Abstract
Water is limited world-wide and water saving irrigation practices are essential for crops, like apple, that are grown over wide acreages and within water limited regions. In a field experiment, we investigated plant water relations, yield and fruit quality of ‘Pacific Rose’™ apple under the following irrigation treatments: commercially irrigated (CI) control, where soil was maintained near field capacity throughout the season; partial rootzone drying (PRD), where half of the irrigation volume of CI was applied to only one side of the rootzone; and no irrigation (NI), where water was withheld for the duration of the experiment. From 62 days after full bloom (DAFB), the volumetric soil water content of NI and the unirrigated PRD side were significantly lower than CI and the irrigated PRD side. Leaf water potential of PRD was generally similar to CI throughout the season, whereas leaf water potential of NI was lower than CI from 123 DAFB. Fruit yield and quality at harvest were similar among the treatments. However, PRD and NI fruit were firmer and had less weight loss during postharvest storage. In addition to enhancement of fruit storage potential, water savings of 0.78 and 1.56 megalitres per hectare occurred for PRD and NI treatments, respectively. Both PRD and NI are suitable for humid environments similar to that of the experimental site, while PRD may also have potential to save water in arid climates.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Volumetric soil water content of no-irrigation and unirrigated PRD sides was significantly lower than CI and irrigated PRD sides from 62 DAFB.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- NI and the unirrigated PRD sidee2
- Outcome
- volumetric soil water contente2
- Direction
- significantly lowere2
- Qualifier
- From 62 days after full bloom (DAFB)e2
- Comparator
- CIe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e2“From 62 days after full bloom (DAFB), the volumetric soil water content of NI and the unirrigated PRD side were significantly lower than CI and the irrigated PRD side”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential of PRD was generally similar to CI throughout the season.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRDe3
- Outcome
- Leaf water potentiale3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- CIe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e3“Leaf water potential of PRD was generally similar to CI throughout the season”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf water potential of NI was lower than CI from 123 DAFB.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NIe4
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Qualifier
- from 123 DAFBe4
- Comparator
- CIe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e4“whereas leaf water potential of NI was lower than CI from 123 DAFB”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yield and quality at harvest were similar among the irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- Fruit yield and quality at harveste5
- Direction
- similare5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e5“Fruit yield and quality at harvest were similar among the treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD and NI fruit were firmer after postharvest storage.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and NIe6
- Outcome
- fruite6
- Direction
- firmere6
- Qualifier
- during postharvest storagee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e6“PRD and NI fruit were firmer and had less weight loss during postharvest storage”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD and NI fruit had less weight loss during postharvest storage.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and NIe6
- Outcome
- weight losse6
- Direction
- lesse6
- Qualifier
- during postharvest storagee6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e6“PRD and NI fruit were firmer and had less weight loss during postharvest storage”
Claim · model-written summary
Water savings of 0.78 megalitres per hectare occurred for PRD.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRDe7
- Outcome
- water savingse7
- Direction
- increaseinferrede7
- Value
- 0.78e7
- Qualifier
- megalitres per hectaree7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e7“water savings of 0.78 and 1.56 megalitres per hectare occurred for PRD and NI treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water savings of 1.56 megalitres per hectare occurred for NI.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- NIe7
- Outcome
- water savingse7
- Direction
- increaseinferrede7
- Value
- 1.56e7
- Qualifier
- megalitres per hectaree7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e7“water savings of 0.78 and 1.56 megalitres per hectare occurred for PRD and NI treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD and NI are suitable for humid environments similar to the experimental site.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRD and NIe0
- Outcome
- suitable for humid environmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e0“Both PRD and NI are suitable for humid environments similar to that of the experimental site”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD may have potential to save water in arid climates.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- PRDe1
- Outcome
- potential to save water in arid climatese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“apple”
e1“PRD may also have potential to save water in arid climates”
The same questions in other papers
processing · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →processing · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 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 →processing · quality: postharvest · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →irrigation · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 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.