Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (1)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Fragariax ananassa

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
23 pages, 4343 KiB  
Article
Yield and Fruit Quality of Strawberry Cultivars under Different Irrigation Regimes
by María Teresa Ariza, Luis Miranda, José Antonio Gómez-Mora, Juan Jesús Medina, David Lozano, Pedro Gavilán, Carmen Soria and Elsa Martínez-Ferri
Agronomy 2021, 11(2), 261; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020261 - 30 Jan 2021
Cited by 27 | Viewed by 6740
Abstract
Strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duch.) production requires the input of large amounts of water provided by irrigation during the entire production cycle. However, water availability is shrinking in many important strawberry cropping areas, such as Huelva (in Europe), compromising the environmental sustainability [...] Read more.
Strawberry (Fragaria×ananassa Duch.) production requires the input of large amounts of water provided by irrigation during the entire production cycle. However, water availability is shrinking in many important strawberry cropping areas, such as Huelva (in Europe), compromising the environmental sustainability and economic viability of strawberry production. Besides technical approaches, water-saving strategies are necessary for improving strawberry water productivity such as the use of low water-consumptive cultivars with high productivity or cultivars allowing deficit irrigation (DI) strategies. A two-year field experiment was conducted to compare the physiological and agronomical response of six commercial strawberry cultivars (‘Sabrina’, ‘Fortuna’, ‘Splendor’, ‘Primoris’, ‘Rabida’ and ‘Rociera’) to six different water treatments ranging from 65% to 140% of estimated ‘Sabrina’ evapotranspiration (ETcSab; ~224–510 mm year−1). Cultivars differed substantially in yield and water consumption linked to their biomass partitioning into reproductive/ vegetative organs, determining different yield efficiency (YE). Their water needs (IN) conditioned their response to different water supplies, involving significant yield losses in DI treatments (<20% IN) but not decreasing fruit quality. The highly-consumptive and productive ‘Rabida’ and ‘Rociera’, reduced yields by DI (<40%) but were still profitable; the low-water-consumptive but still productive ‘Fortuna’, ‘Splendor’ and ‘Primoris’ represent significant water-savings (<20%) in strawberry cultivation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Monthly values of (<b>a</b>) mean, maximal (squares line patterns) and minimum (diamonds line patterns) temperature, (<b>b</b>) solar irradiance, (<b>c</b>) vapor pressure deficit (VPD) and potential evapotranspiration (ET<sub>0green</sub>; triangles line patterns) under the macro-tunnel during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 cropping season. Vertical bars represent the average (±SE).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Variation of soil water content measured by 10HS probes on the top 15 and 30 cm of the T120 water treatment during (<b>a</b>) 2016–2017 in ‘Fortuna’ (T120-FOR15 and T120-FOR30) and ‘Sabrina’ (T120-SAB15 and T120-SAB30), and (<b>b</b>) 2017–2018 in ‘Fortuna’ and ‘Rociera’ (T120-ROC15 and T120-ROC30).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Soil water content measurements taken by the frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) probe in the top 80 cm of the soil on the T65, T80, T100 and T120 water treatments throughout the 2016–2017 cropping season in (<b>a</b>) ‘Fortuna’, (<b>b</b>) ‘Sabrina’, (<b>c</b>) ‘Primoris’ and (<b>d</b>) ‘Splendor’. Each data point represents the average of three separated profiles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Leaf water potential measured at midday (1200–1400 h) in the study cultivars subjected to different water treatments (T65, T80, T100, T120 and T140) in the 2017 (<b>a</b>–<b>d</b>) and 2018 (<b>e</b>–<b>h</b>) cropping seasons. Each data point represents the mean ±SE (<span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3). The asterisk indicates significant (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) differences between water treatments on each date.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean values (±SE; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 6) of (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) net assimilation rate (<span class="html-italic">A</span>); (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) stomatal conductance (gs); <b>(e</b>,<b>f</b>) transpiration rate (<span class="html-italic">E</span>) and (<b>g</b>–<b>h</b>) instantaneous water use efficiency (<span class="html-italic">A</span>/<span class="html-italic">E</span>) on the study cultivars under the water treatments in 2016–2017 and 2017–2018. Different lower-case or upper-case letters indicate significant (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) differences between water treatments or among cultivars respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Mean values (±SE; <span class="html-italic">n</span> = 3 plots) of (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) plant diameter; (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) first class marketable fruit yield; (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) fruit weight and (<b>g</b>–<b>h</b>) yield efficiency of the study cultivars under the different water treatments supplied in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 cropping seasons. Within a cultivar, different lower case letters indicate significant (<span class="html-italic">p</span> &lt; 0.05) differences between water treatments, and, within a water treatment, upper case letters indicate significant differences among cultivars.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Water productivity (Kg m<sup>−3</sup>) of the study cultivars under the different water treatments supplied in the (<b>a</b>) 2016-2017 and (<b>b</b>) 2017–2018 cropping seasons. I.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Field experimental setup in the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 cropping seasons (pictures taken in 22-12-2016 and 20-11-2017, respectively).</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Variation of cumulated ET<sub>cSab</sub> during the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 cropping seasons.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop