Abstract
Efficient water use and irrigation water conservation with yield optimization are crucial for attaining water security in sustainable agriculture to fulfill the growing food demand of the overwhelming population. Meta-analyses were employed to assess the irrigation scheduling impact on fruit yield (Y), quality, and water use efficiency (WUE) of apples, peaches, and sweet cherries. The irrigation scheduling included were Moderate Deficit Irrigation (MDI; > 50 % ET and/or 50 % of the full irrigation (FI, 100 % ET or control)), Severe Deficit Irrigation (SDI;< 50 % irrigation or greater than 50 % reduction from FI), Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI: as stated in the experiments), Partial Rootzone Drying Irrigation (PRDI), Farmer Practiced Irrigation (FPI) and over-irrigation (OI). Treatments were compared with FI (100 % ET) or control with no water deficit. These treatments were analyzed across different moderators such as climate, soil, and cultivar. Meta-analysis indicated that irrigation scheduling across all treatments led to change in Y and WUE for in apple (Y = −15 % and WUE = 12 %), peach (Y = −13 % and WUE = 10 %), and sweet cherry (Y = 1 % and WUE = 14 %) Apple was affected the most by MDI (Y = −23 % and WUE = −15 %), SDI (Y = −25 %), RDI (Y = −10 % and WUE = 50 %), and OI (WUE = 25 %) followed by peach across MDI (Y = −14 % and WUE = 23 %), SDI (Y = −19 % and WUE = 5 %), RDI (Y = 18 % and WUE = 30 %), OI/FPI (Y= −11 %) while non-significant influence of SDI, MDI, RDI and PRDI on yield but improvement in WUE 14 %, 42 % and 50 % for SDI, MDI and RDI of sweet cherry was observed. Both OI and FPI influenced sweet cherry (Y = −10 % and WUE = −14 %). Across the climates, yield and WUE were affected more in arid climates followed by semi-arid, semi-humid, and humid climates. Across different soil types, the impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils. For example, in arid and semi-arid regions, increasing deficit irrigation (less water available) resulted in yield reduction and a decline in WUE for apples, followed by peaches. Yield reduction risk was smaller with higher WUE in finer-textured soil than the coarse-textured soil under deficit irrigation. Thus, irrigation scheduling effectiveness and yield reduction, along with WUE, can be optimized by consideration of deficit degree, climate, soil, species, and cultivar. and particularly plant hydraulic regulation behavior. Yield and WUE were highest for regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) in apple, peach, and sweet cherry. Our analysis suggests that RDI should be used to optimize yield and improve WUE under prevailing water scarcity. Note: Full irrigation (FI), over irrigation (OI), moderate deficit irrigation (MDI), severe deficit irrigation (SDI), regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) and partial rootzone drying irrigation (PRDI) • The yield and WUE of apple and peach were most affected by deficit irrigation and sweet cherry was least affected. • Irrigation scheduling efficacy is influenced by differences in climate, soil type, and cultivar. • Yield and WUE synergies and trade-offs depend on the extent of irrigation deficit, crop stage, cultivar, and environment. • Among the irrigation schedules, RDI enhanced the yield and WUE of crops across the moderators.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, apple yield changed by −15%.
- Taxon
- apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- Ye0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- −15 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Y = −15 % and WUE = 12 %)”
t0“apples”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, apple WUE changed by 12%.
- Taxon
- appleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 12 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“apple (Y = −15 % and WUE = 12 %)”
t0“apples”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, peach yield changed by −13%.
- Taxon
- peach
Prunus persicat0 - Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- Ye0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- −13 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“peach (Y = −13 % and WUE = 10 %)”
t0“peaches”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, peach WUE changed by 10%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 10 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“peach (Y = −13 % and WUE = 10 %)”
t0“peaches”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, sweet cherry yield changed by 1%.
- Taxon
- sweet cherry
Prunus aviume0 - Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- Ye0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 1 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sweet cherry (Y = 1 % and WUE = 14 %)”
t0“sweet cherries”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Across treatments, sweet cherry WUE changed by 14%.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviume0
- Treatment
- irrigation schedulinge1
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 14 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sweet cherry (Y = 1 % and WUE = 14 %)”
t0“sweet cherries”
e1“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple MDI changed yield by −23% and WUE by −15%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- MDIe0
- Outcome
- Y = −23 % and WUEe0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- −23 % and WUE = −15 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Apple was affected the most by MDI (Y = −23 % and WUE = −15 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple SDI changed yield by −25%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI (Y = −25 %)”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple RDI changed yield by −10% and WUE by 50%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- RDIe0
- Outcome
- Y = −10 % and WUEe0
- Value
- −10 % and WUE = 50 %e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDI (Y = −10 % and WUE = 50 %)”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple OI changed WUE by 25%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OI (WUE = 25 %)”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Peach MDI changed yield by −14% and WUE by 23%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicae0
- Treatment
- MDIe0
- Outcome
- Y = −14 % and WUEe0
- Value
- −14 % and WUE = 23 %e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“peach across MDI (Y = −14 % and WUE = 23 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Peach SDI changed yield by −19% and WUE by 5%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- SDIe0
- Outcome
- Y = −19 % and WUEe0
- Value
- −19 % and WUE = 5 %e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SDI (Y = −19 % and WUE = 5 %)”
t0“peaches”
Claim · model-written summary
Peach RDI changed yield by 18% and WUE by 30%.
- Taxon
- peachPrunus persicat0
- Treatment
- RDIe0
- Outcome
- Y = 18 % and WUEe0
- Direction
- increaseinferrede0
- Value
- 18 % and WUE = 30 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDI (Y = 18 % and WUE = 30 %)”
t0“peaches”
Claim · model-written summary
Peach OI or FPI changed yield by −11%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“OI/FPI (Y= −11 %)”
t0“peaches”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweet cherry MDI, SDI, RDI and PRDI did not significantly influence yield.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviume1
- Treatment
- SDI, MDI, RDI and PRDIe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- non-significante0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“non-significant influence of SDI, MDI, RDI and PRDI on yield”
t0“sweet cherries”
e1“sweet cherry (Y = 1 % and WUE = 14 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweet cherry WUE improved by 14%, 42%, and 50% under SDI, MDI, and RDI, respectively.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviume0
- Treatment
- SDI, MDI and RDIe0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Value
- 14 %, 42 % and 50 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improvement in WUE 14 %, 42 % and 50 % for SDI, MDI and RDI of sweet cherry”
Claim · model-written summary
Sweet cherry OI and FPI changed yield by −10% and WUE by −14%.
- Taxon
- sweet cherryPrunus aviume0
- Treatment
- OI and FPIe0
- Outcome
- Y = −10 % and WUEe0
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede0
- Value
- −10 % and WUE = −14 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both OI and FPI influenced sweet cherry (Y = −10 % and WUE = −14 %)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation scheduling effects differed significantly by soil type, greatest in sandy soil.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- impact of irrigation schedulinge0
- Direction
- differed significantlye0
- Setting
- sandy soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“impact of irrigation scheduling differed significantly for crops in sandy soil followed by silt, clay, and loam soils”
t0“apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing deficit irrigation reduced apple yield and WUE in arid and semi-arid regions.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticae0
- Treatment
- increasing deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yield reduction and a decline in WUEe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Setting
- arid and semi-arid regionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in arid and semi-arid regions, increasing deficit irrigation (less water available) resulted in yield reduction and a decline in WUE for apples”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggest RDI to optimize yield and WUE under water scarcity.
- Taxon
- applesMalus domesticat0
- Outcome
- optimize yield and improve WUEe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDI should be used to optimize yield and improve WUE under prevailing water scarcity”
t0“apples”
The same questions in other papers
processing · yield · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
irrigation · physiology: water · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · yield · Prunus avium (sweet cherry)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 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 →irrigation · physiology: water · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 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.