Abstract
“The feasibility of using an over-tree microsprinkler irrigation system for spring freeze protection of `Loring' peach trees [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] was evaluated under a range of meteorological conditions during Winter 1988-89. Microsprinklers were attached to the underside of polyethylene laterals 2.5 m above ground level and centered over the tree rows. Irrigation rates of 0, 27, 36, and 44 liters/hour per tree were tested on trees trained to an open-center habit using microsprinklers that produced a circular wetting pattern. Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions, but provided no protection under windy conditions. Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1 , but were slightly lower for 27 liters·hour -1 under conditions typical of spring freezes. Limb breakage due to ice loading was negligible for all application rates, even under advective freeze conditions. Calculated water and energy consumption were reduced by at least 50% and 88%, respectively, by the microsprinkler system, compared to a typical overhead sprinkler system.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinkling kept peach bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above nonirrigated trees in calm conditions.
- Taxon
- Peaches
Prunus persicae0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinkling gave no freeze protection in windy conditions.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but provided no protection under windy conditions”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Bud temperatures were similar at 36 and 44 liters per hour.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Bud temperatures were slightly lower at 27 liters per hour.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but were slightly lower for 27 liters·hour -1 under conditions typical of spring freezes”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Ice loading caused negligible limb breakage at all rates.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Limb breakage due to ice loading was negligible for all application rates, even under advective freeze conditions”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinklers reduced calculated water use by at least 50% relative to overhead sprinklers.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calculated water and energy consumption were reduced by at least 50% and 88%, respectively, by the microsprinkler system, compared to a typical overhead sprinkler system”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
Claim · model-written summary
Microsprinklers reduced calculated energy use by at least 88% relative to overhead sprinklers.
- Taxon
- PeachesPrunus persicae0t0e1e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calculated water and energy consumption were reduced by at least 50% and 88%, respectively, by the microsprinkler system, compared to a typical overhead sprinkler system”
t0“Peaches”
e1“Microsprinkler irrigation maintained average bud temperature above -2C and 2 to 5C above those of nonirrigated trees under calm conditions”
e2“Flower bud temperatures of irrigated trees were similar for 36 and 44 liters·hour -1”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.