Irrigation scheduling for Sovereign Coronation grapevine based upon evapotranspiration calculations and crop coefficients /

Several irrigation treatments were evaluated on Sovereign Coronation table grapes at two sites over a 3-year period in the cool humid Niagara Peninsula of Ontario. Trials were conducted in the Hippie (Beamsville, ON) and the Lambert Vineyards (Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON) in 2003 to 2005 with the objective of assessing the usefulness of the modified Penman-Monteith equation to accurately schedule vine irrigation needs. Data (relative humidity, windspeed, solar radiation, and temperature) required to precisely calculate evapotranspiration (ETq) were downloaded from the Ontario Weather Network. One of two ETq values (either 100 or 150%) were used in combination with one of two crop coefficients (Kc; either fixed at 0.75 or 0.2 to 0.8 based upon increasing canopy volume) to calculate the amount of irrigation water required. Five irrigation treatments were: un irrigated control; (lOOET) X Kc =0.75; 150ET X Kc =0.75; lOOET X Kc =0.2-0.8; 150ET X Kc =0.2-0.8. Transpiration, water potential (v|/), and soil moisture data were collected each growing seasons. Yield component data was collected and berries from each treatment were analyzed for soluble solids (Brix), pH, titratable acidity (TA), anthocyanins, methyl anthranilate (MA), and total volatile esters (TVE). Irrigation showed a substantial positive effect on transpiration rate and soil moisture; the control treatment showed consistently lower transpiration and soil moisture over the 3 seasons. Transpiration appeared accurately reflect Sovereign Coronation grapevines water status. Soil moisture also accurately reflected level of irrigation. Moreover, irrigation showed impact of leaf \|/, which was more negative throughout the 3 seasons for vines that were not irrigated. Irrigation had a substantial positive effect on yield (kg/vine) and its various components (clusters/vine, cluster weight, and berries/cluster) in 2003 and 2005. Berry weights were higher under the irrigated treatments at both sites. Berry weight consistently appeared to be the main factor leading to these increased yields, as inconsistent responses were noted for some yield variables. Soluble solids was highest under the ET150 and ET100 treatments both with Kc at 0.75. Both pH and TA were highest under control treatments in 2003 and 2004, but highest under irrigated treatments in 2005. Anthocyanins and phenols were highest under the control treatments in 2003 and 2004, but highest under irrigated treatments in 2005. MA and TVE were highest under the ET150 treatments. Vine and soil water status measurements (soil moisture, leaf \|/, and transpiration) confirmed that irrigation was required for the summers of 2003 and 2005 due to dry weather in those years. They also partially supported the hypothesis that the Penman-Monteith equation is useful for calculating vineyard water needs. Both ET treatments gave clear evidence that irrigation could be effective in reducing water stress and for improving vine performance, yield and fruit composition. Use of properly scheduled irrigation was beneficial for Sovereign Coronation table grapes in the Niagara region. Findings herein should give growers some strong guidehnes on when, how and how much to irrigate their vineyards.

X-ray diffraction of a gram-negative bacterial membrane mimetic

This thesis applies x-ray diffraction to measure he membrane structure of lipopolysaccharides and to develop a better model of a LPS bacterial melilbrane that can be used for biophysical research on antibiotics that attack cell membranes. \iVe ha'e Inodified the Physics department x-ray machine for use 3.'3 a thin film diffractometer, and have lesigned a new temperature and relative humidity controlled sample cell.\Ve tested the sample eel: by measuring the one-dimensional electron density profiles of bilayers of pope with 0%, 1%, 1G :VcJ, and 100% by weight lipo-polysaccharide from Pse'udo'lTwna aeTuginosa. Background VVe now know that traditional p,ntibiotics ,I,re losing their effectiveness against ever-evolving bacteria. This is because traditional antibiotic: work against specific targets within the bacterial cell, and with genetic mutations over time, themtibiotic no longer works. One possible solution are antimicrobial peptides. These are short proteins that are part of the immune systems of many animals, and some of them attack bacteria directly at the membrane of the cell, causing the bacterium to rupture and die. Since the membranes of most bacteria share common structural features, and these featuret, are unlikely to evolve very much, these peptides should effectively kill many types of bacteria wi Lhout much evolved resistance. But why do these peptides kill bacterial cel: '3 , but not the cells of the host animal? For gramnegative bacteria, the most likely reason is that t Ileir outer membrane is made of lipopolysaccharides (LPS), which is very different from an animal :;ell membrane. Up to now, what we knovv about how these peptides work was likely done with r !10spholipid models of animal cell membranes, and not with the more complex lipopolysa,echaricies, If we want to make better pepticies, ones that we can use to fight all types of infection, we need a more accurate molecular picture of how they \vork. This will hopefully be one step forward to the ( esign of better treatments for bacterial infections.