Abstract
The Mediterranean basin is characterized by severe water scarcity. In some locations, such the north coast of Egypt, with very arid conditions, olive trees are the only option for growers, and can be grown only in irrigated lands. Water availability in these orchards is very limited, and severe deficit irrigation should be scheduled under conditions of high evaporative demand. The aim of this work was to establish the response of fruit set and fruit growth to deficit irrigation. Three deficit irrigation strategies were compared with growers' irrigation in a 10-year-old, 6.4×4.7 m 'Picual' orchard over two consecutive seasons. All treatments used the same amount of water over the season. One of the treatments adjusted the irrigation season in order to apply around 50% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) over the whole season (T1). In the other treatments, irrigation was provided only during full bloom and fruit set (T2) or in this period and at the beginning of oil accumulation (only 2 weeks) (T3). Finally, growers irrigated over all the season with the amount of water available (T4). During 2009, fruit set was significantly higher in T2 and T3 than in T1 and T4. Fruit growth was also significantly reduced in T4, but not clearly in the rest of treatments. Yield pattern was similar to fruit set. In the 2010 season, there were no significant differences in fruit set or fruit growth. Yield was significantly reduced in T4 with respect to the rest. Influence of irrigation scheduling is discussed.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
In 2009 T2 and T3 had significantly higher fruit set than T1 and T4.
- Taxon
- olive trees
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- T2 and T3e0
- Outcome
- fruit sete0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- T1 and T4e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During 2009, fruit set was significantly higher in T2 and T3 than in T1 and T4.”
t0“olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2009 T4 significantly reduced fruit growth.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- T4e0
- Outcome
- Fruit growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- rest of treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fruit growth was also significantly reduced in T4, but not clearly in the rest of treatments.”
t0“olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2009 yield pattern resembled fruit set.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- Yield patterne0
- Comparator
- fruit sete0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield pattern was similar to fruit set.”
t0“olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010 fruit set did not differ significantly among schedules.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigation strategiese1
- Outcome
- fruit sete0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- growers' irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 2010 season, there were no significant differences in fruit set or fruit growth.”
e1“Three deficit irrigation strategies were compared with growers' irrigation”
t0“olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010 fruit growth did not differ significantly among schedules.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigation strategiese1
- Outcome
- fruit growthe0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- growers' irrigatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the 2010 season, there were no significant differences in fruit set or fruit growth.”
e1“Three deficit irrigation strategies were compared with growers' irrigation”
t0“olive trees”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010 T4 significantly reduced yield relative to the other schedules.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was significantly reduced in T4 with respect to the rest.”
t0“olive trees”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 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.