Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA04009
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 46(3)

Towards a better understanding of crop water requirement in orchards: a case study from the Goulburn Valley

M. G. O’Connell A B , I. Goodwin A and G. M. Dunn A
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Department of Primary Industries, Private Bag 1, Tatura, Vic. 3616, Australia.

B Corresponding author. Email: mark.o’connell@dpi.vic.gov.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(3) 405-412 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA04009
Submitted: 22 January 2004  Accepted: 9 September 2005   Published: 28 March 2006

Abstract

Responses of fruit trees to reduced irrigation in micro-irrigated peach and apple orchards in the Goulburn Valley, Victoria were investigated during the 2000–01 season. Field experiments examined the effects of applying 2 irrigation levels on soil water content, crop water relations, vegetative growth, yield, yield components and fruit quality. Irrigation regimes were 50% and 100% of current management practice where inputs are scheduled from pan evaporation and locally derived crop coefficients. Water was applied to only one side of the tree rootzone in the 50% treatment (0.5I) while the current management practice treatment (1.0I), received water on both sides of the tree. Over the season, the irrigation inputs for peach and apple equated to a crop coefficient of 0.93 and 0.87, respectively. Orchard water use (ETpeach and ETapple) was predicted using reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0) and published crop coefficients (Kc) with adjustment for the fraction of shade cast by the trees on the orchard floor at solar noon (effective canopy cover, ECC). Throughout the season, ECC measured as midday tree canopy radiation interception, remained low for both peach and apple (<35%). ETpeach and ETapple were substantially lower than current water scheduling practices (1.0I treatments). For the 0.5I apple regime, irrigation closely matched ETapple suggesting that these trees were adequately irrigated. This was supported by no detrimental effects on crop production, vegetative growth, and fruit quality measures of the 0.5I irrigation regime. However, in the peach orchard the 0.5I regime reduced fruit volume suggesting that these trees may have been water stressed. Based on ECC, we calculated the full crop water requirement Kc for the peach and apple orchards to be 0.42 and 0.37, respectively. In summary, for the apple orchard, our 0.5I treatment was close to predicted full crop water requirement (ETapple). But for the peach orchard, the ETpeach was greater, albeit slightly, than our 0.5I regime. Taken overall, these results demonstrate that better matching of water application to the evaporative surface of the orchard canopies (i.e. ECC) can substantially reduce irrigation water use in Goulburn Valley orchards. It is also apparent that ECC in these orchards where row spacing is typically 4–5 m can be relatively low.

Additional keywords: apple, crop coefficient, crop evapotranspiration, effective canopy cover, micro-irrigation, peach, water use efficiency, water savings.


Acknowledgments

The work described in this paper forms part of a larger irrigation research study by the Department of Primary Industries (DPI). Financial support was provided by the Science Technology and Innovation Project 1.3.1: ‘Next generation sustainable production systems – Megabucks from Megalitres’ and DPI. The technical support and assistance of Jim Selman, Annabelle Simson and Neil Penfold is gratefully acknowledged. We thank Stuart Pickworth for permitting the utilisation of his orchard.


References


Allen RG , Pereira LS , Raes D , Smith M (1998) ‘Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements.’ FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. (FAO: Rome, Italy)

AgStats (1999) 7113.0 Agriculture, Australia 1989–99. Australian Bureau of Statistics. Commonwealth of Australia.

Andersen PC (1989) Leaf gas exchange characteristics of eleven species of fruit crops in north Florida. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 102, 229–234. open url image1

Andersen PC (1991) Leaf gas exchange of 11 species of fruit crops with reference to sun-tracking/non-sun-tracking responses. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 71, 1183–1193. open url image1

Ayars JE, Johnson RS, Phene CJ, Trout TJ, Clark DA, Mead RM (2003) Water use by drip-irrigated late-season peaches. Irrigation Science 22, 187–194.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Boland A-M , Corrie J , Bewsell D , Jerie P (2001) Development of benchmarks and best management practices (BMPs) for perennial horticulture. Final Report. Murray Darling Basin Commission, SI&E Project I7044.

Boland A-M , Ziehrl A , Beaumont J (2002) ‘Guide to best practice in water management: orchard crops.’ (Department of Natural Resources and Environment: Knoxfield, Vic.)

Bonachela S, Orgaz F, Villalobos FJ, Fereres E (2001) Soil evaporation from drip-irrigated olive orchards. Irrigation Science 20, 65–71.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Chalmers DJ, van den Ende B (1975) Productivity of peach trees: factors affecting dry-weight distribution during tree growth. Annals of Botany 39, 423–433. open url image1

Chalmers DJ, Mitchell PD, van Heek L (1981) Control of peach tree growth and productivity by regulated water supply, tree density and summer pruning. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 106, 306–312. open url image1

Culver R, Till MR (1967) Some measurements of tree size. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 7, 587–592.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Dry PR, Loveys BR, Stoll M, Steward D, McCarthy MG (2000) Partial rootzone drying – an update. Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 438, 35–39. open url image1

Goodwin I, Whitfield DM, Connor DJ (2004) The relationship between peach tree water use and effective canopy cover. Acta Horticulturae 664, 283–289. open url image1

Irving DE, Drost JH (1987) Effects of water deficit on vegetative growth, fruit growth and fruit quality in Cox’s Orange Pippin Apple. Journal of Horticultural Science 62, 427–432. open url image1

Middleton S, McWaters A, James P, Jotic P, Sutton J, Campbell J (2002) The productivity and performance of apple orchard systems in Australia. Compact Fruit Tree 35, 43–47. open url image1

Mitchell PD, Chalmers DJ (1982) The effect of reduced water supply on peach tree growth and yields. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 107, 853–856. open url image1

Mitchell PD , Goodwin I (1996) ‘Micro-irrigation of vines and fruit trees.’ (Agmedia: Melbourne)

Mitchell PD, Boland AM, Irvine JL, Jerie PH (1991) Growth and water use of young, closely planted peach trees. Scientia Horticulturae 47, 283–293.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Monteith JL (1977) Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B 281, 277–294. open url image1

Northcote KH , Skene JKM (1972) Australian soils with saline and sodic properties. CSIRO Australian Soil Publication No 27.

Skene JKM , Poutsma TJ (1962) Soils and land use in part of the Goulburn Valley, Victoria. Technical Bulletin No 14. Department of Agriculture, Melbourne.

Smith RB, Lougheed EC, Franklin EW, McMillan I (1979) The starch iodine test for determining stage of maturation in apples. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 59, 725–735. open url image1

Wünsche JN, Lakso AN (2000) Apple tree physiology-implications for orchard and tree management. Compact Fruit Tree 33, 82–88. open url image1