Abstract
Partial rootzone drying (PRD) is a new irrigation strategy whereby water is withheld from part of the rootzone while another part is well watered. A successful PRD strategy should reduce tree water use through stomatal control of transpiration and reduce vegetative growth while maintaining fruit size and yield. A field experiment examined crop water relations and production performance of PRD in a commercial apple orchard on loam soil in the Goulburn Valley, Australia. The orchard consisted of high-density (1420 trees/ha) 8-year-old ‘Pink Lady’ apple trees trained as central leader and irrigated by microjets. The effects of PRD on leaf/stem water potential, vegetative growth, yield components and fruit quality were investigated during two seasons (2001–02, Year 1 and 2002–03, Year 2). The 2-year average growing season reference crop evapotranspiration and rainfall was 954 and 168 mm, respectively. Three irrigation treatments were established: (1) deficit irrigation (DI, supplied 50% of water to a fixed side of tree); (2) PRD supplied 50% of water to alternating sides of tree; (3) and conventional irrigation (CI, supplied 100% water to both sides of tree). Irrigation inputs under the CI treatment were 334 and 529 mm for Year 1 and Year 2, respectively. In Year 1, the volume of irrigation applied to CI treatment inputs equated to the replacement of predicted crop evapotranspiration (ETc) based on a mid-season FAO-56 crop coefficient with adjustment for tree size. Vegetative growth, fruit production and water status showed both PRD and DI treatments led to a classical ‘deficit irrigation’ water stress response. Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees. In Year 2, CI inputs exceeded estimated ETc by 2-fold. Consequently, minimal or no differences between irrigation regimes were measured in stem water potential, vegetative growth, yield components and fruit quality. Fruit disorders (sunburn, russet, misshape, markings, frost damage) were not affected by irrigation regime in either season. We contend that further effort is required to determine under what circumstances or environments there is a PRD response that saves water and maintains yield and quality for apple.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential declined under PRD and DI versus full irrigation in Year 1.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- PRD and DIe0
- Outcome
- Leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (CI) treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
leaf conductance declined under PRD and DI versus full irrigation in Year 1.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and DIe0
- Outcome
- leaf conductancee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (CI) treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
fruit size declined under PRD and DI versus full irrigation in Year 1.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and DIe0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (CI) treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
shoot growth declined under PRD and DI versus full irrigation in Year 1.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and DIe0
- Outcome
- shoot growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (CI) treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
yield declined under PRD and DI versus full irrigation in Year 1.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and DIe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- fully watered (CI) treese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf water potential, leaf conductance, fruit size, shoot growth and yield were reduced on PRD and DI trees compared to the fully watered (CI) trees.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
In Year 2, stem water potential, vegetative growth and yield components showed minimal or no irrigation-regime differences.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigation regimese0
- Outcome
- stem water potential, vegetative growth, yield componentse0
- Direction
- minimal or no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consequently, minimal or no differences between irrigation regimes were measured in stem water potential, vegetative growth, yield components and fruit quality.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
In Year 2, fruit quality showed minimal or no irrigation-regime differences.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigation regimese0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- minimal or no differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consequently, minimal or no differences between irrigation regimes were measured in stem water potential, vegetative growth, yield components and fruit quality.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation regime did not affect fruit disorders in either season.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigation regimee0
- Outcome
- Fruit disorderse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit disorders (sunburn, russet, misshape, markings, frost damage) were not affected by irrigation regime in either season.”
t0“‘Pink Lady’ apple”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: grain · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →processing · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →processing · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →processing · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →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.