Implementing deficit irrigation scheduling through plant water stress indicators in early nectarine trees
Implementing deficit irrigation scheduling through plant water stress indicators in early nectarine trees
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.018
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Perez-Pastor, A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
De la Rosa, J. M.;Domingo, R.;Perez-Pastor, A.
以早熟油桃（Prunus persica L.）巴奇湾Flanoba）树木进行了旨在提高水的利用效率，通过应用持续灌溉处理，在西班牙南部的商业果园。实验比较灌溉调度使用传统的微气象学（作物蒸散量的110%，ETc）作为对照处理（T-CTL），该处理基于农民的正常实践（T-FARMER）和调节性亏缺灌溉处理（T-RDI），其中包括在第一年的关键时期以与对照（T-CTL）相同的水平灌溉作物（第二个果实快速生长期和收获后2个月）和采后60% T-CTL。在过去的两年（2010年和2011年），灌溉计划，以保持信号强度（SI）的最大日收缩的树干（MDS，SI = MDSTRDI/MDSTCTL）在不同的水分胁迫水平取决于物候期SI = 1.0（非水分胁迫）和SI = 1.4（中度水分胁迫）。大多数时候，灌溉调度是基于MDS SI的，这个参数在预先设定的阈值附近仅略有变化。茎直径传感器和茎水势（Psi（茎））给出的信息给出了-1.5 MPa和MDS SI 1.5作为阈值，在采后不能超过，因为MDS和Psi（茎）SI值仅线性下降到1.5。三季节水量分别为对照的17%、15%和37%。相比之下，T-FARMER处理在前2年期间施用更多的水（比T-CTL多约20%和5%），并且在第三季期间比T-CTL少10%。(C)2015 Elsevier B. V.版权所有。
A three-year experiment on early nectarine (Prunus persica L. Batsch cv. Flanoba) trees was carried out with the aim of increasing water use efficiency through applying a sustained irrigation treatment, in a commercial orchard in southern Spain. Experiments compared irrigation scheduling using conventional micrometeorology (110% of crop evapotranspiration, ETc) as a control treatment (T-CTL), a treatment based on the normal practice of the farmer (T-FARMER) and a regulated deficit irrigation treatment (T-RDI), which involved irrigating the crop at the same level as the control (T-CTL) during the critical periods of the first year (second rapid fruit growth period and 2 months after harvest) and at 60% T-CTL during postharvest. In the last two years (2010 and 2011), the irrigation was scheduled to maintain the signal intensity (SI) of the maximum daily shrinkage of the trunk (MDS, SI = MDSTRDI/MDSTCTL) at different water stress levels depending on the phenological stage SI = 1.0 (non-water stress) and SI = 1.4 (moderate water stress). Most of the time that irrigation scheduling was based on MDS SI, this parameter varied only slightly around the pre-established threshold values. The information given by the stem diameter sensors and stem water potential (Psi(stem)) gave - 1.5 MPa and MDS SI 1.5 as threshold values not to be exceeded during postharvest, since MDS and Psi(stem) SI values were only linear down to 1.5. The water saved amounted to 17, 15 and 37% of the amount used in the control in the three seasons, respectively. In contrast, the T-FARMER treatment applied more water (about 20 and 5% more than T-CTL) during the first 2 years, and 10% less than T-CTL during the third season. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.