Abstract
SummaryTree development, yield and quality characteristics of fresh fruit and oil were evaluated under different water regimes for ®ve years. The olive cultivars Ascolana Tenera, Kalamata, Nocellara del Belice, Maiatica and Itrana were tested in a factorial combination of four irrigation regimes: a rainfed control (T0) and three treatments (T1, T2, and T3) irrigated daily with a restitution of 33, 66, and 66% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc). In all years the lowest values of soil water content and xylem potential were detected in September and early October in T0, during the phenological phase of rapid enlargement of fruit cells, while values were near ®eld capacity during the irrigation season in treatment T3. Growth parameters such as canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned wood showed little differences between the rain-fed control and the lowest irrigation level and between treatment T2 and T3 while differences were evident between the control and treatment T2. Yield, fruit size, pulp-stone ratio and dry-matter content of fruit peaked at an irrigation depth of 66% of ETc, while higher volumes did not signi®cantly increase yield, suggesting that complete replacement of water loss by the crop is not recommended. Only `Kalamata' showed a higher yield of T3 over T2. Irrigation regimes did not affect the oil content calculated on dry-weight basis and the increase in oil per hectare was explained according to the increase in fruit dry matter content and number of fruit for `Kalamata'. The fatty acid composition, sugar and acid content of the oil were not affected by irrigation, while the total polyphenol decreased up to treatment T2. In the most irrigated treatment bitterness and pungency of the oil slightly decreased as compared with the rainfed control, while fruiting was unaffected by irrigation.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Yield, fruit size and pulp-stone ratio peaked at an irrigation depth of 66% of ETc.
- Taxon
- Olea europaea
Olea europaeat0 - Treatment
- irrigation depth of 66% of ETce1
- Outcome
- Yield, fruit size, pulp-stone ratioe1
- Direction
- peakede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e1“Yield, fruit size, pulp-stone ratio and dry-matter content of fruit peaked at an irrigation depth of 66% of ETc, while higher volumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Dry-matter content of fruit peaked at an irrigation depth of 66% of ETc.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- irrigation depth of 66% of ETce2
- Outcome
- dry-matter content of fruite2
- Direction
- peakede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e2“dry-matter content of fruit peaked at an irrigation depth of 66% of ETc”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher irrigation volumes did not significantly increase olive yield.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- higher volumese3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- did not signi®cantly increasee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e3“higher volumes did not signi®cantly increase yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Complete replacement of crop water loss is not recommended for olive.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- complete replacement of water loss by the crope4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e4“complete replacement of water loss by the crop is not recommended”
Claim · model-written summary
Only the cultivar Kalamata showed a higher yield under T3 than under T2.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Material
- Kalamatae5
- Treatment
- T3e5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- T2e5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e5“Only `Kalamata' showed a higher yield of T3 over T2”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation regimes did not affect oil content on a dry-weight basis.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- Irrigation regimese6
- Outcome
- oil contente6
- Direction
- did not affecte6
- Qualifier
- calculated on dry-weight basise6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e6“Irrigation regimes did not affect the oil content calculated on dry-weight basis”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in oil per hectare was explained by the increase in fruit dry matter content and number of fruit in Kalamata.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Material
- Kalamatae7
- Outcome
- oil per hectaree7
- Qualifier
- increase in fruit dry matter content and number of fruite7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e7“the increase in oil per hectare was explained according to the increase in fruit dry matter content and number of fruit for `Kalamata'”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not affect the fatty acid composition, sugar and acid content of the oil.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione2
- Outcome
- fatty acid composition, sugar and acid content of the oile2
- Direction
- not affectede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e2“The fatty acid composition, sugar and acid content of the oil were not affected by irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Total polyphenol decreased up to treatment T2.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatment T2e1
- Outcome
- total polyphenole1
- Direction
- decreasede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e1“the total polyphenol decreased up to treatment T2”
Claim · model-written summary
In the most irrigated treatment, bitterness and pungency of the oil slightly decreased compared with the rainfed control.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- the most irrigated treatmente1
- Outcome
- bitterness and pungency of the oile1
- Direction
- slightly decreasede1
- Comparator
- the rainfed controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e1“In the most irrigated treatment bitterness and pungency of the oil slightly decreased as compared with the rainfed control”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruiting was unaffected by irrigation.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- irrigatione1
- Outcome
- fruitinge1
- Direction
- unaffectede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e1“while fruiting was unaffected by irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned wood showed little differences between the rain-fed control and the lowest irrigation level.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- lowest irrigation levele2
- Outcome
- canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned woode2
- Direction
- little differencese2
- Comparator
- rain-fed controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e2“Growth parameters such as canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned wood showed little differences between the rain-fed control and the lowest irrigation level”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth parameters showed little differences between treatment T2 and T3.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatment T2e3
- Outcome
- Growth parameterse3
- Direction
- little differencese3
- Comparator
- T3e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e3“Growth parameters such as canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned wood showed little differences between the rain-fed control and the lowest irrigation level and between treatment T2 and T3”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth parameters differed between the control and treatment T2.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatment T2e4
- Outcome
- Growth parameterse4
- Direction
- differences were evidente4
- Comparator
- the controle4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e4“Growth parameters such as canopy, trunk cross section area and pruned wood showed little differences between the rain-fed control and the lowest irrigation level and between treatment T2 and T3 while differences were evident between the control and treatment T2”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest soil water content and xylem potential were detected in September and early October in T0.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Outcome
- soil water content and xylem potentiale5
- Direction
- lowest valuese5
- Qualifier
- in T0e5
- Setting
- September and early Octobere5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e5“the lowest values of soil water content and xylem potential were detected in September and early October in T0”
Claim · model-written summary
Values were near field capacity during the irrigation season in treatment T3.
- Taxon
- Olea europaeaOlea europaeat0
- Treatment
- treatment T3e6
- Outcome
- valuese6
- Qualifier
- ®eld capacitye6
- Setting
- irrigation seasone6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Olea europaea”
e6“values were near ®eld capacity during the irrigation season in treatment T3”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
40 papers more in this group
See all 44 papers →irrigation · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →irrigation · phenology · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · quality: oil · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →irrigation · quality: grain · Olea europaea (common olive)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.