Abstract
Irrigation is one of the most important means of increasing olive oil production but little information exists on the responses of olive to variable water supply. Five different irrigation strategies, full irrigation, rain fed, and three deficit irrigation treatments were compared from 1996 to 1999, in Cordoba, southern Spain, to characterize the response of a mature olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual') orchard to irrigation. Crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) varied from less than 500 mm in the rain fed to ≈900 mm under full irrigation. The deficit irrigation treatments had ET c values that ranged from 60% to 80% of full ET c depending on the year and treatment. Water relations, and oil content and trunk growth measurements allowed for the interpretation of yield responses to water deficits. In a deficit irrigation treatment that concentrated all its ET c deficit in the summer, stem water potential (Ψ x ) decreased to -7 MPa but recovered quickly in the fall, while in the treatment that applied the same ET deficit progressively, Ψ x was never below -3.8 MPa. Minimum Ψ x in the rain fed treatment reached -8 MPa. Yield (Y) responses as a function of ET c were calculated for biennial yield data, given the alternate bearing habit of the olive; the equation are: Y = -16.84 + 0.063 ET -0.035 × 10 -3 ET 2 , and Y = -2.78 + 0.011 ET - 0.006 × 10 -3 ET 2 , for fruit and oil production respectively, with responses to ET deficits being similar for sustained and regulated deficit irrigation. The yield response to a deficit treatment that was fully irrigated during the bearing year and rain fed in the nonbearing year, was less favorable than that observed in the other two deficit treatments.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Rain-fed olive had evapotranspiration below 500 mm, versus about 900 mm under full irrigation.
- Taxon
- olive
Olea europaeae1 - Material
- Picuale1
- Treatment
- rain fede0
- Outcome
- Crop evapotranspiration (ET c )e0
- Direction
- variede0
- Value
- less than 500 mme0
- Qualifier
- ≈900 mme0
- Comparator
- full irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) varied from less than 500 mm in the rain fed to ≈900 mm under full irrigation”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation produced evapotranspiration of 60% to 80% of full evapotranspiration.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- deficit irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- ET c valuese0
- Direction
- rangede0
- Value
- 60% to 80%e0
- Comparator
- full ET ce0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The deficit irrigation treatments had ET c values that ranged from 60% to 80% of full ET c depending on the year and treatment”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer-concentrated deficit irrigation reduced stem water potential to -7 MPa, with quick fall recovery.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- deficit irrigation treatment that concentrated all its ET c deficit in the summere0
- Outcome
- stem water potential (Ψ x )e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- -7 MPae0
- Qualifier
- recovered quickly in the falle0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a deficit irrigation treatment that concentrated all its ET c deficit in the summer, stem water potential (Ψ x ) decreased to -7 MPa but recovered quickly in the fall”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Progressive deficit irrigation kept stem water potential above -3.8 MPa.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- treatment that applied the same ET deficit progressivelye0
- Outcome
- Ψ xe0
- Direction
- never belowe0
- Value
- -3.8 MPae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“treatment that applied the same ET deficit progressively, Ψ x was never below -3.8 MPa”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Rain-fed olive reached a minimum stem water potential of -8 MPa.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- rain fed treatmente0
- Outcome
- Minimum Ψ xe0
- Value
- -8 MPae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Minimum Ψ x in the rain fed treatment reached -8 MPa”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit production responds to evapotranspiration according to the reported quadratic equation.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Outcome
- fruite0
- Qualifier
- Y = -16.84 + 0.063 ET -0.035 × 10 -3 ET 2e0
- Comparator
- oil productione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Y = -16.84 + 0.063 ET -0.035 × 10 -3 ET 2 , and Y = -2.78 + 0.011 ET - 0.006 × 10 -3 ET 2 , for fruit and oil production respectively”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Oil production responds to evapotranspiration according to the reported quadratic equation.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Outcome
- oil productione0
- Qualifier
- Y = -2.78 + 0.011 ET - 0.006 × 10 -3 ET 2e0
- Comparator
- fruite0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Y = -16.84 + 0.063 ET -0.035 × 10 -3 ET 2 , and Y = -2.78 + 0.011 ET - 0.006 × 10 -3 ET 2 , for fruit and oil production respectively”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Sustained and regulated deficit irrigation had similar yield responses to evapotranspiration deficits.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Outcome
- responses to ET deficitse0
- Comparator
- sustained and regulated deficit irrigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responses to ET deficits being similar for sustained and regulated deficit irrigation”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation in bearing years and rain-fed management in nonbearing years yielded a less favorable response than the other two deficit treatments.
- Taxon
- oliveOlea europaeae1
- Treatment
- fully irrigated during the bearing year and rain fed in the nonbearing yeare0
- Outcome
- yield responsee0
- Direction
- less favorablee0
- Comparator
- other two deficit treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield response to a deficit treatment that was fully irrigated during the bearing year and rain fed in the nonbearing year, was less favorable than that observed in the other two deficit treatments”
e1“olive ( Olea europaea L. `Picual')”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →rainfall · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Olea europaea (common olive)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 →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.