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

Abstract

<jats:p>Productive and vegetative tree responses were analyzed during 3 consecutive years in peach [<jats:italic>Prunus persica</jats:italic> (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.</jats:p>

Effects of post-harvest deficit irrigation in ‘Red Beaut’ Japanese plum: Tree water status, vegetative growth, fruit yield, quality and economic return

“…In this year, fruit thinning was also performed as a result of the high fruit set in that year (with 216, 347 and 333 fruit tree −1 removed for Control, RDI-60 and RDI-30, respectively). In cherry (Marsal et al, 2010), peach (Girona et al, 2003), nectarine (Naor et al, 2005) and pear (Marsal et al, 2012), fresh fruit weight was higher in stressed than unstressed trees, probably because the higher crop load in the stressed trees caused a significant increase in fruit-to-fruit competition by carbon availability (Grossman and DeJong, 1995;Berman and DeJong, 1996;Naor et al, 2001). The lower fresh fruit weight in 2012 in both irrigation treatments compared to the other years can be attributed to various factors.…”

“…However, the post-harvest period is long and may therefore be a more suitable period for irrigation restriction (Johnson et al, 1994;Naor et al, 2006;Marsal et al, 2010), offering the opportunity to reduce vegetative growth and save water without interfering with fruit growth in the current season (Chalmers et al, 1981;Behboudian and Mills, 1997;Naor, 2006;Fereres and Soriano, 2007). Any deficit irrigation must be applied with caution as severe water stress during post-harvest could have a detrimental effect on yield and fruit disorders in the following year, as reported for peach (Girona et al, 2003(Girona et al, , 2005Naor et al, 2005;, apricot (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999;Torrecillas et al, 2000) and almond (Goldhamer and Viveros, 2000;Marsal et al, 2008). The decrease in yield caused by severe postharvest water stress in the previous year has been attributed to lower fruit set (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999;Goldhamer and Viveros, 2000;Torrecillas et al, 2000;Girona et al, 2003;Naor et al, 2006) due to lower pollen viability (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999) and lower winter starch reserves .…”

“…Any deficit irrigation must be applied with caution as severe water stress during post-harvest could have a detrimental effect on yield and fruit disorders in the following year, as reported for peach (Girona et al, 2003(Girona et al, , 2005Naor et al, 2005;, apricot (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999;Torrecillas et al, 2000) and almond (Goldhamer and Viveros, 2000;Marsal et al, 2008). The decrease in yield caused by severe postharvest water stress in the previous year has been attributed to lower fruit set (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999;Goldhamer and Viveros, 2000;Torrecillas et al, 2000;Girona et al, 2003;Naor et al, 2006) due to lower pollen viability (Ruiz-Sanchez et al, 1999) and lower winter starch reserves . In contrast, a moderate level of post-harvest water stress did not affect final fruit size, fruit number per tree or yield in peaches (Larson et al, 1988;Johnson et al, 1992;Girona et al, 2005).…”

“…In contrast, a moderate level of post-harvest water stress did not affect final fruit size, fruit number per tree or yield in peaches (Larson et al, 1988;Johnson et al, 1992;Girona et al, 2005). Another factor that may explain the reduction in fruit set following water stress late in the season is the long-term impact of year-to-year carry-over effects (Johnson and Handley, 2000;Girona et al, 2003;Intrigliolo and Castel, 2005;Naor et al, 2005;Goldhamer et al, 2006;Intrigliolo et al, 2013). A recent study that evaluated carry-over effects in mid-maturing Japanese plum (Intrigliolo et al, 2013) concluded that RDI impaired fruit bearing capacity, but did not impair yield because the cultivar employed in that study required intense thinning.…”

Benefits of low-frequency irrigation in citrus orchards

“…Maxim. ; Naor et al 1999), peach (P. persica (L.) Batch; Girona et al 2002Girona et al , 2003, apple (Malus domestica (L.) Borkh; Van Hoojdonk et al 2004;Naor et al 1995;Naor and Cohen 2003), and grape (Vitis vinifera L.; Girona et al 2006). Today, research advancements have led to innovative techniques for improving water-use efficiency in agricultural systems.…”