Corrected Proof
1© IWA Publishing 2018 Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Modeling water and salinity risks to viticulture under
prolonged sustained deﬁcit and saline water irrigation
V. Phogat, J. W. Cox, J. Šimů nek and P. Hayman

ABSTRACTA numerical model (HYDRUS-1D) was used to evaluate the impacts of the long-term (2004–2015) use
of sustained deﬁcit irrigation (10% (D10%) and 20% (D20%) less than full), irrigations with increased
water salinity (ECiw of 0.5 and 0.8 dS/m), 50% deﬁcit irrigation during a drought period (DD50%), andDD50% coupled with an increased salinity of water (ECiw of 0.5 and 0.8 dS/m) on the water balanceand salinity dynamics under grapevine in two soils at two locations with different climatic conditions.
The results showed that D20% and DD50% signiﬁcantly reduced water uptake and seasonal drainage(Dr) by the vines as compared to full irrigation. Vineyards established in light-textured soils showed
two to ﬁve times larger drainage losses as compared to heavy-textured soils. The results revealed
that the slight increase in the electrical conductivity of irrigation water (ECiw ¼ 0.5 and 0.8 dS/m)
increased the risks in terms of the amount of salts deposited in the soil and transport of large
quantities of irrigation-induced salts beyond the root zone. Hence, it is imperative to monitor all of
the important water, soil, and salinity drivers of agro-hydro-geological systems to understand thehydro-salinity dynamics and to ensure the long-term sustainability of irrigated viticulture.
Key words | deﬁcit irrigation, HYDRUS-1D, salt leaching, soil salinity, viticulture, water balance

V. Phogat (corresponding author)
J. W. Cox
P. Hayman
South Australian Research and Development
Institute,
GPO. Box 397, Adelaide, SA 5001,
Australia
E-mail: vinphogat@gmail.com
V. Phogat
CCS Haryana Agricultural University,
Hisar 125 004,
India
J. W. CoxThe University of Adelaide,
PMB1 Glen, Osmond, SA 5064,
Australia
J. Šimů nek
Department of Environmental Sciences,
University of California,
Riverside, CA 92521,
United States

INTRODUCTION
Irrigated viticulture in arid and semi-arid regions of theDuring drought years, the salinity of Murray River water

world relies on favorable climate conditions and an assured

increases considerably, which imposes increased osmotic

supply of irrigation water for long-term sustainable pro-

impacts on irrigated crops including grapevine. Biswas

duction. Therefore, climate variability (e.g., precipitation

et al. () estimated a $117 m production loss of all irri-and evapotranspiration) and irrigation variability (e.g., sub-gated crops including grapevine in the lower Murray

optimal irrigation and poor water quality) are the major

region if the salinity of the River at Morgan increases toissues that may have serious implications on production

1 dS/m. On the other hand, climate projections by the Coun-and the quality of produce. In the arid and semi-arid regions

cil of Scientiﬁc and Industrial Research (CSIRO) andof the world, irrigation with poor quality water may deposit

Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) (CSIRO & BoM ) suggest

enormous amounts of salts in the soil, which in turn, render

an increased occurrence and severity of such events in thethe soil unﬁt for crop production. It is well understood that

future, which could have a severe impact on the sustainabil-

globally about 20% of irrigated land is salt-affected, andity of irrigated viticulture. The increased concentrations ofevery year about 2,000 ha of farmland is lost to salt-related

salts in the soil due to irrigation can pose serious risks todegradation (Qadir et al. ). The Australian Murray–groundwater quality and result in a lateral transport of

Darling Basin (MDB), which contains 70% of Australia’s

solutes to river systems and other surface water bodies.

irrigated land area, is among some of the most severelyHence, climate variability coupled with uncertainty in allo-

salt-affected regions in the world (Assouline et al. ).

cation of irrigation water can have a severe impact on thedoi: 10.2166/wcc.2018.186

Corrected Proof
2

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018sustainability of irrigated viticulture, particularly in thewater under mandarin. However, it is still unknown to whatsouthern end of MDB which is a major grape and wine pro-extent this deﬁcit and increased salinity of water, if used

ducing region, contributing 30% of the total Southlong term, impact water balance, salinity dynamics, andAustralian wine grapes crush and with 93% of vineyards

amount of salts leached from a vineyard’s root zone.

using supplementary irrigation.

Conducting long-term experiments involving many

Grapevine has been reported to be a moderately salt

treatments is an expensive and time-consuming affair. Alter-

sensitive plant species with a threshold ECe between 1.8

natively, predictive science and modeling are the optionaland 4.0 dS m1 and yield decreases by about 2.3–15.0%

tools to gauge the long-term impacts of a changing climate

with a unit increase in salinity depending on cultivars andand irrigation practices on water use and salinity dynamics

root-stocks (Zhang et al. ). Laurenson et al. ()in the soil under cropped conditions. There are large

reviewed studies highlighting the impact of using recycled

number of models (https://soil-modeling.org/resources-

and saline irrigation water on grapevine yield and wine qual-

links/model-portal/model-collection; Vereecken et al. )ity. According to the results discussed in this review,that have been used in many similar studies. These models

grapevine growth, yield, and grape composition could all

have their own pros and cons depending on their ability to

be both directly and indirectly affected, and either positively

address climate, soil, and crop variables. HYDRUS-1Dor negatively, depending on the degree and duration of(Šimůnek et al. ) is one of the models that has beenwater and salinity stresses.

widely used for solving a wide range of irrigation-related

On the other hand, several studies have shown the

problems, including in studies similar to ours (https://importance of deﬁcit irrigation (DI), such as, regulated deﬁ-

www.pc-progress.com/en/Default.aspx?h1d-references).

cit irrigation (RDI) (e.g., Edwards & Clingeleffer ),The key characteristics of HYDRUS and recent develop-

sustained deﬁcit irrigation (SDI) (e.g., Chalmers et al.

ments can be found in the manuals and published), and partial root zone drying (PRD) (e.g., Romero

literature (e.g., Šimůnek et al. ). The HYDRUS model

et al. ), and evaluated their impact on water use, yield,

has all the main features required for the current study,

berry composition, and wine attributes. These studies haveincluding triggered irrigation when a prescribed pressure

shown that under deﬁcit conditions vines can extract morehead is reached at a speciﬁed soil depth, the dependence

water from the root zone than under the full irrigation con-of root water uptake on the soil water content and theditions, maintaining adequate water supply to the shootdaily potential atmospheric ﬂux, and the coupled transportsystem. Although high-efﬁciency drip irrigation and deﬁcit

of water and solute in the soil. HYDRUS-1D can also calcu-

irrigation can enhance water productivity (Phogat et al.

late surface runoff, evaporation, and inﬁltration ﬂuxes for, ) and wine quality attributes, they can also pose

atmospheric boundary conditions and drainage ﬂuxes

serious salinity and sodicity risks if an appropriate leaching

through the bottom of the soil proﬁle. Hence, HYDRUS-

fraction is not maintained (Aragüés et al. ). Similarly,

1D (Šimůnek et al. ) was used in this study to evaluate

DeGaris et al. () found that deﬁcit irrigation coupled

the long-term (2004–2015) impacts of different irrigation

with a saline environment could signiﬁcantly impact thepractices involving full irrigation, SDI (10% (D10%) andphysiological and quality traits of vineyards. Stevens &20% (D20%) less than full), increased salinity irrigations

Partington () showed that the residual impact of three(ECiw of 0.5 and 0.8 dS/m), 50% deﬁcit irrigation during ayears of saline-water irrigation on the growth and yield of

drought period (DD50%), and DD50% coupled with anvineyards could persist even after four years of irrigation

increased salinity of irrigation water (ECiw of 0.5 andwith good quality water. In other crops, Intrigliolo et al.

0.8 dS/m) on the water balance components and salinity() observed signiﬁcant carry-over effects of deﬁcit irriga-

dynamics in soils under grapevine cultivation. Eight scen-tion on the fruit yield of Japanese plum in the eighth year ofarios were evaluated during the time period from July

the study and no impact on soil salinity. However, Mounzer

2004 until June 2015 at two sites (Loxton and Murray

et al. () observed signiﬁcant intensiﬁcation of salts in the

Bridge) with different climate conditions and for two con-soil after three years of deﬁcit irrigation with 1 dS/m salinity

trasting soils (light-textured and heavy-textured) that

Corrected Proof
3

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

usually occur in the South Australian part of the MDB (Riv-soil at different locations in the Riverland (Hall et al.

erland). Understanding the impact of a range of ‘water). Simulations were performed on two dominant soil

availability and quality scenarios’ on the soil water balancegroups comprising different light- and heavy-textured

and water-related salinity risks can help with devisinglayers at different soil depths. The light-textured soils areways and means to sustainably manage irrigated agro-eco-composed of aeolian deposits and contain predominantly

systems in semi-arid regions.

sand particles (sand 90–94%, clay 5.5–9%, and silt 0.5–
1.3%; Hall et al. ). The soil hydraulic parameters
for the light-textured soil (S1) were taken from Phogat

METHODS AND MATERIALSet al. (), in which the HYDRUS software was calibrated

Description of the study area

andvalidatedforspatialandtemporal

distributions of the water content in the soil under Chardonnay grapevine in the Riverland region. The second

To undertake long-term (2004–2015) modeling studies, twosoil (heavy-textured, S2) represents a typical duplex soil,

sites with varied climatic conditions (e.g., rainfall), at

which covers a large cultivated area in Australia and is

Loxton (34.45  S and 140.57  E) and Murray Bridge

signiﬁcant in the Riverland as well. The particle size dis-

(35.13  S and 139.27  E), were selected within the Murray

tribution of the surface soil varied from 60 to 80% sand,River corridor. Annual rainfall is highly variable along

8–16% clay, and 3–5% silt, whereas the subsoil contains

the river corridor and ranges from 265 mm at Loxton ina high clay content (40–46%), followed by sand (51–the central part of the region to 350 mm at Murray56%), and silt particles (1.3–4%) (Hall et al. ). The

Bridge, near the south-western corner of the region,soil hydraulic parameters for the heavy-textured soil

which is 32% higher than the corresponding ﬁgure atwere estimated from the particle size distribution andLoxton. Such variation in the rainfall can have signiﬁcantbulk density from the Loxton Research Centre (Phogat

impact on the water allocation, irrigation requirement foret al. ) where Chardonnay on the Ramsay rootstock

viticulture, and salinity dynamics in the soils. This period

was planted. The soil hydraulic parameters used in thiswas chosen for studying the water and salinity risks to viti-

investigation are given in Table 1.

culture because this region experienced varied climaticconditions over this period, such as drought and a low

Climatic parameters for modelingwater allocation during 2007–09, high rainfall during
2010–11, and normal conditions during the rest of the

HYDRUS-1D requires daily rainfall and daily estimates of

period. Normal conditions here represent average climatic

potential crop evapotranspiration (ETC) as inputs, along

conditions prevailing during the years other than droughtwith the corresponding leaf area index (LAI). Daily ETC ofand heavy rainfall period. Regional variability in climatic

grapevine at the two sites was estimated from reference

conditions was represented in the modeling by varying

crop evapotranspiration (ET0) and local crop coefﬁcientamounts of rainfall and variable evapotranspiration.

(Kc) values (Allen et al. ). Daily ET0 and rainfall

Although the seasonal rainfall pattern over the study

values for the simulation period (from July 2004 to June

period at the two sites was similar, the total rain at2015) were generated by running a data drill (Jeffrey et al.

Loxton was lower than at Murray Bridge.

) for the Loxton and Murray Bridge sites. This tool produces daily time series of meteorological data at point

Soil characteristics

locations, consisting of station records that are supplemented by interpolated estimates where observed data

Generally, the soil proﬁles in the Riverland are character-are missing. Daily values of ET0 varied within theized by the presence of light-textured aeolian deposits at

0–10 mm range at both locations. However, annual ET0

the soil surface underlain by a heavy-textured soil at vari-ranged between 1,294 and 1,510 mm and between 1,195

able depths. However, there exists a huge variability in theand 1,419 mm at Loxton and Murray Bridge, respectively.

Corrected Proof
4

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Table 1 | Soil hydraulic parameters of two soil proﬁles used in the modeling study
Soil hydraulic parameters

θr





θs



α



n

Ks



l

Soil

Textural layers

Soil depth (cm)Bulk density (g cm 3)(cm3 cm 3)(cm3 cm 3)(cm 1)

S1a

sb
lsb

0–30
30–100

1.6
1.6

0.05
0.05

0.35
0.36

0.031
0.032

2.74
2.52

638.98277.64

0.5
0.5

S2±

slb
cb

0–30
30–100

1.6
1.5

0.05
0.07

0.37
0.41

0.031
0.02

1.94
1.26

120.81
14.14

0.5
0.5

a

(cm day 1)

S1 ¼ light-textured soil, S2 ¼ heavy-textured soil.

bs ¼ sand, ls ¼ loamy sand, sl ¼ sandy loam, c ¼ clay.

Drought years (2006–08) showed maximum annual ET0 at

transpiration rate, Tp, is distributed over the root zone

both locations. The crop coefﬁcients (Kc) for grapevine forusing the normalized root density distribution function

local conditions were obtained from the Irrigation Record-

and multiplied by the dimensionless water and salinity

ing and Evaluation System (IRES) developed by the Crop

stress response function. Hence, this model assigns plant

Management Service (Rural Solutions SA ). The LAI

root water uptake rates according to the local soil waterfor grapevine was taken from Nguyen et al. (), estimatedand osmotic pressure heads at any point in the root zone.

on a local vineyard. Similar Kc and LAI values were adopted

Therefore, potential transpiration (Tp) is reduced below its

every year, assuming similar canopy and well-grown vinepotential value when the soil is no longer capable of supply-

conditions. The values of daily potential evapotranspiration

ing the amount of water required by the plant under the(ETC) and LAI, along with daily rainfalls at the study sites

prevailing climatic conditions. Potential root water uptake

during the simulation period, were then used as time-vari-is further reduced by the osmotic stress, resulting from theable boundary conditions in the model.

salinity of irrigation water and the presence of salts in thesoils. The effect of water and salinity stresses was assumed
to be multiplicative so that different stress response func-

Brief description of the HYDRUS software

tions could be used for water and salinity stresses. Water
The HYDRUS-1D software can simulate one-dimensional

uptake critical values of pressure heads were taken fromvariably saturated water ﬂow, heat movement, and transportprevious investigations on grapevines in the study areaof solutes involved in sequential ﬁrst-order decay reactions(Phogat et al. ).

(Šimůnek et al. ). The governing one-dimensional
water ﬂow equation is described as follows:

The threshold and slope model uses two variables to represent the osmotic stress: (a) the osmotic head below whichwater is extracted at the maximum rate and (b) the slope



@θ
@
@h
¼
K(h)
 K(h)  S(h, hs , z, t)
@t @z
@z

(1)

which determines the fractional reduction of water uptake
per unit increase in the osmotic head below the threshold.
These parameters were obtained from a previous regional3

3

where θ is the soil water content (L L ), t is the time (T), h

study (Zhang et al. ) evaluating salinity thresholds

is the soil water pressure head (L), hs is the osmotic head (h),(2.1 dS/m) and percent reductions (12.8%) in different

z is the vertical coordinate (positive upwards) (L), K(h) is therootstocks of grapevine.

1

unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function (LT ), andThe distribution of soil solution salinity (ECsw) was mod-S(h,hs,z,t) is the sink term accounting for an actual volume

eled as a non-reactive solute (e.g., Ramos et al. ; Phogat

of water uptake by plant roots from a unit volume of soil per

et al. ). These studies demonstrated that this approach

unit of time (L3 L3T1). Water extraction S(h,hs,z,t) fromcan be successfully used in environments under intensive

the soil was computed according to the Feddes macroscopic

irrigation and fertigation management. The longitudinal dis-

approach (Feddes et al. ). In this method, potential

persivity was assumed to be one-tenth of the modelingCorrected Proof
5

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

domain, and the molecular diffusivity of salts in water waspreviously calibrated and validated in other studies in theconsidered to be 1.656 cm2/day (Phogat et al. , ).

same region (Phogat et al. , , ). In this way, we

The ECiw data for full irrigation was based on the water qual-

had already calibrated and validated the model for speciﬁc

ity analysis conducted by the Murray–Darling Basinmeteorological, location, soil, and crop conditions in the

Authority at Berri. Since the measured ECiw values for sev-

study region. The soil hydraulic parameters for the light-tex-

eral irrigation schedules were missing, the average measured

tured soil (S1) were taken from Phogat et al. (), in which

value of ECiw during the study period (0.3 dS/m) was con-the HYDRUS software had been calibrated and validated

sidered in all modeling simulations for full irrigations. The

using the spatial and temporal distributions of water con-average salinity (0.12 dS/m) of rainfall was considered fortents in the soil under the Chardonnay grapevine in thethe modeling simulations. All input EC values were con-Riverland region. The input parameters for heavy-textured

verted into mass units using a common approximation ofsoil were taken from Phogat et al. (), in which the

1 EC (dS/m) ¼ 640 mg salts/L to facilitate the salts leaching

HYDRUS-1D model had been used to evaluate the water

prediction.

and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture under climatechange. Similarly, the critical values of the pressure heads

Domain depth and initial and boundary conditions

for crop water uptake were taken from our previous investigations on grapevine in the study area (Phogat et al. ).

The simulation domain depth for grapevine was selected

The current study is an evaluation of the long-term impacts

depending on the maximum rooting depths (100 cm)of the water deﬁcit and quality issues in the same region asreported in the literature and previous modeling studies onthese previous studies. Additionally, the HYDRUS models

grapevine in the study area (e.g., Phogat et al. ). Initialhave been used in several thousands of studies publishedwater contents were assumed to be at ﬁeld capacity, andin peer-reviewed literature (Šimůnek et al. ) andinitial low salinity conditions were considered in all simu-

have thus been validated under many agricultural, indus-

lations. The initial soil solution concentration was linearlytrial, and environmental conditions (see, for example,

distributed from the top (1.0 mg cm3) to the bottom of

https://www.pc-progress.com/en/Default.aspx?h1d-refer-3

the domain (0.5 mg cm ). Since the main goal of thisences and http://www.pc-progress.com/en/Default.aspx?

study was to evaluate the relative impact of different water

h3d-references).

deﬁcit and water quality scenarios, the uniform initial conditions were considered in all simulations. The upper

Irrigation trigger and water quality scenarios

boundary condition for water ﬂow was set to atmosphericconditions with surface runoff, and the bottom boundary

There is not a single reliable method of irrigation schedulingcondition was set to free drainage. The atmospheric bound-

adopted by growers in the Riverland, so a trigger irrigation

ary includes real-time rainfall, evaporation, and irrigation,

option available in the HYDRUS-1D was used to generate

representing sprinkler irrigation. The concentration ﬂux

irrigation schedules for grapevine for full irrigation con-boundary condition was used at both top and bottom bound-ditions. Irrigation is triggered when the desired suction level

aries for solute transport. All simulations were performedin the soil proﬁle is reached, the timing of which depends

for 11 years from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2015 for all irriga-

on the daily climate conditions, plant water requirements,tion and water quality scenarios.

soil texture, and water availability in the soil proﬁle. Typically, irrigation is triggered using tensiometers, which are

Calibration and validation of the model

widely used for irrigation scheduling, including in vineyards.
Tensiometers measure the level of suction at the point where

It is generally accepted that numerical models should be ﬁrst

the porous ceramic cup is placed in the soil and irrigation iscalibrated and validated for the ﬁeld conditions in order toapplied when the required suction (e.g., 60 kPa for grape-

gain higher conﬁdence in obtained outcomes. In thisvines) is reached. Similarly, in HYDRUS-1D, when the

study, we have used the input parameters that weresuction in the soil reaches the trigger value (60 kPa), theCorrected Proof
6

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

irrigation is automatically applied. The trigger point was

average seasonal soil solution salinity (ECsw), and an aver-located in this study at a 30 cm soil depth, which is similar

age seasonal amount of salt leached (Sd) from the soil data

to other modeling studies (Phogat et al. , ) in thisin different scenarios. Mean values were analyzed using Sta-region and coincides with the maximum root activity for viti-

tistix version 9 (Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL, USA,

culture. Other studies also used a similar suction for irrigatingwww.statistix.com). Where signiﬁcant (P < 0.05) differences

grapevines (Edwards & Clingeleffer ) at a 30 cm soil

betweendepth during the season for well-watered grapevines. The sea-

between means was made using the Fisher least signiﬁcantsonal (2004–2015) irrigation amounts, thus, match thedifference test with a 5% level of signiﬁcance.

irrigation

treatments

existed,a comparison

seasonal water budget guidelines for 100% yield of grapevine
for the Riverland by Irrigation and Crop Management Service

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION(ICMS ).
Different irrigation and water quality scenarios (Table 2)
were developed based on the irrigation scheduling for full

Seasonal water balance components

irrigation. Irrigation water quality (ECiw) scenarios werebased on the salinity benchmark (0.8 dS/m) in the Murray

The seasonal water balance components obtained in differ-

River at Morgan. These scenarios include reducing irrigation

ent scenarios during 2004–2015 in both soils at Loxton

applications over the whole growing season by 10 (D10%)and Murray Bridge are shown in Figure 1. The statisticalor 20% (D20%), reducing irrigation by 50% during thecomparison among the mean seasonal values of water bal-drought period (2007–09) (DD50%), increasing salinity ofance components, i.e., transpiration (Tp), evaporation (Es),irrigation water (ECiw ¼ 0.5 and 0.8 dS/m), and using deﬁcit

drainage (Dr), soil salinity (ECsw), and salts leached (Sd) in

irrigation with increased salinity water (DD50% þ ECiw0.5

different scenarios, is shown in Table 3.

and DD50% þ ECiw0.8) during drought periods (2007–09).

Average seasonal vine transpiration (Tp) in heavy-

The performance of these scenarios was assessed using the

textured (S2) soil increased by 6 to 15% as compared towater balance, root zone salinity dynamics, and thelight-textured (S1) soil in various scenarios at both locations.

amount of salts being added into the soil system throughAverage seasonal Tp was 5–10% higher at Loxton than at

irrigation.

Murray Bridge, apparently due to higher irrigation applications at the former site. Among various scenarios, theimpact of a sustained water deﬁcit (D10% and D20%) on

Statistical analysis

Tp was marginal because the average reduction over the
decade ranged only from 1 to 12% at both locations

The two-sided Dunnett’s multiple comparison ANOVA was(Figure 1). However, differences in mean values were signiﬁ-

applied to water balance components (Tp, Es, and Dr),

cant (P ¼ 0.05), especially in heavy soils (Table 3). However,Table 2 | The irrigation and irrigation water salinity (ECiw) scenarios investigated for their impact on water and salinity risks to viticulture in the Riverland
ECiw of river water

Irrigation scenarios

Irrigation schedule

1

Full

Full irrigation

0.3 dS/m

2

D10%

10% regulated deﬁcit irrigation

0.3 dS/m

3

D20%

20% regulated deﬁcit irrigation

0.3 dS/m

4

DD50%

50% deﬁcit irrigation during a drought period (2007–09)

0.3 dS/m

5

ECiw0.5

Full irrigation

0.5 dS/m

6

ECiw0.8

Full irrigation

0.8 dS/m

7

DD50% þ ECiw0.5

50% deﬁcit irrigation during a drought period (2007–09)

0.5 dS/m

8

DD50% þ ECiw0.8

50% deﬁcit irrigation during a drought period (2007–09)

0.8 dS/mCorrected Proof
7

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Figure 1 | Seasonal water balance components (transpiration (Tp), evaporation (Ep), and drainage (Dr)) for grapevine in different scenarios at Loxton (L) and at Murray Bridge (MB) in lighttextured (S1) and heavy-textured soil (S2) during 2004 to 2015.

a 50% reduction in irrigation (DD50%) during drought

Fereres et al. () has summarized the impact of deﬁcit

periods (2007–09) signiﬁcantly affected vine transpiration

irrigation at different growth stages of grapevine on the yield(Tp) and seasonal drainage. There was a 35–37% reduction

and yield components at different locations. It is now widely

in light soils and a 40–53% reduction in heavy soils in seaso-

accepted that adopting moderate RDI strategies during thenal Tp compared to full irrigation. The scenarios withgrowing season has several beneﬁcial effects on red grape

increased salinity of irrigation water (ECiw0.5 and ECiw0.8)

wine composition (McCarthy et al. ; Roby et al.

showed a smaller impact on seasonal vine Tp and other; Ortega-Farias et al. ; Romero et al. ). However,water balance components. It is worth noting that textural

the timing, severity, duration of water stress (Intrigliolo &variations have a notable inﬂuence on the water balance

Castelcomponents(Girona et al. ; Basile et al. ) to water stressviticulture.

andsalinity

dynamics

under

irrigated),

anddifferent

phenologicalsensitivities

among different grape varieties are key factors toCorrected Proof
8

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Table 3 | Comparison of mean values of water balance components (transpiration Tp, evaporation Es, and drainage Dr), mean seasonal soil salinity (ECsw), and the average amount ofleached salts (Sd) for different irrigation scenarios with two soils and at two locations between 2004 and 2015
Light-textured soil

Heavy-textured soil

Tp

Es

Dr

ECsw

Sd

Tp

Es

Dr

ECsw

Sd

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

dS/m

t/ha

(mm)

(mm)

(mm)

dS/m

t/ha

Full

362.1a206.1a365.0a0.57d

1.67cd416.0a420.1a101.1a

1.97f

1.46c

D10%

356.5ab203.8a307.1b0.64cd1.54de395.2abc

412.1ab65.4b

2.71cd

1.25c

D20%

ab

345.7

a

200.8

c

255.1

bcd

0.74

e

c

b

1.03c

DD50%

337.9b202.8a331.1b

2.22ef

1.33c

ECiw0.5

a

362.2

a

206.1

a

ECiw0.8

362.2a

DD50% þ ECiw0.5bDD50% þ ECiw0.8

Irrigation scenarios

Loxton

1.40

c

366.2

b

399.9

41.9

0.67cd1.55d376.9bc

402.7b

96.0a

365.0

bc

0.83

b

2.49

a

415.1

a

420.2

a

101.9

2.87

c

2.10b

206.1a365.0a

1.25a

3.77a

411.4ab420.6a104.9a

4.16a

3.13a

337.8

a

202.8

b

331.2

0.77

cd

1.63

bc

376.5

b

402.9

96.2

2.42

de

1.41c

337.9b202.8a331.1b

0.92b

1.75c

375.6bc

403.4b96.8a

2.71cd

1.53bc335.2a196.2a387.2a0.53c

1.55cd380.4a389.4a146.0a

1.36d

1.44c

D10%

a

333.4

a

193.0

b

340.9

c

0.59

e

1.44

369.1

ab

384.4

b

118.7

1.59

cd

1.31c

D20%

323.2a192.5a299.1c

0.66bc1.33f

348.0c375.3b

95.4c

1.85b

1.18c

DD50%

a

313.8

a

195.1

ab

362.9

c

0.57

de

1.45

ECiw0.5

335.2a196.2a387.2a0.76b

ECiw0.8

a

335.2

a

196.2

a

387.2

a

1.12

3.29

DD50% þ ECiw0.5

313.8a195.1a362.9ab

0.63bc1.51cdeDD50% þ ECiw0.8

a

a

ab

b

bcd

3.37

a

Murray Bridge
Full

313.8

195.1

362.9

0.73

abc

352.0

ab

376.2

a

144.4

1.45

d

1.36c

2.22b

380.4a389.4a146.0a

1.95b

2.01b

a

ab

379.5

a

389.4

a

146.9

2.83

a

2.92a

351.9bc

376.3ab144.4a1.57cd

1.42c

bc

ab

a

bc

1.52c

c

1.61

abc

351.5

376.6

144.6

1.76

Values followed by different letters are signiﬁcantly different according to the Fisher’s least signiﬁcant difference (LSD) test (P  0.05).

understanding how water stress affects berry growth andreduction in the Chardonnay yield under RDI and DI def-

composition. Hence, the extent of this impact depends on

icit conditions, respectively, compared to full irrigation.

the type of rootstocks/scion and an inherent resilience ofSuch reduction is comparable to the DD50% scenario in

the vine to water stress (Serra et al. ). Some root-

the current study. They also revealed that water stress nega-

stocks/scions, such as Shiraz grafted onto Ramsey ortively affected aroma quality, titratable acidity, and malic

Monastrell grafted onto 1103P (Romero et al. ), could

acid, and increased polyphenol concentrations, which iswithstand higher water stresses compared to other geno-

unfavorable for oxidation issues. Similarly, other studies

types. On the other hand, severe reductions in Tp over a(Basile et al. ) concluded that white varieties are gener-

longer time could lead to serious risks and adversely

ally more sensitive to stress periods and can show negative

affect vine growth, berry production, and wine quality,

compositional changes. In fact, fully irrigated Chardonnay

especially under severe irrigation deﬁcit conditions, suchvines had more intense apple, citrus, ﬂoral, and earthy

as in the DD50% scenario in the current study. Sucharomas than those grown under deﬁcit irrigation (Reynolds

reduction in vine transpiration can trigger an adverse phys-et al. ). Hence, the amount of water that reaches theiological reaction, which may lead to reduced cellroot system and the time during which the vine is stressed

divisions, loss of cell expansion, closing of leaf stomata,determine the amount of soluble solids and acidity, which

and reduction in photosynthesis, which may ultimately

ultimately affects the taste of the wine.

lead to a drastic reduction in the berry yield (Pellegrino

Average seasonal evaporation (Es) in S1 soil at Loxton

et al. ). Bellvert et al. () observed a 35 and 48%

varied in a narrow range from 200 to 207 mm (Figure 1).

Corrected Proof
9

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

On the other hand, in S2 soil, water losses due to evaporation

The application of deﬁcit irrigation had varied impacts

almost doubled at both locations as compared to S1. In S2

on seasonal drainage (Dr) losses. In S2, seasonal Dr in

soils, applied water remained in the evaporation zone forD10% and D20% at Loxton was reduced by 35 and 59%,

longer due to slow water movement, thereby encouraging

respectively, compared to full irrigation. The correspond-

an increased water loss from the soil surface. Additionally,

ing impact on Dr in these scenarios at Murray Bridge wasa capillary barrier effect between light and heavy texture

19 and 35%, respectively. Differences among these twolayers within the evaporation zone (in Duplex soils) further

treatments were statistically signiﬁcant at both locations

intensiﬁed evaporation losses. Comparing the Es losses at(Table 3). The greatest reduction in seasonal Dr was

two sites revealed that average seasonal Es at Loxton

observed in the DD50% scenario in heavy soils during

increased by 4–8% compared to Murray Bridge.

2008–09 when Dr was reduced by 98 and 77% at Loxton

The impact of deﬁcit irrigations (D10% and D20%) on
average seasonal Es during 2004–2015 was very low (0–and Murray Bridge, respectively, as compared to full
irrigation.

5%) in both soils and at both locations because the

Similarly, the average seasonal leaching fraction (LF) in

number of irrigation events was similar to full irrigation.

light soils accounted for 0.27–0.39 of total applied water

Similarly, seasonal Es in DD50% in light soils was reduced(rainfall þ irrigation) at Loxton and 0.32–0.42 at Murrayby only 4–5 and 8–9% compared to full irrigation at

Bridge (Figure 2). On the other hand, LF was minimal

Murray Bridge and Loxton, respectively. Nevertheless, cor-

under grapevine grown in heavy-textured soils, especially

responding reductions in DD50% in heavy soil were 18–19

during the drought period (2007–2010). SDI (D10% andand 21–22%, respectively. This shows that deﬁcit irrigation

D20%) reduced LF below the threshold even during

has a comparatively smaller impact on seasonal evaporation

normal rainfall seasons. Similarly, a severe irrigation deﬁcit

in light-textured soils than on annual transpiration and(DD50%) during the drought period had a huge impact on

drainage (Table 3 and Figure 1). More seasonal irrigation

the reduction of LF. Therefore, the major impact of deﬁcit

volume and events at Loxton than at Murray Bridge may

irrigation on the water balance was observed in thehave allowed slightly higher evaporation from the soil sur-

reduction of drainage component and leaching fraction

face. Increased evaporation provided less opportunity forrequired to maintain adequate environment for vineroot water uptake by grapevines, leading to a greater risk

growth. Biswas et al. () reported 14–21% deep drainage

of water losses to unproductive use.

under irrigated horticulture (grapes and citrus) under sprink-

Average seasonal drainage (Dr) was two to ﬁve times

ler irrigation in this region. Hence, continuous use of deﬁcit

higher in S1 than in S2 in various scenarios at both locations

irrigation could drastically reduce LF, which in turn, would(Table 3 and Figure 1). However, contrary to other ﬂuxes (Tpencourage large salt depositions in the root zone, leading toand Es), average seasonal Dr at Loxton was lower (6–10% in

major salinity risks to viticulture. Aragüés et al. () also

S1 and 30–45% in S2) than at Murray Bridge, which is quite

reported an increase in salinity and sodicity in soils undersigniﬁcant. It indicates that there are increased risks of

SDI of vineyards due to a reduction in the leaching fraction.

drainage losses at Murray Bridge compared to Loxton,
especially in S2. Nevertheless, increased drainage in S2

Root zone salinity dynamics

under the Murray Bridge climate can be helpful in leaching
the salts and providing a better environment for growth andIn S1, ECsw remained below the threshold throughout thecomparatively smaller irrigation water-induced salinity risks.

simulation period at both locations in all scenarios except

On the other hand, low or restricted drainage (Figure 1), as

in DD50% þ ECiw0.8 when water of 0.8 dS/m was appliedis the case in heavy soils at Loxton (2007–2010), can pose

during the drought period (2007–09) (data not shown).

serious salinity risks and a signiﬁcant level of salt build-up

The ECsw in this scenario increases above the thresholdin the root zone. A similar situation can arise when lessvalue during the drought period. This means that full irriga-

water is available for irrigation due to severe climatic stresstion with a higher salinity of irrigation water provided

or reduced water ﬂow in the river system.

enough scope for proper leaching in light-textured soils.

Corrected Proof
10

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Figure 2 | Seasonal leaching fractions from the soil under grapevine at Loxton in (a) light and (b) heavy-textured soils in different scenarios.

The occurrence of low root zone salinity in S1 was attribu-

higher level than under full irrigation. This suggests that

ted to rapid ﬂushing of salts from the soil system andlong-term ECsw monitoring under deﬁcit irrigation is essen-

reduced the likelihood of irrigation-induced salinity risks.

tial before adopting this strategy for viticulture. The

On the other hand, in S2 at Loxton, especially during

irrigation scenarios with increased salinity under full irriga-

the summer periods of drought years (2007–10), ECsw

tion (ECiw0.5 and ECiw0.8) or during the drought period

remained above the threshold in all scenarios except for(DD50% þ ECiw0.5 and DD50% þ ECiw 0.8) proportionallythose with full irrigation (Figure 3). It is worth noting that

ampliﬁed the ECsw due to higher salt additions through irri-

ECsw started increasing in all scenarios during 2007,

gation. Both ECsw in the 20% deﬁcit irrigation scenario

which coincides with the onset of the drought period.

(D20%) and the full irrigation scenario with 0.8 dS/m sal-ECsw remained consistently high during the low rainfall

inity (ECiw0.8) also increased ECsw above the thresholdperiod and decreased only after heavy rainfall during

during the summer period of normal rainfall seasons2010. Similarly, an application of deﬁcit irrigation (D10%(Figure 3). Mean seasonal ECsw in these scenarios signiﬁ-

and D20%) maintained the root zone salinity at a muchcantly differed (P ¼ 0.05) from the other scenarios (Table 3).

Figure 3 | Root zone soil solution salinity (ECsw) in heavy-textured soils at (a) Loxton and (b) Murray Bridge under grapevine in different irrigation scenarios during July 2004 to June 2015.
Black line represents threshold salinity for grapevine.

Corrected Proof
11

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Similarly, in S2 at Murray Bridge, ECsw increased at the

impact on salt leaching in sustained deﬁcit irrigations

onset of the drought period in all scenarios. However, the(D10% and D20%) in the light-textured soils. However,ECsw values were higher than the threshold in the ECiw0.8

heavy

and DD50% þ ECiw0.8 scenarios only during summer(DD50%) encouraged the deposition of salts in the root

deﬁcitirrigation

duringthedrought

periodperiods, and the differences among mean seasonal ECsw inzone; these salts were ﬂushed out of the soil during the fol-these scenarios were statistically signiﬁcant at P < 0.05

lowing normal rainfall season. However, the annual amount(Table 3). In other scenarios, ECsw remained below theof salts leached from the soil increased 1.5 times in thethreshold for grapevines. Higher rainfall and a higher

ECiw0.5 scenario and two times in the ECiw0.8 scenario,

number of rainfall events at Murray Bridge than at Loxton

as compared to full irrigation. A similar Sd was observed

resulted in larger leaching ﬂuxes (Figure 2), which seems toin S1 at Murray Bridge despite experiencing higher rainfall

have played a key role in regulating the salt movement inthan Loxton. On the other hand, in S2, annual Sd was

the soil. Therefore, adequate leaching is important for the

lower at both locations (Loxton and Murray Bridge),

removal of salts from the rhizosphere and for the long-term

especially during the drought periods, which encouraged

sustainability of the irrigated landscape, especially vineyards,

salt depositions within the crop root zone (Figure 3) in all

because grapevines are relatively less tolerant to salinity.

scenarios due to a small leaching fraction (Figure 2) andAn increased level of soil salinity above the thresholdrestricted drainage conditions. However, the annual mass

(ECe > 2.1 dS/m or ECsw > 4.2 dS/m, Zhang et al. ) notof salts leached from the soil proﬁle was higher in ECiw0.5

only reduces root water uptake but also affects the pro-and ECiw0.8 than in other scenarios due to greater salt

ductive capacity of vineyards in both quantitative andadditions to the soil and, consequently, higher salt leaching.

qualitative terms (Walker et al. ). In fact, sodium (Naþ)

Nevertheless, the seasonal pattern was similar in all scen-and chloride (Cl ) ions, the dominant constituents of the sol-arios. The gradual build-up of salts in S2 during normaluble salts, can have toxic effects on vine metabolism (Munns

and drought years was reversed during 2009–10 when

& Tester ), early senescence, and reduced growth andmore than average rainfall occurred. This resulted inyield (Shani & Ben Gal ). Stevens et al. () concluded

increased salt leaching from the root zone, which broughtthat Cl

uptake was greatest when saline irrigation was

the soil below the salinity thresholds (Figure 3).

applied early in inﬂorescence formation and that NaþInterestingly, the average amount of salts leached over a

decade varied in a narrow range at both locations due to theand Na concentrations also vary depending on rootstocks

deﬁcit irrigation and the type of soil (Table 3). However,and cultivars (Downton ; Stevens et al. ), althoughdifferences among various scenarios were signiﬁcant in S1

uptake was reﬂective of the seasonal salt load. Leaf ClþþCl concentrations of 0.3–1.0% (dry-weight basis) and Na

at both locations. On the other hand, in S2, non-signiﬁcantconcentrations of 0.25–0.5% generally caused toxicity pro-differences were observed among deﬁcit irrigation scenarios

blems (Walker et al. ). Stevens et al. () observed

and full irrigation. A seasonal salt load to the root zone sub-higher grape juice and wine Cl concentrations in graftedstantially increased in the ECiw0.5 and ECiw0.8 scenarios.

vines compared to own-rooted vines. Similarly, Walker

These results suggest that the impact of soil texture on the

et al. () concluded that Shiraz accumulates more Claverage annual amount of salt leaching within a climaticthan Chardonnay. However, the crop response to waterzone diminishes over a longer timescale.

and salinity dynamics in the soil is highly complex and not

The study also revealed that water losses from irrigatedfully understood (Assouline et al. ).

agriculture (e.g., from S1 at both locations) and rainfall-

Salts leachingtransport large quantities of salts that originated in irrigationinduced salt transport (e.g., in S2 during 2010–11) could
into deeper geological layers, irrespective of the soil type.
The amount of salts leached (Sd) in S1 at Loxton under fullHigh root zone drainage can also mobilize existing salts in

irrigation with real-time river water salinity ranged from 1.5

the soil proﬁle and result in their migration to groundwaterto 2.05 t/ha during 2004–2015 (Figure 4). There was little

systems. The leached salts (Sd) from the soil proﬁle areCorrected Proof
12

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Figure 4 | Amounts of salts leached (t/ha) from (a) light-textured (S1 L) and (b) heavy-textured soils (S2 L) at Loxton; and (c) light-textured (S1MB) and (d) heavy-textured soil (S2MB) at
Murray Bridge during 2004–2015 in different scenarios.

gradually transported down to the aquifer system, can poten-

had a non-signiﬁcant impact on the grapevine water use.

tially degrade groundwater, and consequently, migrate to the

However, the 20% or higher reduction in irrigation could

river system through groundwater return ﬂow. Horizontal

result in the reduction of deep drainage, especially in

migration of salts from the aquifer to surface water bodies

heavy-textured soils. Similarly, applying only half the

can ultimately enhance their salinity, leading to increased

amount of water than in full irrigation (DD50%) duringrisks to river water-dependent ecosystems. Numerous studies

the drought period (2007–09) had a dramatic impact on sea-(e.g., Tan et al. ) have shown the existence of a strong linksonal vine transpiration and also showed a signiﬁcantbetween groundwater and river water in the Murray–Darling

reduction in deep drainage. Such reductions during drought

Basin. A 100-year salinity audit (Murray–Darling Basin Com-

periods could result in severe impacts on growth, yield, juice

mission ) of the Murray–Darling basin suggests that thecomposition, and wine quality, depending on the genotype,potential impacts of increased salinity from irrigation andand could ultimately inﬂuence the long-term sustainability

dryland are far-reaching, not only for agriculture and theof the viticulture. On the other hand, deﬁcit irrigation scen-regional economy but also for urban areas and the environ-arios (20% and DD50%) showed signiﬁcant reduction in

ment. Hence, it is imperative to monitor all of thethe deep drainage and signiﬁcant increase in the root zone

important water, soil, and salinity drivers of agro-hydro-geo-salinity beyond grapevine threshold. In the absence of

logical systems along a river to understand the hydro-

appropriate leaching, salts deposited in the soil proﬁle cansalinity dynamics and to ensure the long-term sustainability

have a negative impact on vine water uptake, growth,of the irrigated agro-ecosystem.

yield, and wine quality. Therefore, adequate irrigation anddrainage conditions are highly important to maintain a congenial environment for a sustainable viticulture production.

CONCLUSIONS

The results in other scenarios, such as those involving theuse of irrigation waters of increased salinities (ECiw ¼ 0.5

The investigation showed that the long-term use of sustained

and 0.8 dS/m) on a long-term basis or during the droughtdeﬁcit irrigations (10% and 20% less than full irrigation)

period, revealed that they can potentially enhance theCorrected Proof
13

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

salinity-related risks to viticulture due to an increased
addition of salts in the root zone. Under prolonged drought
conditions the root zone salinity (ECsw) can increase above
the threshold for grapevine (ECsw ¼ 4.2 dS/m), which inturn reduces root water uptake and affects the productive
capacity of vineyards in both quantitative and qualitative
terms. Therefore, it is crucial to alleviate the salt concentrations in the root zone to ensure sustainability, prevent
soil degradation, and improve yields. This could be done
by improving drainage in the heavy-textured soils andrestricting water losses in the light-textured soils, but sucha strategy has to be investigated at the ﬁeld scale todetermine its agricultural and economic viability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The work was conducted under the South Australian River
Murray Sustainability Program that was funded by theAustralian Government and delivered by the Governmentof South Australia. The authors are grateful to the editor
and anonymous reviewers for their critical reading of thearticle and constructive comments. The leaves granted toDr. Vinod Phogat by CCS Haryana Agricultural University
for availing Post-Doctoral studies are highly acknowledged.

REFERENCES
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. & Smith, M.  Crop
Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water
Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56,
FAO, Rome, Italy.
Aragüés, R., Medina, E. T., Clavería, I., Martínez-Cob, A. & Faci, J.
 Regulated deﬁcit irrigation, soil salinization and soil
sodiﬁcation in a table grape vineyard drip-irrigated withmoderately saline waters. Agric. Water Manage. 134, 84–93.
Assouline, S., Russo, D., Silber, A. & Or, D.  Balancing water
scarcity and quality for sustainable irrigated agriculture.
Water Resour. Res. 51, 3419–3436.
Basile, B., Marsal, J., Mata, M., Vallverdú, X., Bellvert, J. &Girona, J.  Phenological sensitivity of Cabernet
Sauvignon to water stress: vine physiology and berrycomposition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 62, 452–461.
Basile, B., Girona, J., Behboudian, M. H., Mata, M., Rosello, J.,
Ferré, M. & Marsal, J.  Responses of ‘Chardonnay’ todeﬁcit irrigation applied at different phenological stages: vine

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

growth, must composition, and wine quality. Irrig Sci. 30,
397–406.
Bellvert, J., Marsal, J., Mata, M. & Girona, J.  Yield, mustcomposition, and wine quality responses to pre-veraison
water deﬁcits in sparkling base wines of chardonnay. Am. J.
Enol. Vitic. 67 (1), 1–12.
Biswas, T. K., Schrale, G., Stevens, R., Sanderson, G., Bourne, J. &McLean, G.  Salinity Impact on Lower Murray
Horticulture. Final Report, Product code PR082003, National
Program for Sustainable Irrigation, Land and Water
Australia, Canberra.
Chalmers, Y., Downey, M., Krstic, M., Loveys, B. & Dry, P. R. Inﬂuence of sustained deﬁcit irrigation on colour parametersof Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz microscale wine
fermentations. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 16, 301–313.
CSIRO & BoM  Climate Change in Australia Information forAustralia’s Natural Resource Management Regions, Technical
Report, CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia.
DeGaris, K. A., Walker, R. R., Loveys, B. R. & Tyerman, S. D. Impact of deﬁcit irrigation strategies in a saline environmenton Shiraz yield, physiology, water use and tissue ion
concentration. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 21, 468–478.
Downton, W. J. S.  Inﬂuence of rootstock on the accumulationof chloride, sodium, and potassium in grapevine. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 28, 879–889.
Edwards, E. J. & Clingeleffer, P. R.  Inter-seasonal effects ofregulated deﬁcit irrigation on growth, yield, water use, berrycomposition and wine attributes of Cabernet Sauvignon
grapevines. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 19, 261–276.
Feddes, R. A., Kowalik, P. J. & Zaradny, H.  Simulation of
Field Water Use and Crop Yield. Simulation Monographs,
Pudoc, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Fereres, E., Goldhamer, D. & Sadras, V.  Yield response towater of fruit trees and vines: guidelines. In: Crop Yield
Response to Water (P. Steduto, T. Hsiao, E. Fereres & D.
Raes, eds). Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy,
pp. 246–295.
Girona, J., Marsal, J., Mata, M., Del Campo, J. & Basile, B. Phenological sensitivity of berry growth and composition of
Tempranillo grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) to water stress.
Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 15, 268–277.
Hall, J. A. S., Maschmedt, D. J. & Biling, N. B.  The Soil ofSouthern South Australia. The South Australian Land andSoil Book Series, Volume 1 and Geological Survey of South
Australia, Bulletin 56, Volume 1. Department of Water, Land
and Biodiversity Conservation, Government of South
Australia.
ICMS (Irrigation and Crop Management Service)  Water
Budgeting Guidelines – Vines on the Upper Murray.
Factsheet No. 15/06, Primary Industries and Resources
South Australia, Goverment of South Australia.
Intrigliolo, D. S. & Castel, J.  Response of grapevine cv.
‘Tempranillo’ to timing and amount of irrigation: water
relations, vine growth, yield and berry and wine composition.
Irrig. Sci. 28, 113–125.

Corrected Proof
14

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Intrigliolo, D. S., Ballester, C. & Castel, J. R.  Carry-over effects
of deﬁcit irrigation applied over seven seasons in adeveloping Japanese plum orchard. Agric. Water Manage.
128, 13–18.
Jeffrey, S. J., Carter, J. O., Moodie, K. B. & Beswick, A. R. Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensivearchive of Australian climate data. Environ. Modell. Software
16, 309–330.
Laurenson, S., Bolan, N. S., Smith, E. & McCarthy, M. 
Review: use of recycled wastewater for irrigating grapevines.
Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 18, 1–10.
McCarthy, M. G., Cirami, R. M. & Furkaliev, D. G.  Rootstock
response of Shiraz grapevines (Vitis Vinifera) to dry anddrip-irrigated conditions. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 3,
95–98.
Mounzer, O., Pedrero-Salcedo, F., Nortes, P. A., Bayona, J.,
Nicolás-Nicolás, E. & Alarcón, J. J.  Transient soil salinity
under the combined effect of reclaimed water and regulated
deﬁcit drip irrigation of Mandarin trees. Agric. Water
Manage. 120, 23–29.
Munns, R. & Tester, M.  Mechanisms of salinity tolerance.
Ann. Rev. Pl. Biol. 59, 651–681.
Murray Darling Basin Commission  The Salinity Audit of the
Murray Darling Basin: A 100-Year Perspective. http://www.
mdba.gov.au/sites/default/ﬁles/archived/mdbc-salinityreports/439_Salinity_audit_of_MDB_100_year_perspective.
pdf (accessed 27 October 2017).
Nguyen, T. T., Fuentes, S. & Marschner, P.  Effect ofincorporated or mulched compost on leaf nutrient
concentrations and performance of Vitis Vinifera cv. Merlot.
J. Soil. Sci. Pl. Nutr. 13 (2), 485–497.
Ortega-Farias, S., Fereres, E. & Sadras, V. O.  Special issue onwater management in grapevines. Irrig. Sci. 30, 335–337.
Pellegrino, A., Lebon, E., Simonneau, T. & Wery, J.  Towards
a simple indicator of water stress in grapevine (Vitis vinifera
L.) based on the differential sensitivities of vegetative growthcomponents. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 11, 306–315.
Phogat, V., Skewes, M. A., Cox, J. W., Sanderson, J., Alam, J. &Šimů nek, J.  Seasonal simulation of water, salinity andnitrate dynamics under drip irrigated mandarin (Citrus
reticulata) and assessing management options for drainage
and nitrate leaching. J. Hydrol. 513, 504–516.
Phogat, V., Skewes, M. A., McCarthy, M. G., Cox, J. W., Šimů nek,
J. & Petrie, P. R.  Evaluation of crop coefﬁcients, waterproductivity, and water balance components for wine grapes
irrigated at different deﬁcit levels by a sub-surface drip. Agric.
Water Manage. 180, 22–34.
Phogat, V., Cox, J. W. & Šimů nek, J.  Identifying the futurewater and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in the MurrayDarling Basin, South Australia. Agric. Water Manage. 201,107–117.
Qadir, M., Quillerou, E., Nangia, V., Murtaza, G., Singh, M.,
Thomas, R. J., Drechsel, P. & Noble, A. D.  Economics ofsalt-induced land degradation and restoration. Nat. Resour.
Forum 38, 282–295.

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018

Ramos, T. B., Šimů nek, J., Goncalves, M. C., Martins, J. C.,
Prazeres, A., Castanheira, N. L. & Pereira, L. S.  Field
evaluation of a multicomponent solute transport model insoils irrigated with saline waters. J. Hydrol. 407, 129–144.
Reynolds, A. G., Lowrey, W. D., Tomek, L., Hakimi, J. & deSavigny, C.  Inﬂuence of irrigation on vine performance,
fruit composition, and wine quality of Chardonnay in a cool,humid climate. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58, 217–228.
Roby, G., Harbertson, J. F., Adams, D. A. & Matthews, M. A. Berry size and vine water deﬁcits as factors in wine grapecomposition: anthocyanins and tannins. Australian J. Grape& Wine Res. 10, 100–107.
Romero, P., Gil-Muñoz, R., del Amor, F. M., Valdés, E.,
Fernández, J. I. & Martinez-Cutillas, A.  Regulated deﬁcit
irrigation based upon optimum water status improves
phenolic composition in Monastrell grapes in wines. Agric.
Water Manage. 121, 85–101.
Romero, P., Muñoz, R. G., Fernández-Fernández, J. I., del Amor,
F. M., Martínez-Cutillas, A. & García-García, J. Improvement of yield and grape and wine composition inﬁeld-grown Monastrell grapevines by partial root zone
irrigation, in comparison with regulated deﬁcit irrigation.
Agric. Water Manage. 149, 55–73.
Rural Solutions SA  Irrigation and Crop Management Service.
IRES Software, version 4.0, Loxton Research Centre, Loxton,
SA, Australia.
Serra, I., Strever, A., Myburgh, P. A. & Delorie, A.  Review:the interaction between rootstocks and cultivars (Vitis
vinifera L.) to enhance drought tolerance in grapevine.
Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 20, 1–14.
Shani, U. & Ben Gal, A.  Long-term response of grapevines tosalinity: osmotic effects and ion toxicity. Am. J. Enol. Viticult.
56, 148–154.
Šimů nek, J., van Genuchten, M. Th. & Šejna, M.  Recent
developments and applications of the HYDRUS computer
software packages. Vadose Zone J. 15 (6). doi: 10.2136/
vzj2016.04.0033.
Stevens, R. M. & Partington, D. L.  Grapevine recovery fromsaline irrigation was incomplete after four seasons of nonsaline irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 122, 39–45.
Stevens, R. M., Pech, J. M., Gibberd, M. R., Walker, R. R. &Nicholas, P. R.  Reduced irrigation and rootstock effects
on vegetative growth, yield and its components, and leaf
physiological responses of Shiraz. Australian J. Grape &Wine Res. 16, 413–425.
Stevens, R. M., Harvey, G. & Partington, D. L.  Irrigation ofgrapevines with saline water at different growth stages:
effects on leaf, wood and juice composition. Australian J.
Grape & Wine Res. 17, 239–248.
Tan, K., Berens, V., Hatch, M. & Lawrie, K.  Determining theSuitability of In-Stream Nanotem for Delineating Zones ofSalt Accession to the River Murray: A Review of Survey
Results from Loxton, South Australia. Cooperative ResearchCentre for Landscape Environment and Mineral Exploration,
Report 192, pp 24.

Corrected Proof
15

V. Phogat et al. | Water and salinity risks to irrigated viticulture in semiarid environment

Vereecken, H., Schnepf, A., Hopmans, J. W., Javaux, M., Or, D.,
Roose, T., Vanderborght, J., Young, M. H., Amelung, W.,
Aitkenhead, M., Allison, S. D., Assouline, S., Baveye, P.,
Berli, M., Brüggemann, N., Finke, P., Flury, M., Gaiser, T.,
Govers, G., Ghezzehei, T., Franssen, H. J. H., Heppell, J.,
Horn, R., Huisman, J. A., Jacques, D., Jonard, F., Kollet, S.,
Lafolie, F., Lamorski, K., Leitner, D., Mcbratney, A.,
Minasny, B., Montzka, C., Nowak, W., Pachepsky, Y.,
Padarian, J., Romano, N., Roth, K., Rothfuss, Y., Rowe, E. C.,
Schwen, A., Šimů nek, J., Tiktak, A., Van Dam, J.,
van der Zee, S. E. A. T. M., Vogel, H. J., Vrugt, J. A.,
Wöhling, T., Young, I. M. & Tiktak, A.  Modelingsoil processes: review, key challenges, and new
perspectives. Vadose Zone J. 15 (5), 1–57. doi: 10.2136/
vzj2015.09.0131.
Walker, R. R., Clingeleffer, P. R., Kerridge, G. H., Ruhl, E. H.,
Nicholas, P. R. & Blackmore, D. H.  Effects of the

Journal of Water and Climate Change | in press | 2018rootstock Ramsey (Vitis champini) on ion and organic acidcomposition of grapes and wine, and on wine spectral
characteristics. Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 6, 227–239.
Walker, R. R., Blackmore, D. H., Clingeleffer, P. R. & Correll, R. L.
 Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated ﬁeldgrown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv Sultana). 2. Ion
concentrations in leaves and juice. Australian J. Grape &Wine Res. 10, 90–99.
Walker, R. R., Blackmore, D. H. & Clingeleffer, P. R.  Impactof rootstock on yield and ion concentrations in petioles, juice
and wine of Shiraz and Chardonnay in different viticulturalenvironments with different irrigation water salinity.
Australian J. Grape & Wine Res. 16, 243–257.
Zhang, X., Walker, R. R., Stevens, R. M. & Prior, L. D.  Yieldsalinity relationships of different grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L.)scion-rootstock combinations. Australian J. Grape & WineRes. 8, 150–156.

First received 13 November 2017; accepted in revised form 3 May 2018. Available online 21 May 2018