Peach Tree Response to Single and Combined Regulated Deficit Irrigation Regimes under Shallow Soils

By Joan Girona, M. Mata, A. Arbonés, S. Alegre, J. Rufat, J. Marsal. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 2003

120 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Productive and vegetative tree responses were analyzed during 3 consecutive years in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell] plots subjected to three regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) strategies plus a control irrigation treatment. A postharvest RDI treatment (RDI-P) was irrigated at 0.35 of control after harvest. A Stage II RDI treatment (RDI-SII) was irrigated at 0.5 of control during the lag phase of the fruit growth curve. The third treatment (RDI-SII-P) applied RDI during Stage II at 0.5 of control and postharvest at 0.35 of control. The control treatment, like RDI-P and RDI-SII-P when not receiving RDI, was irrigated at 100% of a water budget irrigation scheduling in 1994 and 1996, full crop years, and 80% of the budget in 1995, an off year with a very small crop. A carry-over effect of deficit irrigation was highly significant in all parameters measured during the third year of the experiment. The general effect of water stress during Stage II did not affect return bloom and fruit set, whereas water stress during postharvest apparently reduced both parameters. As a consequence, fruit counts and fruit load manifested marked differences between treatments, which were also correlated to changes in fruit size. The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size. Vegetative growth (shoot elongation and trunk cross sectional area) was significantly reduced during the first 2 years of the experiment in accordance with the amount of the irrigation reduction. However, in 1996 growth was strongly governed by fruit load. The use of RDI-SII-P represented an intermediate cropping effect between the opposite bearing behavior of RDI-SII and RDI-P, while not expecting distinctive fruit yield or size reductions and offering remarkable water savings of 22% of the control applied water.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Plant Science, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4444501006e31835937aa1115e020db06fd9271c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. R. Domingo
2. M. Ruiz-Sánchez
3. Juan R. Castel
4. A. Torrecillas
5. Alejandro Pérez-Pastor
6. Joan Girona

In Plant Science

1. M. Ruiz-Sánchez
2. R. Domingo
3. Juan R. Castel
4. Alejandro Pérez-Pastor
5. A. Torrecillas

In Soil Science

1. R. Domingo
2. M. Ruiz-Sánchez
3. Juan R. Castel
4. Alejandro Pérez-Pastor
5. A. Torrecillas

Citations in the corpus

• Regulated deficit irrigation during the kernel-filling period and optimal irrigation rates in almond (2005, background): “In peaches, this process usually remains unchanged when applying deficit irrigation during pit hardening and the phase of expansive fruit growth (Li et al., 1989; Girona et al., 1993, 2003).”
• Deficit irrigation in fruit trees and vines in Spain. (2010, background): “Lower flowering density and fruit set as a result of DI during the previous postharvest period have been recorded in pear (Marsal et al., 2002), apricot (Ruiz-Sánchez et al., 1999) and peach (Girona et al., 2003).”
• The use of midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards (2005, background): “These long-term effects on fruit growth have been observed in RDI experiments with trees (Girona et al. 2003, 2005), and has been associated with carbon storage depletion in almond (Esparza et al. 2001).”
• Peach tree response to single and combined deficit irrigation regimes in deep soils (2005, background): “Stage II) of fruit development and at post-harvest, was most effective at increasing water savings without reducing yield in lightly pruned peach trees (Girona et al., 2003).”
• Response of apricot trees to deficit irrigation strategies (2009, background): “…quality of some stone and nut fruit crops (Mitchell and Chalmers 1982; Mitchell et al. 1984; Boland et al. 1993; Romero et al. 2004) both in deep (Girona et al. 2005) and shallow soils (Girona et al. 2003), as well as in citrus trees (Domingo et al. 1996; GonzálezAltozano and Castel 1999, 2000).”
• Response of vegetative growth and fruit development to regulated deficit irrigation at different growth stages of pear-jujube tree (2009, unknown): “It was also found that after experiencing moderate water deficit, the re-watering quickly restored the water status of peach tree andmaintained the same yield as the level of the control, even if thewater deficit was greater than 65% (Girona et al., 2003).”