Abstract
Productive and vegetative tree responses were analyzed during 3 consecutive years in peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell] plots subjected to three regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) strategies plus a control irrigation treatment. A postharvest RDI treatment (RDI-P) was irrigated at 0.35 of control after harvest. A Stage II RDI treatment (RDI-SII) was irrigated at 0.5 of control during the lag phase of the fruit growth curve. The third treatment (RDI-SII-P) applied RDI during Stage II at 0.5 of control and postharvest at 0.35 of control. The control treatment, like RDI-P and RDI-SII-P when not receiving RDI, was irrigated at 100% of a water budget irrigation scheduling in 1994 and 1996, full crop years, and 80% of the budget in 1995, an off year with a very small crop. A carry-over effect of deficit irrigation was highly significant in all parameters measured during the third year of the experiment. The general effect of water stress during Stage II did not affect return bloom and fruit set, whereas water stress during postharvest apparently reduced both parameters. As a consequence, fruit counts and fruit load manifested marked differences between treatments, which were also correlated to changes in fruit size. The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size. Vegetative growth (shoot elongation and trunk cross sectional area) was significantly reduced during the first 2 years of the experiment in accordance with the amount of the irrigation reduction. However, in 1996 growth was strongly governed by fruit load. The use of RDI-SII-P represented an intermediate cropping effect between the opposite bearing behavior of RDI-SII and RDI-P, while not expecting distinctive fruit yield or size reductions and offering remarkable water savings of 22% of the control applied water.
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
A carry-over effect of deficit irrigation was highly significant for all parameters measured in the third year in peach.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicae1 - Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione3
- Outcome
- all parameters measurede3
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e3“A carry-over effect of deficit irrigation was highly significant in all parameters measured during the third year of the experiment”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress during Stage II did not affect return bloom and fruit set in peach.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- water stress during Stage IIe4
- Outcome
- return bloom and fruit sete4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e4“The general effect of water stress during Stage II did not affect return bloom and fruit set, whereas water stress during postharvest apparently reduced both parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress during postharvest apparently reduced return bloom and fruit set in peach.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- water stress during postharveste4
- Outcome
- return bloom and fruit sete4
- Direction
- reducede4
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e4“The general effect of water stress during Stage II did not affect return bloom and fruit set, whereas water stress during postharvest apparently reduced both parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit counts and fruit load differed markedly between irrigation treatments in peach.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Outcome
- fruit counts and fruit loade5
Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e5“As a consequence, fruit counts and fruit load manifested marked differences between treatments, which were also correlated to changes in fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit counts and fruit load were correlated with changes in fruit size in peach.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- fruit loade5
- Outcome
- fruit sizee5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e5“As a consequence, fruit counts and fruit load manifested marked differences between treatments, which were also correlated to changes in fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation significantly reduced vegetative growth (shoot elongation and trunk cross-sectional area) of peach during the first 2 years, in accordance with the amount of irrigation reduction.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- irrigation reductione6
- Outcome
- shoot elongation and trunk cross sectional areae6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Qualifier
- during the first 2 yearse6
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e6“Vegetative growth (shoot elongation and trunk cross sectional area) was significantly reduced during the first 2 years of the experiment in accordance with the amount of the irrigation reduction”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1996 peach growth was strongly governed by fruit load.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e7“However, in 1996 growth was strongly governed by fruit load”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-II had the highest fruit yield among the peach irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-IIe0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e0“The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-II had the smallest fruit size among the peach irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-IIe0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- smalleste0
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e0“The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-P had the lowest fruit yield among the peach irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-Pe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e0“The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-P had the largest fruit size among the peach irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-Pe0
- Outcome
- fruit sizee0
- Direction
- largeste0
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e0“The RDI-II, which had the highest fruit yield, also had the smallest fruit size, whereas RDI-P manifested the lowest yield and largest fruit size”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-SII-P gave an intermediate cropping effect in peach, between the opposite bearing behaviour of RDI-SII and RDI-P.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-SII-Pe0
- Outcome
- cropping effecte0
- Direction
- intermediatee0
- Comparator
- RDI-SII and RDI-Pe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e0“The use of RDI-SII-P represented an intermediate cropping effect between the opposite bearing behavior of RDI-SII and RDI-P”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-SII-P was not expected to cause distinctive reductions in peach fruit yield or size.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-SII-Pe0
- Outcome
- fruit yield or sizee3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- control irrigation treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e2“plus a control irrigation treatment”
e0“The use of RDI-SII-P represented an intermediate cropping effect between the opposite bearing behavior of RDI-SII and RDI-P”
e3“while not expecting distinctive fruit yield or size reductions”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI-SII-P offered water savings of 22% of the control applied water in peach.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae1
- Material
- Sudanelle1
- Treatment
- RDI-SII-Pe0
- Outcome
- water savingse4
- Value
- 22%e4
- Comparator
- controle4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“peach [ Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Sudanell]”
e0“The use of RDI-SII-P represented an intermediate cropping effect between the opposite bearing behavior of RDI-SII and RDI-P”
e4“offering remarkable water savings of 22% of the control applied water”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Results differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- positive
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →drought · yield · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.