literature review water supply system

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Iot-based water monitoring systems: a systematic review.

1. Introduction

• What kinds of data acquisition system (DAS) are now employed to gather water samples for testing and monitoring?
• How are DAS evaluations in the literature made?
• What kind of approach is employed to categorize water quality?
• What are the characteristics used in earlier research studies to measure water quality?

2. Systematic Review Protocol

2.1. information source, 2.2. search strategy, 2.3. study selection, 2.4. inclusion and exclusion criteria, 2.4.1. inclusion criteria, 2.4.2. exclusion criteria, 3. taxonomy, 3.1. ai-based methods, 3.1.1. machine learning methods, 3.1.2. fuzzy logic methods, 3.1.3. deep learning methods, 3.2. non-ai-based methods, 3.2.1. energy efficiency, 3.2.2. water analytics, 3.2.3. system design, 3.2.4. system development, 3.3. review and survey articles, 4. discussion, 4.1. challenges, 4.1.1. water pollution, 4.1.2. limited water sources and increasing population, 4.1.3. water management, 4.1.4. farms management, 4.1.5. traditional monitoring methods, 4.2. recommendations, 4.2.1. sensor related, 4.2.2. technology related, 4.2.3. factors/framework related, 5. bibliography analysis, 6. future research directions, 6.1. technology, 6.2. ai models, 6.3. geographical of real-time experiments, 6.4. dataset issues, 7. comparing this work to previous work.

7.1. DAS Availability

7.2. selecting the best machine learning technique, 7.3. assessment method of das, 8. limitations, 9. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Vikesland, P.J. Nanosensors for water quality monitoring. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2018 , 13 , 651–660. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Y.; Han, D. Water quality monitoring in smart city: A pilot project. Autom. Constr. 2018 , 89 , 307–316. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G. Mitigation of Diclofenac pollution in aqueous media by adsorption. ChemBioEng Rev. 2020 , 7 , 50–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gehlot, A.; Singh, R.; Samkaria, R.; Choudhury, S.; De, A. Kamlesh, Air quality and water quality monitoring using XBee and internet of things. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018 , 7 , 24–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ibrahim, S.N.; Asnawi, A.; Abdul Malik, N.; Mohd Azmin, N.; Jusoh, A.; Mohd Isa, F. Web based Water Turbidity Monitoring and Automated Filtration System: IoT Application in Water Management. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2018 , 8 , 2503–2511. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ighalo, J.O.; Adeniyi, A.G.; Marques, G. Internet of things for water quality monitoring and assessment: A comprehensive review. In Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Development: Theory, Practice and Future Applications ; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 245–259. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, G.; Xiao, K.; Chen, M. An intelligent IoT-based control and traceability system to forecast and maintain water quality in freshwater fish farms. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2019 , 166 , 105013. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kanoun, O.; Lazarević-Pašti, T.; Pašti, I.; Nasraoui, S.; Talbi, M.; Brahem, A.; Adiraju, A.; Sheremet, E.; Rodriguez, R.D.; Ben Ali, M. A review of nanocomposite-modified electrochemical sensors for water quality monitoring. Sensors 2021 , 21 , 4131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chen, Y.; Song, L.; Liu, Y.; Yang, L.; Li, D. A review of the artificial neural network models for water quality prediction. Appl. Sci. 2020 , 10 , 5776. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, Q. Intelligent water quality monitoring system based on multi-sensor data fusion technology. Int. J. Ambient. Comput. Intell. IJACI 2021 , 12 , 43–63. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Tohamy, W.S.; Azab, Y.A.; Abdel-Aziz, N. Evaluation of the Water Quality of Damietta Harbor: Using the Zooplankton Diversity and the Traditional Water Quality Parameters. Int. J. Ocean. Oceanogr. 2019 , 13 , 229–246. [ Google Scholar ]
• Das, B.; Jain, P. Real-time water quality monitoring system using Internet of Things. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Computer, Communications and Electronics (Comptelix 2017), Jaipur, India, 1–2 July 2017; pp. 78–82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lalithadevi, B.; Yadav, A.; Pandey, A.; Adhikari, M. Iot based wsn ground water monitoring system with cloud-based monitoring as a service (maas) and prediction using machine learning. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. Regul. Issue 2019 , 9 , 816–821. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thai-Nghe, N.; Thanh-Hai, N.; Chi Ngon, N. Deep learning approach for forecasting water quality in IoT systems. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2020 , 11 , 686–693. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nadu, T. An Underground Pipeline Water Quality Monitoring Using Iot Devices. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 2020 , 7 , 2046–2054. [ Google Scholar ]
• Elijah, O.; Rahman, T.A.; Leow, C.; Yeen, H.; Sarijari, M.; Aris, A.; Salleh, J.; Chua, T. A concept paper on smart river monitoring system for sustainability in river. Int. J. Integr. Eng. 2018 , 10 , 130–139. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pasika, S.; Gandla, S.T. Smart water quality monitoring system with cost-effective using IoT. Heliyon 2020 , 6 , e04096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olatinwo, S.O.; Joubert, T.-H. Energy efficient solutions in wireless sensor systems for water quality monitoring: A review. IEEE Sens. J. 2018 , 19 , 1596–1625. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Boonsong, W.; ISMAIL, W.; Shinohara, N.; Nameh, S.M.I.S.; Alifah, S.; Hafiz, K.; Kamaludin, T.A. Real-time water quality monitoring of aquaculture pond using wireless sensor network and internet of things. J. Theor. Appl. Inf. Technol. 2020 , 98 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Oztemel, E.; Gursev, S. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. J. Intell. Manuf. 2020 , 31 , 127–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moparthi, N.R.; Mukesh, C.; Sagar, P.V. Water quality monitoring system using IoT. In Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Advances in Electrical, Electronics, Information, Communication and Bio-Informatics (AEEICB 2018), Chennai, India, 27–28 February 2018; pp. 1–5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manavalan, E.; Jayakrishna, K. A review of Internet of Things (IoT) embedded sustainable supply chain for industry 4.0 requirements. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019 , 127 , 925–953. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Haque, H.; Labeeb, K.; Riha, R.B.; Khan, M.N.R. IoT based water quality monitoring system by using Zigbee protocol. In Proceedings of the 2021 International Conference on Emerging Smart Computing and Informatics (ESCI), Pune, India, 5–7 March 2021; pp. 619–622. [ Google Scholar ]
• Poor, P.J.; Pessagno, K.L.; Paul, R.W. Exploring the hedonic value of ambient water quality: A local watershed-based study. Ecol. Econ. 2007 , 60 , 797–806. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Muehlenbachs, L.; Spiller, E.; Timmins, C. The housing market impacts of shale gas development. Am. Econ. Rev. 2015 , 105 , 3633–3659. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Nair, S.; de la Vara, J.L.; Sabetzadeh, M.; Briand, L. An extended systematic literature review on provision of evidence for safety certification. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2014 , 56 , 689–717. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Oviedo-Trespalacios, O.; Truelove, V.; Watson, B.; Hinton, J.A. The impact of road advertising signs on driver behaviour and implications for road safety: A critical systematic review. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2019 , 122 , 85–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martín-delosReyes, L.M.; Jiménez-Mejías, E.; Martínez-Ruiz, V.; Moreno-Roldán, E.; Molina-Soberanes, D.; Lardelli-Claret, P. Efficacy of training with driving simulators in improving safety in young novice or learner drivers: A systematic review. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2019 , 62 , 58–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vergina, S.A.; Kayalvizhi, S.; Bhavadharini, R.; Kalpana Devi, S. A real time water quality monitoring using machine learning algorithm. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 2020 , 7 , 2035–2041. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loyola, L.G.; Lacatan, L.L. Water Quality Evaluation System for Prawn ( Penaeus monodon ) Using IoT Device and Decision Tree Algorithm. J. Crit. Rev. 2020 , 7 , 983–988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Priya, S.K.; Shenbagalakshmi, G.; Revathi, T. Architecture of smart sensors for real time drinking water quality and contamination detection in water distributed mains. Sci. Technol. 2019 , 22 , 202–214. [ Google Scholar ]
• Liu, P.; Wang, J.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Xie, Y.; Yin, X. Analysis and prediction of water quality using LSTM deep neural networks in IoT environment. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 2058. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Narayanan, L.K.; Sankaranarayanan, S.; Rodrigues, J.J.; Kozlov, S. Water demand forecasting using deep learning in IoT enabled water distribution network. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control. 2020 , 15 , 3977. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Olatinwo, S.O.; Joubert, T.-H. Energy efficiency maximization in a wireless powered IoT sensor network for water quality monitoring. Comput. Netw. 2020 , 176 , 107237. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nie, X.; Fan, T.; Wang, B.; Li, Z.; Shankar, A.; Manickam, A. Big data analytics and IoT in operation safety management in under water management. Comput. Commun. 2020 , 154 , 188–196. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, J.; Sheng, Y.; Chen, W.; Lin, H.; Sun, G.; Guo, P. Design and analysis of a water quality monitoring data service platform. CMC Comput. Mater. Contin. 2021 , 66 , 389–405. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miry, A.H.; Aramice, G.A. Water monitoring and analytic based ThingSpeak. Int. J. Electr. Comput. Eng. 2020 , 10 , 3588. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhagavan, K.; Krishna, R.V.; Gangadhar, A.C.L.; Arun, M. An efficient method in real time for water quality monitoring using internet of things. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018 , 7 , 170–173. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Amit Ganatra, N.D. An IoT Based Real Time Smart Water Quality Monitoring and Controlling System using Waspmote and ZigBee Module. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 29 , 1147–1151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Esakki, B.; Ganesan, S.; Mathiyazhagan, S.; Ramasubramanian, K.; Gnanasekaran, B.; Son, B.; Park, S.W.; Choi, J.S. Design of amphibious vehicle for unmanned mission in water quality monitoring using internet of things. Sensors 2018 , 18 , 3318. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ramya, A.; Rohini, R.; Ravi, S. Iot based smart monitoring system for fish farming. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019 , 8 , 420–424. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babu Loganathan, G.; Mohan, E.; Siva Kumar, R. IoT based water and soil quality monitoring system. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Technol. IJMET 2019 , 10 , 537–541. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bojja, P.; Kumari, P.; Preetha, P.; Raga, S.N.P.; Akhila, P. Portable drinking water quality measurement system for implementation of smart villages. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019 , 7 , 764–767. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamidi, P.; Sabbi, V.; Sanniti, R. IoT based smart water quality monitoring and prediction system. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. 2019 , 8 , 484–489. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saravanan, K.; Anusuya, E.; Kumar, R.; Son, L.H. Real-time water quality monitoring using Internet of Things in SCADA. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018 , 190 , 556. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dasgupta, S.; Zambare, M.; Kulkarni, N.; Shaligram, A. Real-time water quality monitoring system analysis of Pashan lake, Maharashtra, India. Int. J. Eng. Adv. Technol. IJEAT 2019 , 8 , 1166–1171. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mirzavand, R.; Honari, M.M.; Laribi, B.; Khorshidi, B.; Sadrzadeh, M.; Mousavi, P. An unpowered sensor node for real-time water quality assessment (humic acid detection). Electronics 2018 , 7 , 231. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Spandana, K.; Rao, V.S. Internet of things (Iot) based smart water quality monitoring system. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 2018 , 7 , 259–262. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Narayanan, L.K.; Sankaranarayanan, S.; Rodrigues, J.J.; Lorenz, P. Multi-agent-based modeling for underground pipe health and water quality monitoring for supplying quality water. Int. J. Intell. Inf. Technol. IJIIT 2020 , 16 , 52–79. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Martínez, R.; Vela, N.; El Aatik, A.; Murray, E.; Roche, P.; Navarro, J.M. On the use of an IoT integrated system for water quality monitoring and management in wastewater treatment plants. Water 2020 , 12 , 1096. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ramadhan, A.; Ali, A.; Kareem, H. Smart water-quality monitoring system based on enabled real-time internet of things. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 15 , 3514–3527. [ Google Scholar ]
• Saparudin, F.; Chee, T.; Ab Ghafar, A.; Majid, H.; Katiran, N. Wireless water quality monitoring system for high density aquaculture application. Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci. 2019 , 13 , 507–513. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shareef, Z.; Reddy, S. Design, development and analysis of an IoT-based framework for monitoring aquaculture farms. Int. J. Mob. Netw. Des. Innov. 2019 , 9 , 183–191. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dasig, D.D., Jr. Implementing Zigbee-based Wireless Sensor Network in the Design of Water Quality Monitoring System. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019 , 8 , 6174–6179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rahmadya, B.; Zaini, Z.; Muharam, M. Iot: A mobile application and multi-hop communication in wireless sensor network for water monitoring. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. 2020 , 14 , 288–296. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Y.-P.; Mukhtar, H.; Huang, K.-T.; Petway, J.R.; Lin, C.-M.; Chou, C.-F.; Liao, S.-W. Real-time identification of irrigation water pollution sources and pathways with a wireless sensor network and blockchain framework. Sensors 2020 , 20 , 3634. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Danh, L.V.Q.; Dung, D.V.M.; Danh, T.H.; Ngon, N.C. Design and deployment of an IoT-based water quality monitoring system for aquaculture in Mekong Delta. Int. J. Mech. Eng. Robot. Res. 2020 , 9 , 1170–1175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kumar, M.J.V.; Samalla, K. Design and development of water quality monitoring system in IoT. Int. J. Recent Technol. Eng. IJRTE 2019 , 7 , 527–533. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huan, J.; Li, H.; Wu, F.; Cao, W. Design of water quality monitoring system for aquaculture ponds based on NB-IoT. Aquac. Eng. 2020 , 90 , 102088. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ab Aziz, M.A.; Abas, M.F.; Bashri, M.K.A.A.; Saad, N.M.; Ariff, M. Evaluating IoT based passive water catchment monitoring system data acquisition and analysis. Bull. Electr. Eng. Inform. 2019 , 8 , 1373–1382. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lin, Y.-B.; Tseng, H.-C. FishTalk: An IoT-based mini aquarium system. IEEE Access 2019 , 7 , 35457–35469. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kalpana, D.; Venkatesulu, S. Iot Based Public Watering System With Quality Measurement. Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med. 2020 , 7 , 2360–2366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Amareshwar, E.; Jahan, S. Raspberry pi based water quality monitoring and flood alerting system using IoT. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2019 , 8 , 237–240. [ Google Scholar ]
• Angani, A.; Lee, J.C.; Shin, K.J. Vertical recycling aquatic system for internet-of-things-based smart fish farm. Sens. Mater. 2019 , 31 , 3987–3998. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pantjawati, A.B.; Purnomo, R.; Mulyanti, B.; Fenjano, L.; Pawinanto, R.; Nandiyanto, A.B.D. Water quality monitoring in Citarum River (Indonesia) using IoT (internet of thing). J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2020 , 15 , 3661–3672. [ Google Scholar ]
• Oommen, A.K.; Saji, A.; Joseph, S.; Kuriakose, B.P. Automated Water Quality Monitoring System for Aquaponics. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2019 , 7832 , 7832–7841. [ Google Scholar ]
• Di Luccio, D.; Riccio, A.; Galletti, A.; Laccetti, G.; Lapegna, M.; Marcellino, L.; Kosta, S.; Montella, R. Coastal marine data crowdsourcing using the Internet of Floating Things: Improving the results of a water quality model. IEEE Access 2020 , 8 , 101209–101223. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, Y.; Rajib, S.S.M.; Collins, C.; Grieve, B. Low-cost turbidity sensor for low-power wireless monitoring of fresh-water courses. IEEE Sens. J. 2018 , 18 , 4689–4696. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Talal, M.; Ramli, K.N.; Zaidan, A.A.; Zaidan, B.B.; Jumaa, F. Review on car-following sensor based and data-generation mapping for safety and traffic management and road map toward ITS. Veh. Commun. 2020 , 25 , 100280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Abdulwahid, S.N.; Mahmoud, M.A.; Zaidan, B.B.; Alamoodi, A.H.; Garfan, S.; Talal, M.; Zaidan, A.A. A comprehensive review on the behaviour of motorcyclists: Motivations, issues, challenges, substantial analysis and recommendations. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022 , 19 , 3552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zaidan, R.; Alamoodi, A.; Zaidan, B.; Zaidan, A.; Albahri, O.; Talal, M.; Garfan, S.; Sulaiman, S.; Mohammed, A.; Kareem, Z. Comprehensive driver behaviour review: Taxonomy, issues and challenges, motivations and research direction towards achieving a smart transportation environment. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022 , 111 , 104745. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fathoni, H.; Miao, H.-Y.; Chen, C.-Y.; Yang, C.-T. A Monitoring System of Water Quality Tunghai Lake Using LoRaWAN. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Pervasive Artificial Intelligence (ICPAI), Taipei, Taiwan, 3–5 December 2020; pp. 281–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sithole, M.P.P.; Nwulu, N.I.; Dogo, E.M. Dataset for a wireless sensor network based drinking-water quality monitoring and notification system. Data Brief 2019 , 27 , 104813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mahmoud, U.S.; Albahri, A.S.; AlSattar, H.A.; Zaidan, A.A.; Talal, M.; Mohammed, R.T.; Albahri, O.S.; Zaidan, B.B.; Alamoodi, A.H.; Qahtan, S. DAS benchmarking methodology based on FWZIC II and FDOSM II to support industrial community characteristics in the design and implementation of advanced driver assistance systems in vehicles. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022 , 1–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Zulkifli, C.Z.; Garfan, S.; Talal, M.; Alamoodi, A.H.; Alamleh, A.; Ahmaro, I.Y.Y.; Sulaiman, S.; Ibrahim, A.B.; Zaidan, B.B.; Ismail, A.R.; et al. IoT-Based Water Monitoring Systems: A Systematic Review. Water 2022 , 14 , 3621. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223621

Zulkifli CZ, Garfan S, Talal M, Alamoodi AH, Alamleh A, Ahmaro IYY, Sulaiman S, Ibrahim AB, Zaidan BB, Ismail AR, et al. IoT-Based Water Monitoring Systems: A Systematic Review. Water . 2022; 14(22):3621. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223621

Zulkifli, Che Zalina, Salem Garfan, Mohammed Talal, A. H. Alamoodi, Amneh Alamleh, Ibraheem Y. Y. Ahmaro, Suliana Sulaiman, Abu Bakar Ibrahim, B. B. Zaidan, Amelia Ritahani Ismail, and et al. 2022. "IoT-Based Water Monitoring Systems: A Systematic Review" Water 14, no. 22: 3621. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223621

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Advertisement

Single and basal crop coefficients for temperate climate fruit trees, vines and shrubs with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system

• Open access
• Published: 16 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Ramón López-Urrea 1 ,
• Cristina M. Oliveira 2 ,
• Francisco Montoya 3 ,
• Paula Paredes 2 &
• Luis S. Pereira 2  

The objective of the present review article was to update the standard single (K c ) and basal (K cb ) crop coefficients published in the FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 (FAO56), focusing on temperate climate fruit trees (pome, stone and nut fruit trees), vines and shrubs (kiwi, hop and blue- and blackberries). Standard conditions refer to crops grown in medium to large fields, having enough fetch for non-impeding accurate use of flux measuring equipment to represent non-limiting conditions of crop evapotranspiration, ET c . Moreover, the crop needs to be managed without soil water deficit, free of pests and diseases, and must be able to reach full production under the given environmental conditions. For this purpose, more than 150 articles published over the last 25 years were reviewed. Of these, we selected 76 that refer to case studies that reporting on appropriate yield conditions, describe adequate ET c measurement and adopt the FAO reference evapotranspiration or another method closely related to it. The selection of papers to be analysed followed the same methods as the companion papers on Mediterranean woody fruit crops (Pereira et al. 2023), and on tropical and subtropical ones (Paredes et al. 2024). The literature review focused on articles that are in line with the FAO56 methodology; that is, where the grass reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) was computed with the FAO Penman–Monteith ET o , the ASCE Penman–Monteith ET o equations, or other equations whose results relate well to the former. In addition, where the crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) and/or crop transpiration (T c ) were determined with sufficient accuracy from field observations in crops grown under standard, well-watered conditions, i.e., under pristine (i.e., non-stress cropping conditions) or eustress (i.e., “good stress”) conditions. Information collected from the selected studies included cultivar and rootstock, plant density and spacing, training system, fraction of ground cover or intercepted PAR radiation, crop height and age. Additional data were gathered on irrigation system and strategy for full or deficit irrigation. The K c and K cb values reported were recomputed and grouped according to the degree of ground cover, training system and plant density. Thus, the proposed tabulated standard K c and K cb values for initial, mid- and end-season are based on the values obtained from field observations reported in the selected papers, and on the ranges of K c /K cb values previously tabulated, mainly in FAO56. The currently tabulated values are updated, with the aim being their use in orchard management. They should consist of the upper limit of K c /K cb application, and take into account the general awareness of water scarcity and water conservation, thus helping improve the accuracy in estimating crop water requirements and optimizing irrigation scheduling.

Similar content being viewed by others

Single and basal crop coefficients for estimation of water use of tree and vine woody crops with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system for Mediterranean and warm temperate fruit and leaf crops

Single and basal crop coefficients for estimation of water requirements of subtropical and tropical orchards and plantations with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system.

The impacts of planting patterns combined with irrigation management practices on soil water content, watermelon yield and quality

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The global harvested area of irrigated fruit trees and vines has increased in recent years (FAO 2021 ). Accurate knowledge of their water needs is crucial for estimating irrigation requirements, planning and managing crop water use, determining the availability and demand of water resources at the basin level, and supporting hydrologic studies. Given that irrigated agriculture is the primary water user, far outweighing the demand for other purposes (e.g., for industrial and domestic use), the accuracy of evapotranspiration estimations is essential, especially in cases of water scarcity, and because sustainable irrigation requires crop demand not to be exceeded in order to curb the tendency for water overuse (Pereira et al. 2009 ; López-Urrea and Chávez 2019 ). Moreover, related challenges are increasingly difficult to deal with due to the need to feed an ever-growing world population (expected to reach 10 billion people in 2050), under conditions of decreased water supply reliability, droughts, climate change and uncertainties linked to poorly engaged water resource governance. Therefore, a more efficient and sustainable use of natural resources is mandatory, with water being among the most important factors in crop productivity (Renard and Tilman 2019 ).

Crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) is generally estimated using weather data and physical, physiological and aerodynamic parameters related to the crop that govern the evapotranspiration process. The FAO56 approach is often used, which calculates ET c by multiplying the precisely defined FAO-PM grass reference evapotranspiration (ET o ) by a crop coefficient (K c ), i.e., ET c  = K c ET o (Allen et al. 1998 ; Pereira et al. 2021a ). Reference ET represents the actual evaporative demand of the atmosphere and K c integrates the physical and physiological differences between the crops and the grass reference surface in terms of ET (Pereira et al. 1999 ). The K c −ET o approach is easy to apply but its implementation calls for the highest level of computation and measurement accuracy, especially when obtaining crop coefficients for a specific crop based on ground observations (Allen et al. 2011a , b ).

Another approach considered in FAO56 is the dual crop coefficient method, which consists of K c  = K cb  + K e , the sum of the basal crop coefficient (K cb ) and an evaporation coefficient (K e ), the first representing crop transpiration (T c ) and the second referring to soil evaporation (E s ). This approach allows us to perceive how the wetting events are used, respectively, for crop growth and yielding or for evaporation from the top soil. It is computationally more intensive than the single K c approach and needs to be performed on a daily basis, thus necessitating the use of computers. The use of this approach is recommended when improved estimates for K c are needed, e.g., for daily schedule irrigations for individual fields, mainly for incomplete cover crops as orchards, or for increased accuracy in hydrologic studies (Allen et al. 1998 ).

FAO56 (Allen et al. 1998 ) established the concept of standard K c and K cb , which refer to pristine and/or eustressed cropping conditions, with the intention being to ensure their transferability. Thus, there is a need to avoid ET measurements over small expanses of crop vegetation because effects of local advection may lead to overestimating ET c . Measurements are typically biased since the internal boundary layer above the vegetation may not be in equilibrium with the surface and may not have developed up to the height of any meteorological or flux instrumentation (Allen et al. 2011a ). For further information on the advection effects on crop coefficients, the reader is referred to the companion paper by Pereira et al ( 2023 ). The tabulated crop coefficients (K c and K cb ), which represent the upper limits of the actual crop coefficients, must refer exclusively to standard K c and K cb values. In practice, however, many fruit tree orchards and vineyards are managed under sub-optimal conditions due to water or salt stress, non-uniform irrigation, irregular plant density, inadequate soil management, cultural practices (e.g. pruning, thinning, fertilizing), and other factors. Under these circumstances, the observations refer to actual crop ET (ET c act ) and not standard ET c , with ET c act  ≤ ET c , being equal to ET c only when the crop is well-watered and managed in a pristine or eustress condition (Pereira et al. 2023 ). The resulting actual ET c then consists of the product of ET o by K c act, which represents K c affected by a stress coefficient (K s ), which describes the effect of water and/or salt stress on crop ET. When using the dual crop coefficient method, only crop transpiration is affected, thus only K cb is modified, i.e., K c act  = K cb K s  + K e , where the last term is the coefficient of soil evaporation not affected by stress (Allen et al. 1998 ).

Considering the scarcity of water resources, many studies have focused on applied deficit irrigation strategies for fruit trees and vines, or to assume fruit quality targets (Intrigliolo and Castel 2011 ; Romero et al. 2013 ; Martínez-Moreno et al. 2023 ). Alternatively, eustress can be adopted, consisting of mild and controlled water stress that should favour yield quality with minimal reduction of yield quantities. Thus, to improve water use and irrigation management for fruit trees and vines, it is essential to expand accurate knowledge on crop water requirements and the impacts of their deficits, and to define eustress issues. However, to date, only a few studies have provided tabulated standard K c and K cb values for fruit trees and vines over the growing season. The FAO56 (Allen et al. 1998 ) is likely the first and main reference for K c /K cb values for vegetables, field, and woody crops. More recently, Jensen and Allen ( 2016 ) and Rallo et al. ( 2021 ) reported K c and K cb values for fruit tree crops taking the earlier research into account.

Allen and Pereira ( 2009 ) developed a method for predicting crop coefficients from the fraction of ground cover/shaded by the canopy and plant height, commonly referred to as the A&P approach. In this approach K cb values along the plant season are a function of a density coefficient (K d ) and a K cb at maximum plant growth near full ground cover (K cb full ). K d describes the increase in K cb with increasing vegetation density thus as a function of the fraction of ground covered by the crop (f c ), mean plant height (h) and a multiplier for f c relative to canopy density and shading (M L ). M L reflects the density and thickness of the canopy and sets an upper limit on the relative magnitude of transpiration per unit of ground area as represented by f c . K cb full is computed as a function of h and adjusted for both stomatal control of transpiration (F r ) and to the climatic conditions prevailing across each crop development stage. The F r parameter applies a downward adjustment (F r  ≤ 1.0) to K cb full and consequently to K cb , if the vegetation has stronger stomatal control of transpiration than is typical for agricultural crops (Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Pereira et al. 2021b ).

The A&P approach performs particularly well for fruit trees and vines (Pereira et al. 2020 ). Using ground and remote sensing data, the A&P approach was validated and parameterized for a large number of crops, namely for tree and vine crops, for non-stressed conditions, and so approximate to standard. The resulting calibrated parameters of the A&P approach from these studies were therefore tabulated to support further applications (Pereira et al. 2020 , 2021b ). Moreover, the computed K cb and K c values were also included in those tables. The A&P approach has been further applied to support irrigation management, e.g., in the Satellite Irrigation Management Support used in California (Melton et al. 2020 ) and citrus orchards in Syria (Darouich et al. 2023 ), as well as to derive crop coefficients for various tree crops in Portugal (Paço et al. 2012 ), South Africa (Mashabatu et al. 2023 ; Ntshidi et al. 2023 ) and in Italy (Vinci et al. 2023 ).

The main aim of this review article was to update and tabulate standard single (K c ) and basal (K cb ) crop coefficients for temperate climate pome, stone and nut fruit trees, and vines and shrubs managed under non-stress or eustress conditions. The current review is expected to determine the most significant results of recent research on standard K c and K cb values and their range of variation, assessing the methodologies used for determination of crop ET and crop coefficients. The tables also include ancillary data aiming to support models used to supplement K c /K cb , namely plant density and training system, fraction of ground cover and plants height, as well as the parameters of the A&P approach corresponding to the tabulated K cb , which facilitate further use of this approach in field and irrigation management.

Materials and methods

Accuracy requirements in determining crop evapotranspiration.

With the aim of providing accurate updated standard K c and K cb values, it was necessary for the crop ET data reported in the literature to be free of biases and errors that would compromise their accuracy. In this sense, the studies by Allen et al. ( 2011a , b ), and later by Pereira et al. ( 2021a ), described the main methods for measuring actual ET c or indirectly deriving ET c estimates, emphasizing the accuracy requirements in measurements and the main pitfalls to avoid.

A variety of measurement systems and different approaches are used to determine crop ET or T in the field, such as lysimeters (Lys), eddy covariance (EC), the Bowen ratio energy balance (BREB), soil water balance (SWB), sap flow (SF), remote sensing from vegetation indices (RSVI) and energy balance (RSEB). When used correctly, the accuracy of the described measurement systems can be very high. However, understanding the underlying physics of turbulence and transfer of heat, water and energy that govern measurement is crucial to avoid subtle biases and errors that will compromise the accuracy of the data (Allen et al. 2011a , b ). For the purpose of producing representative and reliable data, the deployment of equilibrium air-boundary layer systems, such as EC and BREB, must obey fetch requirements and minimum equipment heights. BREB methods must incorporate representative measurements of net radiation and soil heat flux density, as well as of the vertical gradients of temperature and relative humidity, which typically require multiple locations for sensors when used in spatially non-uniform systems. Measurements of EC require physically based “corrections” to obtain the so-called energy balance closure,where the sum of latent, sensible and soil heat fluxes equals net radiation (Twine et al. 2000 ; Rambikur and Chávez 2014 ). When ET measurement systems are occasionally used by people who have insufficient training or experience significant measurement bias may occur.

Lysimeters and SWB potentially provide reliable measurements but only if fundamental criteria for representativeness of vegetation and environmental conditions are met (Evett et al. 2006 ; 2012 ). SF sensors rely on empirical correction factors derived from the physiology and anatomy of species under observation, and on the accuracy of the scaling techniques used to go from branch or tree to a group of plants and larger area estimates of the transpiration component, to which evaporation from soil must be added (e.g. Testi and Villalobos 2009 ).

In order to achieve high data integrity, readers are referred to studies by Allen et al. ( 2011a , b ) and Pereira et al. ( 2021a ) where a detailed description of the necessary and desired information in support of each ET measurement and estimation method is provided. Furthermore, different problems and requirements related to each of them are discussed, as analysed in the companion papers.

Requirements for transferability of standard single and basal crop coefficients and criteria used to select the source articles

For transferability purposes, FAO56 adopted the concept of standard K c /K cb and potential ET c (Allen et al. 1998 ), which refer to well-watered and pristine or eustress cropping conditions. These are often different from actual field conditions, frequently under-optimal due to insufficient (or non-uniform) irrigation, crop density, salinity, agronomic practices and soil management. As discussed in the introduction, the tabulated K c must refer exclusively to standard K c . For tree and vine crops, the standard K c often refers to adopting crop-specific eustress practices, i.e., limited stress practices that result in no or minimal (non-significant) yield reduction relative to the maximum obtainable yield (Pereira et al. 2023 ; Paredes et al. 2024 ).

Several hundred papers have been published over the past 25 years reporting the determination of ET c and updated K c /K cb values for a wide variety of fruit trees and vines. Although the information these papers provide was sufficient to achieve the proposed respective objectives, making the reported K c /K cb values transferable to different environments is not enough. Moreover, many of these articles lacked information on the techniques and instrumentation used, meteorological conditions, and the crops and the cultivation practices considered, meaning their transferability is significantly limited and are thus not usable in the present review. The numerous issues limiting the transferability of K c /K cb data were recently reviewed by Pereira et al. ( 2021a , c , 2023 ) and were taken as selection criteria, as detailed in this section. These limitations prompted us to conduct a meticulous review of published articles to check when reported K c /K cb values are only of local (site-specific) interest (use) and/or represent non-standard experimental conditions, contrasting with K c /K cb data obtained under eustress and pristine cropping conditions, thus being transferrable to other locations and production environments.

The review focused on papers published after the FAO56 guidelines (Allen et al. 1998 ), until May 2024. As for the companion papers, the databases used for the search were Scopus, WoS, Google Scholar, Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, CSIRO and Scielo, the engines of journals where papers on K c are published, as well as using different keywords, specifically crop coefficient, evapotranspiration, water use, water requirements, irrigation and species names (common and scientific). The languages used were English, French, Italian, Persian, Portuguese and Spanish.

Following the methodology described in the companion papers by Pereira et al. ( 2023 ) and Paredes et al. ( 2024 ), the source articles were selected from among all papers, aiming to meet the following research requirements:

i) use of the standard FAO-PM-ET o equation, the grass ASCE-PM-ET o equation, or other ET equations having recognized ratios between the results of that ET o equation and the FAO-PM-ETo equation;

ii) reported results based on two or more cropping seasons, or studies having different treatments, allowing for the analysis of the consistency of data between experimental seasons, which may depend on various factors, such as weather conditions and crop management practices;

iii) studies conducted in experimental plots with an adequate size to allow local advection effects to be minimized;

iv) plots adopting appropriate crop management practices to favour the control of biotic and abiotic stresses;

v) use of the FAO K c curve with identification of the four crop growth stages, or presentation of K c results in such a way as to facilitate the identification of K c /K cb values for the mid-season and, when possible, for the initial and end-season;

vi) reporting on field experiments using EC and BREB systems including fetch length in predominant wind directions, thresholds for data filtering, discussion on the closure error and method of closure;

vii) studies based on the SWB approach should sufficiently describe the terms of the balance, use adequate number of sensors and their positioning in field and with depth, allowing the soil water fluxes to be correctly monitored, and providing reasonably good results of the calibration and validation of the model when used;

viii) relative to lysimeter measurements, that describe the equipment, its location and consider the environmental factors to which they are highly sensitive (e.g. ‘‘oasis’’ and ‘‘cloth-line’’ effects) as well as fetch;

ix) reference studies on remote sensing with vegetation indices or energy balance based on adequate ground observations aimed at their calibration/validation;

x) reporting acceptable crop coefficient values (K c mid ≤ 1.30, K c mid > K c end , and K cb < K c ) unless convincing explanations were given (see Allen et al. 2011a ).

Studies reporting values of K cb > K c and those evidencing stressed crops were removed. For this reason, papers should show that crops were grown under well-watered conditions and managed in near-pristine or eustress conditions. Therefore, to avoid misunderstandings, these concepts were first defined.

The chosen criteria allowed for the selection of 76 papers of reasonable to excellent quality, covering numerous species, and carried out in a wide range of regions and environments around the world. Readers are referred to the original articles to make their own assessment on their suitability for the use of the tabulated information.

Tabulation of updated standard single and basal crop coefficients

The ranges of observed K c and K cb values gathered from the chosen papers and the values tabulated since 1998 were taken into consideration when standard values of K c /K cb were produced. A detailed description of the steps followed to build the new tables of standard K c and K cb values can be found in the companion paper by Pereira et al ( 2023 ). An overview of these steps is as follows:

from the studies, information was obtained related to: plant density (spacing), training system, fraction of ground cover (f c ) or fraction of intercepted radiation (f IPAR ) which is assumed as an estimate of f c , and crop height (h);

a provisional table was built for each crop including the range of observed K c /K cb values, as well as those previously tabulated (Allen et al. 1998 ; Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Jensen and Allen 2016 ; Rallo et al. 2021 );

a draft of tentative K c /K cb values for initial, mid- and end-season was defined for each crop, establishing different categories based mainly on the f c and h ranges, and the training system;

for each crop and range of f c and h, K cb values were computed applying the A&P approach (Allen and Pereira 2009 ), discussed in the introduction, using the parameters h, M L and F r available from Pereira et al. ( 2021c ), or adjusting these parameters for crops not yet studied by comparison with values relative to crops with similar characteristics;

defining the standard K c values by summing the estimated values of K e for each stage with the defined standard values of K cb ini , K cb mid and K cb end . The estimated values of K e were obtained by observing the differences (K c -K cb ) in the selected papers and in the previously published tables, considering changes in K c due to rainfall, and assuming a reduced soil evaporation due to using drip or micro-sprinkling under the canopies, and/or for a large plant density and use of mulches. Young plantations are assigned with larger K e values. K e were assumed to be smaller for the mid-season.

Consolidation of the draft standard K c and K cb by comparing all K c /K cb values for: (i) various plant densities and ground cover fractions of the same crop; (ii) the various crops of the same group; and (iii) between K c and K cb .

The tabulated information for each crop consists of the cultivar and rootstock, the location and climate, the method for determining the actual ET c and the reference ET o , the irrigation method and the strategy relative to water stress if used, the plant spacing and density, the training or trellis system, the tree or vine age and height, and the fraction of ground cover or intercepted radiation. Another table is used to present the K c and K cb values derived from field determinations of crop ET or T, as well as the relevant data for analysis of the K c and K cb values. Other factors affecting crop water requirements, such as pruning, fruit thinning and fruit load, were not considered due to a lack of information in the selected papers. The tabulated style adopted is in line with that adopted for Mediterranean and tropical and subtropical woody fruit plants (Pereira et al. 2023 ; Paredes et al. 2024 ).

Tabulated standard K c and K cb values

This article focuses on temperate climate fruit trees, vines and shrubs. The best-known temperate tree fruits belong to the Rosaceae family and include pome fruits such as apple and pear, and stone fruits, such as apricot, cherry, peach and plum. The annual cycle of deciduous fruit trees in temperate climates is characterized by a dormant phase and a growing and fruiting phase. The annual cycle extends from the initial budbreak and fruit setting (initial stage), active growth (mid-season) and growth cessation (end-season). During the dormant period, trees need to be exposed to a certain number of chilling hours to synchronize budbreak and flowering, favouring potential production. However, the extent of chilling requirements varies with species and cultivar. With special techniques designed to overcome dormancy, some tree crops from temperate zones can grow at lower latitudes in much warmer climate conditions, i.e. tropical and subtropical regions (Pio et al. 2019 ). However, under climate change conditions, the required chilling period may not be achieved and a warmer winter shifts flowering forward, which can provoke frost damage by the beginning of spring (Salama et al. 2021 ).

The most common soil management in orchards consists of natural grass sward in alleys (with multiple cuts) and herbicide application to control weeds along the rows. During the summer, in temperate climate regions, as well as in Mediterranean countries, the inter-row natural grasses dry out turning into organic mulch. The use of inter-row planted grasses has rarely been reported.

Pome fruit trees

With an area of around 4.8 million hectares, the apple ( Malus domestica Borkh.) is one of the most important deciduous fruit trees in the world. The main producer is China, followed by the USA. Pear ( Pyrus communis L) production is also significant, with around 1.4 million hectares harvested. The main producers are China, Argentina, USA, and Italy (FAOSTAT 2023 ). These fruit tree species have the most technologically advanced production system, typically in high-density orchards, with dwarf rootstocks and trellis training systems, which enable high productivity and profitability. European pome orchards are predominantly pedestrian, i.e., all work is done from the ground, eliminating the need for ladders.

Table 1 shows the main characteristics of apple and pear orchards obtained from the 20 selected papers. The selected pome fruit studies were carried out in a wide range of locations around the world (in 9 countries, including Spain, South Africa, Portugal and Australia). This broad coverage contributes to the desired perception that the number of studies reviewed is suitable, hence safeguarding the high quality of the review. All reported K c and K cb values for pome fruit trees (Table  2 ) were obtained from determinations of crop ET using weighing lysimeters (WL), eddy covariance (EC) systems, or T using sap flow (SF) sensors, or computed with a soil water balance (SWB), as well as using the Shuttleworth-Wallace (S-W) model in an apple tree study in the Western Cape, South Africa (Gush et al. 2019 ). In all studies, ET o was calculated using the FAO-PM ET o equation or similar, except in one study in Upper Galilee, Israel, which used the Class A pan ET o (Naor et al. 2000 ).

In most of the selected studies, drip irrigation was used, with full irrigation strategies being adopted. Micro-sprinkler or sprinkler systems were used in only 5 cases. It may be assumed that the selected information on pome fruit trees was obtained under well-watered conditions, near-pristine or eustress conditions, or under mild controlled water stress during selected periods of the growing season, thus corresponding to the conditions defined for standard K c and K cb values in the revised version of FAO56 (Pereira et al. 2024 ). Abbreviations and symbols in the body of all the tables are defined in Appendix 1.

There was a great variability in plant density and spacing, ranging from 400 to 3333 plants/ha (Table  1 ) as well as in the f c and h data collected, which is related to age, pruning, training system, and crop management conditions. The canopy training system in most of the orchards was central leader or modified central leader, although there are also some cases of palmette and one case of 2-leader on open trellis. In general, there is a lack of information on pruning, and so it is not included in the tables. However, some studies reported one pruning per year during the wintertime, being severe in the study by Volschenk ( 2017 ).

Table 2 shows the actual K c and K cb values derived from field observations of crop ET or T for all the cultivars and rootstocks of the selected studies. They present great variability (e.g., for apple trees K c mid ranged from 0.42 to 1.10 when the trees were 3 and 13 years old, respectively), mainly due to differences in f c and h, which are directly related to the training system and tree age. In general, determining the end season values was difficult as it is often not well defined. However, after harvesting, during the late growth stage, the trees may be irrigated to support the storage of carbohydrates for the following season, and so it is essential to determine K c values correctly at this end stage.

Table 3 shows the derived standard initial, mid- and end-season single and basal crop coefficients for apple and pear tree orchards according to the degree of ground cover (DGC), plant density and training system. DGC varies from very low values for young orchards to very high values for full bearing orchards with high plant density. In the case of apple trees, different DGCs correspond to diverse plant densities, trained as central leader. However, for pear trees, different DGCs are related to diverse training systems, which are impacted by the severity of pruning, and to different plant density and spacing. The groups described are also differentiated by ranges of canopy cover and tree height, f c and h, which may assist in determining the group most suitable for selecting the K c /K cb values for the given case. In addition, to these values of f c and h, tabulated values are also provided for M L , which is a multiplier for f c describing the effect of canopy density on shading and on maximum relative ET per fraction of ground shaded [1.0–2.0], and for F r , which is an adjustment factor relative to crop stomatal control [0.0–1.0]. These parameters can be used to compute the values of K cb ini , K cb mid and K cb end using the A&P method (Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Pereira et al. 2021c ).

The proposed K c and K cb values for initial, mid- and end-season presented in Table  3 are based on the ranges of values obtained from field observations reported in the selected papers, and on the ranges of K c /K cb values previously tabulated in FAO56 (Allen et al. 1998 ), and in the articles published by Allen and Pereira ( 2009 ) and Rallo et al. ( 2021 ). Evidently, the crop coefficients increase as the canopy cover increases due to the direct relationship of the latter to the basal K cb representing plant transpiration, while the evaporative component (represented by K e ) is mainly determined by the fraction of ground exposed to solar radiation, the frequency and depth of rainfall or irrigation events, and the energy available at soil surface for water evaporation, which is conditioned by the training system and the radiation intercepted by the canopy, and thus by the f c values.

Stone fruit trees

Stone fruits include apricots ( Prunus armeniaca L.), peaches and nectarines ( Prunus persica L. Batsch), cherries ( Prunus avium L.), and plums ( Prunus Salicina Lindl. (Japanese plum) and P. domestica (European plum)), which are currently harvested around the world across an area of around 5.1 million hectares producing 43.2 million tons (FAOSTAT 2023 ). Apricots are mainly grown in Turkey, Uzbekistan, and Iran; the principal producers of peaches and nectarines are China, Spain, Italy, and Turkey; cherries are grown primarily in Turkey, USA and Chile; and the larger producers of plums include China, Romania, Chile and Serbia. Peaches and nectarines account for 57% of the production of stone fruits and tend to have the highest water demand. In contrast to pome fruit trees, the selection of rootstocks for stone fruit trees depends primarily on soil characteristics and soil pests and diseases.

As for pome fruit trees, the stone fruit trees also require sufficient winter chill to break endodormancy in spring and avoid production problems. Although these fruit trees are characteristic of temperate climates, they are increasingly grown in warmer latitudes, which, also due to global warming, may result in their not receiving the necessary chilling hours. Problems are also associated with late frosts since higher temperatures bring forward blooming and flowering.

Table 4 shows the main characteristics of apricot, cherry, peach, nectarine and plum orchards as collected from the selected papers. The selected studies were conducted in 8 countries representing a variety of locations worldwide, but primarily in Spain, South Africa and USA, including different environmental and crop management conditions. This large coverage contributes to the high quality of the present study. The main methods used for measuring actual ET c and/or plant transpiration were the SWB using gravimetry and different type of sensors for monitoring the soil water content, WL and SF systems. Also used were drainage lysimeters (DL), EC systems and SWB supported by models such as SIMDualKc and HYDRUS-2D.

Most studies used the FAO-PM ET o equation to compute ET o , except for one study on apricots conducted in south-eastern Spain, which used Class A pan ET o (Abrisqueta et al. 2001 ), and studies on peaches conducted at Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center in Parlier, California, which used the CIMIS-Penman ET o equation (Ayars et al. 2003 ; Johnson et al. 2000 , 2002 ).

In most of the selected studies, drip irrigation systems were used under well-watered conditions; micro-sprinkler systems were used in a few cases. It might be considered that the selected information gathered on stone fruit trees watering referred to near-pristine conditions or to mild water stress during specific stages of the growing season, thus likely matching the previously mentioned eustress criteria for standard K c and K cb values.

The common training system for stone fruits is the vase, but new training systems have also been developed, that allow for higher tree densities and facilitate cropping practices such as harvesting. An example is the Kearney Agricultural Center Perpendicular “V” (KAC-V), a hybrid of the traditional open vase system and the Tatura system without the trellis (Marsal et al. 2014b ). Although the studies on apricot trees did not report the canopy training system adopted in the orchard, the tree spacing reported in the research papers corresponds to a vase-training system. Another training system used was the palmette. The information reported on pruning was very scant and is thus not discussed here. However, some studies reported that pruning was performed annually during dormancy and, in some cases, a light summer pruning was also performed depending on the vigour of the plants. The f c and h data collected show great variability for the different species of stone fruits, which is linked to age, pruning and training system, and crop management conditions.

As recorded in Table  5 , almost all the studies were carried out in bare soil conditions; exceptions are the apricot study by El-Naggar et al. ( 2018 ), where the effect of different types of mulching (i.e. rice straw, white and black plastic) on the crop coefficients was analysed, and a plum tree study by Jovanović et al. ( 2023 ), where the impact of using active ground cover (AGC) on K cb was studied. The actual K c and K cb values are shown in the last six columns of Table  5 , which were derived from field observations of actual ET c or T c for all the cultivars and rootstocks of the selected studies. They show significant variability, mainly due to differences in f c and h, which are directly related to the training system, pruning and tree age.

Table 6 shows the initial, mid- and end-season standard K c and K cb values for the different species of stone fruit trees depending on the degree of ground cover, plant density and training system. DGC values range from very low, for young tree orchards, to high or very high for mature orchards with high plant density. Apricot and plum trees are grouped together and have the vase training system in common. In cherries, two different training systems are used (vase and central leader), while in peaches, vase and trellis systems are used depending on plant densities and rootstock vigour. The categories described are further characterized by the ranges of f c and h, which may aid in selecting the group most suited for the case under consideration. Furthermore, M L and F r parameters are also tabulated, with the aim being to enable the computation of K cb values when applying the A&P approach (Pereira et al. 2021c ).

The suggested K c and K cb values for the FAO-typical crop growth stages (i.e. initial, mid- and end-season) are shown in the last two columns of Table  6 . These values are based on the ranges derived from field observations in the selected papers and the previously tabulated ranges (Allen et al. 1998 ; Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Rallo et al. 2021 ). For cherries, there is a general lack of information on the K c /K cb values observed in the different categories established. However, for peaches, the observations of crop coefficients are much more abundant and robust. Clearly, K c /K cb values increase as f c increases because of its direct relationship to the transpiration component of crop ET represented by the K cb , while the evaporative component, represented by K e , is mainly determined by the frequency and depth of irrigation events and rainfall, the soil evaporation area, and the energy available there for evaporation, which is determined by the training system and the canopy-intercepted radiation, i.e., the f c values.

The increasing per capita share of vegetarian and vegan foods and the growing nutritional awareness of various consumer groups are driving the global nut market. In recent years, production of almost all nut species across the world has expanded. The selected studies on nut trees include almond ( Prunus dulcis (Miller) D.A. Webb), hazelnut ( Corylus avellana L.), pecan ( Carya illinoinensis (Wangenh.) C. Koch), pistachio (Pistacia vera L.), and walnut ( Juglans regia L.). The latest reports point to a global area of 5.3 million hectares under nut tree cultivation, excluding pecans. With around 43% of the area and 42% of the production, almonds are by far the most important crop (FAOSTAT 2023 ). Pecan trees are native to North America; Mexico and the United States of America (USA) lead world production. South Africa, China and Brazil continue to gradually increase their production. The global harvested area of almond trees has expanded significantly for various reasons, including the mechanization of harvesting; a significant increase in global demand, which has led to a gradual increase in the prices paid to growers, the introduction of new self-fertile cultivars with late or extra-late flowering, which reduce the risk of production losses due to spring frosts; and worldwire awareness of the health benefits of nuts (Mirás-Avalos et al. 2023 ). Because almond trees have low chilling requirements, vegetative development and flowering begin much earlier in the season than in other deciduous tree species; therefore, to minimize cold damage, plant breeders are striving to develop cultivars that flower later. Rootstocks are available for most tree nut species except hazelnuts.

Studies on almond nuts predominate (Table  7 ), although there is ample information on the other species. The studies were mainly conducted in semi-arid areas in 11 countries with a temperate Mediterranean climate, including Spain, Australia, the USA, Portugal, France, Serbia, Chile, Turkey and South Africa. This extensive geographic distribution of the selected studies offers various perspectives that favour the analysis of the appropriate standard K c and K cb values for all the crops. In addition, the cultivars to which each crop refers to are also diverse.

Table 7 shows the methods used to determine actual ET c and/or plant transpiration, to create new or updated K c and K cb values for nut trees. These methods mainly include different types of lysimeters, EC, SF, RSEB and SWB. A particular case refers to a pecan study by Samani et al. ( 2011 ), in which crop ET was computed using a regional ET estimation model (Samani et al. 2009 ). In almost all the studies, ET o was estimated using the FAO-PM equation, although a few isolated studies used other equations, such as Penman, Hargreaves-Samani, CIMIS-PM ET o , ASCE-PM ET o and the pan evaporation ET o method. Most of the selected studies used drip or microsprinkler irrigation systems under full irrigation strategies corresponding to well-watered conditions. Only three studies reported mild and controlled water stress in selected periods of the growing season, thus corresponding to the eustress conditions defined for standard K c and K cb values. There is great variability in plant density and spacing. Most of the studies on nut trees report a vase training system, although there was a hazelnut orchard using a multiple stem-shrub system (Ortega-Farias et al. 2021 ). However, information on the training system was not reported in some papers. Similarly to the previous tree crops, there is great variability in the f c and h data collected, which is related to age, pruning and crop management conditions.

Table  8 shows that the majority of the selected studies refer to bare soil conditions, although some studies report the use of AGC, sometimes only partially covering the soil (Stevens et al. 2012 ) and during given periods of the year (Drechsler et al. 2022 ; Ramos et al. 2023 ). In an almond study (Bellvert et al. 2018 ), the authors reported a cover crop coefficient of 0.10–0.15 throughout the growing season, which is considered in the K c value. The final columns of Table  8 list the actual K c and K cb values derived from field observations for all the cultivars and rootstocks of the selected studies, which exhibit significant variability related to differences in f c and h; these depend on the training system, pruning and tree age.

Table 9 shows the standard initial, mid- and end-season single and basal crop coefficient values for almond, hazelnut, pecan, pistachio and walnut trees, which are grouped according to the degree of ground cover, plant density and training system. The DGC varies from very low or low for young tree orchards to very high values for mature orchards. For almond trees, a category has been included for hedgerow/super-intensive orchards, which are expanding, despite observed K c /K cb data not yet being available. The groups described are also distinguished by ranges of f c and h, which may help the reader determine the most appropriate group for the case under consideration.These values of f c and h, together with the tabulated M L and F r parameters, can be used to compute the values of K cb ini , K cb mid and K cb end using the A&P approach (Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Pereira et al. 2021c ).

The proposed standard K c and K cb values for initial, mid- and end-season for nut trees are shown in the last two columns of Table  9 , which are based on the ranges of K c /K cb values obtained from field observations reported in the selected papers, on the ranges of K c /K cb values previously tabulated in FAO56 (Allen et al. 1998 ), and in the articles published by Allen and Pereira ( 2009 ) and Rallo et al. ( 2021 ). As previously discussed for pome fruit and stone fruit trees, the crop coefficients increase as f c increase, due to its direct relationship to basal K cb , which represents plant transpiration, while the soil evaporation component (K e ) is mainly determined by the frequency and depth of rainfall or irrigation events, the ground area receiving solar energy directly, and the energy available for soil water evaporation, which is conditioned by the training system and the intercepted radiation by the canopy, thus being related to the f c values.

Vine fruit crops and berries

The main information on the selected studies for vines (kiwifruit and hops) and shrubs is shown in Table  10 . The kiwi ( Actinidia deliciosa [A. Chev] C. F. Liang & A. R. Ferguson), a species domesticated in the twentieth century, is of increasing importance with a world production of 4.5 million tons in near 290,000 ha, mainly cultivated in China, Italy and New Zealand (FAOSTAT 2023 ). This plant is a vine that is commonly trained in a T-bar or pergola system.

The female inflorescences (hop cones) of the hop plant ( Humulus lupulus L.), an important product for the brewing industry, are mainly grown in the USA, Germany, Czech Republic and China.

Various berry species, such as Vaccinium corymbosum L., Vaccinium angustifolium L., Vaccinium ashei Reade, and Rubus L. subgenus Rubus Watson, are produced for fresh or industrial use. In recent years, production and harvested area have increased, particulary in North and South America (USA, Canada and Chile), which account for almost 80% of the cultivated area, while Europe accounts for nearly 17% (FAOSTAT 2023 ).

In general, few studies focus on determining crop ET to derive new or updated crop coefficients for this group of crops. The kiwifruit studies were carried out in Portugal and Italy, under Mediterranean climate conditions, with one study conducted in China with a subtropical humid climate. In two studies, ET c was measured using an EC system, SF sensors and micro-lysimeters, and ET o was computed with the FAO-PM ET o equation. In the selected studies, micro-sprinkler and sprinkler irrigation systems were used, with a full irrigation strategy being adopted. Kiwi vines grew on a T-bar trellis, or simply a horizontal trellis. Information on canopy cover and crop height is missing; only the study by Jiang et al. ( 2022 ) reported h values, which ranged between 1.8 and 2.2 m.

Only two studies on hops were selected, one conducted in the Czech Republic and the other in Spain, both under temperate climate conditions. The reported K cb values were derived from the determination of plant transpiration using SF sensors, while the K c were derived from ET c computed with an SWB using the calibrated SIMDualKc model. In these studies, ET o was calculated with the FAO-PM ET o equation. In the study by Fandiño et al. ( 2015 ), hops were drip-irrigated using a full-irrigation strategy, with hops trained to a hedgerow, whereas, in the experiment by Krofta et al. ( 2013 ), hops were not irrigated and were trained to a Y-trellis system.

Table 10 shows characteristics for three species of blueberries (Highbush, Lowbush and Rabbiteye) and one of blackberry. The studies were conducted in USA and Chile in climates ranging from humid subtropical to semi-arid Mediterranean. All reported K c and K cb values were derived from determinations of ET c using weighing lysimeters (WL), drainage lysimeters (DL) and the soil water balance (SWB) method. ET o was calculated using the FAO-PM ET o equation, although one study used a modified Penman equation. Different irrigation systems were used (sprinkler, micro-sprinkler and drip), but blueberries were irrigated in all studies without water stress, i.e., well-watered conditions, and the shrubs grew in free form, i.e. they were not trained. Overall, there is a lack of h and f c information. In addition, Table  10 shows the characteristics for trailing blackberry in a recent study conducted in western Oregon (Carroll et al. 2024 ).

Table 11 shows that most cases refer to active ground cover (AGC), generally during and immediately after the rainy season, with it thus being necessary to consider the ET both from the crop and from the AGC, as well as soil evaporation (Fandiño et al. 2015 ; Jiang et al. 2022 ). Finally, this table shows the actual K c and K cb values derived from field observations of crop ET and/or its partitioning into plant transpiration and soil evaporation. K c values show some variability, likely due to differences in plant age, canopy cover and crop height (data not reported in most studies). The most widely used irrigation systems were sprinkler or micro-sprinkler, which wet the entire soil surface or a large portion of it.

Table 12 shows the initial, mid- and end-season standard K c and K cb values for kiwifruits, hops and different species of berries, which depend upon the degree of ground cover, plant density and training system. For kiwifruits, DGC values range from low in young vines to high density. The training system varies depending on the type of trellis. In the case of hops, there is only one category, which has a common density. For the various berry species, two categories were established, young and mature common density. The categories described are also characterized by f c and h ranges, which can be helpful in selecting the most appropriate group for the case under study. Furthermore, M L and F r parameters are also tabulated to support calculating K cb values using the A&P approach (Allen and Pereira 2009 ; Pereira et al. 2021c ).

The proposed standard K c and K cb values for the FAO-defined crop growth stages, initial, mid- and end-season, are shown in the last two columns of Table  12 . These values are based on the ranges derived from field observations reported in the selected papers and on the ranges previously tabulated (Allen et al. 1998 ; Rallo et al. 2021 ). Although it is worth noting the lack of observed or previously tabulated K c and K cb values in many of the established categories of each crop, most of the proposed values were calculated using the A&P method. As for the other crops examined in this review, K c /K cb values increase as f c increases because of its direct relationship to the transpiration component of crop ET, while the soil evaporation component is mainly determined by the frequency and depth of wetting events, the ground area directly exposed to solar radiation, and the energy available for soil water evaporation, which is conditioned by f c .

Conclusions and recommendations

We reviewed more than 150 scientific articles published after FAO56, and selected 76 papers reporting good quality research on crop coefficients for pome fruit trees, stone fruit trees, nut trees, kiwi, hop and blue- and blackberries. This facilitated a good collection of studies following recommended practices for measuring ET c and deriving K c values and data handling that explained water use and requirements for these temperate fruit trees and shrub crops. The selected studies indicate good knowledge about the water requirements of those crops despite water management practices needing to be improved to enable more efficient use of water without negative impacts on yields and fruit quality.

The optimization of water use requires not only proper irrigation scheduling based on standard crop coefficients, but also the design, operation and use of irrigation systems to achieve high technical and economic performance. This involves adopting application practices and irrigation scheduling that allow for good control of the water applied and avoid excesses in water use and water losses. In this regard, whenever possible, we should monitor the plant and/or the soil water status to optimize irrigation scheduling and update (adjust) the K c /K cb values if necessary. Many studies aim to implement irrigation management practices, including regulated or sustained deficit irrigation strategies, which are in line with eustress. The application of such deficit irrigation practices means that farmers, technicians and farm advisors should have adequate knowledge on these issues, on the use of meteorological information, and on using models that support decision-making. The tabulated standard coefficients are developed for these purposes. In addition, the field estimation of crop coefficients using the A&P approach based on simple observations of f c and h, and on the respective parameterization (Pereira et al. 2021c ), also provide much valuable information for irrigation management and scheduling, namely when comparing the obtained values with the tabulated standard ones. This is shown in a previous study (Pereira et al. 2020 ) where the method is in operational use in California as a tool of the Satellite Irrigation Management Support (SIMS) framework (Melton et al. 2018 ).

When water availability is limited, the standard K c and K cb values must be used as the upper limits for irrigation water use, therefore ensuring water needs are met in all places. Users should apply a reduction of the standard K c and K cb values when water deficit is required, e.g. under drought and in water scarce regions. The use of simulation models is then particularly interesting.

Quality control of the measured actual K c and K cb values is required. A simple and useful approach is comparing the standard K c /K cb values tabulated in this article with the newly measured K c /K cb . This simple comparison could avoid K c values larger than 1.4, up to 2.0 or greater, being found with no justification other than research and monitoring errors. If the search for the actual K c and K cb values is successful, it will support sustainable water use, improving crop and economic water productivity, and achieving progressive adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change.

Users are encouraged to study and analyse the cited publications in addition to the information supplied and tabulated in the current article. It is especially necessary to raise awareness about water conservation and saving, particularly under conditions of water supply shortage. Users are expected to recognize the usability of the standard crop coefficients and of the conditions required for the transfer of K c /K cb values for use in other locations and climate conditions.

Looking ahead to future studies, these should focus on high-accuracy ET c measurements of less widely studied crops, such as plum, cherry, pistachio, hops, blue- and blackberries, using well-established water and energy balance methods. Future studies are also required on the use of practices to reduce non-beneficial water use, e.g., controlling soil evaporation. Finally, the impacts of fruit load, thinning, mulches, intercropping and cover crops on evapotranspiration and water use, and thus on K c and K cb values, are among the topics requiring further research. These topics should be combined with other agronomic practices that influence yields and production quality.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abrisqueta JM, Ruiz A, Franco JA (2001) Water balance of apricot trees ( Prunus armeniaca L. cv. Bulida ) under drip irrigation. Agric Water Manag 50:211–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3774(01)00086-5

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrisqueta I, Abrisqueta JM, Tapia LM, Munguía JP, Conejero W, Vera J, Ruiz-Sánchez MC (2013) Basal crop coefficients for early-season peach trees. Agric Water Manag 121:158–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.02.001

Abudu S, Sheng Z, Michelsen A, Rodriguez O, King J (2016) Evapotranspiration and Crop Coefficient for Pecan Trees in El Paso, Texas. Proc. Irrigation Show and Education Conference, El Paso, Texas, p. 4–7.

Allen RG, Pereira LS (2009) Estimating crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height. Irrig Sci 28:17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0182-z

Allen RG, Pereira LS, Howell TA, Jensen ME (2011a) Evapotranspiration information reporting: II Recommended documentation. Agric Water Manag 98:921–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.016

Allen RG, Pereira LS, Howell TA, Jensen ME (2011b) Evapotranspiration information reporting: I. Factors governing measurement accuracy. Agric Water Manag 98:899–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.12.015

Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrig Drain Paper 56, Rome, Italy

Ayars JE, Johnson RS, Phene CJ, Trout TJ, Clark DA, Mead RM (2003) Water use by drip-irrigated late-season peaches. Irrig Sci 22:187–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-003-0084-4

Bellvert J, Adeline K, Baram S, Pierce L, Sanden B, Smart D (2018) Monitoring crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficients over an almond and pistachio orchard throughout remote sensing. Remote Sens 10:2001. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10122001

Candogan BN, Yazgan S (2010) The effects of different irrigation levels on vegetative growth of young dwarf cherry trees in a sub-humid climate. Pak J Bot 5:3399–3408

Google Scholar  

Carroll JL, Orr ST, Davis AJ, Strik BC, Bryla DR (2024) Water use by ‘Columbia Star’ trailing blackberry in western Oregon. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00912-4

Darouich H, Karfoul R, Ramos TB, Pereira LS (2023) Setting irrigation thresholds for building a platform aimed at the improved management of citrus orchards in coastal Syria. Agronomy 13:1794. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy130717942457421

Doorenbos J, Pruitt WO (1977) Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrig Drain Paper 24, Rome, Italy

Dourte DR, Haman DZ, Williamson JG (2010) Crop water requirements of mature southern highbush blueberries. Int J Fruit Sci 10:235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2010.510419

Drechsler K, Fulton A, Kisekka I (2022) Crop coefficients and water use of young almond orchards. Irrig Sci 40:379–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-022-00786-y

Du Sautoy N, Jovanovic NZ, Annandale JG (2003) Water balance simulation of a peach orchard using the SWB model. South Afr J Plant Soil 20:169–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2003.10634930

Eid TA, Abou Grah FII (2012) Effect of some mulching treatments on water use efficiency, yield and mineral composition of “Le-Conte” pear trees. Ann Agric Sci Moshtohor 50:11–19

El-Naggar YI, Eid TA, Ali SAM (2018) Effects of mulching soil on water consumption, yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of“"Canin”" apricot ( Prunus armeniaca L.) cultivar. J Plant Prod 9:1003–1012. https://doi.org/10.21608/jpp.2018.36618

Espadafor M, Orgaz F, Testi L, Lorite IJ, Villalobos FJ (2015) Transpiration of young almond trees in relation to intercepted radiation. Irrig Sci 33:265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-015-0464-6

Evett SR, Tolk JA, Howell TA (2006) Soil profile water content determination: sensor accuracy, axial response, calibration, temperature dependence, and precision. Vadose Zone J 5:894–907. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2005.0149

Evett SR, Schwartz RC, Howell TA, Louis BR, Copeland KS (2012) Can weighing lysimeter ET represent surrounding field ET well enough to test flux station measurements of daily and sub-daily ET? Adv Water Resour 50:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.07.023

Fandiño M, Olmedo JL, Martínez EM, Valladares J, Paredes P, Rey BJ, Mota M, Cancela JJ, Pereira LS (2015) Assessing and modelling water use and the partition of evapotranspiration of irrigated hop ( Humulus Lupulus ), and relations of transpiration with hops yield and alpha-acids. Ind Crops Prod 77:204–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/jindcrop201508042

FAO (2021) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Synthesis report 2021. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7654en

FAOSTAT (2023) FAO Statistical Database (online), Consultation. https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL Accessed 1 Jun 2023.

Fulton A, Little C, Snyder R, Buchner R, Lampinen B, Metcalf S (2013) Progress with measuring and utilizing crop evapotranspiration (ETc) in walnut. Walnut Res. Rep., Calif. Walnut Board 105–111.

Fulton AE, Little CC, Snyder RL, Lampinen BD, Buchner RP (2017) Evaluation of crop coefficients and evapotranspiration in English walnut. In: 2017 ASABE Annual Int Meeting 1701457, https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.201701457 .

Girona J, Marsal J, Mata M, Del Campo J (2004) Pear crop coefficients obtained in a large weighing lysimeter. Acta Hortic 664:277–281. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic200466433

Girona J, Del Campo J, Mata M, Lopez G, Marsal J (2011) A comparative study of apple and pear tree water consumption measured with two weighing lysimeters. Irrig Sci 29:55–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-010-0217-5

Goldhamer DA (1998) Irrigation scheduling for walnut orchards In: Ramos DD (ed) Walnut Production Manual. Univ. of California, Div. of Agriculture and Natural Resources pp 159–166

Goodwin I, Cornwall D, Green SR (2012) Pear transpiration and basal crop coefficients estimated by sap flow. Acta Hortic 951:183–190. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic201295122

Goodwin I, Cornwall D, Green SR (2014) Seasonal changes in pear transpiration. Acta Hortic 1038:35–41. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic201410382

Gush M, Dzikiti S, Van Der Laan M, Steyn M, Manamathela S, Pienaar H (2019) Field quantification of the water footprint of an apple orchard, and extrapolation to watershed scale within a winter rainfall Mediterranean climate zone. Agric for Meteorol 271:135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagrformet201902042

Gush MB, Avenant E, Taylor NJ, Dzikiti S, Stirzaker RJ, Annandale JG (2014). Water use of nectarine and peach orchards. In: Gush MB, and Taylor NJ (Eds). The water use of selected fruit tree orchards (Volume 2): Technical report on measurements and modelling. Water Research Commission, Pretoria, RSA, WRC Report 1770/2/14, Section 5

Hardie M, Green S, Oliver G, Swarts N, Clothier B, Gentile R, Close D (2022) Measuring and modelling nitrate fluxes in a mature commercial apple orchard. Agric Water Manag 263:107410. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2021107410

Hunt JF, Honeycutt CW, Starr G, Yarborough D (2008) Evapotranspiration rates and crop coefficients for lowbush blueberry ( Vaccinium angusti folium). Int J Fruit Sci 8:282–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538360802597549

Ibraimo NA, Taylor NJ, Steyn JM, Gush MB, Annandale JG (2016) Estimating water use of mature pecan orchards: A six stage crop growth curve approach. Agric Water Manag 177:359–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat201608024

Ibraimo N, Taylor N, Ghezehei S, Gush M, Annandale J (2014) Water use of macadamia orchards. In: Gush, M., Taylor, N. (ed.) The Water Use of Selected Fruit Tree Orchards (Volume 2): Technical report on measurements and modelling. WRC Report No. 1770/2/14, Water Research Commission, Pretoria, South Africa.

Iniesta F, Testi L, Goldhamer DA, Fereres E (2008) Quantifying reductions in consumptive water use under regulated deficit irrigation in pistachio ( Pistacia vera L). Agric Water Manag 95:877–886. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat200801013

Intrigliolo DS, Castel JR (2011) Interactive effects of deficit irrigation and shoot and cluster thinning on grapevine cv. Tempranillo. Water relations, vine performance and berry and wine composition. Irrig Sci 29:443–454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-010-0252-2

Jia Q, Wang YP (2021) Relationships between leaf area index and evapotranspiration and crop coefficient of hilly apple orchard in the Loess Plateau. Water 13:1957. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13141957

Jensen ME, Allen RG (eds) (2016) Evaporation, Evapotranspiration, and Irrigation Water Requirements. Task Committee on Revision of Manual 70, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA

Jiang S, Liang C, Zhao L, Gong D, Huang Y, Xing L, Zhu S, Feng Y, Guo L, Cui N (2022) Energy and evapotranspiration partitioning over a humid region orchard: Field measurements and partitioning model comparisons. J Hydrol 610:127890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127890

Jin Y, He R, Marino G, Whiting M, Kent E, Sanden BL, Culumber M, Ferguson L, Little C, Grattan S, Paw UKT, Lagos LO, Snyder RL, Zaccaria D (2018) Spatially variable evapotranspiration over salt affected pistachio orchards analyzed with satellite remote sensing estimates. Agric Forest Meteorol 262:178–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagrformet201807004

Johnson RS, Ayars J, Trout T, Mead R, Phene C (2000) Crop coefficients for mature peach trees are well correlated with midday canopy light interception. Acta Hortic 537:455–460. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic200053753

Johnson RS, Ayars J, Hsiao T (2002) Modeling young peach tree evapotranspiration. Acta Hortic 584:107–113. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic200258412

Jovanović N, Motsei N, Mashabatu M, Dube T (2023) Modelling soil water redistribution in irrigated Japanese plum ( Prunus salicina ) orchards in the Western Cape (South Africa). Horticulturae 9:395. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030395

Juhász Á, Sepsi P, Nagy Z, Tőkei L, Hrotkó K (2013) Water consumption of sweet cherry trees estimated by sap flow measurement. Sci Hortic 164:41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/jscienta201308022

Kanber R, Steduto P, Ünlü M, Aydýn Y, Özekici B, Çetinkökü Ö, Özmen, S (2003) Growth, yield and periodicity of pistachio under different water and nutritional levels: investigation in the Southeastern Anatolia Project Region (GAP) 12 1 1 In: Hamdy A (ed) Regional Action Programme (RAP): Water resources management and water saving in irrigated agriculture (WASIA PROJECT), Options Méditerranéennes: Série B Etudes et Recherches, Bari, Italy, pp 183–201

Kaya S, Evren S, Dasci E, Adiguzel MC (2013) Evapotranspiration and crop coefficients of drip-irrigated apricot trees under semiarid climatic conditions. J Food Agric & Environ 11(1):883–886

Krofta K, Kucera J, Urban J (2013) Transpiration—an important contribution to overall water balance of the hop plantation. Acta Hortic 1010:183–190. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic2013101021

Lagos LO, Souto C, Lillo-Saavedra M, Pérez A, Hirzel J, Kuschel-Otárola M, Holzapfel E, Scaff L (2023) Daily crop evapotranspiration and diurnal dynamics of the surface energy balance of a drip-irrigated blueberry ( Vaccinium corymbosum ) orchard. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00869-4

López-López M, Espadafor M, Testi L, Lorite IJ, Orgaz F, Fereres E (2018) Water requirements of mature almond trees in response to atmospheric demand. Irrig Sci 36:271–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0582-z

López-Urrea R, Chávez JL (2019) One-step approach for estimating maize actual water use: Part II. Lysimeter Evaluation of Variable Surface Resistance Models 37:139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-018-0607-7

Mačkić K, Pejić B, Belić M, Janković D, Pavlović L (2016) Hazelnut ( Corylus avellana L) response to microsprinkler irrigation in climatic conditions of Vojvodina province. Res J Agric Sci 48:1–7

Marsal J, Girona J, Casadesus J, Lopez G, Stöckle CO (2013) Crop coefficient (Kc) for apple: comparison between measurements by a weighing lysimeter and prediction by CropSyst. Irrig Sci 31:455–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0323-7

Marsal J, Casadesus J, Lopez G, Girona J, Stöckle CO (2014a) Disagreement between tree size and crop coefficient in “Conference” pear: comparing measurements by a weighing lysimeter and prediction by CropSyst. Acta Hortic 1038:303–310. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic2014103836

Marsal J, Johnson S, Casadesus J, Lopez G, Girona J, Stöckle CO (2014b) Fraction of canopy intercepted radiation relates differently with crop coefficient depending on the season and the fruit tree species. Agric Forest Meteorol 184:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagrformet201308008

Martínez-Moreno A, Pérez-Álvarez EP, Intrigliolo DS, Mirás-Avalos JM, López-Urrea R, Gil-Muñoz R, Lizama V, García-Esparza MJ, Álvarez MI, Buesa I (2023) Effects of deficit irrigation with saline water on yield and grape composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Monastrell Irrig Sci 41:469–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-022-00795-x

Mashabatu M, Ntshidi Z, Dzikiti S, Jovanovic N, Dube T, Taylor NJ (2023) Deriving crop coefficients for evergreen and deciduous fruit orchards in South Africa using the fraction of vegetation cover and tree height data. Agric Water Manag 286:108389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108389

Melton FS, Johnson LF, Guzman A, Dexter J, Zaragosa I, Wang T, Patron E, Duque J, Rosevelt C, Cahn M, Smith R, Temesgen B, Trezza R, Eching S, Frame K (2018) The Satellite Irrigation Management Support (SIMS) system: applications of satellite data to support improvements in irrigation management in California. In: California Plant and Soil Conference. American Society of Agronomy,pp. 49–51.

Melton FS, Johnson LF, Guzman A, Wang T, Carrara W, Hang M, Doherty C (2020) The Satellite Irrigation Management Support system user’s manual and algorithms. NASA Ames Research Center.

Mingeau M, Rousseau P (1994) Water use of hazelnut trees as measured with lysimeters. Acta Hortic 351:315–322. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic199435134

Mirás-Avalos JM, Gonzalez-Dugo V, García-Tejero IF, López-Urrea R, Intrigliolo DS, Egea G (2023) Quantitative analysis of almond yield response to irrigation regimes in Mediterranean Spain. Agric Water Manag 279:108208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108208

Mobe NT, Dzikiti S, Zirebwa SF, Midgley SJE, Von Loeper W, Mazvimavi D, Ntshidi Z, Jovanovic NZ (2020) Estimating crop coefficients for apple orchards with varying canopy cover using measured data from twelve orchards in the Western Cape Province. South Africa. Agric Water Manag 233:106103. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2020106103

Mokari E, Samani Z, Heerema R, Ward F (2021) Evaluation of long-term climate change impact on the growing season and water use of mature pecan in Lower Rio Grande Valley. Agric Water Manag 252:106893. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2021106893

Naor A, Peres M, Greenblat Y, Doron I, Gal Y, Stern RA (2000) Irrigation and crop load interactions in relation to pear yield and fruit-size distribution. J Hortic Sci Biotech 75:555–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316200011511285

Ntshidi Z, Mashabatu M, Dzikiti S, Mobe NT, Mandava M (2023) An Online Crop Coefficients Database Using Fractional Vegetation Cover and Tree Height for Irrigated Fruit Tree Crops. Report No. 2963/1/23 to the Water Research Commission, Pretoria.

Odi-Lara M, Campos I, Neale C, Ortega-Farías S, Poblete-Echeverría C, Balbontín C, Calera A (2016) Estimating evapotranspiration of an apple orchard using a remote sensing-based soil water balance. Remote Sens 8:253. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs8030253

Ortega-Farias S, Villalobos-Soublett E, Riveros-Burgos C, Zúñiga M, Ahumada-Orellana LE (2020) Effect of irrigation cut-off strategies on yield, water productivity and gas exchange in a drip-irrigated hazelnut ( Corylus avellana L. cv Tonda di Giffoni) orchard under semiarid conditions. Agric Water Manag 238:106173. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2020106173

Ortega-Farias S, Espinoza-Meza S, López-Olivari R, Araya-Alman M, Carrasco-Benavides M (2021) Effects of different irrigation levels on plant water status, yield, fruit quality, and water productivity in a drip-irrigated blueberry orchard under Mediterranean conditions. Agric Water Manag 249:106805. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2021106805

Paço TA, Ferreira MI, Rosa RD, Paredes P, Rodrigues GC, Conceição N, Pacheco CA, Pereira LS (2012) The dual crop coefficient approach using a density factor to simulate the evapotranspiration of a peach orchard: SIMDualKc model versus eddy covariance measurements. Irrig Sci 30:115–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0267-3

Paredes P, Petry M, Oliveira CM, Montoya F, López-Urrea R,. Pereira LS (2024) Single and basal crop coefficients for estimation of water requirements of subtropical and tropical orchards and plantations with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-024-00925-7

Pereira LS, Perrier A, Allen RG, Alves I (1999) Evapotranspiration: Review of Concepts and Future Trends. J Irrig Drain Eng 125:45–51. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1999)125:2(45)

Pereira LS, Paredes P, López-Urrea R, Hunsaker DJ, Mota M, Mohammadi Shad Z (2021b) Standard single and basal crop coefficients for vegetable crops, an update of FAO56 crop water requirements approach. Agric Water Manag 243:106196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106196

Pereira LS, Paredes P, Melton F, Johnson L, Mota M, Wang T (2021c) Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height: Practical application to vegetable, field and fruit crops with focus on parameterization. Agric Water Manag 252:106663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106663

Pereira LS, Paredes P, Oliveira C, Montoya F, López-Urrea R, Salman M (2023) Single and basal crop coefficients for estimation of water use of tree and vine woody crops with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system for Mediterranean and warm temperate fruit and leaf crops. Irrig Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-023-00901-7

Pereira LS, Cordery I, Iacovides I (2009) Coping with Water Scarcity. Addressing the Challenges. Springer, Dordrecht, 382 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9579-5

Pereira LS, Paredes P, Melton F, Johnson L, Wang T, López-Urrea R, Cancela JJ, Allen RG (2020) Prediction of crop coefficients from fraction of ground cover and height. Background and validation using ground and remote sensing data. Agric Water Manag 241:106197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106197

Pereira LS, Paredes P, Hunsaker DJ, López-Urrea R, Mohammadi Shad Z (2021a) Standard single and basal crop coefficients for field crops. Updates and advances to the FAO56 crop water requirements method. Agric Water Manag 243:106466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106466

Pereira LS, Allen RG, Paredes P, López-Urrea R, Raes D, Smith M, Salman M (2024) Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrig Drain Paper 56 revised, Rome, Italy (in press)

Pio R, Machado de Souza FB, Kalcsits L, Bisi RB, da Hora FD (2019) Advances in the production of temperate fruits in the tropics. Acta Sci Agron 41:e39549. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v41i1.39549

Rallo G, Paço TA, Paredes P, Puig-Sirera À, Massai R, Provenzano G, Pereira LS (2021) Updated single and dual crop coefficients for tree and vine fruit crops. Agric Water Manag 250:106645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106645

Rambikur EH, Chávez JL (2014) Assessing inter-sensor variability and sensible heat flux derivation accuracy for a large aperture scintillometer. Sensors 14:2150–2170. https://doi.org/10.3390/s140202150

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Ramos TB, Darouich H, Oliveira AR, Farzamian M, Monteiro T, Castanheira N, Paz A, Gonçalves MC, Pereira LS (2023) Water use and soil water balance of Mediterranean tree crops assessed with the SIMDualKc model in orchards of southern Portugal. Agric Water Manag 279:108209. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2023108209

Ramos TB, Darouich H, Pereira LS (2024) Mulching effects on soil evaporation, crop evapotranspiration and crop coefficients: A review aimed at improved irrigation management. Irri Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-024-00924-8

Renard D, Tilman D (2019) National food production stabilized by crop diversity. Nature 571:257–260. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1316-y

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Romero P, Gil-Muñoz R, del Amor FM, Valdés E, Fernández JI, Martinez-Cutillas A (2013) Regulated Deficit Irrigation based upon optimum water status improves phenolic composition in Monastrell grapes and wines. Agric Water Manag 121:85–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.01.007

Rosa RD, Paredes P, Rodrigues GC, Alves I, Fernando RM, PereiraLS ARG (2012) Implementing the dual crop coefficientapproach in interactive software. 1. Background and computational strategy. Agric Water Manag 103:8–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2011.10.013

Rosa RGTD (2018) Modelação da evapotranspiração com o modelo SIMDualKc: Aplicação à rega de fruteiras, a consociações de culturas e a condições salinas, e ligação ao SIG para análise à escala do projeto de rega. Doctoral Thesis, Institute of Agronomy, University of Lisbon.

Salama AM, Ezzat A, El-Ramady H, Alam-Eldein SM, Okba S, Elmenofy HM, Holb IJ (2021) Temperate fruit trees under climate change: Challenges for dormancy and chilling requirements in warm winter regions. Horticulturae 7:86. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae7040086

Samani Z, Bawazir AS, Bleiweiss M, Skaggs R, Longworth J, Tran VD, Piñon A (2009) Using remote sensing to evaluate the spatial variability of evapotranspiration and crop coefficient in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Irrig Sci 28:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0178-8

Samani Z, Bawazir S, Skaggs R, Longworth J, Piñon A, Tran V (2011) A simple irrigation scheduling approach for pecans. Agric Water Manag 98:661–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat201011002

Sammis TW, Mexal JG, Miller D (2004) Evapotranspiration of flood-irrigated pecans. Agric Water Manag 69:179–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat200405005

Samperio A, Moñino MJ, Marsal J, Prieto MH, Stöckle C (2014) Use of CropSyst as a tool to predict water use and crop coefficient in Japanese plum trees. Agric Water Manag 146:57–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat201407019

Sánchez JM, Simón L, González-Piqueras J, Montoya F, López-Urrea R (2021) Monitoring crop evapotranspiration and transpiration/evaporation partitioning in a drip-irrigated young almond orchard applying a Two-Source Surface Energy Balance Model. Water 13:2073. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13152073

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Silva RM, Paço TA, Ferreira MI, Oliveira M (2008) Transpiration of a kiwifruit orchard estimated using the Granier sap flow method calibrated under field conditions. Acta Hortic 792:593–600. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic200879270

Silvestri C, Bacchetta L, Bellincontro A, Cristofori V (2021) Advances in cultivar choice, hazelnut orchard management, and nut storage to enhance product quality and safety: an overview. J Sci Food Agric 101:27–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa10557

Sousa ML, Gonçalves M, Fialho D, Ramos A, Lopes JP, Oliveira CM, De Melo-Abreu JP (2022) Apple and pear model for optimal production and fruit grade in a changing environment. Horticulturae 8:873. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8100873

Stevens RM, Ewenz CM, Grigson G, Conner SM (2012) Water use by an irrigated almond orchard. Irrig Sci 30:189–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-011-0270-8

Testi L, Villalobos FJ (2009) New approach for measuring low sap velocities in trees. Agr Forest Meteorol 149:730–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.10.015

Tong G, Liu H, Li F (2016) Evaluation of dual crop coefficient approach on evapotranspiration calculation of cherry trees. Int J Agric Biol Eng 9:29–39, https://doi.org/10.25165/ijabev9i31886

Twine TE, Kustas WP, Norman JM, Cook DR, Houser PR, Meyers TP, Prueger JH, Starks PJ, Wesely ML (2000) Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agric Forest Meteorol 103:279–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1923(00)00123-4

Villalobos FJ, Testi L, Orgaz F, García-Tejera O, Lopez-Bernal A, González-Dugo MV, Ballester-Lurbe C, Castel JR, Alarcón-Cabañero JJ, Nicolás-Nicolás E, Girona J, Marsal J, Fereres E (2013) Modelling canopy conductance and transpiration of fruit trees in Mediterranean areas: A simplified approach. Agric Forest Meteorol 171–172: 93–103, https://doi.org/10.1016/jagrformet201211010 .

Vinci A, Traini C, Portarena S, Farinelli C (2023) Assessment of the midseason crop coefficient for the evaluation of the water demand of young, grafted hazelnut trees in high-density orchards. Water 15:1683. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15091683

Volschenk T (2017) Evapotranspiration and crop coefficients of Golden Delicious/M793 apple trees in the Koue Bokkeveld. Agric Water Manag 194:184–191, https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat201709002

Williamson JG, Mejia L, Ferguson B, Miller P, Haman DZ (2015) Seasonal water use of southern highbush blueberry plants in a subtropical climate. HortTechnology 25:185–191, 1021273/HORTTECH252185

Xiloyannis C, Montanaro G, Dichio B (2012) Kiwifruit In: Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Fereres E, Raes D (eds) Crop Yield Response to Water, FAO Irrig Drain. Paper 66, Rome, Italy, pp 488–497. https://www.fao.org/4/i2800e/i2800e.pdf

Zambrano-Vaca C, Zotarelli L, Morgan KT, Migliaccio KW, Beeson RC, Chaparro JX, Olmstead MA (2020) Water uptake dynamics for adult peach trees in a subtropical humid climate. Sci Hortic 267:109318, https://doi.org/10.1016/jscienta2020109318 .

Zanotelli D, Montagnani L, Andreotti C, Tagliavini M (2019) Evapotranspiration and crop coefficient patterns of an apple orchard in a sub-humid environment. Agric Water Manag 226:105756, https://doi.org/10.1016/jagwat2019105756 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

R. López-Urrea and F. Montoya are grateful for the support from the Education, Culture and Sports Council (JCCM, Spain) (Award numbers SBPLY/21/180501/000070 and SBPLY/21/180501/000152) and the Agencia Estatal de Investigación with FEDER (grant numbers PID2021–123305OB-C31, and PID2020–113498RB-C21), and NextGenerationEU (TED2021–130405B-I00) co-financing. The study was also funded through an agreement between FAO and the Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa (LoA FAO-ISA-RP- 355071). Finally, this work was supported by national funds through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., under the project UIDB/04129/2020 of LEAF-Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Research Unit. R. López-Urrea is grateful for all the support from his former workplace (Instituto Técnico Agronómico Provincial, ITAP, Albacete, Castilla-La Mancha) while this study was being carried out.

Open Access funding provided thanks to the CRUE-CSIC agreement with Springer Nature.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Desertification Research Centre (CIDE), CSIC-UV-GVA, Ctra CV 315, Km 10.7, 46113, Moncada, Valencia, Spain

Ramón López-Urrea

LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food Research Center, Associated Laboratory TERRA, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017, Lisbon, Portugal

Cristina M. Oliveira, Paula Paredes & Luis S. Pereira

Instituto Técnico Agronómico Provincial (ITAP), Parque Empresarial Campollano, 2ª Avda. Nº 61, 02007, Albacete, Spain

Francisco Montoya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Author contributions RLU, FM, PP, LSP designed and contributed to the search and selection of the reviewed articles; RLU wrote the main manuscript text, with the contribution of FM, PP, LSP, and CMO revised the horticultural issues and tabulation. All authors revised the text and agreed on the submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ramón López-Urrea .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: List of symbols, abbreviations, and acronyms

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

López-Urrea, R., Oliveira, C.M., Montoya, F. et al. Single and basal crop coefficients for temperate climate fruit trees, vines and shrubs with consideration of fraction of ground cover, height, and training system. Irrig Sci (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-024-00964-0

Download citation

Received : 13 May 2024

Accepted : 26 July 2024

Published : 16 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-024-00964-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research