Abstract
A study was done to determine the effects of irrigation method and level of water application on yield and fruit quality of 'Elliott' highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.). Plants were grown on mulched, raised beds and irrigated by overhead sprinklers, microsprays, or drip at 50, 100, and 150% of the crop evapotranspiration requirement (ETc). Overall, marketable yield and individual berry weight were higher in plants irrigated by drip than in those irrigated by sprinklers and microsprays. Yield and berry weight were also higher on average when plants were irrigated at 100% ETc than at 50% ETc but were similar between plants irrigated at 100% and 150% ETc. Thus, as expected, plants were generally under-irrigated at 50% ETc and over-irrigated at 150% ETc; however, this was not always the case. Yield did not increase between 50% and 100% ETc when plants were irrigated by drip, and berry weight increased from 100% to 150% ETc when plants were irrigated by microsprays. Interestingly, drip reduced berry firmness and soluble solids relative to sprinkler and microspray irrigation, potentially increasing problems with soft fruit during shipping and storage. Titratable acidity was also lower with drip but only when plants were irrigated at 50% ETc. While irrigation method and the amount of water application affected yield and fruit quality in blueberry, more work is needed to identify the best combinations of each to produce the most marketable fruit.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation increased marketable yield relative to sprinklers and microsprays.
Verbatim
e0“marketable yield and individual berry weight were higher in plants irrigated by drip than in those irrigated by sprinklers and microsprays.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation increased berry weight relative to sprinklers and microsprays.
Verbatim
e0“marketable yield and individual berry weight were higher in plants irrigated by drip than in those irrigated by sprinklers and microsprays.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and berry weight averaged higher at 100% ETc than 50% ETc.
Verbatim
e0“Yield and berry weight were also higher on average when plants were irrigated at 100% ETc than at 50% ETc but were similar between plants irrigated at 100% and 150% ETc.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and berry weight were similar at 100% and 150% ETc.
Verbatim
e0“Yield and berry weight were also higher on average when plants were irrigated at 100% ETc than at 50% ETc but were similar between plants irrigated at 100% and 150% ETc.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigated yield did not increase from 50% to 100% ETc.
Verbatim
e0“Yield did not increase between 50% and 100% ETc when plants were irrigated by drip”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry weight rose between 100% and 150% ETc with microsprays.
Verbatim
e0“berry weight increased from 100% to 150% ETc when plants were irrigated by microsprays.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip reduced berry firmness and soluble solids relative to other methods.
Verbatim
e0“drip reduced berry firmness and soluble solids relative to sprinkler and microspray irrigation”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip lowered titratable acidity at 50% ETc.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Titratable acidity was also lower with drip but only when plants were irrigated at 50% ETc.”
t0“HIGHBUSH BLUEBERRY”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VacciniumPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
irrigation · yield · VacciniumResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.