The Response of Braeburn Apple to Regulated Deficit Irrigation

Year 2020, Volume: 26 Issue: 2, 154 - 163, 04.06.2020

Cenk Küçükyumuk , Halit Yıldız , M. Kamil Meriç

https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.491542

Cited By: 3

Abstract

Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) is one of deficit irrigation (DI) techniques and it is developed to minimize irrigation inputs in fruit production, especially in areas where water resources are limited, is recommended for saving irrigation water in agriculture. This study was conducted to determine the effects of deficit irrigation treatments applied in different growth periods on plant water consumption, water yield relations, stomatal conductance and yield of Braeburn apple variety (grafted on M9 rootstock). Experiments were conducted in the years 2010, 2011, and 2012 at Fruit Research Institute, Eğirdir, Isparta, Turkey. Six different irrigation treatments were applied as I1; non-deficit irrigation program, I2; continuous deficit irrigation program (CDI), I3; deficit irrigation program between the 40th and 70th days after full bloom (DAFB), I4; deficit irrigation program between the 70th and 100th DAFB, I5; deficit irrigation program between the 100th and 130th DAFB and I6; deficit irrigation program between the 130th and 160th DAFB. The highest yield (55.2, 54.1 and 63.8 t ha-1 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively) and water use efficiency (WUE) (0.130, 0.129 and 0.137 t ha-1 mm-1 in 2010, 2011 and 2012) values were obtained from I3 treatment in all short-term deficit irrigation treatments. The stomatal conductance values decreased during the short-term deficit irrigation treatments, but the values increased following the deficit irrigation periods. The results revealed that apple trees grafted on M9 rootstock were influenced by short-term water stress, but they were able to cope with stress after the deficit periods. In all deficit irrigation treatments, yield response factor (Ky) ranged from 0.77 to 2.11 Apple tree yield was less sensitive to water deficit in I3 compared to other treatments. Therefore I3 treatment was found to be applicable in case of scarce water resources since it ensured water saving.

Keywords

Apple, regulated deficit irrigation, stomatal conductance, Ky

References

• Atay E (2007). Determination of fruit growth and development some apple varieties on MM 106 rootstock. Selçuk University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, MS Thesis, 68 p., Konya, Turkey.
• Chalmers D J (1989). A physiological examination of regulated deficit irrigation. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Science 23: 44-48.
• Doorenbos J, Kassam A H, Bentvelsen C L M, Branscheid V, Plusje J M G A, Smith M, Uittenbogaard G O & Van Der Wal H K (1986). Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. No: 33.
• Ebel R C 1991. Apple tree and fruit response to drought stress. PhD Diss., Washington State Univ., Pullman.
• Ebel R C, Proebsting E L & Evans RG (1995). Deficit irrigation to control vegetative growth in apple and monitoring fruit growth to Schedule irrigation. HortScience 30: 1229-1232.Ertek A & Kanber R (2003). Effects of different irrigation programs on boll number and abscission percentage of cotton. Agricultural Water Management 60(1): 1-11.
• Felmann J K (1996). Pome fruit quality in relation to environmental stress, in: Maib K M, Andrews P K, Lang G A & Mullinix K. (Eds.), Tree Fruit Physiology: Growth and Development: A Comprehensive Manual for Regulating Deciduous Tree Fruit Growth and Development. p.127-131, Good Fruit Growers, Yakima, Washington, USA.
• Fereres E & Goldhamer D (1990). Irrigation of deciduous fruit and nut trees. p. 987-1017.in: Lascano R J & Sojka R E (Eds.), Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. American Society of Agronomy.
• Ferre D C & Carlson R F (1987). Apple rootstocks. p. 107-143. in: Rom, R.C. and R.F. Carlson. (Eds.), Rootstocks for Fruit Trees. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
• Forshey C G, Weires R W, Stanely B H & Seem R C (1983). Dry weight partitioning of ‘McIntosh’ apple trees. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 108: 149-154.
• Girona J, Behboudian M H, Mata M, Del Campo J & Marsal J (2010a). Exploring six reduced irrigation options under water shortage for ‘Golden Smoothee’ apple: Responses of yield components over three years. Agricultural Water Management 98: 370-375.
• Girona J, Del Campo J, Bonastre N, Paris C, Mata M, Arbones A & Marsal J (2010b). Evaluation of different irrigation strategies on apple (Malusdomestica). Physiological and productive results.VI International Symposium on Irrigation of Horticultural Crops. November 2-6, Vina del Mar, Chile.
• Howell T A, Cuenca R H & Solomon K H (1990). Crop yield response. p. 93-122. in: Hoffman, G.J., Howell, T.A., Solomon, K.H. (Eds.), Management of Farm Irrigation Systems, ASAE Monograph, Michigan.
• James L G (1988). Principles of Farm Irrigation System Design, John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York, USA.
• Lo Bianco R & Francaviglia D (2012). Comparative responses of 'Gala' and 'Fuji' apple tree to deficit irrigation: Placement versus volume effects. Plant and Soil 357(1-2):41-5.
• Lo Bianco R, Talluto G & Farina V (2012). Effects of partial root zone drying and rootstock vigour on dry matter partitioning of apple trees (Malus domestica cvar Pink Lady). Journal of AgriculturalScience Cambridge 150: 75-86.Mills T M, Behboudian M H & Clothier B E (1997). The diurnal and seasonal water relations, and composition, of ‘Braeburn’ apple fruit under reduced plant water status. Plant Science 126: 145-154.
• Mitchell P D & Chalmers D J (1982). The effect of reduced water supply on peach tree growth and yields. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 107: 853-856. Mpelasoka B S, Behboudian M H & Green S R (2001a). Water use, yield and fruit quality of lysimeter-grown apple trees: responses to deficit irrigation and to crop load. Irrigation Science 20: 107-113.
• Naor A, Klein I, Doron I, Gal Y, Ben-David Z & Bravado B (1997). Irrigation and crop load interactions in relation to apple yield and fruit size distribution. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 122: 411-414.
• Naor A, Naschitz S, Peres M & Gal Y (2008). Responses of apple fruit size to tree water status and crop load. Tree Physiology 28: 1255-1261.
• Petillo G M, Puppo L, Morales P& Hayashi R (2009). Young apple trees response to water stress - Early results. ActaHorticulturae 889:273-280.
• Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Fereres E & Raes D (2012). Crop Yield Response to Water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. No: 66.
• Taiz L & Zeiger E (1998). Plant Physiology. 2nd Edition. 792 p., SinauerAssociatesInc. Publisher, Sunderland, Massachusetts.
• Talluto G,Farina V,VolpeG, LoBianco R (2008). Effects of partial root zone drying and rootstock vigour on growth and fruit quality of 'Pink Lady' apple trees in Mediterrane and environments. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59:785-794.
• TUİK (2018). Apple production of Turkey. Received in November, 14, 2018 from http://tuik.gov.tr/PreTablo.do?alt_id=1001.
• Van Hooijdonk, B, Dorji M & Behboudian M H (2004). Responses of 'Pacific Rose' ™ apple to partial root zone drying and to deficit irrigation. European Journal of Horticultural Science 69: 104-110.
• Yıldırım O (2005). Irrigation Project Design. Ankara University Agriculture Faculty Publishing: 1542, Lesson book: 495, Ankara:348 p.
• Zegbe J A & Behboudian M H (2008). Plant water status, CO2 assimilation, yield, and fruit quality of 'Pacific RoseTM' apple under partial root zone drying. Advances in Horticultural Science 22:27-32.