AGROMETEOROLOGICALINFORMATION

FOR PLANNING AND OPERATION

IN AGRICULTURE
WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO PLANT PROTECTION
Calcutta, India, 22-26 August 1988

GENEVA 1989
Note: The dcaignrtions aaployed and the presentation of mterial in t h i ~
publication do not imply the exprersion of any opinion what8orver on
tha prrt of thc Secretariat of tha World Lteorologicrl Orpanization
coactrning the lwpl r k t u of any country, territory, city or area, or
of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontier: or
tarAries.
MYRMTIC4 POR FUMN
I G AND OPERATION IN AGRICULTURE
(WITI PrnICuLAR REFERElJCE 'Po PUN PROTECTION)

Calcutta, India
22-26 Awt 1988

Geneva, 1989
 1 Rcflectionr on ralntall and vetnerr on leavesL

Water affect^ moat leaf fungal direares at some stage in their

Ute-cycle. Estimates of leaf wetness persistence are important
to epidemiology and method8 for providing routine astimatea are
sought.

In certain climates good relationship8 can br found between

tha time that wetnera rtarts and its durationr but usually the
situation is le8r predictable. Wetnear duration after rain is
dominated by the amount of water held on leaves and the way that
it is held (e.g. a8 discrete drops or as a film). The amount of
water on the surface will depend not only on the amount of rain,
but o n the i n t e r c e p t i o n efficiency and leaf water holding
capcity. These values depend on rainfall intensity and wind
PF-d.

lsubmitted as Conference Paper NO.- by International Crops

Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) for the
Workshop on Agrometeorological Information for Planning and
Operation with Particular Reference t o Plant Protectionr
co8pOnsored by the WHO, 22-26 August 19881 Calcutta, India.

23 2~rincipal nicrocliiaatologist, Resource Management Programr

24 ICRISAT, Patancheru P.O. Andhra Pradesh 502324, India.
introduction
W h e n o n e a s k s t h e q u e s t i o n "how d o e s w e a t h e r affect plant
diseases?", it soon becomes apparent that the influence of water
is often crucial to pathogen activity. Other elements of the
weather cannot be ignored, but pathologists have for many years
included leaf wetnens with climatic variables to indicate the
likelihood of changes in disease levels In crops. Because of its
importance, leaf wetness is often meaaured In epidemiological
studies but, in practice, it la difficult to utilize resulting
r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n p a t h o g e n b e h a v i o u r a n d v e t n e 8 6 for
predicting disease. This is because leaf wetneas i8 not normally
neeasured as a routine weather variable and estimates of watnesa
duration are not conmonly available. Sometimes leaf wetne6s is
s u b s t i t u t e d by o t h e r e l e m e n t 6 of t h e w e a t h e r w h i c h c a n be
obtained from routlne meteorological records luch a6 humidity or
rainfall, but disease-weather relationrhipa which result are
often not reliable. This ie because good relation6hip~ do not
always exist between these weather variables and leaf w e t n e w
duration.

Here we will examine the need for e8timates of leaf wetness

duration and discusa some factors which affect these when wetnea8
results from rain water.

I would like to begin by reminding you of the different phaaer in

the life-cycle of fungal disearea. These are referred to in
a n o t h e r p a r t o f t h e s e ~ r o c e e d i n g s by Dr. F a y e n . S o m e
 1 environmental variables which could be associated with each phase
2 are shovn in Figure 1. Actual relationships are specific to the
3 pathogen a n d host a n d the number o f variables shown has been
4 restricted to emphasize the importance o f vater.

5 The first phase is sporulation, that is the production and

6 release of s p o r e s by fruiting bodies. Water is frequently
7 required for the production of spores and their release is often
8 brought about by a change from wet to dry conditions. Alternate
9 vet and dry periods therefore commonly favour sporulation.

The second phase is dispersal. Fungal spores are commonly

transported by air currents either dry or in extremely small
'aerosol* drops of water. These spores may be deposited on the
host either by ispaction or sedimentation. An alternative method
of dispersal is by splash, when relatively large water drops with
high kinetic energy strike a surface containing spores and these
are carried in droplets vhich are large enough to have definable
trajectories and m y impinge on healthy tissue of the host.

18 The third phase in the life cycle is retention vhen s p r e s

1 9 are held on the surface of the host. Soma splash spread spores
20 a r e carried i n mucilage which a c t s a # an adhesive t o prevent
2 1 w a s h i n g off. w a s h i n g o f f is a l s o avoided w h e n spores a r e
22 deposited on the underside of leaves. The retention of Vster
23 d r o p s (which may carry s p o r e s ) on leaves will depend on t h e
24 wettability of the leaf.
 Dispersol (Air/Splash)

Sporulation
(Wet /Dry)

Retention
(Water/ humidity)

Incubation
(Temperoture/Wetness)

Infection ( Wetness/humidity 1

FIG. I. L i f e cycle o f fungal dissosrs.

 The fourth phase is infection, when spores germinate and a
germ tube penetrates the host. This process is very commonly
dependent o n the presence of free water o n t h e surface, the
r e q u i r e d d u r a t i o n o f w h i c h is t e m p e r a t u r e d e p e n d e n t . 'The
incubation period is the time between infection and sporulation
and is primarily tempcrrture dependent, however for some disease8
there is evidence that wetness can influence disease progress
and symptom severity during this period (Eyal u.
1977).

Overall it is apparent that water may be involved to some

e x t e n t i n e v e r y p h a s e of t h e d i s e a s e l i f e c y c l e , s o t h e
persistence of wetness on leaves is likely to be critical to many
disease epidemics.

The duration of leaf wetness depends on the environment and in

certain climates straightforward relationships can be obtained to
predict the persistence of surface wetness on particular crops.
For example on cocoa pods in the Rondonia region of the Amazon
Basin, Brazil, the duration of wetness is linearly related to the
t i m e o f t h e s t a r t of wetn'ess a f t e r 1 2 n o o n ( P i g . 2 ) . The
relationship holds because the time that the pods dry is about
the same each m o r n i n g (0930 hl and any water from rain after
midday w i l l persist through the night. In t h i 8 region sunny
conditions are normal each morning and the majority of storms
occur a f t e r midday. A very similar relationship has been
publisked for coffee leaves in Colombia (Guzman and Gomez 1987).
The g-5.: of 3 i r . t ~ i- Fig. 2 whicr indicate that wr:ness began
after 0600 h depict times when condensation formed on the pod
surface (Butler 1980).

In most climates such convenient relationships to predlct

surface wetness duration are not found because the wtterns of
rainfall and runshine are more varied. I now wish to consider
two rainfall events, either of which could be expected to occur
in monsoon climates. as we have heard in Dr. nandrl's paper
(there proceedings). The firat (Fig. 31 is a tropical atorm with
r thick convective cloud and large drops with high kinetic
energy. The second is continuous light rain which could result
from continuous cloud cover assodated with a depresrion. In
each case I have depicted a man with an umbrella; the firat in
the tropical storm is not happy because he Is getting wet from
the splash as large, high energy drops hit the ground around him.
The second is much happier, becauae he finds that his umbrella is
quite effective a t keeping him dry and, as yet, he has not
realized how long the rain will continue. Aasuming that the
total daily rain in both cane6 is 10 mm, what are the differences
between the two situation.? The tropical storm would only last
say, 10 ainutcr so the rainfall intensity would be 60 nm .'-h In
t h e l l g h t raln t h e d u r a t i o n w o u l d be r a y , 5 h o u r s s o t h e
intensity would be 2 mn h-l.

Now consider the deetination of rain in these two situations

a s it falls on r crop. When the intensity is lsrgr we would
expect the efficiency of interception of water to be low because
drops wculd s l r ~ k ethe 1ea.ieo vith fo:ct an5 shrkr nest o! the
w8:e: :corn t'ti: r,i:fzc>. ?:n?:i f: 7 =b.? 6,:: z,;;f ;+ ,A. ,::.
l a r g e r because t h e r a t e of p r e c i p i t a t i o n would exceed t h e r a t e of
infiltration. When t h e i n t e n s i t y i s small, t h e r e would be very
l i t t l e p l a n t movement (assuming a slow wind s p e e d ) s o l a r g e
q u a n t i t i e s of water would c o l l e c t on t h e vegetation r e s u l t i n g i n
e f f i c i e n t i n t e r c e p t i o n of w a t e r . Runoff would be s m a l l ' a s
v i r t u b l l y a11 t h e water reaching t h e s o i l s u r f a c e would soak i n t o
t h e s o i l ( p r o v i d i n g it wbb not p r e v i o u s l y s a t u r a t e d ) .

The way t h a t w a t e r i s h e l d on l e a v e s i r o f p a r a m o u n t
importance t o t h e r a t e a t which it evaporates. Let us c o n r i d e r r
10 m3 d r o p placed on each of t h r e e l e a v e s (Pig. 4). The f i r s t
l e a f h a s a waxy c u t i c l e and i s w a t e r r e p e l l e n t s o t h e d r o p
assumes t h e s h a p e o f t r u n c a t e d o b l a t e s p h e r o i d ( B u t l e r 1985)
which m a i n t a i n s i t s s h a p t a s it evaporates. I t s i n i t i a l exposed
s u r f a c e a r e a i s 18 m m 2 . The s e c o n d l e a f i s s l i g h t l y more
w e t t a b l e s i n c e w a t e r adheres t o its s u r f a c e , but t h e c o n t a c t
angle betveen water and t h e l e a f s u r f a c e is high, say 90'. Thla
drop has a a i m i l a r i n i t i a l exposed a u r f a c e a r e a (18 m21 but i t 8
shape changes a s i t evaporates. The base diameter remains t h e
same a r it8 h e i g h t i s reduced u n t i l i t is a wet d i s c on t h e l e a f
(Barr and C i l l e s p i e 1987). The t h i r d l e a f wet8 r e a d i l y , and t h e
water s p r e a d s o u t u n t i l ii reaches a f i l m of uniform thickness
( m y 0.1 m). The exposed s u r f a c e a r e a would then be 100 m2,
about f i v e timer t h a t f o r t h e f i r s t l e a f . I n t h e same
environment t h e r e f o r e we would expect t h e w e t t a b l e l e a f t o dry
about 5 times more q u i c k l y than t h e non-wettable one.

An example o f t h i s e f L e c t c d c be Seen i n F i g u r e 5 where

:ti+:. r: w e s c r f l on lra.:ei c f f;?:? bean ard per a r e cczpared
 High contoct ongle (7 15d)

Laof ,
,
-
Medium contoct angle ~ 9 6 )

- Wettable (contact angle N dl

Figure 1. The degree of wettabllity of leaf cuticles affect6 the

way water is held on the surface. The surface of the upper
leaf is hydrophobic; the middle leaf is p r t l y vetted but it

hold8 discrete drops; the lower leaf is wettable and water

apreadr over the lurface.
(Ward 1988). T h e crops were g r o w n in adjacent plots at Long
Ashton Research Station, U.K. and the degree of wetness after
rain recorded using a scale of 1 (dry) to 5 (saturated), taking
the mean score for 5 leaves in each crop. The conditions were
overcast and the bean6 (with wettable leaves1 were dry by 1100 h
whereas the peas (with discrete drops on the laave61 were still
wet at 1700 h and probably did not dry until the next morning.
Similar differences have been observed between pearl millet (with
wettable leaves) and groundnut (with discrete dropa) at ICRISAT
Centre, Patancheru, A.P., India in overcast conditions.

If we now compare the two rainfall events (Fig. 2 ) for the

same c r o p w i t h non-wettable leaves, w e find t h e following
situations. With large intensity most of the water ir shaken
from the leaf surface, so at the end of the shower there remainn
only a few small drops (equivalent to say , 0.1 mn depth) which
dry quickly. With small intensity rain the number of drop6 which
adhere to the leaf in large because there is no leaf movement.
In t h i s s i t u a t i o n it i s f e a s i b l e f o r t h e l e a f t o h o l d t h e
equivalent of about 1 mm depth of water which would take at least
10 times a s long to dry as in the first example.

The persistence of rain water on leaves is largely dependant

on the nature of the leaf surface, and this complex situation is
difficult to mimic with leaf wetness sensors. Wetness duration
o n sensors after rain often differs substantially from the
duration on leaves of crops (Huband and Butler 1984). For dew
the situation 1s quite different and much more satisfactory
:ers:-5 err !ikt:y :c :e ?t::in?d fro- !..:. * i r - , ~ ; s ee:rr,rs. The
correct response of sensors to dew depends on their siting which
should be at the t o p of the crop canopy to indicete wetness on
the upper leaves.

In summary, the estimation on wetness duration after rain is

complicated by the nature of leaf surfaces and the way that water
i s held o n t h e surface. T h e a m o u n t of w a t e r held o n l e a v e s
dominates leaf wetness duration and i s a f f e c t e d by t h e
interception efficiency and leaf water holding capacity. These
values are highly variable, depending o n crop species and
cultivar, leaf age, a s well as rainfall intensity and wind speed.
C u r r e n t d e s i g n s o f leaf w e t n e s s s e n s o r s c a n n o t r e a l i e t i c a l l y
imitate all these variables, and progress towards producing good
e s t i m a t e s o f l e a f w e t n e s s d u r a t i o n may result from modelling
interception and evaporation.
 Reference8
Bart, A. and Gillespie, T.J. 1987. Maximum wetness duration for
water drops on leaves in the field. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 41:267-274.
Butler, D.R. 1980. Dew and Thermal Lag! measurements and an
estimate of wetness duration on cocoa pods. Quarterly
Journal of the Royal Meteorology Society 106:539-550.
Butler, D.R. 1985. The energy balance of water drops on a leaf
surface. Boundary-layer Meteorology. 32:337-349.
Eyal, Z., Brown, J.P., Krupinsky, J.M. and Scharen, A.L. 1977.
The effect of pastinoculation periods of leaf wetnese on the
r e s p o n s e of w h e a t c u l t i v a r s t o infection by Septorir
nodorum. Phytopathology. 67:874-878.
Gurman, 0. and Gomez, L. 1987. Permanence of free water on
coffee leaves. Experimental Agriculture. 23:213-220.
Huband, N.D.S. and Butler, D.R. 1984. A comparison of wetness
sensor6 for use with computer or microprocessor 8ystems
designed for diseasl forecasting. British Crop Protection
Conference Proceedings 7A-6:633-638.
m n d a l , G.S. 1988. Synoptic and local forecasting of climatic
events. (These Proceedings) .
P a y e n , 0. 1 9 8 8 . Epidemic development in relation t o
m e t e o r o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s ( d a m a g e threghold, p o p u l a t i o n
dynamite) . (These Proceeding8).
Rudgard, S.A. and Butler, D.R. 1987. Witches' broom disease on
cocoa in Rondonia, Brazll: pod infection In relation to pod
susceptibility, wetness, inoculua and phytossnitation.
1, Ward; S.E. 1988. Wetness monitoring in crope. N.Sc. Thesis,
2 Brirtol University, U.K. 142 pp.