See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/221919365

Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in

Blueberry

Chapter · November 2011

DOI: 10.5772/18311 · Source: InTech

CITATIONS READS

18 4,618

1 author:

David R. Bryla
United States Department of Agriculture
134 PUBLICATIONS   2,950 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Quantifying Bud Dormancy: Physiological Approaches View project

Nitrogen fertigation in blueberry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by David R. Bryla on 08 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 9

Crop Evapotranspiration and

Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry
David R. Bryla
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service
USA

1. Introduction
There are currently 139,000 ha of blueberry worldwide, including 66,000 ha of highbush
[comprises northern highbush (Vaccinium corymbosum), southern highbush (Vaccinium sp.),
and rabbiteye (V. virgatum formerly V. asheii) cultivars] and 73,000 ha of lowbush blueberry (V.
angustifolium) (Strik & Yarborough, 2005; USHBC, 2009). The majority of the fruit is produced
in North and South America and Europe, although production is increasing in Asia and
Africa. No matter where blueberry is grown, proper irrigation management is critical for
producing high yields and good fruit quality. Even within a few days without rain or
irrigation, water stress develops quickly in blueberry, reducing photosynthesis and leading to
less growth and fruit production. Over irrigation, however, reduces blueberry root function,
increases soil erosion and nutrient leaching, and enhances the probability of developing crown
and root rot infection by soil pathogens such as Phytophthora. Developing accurate irrigation
regimes requires knowledge of both the timing and amount of water needed to replenish any
lost by crop transpiration and soil evaporation.
In this chapter, I discuss the importance of irrigation on growth and development in
blueberry and examine its relationship to plant water relations. Identified are symptoms of
water stress, the most critical stages of water limitations, and various techniques used to
monitor plant water status throughout the growing season. I then discuss irrigation
scheduling for blueberry, including procedures used to calculate crop evapotranspiration
and estimate total irrigation requirements, and finally present recent data on the best
methods to apply irrigation. Information is provided on the response of blueberry to not
only different irrigation systems and configurations but also of when and where to apply
the water. Throughout the chapter, irrigation methods and practices are related to other
factors essential to consider when growing blueberries, including interactions with field
establishment, planting bed management, nitrogen nutrition, and root disease.

2. Growth and development of blueberry in relation to irrigation

2.1 Seasonal patterns of root and shoot growth
The typical pattern of growth and development of highbush blueberry over an annual cycle
are illustrated in Fig. 1. According to Abbott & Gough (1987), new root production begins in
early spring when soils reach a temperature threshold of approximately 8 ˚C. This is then
followed by leaf bud swell. Root growth peaks at two times during the growing season. The
168 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

first peak occurs in late-spring and the second, the largest, occurs after harvest.
Interestingly, both peaks occur when soil temperatures are at 14 to 18 ˚C, strongly
suggesting that root growth is regulated, at least in part, by soil temperature in blueberry.
Similar soil temperature optimums for root growth were found in other temperate fruit
species such as apple (Nightingale, 1935; Rogers, 1939) and peach (Nightingale, 1935). Shoot
growth, by comparison, appears less controlled by temperature and more controlled by
availability of plant resources. Shoot growth first peaks after the initial peak in root growth
but then declines when fruit maturation begins. During fruit maturation in mid-summer,
fruit provide a highly competitive sink for carbohydrates and nutrients, considerably
reducing the availability of resources to other parts of the plant. Because of the decline in
vegetative growth during this period, fruit removal is often recommended during the first 2
years of orchard establishment in order to increase growth of new plantings and improve
yields during following years (Strik & Buller, 2005). Aside from the beginning and end of
the growing season, shoot and root growth are lowest just prior to fruit harvest (Fig. 1).
Once harvest is complete, a second flush of new shoots and roots occur. Often, more than

Bud swell Full bloom Fruit set Immature Blue/ Harvest Flower bud Dormancy
green blue-pink formation

24
Soil temperature

21
at 15 cm ( C)a

18
o

15
12
9
6
25 60

Shoot 50
Mean shoot growth (mm)

20
unsuberized roots (mm)
Mean length of white

Roots
40
15
30
10
20

5
10

0 0
Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct

. Date

Fig. 1. Elongation of white unsuberized roots in relation to shoot growth, soil temperature,
and stage of development of highbush blueberry plants. Adapted from Abbott and Gough
(1987).
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 169

one flush of shoots can happen after harvest, although the number of flushes varies
depending on cultivar and cultural practices. Flower bud induction overlaps with fruit
harvest and coincides with the second peak in root growth. Shoot and most root growth
finally ceases in late-autumn as the plant enters dormancy and does not resume until the
following spring.

2.2 Flowering and fruit development

Bud break and bloom in blueberry occur in early spring when evaporative demand is
usually low and leaf size is still small. Thus, aside from any water needed for fertilizer
application, irrigation requirements prior to pollination and fruit set are minimal and often
unnecessary, depending on spring precipitation. However, once the fruit are set and the
canopy develops, sufficient rain or irrigation becomes critical. It is at this early stage of fruit
development, often referred to as Stage I, that rapid cell division takes place in the fruit (Fig.
2). Cell division is very sensitive to water stress, and if diminished, will reduce the size of
the berries at harvest. Following this stage, the berries enter Stage II, a period of slow
growth for several weeks followed by a final stage of rapid cell expansion and fruit ripening

Stage III
Rapid cell expansion
2.00 & ripening

1.75

1.50
Individual fruit weight (g)

1.25

Stage II
1.00 Slow growth

0.75 Stage I
Rapid cell
0.50 division
Jersey
Woodard
0.25 Tifblue

0.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Time after full bloom (days)

Fig. 2. Individual fruit weight of ‘Jersey’ highbush blueberry and ‘Woodard’ and Tifblue’
rabitteye blueberries. Adapted from Tamada (2002).
(Fig. 2). Numerous studies on grape and tree fruit crops, which display similar double
sigmoidal patterns of fruit growth as blueberry, indicate that effects of moderate water
stress during this middle lag phase period has little effect on the size of the fruit at harvest.
Theoretically, water stress at this stage should also have minimal effects on fruit size in
blueberry. Abbott & Gough (1987), however, indicate that it is precisely at this stage of berry
development that vegetative growth is at its maximum peak (Fig. 1). Blueberry is dependent
170 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

on new wood for production of fruit the following year. Conceivably, any water stress
occurring during this peak in shoot production could limit production of new canes for next
year’s crop.
Irrigation during Stage III is also critical and is perhaps the most sensitive period to water
stress, as any water limitations at this point will reduce cell expansion and berry size and
therefore have a large impact on yield. Mingeau et al. (2001) examined the effects of water
deficits at various phenological stages in ‘Bluecrop’ blueberry and found that even moderate
water stress (i.e., enough to reduce transpiration by 35%) during the final stage of fruit
growth and ripening strongly influenced yield by reducing both mean fruit weight and fruit
diameter. They also found that water stress after harvest reduced the number of flower
buds. Flower bud induction occurs in mid- to late-summer in most cultivars and overlaps
with late fruit development (Fig. 1). Thus, in addition to reducing yield of the current year’s
crop, water stress during the final stage of berry development will also reduce the number
of flowers and fruit produced the following year.
Nutrient requirements also vary over the growing season but do not necessarily correlate
with water demands. This difference is an important consideration when using irrigation to
fertigate (Bryla et al., 2010). Unlike water, the largest demands for many nutrients, including
nitrogen (N), typically occur early in the season during canopy development and at the
beginning of fruit production (Throop & Hanson, 1997).

3. Plant water relations and response of blueberry to drought

3.1 Fundamentals of plant water potential
The growth, function, productivity, and water use of a plant are intimately related to its
water status. Various parameters are used as indicators of plant water status, the most
common of which is tissue or organ water potential. Values are typically expressed in units
of pressure such as megapascals (MPa), bars, or atmospheres or in units of height or
hydraulic head. In plants, the principle components affecting water potential is solute
concentrations in cell water and turgor pressure caused by rigidity of the cell wall. For
practical purposes, the water potential of free water is considered zero. Therefore any
movement of water from wet soil to the plant requires a negative potential. Water potential
measured at any point in the soil, plant, and atmosphere, referred to as the soil-plant-
atmosphere continuum, is a measure of the tendency of water to move away from that
point. Water tends to move from places where its potential is high (e.g., moist soil) to places
where its potential is lower (e.g., ambient air with relative humidity less than 99%). The
difference between leaf water potential and soil water potential (the latter near zero for
moist soils) is an estimate of the driving force for water movement from soil to the foliage.
Water readily moves from foliage to the atmosphere (via stomatal openings on the leaf
surface; see below) due to relatively higher vapor pressure deficits in the atmosphere.
Plant water potential is often measured using a pressure chamber, sometimes referred to
as a “pressure bomb” or a “plant water status console”. To make a measurement, a
severed part of a plant such as a leaf or branch is placed in an enclosed chamber with its
freshly cut end protruding through a rubber seal. The air pressure in the chamber is then
gradually increased until it just causes the exudation of xylem sap at the cut end
(generally viewed with a magnifying glass). At this point, the resulting pressure of the sap
is zero, so xylem pressure equals negative air pressure. If xylem osmotic potential can be
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 171

ignored (which is often the case as it’s usually near zero in most plants), xylem pressure is
equal to xylem water potential, which can be the same as the water potential of the other
tissues in the chamber (if water equilibration has been achieved) (for details, see
Scholander et al., 1964).
Marked daily changes in the water potentials occur in the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum
(Fig. 3). In most plants, leaf stomata close at night and as a result, transpiration essentially
ceases, allowing root and leaf water to equilibrate with the soil water. The equilibration
process may take hours to occur but generally happens before dawn. When the soil is wet
and near field capacity, e.g., shortly after a rain or irrigation event, water potentials in the
soil, root, and leaf approach zero at night. The stomata then open at dawn and transpiration
begins, resulting in a decline in leaf water potential. Root and soil water potentials also
decline shortly thereafter. If there is no additional rain or irrigation, leaf, root, and soil water
potential becomes more and more negative. As the soil dries, the difference between root
and soil water potential must become larger each day in order to sustain water movement
from soil to the roots. In contrast, the difference between leaf and root water potential
remains constant until the plant is no longer able to sustain a water potential gradient
sufficient to absorb enough water to maintain leaf turgor, e.g., when leaf water potential
reaches -1.5 MPa. The leaf thus wilts at this point but recovers at night. If drought persists,
the leaf may wilt permanently and tissue damage will result.

0.0

Root
Soil

-0.5
Water potential (MPa)

-1.0

Leaf

-1.5
Onset of leaf wilting

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time, days without water

Fig. 3. Daily changes in soil, root, and leaf water potential following irrigation or a rain
event. The shaded regions on the x-axis represent night and the white regions represent
daytime. The figure is adapted from Slayter (1967).
172 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

Predawn
0.0 A 70 B
Irrigated
-0.5 60
Water potential (MPa)

Transpiration (ml·h-1)
50
-1.0
Midday
40 Non-irrigated
-1.5
30
-2.0
Onset of leaf wilting
20
-2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time, days without water Time, days without water

Fig. 4. A) Daily changes in predawn (0500 h) and midday (1400 h) leaf water potential and
B) evapotranspiration of 3-year-old ‘Elliott’ blueberry plants grown in 23 L pots filled with
sandy soil. Plants were either irrigated daily (B only) or exposed to drought for 7 days (A
and B). Each symbol represents the mean of six plants and error bars represent one standard
error.

3.2 Relationship between plant water potential and evapotranspiration in blueberry

An example of how water potential changes in a blueberry plant during the onset of
drought is shown in Fig. 4. Although changes will differ somewhat among cultivars (Bryla
and Strik, 2007), leaf water potential, measured either at predawn or at midday, declines as
predicted when soil water is depleted over time. After 3 to 4 days without water,
evapotranspiration also declines, demonstrating the proportional relationship between plant
water potential and crop water use. This relationship is well illustrated by examining the
response of stomatal conductance to changes in leaf water potential. Stomatal conductance
is used to quantify gas diffusion processes, such as transpiration and CO2 assimilation,
between plants and the atmosphere. The usual pathway for CO2 to enter a plant during
photosynthesis is through controllable openings on the leaf surface known as stomata.
Transpiration is an unavoidable consequence of water loss through these same openings.
The openings are controlled by the presence of two guard cells surrounding a stomatal
cavity inside the leaf. Stomatal conductance is most commonly measured using a diffusion
porometer, which consists of a chamber for clamping onto the leaf surface and sensors to
monitor changes in humidity inside the chamber (for details, see Pearcy et al., 1989). In most
plants, including blueberry, stomata open during the day and close at night but will also
close in response to water deficits during the day to help prevent excessive water loss
during drought (Anderson et al., 1979). Under field conditions, stomatal conductance
declined rapidly as leaf water potential approached values as high as -0.6 to -0.8 MPa,
indicating highbush blueberry is quite sensitive to even moderate levels of water stress (Fig.
5). Davies & Johnson (1982) also determined that ‘Bluegem’ rabbiteye blueberry was
sensitive to water potential changes but estimated that the critical water potential for total
stomatal closure was at -2.2 MPa. By comparison, critical water potentials as low as -3.5 MPa
have been reported in apple (Davies & Lasko, 1979).
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 173

300
Duke
Stomatal conductance (mmol·m ·s )
-1
Bluecrop
250
Elliott
-2

200

150

100

50

0
-1.4 -1.2 -1.0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0
Water potential (MPa)

Fig. 5. Relationship between leaf stomatal conductance and midday (1400 h) leaf water
potential in mature ‘Duke’, ‘Bluecrop’, and ‘Elliott’ blueberry plants grown under field
conditions. Adapted from Bryla & Strik (2006).
Under field conditions, water stress often develops in blueberry within 3 to 7 days without
rain or irrigation during summer, varying depending on plant age, cultural practices,
phenological development, soil texture, and weather conditions (Hess et al., 1997). Stress
symptoms include reduced shoot growth, increased root growth, lower water use, and less
photosynthesis. Young, succulent shoots and leaves wilt readily under dry conditions, and if
drought persists, leaf margins and tips may become necrotic and scorched. This scorching is
similar in appearance to salt injury often associated with over-fertilization (Caruso &
Ramsdell, 1995). Internode length is shortened by water deficits, as is the duration of shoot
growth when these deficits occur early in the growing season (B. Strik, personal
communication). Susceptibility to water deficits may increase after the initiation of fruit
ripening. Berries of small fruit crops, including blueberry, however, have few stomata. The
majority of the water lost by the plant occurs through the leaf surfaces with fruit playing a
minor direct role in plant water losses. Resistance to water deficits may be enhanced by
osmotic adjustment (e.g., Zhang & Archbold, 1993) or by increased root to shoot ratios (e.g.,
Renquist et al., 1982), leaf thickness and waxiness (Anderson et al., 1979), and cell wall
elasticity (e.g., Savé et al., 1993).
In France, mature ‘Bluecrop’ blueberries exposed to drought closed their stomates and
reduced transpiration gradually within 9 days after withholding irrigation (Améglio et al.,
2000). Upon rewatering, recovery was slow,with stomatal conductance and transpiration
returning to normal after 7 to 9 days. A vulnerability curve presented in the same study
indicated that embolism in the xylem vessels was negligible when leaf water potential was -1.2
MPa or higher but increased rapidly at lower water potentials. To develop the curve, hydraulic
conductance was measured at different applied pressures on 2 to 3 cm-long stem segments
excised under water (Sperry et al., 1988). Percent loss of hydraulic conductance was 50% at -1.4
MPa and 100% at -2.1 MPa. However, in situ embolism measured during actual water stress
174 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

was usually less than 30%. Apparently, rapid reduction in stomatal conductance reduced
water loss and maintained water potential at the threshold of cavitation in ‘Bluecrop’,
protecting it from total xylem cavitation and enhancing its ability to recover from drought.
Bryla & Strik (2007) examined the onset of water stress in three cultivars of 5-year-old
highbush blueberry plants in Oregon, USA, including ‘Duke’, an early-season cultivar that
ripens in late June to mid July, ‘Bluecrop’, a mid-season cultivar that ripens in mid July to
early August, and ‘Elliott’, a late-season cultivar that ripens in early August to early
September. Plants were exposed to water stress during each ripening period. During each
period, stem water potential dropped only slightly within the first 3 to 4 days after irrigation
was withheld but declined substantially, in many cases, after 5 to 7 days without irrigation
(Fig. 6A-C). This later decline was associated with reduced rates of root water uptake,
indicated by smaller changes in soil water content in each treatment. Within each cultivar,
the most apparent decline in water potential occurred when fruit were in their final stages of
ripening, just prior to harvest. The differences in water potential were attributed to seasonal
variation in water use among the cultivars (Fig. 6D-F). ‘Duke’ acquired the most water,
using 5 to 10 mm per day from mid-May to mid-August, while ‘Elliott’ acquired the least,
using only 3 to 5 mm per day. Water use by ‘Bluecrop’ was intermediate. Water use was
highest during fruit filling and ripening but declined markedly after harvest, especially in
‘Duke’, which ripened earliest. A sharp decline in water use was less apparent in ‘Elliott’,
which had the latest and most extended fruit ripening period. Mingeau et al. (2001) reported
that almost 55% of the total seasonal water requirements of ‘Bluecrop’ occurred in June and
July during fruit ripening; once fruit were picked, plant water requirements decreased to
nearly half. Higher rates of stomatal conductance and water use have been associated with
increased photosynthetic activity during fruit ripening in lowbush blueberry (Hicklenton et
al., 2000). Thus, as ripening periods differ among cultivars, water requirements at any given
time of the year will also differ.
Duke Bluecrop Elliott
0.0
A B C
Water potential (MPa)

-0.3
-0.6
-0.9
-1.2
Harvest Harvest
-1.5
-1.8
Harvest
-2.1
Evapotranspiration (mm·d )
-1

10
D E F
8

4 Harvest
Harvest

2 Harvest

0
June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept June July Aug Sept

Month Month Month

Fig. 6. Seasonal changes in (A-C) leaf water potential and (D-F) evapotranspiration in
mature (A, D) ‘Duke’, (B, E) ‘Bluecrop’, and (C, F) ‘Elliott’ blueberry plants. Adapted from
Bryla & Strik (2007).
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 175

4. Estimating evapotranspiration for irrigation scheduling in blueberry

Irrigation scheduling, a key element of proper water management, is the accurate
forecasting of water application (amount and timing) for optimal crop production (yield and
fruit quality). The goal is to apply the correct amount of water at the right time to minimize
irrigation costs and maximize crop production and economic return. Many techniques and
technologies can forecast the date and amount of irrigation water to apply. The appropriate
technique or technology is a function of the irrigation water supply, technical abilities of the
irrigator, irrigation system, crop value, crop response to irrigation, cost of implementing
technology, and personal preference. This section illustrates tools and techniques available
for improving irrigation scheduling in blueberry.

4.1 Procedures for calculating blueberry evapotranspiration

Irrigation is required of course whenever precipitation is inadequate to meet the water
demands of the crop, which, depending on latitude and weather patterns, can occur anytime
from March through October in the northern hemisphere and from September to May the in
southern hemisphere. In Oregon, USA, average seasonal water requirements for blueberry
range from 15 to 49 mm per week (Hess et al., 2000). The highest irrigation requirements
typically occur in July, although actual peak irrigation demands vary considerably
throughout the summer depending on weather, location, and stage of fruit development.
Nearly all water taken up by a crop is lost by transpiration, a process that consists of the
vaporization of liquid water contained in the plant to the atmosphere; only a tiny fraction is
used within the plant. The water, together with some nutrients, is absorbed by the roots and
transported through the plant. The water is vaporized within the leaves and transferred to
the atmosphere through the leaf stomata. Water use by the crop is fairly complicated to
estimate and will depend on numerous factors, including weather, plant age and cultivar,
soil conditions, and cultural practices. Water is also lost from the soil surface by
evaporation, particularly within the first few days after rain or irrigation. Crop transpiration
and soil evaporation occur simultaneously and there is no easy way of distinguishing
between the two processes. Therefore, crop water requirements are typically estimated as
the combination of the two processes, collectively termed crop evapotranspiration (ET).
Weekly estimates of crop ET are often accessible on the internet from weather-based websites,
e.g., AgriMet (Pacific Northwest Cooperative Agricultural Weather Network;
http://www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/) and CIMIS (California Irrigation Management
Information System; http://wwwcimis.water.ca.gov/cimis/welcome.jsp). These sites obtain
data from a satellite-based network of automated agricultural weather stations located
throughout a region of interest. Weather data are used to estimate ET of a reference surface
such as grass (ETo) or alfalfa (ETr), which is then converted to crop ET using an appropriate
crop coefficient (Kc) for blueberry (for details, see Allen et al., 1998). A crop coefficient
represents the relative amount water used by a crop (e.g., blueberry) to that used by grass or
alfalfa. Therefore, the value will change over the season as the crop canopy develops. Crop
coefficients will also differ depending on whether crop ET is calculated using ETo or ETr. An
example of crop coefficients used for calculating blueberry ET based on weather-based
estimates of ETr is shown in Fig. 7A. The coefficients increase as the canopy develops from bud
break to the beginning of fruit ripening and then gradually declines until leaf senescence and
dormancy. Blueberry reaches full effective canopy cover when the first blue fruit appear and it
is at this stage that water use by blueberry is equal to alfalfa and Kc = 1.
176 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

1.4
A 1.4
B
Kc = Kcb + Ke
1.2 First blue fruit 100% blue fruit 1.2 Ke

1.0 1.0
Crop coefficent, Kc

Crop coefficent, Kc
0.8 0.8

0.6 Dormancy 0.6

0.4 0.4 K
cb

0.2 0.2
Crop
Bud break Initial
development
Mid season Late season
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 Apr. Jun. Aug. Oct. Dec.
Growth stage (% of full season) Month

Fig. 7. Crop coefficient curves for highbush blueberry from (A) AgriMet and (B) FAO-56.
Blueberry ET is calculated at various stages of crop development by multiplying Kc by ETr
or ETo, respectively.
The FAO-56 guidelines for calculating crop ET recommends using a simplified segmented
Kc curve approach whereby the growing season is divided into four distinct stages: initial,
crop development, mid season, and late season (Allen et al., 1998; Fig. 7B). In perennial
crops, the initial stage begins at bud break or the green-up date when new leaves are
initiated and continues to about 10% ground cover. The Kc during the initial stage (Kc ini) is
predominated by soil evaporation and therefore is large when the soil is wet from rain or
irrigation and small when the soil is dry. The crop development stage runs from 10%
ground cover to effective full cover. Again, full cover in blueberry occurs about when the
fruit just begin to turn blue but may be prior to fruit ripening in later season cultivars. The
mid-season stage runs from full cover to the beginning of leaf yellowing, i.e., the start of
senescence. It is the longest stage during the growing season and is the period in which Kc
reaches its maximum value (Kc mid). The late-season stage runs from leaf yellowing to
complete leaf senescence (Kc end). The Kc values increase linearly from Kc ini to Kc mid and
decrease from Kc mid to Kc end; however, the slopes will vary depending on the length of each
stage. Crop transpiration and soil evaporation may be combined into a single coefficient, Kc,
(single crop coefficient approach) or separated into two coefficients: a basal crop coefficient
(Kcb), which represents primarily the transpiration component of ET, and a soil evaporation
component (Ke) (dual crop coefficient approach). In this later case, Kc is replaced by Kcb + Ke.
The Kc values listed for berries (bushes) in FAO-56 are 0.30 (Kc ini), 1.05 (Kc mid), and 0.50 (Kc
end); the Kcb values are 0.20 (Kcb ini), 1.00 (Kcb mid), and 0.40 (Kcb end). Blueberry ET in this case is
calculated at each stage of development by multiplying Kc or Kcb+Ke by ETo. See Allen et al.
(1998) for procedures on calculating Ke.
To adjust for smaller plant size in new plantings, Fereres et al. (1982) developed a correction
factor, Fc, by correlating crop ET to canopy development using data from young almond
trees. The relationship was modified by Holzapfel et al. (2004) to estimate ET for young
blueberries using the following equation:

ETblueberry  K c ETo Fc (1)

where
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 177

Fc  K 1Sh  K 2 (2)

and

As
Sh  (3)
HL
Sh is percent shade (10 ≤ Sh ≤ 70), K1 and K2 are constants of the shadow factor adjusted for
irrigation method (equal to 0.0118 and 0.25, respectively, for drip and 0.0127 and 0.1125,
respectively, for microsprays), As is the area of the soil surface shaded by the crop canopy at
1200 h (m2), H is the distance between rows (m), and L is the distance between plants within
the row (m). The correction factor, Fc, is a function of cultural practices, the type of irrigation
system used, planting density, and climatic conditions of the area. Once a planting has 70%
cover or larger, it reaches an adult condition where crop ET is no longer a function of plant
size (Bryla & Strik, 2007). However, because blueberry is a relatively short crop (<2.0 m tall
and <1.5 m wide) with a fairly wide rows (3.0-3.6 m apart), Fc can also be used to adjust for
lack of canopy cover between rows in mature plantings.
Normally, irrigation should be scheduled to replace any water lost by crop ET. Keep in
mind, however, that these are ET estimates for mature, healthy, well-irrigated blueberry
plants. Adjustments to these values are needed when plants are young or stressed (e.g.,
nutrient deficient). Under these circumstances, irrigators should reduce the amount of
irrigation water applied but pay close attention to soil moisture conditions to avoid under-
or over-irrigating their crop. There are numerous devices available for monitoring soil
moisture, although some are more accurate and reliable than others. Many of these
monitoring devices need to be calibrated to a particular site so that gathered data can be
related to actual soil moisture conditions. Soil moisture monitors should be installed within
the root zone (usually 0.15-0.30 m deep) of a representative plant and should not be located
directly beneath an irrigation emitter.

4.2 Adjusting water applications for irrigation system efficiency

It is important to understand that a crop’s irrigation requirements differ considerably
from its water requirements. Crop water requirements indicate the total amount of water
directly used by a crop but do not account for any extra water needed to compensate for
non-beneficial water use or loss, e.g., run-off, deep percolation, evaporation, wind drift,
ground cover, weeds, etc. Additionally, irrigation systems do not apply water with 100%
uniformity (Burt et al., 2000). For accurate irrigation scheduling, these losses must be
evaluated for each system. The most common systems used to irrigate blueberry are
sprinklers and drip.
Average irrigation application efficiencies for well-maintained solid set sprinkler systems
generally range from 65-75%, which largely depends on the quality of sprinkler overlap.
Close spacing and newer sprinkler heads help improve sprinkler water application
efficiency. Brand new drip systems, on the other hand, can generally be designed with 85-
93% efficiency, except in cases with major elevation changes. Beware that neglected drip
systems have been shown to have actual efficiencies closer to 60-80%. Primary causes for
low efficiencies include flow variation due to poor system design, emitter plugging, and
pressure differences within the field.
178 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

In northwest Oregon, USA, average irrigation requirements throughout the growing season
are estimated to range from 4-16 mm of water per day with sprinklers and 1-4 mm of water
per day by drip (Table 1). The highest irrigation requirements typically occur in July,
although actual peak irrigation demands will vary throughout the summer depending on

Average daily water requirements

Early- In-row spacing¶ Late- In-row spacing¶

season 0.75 m 0.9 m 1.2 m season 0.75 m 0.9 m 1.2 m
cultivars -------- (L/plant/day) ---- cultivars -------- (L/plant/day) ----
Month (mm/day) ---- (mm/day) ----
----------------------------------------- Sprinkler irrigation§ ----------------------------
-------------
May 6 15 18 24 4 9 11 14
June 12 27 33 43 10 22 27 36
July 16 37 45 59 16 38 45 60
August 11 27 32 42 12 28 33 44
September 9 21 25 33 9 21 25 34
Max.
demand† 22 52 62 83 22 52 62 83
----------------------------------------- Drip irrigation§ ----------------------------
-------------
May 2 4 4 6 1 2 3 4
June 3 7 8 11 3 6 7 9
July 4 9 11 15 4 10 12 16
August 3 7 8 11 3 7 8 11
September 2 5 6 8 2 5 6 8
Max.
demand† 6 14 16 22 6 14 16 22
----------------------------------------- According to AgriMet# ----------------------------
ay 3 7 8 11 2 4 5 7
June 5 13 15 20 5 11 13 17
July 7 17 21 28 8 18 21 28
August 5 12 15 20 6 13 16 21
September 4 10 12 16 4 10 12 16
Max.
demand† 10 24 29 39 10 24 29 39
Calculations are based on a 3.0-m wide between-row spacing.
§Values should be adjusted for precipitation before scheduling irrigation.
#Obtained from AgriMet website (http://www.usbr.gov/pn/agrimet/). These values must be
adjusted for water application efficiency of the irrigation system in order to estimate irrigation water
requirements.
†Occurs when conditions are hot (>35˚C), dry, and windy in mid-July to early-August.
Table 1. Average daily water requirements for healthy, mature highbush blueberry plants in
northwest Oregon. Note that values will differ at other locations, depending on latitude,
elevation, and local weather conditions.
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 179

weather and stage of fruit development. A well-maintained drip system generally requires
only about 25% of the water needed with sprinklers due to the higher efficiency associated
with drip irrigation. It should be noted, however, that the actual crop water use by sprinkler
and drip-irrigated blueberries is theoretically identical. Irrigation requirements will also
vary of course with location but are easily adjusted when calculating crop ET.

4.3 Timing of water applications

The timing or frequency of water applications will depend on soil texture (e.g., sand versus
clay), the irrigation system used (e.g., drip versus sprinkler), the rate at which the plant is
using water, and the overall development of the plant’s root system. Blueberry is a shallow-
rooted plant compared to many perennial fruit crops. The roots of highbush blueberry are
usually located in the top 0.5 m of soil and are often most concentrated near the soil surface
(Fig. 8). Patten et al. (1988) found that 90% of the roots in rabbiteye blueberry, which tends
to produce deeper roots than highbush cultivars, were less than 0.45 m deep even when
plants were not mulched (drier soil surface) and were irrigated by drip (concentrated soil
wetting pattern). Consequently, when water demands are high, blueberry plants quickly
depletes the water from their root zone and require frequent applications of water in order
to avoid water stress.
0.0

0.1

0.2
Soil depth (m)

0.3

Duke
0.4 Bluecrop
Elliott

0.5

0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-3
Root length density (cm roots cm soil)

Fig. 8. Root length density of mature ‘Duke’, ‘Bluecrop’, and ‘Elliott’ blueberry plants. Roots
were collected at 0.1-m depth increments. Adapted from Bryla & Strik (2007).
Frequent water applications are especially important when using drip, which tends to restrict
soil wetting and thus produces a smaller root system. When done properly, frequent
irrigations are beneficial and often increase growth and yield in many horticultural crops. For
example, frequent irrigation by drip in peach increased fruit size and yield compared to other
irrigation methods by maintaining higher tree water status between irrigations (Bryla et al.,
2005). It may also be important to apply water to both sides of the plant. Abbott & Gough
180 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

(1986) found that when water was applied to only one side of the blueberry bush, growth and
production was severely restricted on the other side. Irrigators, however, particularly those
using drip, should be careful to avoid the temptation to over-irrigate. Over-irrigation depletes
the root zone of much-needed oxygen, thus reducing both root growth and nutrient uptake
and leading to a host of potential root disease problems. Davies & Flore (1986) observed, in
both highbush and rabbiteye blueberry, that stomatal conductance declined within 5 days and
photosynthesis declined within 9 days when plants were grown in flooded soil, and 18 days or
more were required for each process to recover to pre-flood conditions.
High-frequency irrigation may be especially beneficial and perhaps even required when
organic matter is incorporated into the planting bed. Organic matter often reduces water
holding capacity of the soil and can lead to problems with hydrophobicity. Soil
hydrophobicity is the lack of affinity of soil to water and is thought to be caused primarily
by a coating of long-chained hydrophobic organic molecules, such as those released from
decaying organic matter, on individual soil particles (DeBano, 2000). Hydrophobic soils
often become very difficult to rewet once they dry out. White (2006) found that even with
drip irrigation, sawdust incorporated into raised planting beds made it difficult to retain
adequate moisture in the upper portions of the soil where many of the blueberry roots were
located. To compensate, much longer and more frequent irrigation was required in beds
with incorporated sawdust than without. Personal observations indicate that, even after 50
mm of rainfall, dry beds with incorporated sawdust tend to remain dry and do not become
fully saturated until the following season. Krewer et al. (2002) found that water infiltrated
much more readily through sandy soil amended with pine post and pole peelings (2-45 mm
long pieces of bark and wood) than soil amended with milled pine bark, although plant
growth was slightly less in the soil with the larger-sized product.

4.4 Other tools and techniques

Other potential methods available to schedule irrigation in perennial crops include soil-based
and plant-based monitoring approaches. The soil-based approach relies on soil moisture
monitoring devices set in a feedback mode to automatically open and close irrigation valves
when soil moisture reaches a certain level of dryness. Unfortunately, these systems are not
universal and require careful calibration from site to site to operate properly. Little research
has been done with these soil-based systems on blueberry. The plant-based approach may be
the most accurate method to schedule irrigations and avoid water stress during critical stages
of growth but is probably also the most complex and labor intensive. This type of approach
uses measures of plant growth or water status to determine exactly when irrigation is needed.
Leaf water potential measurements are currently used as a successful tool for scheduling
irrigation in fruit trees. Interpretation of water potentials for irrigation scheduling is
complicated however by the fact that values are influenced by weather conditions. For
example, leaf water potential tends to decrease with time over the season regardless of
adequacy of irrigation due to increasing evaporative demand. To overcome this problem, a
fully irrigated baseline (reference) value of stem water potentials must be calculated for any
given value of midday air vapor pressure deficit (VPD). A baseline value is applicable to a
wide variety of soil and irrigation conditions and has provided stem water potential
guidelines for fully irrigated fruit trees grown in California using relative humidity and air
temperature (Shackel et al., 1997). Once developed, data collected from weather stations can be
used for baseline estimates in commercial fields throughout a region. Irrigation scheduling is
accomplished by comparing actual water potentials to reference values; when actual values
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 181

fall below reference values, irrigation is increased. Typically, irrigation is increased by 5-10%
above the previous week’s rate when mean weekly stem water potentials are lower than
reference values, and decreased by 5-10% when actual and reference values are equal for two
consecutive weeks. To ensure plants are not over or under irrigated, soil water content should
also be monitored at least monthly. Soil water content measurements may also provide
information to help determine initial irrigation rates based on root-zone changes in the soil
water profile during the first few weeks of the growing season.

5. Irrigation systems and considerations for water application

Most commercial blueberry fields in the U.S. are irrigated by overhead sprinklers or drip
(Strik & Yarborough, 2005). Water is typically applied one to two times per week as needed
with sprinklers and every one to three days with drip. Sprinkler systems are relatively simple
to install and maintain, and when designed properly, obtain reasonable uniformity of water
application. Some major advantages of sprinklers are that they can be used to maintain a
cover crop, protect the crop from frost damage during subfreezing temperatures, cool the
crop during hot conditions, and wash dust off the crop before harvest. Drip systems are
somewhat more expensive to install and more difficult to maintain than sprinklers but offer
superior water control and distribution uniformity, lower energy costs, improved application of
fertilizer and other chemicals, improved cultural practices, including the ability to irrigate
during harvest, fewer weed and disease problems, and reduced food safety risks when using
surface water to irrigate (Kruse et al., 1990). A few growers are also using microsprays on
blueberry. Microspray irrigation offers advantages similar to drip but applies the water to
the soil surface by a small spray. Although not commonly used in blueberry, Holzapfel et al.
(2004) found in Chile that production was higher with microsprays than with drip. Because
microsprays wet more soil volume than drip, plants tend to produce a larger root system,
which may be a considerable advantage in a shallow, densely-rooted crop like blueberry
(Patten et al., 1988).

5.1 A comparison of irrigation methods

Bryla et al. (2011) compared the water requirements for growing blueberry with sprinklers,
drip, and microsprays to determine which method produces the most growth after planting.
Two cultivars, ‘Duke’ and ‘Elliott’, were evaluated. By the end of the second growing
season, drip irrigation produced the largest ‘Elliott’ plants among the irrigation methods
with 42% less water than microsprays and 56% less water than sprinklers. The benefit of
drip in ‘Elliott’ was likely a result of superior plant water status due to higher soil water
content in the vicinity of the roots. Drip also maintained higher plant water potentials than
microsprays in other perennial fruit crops, including peach and almond (Bryla et al., 2005;
Edstrom & Schwankl, 2004). Drip irrigation, however, was not beneficial in ‘Duke’ (Bryla &
Linderman, 2007). In this case, plants irrigated by drip were only half the size of those
irrigated by sprinklers or microsprays. Root sampling revealed that ‘Duke’ was infected by
Phytophthora cinnamomi, the causal organism often associated with root rot in blueberry, and
the wetter soil conditions with drip were more favorable to the disease. Therefore, in terms
of early plant growth and water use efficiency, drip irrigation was the best method out of
the three to establish healthy blueberry plants. However, sprinklers and microsprays may be
better alternatives for cultivars such as ‘Duke’ that are highly susceptible to root rot,
especially at sites with heavy soils or a history of the disease.
182 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

Fruit were first harvested beginning the third year after planting in ‘Elliott’ and fourth year
after planting in ‘Duke’ (Fig. 9). During the first 4 years of production, yields were similar in
‘Duke’ whether plants were irrigated by sprinklers or microsprays but lower when irrigated
by drip due again to higher incidence of root rot. Root rot does not usually result in plant
death in blueberry, although it will reduce growth and production even when plants are
treated with fungicide, as we did each year beginning the third year after planting. In
‘Elliott’, yields were slightly higher with drip than with sprinklers and microsprays during
the first year of production and still higher than sprinklers the second year. However, by the
third year, yield was similar between drip and sprinklers but higher when plants were
irrigated by microsprays. This latter result agrees with that of Holzapfel et al. (2004), who
compared drip and microsprays in ‘Bluecrop’. They positioned the microsprays under the
canopy on each side of the plants whereas we hung the microsprays above the canopy
between every other plant. Hanging the microsprays reduced the number of microsprays
needed and reduced problems with plants interfering with the microsprays.

16 Duke 28 Elliott

14 24
Sprinkler
12 Microspray 20
Drip
Yield (t·ha-1)

Yield (t·ha-1)

10 16

8 12

6 8

4 4

2 0
3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 6 7
Years after planting Years after planting

Fig. 9. Marketable fruit yield of ’Duke’ and ‘Elliott’ blueberry irrigated by sprinklers,
microsprays, or drip. Each symbol represents the mean of five plots with six plants each,
and error bars represent one standard error.

5.2 Drip lateral placement

Most new plantings of blueberry are irrigated by drip. One or two laterals of drip tubing is
used per row, and the tubing is usually either laid on the ground or hung on a trellis wire
with one or two laterals of tubing used per row. Drip emitters are often spaced 0.3-0.6 m
apart and range from 1-4 LPH, depending on the design of the system. The goal is to
distribute water evenly around the plants; thus the optimum number and placement of
emitters will vary depending on plant size, soil type, cultural practices, and weather
conditions. Proper lateral placement improves growth and production and increases water
use efficiency. It may also reduce problems with soil pathogens (Café-Filho & Duniway,
1996).
We examined the potential of using different drip configurations to reduce the incidence of
root rot in ‘Duke’. The configurations included two laterals of drip tubing placed on the soil
surface on each side of the plants, two laterals buried 0.15 m deep on each side of the plants
(approximately 0.3 m from the crown), and one lateral suspended 1.2 m above the plants.
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 183

After 2 years, plants irrigated by buried drip were larger and healthier than those irrigated
by surface drip, particularly when the laterals were placed near the base of the plants. Signs
of water stress, including marginal leaf necrosis, were evident in plants irrigated by surface
drip, even after 3 years. In comparison, there was no evidence of water stress in plants
irrigated by subsurface drip. The use of subsurface drip maintained lower soil water content
near the plants, which reduced root rot and encouraged more lateral root development.
Subsurface drip also eliminated water runoff and soil erosion observed with both the
surface drip configurations.

6. Conclusions and future research needs

Blueberry is a shallow-rooted crop highly susceptible to water deficits. Within 3 to 4 days
without irrigation, both plant water potential and transpiration steadily decline. The plants
appear to be most affected by soil water limitation in the later stages of berry development,
particularly during fruit ripening, as well as after harvest during fruit bud set. During
fruiting, early-season cultivars with a compressed fruiting period have higher water
requirements than later-season cultivars and therefore may be more readily exposed to
water stress without rain or irrigation. Crop coefficients are available to estimate crop water
requirements for irrigation scheduling in blueberry; however, the accuracy of these
coefficients requires further testing using various cultivars and cultural practices (e.g., flat
versus raised beds, different mulch materials, etc.).
The most common methods used to irrigate blueberry are sprinklers and drip. The amount
of water applied by sprinklers or drip must be adjusted for application efficiency when
irrigation is scheduled based on estimated water requirements. In general, estimated water
requirements are less than the irrigation requirements when blueberry is irrigated by
sprinklers but are higher than when irrigated by drip. The higher requirements with
sprinklers are due to the relatively low application efficiency (approximately 50% water is
applied between rows where there are no roots) while the lower requirements with drip are
due to high application efficiency (water is applied directly to the roots) and the fact that
canopy cover generally averages less than 50% even as plants approach full maturity, which
thereby reduces the actual crop ET.
Drip irrigation improves growth and early production compared to sprinklers, provided the
blueberry plants are healthy. Drip, however, may also increase incidence of root rot in
susceptible cultivars and is not recommended at sites with heavy soils or a history of the
disease. In healthy plants, yield differs little whether plants are irrigated by sprinklers or
drip but may be higher when plants are irrigated by microsprays. Microsprays are not
traditionally used in blueberry, but the method shows considerable promise and requires
further study to determine its potential in commercial blueberry production systems. Work
is still needed on the impacts of irrigation methods and scheduling strategies on fruit quality
in blueberry, including such irrigation practices as cooling the fruit during hot weather.

7. References
Abbott, J.D. & Gough, R.E. (1986) Split-root water application to highbush blueberry plants.
HortScience, Vol. 21, pp. 997-998, ISSN 0018-5345
184 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

Abbott, J.D. & Gough, R.E. (1987) Seasonal development of highbush blueberry roots under
sawdust mulch. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, Vol.112, pp.
60-62, ISSN 0003-1062
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. & Smith, M. (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements, Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, ISBN 92-5-104219-5, Rome, Italy
Améglio, T., Le Roux, X., Mingeau, M. & Perrier, C. (2000) Water relations of highbush
blueberry under drought conditions. Acta Horticulturae, Vol.537, pp. 273-278, ISSN
0567-7572
Anderson, P.C., Buchanan, D.W. & Albrigo, L.G. (1979) Water relations and yields of three
rabbiteye blueberry cultivars with and without drip irrigation. Journal of the
American Society for Horticultural Science, Vol.104, pp. 731-736, ISSN 0003-1062
Bryla, D.R. & Linderman, R.G. (2007) Implications of irrigation method and amount of water
application on Phytophthora and Pythium infection and severity of root rot in
highbush blueberry. HortScience, Vol.42, pp. 1463-1467, ISSN0018-5345
Bryla, D.R. & Strik, B.C. (2006) Variation in plant and soil water relations among irrigated
blueberry cultivars planted at two distinct in-row spacings. Acta Horticulturae Vol.
715, pp. 295-300, ISSN 0567-7572
Bryla, D.R. & Strik, B.C. (2007) Effects of cultivar and plant spacing on the seasonal water
requirements of highbush blueberry. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural
Science, Vol.132, pp. 270-277, ISSN 0003-1062
Bryla, D.R, Gartung, J.L. & Strik, B.C. (2011) Evaluation of irrigation methods for highbush
blueberry―I. Growth and water requirements of young plants. HortScience, Vol.46,
pp. 95-101, ISSN 0018-5345
Bryla, D.R., Dickson, E., Shenk, R., Johnson, R.S., Crisosto, C.H. & Trout, T.J. (2005) Influence
of irrigation method and scheduling on patterns of soil and tree water status and its
relation to yield and fruit quality in peach. HortScience, Vol.40, pp. 2118-2124, ISSN
0018-5345
Café-Filho, A.C. & Duniway, J.M. (1996) Effects of location of drip irrigation emitters and
position of Phytophthora capsici infections in roots on Phytophthora root rot of
pepper. Phytopathology 86:1364–1369
Caruso, F.L. & Ramsdell, D.C. (1995) Compendium of Blueberry and Cranberry Diseases.
American Phytopathological Society Press, ISBN 978-0-89054-173-9, St. Paul.,
Minnesota, USA
Davies, F.S. & Flore, J.A. (1986) Gas exchange and flooding stress of highbush and rabbiteye
blueberries. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, Vol.111, pp. 565-
571, ISSN 0003-1062
Davies, F.S. & Johnson, C.R. (1982) Water stress, growth, and critical water potentials of
rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei Reade). Journal of the American Society for
Horticultural Science, Vol.107, pp. 6-8, ISSN 0003-1062
Davies, F.S. & Lakso, A.N. (1979) Water stress responses of apple trees. I. Effects of light and
soil preconditioning treatments on tree physiology. Journal of the American Society
for Horticultural Science, Vol.104, pp. 392-395, ISSN 0003-1062
DeBano, L.F. (2000) Water repellency in soils: A historical overview. Journal of Hydrology,
Vol.231-232, pp. 4-32, ISSN 0022-1694
Crop Evapotranspiration and Irrigation Scheduling in Blueberry 185

Edstrom, J. & Schwankl, L. (2004) Nickels Soil Lab Project, In: Years of Discovery. A
Compendium of Production and Environmental Research Projects, 1972-2003, pp. 337-
346, California Almond Board, Modesto, California, USA
Fereres, E., Martinich, D., Aldrich, T., Castel, J., Holzapfel, E. & Schulbach, H. (l982) Drip
irrigation saves money in a young almond orchard. California Agriculture, Vol. 36,
pp. 12-13, ISSN 0008-0845
Hess, M., Strik, B., Smesrud, J. & Selker, J. (2000) Blueberry, In: Western Oregon Irrigation
Guides, pp. 11-12, Oregon State University Extension Service, EM 8713, Corvallis,
Oregon, USA
Hicklenton, P.R., Reekie, J.Y., Gordon, R.J. & Percival D.C. (2000) Seasonal patterns of
photosynthesis and stomatal conductance in lowbush blueberry plants managed in
a two-year production cycle. HortScience, Vol.35, pp. 55-59, ISSN 0018-5345
Holzapfel, E.A., Hepp, R.F. & Mariño M.A. (2004) Effect of irrigation on fruit production in
blueberry. Agricultural Water Management, Vol.67, pp. 173-184, ISSN 0378-3774
Krewer, G., Ruter, J., NeSmith, D.S., Clark, J., Otts, T., Scarborough, S. & Mullinix, B. (2002)
Performance of low cost organic materials as blueberry substrates and soil
amendments. Acta Horticulturae, Vol.574, pp. 273-279, ISSN 0567-7572
Kruse, E.G., Bucks, D.A. & von Bernuth R.D. (1990) Comparison of irrigation systems, In:
Irrigation of Agricultural Crops, B.A. Stewart & D.R. Nielson (eds.), pp. 475–508,
Agronomy Monograph No. 30, American Society of Agronomy, Inc. Publishers,
ISBN 0-89118-102-4, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
Mingeau, M., Perrier, C. & Améglio, T. (2001) Evidence of drought-sensitive periods from
flowering to maturity on highbush blueberry. Scientia Horticulturae, Vol.89, pp. 23-
40, ISSN 0304-4238
Nightingale, G.T. (1935) Effects of temperature on growth, anatomy, and metabolism of
apple and peach roots. Botanical Gazette, Vol.96, pp. 58-637, ISSN 0006-8071
Patten, K.D., Neuendorff, E.W., & Peters, S.C. (1988) Root distribution of ‘Climax’ rabbiteye
blueberry as affected by mulch and irrigation geometry. Journal of the American
Society for Horticultural Science, Vol.113, pp. 657-661, ISSN 0003-1062
Pearcy, R.W., Schulze, E.-D. & Zimmermann, R. (1989) Measurements of transpiration and
leaf conductance, In: Plant Physiological Ecology. Field Methods and Instrumentation,
R.W. Pearcy, J. Ehleringer, H.A. Mooney & P.W. Rundel (eds.), Chapman and Hall,
ISBN 0-412-40730-2, New York, New York, USA
Renquist, A.R, Breen, B.J. & Martin, L.W. (1982) Influences of water status and temperature
on leaf elongation in strawberry. Scientia Horticulturae, Vol.18, pp. 77-85, ISSN 0304-
4238
Rogers, W.S. (1939) Root studies: VIII. Apple root growth in relation to rootstock, soil,
seasonal, and climatic factors. Journal of Pomology and Horticultural Science, Vol.17,
pp. 99-130, ISSN 0028-0836
Savé, R., Peñuelas, J., Marfà, O. & Serrano, L. (1993) Changes in leaf osmotic and elastic
properties and canopy structure of strawberries under mild water stress.
HortScience, Vol.28, pp. 925-927, ISSN 0018-5345
Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T., Hemmingsen, E.A. & Bradstreet, E.D. (1964) Hydrostatic
pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangrove and some other plants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol.52, pp. 119-125, ISSN 0027-
8424
 186 Evapotranspiration – From Measurements to Agricultural and Environmental Applications

Shackel, K.A., Ahmadi, H., Biasi, W., Buchner, R., Goldhamer, D., Gurusinghe, S., Hasey, J.,
Kester, D., Krueger, B., Lampinen, B.B., McGourty, G., Micke, W., Mitcham, E.,
Olsen, B., Pelletrau, K., Phillips, H., Ramos, D., Schwankl, L., Sibbert, S., Snyder, R.,
Southwick, S., Stevenson, M., Thorpe, M., Weinbaum, S. & Yeager, J. (1997) Plant
water status as an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit trees. HortTechnology
Vol.7, pp. 23-29, ISSN 1063-0918
Slayter, R.O. (1967) Plant-Water Relationships. Academic Press, New York, New York, USA
Sperry, J.S., Donnelly, R.R. & Tyree, M.T. (1988) A method for measuring hydraulic
conductivity and embolism in xylem. Plant, Cell & Environment, Vol.11, pp. 35-40,
ISSN 0140-7791
Strik, B. & Buller, G. (2005) The impact of early cropping on subsequent growth and yield of
highbush blueberry in the establishment years at two planting densities is cultivar
dependent. HortScience, Vol.40, pp. 1998-2001, ISSN 0018-5345
Strik, B. & Yarborough, D. 2005. Blueberry production trends in north america, 1992 to 2003
and predictions for growth. HortTechnology Vol.15, pp. 391-398, ISSN 1063-0918
Strik, B., Brun, C., Ahmedullah, M., Antonelli, A., Askam, L., Barney, D., Bristow, P.,
Fisher, G., Hart, J., Havens, D., Ingham, R., Kaufman, D., Penhalgon, R., Pscheidt, J.,
Scheer, B., Shanks, C. & William, R. (1993) Highbush Blueberry Production. Oregon
State University Extension Service Publication PNW 215
Tamada, T. (2002) Stages of rabbiteye and highbush blueberry fruit development and
associated changes in mineral elements. Acta Horticulturae, Vol.574, pp. 129-137,
ISSN 0567-7572
Throop, P.A. & Hanson, E.J. (1997) Effect of application date on absorption of 15nitrogen by
highbush blueberry. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, Vol.122,
pp. 422-426, ISSN 0003-1062
USHBC (2009) 2009 World blueberry acreage and production report. U.S. Highbush
Blueberry Council.
White, L.D. (2006) The effect of pre-plant incorporation with sawdust, sawdust mulch, and
nitrogen fertilizer rate on soil properties and nitrogen uptake and growth of ‘Elliott’
highbush blueberry. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA
Zhang, B. & Archbold, D.D. (1993) Solute accumulation in leaves of a Fragaria chiloensis and
a F. virginiana responds to water deficit stress. Journal of the American Society for
Horticultural Science, Vol.118, pp. 280-285, ISSN 0003-1062

View publication stats