Claim · model-written summary
RDI did not significantly lower yield or fruit quality.
- Taxon
- sweet cherry
Prunus aviume1 - Treatment
- RDIe0
- Outcome
- yields or fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- did not cause significant lowere0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDI reduced vegetative growth and did not cause significant lower yields or fruit quality”
e1“sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.)”
Title
Victor Blanco; Roque Torres-Sánchez; Pedro José Blaya-Ros; et al. Scientia Horticulturae 2019. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2019.02.016
Other claims from this paper (15)
- Intervention effect Soil water deficit reduced midday stem water potential, stomatal conductance and net photosynthesis.
- Observation Branch maximum daily shrinkage responded rapidly to irrigation changes before and after harvest.
- Intervention effect SDI gave the lowest stem water potential before harvest.
- Intervention effect RDI gave the lowest stem water potential after harvest.
- Intervention effect FRM gave the lowest stem water potential after harvest.
- Observation RDI stem water potential stayed above −1.6 MPa in every season.
- Observation FRM stem water potential fell below −1.8 MPa in 2017.
- Intervention effect RDI reduced vegetative growth.
- Intervention effect SDI tended toward smaller fruits.
- Intervention effect SDI tended toward slightly higher soluble solids.
- Intervention effect Post-harvest deficit irrigation increased water productivity.
- Intervention effect Post-harvest deficit irrigation did not penalize fruit yield or studied quality parameters.
- Intervention effect Post-harvest deficit irrigation saved 39% water versus CTL.
- Intervention effect RDI significantly lowered cracking incidence and cracking index.
- Intervention effect SDI significantly lowered cracking incidence and cracking index.