Abstract
Olive production in the first few years after planting depends on how the canopy covers the hedgerow and develops flowers. Therefore, optimum irrigation management should look for the minimum amount of water required for maximum growth and bud initiation. The response of a young hedgerow olive orchard to different irrigation strategies was recorded for 3 years after planting in 2003. Observations included stem water potential (Ψ stem ), leaf conductance (g l ), shoot and trunk growth, canopy development, and flowering. During the first year, olives received 74 mm of irrigation. During the second and third years, three irrigation treatments (T2, T3, and T4) were scaled back from a control (T1) that was irrigated to maintain soil close to water-holding capacity. T1 received 56 and 106 mm of irrigation in the second and third years, respectively. Treatments T2, T3, and T4 received 82%, 64%, and 46% of the water applied to T1 in the second year and 76%, 72%, and 29% in the third year of growth, respectively. Trees in T1 displayed different physiological and growth behaviors between years. Ψ stem , g l , and shoot growth were 131%, 31%, and 56% lower in the third than in the second year, respectively. Irrigation treatment had no significant effect on evaluated parameters in the second year, except on Ψ stem in T4 that fell below that of the other treatments in late September. In the third year, shoot growth, trunk diameter, and leaf area density in T4 decreased 52%, 13%, and 31% compared with T1, respectively. Nevertheless, external surface area and canopy volume were not significantly affected by irrigation treatment. The start of flowering, recorded in the third and fourth years, was not significantly affected by the irrigation received in previous years. Because water stress did not advance flowering, maximum growth should be the main objective in irrigation management of young olive orchards. No differences were observed between T3 and T1 in any of the vegetative, canopy development, or inflorescence parameters recorded, although Ψ stem and g l were significantly lower in T3. During the second and third years, T3 can be considered the most efficient irrigation treatment with 36 and 76 mm of irrigation for each year, respectively.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
In control trees, stem water potential was 131% lower in year three than year two.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ψ stem , g l , and shoot growth were 131%, 31%, and 56% lower in the third than in the second year, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In control trees, leaf conductance was 31% lower in year three than year two.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ψ stem , g l , and shoot growth were 131%, 31%, and 56% lower in the third than in the second year, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In control trees, shoot growth was 56% lower in year three than year two.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Ψ stem , g l , and shoot growth were 131%, 31%, and 56% lower in the third than in the second year, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In year two, irrigation treatment had no significant effect on evaluated parameters apart from T4 stem water potential.
- Taxon
- olive
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- Irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- evaluated parameterse0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Qualifier
- in the second yeare0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation treatment had no significant effect on evaluated parameters in the second year, except on Ψ stem in T4 that fell below that of the other treatments in late September.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
T4 stem water potential fell below other treatments in late September of year two.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- Ψ steme0
- Direction
- fell belowe0
- Qualifier
- late Septembere0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“except on Ψ stem in T4 that fell below that of the other treatments in late September.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In year three T4 reduced shoot growth by 52% versus T1.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- shoot growthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 52%e0
- Qualifier
- third yeare0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the third year, shoot growth, trunk diameter, and leaf area density in T4 decreased 52%, 13%, and 31% compared with T1, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In year three T4 reduced trunk diameter by 13% versus T1.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- trunk diametere0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Qualifier
- third yeare0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the third year, shoot growth, trunk diameter, and leaf area density in T4 decreased 52%, 13%, and 31% compared with T1, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
In year three T4 reduced leaf area density by 31% versus T1.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- leaf area densitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Qualifier
- third yeare0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the third year, shoot growth, trunk diameter, and leaf area density in T4 decreased 52%, 13%, and 31% compared with T1, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not significantly affect external surface area or canopy volume.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- external surface area and canopy volumee0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“external surface area and canopy volume were not significantly affected by irrigation treatment.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Prior irrigation did not significantly affect start of flowering.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- irrigation received in previous yearse0
- Outcome
- start of floweringe0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The start of flowering, recorded in the third and fourth years, was not significantly affected by the irrigation received in previous years.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 and T1 did not differ in vegetative, canopy or inflorescence parameters.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- vegetative, canopy development, or inflorescence parameterse0
- Direction
- No differencese0
- Comparator
- T1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No differences were observed between T3 and T1 in any of the vegetative, canopy development, or inflorescence parameters recorded”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
T3 stem water potential and leaf conductance were significantly lower than T1.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- Ψ stem and g le0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“although Ψ stem and g l were significantly lower in T3.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend T3 as most efficient during years two and three, with 36 and 76 mm irrigation.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T3e0
- Outcome
- most efficient irrigation treatmente0
- Value
- 36 and 76 mme0
- Qualifier
- second and third yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the second and third years, T3 can be considered the most efficient irrigation treatment with 36 and 76 mm of irrigation for each year, respectively.”
t0“olive”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors advise maximizing growth because water stress did not advance flowering.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae0
- Outcome
- maximum growth should be the main objective in irrigation management of young olive orchardse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Because water stress did not advance flowering, maximum growth should be the main objective in irrigation management of young olive orchards.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · phenology · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.