SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2014 / Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 6

Irrigation scheduling of grapefruit trees in a Mediterranean environment throughout evaluation of plant water status and evapotranspiration

Mustafa ÜNLÜ
Rıza KANBER
D. Levent KOÇ
Bülent ÖZEKİCİ
Uğur KEKEÇ
Pages
908–915
Publication Date
2014-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These will result in obtaining the optimum yield of fruit while conserving water.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, 1 full irrigation regime (100% of crop evapotranspiration, I100) and 2 deficit irrigation regimes (70%, I70, and 50%, I50) were evaluated in a Rio Red grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfad. 'Rio Red') orchard in Adana, Turkey.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Fruit yield, leaf water potential (LWP), and soil water depletion (SWD) were measured among trees from each treatment.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These will result in obtaining the optimum yield of fruit while conserving water.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Grapefruit · evapotranspiration · leaf water potential

Abstract

In this study, 1 full irrigation regime (100% of crop evapotranspiration, I100) and 2 deficit irrigation regimes (70%, I70, and 50%, I50) were evaluated in a Rio Red grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfad. 'Rio Red') orchard in Adana, Turkey. Fruit yield, leaf water potential (LWP), and soil water depletion (SWD) were measured among trees from each treatment. Actual evapotranspiration was calculated in 3 ways, using 2 energy balance methods (eddy correlation and Bowen's ratio) and water balance. Evapotranspiration rates of I70 and I50 treatments were 10% and 18% less than I100, respectively. Average irrigation amount for I50 was less than half of the average irrigation amount for I100. Considering that yield for the experimental treatments did not change statistically significantly, the I50 treatment provided about 50% more irrigation water savings than full irrigation conditions. Grapefruit tree LWP was highly correlated to soil water status and significantly associated with irrigation treatment. Average LWP values for treatments were –2.70 MPa for I100, –2.96 MPa for I70, and –3.28 MPa for I50. LWP increased up to a threshold level equivalent to 60%–66% of SWD, above which LWP decreased linearly with a continuous increase of SWD. This indicates that an average LWP of –3.28 MPa can be allowed for grapefruit under these experimental conditions while keeping the crop yield at that of full irrigation levels. The research findings showed that an enhanced understanding of physiological parameters is essential for irrigation scheduling of fruit plants. These will result in obtaining the optimum yield of fruit while conserving water.

Özet

In this study, 1 full irrigation regime (100% of crop evapotranspiration, I100) and 2 deficit irrigation regimes (70%, I70, and 50%, I50) were evaluated in a Rio Red grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macfad. 'Rio Red') orchard in Adana, Turkey. Fruit yield, leaf water potential (LWP), and soil water depletion (SWD) were measured among trees from each treatment. Actual evapotranspiration was calculated in 3 ways, using 2 energy balance methods (eddy correlation and Bowen's ratio) and water balance. Evapotranspiration rates of I70 and I50 treatments were 10% and 18% less than I100, respectively. Average irrigation amount for I50 was less than half of the average irrigation amount for I100. Considering that yield for the experimental treatments did not change statistically significantly, the I50 treatment provided about 50% more irrigation water savings than full irrigation conditions. Grapefruit tree LWP was highly correlated to soil water status and significantly associated with irrigation treatment. Average LWP values for treatments were –2.70 MPa for I100, –2.96 MPa for I70, and –3.28 MPa for I50. LWP increased up to a threshold level equivalent to 60%–66% of SWD, above which LWP decreased linearly with a continuous increase of SWD. This indicates that an average LWP of –3.28 MPa can be allowed for grapefruit under these experimental conditions while keeping the crop yield at that of full irrigation levels. The research findings showed that an enhanced understanding of physiological parameters is essential for irrigation scheduling of fruit plants. These will result in obtaining the optimum yield of fruit while conserving water.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÜNLÜ, M., KANBER, R., KOÇ, D. L., ÖZEKİCİ, B., KEKEÇ, U. (2014). Irrigation scheduling of grapefruit trees in a Mediterranean environment throughout evaluation of plant water status and evapotranspiration. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 38 - Sayı: 6, 908–915. https://ajindex.com/articles/179700

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Al-Yahyai R (2012). Managing irrigation of fruit trees using plant water status. Agric Sci 3: 35–43.
  2. Al-Yahyai R, Schaffer B, Davies FS (2005). Physiological response of carambola to soil water depletion. Hort Sci 40: 2145–2150.
  3. Assaf R, Levin I, Brawdo B (1982). Apple fruit growth as a measure of irrigation control. Hort Sci 17: 59–61.
  4. Bowen IS (1926). The ratio of heat losses by conduction and by evaporation from any water surface. Phys Rev 27: 779–787.
  5. Ebel RC, Proebsting EL, Evans RG (1995). Deficit irrigation to control growth in apple and monitoring fruit growth to schedule irrigation. Hort Sci 30: 1229–1232.
  6. Ertek A, Kanber R (2003). Effects of different irrigation programs on boll number and abscission percentage of cotton. Agric Water Manage 60: 1–11.
  7. Fereres E (1997). Irrigation scheduling of horticultural crops. Acta Hortic 449: 253–258.
  8. Garcia-Tejero IF, Duran-Zuazo VH, Muriel-Fernandez JL, Jimenez- Bocanegra JA (2011). Linking canopy temperature and trunk diameter fluctuations with other physiological water status tools for water stress management in citrus orchards. Functional Plant Biol 38: 106–117.
  9. Genuchten M, Hoffman GJ (1984). Analysis of crop salt tolerance data. In: Shainberg I, Shalhevet J, editors. Soil Salinity Under Irrigation: Processes and Management. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag, pp. 258–271.
  10. Goldhamer DA, Fereres E (2004). Irrigation scheduling of almond trees with trunk diameter sensor. Irrig Sci 23: 11–19.
  11. Held AA, Steduto P, Orgaz F, Matista A, Hsiao TC (1990). Bowen ratio energy-balance technique for estimating crop net CO2 assimilation, and comparison with a canopy chamber. Theor Appl Climatol 42: 203–213.
  12. Hsiao TC, Acevedo E, Fereres E, Henderson DW (1976). Stress metabolism. Water stress, growth and osmotic adjustment. Philos T Roy Soc B 273: 479−500. Hsiao T (1990). Measurements of plant water status. In: Steward B, Nielsen D, editors. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Agronomy Monographs No. 30. Madison, WI, USA: ASA, pp. 243–279.
  13. Jones HG (2004). Irrigation scheduling advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J Experi Bot 55: 2227–2436.
  14. Kanber R, Köksal H, Yazar A, Özekici B, Önder S (1999). Effects of different irrigation programs on fruit, trunk growth rates, quality and yield of grapefruit trees. Turk J Agric For 23: 401– 411. Kanber R, Yazar A, Köksal H, Oguzer V (1992). Evapotranspiration of grapefruit in the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Hort Sci 52: 53–62.
  15. Larson K, Schaffer B, Davies FS (