HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Nadler, A. Articles by Green, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Nadler, A. Articles by Green, S. Agricola Articles by Nadler, A. Articles by Green, S. Related Collections Water Management Water Use Water Stress Water Content

Stress Induced Water Content Variations in Mango Stem by Time Domain Reflectometry

^a Institute of Soil, Water, and Environmental Sciences, ARO, Bet Dagan, 50250, Israel
^b Gilat Research Center, Mobile Post Negev, 85280, ARO, Ministry of Agriculture, State of Israel
^c Environmental Group, HortResearch, Private bag 11-030 Palmerston North, New Zealand

View larger version (187K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Two mango trees in 70-L perlite containers installed with time domain reflectometry (TDR) probes (indicated by the arrows).

View larger version (36K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. (A) Averaged perlite water content (perlite) and (B) perlite electrical conductivity (perlite), (C) averaged stem water content (stem) and (D) stem electrical conductivity (stem), of the two trees during experimental period (DOY 120–260), and of draining solution. Also shown are (E) stem and stem (Tree 1), and (F) the daily five-peak perlite and perlite of the deep (7) and the shallow (8) perlite probes. Dotted line indicates midnight salinization start.

View larger version (66K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Irrigation withholding tests: (A, B) Averaged stem and stem during a 1- and 2-d irrigation withholding under optimal irrigation conditions (DOY 160–175,), and 1- (DOY = 179–185, C, D) and (E,F) 2-d irrigation withholding (DOY 208–218) under water stress conditions. Horizontal arrows indicate timing and length of water withholding.

View larger version (31K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Two consecutive examples of a 4-h reaction time between following a manual water addition: A sharp increase in perlite (Probe 10, 200 mm) and stem by probes: 3, 17, and 18 (70-, 48-, and 29-mm long rods, respectively), during DOY 214. The right facing arrows are pointing to the timing of the manual water additions (214.33 and 214.58) and the left arrows face the dotted vertical lines indicating the start of stem probes response.

View larger version (67K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Salinity tests: (A and B) Tree 1 perlite shallow probe (#8, 200 mm) perlite and perlite and (C and E) Trees 1 and 2 (70 mm) averaged stem and stem during a salinizing-leaching cycle (maximal drainage = 5.2 dS m–1, DOY 136–157), and (D and F) during a second salinizing-leaching cycle (maximal drainage = 13.2 dS m–1, DOY 180–212). Boxed values indicate timing and irrigation.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. (A and B) Radiation prevention test on DOY 159: Trees 1 and 2 averaged stem and stem (70 mm) during DOY 156 to 163. Horizontal arrows indicate timing and length of radiation prevention period.

View larger version (35K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. (A and B) Fruit removal test: Trees 1 and 2 averaged stem and stem (50 mm) during DOY 217 to 254, and (C) averaged perlite and perlite of both trees (200 mm). Boxed text indicates fruit removal timing and amount: 1/3 and 2/3 of total yield on DOY 228 and 235, respectively.

View larger version (27K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Three patterns of stem daily cycles (Probe 1, 70 mm) during a salinization-leaching process.