Materials and Methods. The sites for this research were four dripirrigated

SOIL MANAGEMENT, FERTILIZATION, AND IRRIGATION HORTSCIENCE 43(1):229 235. 2008. Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Soil Moisture in Drip-irrigated Vineyards Joan R. Davenport 1,2, Robert G. Stevens 1, and Kelly M. Whitley 1 Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, 24106 North Bunn Road, Prosser, WA 99350 Additional index words. gravimetric soil water, volumetric soil water, plant-available water, regulated deficit irrigation Abstract. In arid and semiarid areas, wine grapes are frequently managed using regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) to control vegetative growth. To understand the distribution of soil moisture using RDI in a drip-irrigated vineyard, we collected soil samples after several irrigation events around six drip emitters in two Cabernet Sauvignon and two Merlot vineyards from late July through Mar. 2002 and 2005. The March sampling depicts soil moisture status before budbreak after winter precipitation. Soil samples were collected in four depth increments at 16 locations in a half-circle radius from immediately below the emitter to a depth of 60 cm. Both gravimetric and volumetric soil moisture content were determined. Soil moisture varied by depth, distance from the emitter, and sampling time. During late-season irrigation events, 50% to 75% of the sampled area contained plant-available water, which was less than expected. When calculated as plantavailable soil moisture, regardless of time of sampling, soil sampled across a 0- to 45-cm depth provided the most representative indication of soil moisture status. Additionally, sampling directly under the emitter or directly under the drip line could result in skewed measurements compared with the sampled area. The data suggest that collecting soil samples within a 20- to 40-cm radius, either diagonal or perpendicular to the drip line emitter position, will best reflect the amount of plant-available soil water. Additionally, monitoring should be conducted on both sides of the row around each emitter selected and then averaged to avoid any patterns from hilling or disruption in water flow patterns. Grape production in the low rainfall environment of the inland Northwest requires the use of irrigation. A recent survey indicated that in Washington State, over 61% of grape acreage apply this water through drip irrigation and over 75% of this involves a type of deficit irrigation water management (M. Olmstead, personal communication). Water distribution under drip emitters varies both spatially and temporally (Rolston et al., 1991). Stevens and Douglas (1994) found that grape root distribution (measured as root length) under drip irrigation was concentrated within the vine row, whereas under microjet sprinkler irrigation, roots were dispersed out between the rows, both patterns reflecting the wetted area. Both young and established grapes have been shown to have the highest periods of moisture demand in a double sigmoidal curve that parallels berry development (Klein, 1983; Stevens and Harvey, 1996). Furthermore, soil moisture depletion under drip irrigation has been demonstrated to a depth of 120 cm (Stevens and Harvey, 1996). These patterns of root distribution and soil moisture depletion have implications for vineyard management. Placement of soil moisture-monitoring devices (e.g., neutron probe access tubes, tensiometers) as well as soil sampling for testing vineyard soil chemistry status (Rolston et al., 1991) are affected by these relationships. The objective of this experiment was to develop an understanding of soil moisture distribution patterns in regulated deficit, dripirrigated vineyards in the low rainfall area of the inland Northwest. We hypothesized that current in-row soil moisture monitoring does not best align with soil moisture distribution patterns in deficit-irrigated vineyards and, thus, a moisture zone for monitoring could be identified. method (Gee and Or, 2002) to assure that the sites were similar (Table 1). In each vineyard, individual drip emitters within a 15- to 20-cm distance from a vine trunk were identified. As per Rolston et al. (1991), each emitter was considered fixed in space for the duration of the single season of sampling. A half radial pattern was marked around each emitter spanning 60 cm both left and right of the emitter in the row and to a distance of 60 cm into the interrow (Fig. 1). Row orientation in vineyard 1 was northeast to southwest, whereas row orientation in all other vineyards was north to south. All emitters were rated at 2 Lh 1. To evaluate water movement in the soil, soil sampling was initiated late in the growing season at the first irrigation after attaining the 650 degree day stage (Keller et al., 2004). Following each irrigation event (Table 2), soil samples were collected using a 2.45 cm i.d. soil probe from the 16 sample points (Fig. 1) at each of four depths (0 to 15, 15 to 30, 30 to 45, and 45 to 60 cm). Samples were immediately placed into a metal soil can and the lid replaced to maintain soil moisture. After all samples were collected, cans were returned to the laboratory, weighed, lids removed, soils dried at 105 C for 24 to 30 h, and reweighed to determine gravimetric soil moisture. Average soil bulk density was calculated for each site using all samples from the site and then used to convert gravimetric percent soil moisture to soil moisture on a volumetric basis. All volumetric soil moisture values were expressed as centimeters per 15-cm depth to reflect the size of the soil samples collected. This research was conducted between July 2002 to Mar 2003 at vineyards 1 and 2. However, as a result of the removal of vineyard 2, different sites were established (vineyards 3 and 4) for sampling from July 2004 to Mar. 2005. Because sampling was repeated under the same emitter repeatedly, after each sampling event, soil from the same site was used to fill in the resultant holes. Each soil core hole was marked using a nail attached to a stake whisker to prevent resampling in the same location. The soil moisture data were analyzed by analysis of variance with PC SAS (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The data were extrapolated across the surface of the sampling area by inverse distance weighting with ArcGIS v. 9.1 (ESRI, Redlands, CA) using a power of 4 and an n 1 point search radius. Received for publication 23 July 2007. Accepted for publication 7 Sept. 2007. This research was funded by grants from the Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research with supplemental funding from the Washington State University Agriculture Research Center. We thank those diligent diggers, Jaimi Marden, Tyler Phillips, Kelsey Myers, and Joanna Pierce. 1 Associate Professor/Soil Scientist, Extension Soil Scientist, and Agr. Res. Tech. Supervisor. 2 To whom reprint requests should be addressed; e-mail jdavenp@wsu.edu Materials and Methods The sites for this research were four dripirrigated winegrape (Vitis vinifera L.) vineyards near Prosser, WA (between 46 15 and 46 18 lat. and 119 32 and 119 48 long.). All were managed using regulated deficit irrigation (Evans, 1993). Vineyards 1 and 2 were planted to the cultivar Cabernet Sauvignon and vineyards 3 and 4 to Merlot. The soils on the sites were all silt loam and soil texture was analyzed by the hydrometer Results and Discussion Soil moisture varied significantly by vineyard, sampling time, sample depth, distance from the emitter, and the interactive factors (Table 3). Vineyard differences likely are a combination of irrigation management, row side sampled with respect to water flow patterns, and plant size (both canopy and roots) effects on soil water use. Average soil moisture for vineyards 1 and 2 was not different, but vineyard 3 had lower and 4 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008 229

Table 1. Soil series classification and particle size distribution in the top 30 cm according to the hydrometer method (Gee and Or, 2002) for four Yakima Valley, WA, vineyards. Soil Soil separates (%) Vineyard Series Taxonomy Sand Silt Clay 1 Warden Coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Xeric 65.2 30.3 4.5 Haplocambid 2 Warden Coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Xeric 69.2 26.5 4.3 Haplocambid 3 Burke Coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Xeric 72.1 22.3 5.6 Haplodurid 4 Shano Coarse-silty, mixed, superactive, mesic Xeric Haplocambid 69.1 26.0 4.9 each site during each sampling time (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) was much lower than withinfield variability observed in row crops under center pivot irrigation (Reichardt et al., 2001). Thus, all data presented are averaged across vines. In-season soil moisture decreased between the first and second sampling (Table 3), possibly as a result of increased plant moisture utilization. Soil moisture was significantly higher when samples were collected 36 h after the last irrigation of the season, which likely reflects the twofold increase in irrigation duration (Table 3) and may also reflect lower water loss from evapotranspiration at that time of year. By spring, when cumulative winter moisture was distributed throughout the soil (spring redistribution), soil moisture had decreased from the last irrigation of the previous year (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7). At all sites but vineyard 4, which received more water before the first sampling irrigation, spring redistribution soil moisture content was still higher than at the time of study initiation (Figs. 4, 5, and 6). Both increasing soil depth and distance from the emitter (DFE) reduced average soil moisture (Table 3). On a by-vineyard basis, soil moisture varied with DFE and soil depth in almost every sampling time. Soil moisture in each vineyard also varied with the interactive factor of DFE by depth in slightly more than one-half of the sampling periods at each vineyard (Table 4). The patterns of soil moisture distribution by vineyard illustrate Fig. 1. Sampling points, location of drip emitter, and half-circle radius for interpolating the data for a study of soil moisture distribution in regulated deficit-irrigated wine grape vineyards in the Yakima Valley, WA. higher soil moisture than the other sites. The lower average soil moisture on vineyard 3 most likely is the result of the side of the row sampled. For all sampling locations, sample sites were set up between irrigations when soil moisture distribution was not visible at the surface. At vineyard 3, the soil was hilled along the vine row. The drip line placement was such that, combined with the hilling, irrigation water distribution was greater on the western (not sampled) side of the row. Conversely, vineyard 4 was the only relatively young vineyard and was irrigated more frequently before sampling than the other vineyards (data not given) and thus had slightly higher soil moisture at the outset of the experiment and was given a greater total amount of water throughout the duration of the experiment (Table 2). At each sampling time for each individual site and depth, soil moisture was not statistically different between vines (P = 0.14 to 0.59). Figures 2 and 3 depict the soil moisture distribution pattern for each vine in two vineyards (2 and 4) for the first and last irrigation events. Vine-to-vine variability at Table 2. Irrigation water applications from irrigation 1 (first application after reaching 650 degree days, base 10 C) through last irrigation of the season and precipitation recorded from the initial irrigation (I1) to the last irrigation (LI) and the last irrigation to the late spring sampling period (LS). z Irrigation 1 Irrigation 2 Additional irrigations Last irrigation Precipitation (mm) Events Vineyard DOY Duration DOY Duration (no.) LS Duration DOY Duration I1 to LI LI to LS (DOY) 1 221 12 230 12 10 120 301 24 3.03 142.69 75 2 210 12 218 12 10 120 294 24 2.78 143.45 77 3 179 12 214 12 10 120 284 24 61.67 34.55 73 4 217 12 224 12 9 108 292 24 67.55 28.67 75 z Irrigation duration in hours; all emitters at 2 Lh 1. DOY = day of year. Table 3. Average soil moisture (cm/15 cm) for main factors and level of significance for main and interactive factors in a study evaluating regulated deficit irrigated vineyards in the Yakima Valley, WA. z Parameter N Soil moisture (cm/15 cm) Vineyard 1 1916 3.18 c 2 1916 3.52 b 3 1916 2.48 d 4 1915 3.97 a Sample time 650 DD irrigation 1532 3.32 c Irrigation 2 1532 2.83 d Last irrigation 1531 4.05 a Spring redistribution 1532 3.47 b Sample depth (cm) 0 15 1916 3.44 a 15 30 1916 3.54 a 30 45 1916 3.19 b 45 60 1915 2.98 c Distance from emitter (cm) 0 480 4.15 a 20 2394 3.83 b 40 2394 3.10 c 60 2394 2.77 d Level of significance Vineyard (V) <0.001 Sample time (S) <0.001 Sample depth (D) <0.001 Distance from emitter (E) <0.001 V*S <0.001 V*D <0.001 V*E <0.001 S*D <0.001 S*E <0.001 D*E <0.001 z Means separation by least significant difference (a = 0.05) shown as different letter values. DD = degree days. 230 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008

Fig. 2. Vine-to-vine variability for soil moisture around six sample vines in vineyard 2 at two sampling intervals. Sample timings are the first 2002 irrigation after attaining 650 degree days (base 10 C) and in Spring 2003 after winter precipitation and soil moisture redistribution. Fig. 3. Vine-to-vine variability for soil moisture around six sample vines in vineyard 4 at two sampling intervals. Sample timings are the first 2004 irrigation after attaining 650 degree days (base 10 C) and in Spring 2005 after winter precipitation and soil moisture redistribution. Fig. 4. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters of water per 15 cm soil depth, in vineyard 1 at four different sampling times. First irrigation was the first irrigation set HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008 231

Fig. 5. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters of water per 15 cm soil depth, in vineyard 2 at four different sampling times. First irrigation was the first irrigation set Fig. 6. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters of water per 15 cm soil depth, in vineyard 3 at four different sampling times. First irrigation was the first irrigation set Fig. 7. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters of water per 15 cm soil depth, in vineyard 4 at four different sampling times. First irrigation was the first irrigation set 232 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008

Fig. 8. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters per 15 cm soil, in four regulated deficit-irrigated vineyards after the irrigation set applied after attaining 650 degree days (base 10 C). Soil moisture was averaged over the 0 to 15, 0 to 30, 0 to 45, or 0 to 60-cm depths and classified into ranges of plant-unavailable soil moisture, plant-available soil moisture, and excess soil moisture (above field capacity based on Evans, 1993). Fig. 9. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters per 15 cm soil, in four regulated deficit-irrigated vineyards after the second irrigation set applied after attaining 650 degree days (base 10 C). Soil moisture was averaged over the 0 to 15, 0 to 30, 0 to 45, or 0 to 60-cm depths and classified into ranges of plant-unavailable soil moisture, plant-available soil moisture, and excess soil moisture (above field capacity based on Evans, 1993). Table 4. Levels of significance for soil moisture in relationship to sampling depth and distance from the drip emitter in a study evaluating regulated deficit-irrigated vineyards in the Yakima Valley, WA. Vineyard Sampling time Distance from emitter (E) Depth (D) E*D 1 650 DD irrigation <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Irrigation 2 <0.001 <0.001 0.364 Last irrigation 0.007 0.012 0.051 Spring redistribution 0.907 <0.001 0.265 2 650 DD irrigation <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Irrigation 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Last irrigation <0.001 0.200 0.858 Spring redistribution 0.002 <0.001 0.014 3 650 DD irrigation <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Irrigation 2 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Last irrigation <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 Spring redistribution <0.001 <0.001 0.661 4 650 DD irrigation <0.001 <0.001 0.087 Irrigation 2 <0.001 <0.001 0.043 Last Irrigation <0.001 <0.001 0.187 Spring redistribution <0.001 <0.001 0.975 DD = degree days. these results. For example, in vineyard 1, soil moisture was not significantly different with DFE during the spring redistribution period, but did increase with depth (Fig. 4). The lack of statistically significant depth by DFE interaction at this site for the last three sampling periods is well illustrated by the uniformly dry conditions found after the second irrigation and the uniform increase in soil moisture found in the last irrigation and spring redistribution periods. In contrast, vineyard 2 had significant depth by DFE interaction for all but the last irrigation period (Fig. 5), vineyard 3 had significant differences at all but the spring redistribution sampling (Fig. 6), and vineyard 4 only had significant DFE by depth interaction after the second irrigation (Fig. 7). The amount of rainfall from the initiation of the experiment through the final irrigation of each season was negligible in 2002 and low in 2004 (Table 2). The largest single rainfall event resulted in 12.70 mm (day of year 217) of precipitation and there were no days of consecutive rainfall that exceeded this amount. Thus, this amount of rainfall was insignificant in affecting soil moisture when compared with the amount of moisture the sampling area received through the irrigation events. In this growing region, the majority of the average <200 mm annual precipitation occurs during the winter (dormant) period (AWN, http://weather.wsu.edu). The precipitation between the final irrigation of the season and the prebud burst sampling was very different between the 2 years. The 2002 2003 winter precipitation was normal, at slightly less than 150 mm, but 2004 2005 was extremely low (35 mm) and was not even equivalent to a single in-season irrigation event (Table 2). The effects of these precipitation patterns on soil moisture redistribution are well illustrated in the postwinter precipitation diagram for soil moisture at each site (Figs. 4 7). The surface soil moisture had decreased at all locations compared with the moisture in that depth at the end of HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008 233

Fig. 10. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters per 15 cm soil, in four regulated deficit-irrigated vineyards after the last irrigation set applied for the growing year. Soil moisture was averaged over the 0 to 15, 0 to 30, 0 to 45, or 0 to 60-cm depths and classified into ranges of plantunavailable soil moisture, plant-available soil moisture, and excess soil moisture (above field capacity based on Evans, 1993). Fig. 11. Soil moisture, expressed as centimeters per 15 cm soil, in four regulated deficit-irrigated vineyards in the spring after winter precipitation. Soil moisture was averaged over the 0 to 15, 0 to 30, 0 to 45, or 0 to 60-cm depths and classified into ranges of plant-unavailable soil moisture, plant-available soil moisture, and excess soil moisture (above field capacity based on Evans, 1993). the growing season. Thus, in a normal precipitation year, soil moisture in the lower sampling depths would be expected to be available to the vines in the spring (e.g., 2003 2004; Figs. 4 and 5). However, monitoring winter precipitation is important to predict when winter recharge is not adequate for early spring water demand (e.g., 2004 2005; Figs. 6 and 7). To evaluate the data for determining optimal sampling location for soil moisture monitoring, average soil moisture was calculated for 0 to 15, 0 to 30, 0 to 45, and 0 to 60- cm depths using the ArcGIS raster calculator. Previous research on vineyard 2 reported levels of permanent wilting point (PWP) and field capacity (FC) for this soil (Evans, 1993). The data for all four sites were then classified according to these published soil moisture levels of PWP and FC for this soil texture (Table 1). Plant-available soil moisture was determined as 67% of the volumetric soil moisture between PWP and FC, values below that were classified as plant unavailable, and values above FC were classified as excess (e.g., Fig. 8). During the growing season, variability in soil moisture decreased with cumulative depth to the 0- to 45-cm depth increment (Figs. 8 and 9), after which variability began to increase primarily as a result of drier conditions in the 45- to 60-cm depth (Figs. 4, 5, 6, and 7). The same depth (0 to 45 cm) also showed the lowest variability across all sites during the postlast irrigation and spring redistribution sampling times (Figs. 10 and 11), although during these periods, sampling the entire soil column often showed more moisture with depth. Soil moisture around the emitter also suggests sampling point preferences. By the second irrigation event, and continuing throughout the rest of the experiment, vineyard site 2 showed a dry spot directly below the emitter (Figs. 9, 10, and 11). Vineyard 3 showed a dry location directly below the emitter in the 0- to 45-cm depths except after spring redistribution (Figs. 8, 9, and 10) and vineyard 1 showed a dry spot directly below the emitter after irrigation 2 (Fig. 9). This counterintuitively suggests that sampling below the emitter would indicate drier soil conditions than actually occur, possibly as a result of soil surface sealing (Hillel, 1998). Additionally, sampling directly beneath the drip line also may lead to misleading soil moisture measurements, particularly for in-season measurements. Vineyards 2 and 4 showed a greater occurrence of excessive soil moisture directly under the drip line during the growing season (Figs. 8 and 9). This could be the result of the influence of neighboring emitters or water traveling along a sagging drip line to pool between two emitters. The patterns of soil moisture from all events (in-season and pre- or postseason) suggest sampling or soil moisture monitoring devices should be located between 20 and 40 cm away from the emitter toward the interrow. Furthermore, the data showing vine-tovine variability suggest using the diagonal direction between the emitter and vine trunk (Figs. 2 and 3) as a sampling or monitoring location. Thus, the results from this research suggest that for soil moisture monitoring in dripirrigated wine grape grown under regulated deficit irrigation, a 0- to 45-cm sampling 234 HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008

depth collected in a 20- to 40-cm radius either diagonal or perpendicular to the drip emitter will best reflect the amount of plant-available soil water. Additionally, as a result of any undervine hills or other surface features, monitoring should be conducted on both sides of the row around each emitter selected and then averaged to best reflect drip water distribution in the soil. The data strongly suggest that spring soil moisture status reflects winter precipitation patterns rather than the end of-season irrigation application, suggesting a need to measure soil moisture status shortly before budbreak. The amount of soil moisture found was much lower than expected suggesting that plant water status should be monitored in concert with soil moisture to accurately direct drip irrigation applications in vineyards. Literature Cited Evans, R.G. 1993. Water use of Vitis vinifera grape in Washington. Agr. Water Mgt. 23:109 124. Gee, G.W. and D. Or. 2002. Particle-size analysis, p. 225 296. In: J.H. Dane and C.G. Topp (eds.). Methods of soil analysis. Part 4: Physical methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Press, Madison, WI. Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental soil physics. Academic Press, San Diego. Keller, M., L.J. Mills, R.L. Wample, and S.E. Spayd. 2004. Crop load management in Concord grapes using different pruning techniques. Amer. J. Enol. Vit. 55:35 50. Klein, I. 1983. Drip irrigation based on soil matric potential conserves water in peach and grape. HortScience. 18:942 944. Reichardt, K., J.C. Araújo Silva, L.H. Bassoi, L.C. Timm, J.C.M. Oliveira, O.O.S. Bacchi, and J.E. Pilotto. 2001. Soil spatial variability and the estimation of the irrigation water depth. Sci. Agr. 58:549 553. Rolston, D.E., J.W. Biggar, and H.I. Nighingale. 1991. Temporal persistence of spatial soilwater patterns under trickle irrigation. Irr. Sci. 12:181 186. Stevens, R.M. and T. Douglas. 1994. Distribution of grapevine roots and salt under drip and fullground cover microjet irrigation systems. Irr. Sci. 15:147 152. Stevens, R.M. and G. Harvey. 1996. Soil water depletion rates under large grapevines. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2:155 162. HORTSCIENCE VOL. 43(1) FEBRUARY 2008 235