Paper · 2026 · Agricultural Water Management

Short-term physiological recovery and yield response of hedgerow olive orchards after prolonged water stress

Marta Sánchez-Piñero; María José Martín-Palomo; Alfonso Moriana; et al.

10
claims
23
verbatim quotes
0
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The increase of drought periods implies that olive orchards could suffer severe water stress conditions for several years which could limit yield response when irrigation resumes. The aim of this work was to describe in olive trees the long-term effect of 4 years of drought on the first season of irrigation. The experiment was performed in Seville (Spain) during the 2024 season in a 6-year–old hedgerow olive orchard (cv Manzanilla de Sevilla). The irrigation treatments were: Control, full irrigation; Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI), with a period of water stress during pit hardening, and Recovery, irrigated as RDI after a four drought seasons. Several measurements of fruit development, water status and vegetative growth were determined. Water relations data suggested that Recovery trees had no physiological limitations due to the previous drought periods. The number of inflorescences was reduced in the Recovery treatment, but this was related to previous season conditions and was not a long-term effect. Recovery trees decreased yield amount but not quality, mainly because a crown volume lower than the Control at the beginning of the experiment. On the opposite, RDI presented the same yield as Control, with 47% less irrigation volume but similar crown volume. As a consequence, irrigation water productivity exhibited marked contrasts, with maximum values in RDI reaching 23.6 kg/m³ , better than the Control (13.4 kg/m³) and Recovery treatment (15.3 kg/m³). Maintain an optimum crown volume in period of drought would secure a fast recovery of yield when irrigation was resumed even with deficit amounts.

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

Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery trees showed no physiological limitation attributable to prior drought.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Material
Recovery treese0
Outcome
no physiological limitationse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Water relations data suggested that Recovery trees had no physiological limitations due to the previous drought periods”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–869 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery treatment reduced inflorescence number.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
Recovery treatmente0
Outcome
number of inflorescencese0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The number of inflorescences was reduced in the Recovery treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 871–937 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery trees had lower yield amount than Control.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
Recovery treese0
Outcome
yield amounte0
Direction
decreasede0
Qualifier
a crown volume lower than the Control at the beginning of the experimente0
Comparator
Controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery trees decreased yield amount but not quality, mainly because a crown volume lower than the Control at the beginning of the experiment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1164 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery trees had no reduction in quality.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
Recovery treese0
Outcome
qualitye0
Direction
not qualitye0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery trees decreased yield amount but not quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1075 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDI had the same yield as Control.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
RDIe0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
samee0
Comparator
Controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“RDI presented the same yield as Control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1222 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDI used 47% less irrigation volume than Control.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
RDIe0
Outcome
irrigation volumee0
Direction
lesse0
Value
47%e0
Comparator
Controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“RDI presented the same yield as Control, with 47% less irrigation volume”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1183–1255 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RDI attained maximum irrigation water productivity of 23.6 kg/m³.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
RDIe0
Outcome
irrigation water productivitye1
Direction
maximume0
Value
23.6 kg/m³e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maximum values in RDI reaching 23.6 kg/m³”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1363–1404 · show in text ↑
e1

“irrigation water productivity exhibited marked contrasts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1356 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control irrigation water productivity was 13.4 kg/m³.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
Controle0
Outcome
irrigation water productivitye1
Value
13.4 kg/m³e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Control (13.4 kg/m³)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1423–1443 · show in text ↑
e1

“irrigation water productivity exhibited marked contrasts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1356 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Recovery irrigation water productivity was 15.3 kg/m³.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Treatment
Recovery treatmente0
Outcome
irrigation water productivitye1
Value
15.3 kg/m³e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Recovery treatment (15.3 kg/m³)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1448–1479 · show in text ↑
e1

“irrigation water productivity exhibited marked contrasts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1356 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Maintaining optimum crown volume during drought would secure rapid yield recovery after irrigation resumes.

Taxon
oliveOlea europaeat0
Outcome
Maintain an optimum crown volume in period of droughte0
Qualifier
even with deficit amountse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Olea europaea
Olea europaea · TaxonHans Hillewaert · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Maintain an optimum crown volume in period of drought would secure a fast recovery of yield when irrigation was resumed even with deficit amounts”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1481–1626 · show in text ↑
t0

“olive orchards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 65–79 · show in text ↑

irrigation · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ

53 papers: 26 positive, 27 negative or no effect

26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

49 papers more in this group

See all 53 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.