Irrigation Science

, Volume 36, Issue 3, pp 179–186 | Cite as

Drip irrigation scheduling for container grown trees based on plant water status

  • J. A. Stoochnoff
  • T. Graham
  • M. A. Dixon
Original Paper


In typical ornamental nurseries, irrigation schedules are frequently established subjectively, often resulting in excessive water use and significant fertilizer leaching. Using stem psychrometers to directly measure plant water status (PWS), the relationship between water stress, prevailing environmental conditions, and species-specific stress-tolerance thresholds was characterized. Irrigation-scheduling based on predicted plant water status thresholds correlated to cumulative daily environmental conditions (i.e., cumulative vapour-pressure deficit) were tested on Serviceberry (Amelanchier laevis) grown in a drip irrigated pot-in-pot production system. Three irrigation treatments were applied: (1) conventional practice (control), (2) moderate restriction/stress, and (3) high restriction/stress. The moderate and high treatments reduced water consumption by 46 and 63%, respectively. Trees within the control and moderate irrigation treatments did not differ in stem caliper, while trees within the high stress treatment trees grew slower but otherwise appeared healthy. This study demonstrated that irrigation schedules based on predicted PWS thresholds significantly reduced water use without impacting plant growth and quality.



The entirety of this research was supported by several groups, many of which provided research funding and in kind contributions of resources and field site support. Contributions were made by Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food (Grant no. UoG2014-1886) and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), ICT International Pty. Ltd, Root Rescue Environmental Products Inc., Connon Nurseries CBV (Waterdown, ON), The Gosling Research Institute for Plant Preservation (GRIPP), Canadian Nursery Landscape Association (CNLA), and Landscape Ontario (LO).


  1. Ali MH (2010) Crop water requirement and irrigation scheduling. Fundamentals of irrigation an on farm water management: vol 1. Springer, New York, pp 399–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56, vol 300, no 9. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bastug R, Buyuktas D (2003) The effects of different irrigation levels applied in golf courses on some quality characteristics of turfgrass. Irrig Sci 22(2):87–93. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beeson RC, Arnold MA, Bilderback TE, Bolusky B, Chandler S, Gramling HM, Lea-Cox JD, Harris JR, Klinger PJ, Mathers HM, Ruter JM, Yeager TH (2004) Strategic vision of container nursery irrigation in the next 10 years. Environ Hortic 22:113–115Google Scholar
  5. Cayanan DF, Dixon MA, Zheng Y (2008) Development of an automated irrigation system using wireless technology and root zone environment sensors. Acta Hortic. Google Scholar
  6. Chappell M, Dove SK, van Iersel MW, Thomas PA, Ruter J (2013) Implementation of wireless sensor networks for irrigation control in three container nurseries. HortTechnology 23:747–753Google Scholar
  7. Deloitte and Touche LLP (2009) The impact of ornamental horticulture on Canada’s Economy. An economic and environmental impact assessment of the Canadian ornamental horticulture sector of production agriculture. Canadian Ornamental Horticultural Alliance Report January 2009Google Scholar
  8. Dixon MA, Tyree MT (1984) A new stem hygrometer, corrected for temperature gradients and calibrated against the pressure bomb. Plant Cell Environ 7(9):693–697. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ertek A (2011) Importance of pan evaporation for irrigation scheduling and proper use of crop-pan coefficient (Kcp), crop coefficient (Kc) and pan coefficient (Kp). Afr J Agric Res. Google Scholar
  10. Fare DC, Gilliam CH, Keever GJ (1992) Monitoring irrigation at container nurseries. Horttechnology 2:75–78Google Scholar
  11. Hirons AD, Elphinstone ED, Dodd IC, Davies WJ (2013) Improving water use efficiency in tree nurseries through deficit irrigation. Acta Hortic. Google Scholar
  12. Jones HG (2006) Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. J Exp Bot 58(2):119–130. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mouazen AM, Alhwaimel SA, Kuang B, Waine T (2014) Multiple on-line soil sensors and data fusion approach for delineation of water holding capacity zones for site specific irrigation. Soil Tillage Res 143:95–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oren R, Sperry JS, Katul GG, Pataki DE, Ewers BE, Phillips N, Schäfer KVR (1999) Survey and synthesis of intra- and interspecific variation in stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit. Plant Cell Environ 22(12):1515–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Owen J, Prehn A, Warren S, Bilderback T (2008) Comparing conventional to on-demand gravimetric based irrigation scheduling for containerized nursery crops. In: SNA research conference vol 53. Accessed 20 Nov 2017
  16. Sammons JD, Struve DK (2008) Monitoring effective container capacity: a method for reducing over-irrigation in container production systems. J Environ Hortic 26:19Google Scholar
  17. Tran N (2016) Irrigation scheduling based on cumulative vapour pressure deficit to predict nursery tree water stress. MSc Thesis, University of Guelph, Atrium.
  18. Tran N, Bam P, Black K, Downey A, Graham T, Zang P, Dixon MA (2015) Irrigation scheduling protocols for nursery trees based on cumulative water stress. Accessed 20 Nov 2017

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Controlled Environment Systems Research FacilityUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations