Abstract
The expansion of irrigated almond orchards in arid and semi-arid areas with scarce water available raises key issues related to the sustainability of the water resources. A 3-year field experiment was conducted on a commercial young almond orchard located in the southeast of Spain to study the effect of two drip irrigation systems (surface, DI and subsurface, SDI) on almond crop growth and their physiological responses under fully-irrigated conditions. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and its components (crop transpiration, Tc and soil evaporation, Es) were monitored as well as the irrigation water and nitrogen productivities. To estimate ETc, a simplified two-source energy balance (STSEB) approach was used. Although a lower irrigation water amount was applied in SDI compared to DI (differences between 10% and 13.8%), the almond crop growth and physiological responses as well as the yield components and kernel yield showed no significant differences. The ETc estimates resulted in small differences for spring and fall periods (0.1–0.2 mm day−1) for both treatments, while differences were significant during higher ETo periods (May–August), being 1.0–1.3 mm day−1 higher for the DI treatment than for the SDI treatment. The irrigation water productivity (IWP) was significantly higher in the SDI treatment than in the DI treatment. However, no significant differences between the two treatments were observed for nitrogen productivity. It can be concluded that the SDI system is a suitable strategy for irrigating almond crops, reducing consumptive water use and increasing IWP.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Subsurface drip irrigation used 10% to 13.8% less irrigation water than surface drip.
- Taxon
- almond
Prunus dulcist0 - Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- irrigation water amounte0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 10% and 13.8%e0
- Comparator
- DIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a lower irrigation water amount was applied in SDI compared to DI (differences between 10% and 13.8%)”
t0“Almond”
Claim · model-written summary
Almond growth and physiological responses did not differ significantly between irrigation systems.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcise0
- Treatment
- SDIt1
- Outcome
- crop growth and physiological responsese0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- DIt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the almond crop growth and physiological responses as well as the yield components and kernel yield showed no significant differences”
t0“Almond”
t1“surface, DI and subsurface, SDI”
Claim · model-written summary
Almond yield components and kernel yield did not differ significantly between irrigation systems.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcise0
- Treatment
- SDIt1
- Outcome
- yield components and kernel yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- DIt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the almond crop growth and physiological responses as well as the yield components and kernel yield showed no significant differences”
t0“Almond”
t1“surface, DI and subsurface, SDI”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring and fall ETc estimates differed by 0.1–0.2 mm day−1 across irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcist0
- Outcome
- ETc estimatese0
- Value
- 0.1–0.2 mm day−1e0
- Qualifier
- spring and fall periodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ETc estimates resulted in small differences for spring and fall periods (0.1–0.2 mm day−1) for both treatments”
t0“Almond”
Claim · model-written summary
From May to August, DI ETc was 1.0–1.3 mm day−1 higher than SDI ETc.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcist0
- Treatment
- DI treatmente0
- Outcome
- ETc estimatese1
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.0–1.3 mm day−1e0
- Comparator
- SDI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“differences were significant during higher ETo periods (May–August), being 1.0–1.3 mm day−1 higher for the DI treatment than for the SDI treatment”
t0“Almond”
e1“The ETc estimates resulted in small differences for spring and fall periods (0.1–0.2 mm day−1) for both treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation water productivity was significantly higher under SDI than DI.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcist0
- Treatment
- SDI treatmente0
- Outcome
- irrigation water productivity (IWP)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- DI treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The irrigation water productivity (IWP) was significantly higher in the SDI treatment than in the DI treatment”
t0“Almond”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen productivity did not differ significantly between SDI and DI.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcist0
- Treatment
- SDIt1
- Outcome
- nitrogen productivitye0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- DIt1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences between the two treatments were observed for nitrogen productivity”
t0“Almond”
t1“surface, DI and subsurface, SDI”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend SDI for almond irrigation to reduce consumptive water use and increase IWP.
- Taxon
- almondPrunus dulcise0
- Treatment
- SDI systeme0
- Outcome
- suitable strategy for irrigating almond cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the SDI system is a suitable strategy for irrigating almond crops, reducing consumptive water use and increasing IWP”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Prunus dulcis (almond)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Prunus dulcis (almond)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →irrigation · yield · Prunus dulcis (almond)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 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.