All Issue

2018 Vol.51, Issue 4 Preview Page
November 2018. pp. 608-615

Conventional irrigation methods require high amount of water to meet ‘Fuji’/M9 and ‘Fuji’/M26 apple orchards irrigation requirement. In this study, the efficiency of sprinkler, surface drip and subsurface drip irrigation methods on water use efficiency, tree growth, yield, and canopy volume were compared. Experiment I (‘Fuji’/M9 apple orchard) consisted of sprinkler, surface drip and subsurface drip irrigation methods. Subsurface drip irrigation method consumed 37% and 27% less irrigation water to maintain same matric potential compared to sprinkler and surface drip irrigation methods, respectively. In addition, subsurface drip irrigation method showed less sunburn fruits and contained less weed growth compared to sprinkler and surface drip irrigation methods. In experiment II (‘Fuji’/M26 apple orchard), subsurface drip irrigation method at different depths (0, 15 and 30 cm) were compared. The results showed that irrigation at 30 cm depth consumed 52% less water to maintain the same matric potential compared to 0 cm (or surface drip) irrigation. However, apple tree stem circumference, new shoot length and canopy volume were not significantly different between treatments. These results suggest that subsurface drip irrigation can be used as an efficient method to reduce the irrigation water in ‘Fuji’/M9 and 'Fuji'/M26 apple orchards and to reduce weed growth.

Apple tree response to surface and subsurface drip irrigation methods.

Irrigation methods Date of flowering Stem circumference (cm) Shoot length (cm) Canopy volume (m3) Irrigation water (Mg 10a-1) Surface (0 cm) April 19 19.3 a† 44.4 a 17.5 a 288.2±33.8 a Subsurface (15 cm) April 18 21.1 a 41.2 a 17.2 a 167.2±34.8 ab Subsurface (30 cm) April 18 20.3 a 44.8 a 17.6 a 138.4±25.3 b

†Each value represents the mean of three replications ± standard error (SE).

  1. Behboudian, M.H. and T.M. Mills. 1997. Deficit irrigation in deciduous orchards. Hortic. Rev. 21:105-131.10.1002/9780470650660.ch4
  2. Bryla, D.R., T.J., Trout, and J.E., Ayars. 2003. Growth and production of young peach trees irrigated by furrow, microjet, surface drip, or subsurface drip systems. HortScience. 38:1112-1116.
  3. Camp, C.R. 1998. Subsurface drip irrigation: A review. Trans. ASAE 41:1353-1367.10.13031/2013.17309
  4. Caspari, H.W., S. Neal, and P. Alspach. 2004. Partial rootzone drying – a new irrigation strategy for apple? Acta Hortic. 646:93-100.10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.646.10
  5. Chai, Q., Y. Gan, C. Zhao, H.L. Xu, R.M. Waskom, Y. Niu, and K.H.M. Siddique. 2016. Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36:3.10.1007/s13593-015-0338-6
  6. Ebel, R.C., E.L. Proebsting, and R.G. Evans. 2001. Apple tree and fruit responses to early termination of irrigation in a semi-arid environment. HortScience. 36:1197-1201.
  7. Evans, R.G., J. LaRue, K.C. Stone, and B.A. King. 2013. Adoption of site-specific variable rate irrigation systems. Irrig. Sci. 31:871-887.10.1007/s00271-012-0365-x
  8. Kanber, R., H. Koksal, S. Onder, and M. Eylen. 1996. The effects of different irrigation methods on young orange tree's yield, water consumption and root growth. Ankara. Turk. J. Agric. For. 20:163-172.
  9. Kruse, E.G., D.A. Bucks, and R.D. von Bernuth. 1990. Comparison of irrigation systems. p. 475-508. In B.A. Steward and D. Nielson (ed.) Irrigation of agricultural crops. Agronomy Monographs, ASA-CSSA-SSSA publications, Madison, Wisconsin.
  10. Mpelasoka, B., M.H. Behboudian, and T. Mills. 2015. Water relations, photosynthesis, growth, yield and fruit size of 'Braeburn' apple: responses to deficit irrigation and crop load. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 76:150-156.10.1080/14620316.2001.11511342
  11. Naor, A. and S. Cohen. 2003. Sensitivity and variability of maximum trunk shrinkage, midday stem water potential, and transpiration rate in response to withholding irrigation from field-grown apple trees. HortScience. 38:547-551.
  12. Naor, A., H. Hupert, Y. Greenblat, M. Peres, and I. Klein. 2001. The response of nectarine fruit size and midday stem water potential to irrigation level in stage III crop load. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 126:140-143.
  13. Naor, A., I. Klein, I. Doron, Y. Gal, and Z. Ben-David. 1997. The effect of irrigation and crop load on stem water potential and apple fruit size. J. Hortic. Sci. 72:765-771.10.1080/14620316.1997.11515569
  14. Neilsen, D., G.H. Neilsen, L. Herbert, and S. Guak. 2010. Effect of irrigation and crop load management on fruit nutrition and quality for Ambrosia/M.9 apple. Acta Hortic. 868:63-71.10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.868.4
  15. Neilsen, D., G.H. Neilsen, L.C. Herbert, P. Millard, and S. Guak, 2006. Allocation of dry matter and N to fruit and shoots in dwarf apple in response to sink size and N availability. Acta Hortic. 721:33-40.10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.721.3
  16. Phene, C.J., R.J. Reginato, B. Itier, and B.R. Tanner. 1990. Sensing irrigation needs. p. 207-261. In G.J. Hoffman et al. (ed.) Management of farm irrigation systems. American Society of Agricultural Engineering, St. Joseph, Mich.
  17. Proebsting, E.L., S.R. Drake, and R.G. Evans. 1984. Irrigation management, fruit quality and storage life of apples. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 109:229-232.
  18. Rousso, D., and E. Bresler. 1982. Soil hydraulic properties as a stochastic process: II. Error of estimates in a heterogenous field. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 46:20-26.10.2136/sssaj1982.03615995004600010004x
  19. Wunsche, J.N., J.W. Palmer, and D.H. Greer. 2000. Effects of crop load on fruiting and gas exchange characteristics of Braeburn/M.9 apple trees at full canopy. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 125:93-99.
  • Publisher :Korean Society of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국토양비료학회
  • Journal Title :Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer
  • Journal Title(Ko) :한국토양비료학회 학회지
  • Volume : 51
  • No :4
  • Pages :608-615
  • Received Date :2018. 10. 22
  • Accepted Date : 2018. 11. 29