Abstract
This work examines the effects of two deficit irrigation strategies, conventional deficit irrigation (DI) and partial root-zone drying (PRD), on mature navel orange trees. The study carried out during two consecutive years (2008 and 2009) in a semi-arid climate on a silty–clay–loam soil in the north of Iran. Both DI and PRD trees were irrigated at two levels, 75 and 50% (DI75, PRD75, DI50 and PRD50) of the full irrigation (FI). In DI, irrigation water was applied to both sides of the tree rows, similar to FI. In PRD, irrigation water was applied alternately to only one side, at each irrigation event. Results showed that DI treatments reduced fruit yield by ∼30% compared with FI, but PRD treatments caused no reduction in fruit yield. No negative impact was detected in fruit quality after applying DI and PRD treatments. Shoot growth decreased in all DI and PRD treatments in both years. In DI, stomatal resistance was higher (50%) than in FI, but it was not significantly affected in PRD. The irrigation water use efficiency of PRD trees increased to nearly twice that of FI. According to these two years' results, we recommend PRD as an acceptable deficit irrigation strategy in the region.
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
Conventional deficit irrigation reduced orange fruit yield by about 30% relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“DI treatments reduced fruit yield by ∼30% compared with FI”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying caused no reduction in orange fruit yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“PRD treatments caused no reduction in fruit yield”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional deficit irrigation had no detected negative impact on orange fruit quality.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“No negative impact was detected in fruit quality after applying DI and PRD treatments.”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying had no detected negative impact on orange fruit quality.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“No negative impact was detected in fruit quality after applying DI and PRD treatments.”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot growth decreased under conventional deficit irrigation in both years.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth decreased in all DI and PRD treatments in both years.”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot growth decreased under partial root-zone drying in both years.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Shoot growth decreased in all DI and PRD treatments in both years.”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal resistance under DI was 50% higher than under full irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“In DI, stomatal resistance was higher (50%) than in FI”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Partial root-zone drying did not significantly affect stomatal resistance.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“In DI, stomatal resistance was higher (50%) than in FI, but it was not significantly affected in PRD”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD nearly doubled irrigation water use efficiency relative to full irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“The irrigation water use efficiency of PRD trees increased to nearly twice that of FI.”
t0“orange trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend PRD as a deficit irrigation strategy in the region.
Verbatim
e0“we recommend PRD as an acceptable deficit irrigation strategy in the region.”
t0“orange trees”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: grain · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
irrigation · physiology: water · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →irrigation · growth · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · yield · Citrus sinensis (sweet orange)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.