Partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation of ‘Fuji’ apples in a semi-arid climate

Abstract

The effects of deficit irrigation (DI) and partial rootzone drying (PRD) on apple (Malus domestica Borkh. Cv. ‘Fuji’) yield, fruit size, and quality were evaluated from 2001 to 2003 in the semi-arid climate of Washington State. PRD and DI were applied from about 40 days after full bloom until just before (2001, 2002) or after (2003) harvest and compared to a control irrigation (CI). Irrigation was applied once a week using two micro-sprinklers per tree. Soil-water content in CI was maintained above 80% of field capacity using micro-sprinklers on both sides of a tree. The DI and PRD were irrigated at about 50% (2001–2002) and 60% (2003) of the CI, but differed in placement of irrigation. For DI both micro-sprinklers were operated whereas PRD was irrigated using only one micro-sprinkler wetting half the rootzone compared to CI and DI. Wetting/drying sides of PRD trees were alternated every 2–4 weeks (2001, 2002) or when soil-water content on the drying side had reached a threshold value (2003). Seasonal (1 May–31 October) potential evapotranspiration (ET0) was 967, 1002, and 1005 mm for 2001, 2002, and 2003, and rainfall totaled 58, 39, and 21 mm, respectively. Irrigation amounts applied were 596, 839, and 685 mm in the CI; 374, 763, and 575 mm in the DI; and 337, 684, and 513 mm in the PRD for the 2001, 2002, and 2003 seasons. Higher irrigation volumes in 2002 were due to excessive (177–324 mm) irrigations after harvest. No significant differences were found in yield and fruit size among treatments in 2001 and 2003. In 2002, DI had significantly lower yield than CI, while the yield of PRD did not differ from CI and DI. Fruit from DI and PRD were firmer and had higher concentrations of soluble solids than fruit from CI, both at harvest and following short-term storage at 20°C, but differences to CI were significant in 2002 only. Treatment effects on fruit titratable acidity were inconsistent. Additional water was preserved in the soil profile under PRD compared to DI in 2001 and 2003, but no statistical differences were found between PRD and DI in 2002. Approximately 45–50% of irrigation water was saved by implementing newly developed DI and PRD irrigation strategies without any significant impact on fruit yield and size with PRD. However, apple yield was reduced by DI compared to CI in the second year.