Abstract
Sustainability of olive production is possible by adopting the modern techniques of irrigation and fertilization. In Tunisia, olive trees are usually cultivated in poor soils, under semi-arid conditions characterized by water scarcity. This study investigated the effects of different water supply and fertilization on leaf water status and crop yield of three different olive oil varieties cultivated in central Tunisia, during four experimental seasons (2014–2017). Three treatments were examined: trees conducted under rainfed conditions (TRF), which represented the control treatment, trees irrigated with 50% ETc (T50) and, finally, trees irrigated with 50% ETc and with additional fertilization (T50F). Leaf water content and potential, yield and water use efficiency have been monitored on three different varieties, Chetoui, Chemlali, and Koroneiki, which are quite typical in the considered region. For all the growing seasons, midday leaf water potentials were measured from April to September. Midday leaf water potentials (MLWP) were generally higher for the two irrigated treatments (T50 and T50F) than for non-irrigated trees (TRF). As the season proceeded, MLWPs tended to decrease during summer for all the treatments and varieties. The lowest values were observed for the non-irrigated trees, varying between −3.25 MPa to −4.75 MPa. Relative leaf water content followed the same trends of midday leaf water potentials. Chetoui showed the lowest yield, which did not exceed 1530 Kg/(ha year), even for irrigated and fertilized trees. On the other hand, the yields of Chemlali and Koroneiki, cumulated in the four years, reached the maximum value of about 20 tons/ha. For these two varieties, the cumulated yield obtained in the control treatment (TRF) resulted significantly lower than the corresponding of the other two treatments (T50 and T50F). The highest irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) was estimated for Chemlali (T50) and (TRF). WUE was equal to 1.22 Kg/m3 for Koroneiki under fertigated treatment (T50F). Application of the only water supply (50% ETc) or associated with fertilizer improved the tree water status and increased the productivity of Chemlali and Koroneiki varieties.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Midday leaf water potentials of olive trees were generally higher under the two irrigated treatments (T50 and T50F) than in non-irrigated trees (TRF).
- Taxon
- olive trees
Olea europaeae0 - Treatment
- the two irrigated treatments (T50 and T50F)e1
- Outcome
- Midday leaf water potentialse1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- non-irrigated trees (TRF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“Midday leaf water potentials (MLWP) were generally higher for the two irrigated treatments (T50 and T50F) than for non-irrigated trees (TRF)”
Claim · model-written summary
Midday leaf water potentials of olive trees tended to decrease during summer as the season proceeded, for all treatments and varieties.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Outcome
- MLWPse1
- Direction
- decreasee1
- Qualifier
- during summer for all the treatments and varietiese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“As the season proceeded, MLWPs tended to decrease during summer for all the treatments and varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest midday leaf water potentials were observed in the non-irrigated olive trees, ranging from -3.25 MPa to -4.75 MPa.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Outcome
- Midday leaf water potentialse1
- Direction
- loweste2
- Value
- −3.25 MPa to −4.75 MPae2
- Qualifier
- non-irrigated treese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“Midday leaf water potentials (MLWP)”
e2“The lowest values were observed for the non-irrigated trees, varying between −3.25 MPa to −4.75 MPa”
Claim · model-written summary
Relative leaf water content of olive trees followed the same trends as midday leaf water potentials.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Outcome
- Relative leaf water contente1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“Relative leaf water content followed the same trends of midday leaf water potentials”
Claim · model-written summary
Chetoui showed the lowest yield, not exceeding 1530 Kg/(ha year) even for irrigated and fertilized trees.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Material
- Chetouie1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Value
- 1530 Kg/(ha year)e1
- Qualifier
- even for irrigated and fertilized treese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“Chetoui showed the lowest yield, which did not exceed 1530 Kg/(ha year), even for irrigated and fertilized trees”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield of Chemlali, cumulated over the four years, reached a maximum of about 20 tons/ha.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Material
- Chemlalie1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- about 20 tons/hae1
- Qualifier
- cumulated in the four yearse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“the yields of Chemlali and Koroneiki, cumulated in the four years, reached the maximum value of about 20 tons/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield of Koroneiki, cumulated over the four years, reached a maximum of about 20 tons/ha.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Material
- Koroneikie1
- Outcome
- yieldse1
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- about 20 tons/hae1
- Qualifier
- cumulated in the four yearse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“the yields of Chemlali and Koroneiki, cumulated in the four years, reached the maximum value of about 20 tons/ha”
Claim · model-written summary
For Chemlali and Koroneiki, cumulated yield in the rainfed control (TRF) was significantly lower than in the two treatments T50 and T50F.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Treatment
- the other two treatments (T50 and T50F)e1
- Outcome
- cumulated yielde1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Qualifier
- For these two varietiese1
- Comparator
- the control treatment (TRF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“For these two varieties, the cumulated yield obtained in the control treatment (TRF) resulted significantly lower than the corresponding of the other two treatments (T50 and T50F)”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest irrigation water use efficiency was estimated for Chemlali under T50 and TRF.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Material
- Chemlalie1
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Qualifier
- (T50) and (TRF)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“The highest irrigation water use efficiency (WUE) was estimated for Chemlali (T50) and (TRF)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was 1.22 Kg/m3 for Koroneiki under the fertigated treatment T50F.
- Taxon
- olive treesOlea europaeae0
- Material
- Koroneikie1
- Treatment
- fertigated treatment (T50F)e1
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 1.22 Kg/m3e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“olive trees”
e1“WUE was equal to 1.22 Kg/m3 for Koroneiki under fertigated treatment (T50F)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.