Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Optimizing drip fertigation management based on yield, quality, water and

fertilizer use efficiency of wine grape in North China
Weihua Han a, Jiaxing Sun a, Kui Zhang b, Lili Mao a, Lili Gao a, Xuemin Hou a, Ningbo Cui c,
Wenhuai Kang b, Daozhi Gong a, *
a
Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, PR China
b
College of Food Science and Biology, Hebei University of Science and Technology, Shijiazhuang, Hebei 050018, PR China
c
College of Water Resource and Hydropower, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan 610041, PR China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor - Dr Z. Xiying Drip fertigation is an advanced technology combining micro-irrigation with fertilization, which is conducive to
deliver water and nutrients to crops or fruit trees synchronously. To optimize drip fertigation scheduling for wine
Keywords: grape in North China, a three-year field experiment was conducted to study the effects of irrigation and fertil­
Irrigation level ization quota on yield, berry quality, water use efficiency (WUE) and partial factor productivity of fertilizer
Fertilization rate
(PFPF). Nine treatments were set up based on the combinations of three irrigation levels and three fertilization
Water use efficiency
rates. The three irrigation levels were 100 % (IH), 80 % (IM) and 60 % (IL) of the designed irrigation quota, i.e.,
Partial factor productivity of fertilizer
Comprehensive evaluation 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event. The three fertilization rates were 100 % (FH), 80 % (FM) and 60 % (FL) of
the compound water-soluble fertilizer amount locally recommended, i.e., 630, 504 and 378 kg ha− 1 yr− 1. Both
irrigation and fertilization had a significant effect on yield. Irrigation also significantly affected titratable acid
and sugar-acid ratio. Averaged across the years and fertilization rates, compared with IH treatment, IM treatment
decreased titratable acid by 3.3 % and increased sugar-acid ratio by 12.2 %; IL treatment decreased titratable acid
by 10.7 % and increased sugar-acid ratio by 20.0 %. FM treatment presented the richest anthocyanins and
condensed tannins among the three fertilizer rates. IWUE was significantly increased with the decrease of irri­
gation amounts; WUE and PFPF reached the maximum in IM treatment. The decrease of fertilizer rates signifi­
cantly increased PFPF but was not beneficial for WUE. Interaction effects between irrigation and fertilization
were only significant on PFPF. Assessed by gray relational analysis (GRA), technique for order preference by
similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and combinational evaluation method (CEM), the combinational evaluation
value (Qi) of IMFM treatment (moderate water and fertilizer, 20 mm per irrigation event combined with 504 kg
ha− 1 yr− 1 compound water-soluble fertilizer) was the highest on the whole, indicating that IMFM treatment was
the optimal treatment which could balance yield, quality and water-fertilizer use efficiency. These results may
provide a benchmark for wine grape cultivation under drip fertigation in North China and other regions with
similar environmental conditions.

1. Introduction fertilizer use efficiency as well as result in waste of resources and

Wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) is a perennial crop widely grown all over
the world. In recent years, wine grape growing is expanding rapidly in
China and most growing regions are located in the north and northwest
China, in the vicinity of 38◦ N (Liang et al., 2014). However, the limited
water resource in these regions restricts the sustainable development of
a wine grape industry. Additionally, local farmers lack efficient field
water and fertilizer management strategies, which lower water and
pollution of water resource (Wang et al., 2021a).
Water is one of the most critical factors determining vineyard per­
formance (Sebastian et al., 2015). Many scholars have reported the ef­
fects of irrigation on vine growth. Intrigliolo et al. (2016) reported that
compared with rainfed vines, irrigation with 50 % of the estimated
evapotranspiration demand during post-veraison could increase yield by
30 %. Kyraleou et al. (2016) showed that phenolic compounds in seed
and skin were richer in full and deficit irrigated vines than those in non

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gongdaozhi@caas.cn (D. Gong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108188
Received 28 September 2022; Received in revised form 17 December 2022; Accepted 22 January 2023
Available online 10 February 2023
0378-3774/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
W. Han et al.
irrigated ones. However, excessive irrigation will be adverse, for it
causes vigorous vegetative growth and denser canopies, which can not
only increase canopy management practices but also influence berry
exposure and thereby lower berry quality (Chaves et al., 2007;
Dokoozlian and Kliewer, 1996; Munitz et al., 2017). Conversely, deficit
irrigation, if properly implemented, is helpful to achieve a balance be­
tween vegetative and reproductive growth of vines, maintain yield and
improve berry quality (Chaves et al., 2007; Munitz et al., 2017), such as
increasing total soluble solids and reducing sugars, polyphenols, and
anthocyanins (Basile et al., 2011; Ju et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020). In
addition, deficit irrigation also enhances water use efficiency signifi­
cantly (Collins et al., 2010). Santos et al. (2007) concluded that 50 % of
the crop evapotranspiration from fruit set to three weeks before harvest
was sufficient to maintain the ‘Moscatel’ yield potential, with doubled
water use efficiency.
Fertilizer is also an important factor affecting the yield and quality of
wine grapes. In some vineyards with sandy soils, it is imperative to
supply mineral nitrogen at optimal rates to guarantee the vine yield due
to limited organic matter and low nitrogen availability (Brunetto et al.,
2016; Stefanello et al., 2020a). Nitrogen requirements of vines are
commonly about 40–80 kg ha− 1 a− 1 (Lang et al., 2018). Excessive ni­
trogen induces redundant vegetative growth and unbalanced
sink-source ratio, affecting sugar translocation and thus decreasing
anthocyanin accumulation, which results in poorly colored berries (Lang
et al., 2018; Stefanello et al., 2021). Effects of phosphorous and potas­
sium on wine grapes were also reported. Schreiner et al. (2013) found
that low phosphorous and low potassium supply did not alter vine
growth or yield. Davies et al. (2004) reported that excessive potassium
decreased the free acid and led to a pH increase in berries. However,
Ciotta et al. (2021) reported that potassium application did not have
effects on must composition, including total soluble solids, pH and total
titratable acidity.
Previous studies have focused largely on the effects of single irriga­
tion and fertilization on yield and quality of wine grape. Studies on the
influences of water and fertilizer coupling are still scarce. However,
irrigation and fertilizer need to be managed synchronously in practical
farming. Drip fertigation is an advanced technology combining micro-
irrigation with fertilization, which can directly deliver water and nu­
trients to crop roots (Li et al., 2021). This technology provides conve­
nience for studying the effects of water and fertilizer coupling. Recently,
Walker et al. (2021) reported the influences of water and fertilizer
treatments on vine vegetative growth, yield, and grape composition
through drip fertigation, showing that the effects were marginal,
inconsistent, and largely affected by climatic conditions. For wine grape
cultivation, multi-objective optimization of yield, berry quality and
environmental benefits is essential. Therefore, the objectives of this
study were: (1) to quantify the coupling effects of different irrigation and
fertilization amounts on yield, berry quality, water use efficiency (WUE)
and partial factor productivity of fertilizer (PFPF); (2) to develop an
optimal irrigation and fertilization management strategy based on a
multi-criteria optimization using different evaluation methods, such as
gray relational analysis (GRA), technique for order preference by simi­
larity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and combinational evaluation method
(CEM).
2. Material and methods
2.1. Site description
The experiment was conducted at the Scientific Observation and
Experiment Station of China Major Science and Technology Program for
Water Pollution Control and Treatment, located in Xuanhua District,
Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province, China (N 40.64◦ , E 114.90◦ , 655 m
above sea level) (Fig. S1). The regional climate is semiarid continental
monsoon climate with annual mean precipitation of 381.1 mm and
annual mean air temperature of 7.6 ◦ C. The frost-free period is about 135
2
Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188
d, with annual mean sunshine of 2693 h. The soil at the experimental
site is sandy loam. The main physical and chemical properties of the
0–60 cm soil layer are shown in Table 1. The vines (cv. Cabernet Sau­
vignon) in the vineyard were transplanted in 2010 with a density of
7142 plants per hectare (2.8 m between rows and 0.5 m between plants).
2.2. Experimental design
The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design in randomized
blocks with three replications during April 2019 to October 2021. The
main plots were three fertilization rates and the sub plots were three
irrigation levels. The area of each plot was 420 m2 (50 m by 8.4 m). Each
plot consisted of three rows and the vines in the central row were used
for the further measurements. The three fertilization rates were 100 %,
80 % and 60 % of the amounts locally recommended, i.e., 630, 504 and
378 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, named as FH, FM and FL, respectively. Two kinds of
compound water-soluble fertilizers [17–17–17 (N, 17 %; P2O5, 17 %;
K2O, 17 %) and 10–4–36 (N, 10 %; P2O5, 4 %; K2O, 36 %) (Kingenta
Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences Co. Ltd., Shandong, China)]
were applied. Fertilizer 17–17–17 was applied before blooming, and
17–17–17 and 10–4–36 were alternately applied after blooming. The
irrigation levels were 100 %, 80 % and 60 % of the designed irrigation
quota, i.e., 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, named as IH, IM and IL,
respectively. The treatments began with new shoot growth period and
ended three weeks before harvest. Irrigation was carried out according
to the irrigation habits of local farmers as well as precipitation events.
Details of irrigation and fertilization are shown in Fig. S2. Drip irrigation
strips were laid along each row of vines. The diameter of the drip strips
was 16 mm and the distance between emitters was 0.3 m. The flow rate
of the emitter was 2.0 L h− 1. An independent fertigation system with
water meter was installed in each plot to control the specific irrigation
and fertilization. The control units are presented in Fig. S3.
2.3. Measurements and calculations
2.3.1. Meteorological data
The meteorological data including solar radiation, air temperature,
and precipitation during the trial were collected with an automatic
weather station (Rainroot Scientific Co. Ltd., China) located in the
center of the vineyard.
2.3.2. Transpiration
The sap flow was measured based on the thermal diffusion principle
(Granier, 1987). A pair of cylindrical probes with the length of 10 mm
and the diameter of 2 mm (Rainroot Scientific Co. Ltd., China) were
radially installed into the grapevine stem and wrapped with radiation
protection shield to avoid the temperature changes in the sapwood. The
temperature difference was sampled once per minute and 10-min av­
erages were collected using a data logger (CR3000, Campbell Scientific
Inc., Logan, UT, USA).
The sap flux density (Fd , g m− 2 s− 1) was calculated as follows (Gra­
nier, 1987):
ΔTm − ΔT 1.231
Fd = 119( )
ΔT
where ΔT is the temperature difference between the two probes; ΔTm is
the maximum temperature difference.
The transpiration rate (Tr , mm h− 1) was calculated as follows
(Poblete-Echeverría et al., 2012; Qiu et al., 2020):
Fd × As × 3.6
Tr =
Ag
where As is the sapwood area (m2); Ag is the ground area of each
grapevine (m2).
The sapwood area (As , m2) was calculated as follows (Braun and
W. Han et al. Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

Table 1
Main physical and chemical properties of the 0–60 cm soil.
Soil Texture Particle mass fraction Field Bulk Total Total Total Alkaline Available Available Organic pH
depth (%) capacity density N P K hydrolyzed N P K matter
(cm) (%) (g cm− 3) (g (g (g (mg kg− 1) (mg kg− 1) (mg kg− 1) (g kg− 1)
Clay Silt Sand
kg− 1) kg− 1) kg− 1)

0–20 sandy 2.26 27.08 70.67 28.28 1.54 0.43 1.26 15.40 48.40 84.80 230.33 5.06 7.90
loam
20–40 sandy 2.76 34.58 62.66 23.11 1.62 0.43 0.68 14.20 24.70 21.10 177.48 4.54 7.96
loam
40–60 loamy 1.36 18.16 80.48 31.21 1.52 0.33 0.63 15.20 27.60 20.20 166.13 3.45 8.02
sand

Schmid, 1999): total fertilization amount (kg ha− 1), respectively, during the grape
6
growth season.
As = ( − 672 + 23.4dmin + 25.1dmax ) × 10−
2.3.6. Multi-criteria comprehensive evaluation
where dmin is the minimum diameter (mm) and dmax is the maximum
Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was employed to give the weight to
diameter (mm).
each evaluation parameter (Wang et al., 2021b). Gray relational analysis
The daily transpiration (T, mm day− 1) of each vine was calculated
(GRA), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution
by:
(TOPSIS) and combinational evaluation method (CEM) were used for
∑144
Tri multi-criteria comprehensive evaluation of different treatments based
T = i=1 on yield, berry quality and water-fertilizer use efficiency.
6

2.3.3. The concentration of chlorophyll (SPAD) 2.3.6.1. The procedures for GRA were as follows (Wang and Rangaiah,
The concentration of chlorophyll in expanded median leaves was 2017).
estimated with SPAD-502 (Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan) on
30, 60 and 90 days after anthesis in 2020 and 2021. Five vines were (i) Construction of the original matrix X.
chosen in each plot and five points per leaf were measured per vine. ⎡ ⎤
x11 x12 ⋯ x1m
⎢ x21 x22 ⋯ x2m ⎥
2.3.4. Yield and berry quality X = (xij ) = ⎢
⎣ ⋮
⎥
⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦
At the ripening stage, all the berries on each vine in each plot were xn1 xn2 ⋯ xnm
harvested and weighed using a scale, then converted into hectare yield.
Ten fully mature clusters from 10 vines (one cluster per vine) per plot where xij (i = 1, 2, ..., n; j = 1, 2, ..., m) is the jth index (yield,
were harvested for berry quality determination. Total soluble sugars total soluble sugars, titratable acid, sugar-acid ratio, total poly­
were measured using 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetry according to phenols, anthocyanins, condensed tannins, WUE, PFPF) of the ith
the Chinese Agricultural Industry Standard NY/T 2742–2015 (Ministry treatment. In this study, n = 9, and m= 9.
of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China, 2015). Titratable acid
was determined through indicator titration (Uriarte et al., 2016).
(ii) Standardization of the evaluation indices.
Sugar-acid ratio was calculated by soluble sugars and titratable acid (Liu
For positive indices, the following formula was used:
et al., 2021). Only berry peel was used for the determination of total
polyphenols, anthocyanins and condensed tannins. Total polyphenols ′ xij − min(x1j , x2j , …, xij )
xij =
were determined by Folin-Ciocalteu method (Singleton and Rossi, max(x1j , x2j , …, xij ) − min(x1j , x2j , …, xij )
1965). Anthocyanins were determined using pH differential method
(Giusti and Wrolstad, 2001). Condensed tannins were estimated using
For negative indices, the following formula was used:
vanillin-HCl method (Muchuweti et al., 2005).
′ max(x1j , x2j , …, xij ) − xij
xij =
2.3.5. Water consumption (ET), irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE), max(x1j , x2j , …, xij ) − min(x1j , x2j , …, xij )
water use efficiency (WUE) and partial factor productivity of fertilizer
(PFPF)
ET was calculated as follows:
(iii) Determination of the reference sequence X0 .
′

ET = P + I + U − R − D − ΔW
′ ′ ′ ′
X 0 = (x01 , x02 , …, x0m )
where P is the effective precipitation (mm), I is the irrigation amount
(mm), U is the groundwater recharge (mm), R is the surface runoff
where x0j (j = 1, 2, ..., m) is the maximum of the jth index in all
′

(mm), D is the deep drainage (mm), ΔW is the change of soil water

storage (mm). In our study, the groundwater table at the experimental the treatments.
site is below 80 m, so U was assumed to be zero. For drip irrigation and
low irrigation quota, R and D were ignored. (iv) Calculation of gray relational coefficient ξij .
IWUE (kg m− 3), WUE (kg m− 3) and PFPF (kg kg− 1) were calculated ′ ′ ′ ′
minmin|xij − x0j | + ρmaxmax|xij − x0j |
as follows: i j i j
ξij =
IWUE=Y/I.
′ ′ ′ ′
|xij − x0j | + ρmaxmax|xij − x0j |
i j
WUE=Y/(ET×10).
PFPF=Y/F. where ρ is distinguishing coefficient, ρ∈[0,1]. In this study ρ is
where Y is the berry yield (kg ha− 1); I, ET and F are the total irri­ 0.5.
gation amount (m3 ha− 1), the total water consumption (mm) and the

3
W. Han et al. Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

⎡ ⎤
z11 z12 ⋯ z1m
(v) Calculation of the gray relational grade R∗i . ⎢ z21
⎢
Z = (zij ) = ⎣
z22 ⋯ z2m ⎥
⎥
∑m ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦
R∗i = j=1
wj ξij zn1 zn2 ⋯ znm

where wj is the weight of each evaluation index, which comes from AHP where zij (i = 1, 2, ..., n; j = 1, 2, ..., m) is the value (R∗i and Ci ) of
method. the ith treatment using the jth evaluation method. In this study,
n = 9, and m= 2.
2.3.6.2. The steps for TOPSIS were as follows (Wang and Rangaiah,
2017). (ii) Spearman correlational analysis between the rank of each eval­
uation index and the comprehensive rank of each treatment.
(i) Construction of the original matrix X (see the procedures for GRA
analysis). (iii) Calculation of the weight wj of each evaluation method.
′

ρj
(ii) Standardization of the evaluation indices (see the procedures for
′
wj = ∑m
ρ
GRA analysis). j=1 j

where ρj (j = 1, 2, …, m) is the sum of the Spearman correlation

(iii) Normalization of the evaluation indices. coefficient of the jth evaluation method.
′
xij
rij = √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑ ′2 (iv) Calculation of the combinational evaluation value Qi .
xij
∑m ′
Qi = w zij
j=1 j

2.4. Data analysis

(iv) Construction of the weighted normalized matrix F.
⎡ ⎤
r11 w1 r12 w2 ⋯ r1m wm Analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effects of different
⎢ r21 w1 r22 w2 ⋯ r2m wm ⎥ irrigation levels and fertilization rates on yield, berry quality, WUE and
F = (fij ) = ⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ ⎦ PFPF. Duncan’s multiple-range test was employed to detect significance
rn1 w1 rn2 w2 ⋯ rnm wm of differences at 95% confidence level (P < 0.05). Statistical analysis
and comprehensive evaluation (GRA, TOPSIS and CEM) were accom­
where wj is the weight of each evaluation index, which comes plished with SAS and Microsoft Excel, respectively.
from AHP method.
3. Results
(v) Determination of the positive ideal solution A+ and the negative
ideal solution A− . 3.1. Meteorological data
A = +
(f + + +
1 , f 2 , …, f m )
The meteorological data during the three growth seasons are dis­
A− = (f −1 , f −2 , …, f −m ) played in Fig. S4. The average solar radiation from budbreak to harvest
was 237.95 W m− 2, 222.43 W m− 2 and 210.87 W m− 2 in 2019, 2020
where f + and 2021, respectively. The hottest year was 2019 among three years,
j (j = 1, 2, ..., m) is the maximum of the jth index in all
and its accumulated value of growing degree-days (GDD) from budbreak
the treatments; f −j (j = 1, 2, ..., m) is the minimum of the jth index
to harvest was 129.3 ◦ C and 161.1 ◦ C higher than that in 2020 and 2021,
in all the treatments.
respectively. Precipitation showed ample fluctuations from budbreak to
harvest ranging from a minimum of 235.6 mm in 2021 to a maximum of
(vi) Calculation the distances for each solution to the positive ideal 406.0 mm in 2020.
solution and the negative ideal solution.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑m 2 3.2. Effects of irrigation on transpiration and effects of fertilization on
D+i = (fij − f + j )
j=1 SPAD
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
∑m
D−i = (fij − f −j )2 When averaged across the fertilization rates, the total transpiration
during the whole growth stage was in the range of 231.77–279.06 mm,
j=1

195.46–245.53 mm and 154.80–223.86 mm in 2019, 2020 and 2021,

respectively. The proportions of transpiration at different stages were
different, 34.2–41.7 % for berry growth stage, 33.1–39.5 % for berry
(vii) Calculation of the relative closeness Ci .
veraison stage, 13.4–20.9 % for shoot growth stage and only 5.0–11.8 %
D−i for anthesis stage. Overall, there was a tendency that transpiration was
Ci =
D+
i + D−i higher in IH treatment than that in IM and IL treatments (Fig. 1).
Compared with IH treatment, IM treatment decreased total transpiration
2.3.6.3. The processes for CEM were as follows (Li et al., 2021). by 20.7 % at berry veraison stage in 2019; IL treatment decreased total
transpiration by 27.4 % at berry veraison stage in 2019, 39.6 % at shoot
(i) Construction of the original matrix Z. growth stage in 2020, as well as 57.3 %, 30.9 % and 28.4 % at anthesis
stage, berry growth stage and berry veraison stage in 2021, respectively,
showing significant differences from IH treatment (Fig. 1).
When averaged across the irrigation levels on each date in 2020 and

4
W. Han et al. Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

Fig. 1. Effects of different irrigation treatments on transpiration at different growth stages.

Note: IH, IM and IL are 100%, 80% and 60% of the designed irrigation quota, i.e. 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, respectively. SGS, shoot growth stage, 32–37
days; AS, anthesis stage, 13–15 days; BGS, berry growth stage, 54–61 days; BVS, berry veraison stage, 53–58 days. The different letters within a growth stage in each
year indicate significant differences at P = 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple-range test.

2021, SPAD values were always decreased as the fertilization amounts
were reduced. At 30 and 60 days after anthesis in 2020 as well as 60 and
90 days after anthesis in 2021, significant differences were found among
different fertilization treatments (Fig. 2).
3.3. Effects of irrigation and fertilization on grape yield and berry quality
condensed tannins. Averaged across the years and irrigation levels, FM
treatment presented the highest anthocyanins (4.66 mg g− 1) and
condensed tannins (3.19 mg g− 1) compared with FH and FL treatments,
while the differences between FH treatment and FL treatment were not
significant. The interaction effects between irrigation and fertilization
did not significantly affect yield and berry quality (Table 2).

Effects of irrigation and fertilization on yield and quality of wine
grape are shown in Table 2. Grape yield was significantly affected by
years, and ranged from 8765 to 9793 kg ha− 1 across the different years.
Both irrigation levels and fertilization rates had a significant effect on
grape yield. Averaged across the years and fertilization rates, compared
with IH treatment, IM treatment increased the yield by 6.0 %, and IL
treatment decreased the yield by 9.4 %. Averaged across the years and
irrigation levels, compared with FH treatment, FM treatment did not
significantly affect the yield, but FL treatment decreased the yield by
10.3 % (Table 2).
Years significantly affected all berry quality parameters. Irrigation
levels significantly affected titratable acid and sugar-acid, ranging from
0.574 % to 0.643 % and from 24.78 to 29.73 across the different irri­
gation levels, respectively. Averaged across the years and fertilization
rates, compared with IH treatment, IM and IL treatments decreased
titratable acid by 3.3 % and 10.7 %, respectively; IM and IL treatments
increased sugar-acid ratio by 12.2 % and 20.0 %, respectively. For sol­
uble sugars, total polyphenols, anthocyanins and condensed tannins, no
significant differences were observed among irrigation levels. Fertil­
ization rates had a significant effect only on anthocyanins and
3.4. Effects of irrigation and fertilization on ET, IWUE, WUE and PFPF
ET was analyzed by averaging the data of different fertilizer treat­
ments within each irrigation treatment. IM and IL treatments signifi­
cantly decreased ET compared with IH treatment during the three
seasons, with a decrease of 10.2–15.4 % and 17.1–27.9 %, respectively
(Fig. 3).
Years had a significant effect on IWUE and WUE, but not on PFPF.
IWUE ranged from 4.88 to 6.46 kg m− 3 across the different years, and
the maximum value was found in 2020. WUE showed a small variation
in the range of 2.23–2.50 kg m− 3 from year to year, and the greatest
value was observed in 2021 (Table 3). Irrigation levels had a significant
effect on IWUE and WUE. Averaged across the years and fertilization
rates, compared with IH treatment, IM treatment increased the IWUE and
WUE by 33.1 % and 20.5 %, respectively; IL treatment increased the
IWUE and WUE by 50.3 % and 13.8 %, respectively (Table 3). Irrigation
levels also significantly affected PFPF. Compared with IH treatment, IM
treatment increased the PFPF by 7.0 %, while IL treatment decreased the
PFPF by 9.0 % (Table 3). The effects of fertilization rates were significant
on IWUE but not on WUE. Compared with FH treatment, FM treatment

Fig. 2. Effects of different fertilization treatments on SPAD after anthesis.

Note: FH, FM and FL are 100%, 80% and 60% of the amounts locally recommended, i.e. 630, 504 and 378 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, respectively. DAA, days after anthesis. The
different letters within a date in each year indicate significant differences at P = 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple-range test.

5
W. Han et al. Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

Table 2
Main effects of year, irrigation and fertilization on yield and quality of wine grape and analysis of variance.
Treatments Yield Soluble sugars Titratable acid Sugar-acid ratio Total polyphenols Anthocyanins Condensed tannins
(kg ha− 1) (%) (%) (mg g− 1) (mg g− 1) (mg g− 1)

Year
2019 9793a 17.25a 0.514c 33.98a 50.06a 6.07a 3.40a
2020 8765b 12.11b 0.714a 17.03b 46.40a 4.43b 3.36a
2021 9385ab 18.94a 0.610b 31.30a 15.22b 2.55c 2.63b
Irrigation
IH 9422b 15.51a 0.643a 24.78b 37.74a 4.26a 3.12a
IM 9986a 16.50a 0.622b 27.81a 37.57a 4.46a 3.13a
IL 8534c 16.29a 0.574c 29.73a 36.37a 4.32a 3.14a
Fertilization
FH 9637a 16.06a 0.626a 26.88a 37.67a 4.07b 3.11b
FM 9664a 15.99a 0.603a 27.77a 38.19a 4.66a 3.19a
FL 8641b 16.25a 0.609a 27.67a 35.82a 4.32ab 3.09b
ANOVA
Y * ** ** ** ** ** **
I ** ns ** ** ns ns ns
F ** ns ns ns ns * *
Y*I * ns ** ns ns * ns
Y*F ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
I*F ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
Y*I*F ns ns ns ns ns ns ns

Note: IH, IM and IL are 100 %, 80 % and 60 % of the designed irrigation quota, i.e., 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, respectively. FH, FM and FL are 100 %, 80 %
and 60 % of the amounts locally recommended, i.e. 630, 504 and 378 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, respectively. The different letters within a column in each factor indicate significant
differences at P = 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple-range test. ns means differences are not significant (P > 0.05). * means differences are significant at the 0.05
level (P < 0.05). ** means differences are significant at the 0.01 level (P < 0.01).

Fig. 3. Water balance data in different irrigation treatments.

Note: IH, IM and IL are 100 %, 80 % and 60 % of the designed irrigation quota, i.e., 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, respectively. Soil water change is the soil
water content at the end of the growing season minus that at the start of the growing season.

hardly affected the IWUE, and FL treatment decreased the IWUE by
10.3% (Table 3). Fertilization rates significantly increased PFPF up to
22.86 kg kg− 1 with the decreasing fertilization rates. Averaged across
the years and irrigation levels, compared with FH treatment, FM and FL
treatments increased the PFPF by 25.4 % and 49.4 %, respectively
(Table 3). The interaction between irrigation levels and fertilization
rates did not significantly affect IWUE and WUE, but had a significant
effect on PFPF (Table 3). PFPF lay in the range of 13.75–27.53,
13.52–24.86 and 15.10–24.37 kg kg− 1 in 2019, 2020 and 2021,
respectively. The highest PFPF was always observed in IMFL treatment,
while the lowest was always found in ILFH treatment in the three years
(Table S1).
3.5. Comprehensive evaluation of different treatments with GRA, TOPSIS
and CEM
The weight of each evaluation parameter was calculated through
AHP (Table S2). GRA, TOPSIS and CEM were used to identify the
optimal treatment and the results are shown in Table 4. In the case of
CEM, in 2019, 2020 and 2021, the top three treatments were IMFM
> ILFM > IMFH, IMFM > IMFH > IMFL and IMFH > IHFM > IMFM, respec­
tively. When averaged across the three years, the top three treatments
were IMFM > IMFH > IHFM. Overall, IMFM treatment was the best treat­
ment, which can best balance the yield, berry quality, WUE and PFPF,
but IHFH was the poorest treatment.
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of irrigation on transpiration and effects of fertilization on
SPAD
The transpiration showed a clear stage pattern in each of the three
years. The total transpiration during berry growth stage was the largest,
followed by berry veraison stage, and then shoot growing stage, and
finally anthesis stage (Fig. 1). This trend can be explained by duration of
each stage (about 35, 15, 55 and 55 days for shoot growth stage, anthesis
stage, berry growth stage and berry veraison stage, respectively),
grapevine growth status and seasonal air temperature change. Besides
plant physiological factors and meteorological conditions, plant tran­
spiration depends on soil water availability (Wang et al., 2021). Our

6
W. Han et al. Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188

Table 3

Note: IH, IM and IL are 100 %, 80 % and 60 % of the designed irrigation quota, i.e., 25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, respectively. FH, FM and FL are 100 %, 80 % and 60 % of the amounts locally recommended, i.e.,
Three-year average
Main effects of year, irrigation and fertilization on irrigation water use effi­
ciency, water use efficiency and partial factor productivity of fertilizer and
analysis of variance.

Comprehensive evaluation of different treatments with gray relational analysis (GRA), technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) and combinational evaluation method (CEM).
Treatments Irrigation water use Water use Partial factor

Rank
efficiency efficiency productivity of fertilizer
(kg m− 3) (kg m− 3) (kg kg− 1)

7
3
9
2
1
4
6
5
8
Year
2019 6.32a 2.23b 20.05a
2020 6.46a 2.27b 17.96b

Rank
2021 4.88b 2.50a 19.32ab

8
2
7
1
3
6
4
5
9
Irrigation
IH 4.61c 2.10c 19.24b

0.429
0.632
0.437
0.670
0.618
0.458
0.599
0.562
0.406
CEM
IM 6.13b 2.53a 20.59a

Qi
IL 6.92a 2.38b 17.51c
Fertilization

Rank
FH 6.09a 2.40a 15.30c
FM 6.11a 2.38a 19.18b

6
2
8
1
3
7
5
4
9
FL 5.46b 2.22b 22.86a
ANOVA

TOPSIS

0.427
0.644
0.330
0.710
0.588
0.388
0.462
0.486
0.287
Y ** * ns

Ci
I ** ** **
F ** ns **
Y*I ns ** *

Rank
Y*F ns ns ns

9
4
6
2
3
7
1
5
8
I*F ns ns **
Y*I*F ns ns ns

0.430
0.625
0.500
0.645
0.635
0.500
0.680
0.606
0.477
2021

GRA
Ri *
Note: IH, IM and IL are 100%, 80% and 60% of the designed irrigation quota, i.e.,
25, 20 and 15 mm per irrigation event, respectively. FH, FM and FL are 100 %, 80
% and 60 % of the amounts locally recommended, i.e., 630, 504 and 378 kg ha− 1
yr− 1, respectively. The different letters within a column in each factor indicate

Rank
significant differences at P = 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple-range test. ns

5
4
8
2
1
3
6
9
7
means differences are not significant (P > 0.05). * means differences are sig­
nificant at the 0.05 level (P < 0.05). ** means differences are significant at the

0.484
0.596
0.392
0.715
0.819
0.686
0.405
0.368
0.404
CEM
0.01 level (P < 0.01).

Qi
study demonstrated that the transpiration in IM and IL treatments were
Rank
lower than in IH treatments for the most part (Fig. 1). This result is
5
4
7
3
1
2
6
9
8
mainly because deficit irrigation causes decline in stomatal conductance
TOPSIS

and transpiration rate (Kovalenko et al., 2021). Roccuzzo et al. (2014)

0.473
0.600
0.349
0.690
0.825
0.692
0.371
0.301
0.325
reported that deficit-irrigated citrus trees reduced the transpiration rate
Ci

by up to 60% compared with those full-irrigated at the peak of water

stress.
Rank

Leaf chlorophyll concentration reflects plant nitrogen status and soil

5
4
9
2
1
3
7
8
nitrogen availability (Taskos et al., 2015; Treder et al., 2022). In our 6
0.495
0.591
0.435
0.741
0.813
0.681
0.440
0.436
0.482
2020

study SPAD readings varied with the grapevine growth or the sampling
GRA
Ri*

time, which was probably related to continual chlorophyll synthesis

(30–60 days after anthesis in 2021 in Fig. 2) and nitrogen translocation
from aged leaves to younger organs (60–90 days after anthesis in 2020
in Fig. 2) (Taskos et al., 2015). In addition, overall, the increments of
Rank

fertilizer increased the SPAD readings (Fig. 2). Similar responses were
4
6
9
3
1
5
7
2
8

previously presented in the study by Brunetto et al. (2012) and Taskos

0.572
0.546
0.370
0.575
0.794
0.559
0.510
0.599
0.478
CEM

et al. (2015).
Qi
Rank

4.2. Effects of irrigation and fertilization on grape yield and berry quality
4
3
9
5
1
6
7
2
8

630, 504 and 378 kg ha− 1 yr− 1, respectively.

In the present study, irrigation levels had a significant effect on grape

TOPSIS

0.549
0.552
0.324
0.548
0.808
0.540
0.469
0.590
0.415

yield (Table 2). Full irrigation prior to veraison may result in excessive
Ci

shoot growth (Wample and Smithyman, 2002), while deficit irrigation

before veraison could regulate shoot growth, promote an accumulation
Rank

of carbohydrates reserves and improve berry development (Conesa

4
8
9
2
1
5
6
3
7

et al., 2022). This may explain why IM treatment increased the grape
yield potential compared with IH treatment (Table 2). In our study, when
0.604
0.539
0.431
0.612
0.775
0.584
0.566
0.611
0.564
2019

GRA

averaged across the years and fertilization rates, IL treatment decreased

Ri *

the grape yield by 9.4 % compared with IH treatment (Table 2). This is
similar to the study by Pech et al. (2008) who found sustained deficit
Treatments

FM

FM

FM
FH

FH

FH
FL

FL

FL

irrigation with 50 % of the water given to control vines reduced the

Table 4

grape yield by 9–31 %. The grape yield losses were partly due to the
IM
IH

IL

berry mass reduction which was caused by the inhibition of cell

7
W. Han et al.
expansion and the diminution of inner mesocarp cell sap (Torres et al.,
2021). Additionally, severe deficit irrigation reportedly allocated more
assimilate towards root, reduced total leaf area, decreased fruit load,
and then lowered grape yield (Niculcea et al., 2015; Romero et al.,
2016).
Adequate nitrogen is necessary for inflorescence primordium for­
mation and flower differentiation (Baldi et al., 2017). Therefore, nitro­
gen stress reduces bud fertility and berry number per bunch, and then
grape yield of the current and next season (Guilpart et al., 2014).
Moreover, nitrogen stress tends to affect photosynthesis due to lower
ribulose-1, 5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (Rubisco) production
as well as chlorophyll content, which also decreases yield (Stefanello
et al., 2020b, 2021). Possibly for these facts, FL treatment significantly
decreased grape yield, with the lowest yield among the three fertilizer
treatments in our study (Table 2). Furthermore, our results showed that
the difference in grape yield between FH treatment and FM treatment
was not significant (Table 2). Bell and Henschke (2005) pointed out that
further addition of nitrogen does not increase or even lowers the grape
yield when the nitrogen status of vines is adequate, because with the
increasing nitrogen doses, a transition of sink-source ratio (vegeta­
tive-generative growth ratio) will happen and more photosyntates
remain in the leaves, finally affecting berry yield (Lang et al., 2018).
The main objective of manipulating irrigation in vineyards is to
improve berry quality. Previous literature showed that deficit irrigation
increased soluble solids and soluble sugars (Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2010;
Ju et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020), which is similar to our observation in
2019 and 2021 in spite of a smaller increase (Table S1). The increased
sugar contents are likely caused by some up-regulated sugar unloading
genes and these up-regulated genes will lead to an accumulation of
glucose in the berries (Yang et al., 2020). Our study also demonstrated
that deficit irrigation treatments decreased titratable acid (Table 2), in
agreement with the studies by Duan et al. (2021) and Santesteban et al.
(2011). This result could be attributed to the reduction of malic acid
(Koundouras et al., 2006), because deficit irrigation could lead to a
decreased transpiration and then elevated canopy temperature, which
promotes the enzyme activity favorable for the malic acid degradation
to glucose (Kizildeniz et al., 2015). For the reason of increased sugars as
well as decreased titratable acid, sugar-acid ratio was markedly
increased under IM and IL treatments compared with IH treatment
(Table 2). For total polyphenols, anthocyanins and tannins, some studies
suggest that deficit irrigation increases their contents significantly
(Duan et al., 2021; Ju et al., 2019; Lizama et al., 2021), and two main
mechanisms are involved, an indirect effect dependent on the higher
skin/pulp ratio in smaller berries (a concentration effect) and a direct
effect due to genetic and metabolic change (Ojeda et al., 2002; Poni
et al., 2018). However, consistent with our results (Table 2), Koundouras
et al. (2009) found that skin total polyphenols, anthocyanins and tannins
were not significantly affected by deficit irrigation with 50 % of
evapotranspiration demand compared with full irrigation. Different
conclusions among these above mentioned studies may be due to the
various vine genotypes, intensity of water deficit and environmental
conditions (Chaves et al., 2007).
No conclusive trend has emerged on how fertilizer affected berry
quality. In this study, fertilization rates (51, 68 and 85 kg N ha− 1) had a
significant effect only on anthocyanins and condensed tannins, and did
not affect other berry composition (Table 2). Walker et al. (2021)
observed no significant differences among different nitrogen treatments
(0, 18 and 36 kg N ha− 1) in total soluble solids, titratable acid, pH, total
polyphenols, anthocyanins and tannins. However, Wang et al. (2016)
found that at a certain irrigation amount, total soluble solids was first
increased and then decreased with the increase of fertilizer (N + P2O5
+K2O), indicating that there was a water and fertilizer threshold at
which the best berry quality could be achieved. Thomidis et al. (2016)
reported that total polyphenols and anthocyanins were decreased in
berries as nitrogen dose was increased (0, 60 and 150 kg N ha− 1).
Various fertilizer rates and/or fertilizer application methods in different
8
Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188
studies may account for the various phenomenon. The mechanisms of
how fertilizer affects the berry composition is not so clear as that of how
water affects the berry quality. Hilbert et al. (2003) reported that ni­
trogen directly affected the anthocyanin accumulation in berries, which
was independent of indirect effects related to carbon partitioning be­
tween vegetative and reproductive growth or berry size. In the future,
more research is required to elucidate how fertilizer functions in
determination of berry quality through genes and metabolites.
4.3. Effects of irrigation and fertilization on IWUE, WUE and PFPF
Water use efficiency (yield/water applied) should be taken into
consideration in vineyard irrigation (Junquera et al., 2012), especially
in arid and semiarid regions where water is an increasingly scarce
resource. It is feasible to increase IWUE and WUE by means of deficit
irrigation (Fereres and Soriano, 2007; Medrano et al., 2015). In our
study compared with IH treatment, vines in IM treatment achieved a
higher yield with less irrigation water and actual water consumption,
and for IL treatment, the decrease in yield (9.4 %) was much lower than
the decreases in irrigation water (40 %) and actual water consumption
(19.9 %) (Table 2, Fig. 3). Therefore, the IWUE and WUE in both IM and
IL treatments were enhanced (Table 3). Irrigation affects fertilizer use
efficiency through altering nutrient availability and transportation in
the soil, as well as nutrient uptake by the root system (Zhang et al.,
2019). In our study, PFPF was significantly affected by irrigation levels,
and IM treatment presented the highest PFPF (Table 3), illustrating that
PFPF could be regulated by irrigation and that IM treatment is beneficial
to improving PFPF compared with the other two treatments.
Appropriate fertilizer application can promote root growth and
canopy development of grapevines, which allows more water to be
absorbed under a constant irrigation rate, facilitating water use pro­
cesses and improving water use efficiency (Zhang et al., 2019). This may
explain our results that the IWUE and WUE were higher in FH and FM
treatments than that in FL treatment (Table 3). Averaged across the years
and irrigation levels, FM treatment did not decrease the yield whereas it
increased PFPF by 25.4%; FL treatment decreased the yield by 10.3 %
whereas it increased PFPF by 49.4 % (Table 2, Table 3). The results
indicated that supplying fertilizer corresponding to 80% of the locally
recommended amount is conducive to cost saving and enhancing PFPF
without reducing the yield.
Zhang et al. (2019) reported that interaction effects between irri­
gation and fertilization were not significant on WUE and PFPF. In our
study, interaction effects between irrigation and fertilization were only
significant on PFPF (Table 3). However, Li et al. (2020) found that the
interaction effects significantly affected both WUE and PFPF. These
inconsistent results may be caused by the high variability within and
between studies, including the water and fertilizer rates, grape geno­
types and environmental conditions.
4.4. The optimal irrigation and fertilization management
Irrigation and fertilization management should not only focus on
maximizing yield, but also better quality especially for wine grapes and
higher agricultural resource use efficiency such as WUE and PFPF. In
practice, it is hard to achieve maximum grape yield, quality and resource
use efficiency at the same time (Liu et al., 2021). As shown in this study,
for IHFM treatment in 2021, the greatest grape yield was produced, but
the berry quality, WUE and PFPF was not optimal (Table S1). Therefore,
it is necessary to evaluate different irrigation and fertilization treat­
ments based on grape yield, berry quality, WUE and PFPF. GRA, TOPSIS
and CEM methods are widely used in multi-objective comprehensive
evaluation research (Li et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021; Su et al., 2021;
Wang et al., 2015). GRA is based on the similarity between each
candidate network and the best reference network (Wang and Rangaiah,
2017). TOPSIS requires the optimal solution to have the smallest
Euclidean distance from the positive ideal solution and the largest
W. Han et al.
Euclidean distance from the negative ideal solution (Liu et al., 2021).
CEM is a combination of several evaluation methods (Li et al., 2021;
Wang et al., 2015). Our results suggested that the three methods were all
qualified to select the treatment balancing grape yield, berry quality,
WUE and PFPF. Although some differences existed in the final results
using different methods in the three years, IMFM treatment was the
greatest overall (Table 4). Our study would provide a scientific bench­
mark for irrigation and fertilization management of wine grape under
drip fertigation in North China and other regions with similar environ­
mental conditions.
5. Conclusions
Deficit irrigation could improve berry quality through decreasing
titratable acid and increasing sugar-acid ratio. IMFM treatment (20 mm
per irrigation event combined with 504 kg ha− 1 yr− 1 water-soluble
fertilizer) was the optimal treatment which can balance the grape
yield, berry quality and water-fertilizer use efficiency for wine grape.
These results in this study will possibly provide a theoretical basis for the
management of fertigated wine grape in North China. The mechanisms
of how fertigation affects berry quality need to be further studied in the
future.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (32261143464, 52179053), the Key Research and Develop­
ment Program of Hebei Province, China (20327001D-02, 20326412D-
02), the Key Research and Development Program of Ningxia Hui
Autonomous Region, China (2021BEG02006-02) and International
Atomic Energy Agency (CRP. 23645).
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108188.
References
Acevedo-Opazo, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Fuentes, S., 2010. Effects of grapevine (Vitis
vinifera L.) water status on water consumption, vegetative growth and grape quality:
An irrigation scheduling application to achieve regulated deficit irrigation. Agric.
Water Manag. 97, 956–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.025.
Baldi, E., Colucci, E., Gioacchini, P., Valentini, G., Allegro, G., Pastore, C., Filippetti, I.,
Toselli, M., 2017. Effect of post-bloom foliar nitrogen application on vines under two
level of soil fertilization in increasing bud fertility of ‘Trebbiano Romagnolo’ (Vitis
vinifera L.) vine. Sci. Hortic. 218, 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2017.02.017.
Basile, B., Marsal, J., Mata, M., Vallverdú, X., Bellvert, J., Girona, J., 2011. Phenological
sensitivity of Cabernet Sauvignon to water stress: vine physiology and berry
composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 62, 452–461. https://doi.org/10.5344/
ajev.2011.11003.
Bell, S.J., Henschke, P.A., 2005. Implications of nitrogen nutrition for grapes,
fermentation and wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine R 11, 242–295. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00028.x.
Braun, P., Schmid, J., 1999. Sap flow measurements in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) 2.
Granier measurements. Plant Soil 215, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1004708119821.
Brunetto, G., Trentin, G., Ceretta, C.A., Girotto, E., Lorensini, F., Miotto, A., Moser, G.R.
Z., de Melo, G.W., 2012. Use of the SPAD-502 in estimating nitrogen content in
9
Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188
leaves and grape yield in grapevines in soils with different texture. AJPS 3,
1546–1561. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2012.311187.
Brunetto, G., Ceretta, C.A., de Melo, G.W.B., Girotto, E., Ferreira, P.A.A., Lourenzi, C.R.,
da Rosa Couto, R., Tassinaria, A., Hammerschmitt, R.K., da Silva, L.O.S.,
Lazzaretti, B.P., de Souza Kulmann, M.S., Carranca, C., 2016. Contribution of
nitrogen from urea applied at different rates and times on grapevine nutrition. Sci.
Hortic. 207, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.05.002.
Chaves, M.M., Santos, T.P., Souza, C.R., Ortuño, M.F., Rodrigues, M.L., Lopes, C.M.,
Maroco, J.P., Pereira, J.S., 2007. Deficit irrigation in grapevine improves water-use
efficiency while controlling vigour and production quality. Ann. Appl. Biol. 150,
237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2006.00123.x.
Ciotta, M.N., Ceretta, C.A., Krug, A.V., Brunetto, G., Nava, G., 2021. Grape (Vitis vinifera
L.) production and soil potassium forms in vineyard subjected to potassium
fertilization. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 43 https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452021682.
Collins, M.J., Fuentes, S., Barlow, E.W.R., 2010. Partial rootzone drying and deficit
irrigation increase stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit in anisohydric
grapevines. Funct. Plant Biol. 37, 128–138. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP09175.
Conesa, M.R., Berríos, P., Temnani, A., Pérez-Pastor, A., 2022. Assessment of the type of
deficit irrigation applied during berry development in ‘crimson seedless’ table
grapes. Water 14, 1311. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081311.
Davies, C., Shin, R., Liu, W., Thomas, M.R., Schachtman, D.P., 2004. Transporters
expressed during grape berry (Vitis vinifera L.) development are associated with an
increase in berry size and berry potassium accumulation. J. Exp. Bot. 57, 3209–3216.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl091.
Dokoozlian, N.K., Kliewer, W.M., 1996. Influence of light on grape berry growth and
composition varies during fruit development. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121, 869–874.
https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.121.5.869.
Duan, B., Ren, Y., Zhao, Y., Merkeryan, H., Su-Zhou, C., Li, Y., Mei, Y., Liu, X., 2021. An
adequate regulated deficit irrigation strategy improves wine astringency perception
by altering proanthocyanidin composition in Cabernet Sauvignon grapes. Sci. Hortic.
285, 110182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110182.
Fereres, E., Soriano, M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use.
J. Exp. Bot. 58, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165.
Giusti, M.M., Wrolstad, R.E., 2001. Characterization and measurement of anthocyanins
by UV–visible spectroscopy, in: Wrolstad, R.E. (Ed.), Current Protocols in Food
Analytical Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. https://doi.org/
10.1002/0471142913.faf0102s00.
Granier, A., 1987. Evaluation of transpiration in a douglas-fir stand by means of sap flow
measurements. Tree Physiol. 3, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/
3.4.309.
Guilpart, N., Metay, A., Gary, C., 2014. Grapevine bud fertility and number of berries per
bunch are determined by water and nitrogen stress around flowering in the previous
year. Eur. J. Agron. 54, 9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.002.
Hilbert, G., Soyer, J.P., Molot, C., Giraudon, J., Milin, S., Gaudillere, J.P., 2003. Effects of
nitrogen supply on must quality and anthocyanin accumulation in berries of cv.
Merlot. Vitis 42, 69–76. https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2003.42.69-76.
Intrigliolo, D.S., Lizama, V., García-Esparza, M.J., Abrisqueta, I., Álvarez, I., 2016. Effects
of post-veraison irrigation regime on Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines in Valencia,
Spain: yield and grape composition. Agric. Water Manag 170, 110–119. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.020.
Ju, Y.L., Yang, B.H., He, S., Tu, T.Y., Min, Z., Fang, Y.L., Sun, X.Y., 2019. Anthocyanin
accumulation and biosynthesis are modulated by regulated deficit irrigation in
Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes and wines. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 135,
469–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2018.11.013.
Junquera, P., Lissarrague, J.R., Jiménez, L., Linares, R., Baeza, P., 2012. Long-term
effects of different irrigation strategies on yield components, vine vigour, and grape
composition in cv. Cabernet-Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.). Irrig. Sci. 30, 351–361.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0348-y.
Kizildeniz, T., Mekni, I., Santesteban, H., Pascual, I., Morales, F., Irigoyen, J.J., 2015.
Effects of climate change including elevated CO2 concentration, temperature and
water deficit on growth, water status, and yield quality of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)
cultivars. Agric. Water Manag. 159, 155–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2015.06.015.
Koundouras, S., Marinos, V., Gkoulioti, A., Kotseridis, Y., van Leeuwen, C., 2006.
Influence of vineyard location and vine water status on fruit maturation of
nonirrigated cv. Agiorgitiko (Vitis vinifera L.). Effects on wine phenolic and aroma
components. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 5077–5086. https://doi.org/10.1021/
jf0605446.
Koundouras, S., Hatzidimitriou, E., Karamolegkou, M., Dimopoulou, E., Kallithraka, S.,
Tsialtas, J.T., Zioziou, E., Nikolaou, N., Kotseridis, Y., 2009. Irrigation and rootstock
effects on the phenolic concentration and aroma potential of Vitis vinifera L. cv.
cabernet sauvignon grapes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 57, 7805–7813. https://doi.org/
10.1021/jf901063a.
Kovalenko, Y., Tindjau, R., Madilao, L.L., Castellarin, S.D., 2021. Regulated deficit
irrigation strategies affect the terpene accumulation in Gewürztraminer (Vitis vinifera
L.) grapes grown in the Okanagan Valley. Food Chem. 341, 128172 https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.foodchem.2020, 128172.
Kyraleou, M., Kotseridis, Y., Koundouras, S., Chira, K., Teissedre, P.L., Kallithraka, S.,
2016. Effect of irrigation regime on perceived astringency and proanthocyanidin
composition of skins and seeds of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Syrah grapes under semiarid
conditions. Food Chem. 203, 292–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodchem.2016.02.052.
Lang, C.P., Merkt, N., Zorb, C., 2018. Different nitrogen (N) forms affect responses to N
form and N supply of rootstocks and grafted grapevines. Plant Sci. 277, 311–321.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.10.004.
W. Han et al.
Li, H., Liu, H., Gong, X., Li, S., Pang, J., Chen, Z., Sun, J., 2021. Optimizing irrigation and
nitrogen management strategy to trade off yield, crop water productivity, nitrogen
use efficiency and fruit quality of greenhouse grown tomato. Agric. Water Manag.
245, 106570 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106570.
Li, X., Liu, H., Li, J., He, X., Gong, P., Lin, E., Li, K., Li, L., Binley, A., 2020. Experimental
study and multi–objective optimization for drip irrigation of grapes in arid areas of
northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 232, 106039 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2020.106039.
Li, Y., Liu, X., Fang, H., Shi, L., Yue, X., Yang, Q., 2021. Exploring the coupling mode of
irrigation method and fertilization rate for improving growth and water-fertilizer use
efficiency of young mango tree. Sci. Hortic. 286, 110211 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2021.110211.
Liang, N., Zhu, B., Han, S., Wang, J., Pan, Q., Reeves, M.J., Duan, C., He, F., 2014.
Regional characteristics of anthocyanin and flavonol compounds from grapes of four
Vitis vinifera varieties in five wine regions of China. Food Res. Int. 64, 264–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06.048.
Liu, X., Peng, Y., Yang, Q., Wang, X., Cui, N., 2021. Determining optimal deficit irrigation
and fertilization to increase mango yield, quality, and WUE in a dry hot environment
based on TOPSIS. Agric. Water Manag. 245, 106650 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2020.106650.
Lizama, V., Pérez-Álvarez, E.P., Intrigliolo, D.S., Chirivella, C., Álvarez, I., García-
Esparza, M.J., 2021. Effects of the irrigation regimes on grapevine cv. Bobal in a
Mediterranean climate: II. Wine, skins, seeds, and grape aromatic composition.
Agric. Water Manag. 256, 107078 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.107078.
Medrano, H., Tomás, M., Martorell, S., Escalona, J., Pou, A., Fuentes, S., Flexas, J.,
Bota, J., 2015. Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A
review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-
0280-z.
Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China. 2015. Determination of soluble
sugar in fruits and derived products-3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid colorimetry. NY/T
2742–2015.
Muchuweti, M., Ndhlala, A.R., Kasiyamhuru, A., 2005. Estimation of the degree of
polymerization of condensed tannins of some wild fruits of Zimbabwe (Uapaca
kirkiana and Ziziphus mauritiana) using the modified vanillin-HCl method. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 85, 1647–1650. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2163.
Munitz, S., Netzer, Y., Schwartz, A., 2017. Sustained and regulated deficit irrigation of
field-grown Merlot grapevines. Aust. J. Grape Wine R 23, 87–94. https://doi.org/
10.1111/ajgw.12241.
Niculcea, M., Martinez-Lapuente, L., Guadalupe, Z., Sánchez-Díaz, M., Ayestarán, B.,
Antolín, M.C., 2015. Characterization of phenolic composition of Vitis vinifera L.
‘Tempranillo’ and ‘Graciano’ subjected to deficit irrigation during berry
development. Vitis 54, 9–16.
Ojeda, H., Andary, C., Kraeva, E., Carbonneau, A., Deloire, A., 2002. Influence of pre-
and postveraison water deficit on synthesis and concentration of skin phenolic
compounds during berry growth of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53,
261–267.
Pech, J.M., Stevens, R.M., Nicholas, P.R., 2008. Four seasons of sustained deficit
irrigation: impacts on Chardonnay and Shiraz vines grafted to five rootstocks. Acta
Hortic. 792, 519–527. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.792.60.
Poblete-Echeverría, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Zuñiga, M., Fuentes, S., 2012. Evaluation of
compensated heat-pulse velocity method to determine vine transpiration using
combined measurements of eddy covariance system and microlysimeters. Agric.
Water Manag. 109, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.01.019.
Poni, S., Gatti, M., Palliotti, A., Dai, Z., Duchêne, E., Truong, T.-T., Ferrara, G.,
Matarrese, A.M.S., Gallotta, A., Bellincontro, A., Mencarelli, F., Tombesi, S., 2018.
Grapevine quality: a multiple choice issue. Sci. Hortic. 234, 445–462. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.035.
Qiu, G.Y., Yu, X., Wen, H., Yan, C., 2020. An advanced approach for measuring the
transpiration rate of individual urban trees by the 3D three-temperature model and
thermal infrared remote sensing. J. Hydrol. 587, 125034 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2020.125034.
Roccuzzo, G., Villalobos, F.J., Testi, L., Fereres, E., 2014. Effects of water deficits on
whole tree water use efficiency of orange. Agric. Water Manag. 140, 61–68. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.03.019.
Romero, P., Fernández-Fernández, J.I., Gil-Muñoz, R., Botía, P., 2016. Vigour-yield-
quality relationships in long-term deficit irrigated winegrapes grown under semiarid
conditions. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 28, 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-
016-0061-y.
Santesteban, L.G., Miranda, C., Royo, J.B., 2011. Regulated deficit irrigation effects on
growth, yield, grape quality and individual anthocyanin composition in Vitis vinifera
L. cv. ‘Tempranillo’. Agric. Water Manag. 98, 1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agwat.2011.02.011.
Santos, T.P., Lopes, C.M., Rodrigues, M.L., de Souza, C.R., Ricardo-da-Silva, J.M.,
Maroco, J.P., Pereira, J.S., Chaves, M.M., 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation strategies
on cluster microclimate for improving fruit composition of Moscatel field-grown
grapevines. Sci. Hortic. 112, 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2007.01.006.
Schreiner, R.P., Lee, J., Skinkis, P.A., 2013. N, P, and K supply to Pinot noir grapevines:
impact on vine nutrient status, growth, physiology, and yield. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 64,
26–38. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2012.12064.
Sebastian, B., Baeza, P., Santesteban, L.G., Sanchez de Miguel, P., De La Fuente, M.,
Lissarrague, J.R., 2015. Response of grapevine cv. Syrah to irrigation frequency and
10
Agricultural Water Management 280 (2023) 108188
water distribution pattern in a clay soil. Agric. Water Manag. 148, 269–279. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.10.017.
Singleton, V.L., Rossi, J.A., 1965. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic
phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 16, 144–158.
Stefanello, L.O., Schwalbert, R., Schwalbert, R.A., De Conti, L., Kulmann, M.Sd.S.,
Garlet, L.P., Silveira, M.L.R., Sautter, C.K., de Melo, G.W.B., Rozane, D.E.,
Brunetto, G., 2020a. Nitrogen supply method affects growth, yield and must
composition of young grape vines (Vitis vinifera L. cv Alicante Bouschet) in southern
Brazil. Sci. Hortic. 261, 108910 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108910.
Stefanello, L.O., Schwalbert, R., Marques, A.C.R., Tarouco, C.P., Vitto, B.B., Krug, A.V.,
Santos, J.P.J., Galarza, B.P., Zalamena, J., Santos, H.P., Melo, G.W.B., Brunetto, G.,
2020b. Photosynthetic activity and grape yield of ‘Alicante Bouschet’ (Vitis vinifera
L.) grapevines submitted to nitrogen supply methods and doses. Vitis 59, 133–140.
https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2020.59.133-140.
Stefanello, L.O., Schwalbert, R., Schwalbert, R.A., Drescher, G.L., De Conti, L., Pott, L.P.,
Tassinari, A., Kulmann, M.Sd.S., da Silva, I.C.B., Brunetto, G., 2021. Ideal nitrogen
concentration in leaves for the production of high-quality grapes cv ‘Alicante
Bouschet’ (Vitis vinifera L.) subjected to modes of application and nitrogen doses.
Eur. J. Agron. 123, 126200 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2020.126200.
Su, H., Sun, H., Dong, X., Chen, P., Zhang, X., Tian, L., Liu, X., Wang, J., 2021. Did
manure improve saline water irrigation threshold of winter wheat? A 3-year field
investigation. Agric. Water Manag 258, 107203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2021.107203.
Taskos, D.G., Koundouras, S., Stamatiadis, S., Zioziou, E., Nikolaou, N., Karakioulakis, K.,
Theodorou, N., 2015. Using active canopy sensors and chlorophyll meters to
estimate grapevine nitrogen status and productivity. Precis. Agric. 16, 77–98.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-014-9363-8.
Thomidis, T., Zioziou, E., Koundouras, S., Karagiannidis, C., Navrozidis, I., Nikolaou, N.,
2016. Effects of nitrogen and irrigation on the quality of grapes and the susceptibility
to Botrytis bunch rot. Sci. Hortic. 212, 60–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scienta.2016.09.036.
Torres, N., Yu, R., Martínez-Lüscher, J., Kostaki, E., Kurtural, S.K., 2021. Application of
fractions of crop evapotranspiration affects carbon partitioning of grapevine
differentially in a hot climate. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 633600 https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpls.2021.633600.
Treder, W., Klamkowski, K., Wójcik, K., Tryngiel-Gac, A., Sas-Paszt, L., Mika, A.,
Kowalczyk, W., 2022. Apple leaf macro- and micronutrient content as affected by
soil treatments with fertilizers and microorganisms. Sci. Hortic. 297, 110975
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.110975.
Uriarte, D., Intrigliolo, D.S., Mancha, L.A., Valdés, E., Gamero, E., Prieto, M.H., 2016.
Combined effects of irrigation regimes and crop load on ‘Tempranillo’ grape
composition. Agric. Water Manag. 165, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2015.11.016.
Walker, H.V., Jones, J.E., Swarts, N.D., Kerslake, F., 2021. Manipulating nitrogen and
water resources for improved cool climate vine to wine quality. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 73
https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2021.21004.
Wample, R.L., Smithyman, R., 2002. Regulated deficit irrigation as a water management
strategy in Vitis vinifera production. Deficit irrigation practices. FAO Corp. Doc.
Repos. 89–100.
Wang, C., Gu, F., Chen, J., Yang, H., Jiang, J., Du, T., Zhang, J., 2015. Assessing the
response of yield and comprehensive fruit quality of tomato grown in greenhouse to
deficit irrigation and nitrogen application strategies. Agric. Water Manag. 161, 9–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.07.010.
Wang, H., Wu, L., Wang, X., Zhang, S., Cheng, M., Feng, H., Fan, J., Zhang, F., Xiang, Y.,
2021a. Optimization of water and fertilizer management improves yield, water,
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake and use efficiency of cotton under drip
fertigation. Agric. Water Manag. 245, 106662 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2020.106662.
Wang, H., Cheng, M., Zhang, S., Fan, J., Feng, H., Zhang, F., Wang, X., Sun, L., Xiang, Y.,
2021b. Optimization of irrigation amount and fertilization rate of drip-fertigated
potato based on Analytic Hierarchy Process and Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation
methods. Agric. Water Manag. 256, 107130 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2021.107130.
Wang, L., Wang, C., Qiao, J., Xiao, Y., 2016. Effects of water and fertilizer coupling on
growth, yield and quality of grape under drip irrigation with film mulching. Trans.
Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 47, 113–119.
Wang, Y., Horton, R., Xue, X., Ren, T., 2021. Partitioning evapotranspiration by
measuring soil water evaporation with heat-pulse sensors and plant transpiration
with sap flow gauges. Agric. Water Manag. 252, 106883 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2021.106883.
Wang, Z., Rangaiah, G.P., 2017. Application and analysis of methods for selecting an
optimal solution from the pareto-optimal front obtained by multiobjective
optimization. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 56, 560–574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
iecr.6b03453.
Yang, B., Yao, H., Zhang, J., Li, Y., Ju, Y., Zhao, X., Sun, X., Fang, Y., 2020. Effect of
regulated deficit irrigation on the content of soluble sugars, organic acids and
endogenous hormones in Cabernet Sauvignon in the Ningxia region of China. Food
Chem. 312, 126020 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.126020.
Zhang, X., Hu, X., Ran, H., Du, B., Hao, Z., Gong, J., 2019. The response of grape yield
and water fertilizer utilization to water and fertilizer coupling in greenhouse and its
simulation. China Rural Water Hydropower 1, 1–5.