| Effect of planting environment on grapevine sap flow characteristics in solar greenhouse |
|
View Fulltext View/Add Comment Download reader |
| |
| DOI：10.7606/j.issn.1000-7601.2020.04.24 |
| Key Words: grapevine sap flow environmental factors LAI solar greenhouse |
| Author Name | Affiliation | | FU Shining | Institute of Water Resources，Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110866, China | | WEI Xinguang | Institute of Water Resources，Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110866, China | | ZHENG Siyu | Institute of Water Resources，Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110866, China | | SUN Jun | Institute of Water Resources，Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110866, China | | GE Dong | Institute of Water Resources，Shenyang Agricultural University, Shenyang, Liaoning 110866, China |
|
| Hits: 680 |
| Download times: 344 |
| Abstract: |
| In order to explore the effects of major influencing factors on the sap flow characteristics of grapevine under different planting environments in solar greenhouse in Northeastern China, dynamic monitoring and systematic analysis were conducted on the sap flow, growth index, and environmental characteristics of grapevine in the main greenhouse (heat preservation) and the secondary greenhouse (no insulation measures) during the whole growth period. The results showed that: (1) Under different planting environments, the daily change of grapevine sap flow presented a trend of single peak or multiple peaks, with the peak appearing at around 12∶00, the sap flow basically stopped at 21∶00, and there was still a weak flow at night. The sap flow intensity was different in different months, and the sap flow rate was the highest in August, followed by June and October. (2) During the whole growth period, PAR was the main factor affecting relative sap flow (SFR)in the main greenhouse, and the response degree of VPD and PAR to the sap flow rate of the secondary greenhouse was almost the same.The response of SFR to environmental factors showed apparent variability over time, and the correlation between SFR and environmental factors reached peak in August. (3) The determination coefficients of relative sap flow and influence factors of the main greenhouse were larger than those of the secondary greenhouse, and the prediction accuracy of the two\|factor combination model was higher than that of the single factor. (4) There was a certain proportion of grapevine nocturnal flow in different planting environments, and the proportion of nocturnal flow in the main greenhouse was slightly smaller than that in the secondary greenhouse. With the development of growth period, the proportion of nocturnal flow of grapevine presented a trend of decreasing first and then increasing. |
|
|
|