Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Jul 22:11:1052.
doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.01052. eCollection 2020.

Innovative Soil Management and Micro-Climate Modulation for Saving Water in Peach Orchards

Affiliations

Innovative Soil Management and Micro-Climate Modulation for Saving Water in Peach Orchards

Pasquale Campi et al. Front Plant Sci. .

Abstract

Microclimatic and soil management studies emphasize that roofing above the canopy or soil mulching contributes to reduce water losses from horticultural cropping systems and, at the same time, to increase water use efficiency. The aim of this 2-year on-farm study, carried out on a late ripening peach (cv. California) orchard, was to investigate the combined effect of water supply (full or deficit irrigation, DI), incoming light (hail or shading net), and soil management (tilling or mulching) on: microclimate; fruit growth; yield; irrigation water use productivity (WPI); and soil water stress coefficient (Ks). Shading hail net reduced air temperature (-1°C), wind speed (-57%), solar radiation (-32%), while increased relative air humidity (+9.5%). Compared to the control treatment (hail net coverage, soil tillage, and full irrigation), the innovative management (DI + shading hail net + mulching) reduced seasonal volumes of irrigation water (-25%) and increased both final yield (+36%) and WPI (+53%). Saving water resources without losing yield is an achievable goal by peach orchards growing under the Mediterranean climate if the DI agro-technique is adopted conjointly with shading hail net and soil mulching.

Keywords: deficit irrigation; irrigation water productivity; mulching; shading hail net; soil stress coefficient.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Soil management (T, tillage; M, mulching) and vegetation roofing (H, ail net; S, shading net) at the experimental site.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Field capacity (fc) and wilting point (wp) detected in each treatment. Each bar represents the average of 3 samples + s.e. No letter indicates no significant differences according to Duncan test (P < 0.05).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trend of air temperature (min, max, and avg) and rain during two experimental seasons (2017–2018).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trend of daily agrometeorological data (T. air, air temperature; u, wind speed; RH, air relative humidity; Rs, solar radiation) measured from the weather station (out), under Hail (H) and Shading hail (S) nets during two seasons (2017 and 2018).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Trends of daily soil water content (SWC) during 2017 (A–D) and 2018 (E–H) observed on HMFI and HMDI (A–E), HTFI and HTDI (B–F), SMFI and SMDI (C–G), STFI and STDI (D–H) crop managements. The values of the field capacity (continuous line), readily available water threshold (dashed line), wilting point (dense dashed line) are also shown.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Daily variations of soil water content (SWC) during 2017 season at three depths (−0.1, −0.3 and −0.5 m) for HMFI (A) and HMDI (B) managements. The values of the field capacity (continuous line), readily available water threshold (dashed line), wilting point (dense dashed line) are also shown.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Trends of daily soil water stress coefficients (Ks) during 2017 (A–D) and 2018 (E–H) observed on HMFI and HMDI (A–E), HTFI and HTDI (B–F), SMFI and SMDI (C–G), STFI and STDI (D–H) crop managements.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Combined effects of Light regimes (H and S), Soil managements (T and M), Irrigation regimes (FI and DI) on standardized soil water stress coefficient (Ksst) for each season (2017 and 2018). Different letters indicate significant differences according to the Duncan’s test (P < 0.05).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Fruit volume (cm3; A, B) and Absolute Growth Rate (AGR, cm3 d−1; C, D) under Light regimes (H, gray line; S, black line) during fruit development (DAFB, days after full bloom) in 2017 and 2018. ** and * indicate a significant difference at P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively.
Figure 10
Figure 10
Yield (t ha−1; A) and fresh weight (g; B) under the two light regimes (Shading hail net vs Hail net); Irrigation Water Productivity (WPI, kg m−3) under the two light regimes (C) and the two water regimes (Deficit Irrigation vs Full Irrigation; D) in 2017 and 2018. Different letters indicate a significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 11
Figure 11
Relationship between yield and standardized soil water stress coefficient (Ksst) calculated for all treatments in two seasons (2017 and 2018).

References

    1. Abou Kheira A. A., Atta N. M. M. (2009). Response of Jatropa curcas L. to water deficit: yield, water use efficiency and oliseed characteristics. Biomass Bioenergy 33, 1343–1350. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.05.015 - DOI
    1. Abouatallah A., Salghi R., El Fadl A., Hammouti B., Zarrouk A., Atraoui A., et al. (2012). Shading hail-nets usefulness for water saving on Citrus orchards under different irrigation doses. Curr. World Environ. 7, 13–22. 10.12944/CWE.7.1.03 - DOI
    1. Allen R. G., Pereira L. S., Raes D., Smith M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration. Guide-lines for computing crop water requirements, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. (Rome, Italy: FAO; ).
    1. Allen M. R., Coninck H. D., Dube O. P., Hoegh-Guldberg O., Jacob D., Jiang K., et al. (2018). “Technical Summary,” in Global warming of 1.5°C : An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. Eds. Masson-Delmotte V., Zhai P., Pörtner H. O., Roberts D., Skea J., Shukla P. R., Pirani A., Moufouma-Okia W., Péan C., Pidcock R., Connors S., Matthews J. B. R., Chen Y., Zhou X., Gomis M., II, Lonnoy E., Maycock T., Tignor M., Waterfield T. (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; ), 27–46.
    1. Ballester C., Castel J., Jiménez-Bello M. A., Castel J. R., Intrigliolo D. S. (2013). Thermographic measurement of canopy temperature is a useful tool for predicting water deficit effects on fruit weight in citrus trees. Agric. Water Manage. 122, 1–6. 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.02.005 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources