Crop yield response to water - Cra
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Crop yield response to water - Cra

Crop yield response to water - Cra Crop yield response to water - Cra

sito.entecra.it
from sito.entecra.it More from this publisher
10.07.2015 Views

soil water. In young orchards, postharvest water restrictions did not affect yield in the shortterm (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2005). However, after four seasons of deficit irrigation, therewas a 10 percent reduction in yield compared with fully irrigated trees because the stressedtrees were smaller. Thus, long-term deficit irrigation of young trees causes a reduction inproductivity by reducing tree size. Post harvest water stress, despite its moderate detrimentaleffect in the long term, should be considered for commercial orchards not only in the case ofwater scarcity, but also as a tool for controlling vegetative growth in areas where vigorousgrowth may be a problem.Plant water stress is known to potentially affect flower bud development for the next season,but there are only a few reports on a decrease in next season crop level because of buddamage (Johnson et al., 1994). Water stress during postharvest, as measured by the SWP, wasalso correlated with the following season’s crop yields.In some cases, there was even an increase in return bloom leading to larger yield in prune treeswhere a high crop level was the target (Lampinen et al., 1995). In plum trees, water stress did notappear to be associated with the appearance of fruit disorders such as double fruit formation orfruit deep suture, as occurs in other stone fruit‐trees such as peach (Johnson and Handley, 2000).Plant water stress indicatorsMidday SWP is the most useful indicator of plant water stress in plum trees, since prior to harvestit was highly correlated with tree performance (Naor, 2004; Intrigliolo and Castel, 2005; andIntrigliolo and Castel, 2006a). Figure 2 presents the results of two studies on different varietiesof Japanese plums: Black-Gold plums (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2006a) and Black Amber plums(Naor, 2004) in the semi-arid climates of Valencia, Spain and Upper Galilee, Israel, respectively.In each location and season, tree-to tree variations of SWP were well correlated with theaverage fruit weight at harvest. However, there was no unique relationship relating SWP tofruit weight valid for all data across experiments (Figure 2). The differences in the interceptof the lines reported between seasons and locations indicate that fruit weight is not only afunction of plant-water status. In addition, the different slopes of the linear relationshipsbetween locations suggest that the effect of plant water stress on fruit growth might changeaccording to different environmental or cultural conditions. Overall these results highlight theimportance of conducting local experiments when attempting to predict the effect of plantwater stress on fruit weight at harvest.Studies using other water status indicators for plum trees have also shown that daily trunkcontraction, continuously measured with stem dendrometers (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2006b), ishighly correlated to SWP, but other factors such as tree age and tree crop load also influencethe relationship between trunk contraction and SWP (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2006b; andIntrigliolo and Castel, 2007).Water RequirementsOnly a few early studies quantified the consumptive water use of plum orchards. Therecommended crop coefficient values for plum trees are included in the stone fruit tree sectiontogether with peach trees in the FAO I&D No. 56 publication (Allen et al., 1998). A specific studyPLUM 351

Figure 2 Relationships between average fruit weight at harvest and average midday stem-waterpotential (SWP) during the last phase of fruit growth. Data correspond to the regulateddeficit irrigation experiments carried out with Japanese plum cv. Black-Gold andcv. Black-Amber during different seasons.120110Naor et al., 2004 season 2001Naor et al., 2004 season 2002y = 44.8x + 145.6r2= 0.91Intrigliolo and Castel 2006a season 2003Intrigliolo and Castel 2006a season 2004100Average fruit weight (g)9080706050y = 52.0x + 170.9r2=0.69y = 17.6x + 98.7r2= 0.75y = 20.0x + 107.3r2= 0.8840- 0.9 -1.2 -1.5 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -2.7 -3.0SWP (MPa)of the water use of plum trees trained to different canopy arrangements (Chootummatatet al., 1990) found that mature trees under a Tatura training system reaching full cover,used 92 percent of class-A pan evaporation in midsummer. Lower water use (82 percent ofpan evaporation) was determined for trees trained as vase or palmette systems. As a firstapproximation, the K c values for peach (see Peach) should be used for plum orchards.Water Production FunctionIt seems that there are no deficit irrigation trials investigating the relationship between treewater use and yield either for Japanese plums or European prunes. However, from mainresults reported in the literature it is possible to derive some water productivity functionsbased on applied water by irrigation. Three studies on different varieties of Japanese plumswere included in the analysis: Fortune plums in the humid climate of the Po Valley in Italy(Battilani, 2004), Black-Gold plums (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2006a; Intrigliolo and Castel, 2010)and Black Amber plums (Naor, 2004; Naor et al., 2004) in Valencia, Spain and Upper Galilee,Israel, respectively. In all cases curvilinear functions fit the relationships between relativeyield and relative irrigation (Figure 3), but there were differences in the threshold values ofrelative applied irrigation for no yield reduction. The data from Spain and Israel fell on a singlepolynomial regression line, which fitted both data set well. In cv. Black-Gold and Black-Amberonly 10 percent of reduction in applied water appears to be admissible for no yield penalty,352crop yield response to water

Figure 2 Relationships between average fruit weight at harvest and average midday stem-<strong>water</strong>potential (SWP) during the last phase of fruit growth. Data correspond <strong>to</strong> the regulateddeficit irrigation experiments carried out with Japanese plum cv. Black-Gold andcv. Black-Amber during different seasons.120110Naor et al., 2004 season 2001Naor et al., 2004 season 2002y = 44.8x + 145.6r2= 0.91Intrigliolo and Castel 2006a season 2003Intrigliolo and Castel 2006a season 2004100Average fruit weight (g)9080706050y = 52.0x + 170.9r2=0.69y = 17.6x + 98.7r2= 0.75y = 20.0x + 107.3r2= 0.8840- 0.9 -1.2 -1.5 -1.8 -2.1 -2.4 -2.7 -3.0SWP (MPa)of the <strong>water</strong> use of plum trees trained <strong>to</strong> different canopy arrangements (Chootummatatet al., 1990) found that mature trees under a Tatura training system reaching full cover,used 92 percent of class-A pan evaporation in midsummer. Lower <strong>water</strong> use (82 percent ofpan evaporation) was determined for trees trained as vase or palmette systems. As a firstapproximation, the K c values for peach (see Peach) should be used for plum orchards.Water Production FunctionIt seems that there are no deficit irrigation trials investigating the relationship between tree<strong>water</strong> use and <strong>yield</strong> either for Japanese plums or European prunes. However, from mainresults reported in the literature it is possible <strong>to</strong> derive some <strong>water</strong> productivity functionsbased on applied <strong>water</strong> by irrigation. Three studies on different varieties of Japanese plumswere included in the analysis: Fortune plums in the humid climate of the Po Valley in Italy(Battilani, 2004), Black-Gold plums (Intrigliolo and Castel, 2006a; Intrigliolo and Castel, 2010)and Black Amber plums (Naor, 2004; Naor et al., 2004) in Valencia, Spain and Upper Galilee,Israel, respectively. In all cases curvilinear functions fit the relationships between relative<strong>yield</strong> and relative irrigation (Figure 3), but there were differences in the threshold values ofrelative applied irrigation for no <strong>yield</strong> reduction. The data from Spain and Israel fell on a singlepolynomial regression line, which fitted both data set well. In cv. Black-Gold and Black-Amberonly 10 percent of reduction in applied <strong>water</strong> appears <strong>to</strong> be admissible for no <strong>yield</strong> penalty,352crop <strong>yield</strong> <strong>response</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>water</strong>

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!