines irrigated at
a high frequency (Fig. 7.49D). The foregoing shows that it is possible to obtain
the same yield, better wine quality, higher WUE and use the irrigation water in a
more profitable way by adapting the irrigation frequency, as well as the canopy
Figure 7.49
management system.
25 70
A 60 B
20
50
Quality (%)
Yield (t/ha)
15 40
10 30
20
5
10
0 0
VSP Mech. pruning VSP Mech. pruning
14 35
12 C 30 D
10 25
WUEGM (R/m3)
WUE (kg/m3)
8 20
6 15
4 10
2 5
0 0
VSP Mech. pruning VSP Mech. pruning
FIGURE 7.49. Comparison between (A) yield, (B) overall sensorial wine quality, (C) WUE and
(D) WUEGM of VSP trained and mechanically pruned Shiraz/110 R in the Breede River Valley
region. The VSP trained and mechanically pruned grapevines were irrigated at high and low
frequencies, respectively. The data are means for three seasons and the vertical bars indicate
±standard deviation (after Lategan & Howell, 2016).

Chapter 7
7.4 THE WATER FOOTPRINT OF WINE

In Section 7.3 the focus was only on effective water use with respect to irrigation.
The water footprint is a more comprehensive way to express the water use efficiency
of production processes (http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/what-is-water-
footprint/). In the case of wine production, the water footprint is expressed as unit
of water used per unit of wine produced, e.g. per liter or bottle. In addition to the
water used on farms (blue), the water footprint also includes rainwater (green), as
well as water required to remediate pollution generated by wine production (grey)
as explained in Table 7.20.
TABLE 7.20. The different components of the wine production water footprint.
Component Description
Blue It is the volume of vineyard irrigation water abstracted from natural resources,
e.g. boreholes, rivers or dams. This includes water used for irrigation, as well
as disease, pest and weed control.
Green It is the volume of rainwater that is lost via evaporation and transpiration, or in-
corporated into the grapevine structure after it had been stored in the root zone.
Grey It is the volume of water required to dilute pollutants, e.g. winery wastewater, so
that it conforms to water quality standards as set by water governing authorities.
The magnitude of the water footprint of wine is determined by numerous factors.

For example, the blue water footprint of high yielding cultivars, e.g. Colombar or
Mourvédre, is most likely to be lower than that of less fertile cultivars under the
same cultivation conditions. Furthermore, evaporation losses under micro-sprinkler
irrigation are appreciably higher, compared to drip irrigation as explained in
Chapter 2. Consequently, micro-sprinkler irrigated vineyards will have a higher blue
water footprint than drip irrigated vineyards. On the other hand, the contribution
of evaporation to the green water footprint will be comparable for micro-sprinklers
and drip, since rainwater evaporates over the total surface. In semi-arid regions
such as the Lower Olifants River and Lower Orange River regions, the green water
footprint of wine production will be less, compared to regions where the annual
rainfall is higher. The types and amounts of chemicals used for winemaking, as well
as volumes of wastewater produced varies substantially between wineries (Howell
& Myburgh, 2018 and references therein). Consequently, the grey water footprint
of wineries will vary concomitantly. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that there
cannot be a single, optimum water footprint per unit wine produced. In fact, it was
shown that the water footprint varied from 100 to 985 liters of water per liter of wine
produced in Italy (Lamastra et al., 2014). In South Africa, however, the knowledge
on the water footprint of wine is rather limited. Similar to most other industries, the
water footprint of wine production has an impact on the environment. Therefore,
grape growers and wineries should make a concerted effort to reduce the water
footprint as far as possible, but still maintain sustainable wine production under a
given set of conditions.

There is no fixed irrigation recipe to achieve optimum grapevine yield and wine
quality, but some trends stand out clearly. The irrigation strategy is important from
the day that a new vineyard is established. Irrigation of young grapevines is critical
to ensure that root systems will develop throughout the newly prepared soil. For
bearing vineyards, irrigation strategies need to be adapted to achieve specific
end-product objectives with respect to yield and wine quality. In most cases, less
irrigation will reduce yield, but will increase wine quality and vice versa. However,
by adapting trellis systems it is possible to obtain higher yield and better WUE
without compromising wine quality. It is important to note that WUE can only be
higher if the same yield is maintained with less irrigation water, or if the yield can be
increased with the same volume of irrigation water. Wine quality will not necessarily
be better if vegetative growth and berry mass are reduced by water constraints
induced before véraison. Given the risk of lower yields, this strategy does not seem
to be an option. Likewise, post-véraison water deficits will not necessarily ensure
better wine quality. Partial root zone drying holds promise to improve wine quality.
However, it does not seem to improve WUE, compared to conventional single line,
drip irrigation systems. The risk of excessive water constraints during drought
periods will be less if long term practices such as soil preparation and mulching
are carried out properly. Short term practices include timely removal of excessive
shoots, reduction in nitrogen fertilisers, complete weed control and killing cover
crops with herbicides before budbreak.

Chapter 7

Chapter 8
Practical
irrigation
scheduling
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Irrigation scheduling can simply be defined as the answers to “When to irrigate?”
and “How much water must be applied?” In order to answer these questions,
measurements or calculations are required. Direct measurements can be soil or
plant based. Soil measurements include soil water content and matric potential,
whereas leaf water potential, infrared thermometry and remote sensing by means
of satellite imagery can be used to assess grapevine water requirements. On the
other hand, a reference evaporation in combination with crop coefficients may be
used to calculate irrigation requirements indirectly.
8.2 QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF ROOT SYSTEMS

The first requirement for correct irrigation scheduling of vineyards is to qualify the
root system. This information is essential to decide where to install instruments
and to know the root depth to where irrigation must be applied to. In addition
to anchoring grapevines, roots absorb and transport nutrients and water, store
reserves and produce hormones. Digging soil pits is a simple, effective way to
assess grapevine root systems. Soil pits must be made between two grapevines
and to the middle of the work row as indicated graphically in Figure 8.1. Evaluate
root systems where the majority of the roots occur. Single, deep roots do not make
a significant contribution, and water will be wasted if irrigation is applied to depths
where these isolated roots occur. The four most important criteria for evaluating
grapevine root systems are as follows:
1. Lateral distribution: The ideal root system should have roots throughout the soil
between two grapevines (Fig. 8.1). In the case of full surface irrigation, roots
should occur up to the middle of the work row as indicated by “A” in Figure
8.1. In the case of strip wetting, e.g. drip irrigation, roots should occur over the
width of the wetted soil volume as indicated by “B”.
2. Depth distribution: The depth of the root system, as indicated by “C” in Figure
8.1, should be at least 60 cm deep if good quality irrigation water is abundant,
80 cm deep if irrigation water is limited and 1 m deep for dryland (rainfed)
vineyards.
236 CHAPTER 8 – PRACTICAL IRRIGATION SCHEDULING

Chapter 8
3. Number of fine roots, i.e. thinner than 2 mm diameter, are the most important
part of the root system, since they are primarily responsible for nutrient and
water absorption. Therefore, the higher the number of fine roots, the better
they are for optimal grapevine functioning. The roots must also be distributed
uniformly throughout the soil and not be concentrated in clusters or layers. It
must be noted that all fine roots are considered to be feeder roots, no matter
Figure 8.1
at what depth they occur in the soil profile.
4. Quality of the fine roots: If roots have a brown colour, it means that they are
healthy. Black coloured or slimy roots are unhealthy, or have died back.
Grapevine Middle of work row
1
A
B
1 2
3 and 4
3
and
4
C
FIGURE 8.1. Diagram showing the criteria for evaluation of grapevine root systems, where
 indicates lateral distribution,  depth distribution,  number of fine roots and  quality
of the fine roots.
If root systems are not deep enough, it is almost impossible to enhance root depth
in existing vineyards. However, where limited roots occur in the middle of the work
Figure 8.2
row (Fig. 8.2A), the following corrective measures can be taken to improve root
development. A ripper with a mechanical action that is driven via the power take-off
of the tractor, e.g. a wiggle plough, can be used to loosen the soil between wheel
tracks (Fig. 8.2B). If compacted soil on the wheel tracks restrict roots distribution into
the work row, first loosen the soil between the wheel tracks. This must be followed by
ripping on wheel tracks using a two-tine ripper. Loosening the soil in this sequence
will minimise soil re-compaction on the wheel tracks. New roots will not only develop
into the loosened soil, but numerous roots may form where thicker roots were cut
during tillage. This stimulation of root growth is referred to as the “root pruning” effect
(Fig. 8.3). Corrective measures should be carried out during the post-harvest period
when wheel traffic is low. If waterlogging causes dead or unhealthy roots due to
lateral subsurface water flow into the vineyard, cut-off drains must be installed.

Figure
Figure 8.28.2
A B
FIGURE 8.2. Where (A) compaction limits root development in the work row, (B) the soil
can be loosened between the wheel tracks by means of a wiggle plough to encourage root
development.
FIGURE 8.3. An example of where root pruning stimulated the formation of numerous new
grapevine roots.
8.3 INDIRECT ESTIMATION OF

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
This approach is used world-wide to estimate the irrigation requirements of most
agricultural crops, including vineyards. The approach is based on the relationship
between vineyard ET and a reference evaporation or evapotranspiration. Both ET
and the references are usually in millimeters per day (mm/d). When the reference

Figure 8.3
Chapter 8
value is high, vineyard ET will also be high, and vice versa when the reference
value is low. The constant that relates ET to the reference value is called the crop
coefficient, and is usually determined by research institutions. Crop coefficients
are obtained by measuring ET and reference evaporation simultaneously under a
given set of crop, soil and atmospheric conditions. The ET for a given period, e.g.
day, month, week or year, is calculated by using the universal soil water balance
equation as follows:
ET = SWCb + I + P - D - R - SWCe Eq. 8.1
where SWCb and SWCe are the soil water content (mm) in the root zone at the
beginning and end of the period, respectively. Where applicable, I is the irrigation
applied (mm) and P is rainfall (mm) during the period, whereas D is drainage lost
below the root zone (mm) and R is surface runoff (mm).
For many years, American Class-A pans (Fig. 8.4A) were used to measure
reference evaporation, i.e. the so-called pan evaporation (Ep). Another form of
reference is the evapotranspiration of a short, well-watered grass surface or
ETo. The Penman-Monteith equation is used to calculate ETo from atmospheric
variables, as well as some additional coefficients and constants. The atmospheric
variables include net radiation, temperature, humidity and wind speed, and are
measured by means of automatic weather stations (Fig. 8.4B). For complete details
of the Penman-Monteith equation, refer to Allen et al. (1998). The ETo represents
a more realistic crop water use, compared to evaporation pans, and is currently
the preferred reference. Since the water in evaporation pans accumulates latent
heat during the day, evaporation could continue after sunset which is not a true
crop related reference. Furthermore, if evaporation pans are not encamped, birds
Figure 8.4
and animals can come to drink water, which will contribute to the inaccuracy of Ep.
A B
FIGURE 8.4. Examples of (A) an American Class-A evaporation pan and (B) an automatic
weather station.

In some cases, growers have their own automatic weather stations. These are
usually installed and maintained by private operators, who also download and
process the data. Weather data, including ETo values, can also be obtained from
automatic weather station networks. Some of the networks are managed by industry
organizations within specific regions. The ARC-Institute for Soil, Climate and Water
in Pretoria also runs an automatic weather station network at the national level.
However, the integrity of the data is crucial when it comes to irrigation scheduling,
no matter how, where and by whom it is collected. Therefore, providers of weather
data must make sure that the information is complete, tested and correct before
it reaches the users.
8.3.1 CROP COEFFICIENTS

Crop coefficients (kc) generally increase over the growing season as the weather
becomes warmer and grapevine canopies expand. Initially, crop coefficients
were determined for use with Ep (Table 8.1). It is important to note that these crop
coefficients are only applicable to full surface irrigation. Furthermore, the crop
coefficients for low frequency irrigation are appreciably lower, compared to those
for more frequent irrigation. In the case of fractional wetting, e.g. drip irrigation,
evaporation losses will be less, compared to full surface wetted grapevines bearing
the same leaf area as discussed in Chapter 2, Section 2.4.3. Due to the lower ET,
crop coefficients for drip irrigation will also be lower, compared to full surface crop
coefficients (Table 8.2).
TABLE 8.1. Crop coefficients for estimating full surface irrigation requirements of wine grapes
irrigated at a low frequency (Green, 1985) or medium to high frequency (Van Zyl & Van
Huyssteen, 1988) using American Class A-pan data as the reference evaporation.
Irrigation Crop coefficient
frequency
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Low 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.20 0.20

Medium to high – 0.29 0.42 0.45 0.49 0.51 0.48 –
TABLE 8.2. Crop coefficients for estimating drip irrigation requirements of wine grapes
irrigated at low, medium and high frequencies (Lategan, 2011) using ETo as the reference
evaporation.
Irrigation Crop coefficient
frequency
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Low 0.11 0.15 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.10 0.14 0.14
Medium 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.21
High 0.12 0.24 0.28 0.41 0.42 0.47 0.41 0.21

Chapter 8
A single crop coefficient can be used to calculate vineyard ET simply as follows:

ET = kc x Ep Eq. 8.2
where Ep is the reference evaporation, or
ET = kc x ETo Eq. 8.3
where ETo is the reference evapotranspiration.
As an example, the weekly irrigation requirement during December for a micro-
sprinkler irrigated vineyard near Robertson can be calculated as follows. If the kc
is 0.45 (Table 8.1) and the Ep measured at the ARC Robertson Experiment farm is
8.3 mm/day in December, the vineyard ET = 0.45 x 8.3 = 3.74 mm/d. Therefore, the
vineyard will require 3.74 x 7 days = 26.2 mm per week. In the case of drip irrigation
applied at a medium frequency under the same conditions, kc will be 0.14 (Table
8.2). If ETo is used as the reference, and amounts to 6 mm/d, then the vineyard
ET = 0.14 x 6 = 0.84 mm/d. Therefore, the vineyard will require 0.84 x 7 days =
5.9 mm per week. It must be noted that the irrigation applied on the wetted area
will be 5.9 mm x 5 = 29.5 mm if the drip system wets only 20% of the soil volume.
8.3.2 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION MODELS

Various aspects can influence evapotranspiration of vineyards. For instance,
evaporation losses under drip irrigation will be less compared to full surface
wetting, e.g. micro-sprinklers. Water will also evaporate quicker from sandy soils
than from heavier soils. Grapevines bearing more leaves on bigger canopies will
transpire more water than smaller ones. In the case of grapevines on horizontal
canopies, more leaves will be exposed to radiation over the course of the day,
compared to grapevines on vertical canopies. Due to this variability, ET can be
estimated more accurately by means of the dual crop coefficient approach. With
the latter approach, kc is divided into two coefficients, i.e. ks for evaporation from
the soil and kcb for basal crop transpiration. Each of the latter coefficients can be
adjusted according to the various factors that can influence them (Fig. 8.5).

Figure 8.5
ET = kc x ETo
ET = (ks + kcb) x ETo
Evaporation: Transpiration: Atmospheric conditions:

Soil texture Leaf area per grapevine Reflects in the reference
% Wetted area Canopy orientation evapotranspiration
Plant spacing
FIGURE 8.5. Schematic illustration of the dual crop coefficient approach where kc is divided
into ks and kcb.
Since ET calculation becomesFigure 8.6if all the above-mentioned variables

complicated
need to be considered, the VINET model was developed by ARC Infruitec-
Nietvoorbij at Stellenbosch for estimation of ET in South African vineyards. The
model is based on the dual crop coefficient concept that distinguishes between
evaporation and transpiration (Myburgh, 1998). The Es is estimated by means of a
simple parametric model (Boesten & Stroosnijder, 1986; Stroosnijder, 1987). Daily
Es for clean cultivated soil is calculated using either ETo, or Ep, and a soil specific
parameter, the so-called β-value. The β-value also depends on canopy orientation,
i.e. horizontal vs vertical (Myburgh, 1998). Phase 1 Es is also adjusted according to
vineyard canopy changes over the growing season (Myburgh, 2015). At the single
grapevine level, transpiration is related to total leaf area per grapevine, canopy
orientation and ETo (Myburgh, 2016). Therefore, leaf area, canopy orientation,
plant spacing and ETo are used to calculate vineyard transpiration by means of
regression models (Myburgh, 1998). Whole grapevine sap flow measurements
were carried out to develop the transpiration model. Total leaf area per grapevine
is estimated from the cane mass per grapevine at pruning in winter.
The model requires long term mean daily ETo or Ep for each month from the nearest
weather station (mm/d). Since the number of weather stations for which long term
mean ETo is available is limited compared to Ep, the latter is needed as input by
the model in its present configuration. Other readily available inputs are the size
of the vineyard, or rather irrigation block (ha), plant spacing (m), row spacing (m),
canopy orientation, cane mass at pruning (k/grapevine), root depth (m), available
water over the root depth for the specific soil (mm/root depth), and emitter spacing
of the irrigation system along the grapevine row (m). The estimated wetted soil
volume (%), as well as the target PAW depletion during each physiological phase

Evaporation: Transpiration: Atmospheric conditions:
Chapter 8
Soil texture Leaf area per grapevine Reflects in the reference
% Wetted area Canopy orientation evapotranspiration
Plant
(%) is also required. The spacing
PAW depletion levels will depend on the yield or wine
quality objectives as discussed in Chapter 7. The model outputs comprise leaf
area index (m2 leaves x m2 soil surface), irrigation application rate (mm/h), bruto
irrigation requirement (mm) and the number of irrigations. Furthermore, the daily
ET, kc, irrigation cycle and amount of irrigation are summarized for each month in a
table. For convenience, irrigations are expressed as depth of water (mm), volume
(m3) and runtime (hours) per irrigation. If the number of irrigations per season is less
Figure 8.6
than ten, only the dates on which the irrigations are required and the amount per
irrigation on those days is displayed, instead of the monthly table. Using the VINET
model version 1.1 to determine the irrigation requirements for a low frequency
irrigated vineyard near Stellenbosch is demonstrated below. Note that only 10
irrigation blocks can be entered per file (Figs. 8.6 to 8.16). If more blocks need to
be processed, there is a facility to create additional files.
FIGURE 8.6. Background information menu for the VINET model. The default for “Begin year”
is the year in which the model is being run. Other regions are the Northern Cape or Northern
Provinces, i.e. Gauteng, Limpopo and Mpumalanga.

Figure 8.7
FIGURE 8.7. Map showing distribution of weather stations for which long term mean Ep is
available. Users can select some topo cadastral features to help locate the nearest weather
station. Figure 8.8
Figure 8.8
FIGURE 8.8. In order to select a weather station, first select the area closer to where the
farm is located, and then select the station as indicated on the screen. Resting the cursor on
a weather station will show its identity. The weather station marker will change colour upon
selection.

Figure 8.9
Chapter 8
Figure 8.10
FIGURE 8.9. Menu for entering vineyard details. If cane mass at pruning is not available,
a pop-up menu will provide guidelines for horizontal and vertical canopies, respectively.
Figure 8.10
FIGURE 8.10. Menu for entering soil information: Clicking on “Soil type” will provide a pop-
up menu of different soils. If these are not comparable to the soil in question, select “Other”.
Clicking on “Soil water retention” will provide an estimation of PAW based on soil texture.

Figure 8.11
Figure 8.12
FIGURE 8.11. Menu for selecting the cultivar and the desired levels of PAW depletion during
different phenological phases. In its present configuration, the model does not distinguish
between cultivars. For this particular example, level of PAW depletion was constant at 75%
from budbreak until harvest, followed by 90% in the post-harvest period.
Figure 8.12
FIGURE 8.12. Menu for entering irrigation system details. A pop-up menu is available to
select the “System type”. Clicking on “Soil water content” allows entering real time data, i.e.
if it is available. Real time irrigation and rainfall can also be entered if necessary.

Figure
Figure 8.13
8.13 Chapter 8
FIGURE 8.13. An example of the output for low frequency irrigation giving the irrigations
as required on specific dates, as well as a graph of the cumulative ET between irrigations.
Note that it assumed that the soil was wet at budbreak and that no rainfall occurred during
the season.
Figure 8.14
Figure 8.14
FIGURE 8.14. An example of the output for high frequency irrigation giving the irrigation
as required on specific dates, as well as a graph of the cumulative ET between irrigations.

Figure 8.15
Farm: Soetmelksvlei Owner: D. Du Plooy

Nearest weather station: Lutzville Proefplaas
Irrigation Schedule-block: 4A Cultivar: Merlot
Area Plant spacing Pruning mass Root depth PAW Maximum leaf
(ha) (m x m) (kg/vine) (m) (mm/m) area index
1 2.75 x 1.5 1.5 .6 70 5.0
Irrigation Spacing Wetted Application rate Bruto requirement Number of
system (m x m) Soil volume (%) (mm/h) (mm) irrigations
Drip 2.75 x .6 30 1.9 791 89
Estimated schedule based on total area
Month ET Crop Irrigation Irrigation requirement
(mm/d) Coefficient cycle (d) mm Hours Cub m
August As for July 4
September 1.5 0.21 3 6.6 3.4 66
October 2.5 0.29 2 8.2 4.2 82
November 3.5 0.36 2 7.8 4.0 78
December 3.9 0.41 2 8.6 4.4 86
January 4.0 0.47 2 8.9 4.6 89
February 3.7 0.53 2 8.2 4.2 82
March 2.5 0.49 4 11.1 5.7 111
April 0.9 0.27 7 7.2 3.7 72
May 0.3 0.13 28 9.5 4.9 95
June 0.3 0.14 28 9.8 5.1 98
July 0.5 0.16 14 8.0 8.0 80
FIGURE 8.15. Example of the “Additional info” output for seasonal irrigation requirement
as calculated by means of the VINET model for a drip irrigated wine grape vineyard in a
sandy soil near Lutzville in the Olifants River valley. “Additional info” outputs can be printed
for filing purposes.

Chapter 8
Figure 8.16
C
80
Soil Water matric potential (-kPa)
19/09 10/11 12/12 10/01 09/02 23/03

70
Refill
60
50
40
30
20
10 Field capacity
0
1 Sep 1 Oct 31 Oct 30 Nov 30 Dec 29 Jan 28 Feb 30 Mart 29 Apr 29 May
FIGURE 8.16. Examples of (A) the accumulated ET graphic output of the VINET model for
a flood irrigated wine grape vineyard in a sandy soil near Eksteenskuil in the Lower Orange
River region, (B) after the simulation was adjusted for an untimely irrigation applied in
September and (C) the actual soil matric potential.

8.4 DIRECT SOIL AND PLANT BASED
MEASUREMENTS
Water status of the soil and/or plants can be measured directly for irrigation
scheduling purposes.
8.4.1 SOIL BASED MEASUREMENTS

Soil water content or soil water matric potential is usually measured to determine
the soil water status. Soil water status should be monitored frequently in order to
adjust the proposed irrigation volumes, if necessary. Irrigation volumes should
be increased if the soil is not wetted over the root depth, or decreased if water
percolates beyond the root depth. The principles, as well as possible advantages
and disadvantages of the different methods are discussed below.
8.4.1.1 WETTING FRONT DETECTORS

A wetting front detector (WFD) is probably the most simple, but effective, instrument
to monitor whether irrigation water percolates, or not, below the root zone following
irrigations (Stirzaker et al., 2005). A funnel, which is installed just below the lower
end of the root zone, catches and concentrates the water into a small reservoir
through a filter at the base of the funnel (Fig. 8.17). The Styrofoam® rod begins to
float on the water in the reservoir, and consequently rises in the PVC tube, which
indicates that water has passed below the root zone. Water in the reservoir can
be extracted by means of a syringe via a thin plastic tube. Unfortunately, a WFD
does not indicate the wetting depth if no over-irrigation occurs in the root zone.
If the WFD indicates over-irrigation, volumes of subsequent irrigations must be
gradually reduced until no over-irrigation is detected. Alternatively, a second
WFD can be installed just above the lower end of the root zone. Irrigation volumes
can then be adjusted so that only the higher WFD responds to the wetting front
following irrigation. Wetting front detectors are also useful to determine the element
concentration in the soil solution extracted by means of the syringe. This will enable
the calculation of nutrients lost from the root zone when a vineyard is over-irrigated.
Wetting front detectors are also useful to determine how efficiently salts were
leached from the root zone where a leaching fraction was added to the irrigation
requirement for saline or sodic soils.

A B
PVC tube Ex traction tube
Wetting front
Styrofoam® rod
Plastic funnel
Filter
Reservoir
Wetting front
FIGURE 8.17. Diagram illustrating (A) position of Styrofoam® rod as water approaches
wetting front detector and (B) after water had accumulated in the reservoir (Myburgh &
Howell, 2015).
8.4.1.2 GRAVIMETRIC SAMPLES

The gravimetric method is one of the most accurate and reliable methods used
to determine soil water content. Therefore, it is often used to calibrate other
methods and sensors for determining soil water content. Gravimetric soil samples
are collected using a special tube auger with an inner diameter of ca. 20 mm
(Fig. 8.18). A drop hammer is used to drive the auger into the soil. Soil samples
are taken from predetermined depth layers. The soil samples are placed in metal
cans with known mass (Mc). The lids should be replaced immediately to minimize
evaporation losses. In this regard, it is also advisable to keep the samples in the
shade where possible.

Figure 8.18
Soil auger
Drop hammer
Metal cans
FIGURE 8.18. Equipment required to collect gravimetric soil samples in the field.
The cans containing the soil samples are weighed to obtain the wet mass (Mw).
Following this, the lids are removed and the samples placed in a special oven
with a fan fitted to extract the moisture. The samples need to be dried for at least
16 hours at 105°C. After drying, the lids are replaced and the samples placed in
a desiccator to allow cooling. The dry mass (Md) is then determined by weighing.
The mass fraction of water in the soil is calculated as follows:
Θm = [(Mw - Md) ÷ (Md - Mc)] Eq. 8.3
The mass fraction water is converted to the volumetric soil water fraction as follows:
Θv = Θm x ρb Eq. 8.4
where ρb is the bulk density of the soil (g/cm ). The soil water content in mm water
3
per depth layer is calculated as follows:

SWC = Θm x ρb x d x 100 Eq. 8.5
where d is depth of the layer in decimeter (dm) and multiplication by 100 is required
to convert the mass fraction to percentage. For example, if the gravimetrically
determined Θm in a 20 cm deep layer is 0.15, and the bulk density is 1.6 g/cm3,

Chapter 8
Equation 8.5 can be used to calculate the SWC as follows: SWC = 0.15 x 1.6 x 2 x
100 = 48 mm. Unfortunately, the sampling is labour intensive and time consuming,
particularly if the soil is dry. Consequently, the gravimetric method is not suitable
for on-farm irrigation scheduling.
8.4.1.3 NEUTRON PROBES

The neutron scattering technique is widely used to measure soil water content
(Fig. 8.19). The instrument has a probe which contains a radio-active source that
radiates neutrons. The probe is lowered to a predetermined depth in a 50 mm
diameter access tube installed in the soil. The radiated neutrons lose energy
when they collide with water molecules in the soil, and become “slow” neutrons
(Fig. 8.20). Some of the slow neutrons are reflected back to the probe which also
contains a counter specifically for “slow” neutrons which have collided with water
and were reflected back. In practice, higher counts mean more water, and vice
versa when the soil is drier. The meter displays neutron counts that need to be
converted to soil water content (mm). Neutron probes have the advantage that
they can measure over the full range of plant available water content, i.e. from
field capacity to permanent wilting point. Since the neutrons are scattered though
the soil in a sphere of ca. 30 cm in diameter, it measures in a relatively large soil
volume compared to gravimetric samples.
FIGURE 8.19. A neutron probe is being used to measure soil water content in a vineyard.

Figure 8.20
Meter
Soil surface
Counter
RA source
FIGURE 8.20. Schematic illustration where red arrows indicate neutrons leaving the radio-
active (RA) source, whereas black, dashed arrows indicate the reflected “slow” neutrons
registered by the counter after colliding with water molecules.
Since the neutron probe counts can be affected by environmental conditions,

particularly external radio-active radiation, it is better to work with neutron count ratios
rather than actual neutron counts. In such a case, the count ratio must be calibrated
against gravimetric soil water content. The count ratio is calculated as follows.
CR = Cact ÷ Cstd Eq. 8.6
where Cact is the actual neutron counts at a given point and depth, whereas Cstd is
a standard count. The latter is the mean of 10 counts taken on the day that the soil
water content measurements are carried out in the field. Take the standard counts
with the probe still inside the protective housing and make sure that there are no
other water sources nearby. The neutron probe can be placed on its box when
the standard counts are taken. Most of the commercially available neutron probes
have set count times, e.g. 4, 8, 16 and 32 seconds. Longer count times will be time
consuming if a large number of measurements have to be carried out. Experience
has shown that 8 seconds are adequate to obtain reliable measurements.

Chapter 8
To take actual measurements, the neutron probe is placed on the access tube
(Fig. 8.21). The probe is then released and lowered by means of the cable to the
first depth. Usually, stoppers are clamped around the cable for each depth where
measurements need to be carried out. The stoppers are used to suspend the probe
while a measurement is taken. A common problem is that the depth stopper clamps
are incorrectly positioned on the cable. The position of the first clamp depends on
the dimensions of the meter, the position of the neutron source within the probe,
height of the access tube above the soil surface and the measuring depth. As an
example, the setting of the first stopper clamp for measuring soil water content at
20 cm depth in an access tube which protrudes 10 cm above the soil surface is
illustrated in Figure 8.21. For this example, the first clamp should be fixed at 34
cm, i.e. 35 + 10 + 20 - 31 cm, when the probe is inside the protective housing. If
measurements are to be carried outFigure
at 40,8.21
60 and 80 cm, the other clamps should
be at 54, 74 and 94 cm, respectively.
Cable
Depth stopper
Meter +35 cm
+10 cm
Surface
Probe -31 cm
+20 cm
Neutron source
Access tube
FIGURE 8.21. An example of setting the depth clamps on the cable of a neutron probe for
measuring soil water content at 20 cm increments.
Experience has shown that different soils, and even layers within a soil profile,
have different calibration lines (Fig. 8.22). Therefore, the accuracy of the universal
calibrations supplied by the manufacturers is questionable. Consequently, neutron
probes will provide more accurate soil water content values if the probes are properly
calibrated against gravimetric soil water content, as explained in Section 8.4.1.2.

Figure
Figure 8.22
8.22
When using a neutron probe, the count ratios are calculated as discussed above,
and then used in appropriate calibration equations as indicated in Figure 8.22.
70
70 60
60
A B
60
60 50
50
50
50
(mm/20 cm)
cm)
(mm/20 cm)
cm)
40
40
SWC (mm/20
SWC (mm/20
40
40
30
30
30
30
SWC
SWC
20
20
20
20
0-20 cm SWC
0-20cm SWC==114.78CR
114.78CR- -57.71 (R22==0.8749)
57.71(R 0.8749) 0-20 cm SWC
0-20cm SWC==86.18CR
86.18CR- -54.73 (R22==0.9694)
54.73(R 0.9694)
20-40 cm SWC
20-40cm SWC==89.03CR
89.03CR- -38.76 (R22==0.9768)
38.76(R 0.9768) 10
10 20-40
20-40cm
cm SWC
SWC==87.89CR
87.89CR- -61.76 (R22==0.9745)
61.76(R 0.9745)
10
10
40-60
40-60cm
cm SWC
SWC==86.55CR
86.55CR- -38.38 (R22==0.9948)
38.38(R 0.9948) 40-60
40-60cm
cm SWC
SWC==198.67CR
198.67CR- -215.60 (R22==0.8020)
215.60(R 0.8020)
60-80
60-80cm
cm SWC
SWC==75.02CR
75.02CR- -40.16 (R22==0.9466)
40.16(R 0.9466) 60-80
60-80cm
cm SWC
SWC==167.29CR
167.29CR- -185.50 (R22==0.8480)
185.50(R 0.8480)
00 00
0044 0066 0088 1100 1122 1144 0044 0066 0088 1100 1122 1144 1166
CR
CR CR
CR
FIGURE 8.22. Relationships between SWC and neutron probe CR for (A) deep, red soil and
(B) soil containing clay in the subsoil in two commercial vineyards near Stellenbosch.
A disadvantage of the neutron scattering technique is that the registration, handling

Figure
Figure
and management of any radio-active 8.23
8.23
sources must comply with the strict legislation
administered by Radiation Control at the Department of Health. This applies to all
radio-active sources, even if the radiation is not harmful to the human body, as
in the case of commercial neutron probes. Therefore, neutron probes must be
annually subjected to leak tests to ensure the safety of users. For the latter reason,
each neutron probe is inside a protective housing which also contains the metering
equipment and batteries. Furthermore, neutron probes must be stored in a safe
place to prevent theft, and a log must be kept to record its usage.
8.4.1.4 ENVIROSCAN® SENSORS

This instrument measures electrical capacitance in soil, which is converted to soil
water content in millimeters. A set of cylindrical sensors consisting of two bands
each, are mounted on a PVC shaft (Fig. 8.23A). The sensors fit closely inside a PVC
tube installed in the soil. The position of the sensors can be adjusted on the shaft
to the desired measuring depths. The instrument is then pushed into the PVC tube
so that only the cover cap remains above the soil (Fig. 8.23B). The set of sensors is
then connected to a data logger which allows continuous monitoring. This provides
an almost complete picture of soil water changes over time and soil depth, i.e.
depending on the number of sensors per shaft and the depth between them.
Similar to neutron probes, EnviroScan® sensors can measure over the full range of
plant available water content. The cable length between the sensors and the data
logger is limited to 500 m. This means that any measurements beyond a radius of

CR CR
Chapter 8
500 m would require a second data logger and sensors. Since the instrumentation
Figure
is relatively expensive, it might 8.23
become too costly if soil water content needs to be
measured in a large number of vineyards on bigger farms.
A B
FIGURE 8.23. EnviroScan® sensors mounted on a shaft (A) before it is pushed down the PVC
tube so that only the cover cap remains above-ground (B).
Installation: To obtain accurate and reliable soil water content measurements, it is

essential that the access tubes for EnviroScan® sensors make good contact with
the surrounding soil. Since soil contact is so critical, it is recommended that the
suppliers or other experts carry out the installation of EnviroScan® probes, as well
as setting up the loggers and necessary software.
8.4.1.5 DIVINER 2000® PROBES

This instrument uses the same technology as the EnviroScan®, and can therefore
measure over the full plant available water range. However, it does not allow
continuous soil water content monitoring. The Diviner 2000® probe consists of only
one sensor mounted on the end of a shaft (Fig. 8.24). Soil water content (mm) is
measured as the sensor is pushed down a PVC access tube, i.e. almost similar
to neutron probe measurements. Since measurements are taken immediately
at pre-set depths as the Diviner 2000® probe is pushed down the access tube,
measurements are recorded quicker, compared to the neutron probe. Similar to
the neutron probe, a single Diviner 2000® probe can be used to measure soil water
content in an unlimited number of vineyards. Furthermore, using a Diviner 2000®

probe is a less expensive option than the EnviroScan® system. Since soil contact
Figure 8.24
between the access tube is also critical, it is recommended that the suppliers or
other experts carry out the installation of the access tubes for Diviner 2000® probes.
Shaft
Sensor
FIGURE 8.24. A Diviner 2000® probe and the console for setting up the instrument and
recording soil water content.
Figure 8.25
8.4.1.6 DFM® PROBES
These probes also use capacitance technology and can measure over the full plant
available water range. It consists of a single probe containing sensors at various
depth increments (Fig. 8.25). The length of the probe can be selected according
to the root depth. Sensor depths are determined before manufacturing. The probe
also contains an on-board data logger which enables continuous soil water content
monitoring. The data can be downloaded in the field, or transmitted to a computer.
Due to the data logging facility, DFM® probes also provide an almost complete
picture of soil water changes over time and soil depth.

Chapter 8
FIGURE 8.25. A DFM® probe used for recording soil water content and insert showing
handheld console for downloading the data.
Field calibrations have shown that there is a good correlation (R2) between soil
water content measured by means of DFM® probes and gravimetric soil water
content (Fig. 8.26). As in the case of neutron probes, calibration lines for DFM®
probes may vary between soils, and within a soil profile. However, the DFM® probes
Figure
grossly overestimated the actual Figure
8.26
8.26 This could be problematic if
soil water content.
irrigation amounts, e.g. millimeters required to restore field capacity, are based on
the DFM® probe soil water content.
140
140 140
140
A B
120
120 120
120
Probe SWC (mm/20 cm)

100
100 100
100
8080 8080
6060 6060
4040 0-20
0-20 cm cm
0-20
0-20 cm:cm:
y =y0.5896x
= 0.5896x
+ 57.74 (R2(R=2 0.8141)
+ 57.74 = 0.8141) 4040 0-20
0-20
0-20 cmcmcm:
cm: yy= =1.2851x
1.2851x+ +59.15 22
59.15(R(R = =0.9633)
0.9633)
20-40
20-40
20-40
20-40cm cm
cm:
cm: y =y0.9574x
= 0.9574x
+ 51.63 (R2(R=2 0.9768)
+ 51.63 = 0.9768) 20-40
20-40
20-40 cmcm:
cm:
cm y y= =1.4321x
1.4321x+ +52.32 2 2= =0.9628)
52.32(R(R 0.9628)
2020 40-60
40-60
40-60
40-60cm cm
cm:
cm: y =y0.9455x
= 0.9455x
+ 63.29 (R2(R=2 0.9340)
+ 63.29 = 0.9340) 2020 40-60
40-60
40-60 cmcm:
cm:
cm y y= =0.8585x
0.8585x+ +77.06 2 2= =0.6151)
77.06(R(R 0.6151)
60-80
60-80
60-80
60-80cm cm
cm:
cm: y =y0.9459x
= 0.9459x
+ 62.18 (R2(R=2 0.9353)
+ 62.18 = 0.9353) 60-80
60-80
60-80 cmcm:
cm:
cm y y= =0.633x
0.633x+ +96.70 22
96.70(R(R = =0.8477)
0.8477)
0 0 00
0 0 2020 4040 6060 8080 00 20
20 40
40 60
60
Gravimetric
Gravimetric SWC
SWC (mm/20
(mm/20 cm)
cm) GravimetricSWC
Gravimetric SWC(mm/20
(mm/20cm)
cm)
FIGURE 8.26. Comparison between SWC measured by means of DFM® probes and
gravimetrically determined SWC in (A) deep, red soil and (B) soil containing clay in the subsoil
in two commercial vineyards near Stellenbosch.

Installation: Holes for installation can be made using a tubular auger similar to
those used for taking gravimetric samples. To obtain accurate soil water content
measurements, it is essential that DFM® probes make good contact with the
surrounding soil. A soil slurry can be poured down the hole to ensure contact with
the soil. Since soil contact is so critical, it is recommended that the suppliers or
other experts carry out the installation of DFM® probes.
8.4.1.7 TENSIOMETERS
Soil water matric potential, or the suction by which water is bound by capillary
forces in the soil pores, is commonly measured to obtain an indication of soil
water status. Tensiometers are used to measure soil water matric potential. They
basically consist of a porous ceramic cup connected to a vacuum gauge by means
of a clear, ridged plastic or Perspex® tube (Fig. 8.27). The tube has a small inner
diameter to reduce the volume of water inside the tensiometer, and is fitted with
a filling cap. The gauge is either mounted on the side of the tube, or in a rubber
grommet at the top end of the tube where it also serves as a filling cap. The depth
at which measurements are taken depends on the length of the tube, which is
usually 30, 60 or 90 cm. Before installation, a tensiometer is filled with water, and
the pores saturated as described below. As the soil dries out, water is held in the
smaller pores by means of capillary forces. These suction forces cause water to
flow from the tensiometer through the pores in the ceramic into the soil around the
cup (Fig. 8.27). As water flows from the tensiometer, a vacuum develops within
the tensiometer and is registered by the vacuum gauge. The vacuum, or suction,
increases as the soil dries out. Following irrigation or rainfall, water flows back
into the tensiometer via the pores in the ceramic cup (Fig. 8.27). The vacuum
decreases as the soil becomes wetter and will eventually fall to zero at saturation.
In reality, tensiometers measure the suction force that roots must exert when they
absorb water. Consequently, grapevine water constraints will increase as the matric
potential decreases. It must be noted that vacuum or suction is the opposite of
pressure, and has a negative value.

Chapter 8
Figure 8.27
Vacuum gauge
Filling cap
Tube
Surface
Water in soil
Water inside
pores
tensiometer
Tube
W a te r m o v e s o u t
a s s o il d r ie s o u t Soil particles
Ceramic cup
W a t e r m o v e s in a s
s o il b e c o m e s w e t t e r
FIGURE 8.27. Illustration showing the components of a Bourdon gauge tensiometer and the
water dynamics as the soil water content changes.
Figure 8.28
The vacuum gauges, or so-called Bourdon gauges, usually indicate the matric
potential in -kPa. However, in the literature matric potential is sometimes reported
as -MPa. The vacuum gauge can be replaced with a glass mercury manometer
(Fig. 8.28A). The latter allows more accurate readings than Bourdon gauges and
is primarily used for research purposes. The glass tubes can break easily, thereby
causing spills of highly toxic mercury. Consequently, these tensiometers are not
recommended for on-farm use. The Bourdon gauges can also be replaced with
electronic vacuum transducers (Fig. 8.28B). The transducers convert the suction
to an electric current which can be recorded by means of a small data logger.
Although this provides the opportunity for continuous measurements, the vacuum
transducers need to be calibrated individually in order to calculate the soil matric
potential from the millivolt output. If the data cannot be transmitted to a computer,
downloading and processing will be time consuming. As in the case of mercury
manometer tensiometers, the electronic ones are more suited for research rather
than practical irrigation scheduling. Due to the physical properties of water,
tensiometers can only measure up to -80 kPa. Therefore, the use of tensiometers
is restricted to the range of readily available water, particularly in heavier soils.
Unfortunately, there are no other liquids than can replace water in a practical way
in order to extend the range of tensiometers used in the field.

Figure 8.28
A B
FIGURE 8.28. Measuring soil water matric potential (A) at three depths using mercury
manometer tensiometers and (B) a tensiometer fitted with a vacuum transducer for automatic
recording.
Preparation and calibration: To ensure reliable measurements up to -80 kPa,

tensiometers should be prepared as follows:
1. Do not touch the ceramic cup with bare hands to prevent clogging of the pores
by skin oils. Always use tissue paper or a clean cloth to handle the cup.
2. Make sure the ceramic cup is tightly screwed against the O-ring in the bottom
end of the tube.
3. Fill the tensiometer with tap water. If available, de-aerated water will speed up
the preparation process. Use a squeeze bottle fitted with a long, thin plastic
tube that fits inside the tensiometer. The plastic tube must be long enough so
that it reaches the ceramic cup. Before filling, push the plastic tube down into
the ceramic cup to ensure that air is not entrapped inside the tensiometer.
4. Screw the cap back firmly and hang the tensiometer outside in a sunny place.
The gauge will slowly begin to rise, depending on the ambient air temperature
and wind speed. As the vacuum increases air bubbles will form inside the tube,
and the water level will decrease. On the first filling, the gauge will usually rise
to ca. -40 to -50 kPa.
5. Place the tensiometer in a bucket containing clean water so that the lower half
of the ceramic cup is covered.
6. Allow the tensiometer to absorb water until the gauge is back to zero. This step
is critical, so do not refill the tensiometer before it is placed in the water.
7. Once the gauge is back to zero, refill the tensiometer and hang out to dry.
8. Repeat steps 5 to 7 until the gauge reads at least -70 kPa.

Chapter 8
9. Place the tensiometer in water until gauge reads zero. If the needle is slightly
below or above zero, it can be adjusted using a small screw driver while the
tensiometer is still standing in the water.
10. Place the ceramic cup in a small plastic bag containing 10 m of water and
secure the bag around the tube using an elastic band to prevent it from drying
when transported to the field for installation.
11. The water in the tensiometer exerts a pressure in the ceramic cup, depending
on the height of the water column and height above sea level. In order to
obtain accurate values of soil water matric potential, a correction (kPa) must
be calculated as follows:
Correction ≈ -(h + d) ÷ 1000 x 101.3 Eq. 8.7
where h is the height (cm) between the soil surface and the gauge and d is the
depth (cm) to the ceramic cup (Fig. 8.29). It must be noted that the correction is
negative and needs to be subtracted from the tensiometer reading. In practice, it
means that readings must be reduced by approximately 3 kPa for every 30 cm of
water column. For example, if a 60 Figure
cm tensiometer
8.29 reads 40 kPa, the actual soil
water matric potential is ca. 34 kPa (40 - 6 kPa).
h (cm)
Surface
d (cm)
FIGURE 8.29. Dimensions needed for the correction of tensiometer readings where h is the
height between the soil surface and the gauge and d is the depth to the ceramic cup.
Installation: A 20 mm diameter metal tube can be used to make holes for installation
of tensiometers in the soil. The tubeFigure
is driven into the soil to the desired depth, and
8.30
the tensiometer is carefully inserted. The tensiometer tube should fit snug into the
holes. If the tensiometers are forced into the holes, the ceramic cups might break.
It is advisable to mark the depth on the tensiometer tube before insertion to make
sure that it is installed at the correct depth. If the tube fits loosely in the hole, soil
slurry can be washed in with water to ensure that the ceramic cup makes good

contact with the surrounding soil. The part of the tensiometer protruding above the
soil surface should be covered with a metal can to prevent damage by the sun over
time. Installation of most instruments is difficult in soils with a high stone content
(Fig. 8.30A). Therefore, it is advisable to dig a profile pit in the grapevine row. Roots
should be disturbed as little as possible (Fig. 8.30B). While the tensiometer is held
in place with the ceramic tip at the desired depth on the grapevine row side of the
soil pit, soil is carefully packed around the tip and the tube. Once the tensiometer
Figure 8.30
is secure in place, the rest of the soil and stones can be carefully filled back.
A B
FIGURE 8.30. In stoney soils (A), profile pits must be dug for the installation of tensiometers
or other probes and (B) the root system should remain as intact as is practically possible.
Maintenance: Tensiometers slowly lose water after a number of wetting and drying
cycles, depending on the soil texture and level of soil water depletion. Therefore,
it is recommended that tensiometers should be re-refilled in situ after irrigation or
heavy rainfall (Fig. 8.31). Hold the protruding tensiometer tube with one hand while
removing the filling cap to prevent the tensiometer from turning. If the tensiometer
turns, contact between the ceramic cup and the soil will be disturbed. Before re-
filling, push the tube of the water bottle down into the ceramic cup to make sure that
air is not entrapped inside the tensiometer. When the tensiometer is full, hold the
protuding tensiometer with one hand and replace the cap.
FIGURE 8.31. Re-filling Bourdon gauge tensiometers in the field using a squeeze bottle fitted
with a long, thin plastic tube.

Chapter 8
8.4.1.8 WATERMARK® SENSORS

The electrical conductivity between two electrodes embedded in gypsum blocks
depend on the water content of the gypsum, i.e. the conductivity decreases as
the water content decreases. This principle is used to measure soil water content,
since the water content in the gypsum comes in equilibrium with the water in the
surrounding soil. In the case of Watermark® sensors, the electrodes are embedded
in a “gypsum-like” substance in a perforated, cylindrical housing (Fig. 8.32). Unlike
porous ceramic cup tensiometers, the measuring range of Watermark® sensors is
not limited to -80 kPa. Since the measurement depends on electrical conductivity,
the sensors are affected by salts in the soil water. The higher the salt concentration,
the higher the electrical conductivity. In fact, it was shown that the addition of
fertilizers to enhance grapevine growth and functioning will affect the accuracy
of the Watermark® sensors (Van Dyk & Myburgh, 1996). A thermal correction is
also required, which means that the soil temperature needs to be measured. A
portable, hand held meter (Fig. 8.32) is used to convert electrical resistance to
soil water matric potential (kPa). Each watermark probe must first be connected
to the meter to obtain a reading. This feature could be time consuming if a large
number of sensors need to be read. Furthermore, practical experience has shown
that Watermark® sensors over-estimated the soil water matric potential when
compared to porous cup tensiometers in the same soil (Fig. 8.33). Due to this, it is
recommended that Watermark® sensors should be calibrated against tensiometers
to ensure sure that the soil water status is not under-estimated.
FIGURE 8.32. Watermark® meter and sensor used for measuring soil water matric potential.

Figure 8.33
Date
3\ 03 5\ 03 9\ 03 11\ 03 15\ 03 17\ 03 19\ 03 23\ 03 25\ 03 29\ 03 31\ 03 2\ 04 7\ 04
0
-20
-40
-60
-80 Tensiometer
Watermark® sensor
-100
FIGURE 8.33. Comparison of soil water matric potential measured using Watermark® sensors
and mercury manometer tensiometers in the same soil over four drying cycles (after Van Dyk
& Myburgh, 1996).
Preparation and installation: Similar to ceramic cup tensiometers, Watermark®

sensors should not be touched with bare hands to prevent clogging of the pores
by skin oils. Always use tissue paper or a clean cloth to handle the sensor.
1. Soak the sensors for one hour in clean water before installation.
2. Holes for installation can be made using a tubular auger similar to those used
for taking gravimetric samples.
3. Cut a length of PVC conduit 10 to 15 cm shorter than the lead wires of the
sensor.
4. Mark the installation depth with masking tape around the PVC conduit.
5. Push the lead wires through the conduit.
6. Pull the lead wires tight so that the upper end of the sensor presses against
the lower end of the conduit.
7. While holding the lead wires tight, use the conduit to push the sensor into the
hole down to the desired depth as marked on the conduit.
8. Release the lead wires and remove the conduit from the hole.
9. Fill the hole with a slurry prepared from representative soil.

Chapter 8
8.4.2 PLANT BASED MEASUREMENTS

8.4.2.1 GRAPEVINE WATER POTENTIAL
Measuring grapevine water potential does not tell a grower how much to irrigate,
but is a useful aid for making decisions concerning the timing of irrigations to
achieve a specific wine quality objective. Furthermore, measuring Ψ could be
used in combination with soil based measurements to set refill lines for general
irrigation scheduling. The correct protocol should be followed to obtain reliable
and repeatable results. These include safety aspects and the correct operation
of pressure chambers used to measure water potential. Furthermore, correct leaf
selection, cutting and handling of leaves as well as observation of sap exudation,
need careful consideration.
It is quick and easy to measure Ψ using pressure chambers (Scholander et al.,
1965). More information about commercial pressure chambers is available on
the internet. It is cheaper, however, to have pressure chambers made up locally.
The pressure is usually obtained from cylinders filled with inert nitrogen gas, but
compressed air can also be used. Although it is fairly simple to operate a pressure
chamber, it is a dangerous apparatus since it contains gas at a high pressure.
Before using pressure chambers, ensure that (i) there are no leakages; (ii) the
lid fits properly and tightly; (iii) the pressure regulator and valves work properly
and smoothly and (iv) the pressure gauges do not get stuck when the pressure
increases. It is recommended to do trial runs before measurements. Since pressure
gauge readings are sometimes very low before dawn, the pressure should increase
by approximately 25 kPa per second to ensure that the water potential is not under-
estimated. When Ψ is measured during the day, and readings are considerably
higher, the pressure may increase at 50 kPa per second to save time. Care should
be taken throughout that the pressure increase tempo remains constant while
measurements are being taken.
Predawn Ψ measurements should start between 03:00 and 04:00 depending on
what time the sun rises and how many measurements need to be taken. Midday
ΨL and ΨS must be measured between 12:00 and 14:00. All Ψ must be measured
in undamaged, mature leaves on primary shoots in the bunch zone. The ΨL
is measured in leaves that are fully exposed to the sun. When the sun is at its
highest, relatively few leaves on vertical trellises are exposed to the sun. In such
cases, measurements may be done at 14:00 when the sides of the trellises are
more exposed to solar radiation. When measuring ΨS, leaves should be covered
using aluminium foil bags to reflect solar radiation (Fig. 8.34). The inside of these
homemade bags must be black to keep light out. The size of the bags will depend
on the inside dimensions of the pressure chamber. Leaves must be rolled up and if
necessary the tips folded over before being covered with the bags. Subsequently,
the open side of the bag is folded over and secured with a hairpin or paper clip
(Fig. 8.34).

FIGURE 8.34. Grapevine leaf covered with a bag for the measurement of ΨS.
Some controversy surrounds the duration of the period that leaves must be
covered before ΨS is being measured. Periods of between one and six hours did
not impact on ΨS in Cabernet Sauvignon leaves (Choné et al., 2001). During a trial
carried out at Nietvoorbij near Stellenbosch, bags were placed around one leaf
on each of five Sauvignon blanc grapevines at various times before measuring
ΨS at 14:00. The measurements were completed within 15 minutes by five people
using five pressure chambers. All the pressure chambers were calibrated against
a reference pressure gauge. The stage at which the leaves were covered before
the measurements were carried out hardly had any effect on ΨS (Fig. 8.35). The
same trend was observed with apple leaves in Elgin (T. Volschenk, unpublished
data). Growers who prefer to measure ΨS can therefore decide when it suits them
best from a practical point of view to affix the bags, provided it is between 30
minutes and 24 hours.

Chapter 8
Figure 8.35
Time (h)
05 1 2 4 8 24
00
-0 2
(MPa)
-0 4
s
-0 6
-0 8
-1 0
FIGURE 8.35. Effect of covering leaves for different periods before midday ΨS was measured
in Sauvignon blanc at Nietvoorbij on 2 February 2004 (after Myburgh, 2010). Vertical lines
indicate standard deviation.
Petioles are cut using a sharp blade through the thickening against the shoots.
Surgical blades obtainable from pharmacies should be used. These blades ensure
a clean, smooth cut making the sap exudation easier to see. The blades are razor
sharp and must be handled with the utmost care to prevent injury. It is advisable to
attach the blades to a scalpel. The cut through the thickening should be done at a
right angle across the length of the petiole. It is more difficult to see sap exudation
on a slanted cut. Leaves should be cut once only, i.e. do not make a second or
third cut to get the surface even or smooth. As soon as a leaf is cut off, the sap
withdraws back into the leaf. If the petiole is cut again, less pressure is required
to squeeze out the sap. This may cause the water potential to be over-estimated
(Ritchie & Hinckley, 1975).
Once cut, the leaves must be placed in pressure chambers immediately to limit
transpiration losses. Measurements must preferably be done at the grapevine
where the leaf has been cut. Leaves should not be taken to a pressure chamber
outside the vineyard. Ordinary plastic bags could be used to cover leaves just
before cutting them to limit transpiration losses (Williams & Araujo, 2002 and
references therein). In such instances, or when measuring ΨS, the leaf must
remain in the bag when it is placed in the pressure chamber. If bags are removed
beforehand, the water potential values will be too low (Koide et al., 1989). It is
easy and quick to do measurements in most vineyards using pressure chambers
mounted on motor cycles or quad bikes (Fig. 8.36). Researchers of the Soil
and Water Science Division at Nietvoorbij have also designed a trolley for easy
transportation of pressure chambers between measuring stations in field trials
(Fig. 8.37). It is also more convenient to stand instead of crouching when taking
the measurements.

Figure 8.36
A B
FIGURE 8.36. Examples of pressure chambers mounted on quad bikes where (A) the rider
remains on the bike and (B) the rider has to dismount.
Figure 8.37
FIGURE 8.37. Example of a pressure chamber mounted on a trolley for easier transport and
water potential measurements.
Pressure readings are recorded as soon as the first signs of sap appear on the cut
surface of the petiole. If the sap begins to bubble (Fig. 8.38), it is too late to take a
reading since the water potential will be under-estimated. The first sap exudation
is hard to spot with the bare eye, and should preferably be observed through a
magnifying glass. During the day, the pressure chamber should also be turned
towards the sun so that sap appearance is more obvious. In the dark, magnifying
glasses with built-in flashlights, or LED headlamps may be used in conjunction

Chapter 8
with ordinary magnifying glasses. The unit which is used internationally for water
potential, is mega Pascal (MPa). If the reading on the pressure gauge, usually in
kilo Pascal (kPa), is e.g. 1 450 kPa, the water potential is reported as -1.45 MPa.
FIGURE 8.38. Sap bubbling through the petiole of a leaf in a pressure chamber. It is
important that readings must be taken when the first sign of sap appears. When bubbles
appear as in this illustration, it is too late to take the reading.
Experience has shown that water potential varies little among grapevines in the
same trial site or in a uniform vineyard. Good correlation was also found between
the replications of a specific irrigation strategy in field trials. If water potential
has to be measured in a large number of blocks, one leaf per irrigation block will
suffice. By so doing, measurements will be completed more rapidly before the
water potential changes too much, i.e. due to its diurnal behaviour. Remember that
midday measurements can only be made between 12:00 and 14:00.
8.4.2.2 DIURNAL TRUNK SHRINKAGE AND EXPANSION

The concept of diurnal shrinkage of grapevine organs is discussed in Chapter 6.
Since the daily shrinkage increases as the soil dries out, trunk diameter can be
measured to schedule irrigation (Myburgh, 1996). For example, if a vineyard needs
to be irrigated at 75% PAW depletion, water must be applied when the daily trunk
contraction is ca. 0.09 mm (Fig. 8.39). The diurnal shrinkage and expansion are
only hundredths of a millimeter, but is measurable by using sensitive equipment.
One method is by using a linear variable differential transformer. The latter basically
consists of a cylindrical coil with a freely movable steel pin in its core (Fig. 8.40A).
The LVDT is mounted on a base plate which is clamped to the grapevine trunk by
means of a back plate and four invar shafts (Fig. 8.40B). Invar is nickel-iron alloy
with an almost zero thermal expansion coefficient. This is to minimize the effect of
diurnal temperature fluctuations. The device is held in place by means of a steel

spring between the grapevine trunk and the base plate (Fig. 8.40A). One end of
the steel pin is glued to the trunk. As the trunk expands or shrinks, the pin moves
inside the coil. This changes the voltage output which is converted to millimeter.
Figure
The LVDT is connected to a logger which8.39
stores the data on an hourly basis.
Figure 8.39
0.12 0.12
0.10
0.10
Daily shrinkage (mm)
0.08
Daily shrinkage (mm)
0.08
0.06
0.06
0.04
0.04 0.02
y = -0.181 + 0.063(lnx) (R2 = 0.9897)

0.00
0.02 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PAW depletion (%)
y = -0.181 + 0.063(lnx) (R2 = 0.9897)

0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
PAW depletion (%)
FIGURE 8.39. The relationship betweenFigure 8.40 of a grapevine trunk and PAW
the daily shrinkage
depletion (Myburgh, 1996).
A
B
Back plate Invar shaft Figure 8.40
Grapevine Base plate
trunk
movement LVDT coil
Steel pin
Spring
Back plate Glue
Invar shaft
Adj usting nut

Grapevine Base plate
trunk
FIGURE
movement LVDT
8.40. Illustration (A) of coil
the components of a linear variable differential transformer
(B) to measure diurnal shrinkage and expansion
Steel pin of grapevine trunks.
272 CHAPTER 8 – PRACTICAL

Spring IRRIGATION SCHEDULING
Glue
Chapter 8
With respect to irrigation scheduling, a useful application of this concept is to

program the logger to open irrigation valves automatically when the trunk shrinkage
reaches a pre-selected value. This value should correspond with the level of soil
water depletion at which irrigation is required as indicated in Figure 8.39. This
approach implies that the grapevine acts as indicator of its own water requirements.
Similar to ΨS measurements, daily shrinkage only indicates when irrigation
is required, but not how much irrigation water should be applied. Therefore,
measuring daily trunk shrinkage could be useful in combination with soil based
measurements to set refill lines for irrigation scheduling.
8.4.2.3 INFRARED THERMOMETRY

Due to the cooling effect of transpiration, leaf or canopy temperatures of well-
watered grapevines are lower than the ambient temperature. As soil water is
being depleted, partial stomatal closure of grapevine leaves begins, causing
transpiration to decrease (Fig. 8.41). When this happens, the cooling effect of
transpiration becomes less. Consequently, the temperature difference between
canopy temperature and that of the surrounding air temperature becomes less as
the soil continues to dry out (Fig. 8.42). The close, linear correlation between ΔT
and soil water content is well documented (Van Zyl, 1986; Gallardo, 1993; Anconelli
& Battilani, 2000; Loveys et al., 2008). Therefore, using infrared thermometry to
measure ΔT holds promise as a rapid, non-destructive way to assess grapevine
water constraints (Van Zyl, 1986). Hand held infrared thermometers provide a rapid,
non-destructive method for measuring leaf or canopy temperatures, as well as
ambient temperature (Fig. 8.43). Measuring
Figurecanopy
8.41 temperature, which integrates
the variability between leaves, seems to be a better option than measuring the
temperature of single leaves.
250
200
a
gs (mmol/m2/s)
150
100 b
b
50
0
Wet Drying Dry
FIGURE 8.41. Midday stomatal conductance (gs) of Shiraz grapevines measured on 24
January 2004 near Nuriootpa in Australia, where “Wet” = daily irrigation, “Drying” = irrigated
7 days before measurements and “Dry” = not irrigated since 1 December (redrawn from
Loveys et al., 2008).

Figure 8.42
Figure 8.42
30
Ambient
c
Temperature (°C)
Canopy
29
b
28
27 a
26
Wet Drying Dry
FIGURE 8.42. Midday ambient and canopy temperature of Shiraz grapevines measured
on 24 January 2004 near Nuriootpa in Australia, where “Wet” = daily irrigation, “Drying” =
irrigated 7 days before measurements and “Dry” = not irrigated since 1 December (redrawn
from Loveys et al., 2008).
Figure 8.43
A B
FIGURE 8.43. Measuring canopy temperature by means of (A) a hand held infrared
thermometer (B) that measures canopy, as well as ambient temperature.
Although the principle seems to be simple, there are some constraints when
measuring ΔT. Unfortunately, ΔT is affected by the prevailing atmospheric
Figure 8.44
conditions, particularly VPD. In practice this means that ΔT will increase as the VPD
increases, i.e. as the air becomes drier. However,
2 the effect of VPD can be reduced
4
by using a ΔT vs VPD “baseline” for a particular 1
crop. This
. baseline is obtained
by measuring ΔT for well-watered plants under a range of VPD values under field
0
2
conditions (Fig. 8.44). It is interesting to note that ΔT for well-watered grapevines
-1
appears to be appreciably more sensitive to VPD than peppermint. The slope and
ΔT (°C)
ΔT (°C)
the
0 intercept of the baseline can then be used -2 to determine a so-called crop water
stress index as follows: -3

-2 -4
CWSI = [(Tc-Ta) - (a + bVPD)] ÷ [b((es - es′) - VPD)] Eq. 8.8
-5
ΔT = 4.198 - 2.699VPD
where Tc and Ta are leaf and air
-4 temperaturesΔT
(°C),
= 1.32VPD
- 0.98VPD (R2is
(kPa) at Ta,
= 0.68; MSEes is the
= 0.546)
-6
saturated
0 0.5 vapour
1.0 tension,
1.5 2.0es′ is
2.5the 3.0
saturated
vapour tension
0 2 at the 4equivalent 6
VPD (kPa) VPD (kPa)
temperature (Ta + a), a is the intercept in °C of the baseline and b is the slope of

Chapter 8
the baseline (°C/kPa). Previous field studies have shown that grapevines begin to
experience water constraints when the CWSI exceeds ca. 0.3 (Anconelli & Battilani,
2000). Figure
Figure8.44
8.44
22
44
A 11 .. B
22 00
-1
-1
ΔT (°C)
(°C)
ΔT (°C)
(°C)
00 -2
-2
ΔT
ΔT
-3
-3
-2
-2 -4
-4
-5
-5
ΔT
ΔT==4.198
4.198- -2.699VPD
2.699VPD ΔT
ΔT==1.32
1.32- -0.98VPD (R22==0.68;
0.98VPD(R 0.68;MSE
MSE==0.546)
0.546)
-4
-4
-6
-6
00 0.5
0.5 1.0
1.0 1.5
1.5 2.0
2.0 2.5
2.5 3.0
3.0 00 22 44 66
VPD
VPD(kPa)
(kPa) VPD
VPD(kPa)
(kPa)
FIGURE 8.44. Examples of ΔT vs VPD baselines for well-watered (A) grapevines (redrawn
from Anconelli & Battilani, 2000) and (B) peppermint (redrawn from Gallardo, 1993).
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that additional instrumentation is required to

measure real time VPD in order to calculate the CWSI. Furthermore, it is not sure
to what extent baselines may vary between grapevine cultivars. For example, low
stomatal conductance in Grenache on a hot day might not indicate that irrigation
is required, whereas a relatively high conductance in Shiraz does not necessarily
imply that irrigation would not be beneficial (Loveys et al., 2008). These aspects
may limit the use of ΔT for irrigation scheduling in commercial vineyards. However,
field studies have shown that VPD measurements can be replaced by measuring
the temperature of dry and wet filter paper disks when canopy temperature is
measured (Loveys et al., 2008). These values can be used to calculate a canopy
conductance index as follows:
Ig = (Tdry - Tc) ÷ (Tc -Twet) Eq. 8.9
where Tdry and Twet are the temperatures in °C of the dry and moist filter paper
reference disks, respectively. Since the Ig is relatively easy to measure, and seems
to be responsive to irrigation treatments (Fig. 8.45), it looks promising for practical
application in vineyards.

0.8
a
0.6
0.4 b
Ig c
0.80.8 0.2
a a
0.60.6 0
Wet Drying Dry
FIGURE 8.45. Midday Ig of Shiraz grapevines measured on 24 January 2004 near Nuriootpa
0.40.4 b b = irrigated 7 days before measurements
Ig
in Australia, where “Wet” = daily irrigation, “Drying”

Ig
and “Dry” = not irrigated since 1 December (redrawn from Loveys

c c et al., 2008).
0.20.2
Another practical, though cumbersome, application of infrared thermometry is
based on the canopy temperature difference between the vineyard and a well-
watered reference0 0 plot (Van Zyl, 1986). Previous studies have shown that ΔCT
WetWet Drying
Drying DryDry
relates reasonably well to the difference in stomatal resistance (ΔRs) between the
vineyard3.0and the reference plot (Fig. 8.46A). 3.0As a consequence, ΔCT was also
related to
2.0
the difference in soil water content 2.0
(ΔSWC) between the vineyard and
the reference plot (Fig. 8.46B). According to this particular study, the onset of water
ΔCT (°C)
ΔCT (°C)
constraints
1.0 in Colombar grapevines occurred 1.0 when PAW depletion reached 50 to
70% (Van Zyl, 1986). At this stage, the canopy 0
temperature was 1.16 to 1.62°C
0
higher compared to the reference plot.
-1.0 y = 0.8892x + 0.2728 (r = 0.78) -1.0 y = 0.28082x + 0.01225 (r = 0.65)
-1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
ΔRs (s/cm) ΔSWC (%)
3.0 3.0 A 3.0 3.0 B
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

ΔCT (°C)
ΔCT (°C)
ΔCT (°C)
ΔCT (°C)
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0 0 0 0
-1.0 -1.0 y = 0.8892x

y = 0.8892x + 0.2728
+ 0.2728 (r = 0.78)
(r = 0.78) -1.0 -1.0 y = 0.28082x
y = 0.28082x + 0.01225
+ 0.01225 (r = 0.65)
(r = 0.65)
-1.0 -1.0 0 0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 0 0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.06.0 6.08.0 8.010.0 10.0
ΔRsΔRs (s/cm)
(s/cm) ΔSWC ΔSWC
(%) (%)
FIGURE 8.46. Relationship between (A) ΔCT and ΔRs, as well as (B) ΔCT and ΔSWC where
a well-watered plot was used as a reference (redrawn from Van Zyl, 1986).
When using infrared thermometry for irrigation scheduling in vineyards, it is important

to standardize measurements, i.e. irrespective of the basic method. Measurements
should preferably be taken between 11:00 and 14:00. The angle at which the infrared
thermometer is held with respect to the canopy must be kept constant (Van Zyl,
1986). In this regard, it will be useful if the instrument is clamped to a stand. Since

Chapter 8
the beam of infrared thermometers increases with distance to the object, the distance
to the canopy must always be the same. Following these precautions will allow
reproducible measurements that can be compared over time as the soil dries out.
8.4.2.4 REMOTE SENSING

Vineyard water requirements can also be determined by means of remote
sensing based on satellite imagery. In this regard, FruitLook was developed in the
Netherlands for irrigation scheduling of various crops. Currently it is widely used by
grape growers in the Western Cape. FruitLook uses satellite imagery and weather
information to estimate vineyard water use on a field by field basis. In addition
to crop water requirements, estimations of growth and leaf nitrogen content are
also provided (Table 8.3). FruitLook is an open access, online platform initiated
by the Western Cape Department of Agriculture. Access can be obtained on
www.fruitlook.co.za. To allow growers to access FruitLook, Hortgro and the
Integrated Application Promotion Program of the European Space Agency also
provided initial financial support. In the Western Cape, FruitLook enables grape
growers to obtain estimates of vineyard water use during the growth season, i.e.
from September to April. The information is updated, and made available, on a
weekly basis. However, growers have access to historical data via the website.
At present, FruitLook can provide information on 96 000 ha of wine grapes. It should
be noted that satellite imagery cannot be used where vineyards are covered, e.g.
with plastic sheets or netting.
TABLE 8.3. Summary of additional vineyard information provided by FruitLook.
Variable Parameter
Growth Biomass production (kg/ha)
Leaf area index
Vegetation index
Crop water use Actual evapotranspiration (mm/week)
Evapotranspiration deficit (mm/week)
Crop factor
Biomass water use efficiency (kg/m3 water)
Leaf nitrogen Nitrogen content in top leaf layer (kg/ha)
Nitrogen content in all leaves (kg/ha)
Estimations of ET obtained by FruitLook were compared to ET determined by means

of the universal soil water balance as described in Section 8.3. The comparison
was carried out in a micro-sprinkler irrigated Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard in a
sandy soil near Rawsonville. This particular vineyard experienced almost no water
constraints, i.e. midday Ψs was generally -0.6 MPa or higher (Myburgh & Howell,

2014b). To obtain ET, the soil water balance was determined at 27 positions in the
vineyard block. In the beginning of the growing season, FruitLook over-estimated
ET compared to soil water balance ET (Fig. 8.47). In the second half of the season,
the opposite trend occurred. It must be noted that this trend repeated itself over
two seasons. FruitLook ET was also compared to soil water balance ET in a drip
irrigated Shiraz vineyard in a sandy loam soil near Robertson. In this case, the soil
water balance was determined at 30 positions in the vineyard block (Lategan &
Howell, 2016). Although FruitLook correlated reasonably well with the soil water
balance ET during the first part of the season, it also underestimated ET in the
second half of the season (Fig. 8.48). Unfortunately, there was no FruitLook data
available to allow comparisons in the post-harvest and dormant periods. In regions
where winter rainfall is low, e.g. the Lower Orange River and Lower Olifants River
regions, vineyards also need to be irrigated during these periods. Therefore, it is
essential that satellite imagery should provide estimations of ET throughout the year
in order to avoid unnecessary water deficits during these periods.
Figure
Figure 8.47
8.47
Figure 8.47
1200
1200 1200 1200
1200
1200
1000
1000
A 1000
1000
1000
1000 B
Cumulative ET (mm)
Cumulative ET (mm)
800 800
Cumulative ET (mm)
Cumulative ET (mm)
800
800 800
800
600 600
600
600 600
600
400 400
400
400 Soil water alance 400
400 Soil water balance
200 200
FruitLook FruitLook
200
200 0 Soil water alance
Soil water alance 200
200 0 Soil
Soil water
water balance
balance
FruitLook
FruitLook
Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep FruitLook
FruitLook
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
00 00
Sep
Sep Oct
Oct Nov
Nov Dec
Dec Jan
Jan Feb
Feb Mar
Mar Apr
Apr May
May Jun
Jun Jul
Jul Aug
Aug Sep
Sep Oct
Oct Nov
Nov Dec
Dec Jan
Jan Feb
Feb Mar
Mar Apr
Apr May
May Jun
Jun Jul
Jul Aug
Aug
FIGURE 8.47. Cumulative ET of micro-sprinkler irrigated Cabernet Sauvignon near

Rawsonvillle as determined by means of the soil water balance approach, compared to
FruitLook estimations during (A) the 2011/12 and (B) the 2012/13 seasons, respectively.
Figure 8.48
600
Figure
Figure 8.48
8.48
500
600
600
Cumulative ET (mm)
400
500
500 300
Cumulative ET (mm)
400
400 200
Soil water balance
FruitLook
100
300
300
0
200
200 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Soil
Soil water
water balance
balance
FIGURE 8.48. Cumulative
100
100
ET of drip irrigated Shiraz as determined by means near Robertson
FruitLook
FruitLook
of the soil water balance approach, compared to FruitLook estimations during the 2014/15
growing season. 00
Sep
Sep Oct
Oct Nov
Nov Dec
Dec Jan
Jan Feb
Feb Mar
Mar Apr
Apr

Chapter 8
Another important aspect is that FruitLook ET estimations depend greatly on the

vegetative vigour of the vineyard. In other words, vegetative growth response
to over- or under-irrigation will reflect in the estimated ET. This means that, if
a vineyard is over-irrigated, and the grower irrigates according to FruitLook
estimations, the over-irrigation will continue. The opposite will happen if the
vineyard is under-irrigated. Therefore, it is recommended that the weekly ET
estimations should be validated. In this regard, FruitLook estimations can easily
be validated by regular monitoring of grapevine water status, e.g. by means of
midday ΨS. If necessary, irrigation can then be reduced, or increased so that the
midday ΨS falls in the desired water constraint class for a specific end product
objective. FruitLook images can also indicate if growth vigour variation occurs
within a vineyard. If vigour variation occurs within an irrigation block, i.e. a section
of the vineyard that is irrigated via one valve, the grapevine water status must be
measured where the lowest vigour occurs.
The primary objective of FruitLook is to irrigate crops in such a way that they
experience no water constraints. Therefore, an ET deficit in FruitLook terms implies
that too little irrigation water is being applied. However, if high wine quality is the
objective, irrigation must be reduced as discussed in Chapter 7. Under such
conditions, growers must not panic if FruitLook indicates substantial ET deficits.
Where irrigation water is limited, and growers are forced to apply low frequency
irrigation, it is most likely that FruitLook will also indicate ET deficits. Consequently,
there is no need for wine grape growers to be concerned if ET deficits occur.
8.5 SETTING REFILL LINES FOR IRRIGATION

STRATEGIES BASED ON GRAPEVINE WATER
STATUS
The ideal is to irrigate vineyards at a certain level of plant available depletion to
obtain predetermined yield and/or wine quality objectives. Unfortunately, this
approach has two major shortcomings. Firstly, determining water holding capacity
of soils accurately is time consuming, and therefore not suitable for routine analyses
by commercial laboratories. In this regard it must be noted that estimation of
plant available water from soil texture is also questionable. Secondly, instrument
calibrations might not provide the accuracy required to ensure that the PAW
is depleted to the desired level. A solution is to combine soil and plant based
measurements. Research has shown that there is a close correlation between
grapevine responses, e.g. yield and wine quality, and grapevine water status
(Fig. 8.49). Reversing these relationships can be used to determine at which water
constraint level grapevines should be irrigated to obtain predetermined yield or
quality objectives.

Figure8.49
Figure 8.49
30
30 7070
A B
25
25
Potential wine quality (%)

6060
20
20
(t/ha)
Yield (t/ha)
15
15 5050
Yield
10
Figure
Figure8.49
8.49
10
4040
3030 55 7070
Merlot - Wellington Shiraz - Robertson Merlot - Wellington Shiraz - Robertson
Merlot - Wellington Shiraz - Robertson Merlot - Wellington Shiraz - Robertson
2525 0 30

0 30

-0 6 -0 8 -1 0 -1 2 -1 4 -1 6 -1 8 -2 0 -2 2 -0 6 -0 8 -1 0 -1 2 -1 4 -1 6 -1 8 -2 0 -2 2
-0 6 -0 8 -1 0 -1 2 -1 4 -1 6 -1 8 -2 0 -2 2 6060 -0 6 -0 8 -1 0 -1 2 -1 4 -1 6 -1 8 -2 0 -2 2
S (MPa) S (MPa)
2020 S (MPa) S (MPa)
Yield (t/ha)
Yield (t/ha)
FIGURE 8.49. Effect of midday ΨS at which irrigations were applied on (A) yield and (B)
1515 5050
potential wine quality of two grapevine cultivars.
1010
For example, if maximum yield is the objective,
40408.50 both Merlot and Shiraz should
Figure
Figure
5 5 irrigated when the midday Ψs is between -0.8 and -1.0 MPa (Fig. 8.50A).
8.50
be
Furthermore,
Merlot
it is important that yield will not increase
- Wellington
Merlot
-0 6
- Wellington ShirazShiraz- Robertson
- Robertson
-0 6
Merlot
Merlot
if irrigationShiraz
- Wellington
- Wellington Shiraz
is applied
- Robertson
- Robertson
when
00 30
Ψ-0s-06is6 -0higher
30
-0 6 than
Merlot these
- Wellington
8 -1 0 -1-12 2- -1 values (Fig.
Shiraz - Robertson
-14 4 -1-16 6 -1-1
8 8 -2-2
-0Robertson
8.50A).
0 -2-22 2 Therefore,
-0 6 Merlotirrigation
- Wellington applied
-0-06 6 -0-08 8 -1-10Merlot
0 -1-12 -2Wellington at,
Shiraz - Robertson
-1-14 4 -1-16 6 Shiraz
-1-18 8 -2 e.g.
-20 0 -2-2
22
-0-08 8 -1 0Merlot Wellington Shiraz -0 8 - Robertson
-0.6 MPa, -0 8 will causeS (MPa)
S (MPa) over-irrigation resulting in -0 excessive
8 vegetative
S (MPa)
S (MPa) growth and
-1 0 -1 0
poor wine -1 0 quality (Fig. 8.50B). It is interesting to-1note 0 that the two cultivars do not
really-1differ 2 with respect to the level of plant water -1 2 status at which maximum yield
(MPa)
S (MPa)
-1 2 -1 2
4 irrigated when the midday Ψs is
(MPa)
(MPa)
is expected.-1 4 On the other hand, Merlot should -1be

-1 4 -1 4
S
between -1 6 -1.4 and -1.5 MPa to produce optimum wine quality, whereas for Shiraz
Figure
Figure8.508.50-1 6
S
S
the best -1 6 wine quality is expected at ca. -1.9 to -2.0 -1 6 MPa (Fig. 8.50B).
-1 8 -1 8
-1 8 -1 8
-0-06 6 -2 0 -0-06 -2
6 0
-2 0Merlot - Wellington
Merlot - Wellington Shiraz
Shiraz- Robertson
- Robertson -2 0Merlot
Merlot- Wellington
- Wellington Shiraz - Robertson
Shiraz - Robertson
-0-08 8 -2 2 -0-08 -2
8 2
-2 2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 20
-2 2 30 40 50 60 70
-1-10 0 0 5 10Yield 15
(t/ha) 20 25 30 -1-10 0 20 Potential
30 wine
40 quality 50 (%) 60 70
Yield (t/ha) Potential wine quality (%)
-1-12 2 -1-12 2
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
-1-14 4 -1-14 4
S
S
S
S
-1-16 6 -1-16 6
-1-18 8 -1-18 8
-2-20 0 -2-20 0
A B
-2-22 2 -2-22 2
00 55 1010 1515 2020 2525 3030 2020 3030 4040 5050 6060 7070
Yield
Yield(t/ha)
(t/ha) Potential
Potentialwine
winequality
quality(%)
(%)
FIGURE 8.50. Relationships to determine at which midday ΨS two grapevine cultivars need
to be irrigated to obtain (A) maximum yield or (B) highest potential wine quality.
In practice, it means that soil water status and midday Ψs need to be measured
simultaneously on a regular basis as the soils dries out following rain or irrigation.
The soil water content at which the desired Ψs is reached will be the refill point,

Chapter 8
i.e. when irrigation needs to be applied. With this approach, the soil water
measurement is actually calibrated against grapevine water status. Once the
refill lines are set, growers can continue only with soil based measurements.
Calibration of soil water measurements against grapevine water status will also
allow growers to use electronic instruments with questionable calibrations. In drip
irrigated vineyards where the positioning of sensors with respect to the wetted
soil volume is problematic, midday stem water potential will also be useful for
setting refill lines.
As a practical demonstration, the refill line for a drip irrigated commercial Cabernet
Sauvignon vineyard was set by means of midday Ψs. Since the estate produced
the grapes for high quality wine, it was decided to set the refill line at the soil
water content where midday Ψs reached -1.4 MPa, as discussed above. Soil water
content was measured by means of a neutron probe calibrated for the specific
soil. Measurements commenced before budbreak when the soil profile was close
to field capacity, i.e. following the winter rainfall (Fig. 8.51). The “Full” line was
set at this soil water content. Midday Ψs measurements began in middle October
when there were enough mature leaves. These measurements were repeated
regularly until the Ψs was close to -1.4 MPa, i.e. around véraison. This served as
a guide to set the “Refill” line for the irrigations. At that stage, the grower applied
a 24-hour irrigation. Due to a misunderstanding, the grower applied a second,
12-hour irrigation before the soil water content reached the refill line. Following
this irrigation, the soil was allowed to dry out until the refill line was reached. Since
it was so close to harvest, the third irrigation was also only applied for 12 hours
(Fig. 8.51).
Figure 8.51
250
Budbreak Véraison Harvest
Full line
200 24 h
12 h
SWC (mm/80 cm)
12 h
-0.66 MPa -0.60 MPa
150
-0.88 MPa
100 -0.93 MPa

Refill line -1.09 MPa
-1.15 MPa
50
-1.37 MPa
-1.41 MPa
0
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
FIGURE 8.51. An example where the irrigation refill line for a commercial Cabernet
Sauvignon vineyard near Stellenbosch was set by means of midday ΨS in the 2016/17 season
(unpublished data).

On the day before the grapes were picked, the soil water content was just slightly
below the refill line, whereas the midday stem water was -1.41 MPa. It must be
noted that midday Ψs measurements were terminated when the first irrigation was
applied. The last measurement before harvest was only made to confirm that the
midday Ψs was consistently related to soil water content throughout the growing
season. The grapevines yielded only 10 t/ha. However, this was because the estate
managed the VSP canopy meticulously in their effort to produce high quality wine.
All excessive shoots and suckers were removed on time. At harvest on 14 March,
the juice sugar content, total titratable acidity and pH were 25.9°B, 5.74 g/ and
3.52, respectively.

The choice of irrigation scheduling methodology lies primarily with individual
growers. However, the on-farm conditions may dictate the best approach. For
example, in shallow, sandy soils where frequent irrigations are unavoidable,
devices that log soil water content will be more suitable than manual measurements
every second day. If carried out manually, it is essential that measurements are
made regularly to obtain a more complete picture of changes in soil water status
over time. Furthermore, soil water status must be determined before and after
irrigations to see if the refill line was reached, and to ascertain if the total root depth
was wetted. The minimum measurement requirements are readings at two depths.
Firstly, one measurement should be carried out where most roots are concentrated
to see when an irrigation is required. The second measurement must be at the
lower end of the root zone to see if the total root depth was wetted. The soil water
content at the lower end of the root zone should also decline between irrigations.
If not, it means the vineyard is most likely being over-irrigated. Correct placement
of access tubes or sensors with respect to the grapevines is important. In the
case of full surface or strip wetting, measurements must be taken at a quarter of
the in-row plant spacing from a grapevine. Where drip irrigation does not wet the
soil in a continuous band, soil water status should be measured ca. 10 cm from
a dripper. Preferably, this dripper should be a quarter of the in-row plant spacing
from a grapevine. This might not be the ideal placing, but at least it will show if the
dripper wetted the soil over the total root depth.
Correct data interpretation is important. In other words, growers must interpret
the data in terms of grapevine responses. Growers must also allow time for data
interpretation in order to make the right decisions, preferably in liaison with an
experienced viticultural advisor. In many cases, growers depend on the advice
of probe consultants who do not necessarily have appropriate knowledge
regarding soil physical properties and/or grapevine responses. Ideally, probe
consultants should measure ΨS to set credible refill lines according to grapevine
water requirements. It is advisable to standardize measurements in order to allow
comparison between different soils, vineyards and cultivars, as well as grapevine

Chapter 8
behaviour from season to season. Atmospheric conditions and time of day should
be considered when grapevine water potentials are measured. For optimum
irrigation scheduling, soil and grapevine water status measurements should be
combined, particularly to set refill lines.
Growers should be aware of the limitations of instruments with respect to the soil
water content range in which they can function. For instance, in the case of low
frequency irrigation, tensiometers will be of little use, since the soil water matric
potential is bound to fall below -80 kPa. Growers must insist on proof of instrument
calibration against gravimetric soil water content or matric potential. Furthermore,
they must confirm the availability of service, spares and/or backup instruments,
as well as replacement parts, access tubes and installation costs before they
purchase irrigation scheduling equipment. Growers must make sure that irrigation
models, e.g. SAPWAT, SWB, PUTU and VINET, were validated against actual ET
for accuracy. Likewise, ET values obtained from remote sensing systems should
be validated by means of soil based ET measurements.

Chapter 9
Preventing
cold damage
in vineyards
9.1 INTRODUCTION
Adverse weather conditions such as hail, heat waves or excessively low air
temperatures may have negative impacts on the sustainability of wine grape
production. Protection against hail is costly, and not economically viable in terms
of South African wine production. Fortunately, severe hail damage does not occur
extensively in most of the grape growing regions. On the other hand, damage
caused by severe heat spells is more common. However, there is very little growers
can do under such conditions, particularly where irrigation water is limited and
vineyards are planted in shallow or sandy soils.
When air temperatures fall below 0°C, it could cause severe yield losses if freezing
or frost occurs in vineyards (Fig. 9.1). With the exception of the Coastal region, cold
damage may occur in the higher, inland areas of the Western Cape, e.g. the Breede
River valley (Haasbroek & Myburgh, 1998). However, in the more inland grape
growing regions such as the Lower Orange River the incidence of cold damage
is higher and more severe. Cold damage occurs when the air temperature in the
vicinity of grapevines falls below a critical value, which is just below freezing point.
The critical temperature goes hand in hand with wind speed. The duration of the
cold period also determines the critical temperature. Furthermore, the occurrence
of cold damage depends on the phenological stage of the grapevine, e.g. sprouting
buds are more susceptible than mature leaves (Haasbroek & Myburgh, 1998 and
references therein). Apparently, the frost risk is highest in spring when new buds
can be damaged if the air temperature falls below -0.6°C. Therefore, the objective
of cold damage prevention is to maintain the temperature of plant tissues above
the critical temperature. The dew point temperature is an important consideration
when it comes to cold damage. The Tdp is defined as the temperature at which the
atmosphere becomes saturated with moisture, and condensation occurs, in other
words, when dew is formed. In practice, a higher Tdp means that the air contains
more moisture, i.e. the air contains more latent, or “stored”, energy which becomes
available when freezing sets in. Consequently, the probability of sub-zero air
temperatures is less if the Tdp is high. In contrast, the risk of cold damage due to
sub-zero air temperatures increases if the air is dry and the Tdp is low.
284 CHAPTER 9 – PREVENTING COLD DAMAGE IN VINEYARDS

Chapter 9
Figure
Figure9.1
9.1
PHOTO: P. SNYMAN.
PHOTO: P. SNYMAN.
A B
FIGURE 9.1. Examples of frost damage to (A) newly sprouted grapevine shoots and (B) an
entire vineyard in the Breede River valley.
9.2 TYPES OF COLD DAMAGE

Based on the way the cold atmospheric conditions develop, vineyards can either be
damaged by a windborne (advective) freeze or radiation frost. A windborne freeze
occurs when wind exceeding 8 km/h blows a sub-zero air mass from one area into
another area (Perry, 1994). The thickness of the cold air may vary between 100 and
1 500 m (Fig. 9.2A). Since air temperature deceases with altitude, an air mass with
a temperature above 0°C can cool Figure 9.2 temperatures if strong wind
down to sub-zero
blows the air mass onto higher ground (Fig. 9.2B). Unfortunately, it is very difficult
to change the environment under such conditions. Consequently, there is not much
that growers can do to protect vineyards against a windborne freeze (Perry, 1994).
A
100 to 1 500 m
Strong wind Cold air mass Cold air mass

(below freeze Strong wind (below freeze
> 8 km/h point)
point) > 8 km/h
Above freeze point Below freeze point
Zone A Zone B Zone A Zone B
100 to 1 500 m
B
Air mass cools
down (below
freeze point)
Above freeze point
Below freeze point
d
n
wi
Cold air mass Zone B Strong Zone B
Strong wind (above freeze
> 8 km/h point)
Zone A Zone A
FIGURE 9.2. Schematic illustration of a windborne, or advective, freeze formation.

Radiation frost occurs during nights when clean, dry air and calm winds of less
than 8 km/h prevail, allowing a temperature inversion to develop. The latter occurs
when continued radiation causes a significant drop in air temperature near the
surface, whereas the temperature in the upper layers increases (Perry, 1994).
Such a temperature gradient is the inverse of daytime conditions when the upper
air layers are cooler. Therefore, it is referred to as an “inversion”. The thickness of
an inversion may vary from 9 to 60 m above the soil surface (Fig. 9.3). There are
two types of radiation frost. White frost (hoar frost) occurs when the moisture in
the atmosphere freezes to form small ice crystals on grapevine leaves and shoots.
Consequently, it is called white frost. The layer of ice causes plant cells to die back
upon exposure to sub-zero temperatures over a certain period. During a black frost,
few or no ice crystals form since the air in the lower atmosphere is too dry (Perry,
1994). Under such conditions, the Tdp is low, and condensation cannot take place.
This causes the air temperature to fall way below freezing point. Although no ice
crystals form during a black frost, the low temperatures cause ice formation within
plant tissues. The ice ruptures the cells, causing the dead leaves and shoots to
turn black. Hence, it is referred to as black frost. Since the Tdp is lower than the
Figure 9.3
minimum air temperature, a black frost generally causes more damage to vineyards
than a white frost.
Clear skies Warm air
Inversion (9 to 60 m)
Heat flow
Calm, wind
< 8 km/h
Cold air
Temperature falls to 0°C or lower
FIGURE 9.3. Schematic illustration of radiation frost formation.

Chapter 9
9.3 PREDICTION OF COLD DAMAGE

The expected minimum air temperature (Tmin) for the following morning, i.e.
as predicted by the SAWS, as well as the dry ball temperature (Td), wet ball
temperature (Tw) and wind speed are used to predict possible cold damage. The
difference between Tmin and the temperature at the level where cold damage is
expected in the vineyard, also needs to be considered. If a low Tmin is predicted for
the next morning, Td and Tw must be measured between 17h00 and 20h00. The dew
point temperature can then be determined by means of Table 9.1. For example,
if the altitude is higher than 500 m, and Td minus Tw is 4°C, with Tw being 1°C, the
expected Tdp will be -5.6°C as shown in Table 9.1. Following this, Table 9.2 can be
used to indicate the type of expected cold damage.

TABLE 9.1. Dry ball (T d) and wet ball (T w) temperatures for calculating dew point
temperature at different altitudes (A).
A Td-Tw Wet ball temperature (°C)

(m) (°C) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
250 0.2 -2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.7
0.5 -2.8 -1.8 -0.7 0.3 1.3 2.3 3.4 4.4
1.0 -3.7 -2.6 -1.5 -0.5 0.6 1.7 2.8 3.8
2.0 -5.7 -4.5 -3.2 -2.0 -0.9 0.3 1.5 2.6
3.0 -8.0 -6.6 -5.2 -3.8 -2.5 -1.2 0.1 1.3
4.0 -10.8 -9.0 -7.4 -5.8 -4.3 -2.9 -1.5 -0.1
5.0 -14.2 -12.0 -10.0 -8.2 -6.4 -4.8 -3.2 -1.6
7.0 -25.8 -21.1 -17.4 -14.4 -11.8 -9.4 -7.3 -5.3
9.0 – – -36.9 -26.5 -20.7 -16.5 -13.1 -10.3
11.0 – – – – – -33.0 -23.5 -17.9
500 0.2 -2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.7
0.5 -2.8 -1.8 -0.7 0.3 1.3 2.4 3.4 4.4
1.0 -3.7 -2.6 -1.5 -0.4 0.7 1.7 2.8 3.9
2.0 -5.6 -4.4 -3.1 -1.9 -0.8 0.4 1.5 2.7
3.0 -7.8 -6.4 -5.0 -3.7 -2.3 -1.1 0.2 1.4
4.0 -10.4 -8.7 -7.1 -5.6 -4.1 -2.7 -1.3 0.1
5.0 -13.6 -11.5 -9.6 -7.8 -6.1 -4.5 -2.9 -1.4
7.0 -24.0 -19.8 -16.5 -13.6 -11.2 -8.9 -6.8 -4.9
9.0 – -81.6 -31.9 -24.1 -19.2 -15.4 -12.2 -9.5
11.0 – – – – -18.6 -28.5 -21.3 -16.4
750 0.2 -2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.7
0.5 -2.8 -1.7 -0.7 0.3 1.3 2.4 3.4 4.4
1.0 -3.6 -2.5 -1.4 -0.4 0.7 1.8 2.8 3.9
2.0 -5.5 -4.3 -3.0 -1.9 -0.7 0.5 1.6 2.8
3.0 -7.6 -6.2 -4.8 -3.5 -2.2 -0.9 0.3 1.5
4.0 -10.1 -8.4 -6.9 -5.4 -3.9 -2.5 -1.1 0.2
5.0 -13.1 -11.1 -9.2 -7.5 -5.8 -4.2 -2.7 -1.2
7.0 -22.5 -18.7 -15.6 -12.9 -10.6 -8.4 -6.4 -4.5
9.0 – -41.2 -28.5 -22.2 -17.8 -14.4 -11.4 -8.9
11.0 – – – – -36.3 -25.3 -19.4 -15.1
1 000 0.2 -2.3 -1.3 -0.3 0.7 1.7 2.7 3.7 4.7
0.5 -2.7 -1.7 -0.7 0.3 1.4 2.4 3.4 4.4
1.0 -3.6 -2.5 -1.4 -0.3 0.7 1.8 2.9 3.9
2.0 -5.4 -4.1 -3.0 -1.8 -0.6 0.6 1.7 2.8
3.0 -7.4 -6.0 -4.7 -3.4 -2.1 -0.8 0.4 1.7
4.0 -9.8 -8.2 -6.6 -5.1 -3.7 -2.3 -0.9 0.4
5.0 -12.7 -10.7 -8.9 -7.1 -5.5 -3.9 -2.4 -1.0
7.0 -21.2 -17.8 -14.8 -12.3 -10.0 -7.9 -6.0 -4.2
9.0 – -34.6 -25.9 -20.6 -16.7 -13.4 -10.7 -8.2
11.0 – – – – -30.9 -22.9 -17.8 -13.9

Chapter 9
Wet ball temperature (°C)
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
5.7 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.7 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.8 14.8
5.4 6.4 7.4 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.6 14.6
4.9 5.9 7.0 8.0 9.1 10.1 11.2 12.2 13.2 14.3
3.8 4.9 6.0 7.1 8.2 9.3 10.4 11.5 12.5 13.6
2.5 3.8 4.9 6.1 7.3 8.4 9.6 10.7 11.8 13.0
1.2 2.5 3.8 5.1 6.3 7.5 8.7 9.9 11.1 12.3
-0.2 1.2 2.6 4.0 5.3 6.6 7.9 9.1 10.3 11.5
-3.5 -1.8 -0.1 1.5 3.0 4.5 5.9 7.3 8.7 10.0
-7.8 -5.5 -3.4 -1.5 0.4 2.1 3.7 5.3 6.8 8.3
-13.8 -10.5 -7.6 -5.1 -2.8 -0.7 1.2 3.0 4.8 6.4
5.7 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.7 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.8 14.8
5.4 6.4 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.6 14.6
4.9 6.0 7.0 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.2 12.2 13.2 14.3
3.8 4.9 6.1 7.2 8.3 9.3 10.4 11.5 12.6 13.7
2.7 3.9 5.0 6.2 7.4 8.5 9.7 10.8 11.9 13.0
1.4 2.7 4.0 5.2 6.4 7.6 8.8 10.0 11.2 12.3
0.0 1.4 2.8 4.1 5.4 6.7 8.0 9.2 10.4 11.6
-3.1 -1.4 0.2 1.8 3.3 4.7 6.1 7.5 8.9 10.2
-7.1 -5.0 -2.9 -1.1 0.7 2.4 4.0 5.6 7.1 8.5
-12.7 -9.6 -6.9 -4.5 -2.3 -0.3 1.6 3.4 5.1 6.7
5.7 6.7 7.7 8.7 9 .7 10.7 11.7 12.8 13.8 14.8
5.4 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.6 13.6 14.6
4.9 6.0 7.0 8.1 9.1 10.2 11.2 12.2 13.3 14.3
3.9 5.0 6.1 7.2 8.3 9.4 10.5 11.6 12.6 13.7
2.8 3.9 5.1 6.3 7.4 8.6 9.7 10.8 12.0 13.1
1.5 2.8 4.1 5.3 6.5 7.7 8.9 10.1 11.3 12.4
0.2 1.6 3.0 4.3 5.6 6.9 8.1 9.3 10.6 11.8
-2.8 -1.1 0.5 2.0 3.5 4.9 6.3 7.7 9.0 10.3
-6.6 -4.5 -2.5 -0.7 1.1 2.7 4.3 5.8 7.3 8.8
-11.7 -8.8 -6.2 -3.9 -1.8 0.2 2.0 3.8 5.4 7.0
5.7 6.7 7.7 8.7 9.7 10.7 11.8 12.8 13.8 14.8
5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.6 12.6 13.6 14.6
5.0 6.0 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.2 11.2 12.2 13.3 14.3
3.9 5.1 6.2 7.3 8.3 9.4 10.5 11.6 12.7 13.7
2.9 4.0 5.2 6.4 7.5 8.7 9.8 10.9 12.0 13.1
1.7 3.0 4.2 5.4 6.6 7.8 9.0 10.2 11.4 12.5
0.4 1.9 3.1 4.4 5.7 7.0 8.2 9.4 10.7 11.8
-2.5 -0.8 0.7 2.2 3.7 5.1 6.5 7.9 9.6 10.5
-6.0 -4.9 -2.1 -0.3 1.4 3.0 4.6 6.1 7.6 9.0
-10.7 -8.0 -2.6 -1.3 -1.3 0.6 2.4 4.1 5.8 7.3

TABLE 9.2. The relationships between freeze point, minimum air temperature (Tmin) and dew
point temperature (Tdp) that determine the type of dew or frost.
Temperature relationship Type of dew or frost
0°C < Tmin < Tdp Dew

Tmin < 0°C < Tdp Frozen dew
Tmin < Tdp < 0°C White frost
Tdp < Tmin < 0°C Black frost
The possible incidence of frozen dew should also be considered as a warning

sign, since it looks similar to frost, and sub-zero temperatures may prevail. If there
is a possible frost threat, air temperature must be measured continuously at the
level where the cold damage is expected until it reaches 2°C. As soon as weather
conditions conform to the thresholds as indicated in Table 9.3, protection against
cold damage must be applied.
TABLE 9.3. Thresholds for dry ball (Td) and wet ball temperature (Tw), as well as wind speed
that serve as indicators for starting and stopping cold protection measures.
Warning of possible Start protection Stop protection
cold damage when when
Td = 2°C Td < 1°C Td > 1°C
and and
Tw < 0°C Tw > 0°C
and
Wind speed < 8 km/h
The foregoing clearly implies that a number of inputs are required in order to
predict the occurrence of cold damage accurately. Therefore, it would be useful
to have access to hourly weather data collected on-farm, or at a nearby automatic
weather station (Fig. 9.4A). Unfortunately, very few growers have 24-hour access
to the real time data collected by means of these weather stations. This means that
growers need to do some measurements themselves. In this regard, a wet ball-dry
ball thermometer, or psychrometer, is essential to measure air temperature (= Td),
as well as Tw required to calculate Tdp (Fig. 9.4B). Another practical problem is that
the air temperature predicted by the SAWS may differ substantially from the actual
temperature at the farm, or even vineyard block level. Therefore, growers need to
compare on-farm measured temperatures with the ones predicted by SAWS. It will
also be useful to know how canopy temperature relates to that of the surrounding
environment (Perry, 1994). An infrared thermometer produces quick and easy
canopy temperatures (Fig. 9.5A). This additional information will allow growers to
adjust the predicted temperature, particularly Tmin, for a more accurate prediction of
possible cold damage. If weather station data are not readily available, wind speed

Chapter 9
can be monitored by means of a handheld anemometer (Fig. 9.5B). Many growers

are familiar with the latter instrument, since it is used to measure wind speed for
Figure
Figure
9.49.4
herbicide or pesticide application within the prescribed wind speed thresholds. As
an alternative, the Beaufort wind scale may be used to estimate wind speed on land
(Table 9.4). This scale is based on the observation of environmental responses in
relation to wind speed (Fig. 9.6).
FigureFigure
9.4 9.4
A B
FIGURE 9.4. Examples of (A) a relatively inexpensive automatic weather station installed in
the proximity of a vineyard and (B) a dry ball-wet ball thermometer (psychrometer) used for
determining the dew point temperature.
Figure
Figure
9.59.5
A B
FigureFigure
9.5 9.5
FIGURE 9.5. Examples of measuring (A) canopy temperature by means of an infrared

thermometer and (B) wind speed using a handheld anemometer.

TABLE 9.4. The Beaufort wind scale used to estimate wind speed on land.
Beaufort Description Wind speed Conditions

no. (km/h)
0 Calm <1 Smoke rises vertically.
1 Light air 1-5 Direction shown by smoke drift, but not
by wind vanes.
2 Light breeze 6 - 11 Wind felt on face; leaves rustle; wind
vane moved by wind.
3 Gentle breeze 12 - 19 Leaves and small twigs in constant
motion; light flags extended.
4 Moderate breeze 20 - 28 Raises dust and loose paper; small
branches moved.
5 Fresh breeze 29 - 38 Small trees in leaf begin to sway; crested
wavelets form on inland waters.
6 Strong breeze 39 - 49 Large branches in motion; whistling
heard in telegraph wires; umbrellas used
with difficulty.
7 High wind, moderate 50 - 61 Whole trees in motion; inconvenience felt
to near gale when walking against the wind.
8 Gale, fresh gale 62 - 74 Twigs break off trees; generally impedes
progress.
9 Strong/severe gale 75 - 88 Slight structural damage (chimney pots
and slates removed).
10 Storm, whole gale 89 - 102 Seldom experienced inland; trees
uprooted; considerable structural
damage.
11 Violent storm 103 - 117 Very rarely experienced; accompanied
Figure
Figure
9.6 9.6 by widespread damage.
12 Hurricane force ≥ 118 Devastation.
A B
FIGURE 9.6. Examples of (A) calm conditions where wind speed is less than 1 km/h and (B)
a moderate breeze of 20 to 28 km/h raising dust and moving small branches near Vredendal
in the Lower Olifants River region.
Figure
Figure
9.7 9.7
Chapter 9
9.4 MEASURES TO REDUCE THE RISK OF

COLD DAMAGE
9.4.1 VITICULTURAL ASPECTS
Considering viticultural aspects, selection of suitable land for planting vineyards is
important, particularly in localities where windborne freeze may occur (Haasbroek
& Myburgh, 1998 and references therein). Cold air flows downslope and collects
in depressions or troughs (Fig. 9.7). Early budding cultivars are more susceptible
to cold damage (Table 9.5), and should preferably not be planted where these so-
called “frost pockets” may occur (Howell et al., 1998). Since cold damage is more
severe near the soil surface, higher trained grapevines should be less susceptible
to cold damage. However, this does not rule out the possibility that severe frost may
damage grapevines trained onto high trellises, e.g. on a “high wire” for mechanical
pruning and harvesting (Fig. 9.8). Late pruning delays budbreak, which reduces
the risk of cold damage. Straw bundles can be tied around grapevine trunks
as isolation against cold, i.e. if cheap straw is readily available. The efficacy of
chemicals aimed at reducing the freezing point of cell sap in plant tissues, or
Figure 9.7
inducing other biological changes that will protect plants against frost, is yet to be
proven (Perry, 1994).
Frost pocket
FIGURE 9.7. Cold air flows downslope and may collect in depressions to form “frost pockets”,
thereby increasing the risk of cold damage in vineyards.
TABLE 9.5. Relative resistance of selected cultivars to cold damage in spring where,
1 = most susceptible and 10 = most resistant (Howell et al., 1998).
Cultivar Ranking
Cabernet franc 10
Cabernet Sauvignon 10
Chardonnay 4
Gewürtztraminer 6
Merlot 6
Pinot noir 5
Riesling 8
Sauvignon blanc 8

PHOTO: P. SNYMAN
FIGURE 9.8. Example where frost damage occurred on young grapevines trained onto a
high wire in the Breede River valley.
9.4.2 SOILS AND TILLAGE

Compared to light coloured soils, dark soil absorbs more heat during the day that
can be irradiated during the night to warm the air above vineyards (Haasbroek
& Myburgh, 1998). Therefore, the cold damage risk will be less where vineyards
are planted in dark coloured soils. Since sand is a poorer heat conductor than
clay or loam, and stores less energy during the day, vineyards in sandy soils are
more prone to cold damage. The foregoing implies that monitoring conditions for
possible cold damage is essential for vineyards in light coloured and/or sandy soils
in areas where sub-zero temperatures often prevail during early spring. Keeping

Chapter 9
soil wet will increase the capacity to absorb heat during the day, thereby reducing
the risk of cold damage. However, excessive irrigation may cause waterlogging,
particularly in poorly drained and flood irrigated soils, and cause unnecessary
leaching of nutrients. Wet, smoothly rolled and compact soil surfaces without
weeds will also absorb more heat during the day that can be irradiated in the night
(Fig. 9.9). The frost level is usually just above the cover crops, which could be in
line with the sprouting buds or new growth (Fig. 9.10A). Therefore, herbicides must
be applied to kill cover crops and high growing weeds before budbreak. In order
to lower the frost level closer to the soil surface, cover crops must be rolled flat or
mowed before budbreak (Fig. 9.10B).
FIGURE 9.9. A growing weed stand causes the soil to absorb less heat during the day.
A B
FIGURE 9.10. The frost level is usually just above the cover crops (A), therefore they should
be mowed or rolled flat to bring the frost level closer to the soil surface (B).

9.4.3 OVERHEAD SPRINKLER IRRIGATION
The application of water by means of overhead sprinklers is probably the most
commonly used method for reducing the risk of cold damage in vineyards. The
basic principle of this method is that heat lost from the grapevines during cold
nights is replaced by the heat released as the applied water freezes (Perry, 1994).
In fact, when 1 gram of water freezes, it releases 80 calories of energy. Therefore,
this latent heat of fusion will provide heat as long as ice continues to form.
When atmospheric conditions reach the temperature and wind speed thresholds
(Table 9.3), the irrigation must start. Irrigation should continue until sunrise when
melting water runs freely between the ice and the grapevine leaves and shoots. If
windy conditions prevail during the morning, i.e. wind speeds higher than 8 km/h,
continued irrigation will prevent excessive cooling due to evaporation from the
grapevine surfaces. This means that the atmospheric conditions must conform to
the thresholds in Table 9.3 before the irrigation can be stopped. Overhead sprinkler
irrigation may also be effective against windborne freezes, i.e. if the wind speed
remains below 8 km/h, to avoid over-cooling of the ice. If the latter happens, the
temperature of the grapevines can fall way below the air temperature. When the
volume of evaporating water exceeds the water that freezes, the grapevines will
lose more heat than it can absorb. This means the temperature of an ice-covered
grapevine will drop below that of a comparable “dry” grapevine as soon as freezing
stops and evaporation continues. It must be noted that 600 calories of heat energy
are absorbed from the environment when 1 gram of water evaporates (Perry,
1994). Therefore, 7.5 times more water must freeze to meet the calories used by
evaporation in order to provide a net heat effect. Since wind increases evaporative
cooling, wind speeds in excess of 8 km/h will reduce the efficacy of frost protection
substantially (Perry, 1994). Under such conditions, it would be advisable not to
apply overhead sprinkler irrigation.
The overhead sprinkler irrigation should be applied at a precipitation rate of 2 to
3 mm/h. This means that the water flow rate through the nozzles should be between
250 and 350 mm/h for sprinklers with a 6 m radius. Sprinklers should rotate at
least once a minute to avoid ice accumulation in, and around the nozzles. The
above-mentioned precipitation rate would be adequate to protect vineyards if the
air temperature is -5°C, or higher. If the precipitation rate is too low, not enough
water might freeze to generate sufficient heat for protection against cold damage.
If this happens, more cold damage could occur compared to no overhead irrigation
(Perry, 1994). On the other hand, high precipitation rates will waste water and may
cause excessive ice accumulation on the grapevines. Furthermore, shoots may
break off if the ice load becomes too heavy.

Chapter 9
9.4.4 OTHER METHODS

Smoke can be generated by burning oil, old rubber tyres or wood to create
“clouds” above vineyards. However, the smoke particles are too small to prevent
outgoing longwave heat irradiation (Perry, 1994). In fact, this practice may only add
some heat to the environment and vineyards. Another problem is that smoke may
delay warming in the morning since the smoke particles are big enough to prevent
incoming shortwave solar radiation. Furthermore, generating smoke can be labour
intensive, environmentally unfriendly and difficult to control, particularly in windy
conditions. Man-made fog holds promise, but similar to smoke, the size of artificial
fog particles is generally too small to reduce longwave heat irradiation (Perry,
1994). It is also difficult to apply and control man-made fog if the wind blows.
Apparently, using heaters to warm the air in and around crops works well (Perry,
1994). In addition to convective mixing, heat radiated from the metal stack will reach
any solid object if there are no obstructions. Consequently, heaters may provide
some protection against windborne freezes. Unfortunately, this practice is becoming
more expensive due to the increasing cost of fuel. Wind machines, i.e. large power
driven fans, are effective to protect vineyards against cold damage, particularly over
short distances. However, if the altitude of the layers of warm air is too high, the fans
cannot mix the air effectively. Similar to heaters, wind machines are expensive, but
require less energy. Wind machines, combined with heaters, provide a more energy
effective means of protection against cold damage (Perry, 1994).
Windbreaks may reduce wind speeds and conduct cold air away from vineyards,
thereby decreasing the risk of cold damage (Zabadal & Andresen, 2004). However,
dense windbreaks could also trap cold air within vineyards, which will increase
the risk of cold damage (Fig. 9.11). Covering the soil surface by means of organic
mulches or foam could reduce heat losses during the night, but are too expensive
to apply over large areas (Fig. 9.12). A full surface mulch will probably be more
efficient, but will increase the cost. Depending on the durability of the organic
material, mulches may decay or weather rather rapidly and need to be renewed
almost annually (Moffat, 2017). Overhead plastic or glass covers are also efficient,
but too expensive to install extensively.
FIGURE 9.11. Cold air flowing downslope may collect in frost “pockets” if obstructed by
windbreaks, thereby increasing the risk of cold damage in adjacent vineyards.

FIGURE 9.12. Straw mulches could prevent excessive heat losses during the night.
9.5 MANAGING VINEYARDS FOLLOWING

COLD DAMAGE
The challenge is to decide what viticultural actions would be best to ensure a
normal crop in the subsequent season. However, there are different opinions about
this matter. This is probably due to different levels of damage, as well as cultivars
responding differently to manipulations (Snyman, 2018). There are basically three
strategies a grower can follow, namely (i) do nothing, (ii) remove all shoots to
allow new growth and (iii) prune green, bearing shoots back to one bud. Following
severe frost in October 2016 in the Breede River valley, a pilot study was carried
out with Chardonnay to compare these strategies. At harvest in 2017, yields were
(i) 2.24, (ii) 7.66 and (iii) 14.04 t/ha, respectively (Snyman, 2018). Furthermore,
visual observations revealed that (i) doing nothing formed numerous fine shoots
which resulted in a dense canopy, (ii) removing all shoots produced less, but
bigger bunches formed on the new growth, compared to the single green bud
strategy and (iii) leaving one bud spur produced more, but smaller bunches than
total shoot removal. It must be noted that formal experiments which allow statistical
validation will be difficult to carry out, since it is almost impossible to know when,
where and how severe the cold damage will be. Consequently, funding of such
research might also be complicated. However, repeating pilot studies such as
the above-mentioned will probably begin to show consistent trends over time.
Therefore, they should be continued where and when cold damage occurs in the
future.

Chapter 9

Growers and technical advisors should understand the different ways in which
sub-zero air temperatures could damage vineyards, particularly in early spring
after budbreak. Growers have to make an effort to predict the risk of cold
damage, as well as whether it will be a freeze or frost. The latter will determine
what precautionary measures, if any, will be applicable. Growers need to adapt
viticultural and tillage practices to minimise the risk of cold damage, i.e. prevention
is always better than cure. Although overhead sprinkler irrigation is most commonly
used to prevent frost damage, it might put already limited water resources under
pressure in some grape growing regions. Heaters or wind machines seems to be
useful alternatives, particularly in areas where the risk of cold damage is high.
Furthermore, combining heaters and wind machines provide more energy efficient
protection against cold damage. Technical advisors and growers are encouraged
to carry out pilot studies regarding vineyard management practices following cold
damage. Ideally, their findings and observations should be combined to enable
better interpretation and understanding.
PHOTO: P SNYMAN. IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 299

References
A
Conradie, W.J., 1994. Vineyard fertilisation.
Proceedings of workshop on vineyard fertilization.
Nietvoorbij, 30 September 1994. ARC Infruitec-
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. & Smith, M.,
Nietvoorbij, Private Bag X5026, 7599 Stellenbosch,
1998. Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines for
South Africa.
computing crop water requirements. Irrig. Drain.
Pap. 56, FAO, Rome. Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Lopes, C.M. & Chaves,
Amerine, M.A. & Winkler, A.J., 1944. Composition M.M., 2012. Grapevine varieties exhibiting
and quality of musts and wines of California differences in stomatal response to water deficit.
grapes. Hilgard 15, 493-673. Funct. Plant Biol. 39, 179-189.
Anconelli, S. & Battilani, A., 2000. Use of leaf Cramer, G.R., Ergül, A., Grimplet, J., Tillett, R.L.,
temperature to evaluate grapevine (Vitis vinifera) Tattersall, E.A.R., Bohlman, M.C., Vincent, D.,
yield and quality response to irrigation. Acta Sonderegger, J., Evans, J., Osborne, C., Quilici,
Hortic. 537, 407-413. D., Schlauch, K.A., Schooley, D.A. & Cushman,
ANZECC, 2000. Australian and New Zealand J.C., 2007. Water and salinity stress in grapevines:
guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. early and late changes in transcript and metabolite
National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper profiles. Funct. Integr. Genomics 7, 111-134.
No 4, Australian and New Zealand Environment
and Conservation Council & Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and
D
New Zealand, Canberra, Australia. De Clercq, W.J., Fey, M.V., Moolman, J.H.,
Ayers, R.S. & Westcott, D.W., 1985. Water quality Wessels, W.P.J., Eigenhuis, B. & Hoffman, J.E.,
for agriculture, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 2001. Experimental irrigation of vineyards with
No. 29, FAO, Rome. saline water. WRC Report No. 522, 695/1/01.
Water Research Commission, Private Bag X03,
B Gezina, Pretoria, 0031, South Africa.

Deloire, A., Carbonneau, A., Wang, Z. & Ojeda, H.,
Boesten, J.J.T.I. & Stroosnijder, L., 1986. Simple 2004. Vine and water: A short review. J. Int. Sci.
model for daily evaporation from fallow tilled soil Vigne Vin 38, 1-13.
under spring conditions in a temperate climate.
Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 34, 75-90. DWAF, 1996. South African Water Quality
Guidelines. Vol. 4. Agricultural Use: Irrigation.
Bonnardot, V., Planchon, O., Carey, V. & Cautenet,
Private Bag X313, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa
S., 2002. Diurnal wind, relative humidity and
temperature variation in the Stellenbosch-Groot De Villiers, F.S., Schmidt, A., Theron, J.C.D. &
Drakenstein wine-growing area. S. Afr. J. Enol. Taljaard, R., 1996. Sub division of the Western
Vitic. 23, 62-71. Cape viticultural regions according to existing
Bruwer, R.J., 2010. The edaphic and climatic climatic criteria (in Afrikaans). Wynboer Tegnies
effects on production and wine quality of Cabernet January 1996, 10-12.
Sauvignon in the Lower Olifants River region.
Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1,
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.
E
Esperanza Valdés, M., Moreno, D., Gamero, E.,
C Uriarte, D., Del Henar Prieto, M., Manzano, R.,
Picon, J. & Intrigliolo, D.S., 2009. Effects of cluster
Carbonneau, A., Deloire, A. & Costanza, P., thinning and irrigation amount on water relations,
2004. Leaf water potential meaning of different growth, yield and fruit and wine composition of
modalities of measurements (in French). J. Int. Sci. Tempranillo grapes in Extremadura (Spain). J. Int.
Vigne Vin 38, 15-19. Sci. Vigne Vin 43, 67-76.
Choné, X., Van Leeuwen, C., Durbourdieu, D. &
Gaudillére, J.P., 2001. Stem water potential is a
sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Ann.
G
Bot. 87, 477-483. Galat Giorgi, E., Perez Peña, J. & Prieto, J., 2011.
Conradie, W.J., 1983. Liming and choice of Effects of canopy exposure changes on plant
rootstocks as cultural techniques for vines in acid water status in grapevine cultivar ‘Syrah’. Acta
soils. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 4, 39-44. Hortic. 889, 105-111.
300 REFERENCES
References
Gallardo, I.T., 1993. Using infrared canopy Howell, C.L. & Conradie, W.J., 2013. Comparison of
temperature and leaf water potential for irrigation three different fertigation strategies for drip irrigated
scheduling in peppermint (Mentha piperita L.). table grapes - Part II. Soil and grapevine nutrient
Thesis, Oregon State University, 1500 SW Jefferson status. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 34, 10-20.
St. Corvallis, OR 97331 541-737-1000. Howell, C. & Myburgh, P., 2013a. Permissible
Gerzon, E., Biton, I., Yaniv, Y., Zemach, H., Netzer, element concentrations in water used for grapevine
Y., Schwartz, A., Fait, A. & Ben-Ari, G., 2015. irrigation (Part 1) - pH, N, P and cations. Wynboer
Grapevine anatomy as a possible determinant of Technical Yearbook 2013, 56-58.
isohydric or anisohydric behavior. Am. J. Enol. Howell, C. & Myburgh, P., 2013b. Permissible
Vitic. 63, 340-347. element concentrations in water used for grapevine
Girona, J., Mata, M., del Campo, J., Arbonés, A., irrigation (Part 2) - anions, trace elements and
Bartra, E. & Marsal, J., 2006. The use of midday heavy metals. Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2013,
leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation 59-61.
in vineyards. Irrig. Sci. 24, 115-127. Howell, C.L., Myburgh, P.A., Lategan, E.L.,
Schoeman, C. & Hoffman, J.E., 2016. Effect of
González, C.V., Jofré, M.F., Vila, H.F., Stoffel, M.,
irrigation using diluted winery wastewater on Vitis
Bottini, R. & Giordano, C.V., 2016. Morphology
vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon in a sandy
and hydraulic architecture of Vitis vinifera L. cv.
alluvial soil in the Breede River valley - Vegetative
Syrah and Torrontés Riojano plants are unaffected
growth, yield and wine quality. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic.
by variations in red to far-red ratio. PLOS ONE
37, 211-225.
+`DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0167767, 1-17.
Howell, C.L. & Myburgh, P.A., 2018. Management
G r e e n , G . C . , 1 9 8 5. E stim a te d ir r ig a tio n
of winery wastewater by re-using it for crop
requirements of crops in South Africa - Part 1.
irrigation - A review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 39, 116-
Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural resources
131.
of South Africa No 2. Dept. Agric. Water Supply,
Private Bag X144, Pretoria 0001. Howell, G.S., Miller, D.P. & Zabadal, T.J., 1998.
Wine grape varieties for Michigan. Extension
Greenspan, M., 2005. Integrated irrigation of bulletin E-2643, Michigan State University, East
California winegrapes. Prac. Vineyard & Winery, Lansing, MI 48824.
March/April 2005, 21-79.
Hsiao, T.C., 1973. Plant responses to water stress.
Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24, 519-570.
H
Haasbroek, P.D. & Myburgh, P.A., 1998. Guidelines I
for frost prevention in vineyards (in Afrikaans). Iland, P., 1989. Grape berry composition -
Wynboer Tegnies September 1998, 8-12. the influence of environmental and viticultural
Haman, D.Z., 2017. Causes and prevention of factors. Part 2 - Solar radiation. Aust. Grapegrow.
emitter plugging in micro-irrigation systems. Winemaker April 1989, 74-76.
BUL258. Gainesville: University of Florida Institute
of Food and Agricultural Sciences. K
Hillel, D., 1980. Application of soil physics.
Kabenge, I. & Irmak, S., 2012. Evaporative losses
Academic Press, New York.
from a phragmites (common reed)-dominated
Hillel, D., 2004. Introduction to environmental soil peach-leaf willow and cottonwood riparian plant
physics. Academic Press, New York. community. Water Resour. Res. 48, W09513. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012WR011902.
Hopper, D.W., Ghan, R.C. & Cramer, G.R., 2014.
A rapid dehydration leaf assay reveals stomatal Kaiser, B.N., Gridley, K.L., Ngaire Brady, J.,
response differences in grapevine genotypes. Phillips, T. & Tyerman, S.D., 2005. The role of
Horticulture Res. 1, 2; doi:10.1038/hortres.2014.2. molybdenum in agricultural plant production. Ann.
Bot. 96, 745-754.
Howell, C.L., 2016. Using diluted winery effluent for
irrigation of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon Khemani, L.T. & Ramana Murty, B.V., 1968.
and the impact thereof on soil properties with Chemical composition of rain water and rain
special reference to selected grapevine responses. characteristics at Delhi. Tellus 20, 284-292.
Dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag Kirda, C., 1997. Assessment of irrigation water
X1, 7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. quality. Options Méditerranéennes 31, 367-377.

References
Klute, A. & Dirksen, C., 1986. Hydraulic conductivity Loveys, B.R., Theobald, J.C., Jones, H.G. &
and diffusivity: Laboratory methods. In: Klute, A. McCarthy, M.G., 2008. An assessment of plant-
(ed). Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Physical and based measures of grapevine performance as
mineralogical methods, No. 9, Agronomy series. irrigation scheduling tools. Acta Hortic. 792, 421-
Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 687-770. 427.
Koide, R.T., Robichaux, R.H., Morse, S.R. & Smith, Lovisolo, C., Perrone, I., Carra, A., Ferrandino,
C.M., 1989. Plant water status, hydraulic resistance A., Flexas, J., Medrano, H. & Schubert, A., 2010.
and capacitance. In: Pearcy, R.W., Ehrlinger, Drought-induced changes in development and
J.R., Mooney, H.A. & Rundel, P.W. (eds). Plant function of grapevine (Vitis spp.) organs and in
physiological ecology. Chapman & Hall, London. their hydraulic and non-hydraulic interactions at the
pp. 161-183 whole-plant level: A physiological and molecular
Kramer, P.J., 1983. Water relations of plants. update. Funct. Plant Biol. 37, 98-116.
Academic Press, New York.
L M
Matthews, S., 2008. UASB technology adapted to
Laker, M.S., 2004. The effect of atmospheric and the treatment of winery wastewater. Water Wheel,
soil conditions on the grapevine water status. January/February 2008, 20-22.
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. McCarthy, M.G., Jones, L.D. & Due, G., 1988.
Irrigation - principles and practices. In: Coombe,
Lamastra, L., Suciu, N.A., Novelli, E. & Trevisan, B.G. & Dry, P.R. (eds). Viticulture. Volume 2.
M., 2014. A new approach to assessing the water Practices. Winetitles, Adelaide.
footprint of wine: An Italian case study. Sci. Total
Environ. 490, 748-756. Medrano, H., Escalona, J., Cifre, J., Bota, J. &
Flexas, J., 2003. A ten-year study on the physiology
Larson, T.E. & Hettick, I., 1956. Mineral composition
of two Spanish grapevine cultivars under field
of rainwater. Särtryck ur Tellus 2, 191-201.
conditions: Effects of water availability from leaf
Lategan, E.L., 2011. Determining of optimum photosynthesis to grape yield and quality. Funct.
irrigation schedules for drip irrigated Shiraz Plant Biol. 30, 607-619.
vineyards in the Breede River Valley. Thesis,
Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 7602 Mehmel, T.O., 2010. Effect of climate and soil
Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. water status on Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera
L.) grapevines in the Swartland region with special
Lategan, E.L. & Howell, C.L., 2010a. The partial reference to sugar loading and anthocyanin
rootzone drying (PRD) of Merlot in the Breede biosynthesis. Thesis, Stellenbosch University,
River Valley (Part 1): Irrigation volumes, plant water Private Bag X1, 7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch),
stress and vigour. Wynboer Technical Yearbook
South Africa.
2010, 19-21.
Moffat, E.G., 2017. Mulching and tillage with
Lategan, E.L. & Howell, C.L., 2010b. The partial
compost to improve poor performing grapevines.
rootzone drying (PRD) of Merlot in the Breede River
Valley (Part 2): Yield, water use efficiency and wine
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.
quality. Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2010, 22-24.
Lategan, E.L. & Howell, C.L., 2016. Deficit irrigation Monteiro, A., Teixeira, G. & Lopes, C.M., 2013.
and canopy management practices to improve Comparative leaf micromorphoanatomy of Vitis
water use efficiency and profitability of wine grapes. vinifera SSP. Vinifera (Vitaceae) red cultivars.
WRC Report No. K5/2080/16. Water Research Ciência Téc. Vitiv. 28, 19-28.
Commission, Private Bag X03, Gezina, Pretoria, Moolman, J.H., De Clercq, W.P., Wessels, W.P.J.,
0031, South Africa. ISBN 978-1-4312-0816-6. Meiri, A. & Moolman, C.G., 1998. The use of saline
Le Roux, E.G., 1974. A climate classification for the water for irrigation of grapevines and the development
South Western Cape viticultural areas (in Afrikaans). of crop salt tolerance indices. WRC Report No
Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 303/1/00. Water Research Commission. Private Bag
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. X03, Gezina, Pretoria, 0031, South Africa.
Ley, T.W., 1994. Irrigation system evaluation and Mulidzi, A.R., 2016. The effect of winery wastewater
improvement. In: Williams, K.M. & Ley, T.W. (eds). irrigation on the properties of selected soils from
Tree fruit irrigation: A comprehensive manual of the South African wine region. Dissertation,
deciduous tree fruit irrigation needs. Good Fruit Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 7602
Grower, Yakima, Washington. pp. 203-221. Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.
302 REFERENCES
References
Mulidzi, A.R., Clarke, C.E. & Myburgh, P.A., 2015a. Myburgh, P.A., 2010. Practical guidelines for
Design of a pot experiment to study the effect of the measurement of water potential in grapevine
irrigation with diluted winery wastewater on four leaves. Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2010, 11-13.
differently textured soils. Water SA 42, 20-25.
Myburgh, P.A., 2011a. Response of Vitis vinifera
Mulidzi, A.R., Clarke, C.E. & Myburgh, P.A., 2015b. L. cv. Merlot to low frequency drip irrigation and
Effect of irrigation with diluted winery wastewater on partial root zone drying in the Western Cape
cations and pH in four differently textured soils. S. Coastal Region - Part I. Soil and plant water status.
Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 36, 402-412. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 32, 89-103.
Myburgh, P.A., 1989a. Causes and prevention of
Myburgh, P.A., 2011b. Response of Vitis vinifera
clogging of drip irrigation systems. Deciduous Fruit
L. cv. Merlot to low frequency drip irrigation and
Grower 39, 98-102.
partial root zone drying in the Western Cape
Myburgh, P.A., 1989b. The use of ridges to Coastal Region - Part II. Vegetative growth, yield
improve the physical conditions in a marginal, and quality. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 32, 104-116.
hydromorphic soil for viticulture (in Afrikaans).
Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Myburgh, P.A., 2011c. Possible adjustments to
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. irrigation strategy and trellis system to improve
water use efficiency of vineyards (Part 1):
Myburgh, P.A., 1994. Effect of ridging on the
Evapotranspiration and crop coefficients. Wynboer
performance of young grapevines on a waterlogged
Technical Yearbook 2011, 6-8.
soil. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 15, 3-8.
Myburgh, P.A., 1996. Response of Vitis vinifera Myburgh, P.A., 2011d. Possible adjustments to
L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to soil water depletion irrigation strategy and trellis system to improve
levels with particular reference to trunk growth water use efficiency of vineyards (Part 2): Plant
parameters. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 17, 3-14. water status. Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2011,
8-10.
Myburgh, P.A., 1998. Water consumption of South
African vineyards: A modelling approach based Myburgh, P.A., 2011e. Possible adjustments to
on the quantified combined effects of selected irrigation strategy and trellis system to improve
viticultural, soil and meteorological parameters. water use efficiency of vineyards (Part 3):
Dissertation, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag Vegetative growth. Wynboer Technical Yearbook
X1, 7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. 2011, 11-13.
Myburgh, P.A., 2003a. Possible flood irrigation Myburgh, P.A., 2011f. Possible adjustments to
technologies to reduce water use of Sultanina irrigation strategy and trellis system to improve
grapevines in a hot, arid climate. S. Afr. J. Plant water use efficiency of vineyards (Part 6): Yield and
Soil 20, 180-187. quality of Pinotage. Wynboer Technical Yearbook
Myburgh, P.A., 2003b. Responses of Vitis vinifera 2011, 19-21.
L. cv. Sultanina to water deficits during various
Myburgh, P.A., 2011g. Possible adjustments to
pre- and post-harvest phases under semi-arid
irrigation strategy and trellis system to improve
conditions. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 24, 25-33.
water use efficiency of vineyards (Part 7): Yield
Myburgh, P.A., 2005. Effect of altitude and distance and quality of Sauvignon blanc. Wynboer Technical
from the Atlantic Ocean on mean February Yearbook 2011, 22-24.
temperatures in the Western Cape coastal region.
Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2005/6, 49-52. Myburgh, P.A., 2011h. Effect of different irrigation
strategies on vineyards in sandy soil in the Lower
Myburgh, P.A., 2007a. An investigation into
Olifants River region (Part 2): Plant water status.
possible water savings using sub-surface irrigation
Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2011, 27-29.
(Part I) - Irrigation quantities, wetting patterns and
root distribution. Wynboer Technical Yearbook Myburgh, P.A., 2011i. Effect of different irrigation
2007/8, 33-37. strategies on vineyards in sandy soil in the Lower
Myburgh, P.A., 2007b. An investigation into possible Olifants River region (Part 3): Growth, yield and
water savings using sub-surface irrigation (Part quality of Merlot. Wynboer Technical Yearbook
II) – Plant water stress, growth, yield and quality. 2011, 30-31.
Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2007/8, 38-42. Myburgh, P.A., 2011j. Effect of different irrigation
Myburgh, P.A., 2007c. The effect of irrigation on strategies on vineyards in sandy soil in the Lower
growth, yield, wine quality and evapotranspiration Olifants River region (Part 4): Growth, yield and
of Colombar in the Lower Orange River region. quality of Shiraz. Wynboer Technical Yearbook
Wynboer Technical Yearbook 2007/8, 59-62. 2011, 32-33.

References
Myburgh, P.A., 2011k. Effect of different irrigation Bag X03, Gezina, Pretoria, 0031, South Africa. ISBN
strategies on vineyards in sandy soil in the Lower 978-1-4312-0591-2.
Olifants River region (Part 5): Growth, yield and Myburgh, P.A. & Howell, C.L., 2015. Guidelines for
quality of Sauvignon blanc. Wynboer Technical preventing over-irrigation of table grapes. S. Afr.
Yearbook 2011, 33-35. Fruit J. June/July 2015, 50-53.
Myburgh, P.A., 2011l. Determining the contribution Myburgh, P.A., Lategan, E.L. & Howell, C.L., 2015,
of soil water status and selected atmospheric Infrastructure for irrigation of grapevines with
variables on water constraints in grapevines. Project diluted winery wastewater in a field experiment.
WW13/14, Final report to Winetech. ARC Infruitec- Water SA 41, 643-647.
Nietvoorbij, Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch, South
Africa. Myburgh, P.A. & Moolman, J.H., 1991. The effect
of ridging on the soil water status of a waterlogged
Myburgh, P.A., 2012a. Comparing irrigation
vineyard soil. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 8, 184-188.
systems and strategies for table grapes in the
weathered granite-gneiss soils of the Lower Orange Myburgh, P.A. & Moolman, J.H., 1993. The effect of
River region. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 33, 184-197. ridging on the temperature regime of a waterlogged
vineyard soil. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 10, 17-21.
Myburgh, P.A., 2012b. Evaluation of an electro-
mechanical water conditioner for irrigation of table Myburgh, P.A. & Piaget, J., 1990. Full surface
grapes with saline water. S. Afr. Fruit J. August/ wetting can lead to problems in fruit orchards: A
September 2012, 44-46. case study. Deciduous Fruit Grower 40, 66- 69.
Myburgh, P.A., 2012c. Guidelines for vineyard Myburgh, P.A. & Van Der Walt, L.D., 2005. Cane
irrigation with saline water. Wynboer Technical water content and yield responses of Vitis vinifera
Yearbook 2012, 94-96. L. cv. Sultanina to overhead irrigation during the
dormant period. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 26, 1-5.
Myburgh, P.A., 2013. Effect of shallow tillage
and straw mulching on soil water conservation Myburgh, P.A., Van Zyl, J.L. & Conradie, W.J.,
and grapevine response. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 30, 1996. Effect of soil depth on growth and water
219-225. consumption of young Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot noir.
S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 17, 53-62.
Myburgh, P.A., 2015. A lysimeter study to
N
determine input values for a simple parametric soil
evaporation model for vineyards. S. Afr. J. Plant
Soil, 32, 1-8.
Naor, A., Gal, Y. & Bravdo, B., 1997. Crop load
Myburgh, P.A., 2016. Estimating transpiration of affects assimilation rate, stomatal conductance,
whole grapevines under field conditions. S. Afr. J. stem water potential and water relations of field-
Enol. Vitic. 37, 47-60. grown Sauvignon blanc grapevines. J. Exp. Bot.
Myburgh, P.A., Cornelissen, R.J. & Southey, 48, 1675-1680.
T.O., 2016. Interpretation of stem water potential
measurements. Wineland June, 78-80. O
Myburgh, P.A. & Howell, C.L., 2012a. Comparison
Ojeda, H., Andary, C., Kraeva, E., Carbonneau,
of three different fertigation strategies for drip
A. & Deloire, A., 2002. Influence of pre- and
irrigated table grapes - Part 1. Soil water status,
postveraison water deficit on synthesis and
root system characteristics and plant water status.
concentration of skin phenolic compounds during
S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 33, 264-274.
berry growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz. Am. J. Enol.
Myburgh, P.A. & Howell, C.L., 2012b. Possible Vitic. 53, 261-267.
causes of infiltration problems in drip irrigated
Olivo, N., Girona, J. & Marsal, J., 2009. Seasonal
vineyards in the Breede River valley. Wynboer
sensitivity of stem water potential to vapour
Technical Yearbook 2012, 87-89.
pressure deficit in grapevine. Irrig. Sci. 27, 175-182.
Myburgh, P.A. & Howell, C.L., 2014a. Assessing the
ability of fodder beet (Beta vulgaris L. Brigadier) to
absorb sodium from a soil irrigated with sodium- P
enriched water. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 31, 113-115. Patakas, A., Noitsakis, B. & Chouzouri, A., 2005.
Myburgh, P.A. & Howell C.L., 2014b. The impact Optimization of irrigation water use in grapevines
of wastewater irrigation by wineries on soil, crop using the relationship between transpiration and
growth and product quality. WRC Report No. plant water status. Agric. Eco. Environ. 106, 253-
1881/1/14. Water Research Commission, Private 259.
304 REFERENCES
References
Peel, M.C., Finlayson, B.L. & McMahon, T.A., Serra, I., Strever, A., Myburgh, P.A. & Deloire, A.,
2007. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger 2013. Review: the interaction between rootstocks
climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 11, and cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) to enhance drought
1633-1644. tolerance in grapevine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.
doi:10.1111/ajgw.12054.
Perry, K.B., 1994. Frost/freeze protection for
horticultural crops. Horticulture Information Leaflet Snyman, P., 2018. Frost damage 2017 in the
705. Dept. Hort. Sci., NC State University, Raleigh, Breede River valley (in Afrikaans). Wineland
USA. February 2018, 66-67.
Soil Classification Working Group, 1991. Soil
R classification - A taxonomic system for South Africa.
Memoirs on natural resources of South Africa no.
Richards, L.A., 1954. Diagnosis and improvement 15. Dept. Agric. Developm., Pretoria.
of saline and alkaline soils. Agriculture Handbook Sousa, T.A., Oliveira, M.T. & Pereira, J.M., 2006.
No. 60, US Dept. Agric., US Government Printing Physiological indicators of plant water status of
Office Washington DC. irrigated and non-irrigated grapevines grown in a
Ritchie, G.A. & Hinckley, T.M., 1975. The pressure low rainfall area of Portugal. Plant Soil 28, 127-134.
chamber as an instrument for ecological research. Stirzaker, R., Etherington, R., Lu, P., Thomson, T.
Adv. Ecol. Res. 9, 165-254. & Wilkie, J., 2005. Improving irrigation with wetting
Rogiers, S.Y., Greer, D.H., Hutton, R.J. & Landsberg, front detectors. RIRDC Publication No. 04/176.
J.J., 2009. Does nighttime transpiration contribute Rural Industries Research and Development
Corporation, PO Box 4776, Kingston, ACT 2604,
to anisohydric behaviour in a Vitis vinifera cultivar?
Australia. ISBN 1 74151 085 6.
J. Exp. Bot. 60, 3751-3763.
Strever, A. & Myburgh, P., 2018. Carbon isotope in
Rowell, D.L., 1994. Soil science: Methods &
vineyards (in Afrikaans). Wineland January 2018,
applications. Routledge, New York.
69-71.
Rukshana, F., Butterly, C.R., Baldock, J.A. & Tang, Stroosnijder L., 1987. Soil evaporation: test of a
C., 2011. Model organic compounds differ in their practical approach under semi-arid conditions.
effects on pH changes of two soils differing in initial Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 35, 417-426.
pH. Boil. Fertil. Soils 47, 51-62.
S T
Theodorou, N., Koundouras, S., Zioziou, E. &
Saayman, D., 1981. Grapevine nutrition. In: Burger, Nikolaou, N., 2013. Responses of leaf stomatal
J.D. & Deist, J. (eds). Viticulture in South Africa density and anatomy to water deficit in four
(in Afrikaans). ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Private winegrape cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Proc. Ampelos
Bag X5026, 7599 Stellenbosch, South Africa. pp. Conf. 30-31 May 2013, Santorini, Greece.
343-384. Tonietto, J. & Carbonneau, A., 2004. A multicriteria
Sadras, V.O., Montorob, A., Morana, M.A. & climatic classification system for grape-growing
Aphaloc, P.J., 2012. Elevated temperature altered regions worldwide. Agric. For. Meteor. 124, 81-97.
the reaction norms of stomatal conductance in field-
grown grapevine. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 165, 35-42. V
Schoeman, C., 2012. Grape and wine quality
Van Dyk, C. & Myburgh, P.A., 1996. Evaluation
of V. vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon/99R in
of an electronic soil water meter (in Afrikaans).
response to irrigation using winery wastewater.
Wynboer Tegnies December 1996, T7-T8.
7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. Van Huyssteen, L., 1989. Quantification of the
compaction problem of selected vineyard soils
Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T., Bradstreet, E.D. and a critical assessment of methods to predict
& Hemmingsen, E.A., 1965. Sap flow in vascular soil bulk density from soil texture. Dissertation,
plants. Science 148, 339-346. Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 7602
Schultz, H.R., 2003. Differences in hydraulic Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.
architecture account for near-isohydric and Van Huyssteen, L., Van Zyl, J.L. & Koen, A.P.,
anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown Vitis 1984. The effect of cover crop management on soil
vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant Cell conditions and weed control in a Colombar vineyard
Environ. 26, 1393-1405. in Oudtshoorn. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 5, 7-17.

References
Van Leeuwen, C., Tregoat, O., Choné, X., Bois, Venter, T.L., 2015. Stomatal density profiling in Vitis
B., Pernet, D. & Gaudillère, J.-P., 2009. Vine water vinifera L. using non-destructive field microscopy.
status is a key factor in grape ripening and vintage Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1,
quality for red Bordeaux wine. How can it be 7602 Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa.
assessed for vineyard management purposes?
Vieira-Filho, M.S., Pedrotti, J.J. & Fornaro, A., 2013.
J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 43, 121-134.
Contribution of long and mid-range transport on the
Van Zyl, J., 1981. Water requirements and irrigation. sodium and potassium concentrations in rainwater
In: Burger, J.D. & Deist, J. (eds). Viticulture in South samples, Sao Paulo megacity, Brazil. Atmospheric
Africa (in Afrikaans). ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij, Environment 79, 299-307.
Private Bag X5026, 7599 Stellenbosch, South
Africa. pp. 234-282.
Van Zyl, J.L., 1984. Interrelationships among
W
soil water regime, irrigation and water stress Williams, L.E. & Araujo, F.J., 2002. Correlations
in the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Dissertation. among predawn leaf, midday leaf and midday
Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, 7602 stem water potential and their correlations with
Matieland (Stellenbosch), South Africa. other measures of soil and plant water status in
Van Zyl, J.L., 1986. Canopy temperature as a Vitis vinifera. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 127, 448-454.
water stress indicator in vines. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic.
7, 53-60. Williams, L.E. & Baeza, P., 2007. Relationships
among ambient temperature and vapor pressure
Van Zyl, J.L., 1987. Diurnal variation in grapevine deficit and leaf and stem water potentials of fully
water stress as a function of changing soil water irrigated, field-grown grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
status and meteorological conditions. S. Afr. J. 58, 137-181.
Enol. Vitic. 8, 45.
Williams, L.E. & Heymann, H., 2017. Effects of
Van Zyl, J.L. & Van Huyssteen, L., 1980a.
applied water amounts and trellis/training system
Comparative studies on wine grapes on different
on grapevine water relations, berry characteristics,
trellising systems: I Consumptive water use. S. Afr.
productivity and wine composition of ‘Cabernet
J. Enol. Vitic. 1, 7-14.
Sauvignon’. Acta Hortic. 1150, 413-425.
Van Zyl, J.L. & Van Huyssteen, L., 1980b.
Comparative studies on wine grapes on different Winkel, T. & Rambal, S., 1993. Influence of water
trellising systems: II Micro-climatic studies, grape stress on grapevines growing in the field: from leaf
composition and wine quality. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. to whole-plant response. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 20,
1, 15-25. 143-157.
Van Zyl, J.L. & Van Huyssteen, L., 1988. Irrigation Zabadal, T.J. & Andresen, J.A., 2004. Vineyard
systems - Their role in water requirements and the establishment - Preplant decisions. Extension
performance of grapevines. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. bulletin E-2246, Michigan State University. East
9, 3-8. Lansing, MI 48824.
306 REFERENCES
Abbreviations, acronyms and symbols
Al : aluminium
al. : alia
ANZECC : The Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council
ARC : Agricultural Research Council
ARISA : automated method of ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis
B : boron
°B : degree Balling
β : beta
C : carbon
ca. : circa
Ca : calcium
CaCl2 : calcium chloride
Cd : cadmium
CEC : cation exchange capacity
Cr6+ : chromium
Cl- : chloride
CI′ : cool night index
cmol(+) : centimole charge
CO2 : carbon dioxide
CO32- : carbonate
COD : chemical oxygen demand
CR : count ratio
Cu : copper
CuSO4 : copper sulphate
cv. : cultivar
CWSI : crop water stress index
d : soil depth
δ13C : carbon discrimination index
ΔCT : canopy temperature difference
ΔT : temperature difference
DI : deficit irrigation
dS : deci Siemens
DMP : dry matter production
DWAF : Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
EC : electrical conductivity
ECdw : salinity of the drainage water at the bottom of the root zone
ECe : electrical conductivity of saturated soil extract
ECiw : EC of irrigation water
e.g. : exempli gratia
Es : soil evaporation
Ep : American Class-A pan evaporation
ESP : extractable sodium percentage
ET : evapotranspiration
ETo : Penman-Monteith reference evapotranspiration
etc. : et cetera
F : fluoride
FC : field capacity

Fe : iron
Fe2+ : ferrous iron
Fe3+ : ferric iron
Fe(OH)2 : iron hydroxide
g : gram
GDD : growing degree days
H : hydrogen
ha : hectare
Hg : mercury
H2SO4 : sulphuric acid
HCO3- : bicarbonate
HI : heliothermal index
i.e. : id est
Ig : canopy conductance index
K : potassium
K : unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
kc : crop coefficient
kcb : basal crop coefficient
Kex : extractable potassium
ks : soil evaporation coefficient
Ks : saturated hydraulic conductivity
KCl : potassium chloride
kPa : kilo Pascal
L. : Linnaeus
 : litre
LASER : light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation
LED : light emitting diode
LF : leaching fraction
LSD : least significant difference
LVDT : linear variable differential transformer
m3 : cubic meter
MFT : mean February temperature
Mg : magnesium
MgCl2 : magnesium chloride
mg : milligram
M : mega litre
Mn : manganese
Mo : molybdenum
MPa : mega Pascal
N : nitrogen
Na : sodium
NaCl : sodium chloride
Naex : extractable sodium
NH4+ : ammonium
NH3 : ammonia
NO2- : nitrite
NO3- : nitrate
308 ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND SYMBOLS

OH- : hydroxyl
OHS : open hydroponic system
‰ : per 1000
p : probability value
P : phosphorus
PAW : plant available water
Pb : lead
pH : negative logarithm of hydrogen ion activity
PO4 : phosphate
PRD : partial root zone drying
Pthreshold : precipitation threshold
Ψ : water potential
ΨL : leaf water potential
Ψm : soil water matric potential
Ψo : osmotic potential
ΨPD : predawn leaf water potential
ΨS : stem water potential
PVC : polyvinyl chloride
PWP : permanent wilting point
R : electrical resistance
RAW : readily available water
ρb : bulk density
S : sulphur
SABS : South Africa Bureau of Standards
SAR : sodium adsorption ratio
SAWS : South African Weather Service
SWC : soil water content
TDS : total dissolved salts
TTA : total titratable acidity
ϴm : gravimetric soil water content
ϴv : volumetric soil water content
V. : vitis
vs : versus
VA : volatile acidity
VINET : VINeyard EvapoTranspiration
viz : videlicet
VPD : vapour pressure deficit
VSP : vertical shoot positioning
WFD : wetting front detector
WUE : water use efficiency
WUEGM : gross margin water use efficiency
Zn : zinc

The book is in essence a summary of the wine grape irrigation research carried out in South
Africa over a period of more than 50 years. The research was carried out to develop irrigation
guidelines, particularly with respect to optimising wine quality and maximizing water use efficiency.
Therefore, the primary focus of the book is on practical irrigation, rather than the physiology
concerning grapevine water relations. In addition to irrigation strategies, and the scheduling
thereof, related aspects such as climate, soil properties, water quality, irrigation systems, as well
as frost protection are also addressed. It is envisaged that the book will be a useful guide for
present and future generations of wine grape growers, as well as viticulture students.
ISBN 978-0-620-80405-9

Handbook For Irrigation of Wine Grapes in SA - Digital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook For Irrigation of Wine Grapes in SA - Digital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HANDBOOK FOR

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

2 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 3

I met Philip Myburgh in 1976 and we worked

4 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 5

VILLA IS TAKING ACTION APPROPRIATELY TRAINED

For more information on the IGWS,

10 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

Lucinda Heyns for her skillful organisation and liaison

Jan Booysen for his guidance.

Netafim and Villa-Monash for their financial support

The South African wine industry via Winetech, as well as the

Growers for permission to work in their vineyards,

The ARC for the opportunity and infrastructure

The irrigation research team at ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij

Carolyn Howell for her dedicated review of the manuscript.

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 11

4.2.2 Micro-sprinklers .................................79

12 IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES

6.3 Factors affecting grapevine 8.2 Qualitative assessment of

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 13

Region District Rainfall (mm)

Autumn & winter Spring & summer Total

Coastal Grabouw 645 366 1 011

Stellenbosch 490 254 744

Piketberg 580 263 843

Breede River Tulbagh 392 182 574

Robertson 164 116 280

Little Karoo Montagu 176 149 325

Barrydale 204 154 358

Lower Olifants River Lutzville 93 47 140

Lower Orange River Upington 56 183 239

dependency of rainfed grapevines on rainfall in the Coastal region is illustrated

1.2 CLIMATE CLASSIFICATION

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 15

1st 2nd 3rd Description Criteria

A Tropical Not applicable to South African grape growing

B Arid Mean annual precipitation < 10 x precipitation

W – Desert Mean annual precipitation < 5 x precipitation

S – Steppe Mean annual precipitation ≥ 5 x precipitation

h – Hot Mean annual temperature ≥ 18

k – Cold Mean annual temperature < 18

C Temperate Hottest month Tmean > 10 and 0 < coldest month

s – Dry summer Precipitation in driest month of summer < 40 and

w – Dry winter Precipitation in driest winter month < (precipita-

f – Without dry season Not (Cs) or (Cw)

a – Hot summer Hottest monthly mean temperature ≥ 22

c – Cold summer Not (a) or (b) and 1 ≤ number of months where

D Cold Not applicable to South African grape growing

E Polar Not applicable to South African grape growing

Using the Köppen-Geiger classification can be explained by means of the following

IRRIGATION OF WINE GRAPES 17

Month Stellenbosch Robertson Lutzville

Tn (°C) Ptot (mm) Tn (°C) Ptot (mm) Tn (°C) Ptot (mm)

January 21.5 21.0 23.2 12.2 22.3 2.1

February 21.8 23.6 23.0 16.4 23.0 3.3

March 20.3 41.6 21.5 15.7 22.0 6.9

April 18.4 62.0 18.4 30.4 20.2 10.5

May 15.9 98.9 15.1 32.5 17.6 17.9

June 13.9 122.3 12.6 31.9 15.5 24.8

July 13.1 103.0 12.0 26.9 14.6 19.6