Abstract
New peach orchards in the southeastern United States are often not irrigated until 3 or 4 years after planting. During those years, the only water comes from rainfall. Droughts in the region are becoming more common, making irrigation more important. At the same time, fertilization practices follow recommendations developed decades ago and may not be optimal for current production practices. This research aimed to investigate the effect of different irrigation and fertilization practices on young ‘Julyprince’ trees grafted onto ‘Guardian™’ rootstock. The treatments consisted of irrigated vs. nonirrigated trees, drip- vs. microsprinkler-irrigated trees, and four different fertilizer levels (25%, 50%, 100%, and 200%; with 100% = current fertilizer recommendations). Responses to the treatments varied by year. In 2016, below-average rainfall (severe drought as classified by the U.S. Drought Monitor) was recorded throughout the year. This severe drought reduced the growth of nonirrigated trees compared with irrigated trees (average reductions of 56% in canopy volume, 39% in trunk cross-sectional area, 39% in leaf and stem water potential, and 40% in leaf photosynthesis). The adverse effects on tree growth and physiological responses of the 2016 season carried over to 2017, which was characterized by a short period of below-average rainfall in early spring. Nonirrigated trees displayed advanced budbreak progression; reduced commercial yield (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree for nonirrigated vs. irrigated trees); and smaller trunk cross-sectional area (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3 ) compared with irrigated trees. In 2018, rainfall was like the historical average throughout the year. Major differences continued to be trunk cross-sectional area (103.4 vs. 126.7 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (15.8 vs. 17.8 m 3 ), with nonirrigated trees being smaller than irrigated trees. No major or consistent differences were found between drip vs. microsprinkler irrigation or among fertilizer levels during the 3 years of the experiment. During the first years of orchard establishments, irrigation resulted in increased plant growth, commercial yield, and superior water status (higher values of water potential) compared with no irrigation, especially when rainfall was below the historical average. Although no major differences were found between the irrigation systems, drip irrigation used 35% less water than microsprinkler irrigation. While different fertilizer levels did not induce major differences in young trees’ growth and yield, potential economic savings and long-term effects of reduced fertilizer applications are being monitored as trees mature.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced canopy volume of nonirrigated peach trees, on average by 56 per cent relative to irrigated trees
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- nonirrigatede1
- Outcome
- canopy volumee1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 56%e1
- Qualifier
- severe droughte1
- Comparator
- irrigated treese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This severe drought reduced the growth of nonirrigated trees compared with irrigated trees (average reductions of 56% in canopy volume, 39% in trunk cross-sectional area, 39% in leaf and stem water potential, and 40% in leaf photosynthesis)”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced trunk cross-sectional area of nonirrigated peach trees by 39 per cent relative to irrigated trees
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- nonirrigatede1
- Outcome
- trunk cross-sectional areae1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 39%e1
- Qualifier
- severe droughte1
- Comparator
- irrigated treese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This severe drought reduced the growth of nonirrigated trees compared with irrigated trees (average reductions of 56% in canopy volume, 39% in trunk cross-sectional area, 39% in leaf and stem water potential, and 40% in leaf photosynthesis)”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced leaf and stem water potential of nonirrigated peach trees by 39 per cent relative to irrigated trees
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- nonirrigatede1
- Outcome
- leaf and stem water potentiale1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 39%e1
- Qualifier
- severe droughte1
- Comparator
- irrigated treese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This severe drought reduced the growth of nonirrigated trees compared with irrigated trees (average reductions of 56% in canopy volume, 39% in trunk cross-sectional area, 39% in leaf and stem water potential, and 40% in leaf photosynthesis)”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe drought reduced leaf photosynthesis of nonirrigated peach trees by 40 per cent relative to irrigated trees
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- nonirrigatede1
- Outcome
- leaf photosynthesise1
- Direction
- reductionse1
- Value
- 40%e1
- Qualifier
- severe droughte1
- Comparator
- irrigated treese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This severe drought reduced the growth of nonirrigated trees compared with irrigated trees (average reductions of 56% in canopy volume, 39% in trunk cross-sectional area, 39% in leaf and stem water potential, and 40% in leaf photosynthesis)”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees showed advanced budbreak progression in 2017
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Nonirrigated treese2
- Outcome
- budbreak progressione2
- Direction
- advancede2
- Comparator
- irrigated treese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Nonirrigated trees displayed advanced budbreak progression; reduced commercial yield (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree for nonirrigated vs. irrigated trees); and smaller trunk cross-sectional area (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3 ) compared with irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees had reduced commercial yield in 2017 (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Nonirrigated treese2
- Outcome
- commercial yielde2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/treee2
- Comparator
- irrigated treese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Nonirrigated trees displayed advanced budbreak progression; reduced commercial yield (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree for nonirrigated vs. irrigated trees); and smaller trunk cross-sectional area (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3 ) compared with irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees had smaller trunk cross-sectional area in 2017 (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm2)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Nonirrigated treese2
- Outcome
- trunk cross-sectional areae2
- Direction
- smallere2
- Value
- 54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2e2
- Comparator
- irrigated treese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Nonirrigated trees displayed advanced budbreak progression; reduced commercial yield (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree for nonirrigated vs. irrigated trees); and smaller trunk cross-sectional area (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3 ) compared with irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees had smaller canopy volume in 2017 (8.9 vs. 10.9 m3)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- Nonirrigated treese2
- Outcome
- canopy volumee2
- Direction
- smallere2
- Value
- 8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3e2
- Comparator
- irrigated treese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Nonirrigated trees displayed advanced budbreak progression; reduced commercial yield (10.9 vs. 13.4 kg/tree for nonirrigated vs. irrigated trees); and smaller trunk cross-sectional area (54.0 vs. 70.1 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (8.9 vs. 10.9 m 3 ) compared with irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees had smaller trunk cross-sectional area in 2018 (103.4 vs. 126.7 cm2)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- nonirrigated treese3
- Outcome
- trunk cross-sectional areae3
- Direction
- smallere3
- Value
- 103.4 vs. 126.7 cm 2e3
- Comparator
- irrigated treese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Major differences continued to be trunk cross-sectional area (103.4 vs. 126.7 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (15.8 vs. 17.8 m 3 ), with nonirrigated trees being smaller than irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Nonirrigated peach trees had smaller canopy volume in 2018 (15.8 vs. 17.8 m3)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- nonirrigated treese3
- Outcome
- canopy volumee3
- Direction
- smallere3
- Value
- 15.8 vs. 17.8 m 3e3
- Comparator
- irrigated treese3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Major differences continued to be trunk cross-sectional area (103.4 vs. 126.7 cm 2 ) and canopy volume (15.8 vs. 17.8 m 3 ), with nonirrigated trees being smaller than irrigated trees”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip and microsprinkler irrigation did not differ consistently in peach trees over three years
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- dripe4
- Outcome
- major or consistent differencese4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- microsprinklere4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“No major or consistent differences were found between drip vs. microsprinkler irrigation or among fertilizer levels during the 3 years of the experiment”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer levels did not produce consistent differences in peach trees over three years
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- fertilizer levelse4
- Outcome
- major or consistent differencese4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“No major or consistent differences were found between drip vs. microsprinkler irrigation or among fertilizer levels during the 3 years of the experiment”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation used 35 per cent less water than microsprinkler irrigation in peach trees
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- drip irrigatione5
- Outcome
- watere5
- Direction
- lesse5
- Value
- 35%e5
- Comparator
- microsprinkler irrigatione5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Although no major differences were found between the irrigation systems, drip irrigation used 35% less water than microsprinkler irrigation”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased plant growth and commercial yield of young peach trees compared with no irrigation, especially in drought years
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione6
- Outcome
- plant growth, commercial yielde6
- Direction
- increasede6
- Qualifier
- especially when rainfall was below the historical averagee6
- Comparator
- no irrigatione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“During the first years of orchard establishments, irrigation resulted in increased plant growth, commercial yield, and superior water status (higher values of water potential) compared with no irrigation, especially when rainfall was below the historical average”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation gave superior water status in young peach trees compared with no irrigation (higher water potential)
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione6
- Outcome
- water statuse6
- Direction
- superiore6
- Qualifier
- higher values of water potentiale6
- Comparator
- no irrigatione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“During the first years of orchard establishments, irrigation resulted in increased plant growth, commercial yield, and superior water status (higher values of water potential) compared with no irrigation, especially when rainfall was below the historical average”
t0“Young Peach Trees”
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
- no effect
- no effect
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Prunus persica (peach)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 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.