Long term responses of olive trees to salinity
J.C. Melgar
*, Y. Mohamed
, P.A. Garcı´a-Galavı´s
, C. Navarro
, M.A. Parra
,M. Benlloch
, R. Ferna´ndez-Escobar
a
Departmento de Agronomı´ a, Universidad de Co´ rdoba, Edificio ‘Celestino Mutis’, Campus Universitario de Rabanales, Ctra. Madrid-Ca´ diz km. 396. 14071 Co´ rdoba, Spain
b
Desert Research Center, 1 Mathaf El-Matariya Street, El-Matariya, Cairo, Egypt
c
Instituto Andaluz de Investigacio´ n y Formacio´ n Agraria, Pesquera y Alimentaria ‘‘Alameda del Obispo’’, Av. Mene´ ndez-Pidal s/n, 14004 Co´ rdoba, Spain
d
Instituto Andaluz de Investigacio´ n y Formacio´ n Agraria, Pesquera y Alimentaria ‘‘Las Torres-Tomejil’, Ctra. Sevilla-Cazalla de la Sierra, km. 12.2, 41200 Alcala´ del Rı´ o, Sevilla, Spain
e
Departamento de Ciencias y Recursos Agrı´ colas y Forestales, Universidad de Co´ rdoba, Edificio ‘Celestino Mutis’, Campus Universitario de Rabanales, Ctra. Madrid-Ca´ diz km. 396,14071 Co´ rdoba, Spain
1. Introduction
Olive trees are mainly grown in semiarid regions withMediterranean climate, where scarce and irregular rainfall causeslow yields. Around the Mediterranean Basin, olive trees have beentraditionally cultivated in dry lands. However, the water demandfor irrigation is increasing in olive orchards because of enhancedyields and profits (Orgaz and Fereres, 2004), leading to the use of low-quality water resources. Because olive trees are consideredmoderately tolerant to salinity (Maas and Hoffman, 1977; FAO,1985; Rugini and Fedeli, 1990) and water resources in theMediterranean basin are scarce, irrigation water with high saltconcentration (5–10 dS m
À
1
) causing electrical conductivities of the soil saturation extract (EC
e
) between 3 and 6 dS m
À
1
(FAO,1985) is often used without considering the negative effects of poor water quality on olive tree growth and productivity.Under field conditions, where salinity is non uniformlydistributed with depth or time (Shalhevet, 1994; Corwin et al.,2007), and in a fluctuating saline environment at Mediterraneanlatitudes, early-fall rainfalls allow the accumulated salinity to beannually removed from the root-zone and plants to assimilate CO
2
andproducenewgrowthatconsiderablerates(Tattinietal.,2008).Salinityisgenerallyacceptedtoreduceshootgrowth(Tattinietal.,1992; Klein et al., 1994), pollen viability and germination, number
Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1105–1113
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 8 October 2008Accepted 5 February 2009
Available online 27 March 2009
Keywords:Olea europaea
Salt toleranceDrip fertigationCalcium supply
A B S T R A C T
Water demand for irrigation is increasing in olive orchards due to enhanced yields and profits. Becauseolive trees are considered moderately tolerant to salinity, irrigation water with salt concentrations thatcanbeharmfulformanyoffruittreecropsisoftenusedwithoutconsideringthepossiblenegativeeffectson olive tree growth and yield. We studied salt effects in mature olive trees in a long term fieldexperiment (1998–2006). Eighteen-year-old olive trees (
Olea europaea
L.) cv. Picual were cultivatedunderdripirrigationwithsalinewatercomposedofamixtureofNaClandCaCl
2
.Threeirrigationregimes(i. no irrigation; ii. water application considering soil water reserves, short irrigation; iii. waterapplication without considering soil water reserves and adding a 20% more as a leaching fraction, longirrigation)andthreesaltconcentrations(0.5,5or10 dS m
À
1
)wereapplied.Treatmentsweretheresultof the combination of three salt concentrations with two irrigation regimes, plus the non-irrigatedtreatment. Growth parameters, leaf and fruit nutrition, yield, oil content and fruit characteristics wereannually studied. Annual leaf nutrient analyses indicate that all nutrients were within the adequatelevels. After 8 years of treatment, salinity did not affect any growth measurement and leaf Na
+
and Cl
À
concentration were always below the toxicity threshold of 0.2 and 0.5%, respectively. Annual andaccumulated yield, fruit size and pulp:stone ratio were also not affected by salts. However, oil contentincreased linearly with salinity, in most of the years studied. Soil salinity measurements showed thatthere was no accumulation of salts in the upper 30 cm of the soil (where most of the roots are present)because of leaching by rainfall at the end of the irrigation period. Results suggest that a propermanagementofsalinewater,supplyingCa
2+
totheirrigationwater,usingdripirrigationuntilwinterrestand seasonal rainfall typical of the Mediterranean climate leach the salts from the first 0–60 cm depth,and growing a tolerant cultivar, can allow using high saline irrigation water (up to 10 dS m
À
1
) for a longtime without affecting growth and yield in olive trees.
ß
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Present address: Citrus Research and Education Center,UniversityofFlorida/IFAS.700ExperimentStationRoad,33850LakeAlfred,FL,USA.Tel.: +34 957 218 498; fax: +34 957 218 569.
E-mail address:
pa2mejij@uco.es(J.C. Melgar).
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
0378-3774/$ – see front matter
ß
of flowers and fruits (Cresti et al., 1994). Salinity effects on yielddepend on the concentration (Klein et al., 1992; Wiesman et al.,2004) but even though tolerance is a cultivar-dependent char-acteristic (Marı´n et al., 1995; Chartzoulakis, 2005) most of thecultivars under semiarid and transient-state salinity conditionsmay develop well with no significant reduction of yield with a EC
e
inarangebetween3and6 dS m
À
1
(Aragu¨e´setal.,2005;Bernstein,1964; FAO, 1985; Maas and Hoffman, 1977). However, little isknowaboutthelongtermeffectsofsalinizationoftreesinthefield(Gucci and Tattini, 1997). Effects on oil quality are also contra-dictory due to the scarce number of studies carried out (Zarrouket al., 1996; Wiesman et al., 2004). Olive tree responses to salinitystress can vary with cultivar (Therios and Misopolinos, 1988;Marı´n et al., 1995), although tolerant genotypes seem to be moreable to exclude toxic ions than sensitive ones (Gucci and Tattini,1997). Salt tolerance is mainly associated to salt-exclusionmechanisms operating in the roots, preventing salt translocationrather than salt absorption (Benlloch et al., 1991; Tattini et al.,1995; Demiral, 2005) by holding Na
+
and Cl
À
at the root level andlimiting the accumulation of these ions into actively growingshoots. Olive trees are less sensitive to leaf Cl
À
than Na
+
À
uptake andtransporttotheshootinolivetreesislowerthanNa
+
+
exclusion and retention mechanisms, which may be an importantability for survival under saline conditions (Melgar et al., 2006;Tattini and Traversi, 2008).Although much research has been devoted to study NaClconcentrations that allow an optimum growth (Bernstein, 1975;Therios and Misopolinos, 1988; Rugini and Fedeli, 1990; Kleinet al., 1994) and the physiological mechanisms of salt tolerance inolive trees (Benlloch et al., 1991; Tattini et al., 1994; Gucci andTattini,1997;Guccietal.,1997),longtermexperimentsunderfieldconditions with mature trees are scarce (Wiesman et al., 2004;Aragu¨e´s et al., 2005) and more information is needed.The aim of this work was to evaluate long term effects of salineirrigation on vegetative growth, yield and fruit characteristics of mature olive trees growing under field conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Field conditions, plant material and irrigation management
Theexperimentwascarriedoutat‘LaMina’ExperimentalFarm,located in Cabra, southern Co´rdoba province, Spain (37.28N,4.26W) from 1998 to 2006. The climate is Mediterranean with amean annual precipitation of 702 mm and a marked summerdrought (
$
30 mm in the June–September period). The meanannual reference evapotranspiration (ET
0
), as calculated accordingto Hargreaves’ method (Hargreaves and Samani, 1985) is1250 mm, and the mean annual temperature is 16
8
C. The slopeof the orchard ranges from 2% to 9%. The soil is a clay loam(calcixerollic xerochrept) (Soil Survey Staff, 1994) with an averageof 35% clay. A hard limy layer can be found between the 0.4–0.5-mdepth in certain zones, which impedes the penetration of bothroots and water. The volumetric soil water content (
u
, m
3
m
À
3
)measured in the laboratory was 0.33.Eighteen-year-old ‘Picual’ olive trees spaced at 7 m
Â
7 m wereselected for the experiment. Average tree volume, measured everyyear after harvesting and before pruning, was between 60 and67 m
3
. A randomized block design with four blocks and seventreatments was used. Each experimental plot consisted of fourtrees bordered by a double guard row. Seven treatments wereapplied, as a result of the combination of three salt concentrationswith two irrigation regimes, plus the non-irrigated treatment. Saltconcentrations in the irrigation water were the following: (i)control, with good water quality: a pH of 7.6 and an EC of 0.5 dS m
À
1
(Na
+
0.45 m
M
, K
+
0.04 m
M
, Ca
2+
7.64 m
M
, Mg
2+
2.76 m
M
and Cl
À
1.20 m
M
); (ii) water with EC = 5 dS m
À
1
; (iii)water with EC = 10 dS m
À
1
. The latter two were prepared withgood water quality plus salts as described below. Three differentirrigation regimes were carried out: (i) no irrigation; (ii) waterapplication considering soil water content (short irrigation); (iii)water application without considering soil water reserves andapplying a 20% more as a leaching fraction (long irrigation).Olivetreesweredrip-irrigateddailyduringthedryseason.Fourdrip emitters per tree (4 L h
À
1
) connected to a single drip line, twoper side of the tree, were used. During the first 3 years (1998–2000), irrigation doses were established after estimating the soilwater content by determining the crop evapotranspiration (ET
c
)using the FAO method (Doorenbos and Pruitt, 1977) and theeffective precipitation (EP) in the wet season. ET
c
was calculatedas: ET
c
= ET
0
K
r
K
c
, where
K
r
was the coefficient of ground coveredbythecrop(FereresandCastel,1981)withavalueof0.6and
K
c
wasdeterminedbyFereresetal.(1981)withvaluesof0.60inAprilandOctober, 0.55 in May, June and September, and 0.50 in July andAugust.
K
r
was estimated by the following formula:
K
r
= 2
S
c
/100(Fereresetal.,1981),where
S
c
wasthepercentageofsoilshadedbythe canopy. The average value of
S
c
was 45%, and it was calculatedas:
S
c
=
p
D
2
N
/400, where
D
was the average diameter (m) of thetreeandNwasthetreedensity(trees ha
À
1
).Fortheshortirrigationtreatment, net irrigation requirements were expressed as:NIR = SWD
À
ET
c
+ EP, where NIR was the net irrigation require-ments and SWD was the soil water deficit (and was calculated asthe difference betweenthe soil watercontentat the endand at thebeginningofeachirrigationperiod,15days).Forthelongirrigationtreatment, NIR were simply calculated as NIR = ET
c
À
EP.As irrigation doses were overestimated and over-irrigation andrunoff problems were observed, six drip emitters per tree wereused after 2000 and irrigation doses were re-established bymonitoring the soil water content through four permanenthumidity probes (Thetaprobe ML2x, Delta-T, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom)perirrigatedtreatmentinstalledincontroltreatmentsatfour different depths (30, 60, 90 and 120 cm) under the dripemitter. Data were hourly collected with a data logger (DL2e,Delta-T, Cambridge, United Kingdom), weekly downloaded andusedtodeterminetheirrigationdosesforthefollowingweek.Theywere established in order to maintain soil water content at 95% of fieldcapacity(0.46 m
3
m
À
3
)atthe60-cmdepthforshortirrigationand95%offieldcapacity(0.45 m
3
m
À
3
)atthe90-cmdepthforlongirrigation(whichmeanswaterwasreachingthedeepestlayersandthe leaching fraction initially established for this treatment wasmaintained). The number of drip emitters was increased again in2003 up to eight per tree (2 L h
À
1
) in order to improve waterdistribution and reduce flooding problems.Saline solutions were prepared weekly in four 3000-L tanks.Theywerefilledwithgoodqualitywaterandadifferentmixtureof NaCl and CaCl
2
in order to reach a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)value of 10 mmol
1/2
L
À
1/2
and an EC of 5 or 10 dS m
À
1
. Thesesolutionswerepump-stirredforatleastfourmorehoursaftertheywerepreparedandalsodaily,forthirtyminutes,beforeinjectinginthe irrigation system.NaCl and CaCl
2
concentrations in irrigation water were:30.9 mM NaCl and 9.5 mM CaCl
2
for 5 dS m
À
1
treatment, and49.9 mM NaCl and 25.0 mM CaCl
2
for 10 dS m
À
1
2.2. Soil measurements
Soil salinity and sodicity was monitored through three soilsamplings per year: at the beginning, middle and end of the
J.C. Melgar et al./Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1105–1113
1106
irrigationseason.SoilsamplesweretakenusinganEdelmanauger,4-cm diameter, at 20 cm from the dripper and at three differentdepths (0–30, 30–60, 60–90 cm) in each experimental plot.Different drippers (first, second or third dripper from the trunk)and different sides of the dripper (either sides or only one side)were selected for each measurement in order to avoid takingsamples from the same place. After sampling, soil samples werewell mixed and holes were carefully refilled with leftover fine soilin order to avoid water to penetrate through preferential ways.Electrical conductivity in the saturation paste extract wasdetermined using a conductivimeter (Crison Micro CM2200,Crison, Alella, Spain). Sodium, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
and K
+
concentrationwere measured using an atomic absorption spectrophometer(PerkinElmer 3100, PerkinElmer Inc., Wellesley, MA, USA). Sodiumadsorption ratio was calculated as: SAR = CNa
+
/(CCa
2+
+ CMg
2+
)
1/2
,where C represents concentration (mM). Cationic exchangecapacity (CEC) was determined by the ammonium acetate method(Schollenberger and Simon, 1945) and exchangeable Na
+
concen-tration were calculated to determine exchangeable sodiumpercentage (ESP) as: ESP = 100
Â
[exchangeable Na
+
]/CEC.
2.3. Leaf analysis
A hundred fully expanded, mature leaves per plot taken fromthe middle portion of non-bearing shoots in July were annuallysampled for the determination of nutrient concentration. Leaveswere washed, dried at 80
8
C for 72 h, ground and stored in an ovenat 60
8
C until analysis. Samples were ashed in a muffle furnace at600
8
C for at least 12 h, and dissolved in 0.1 N HCl. Nitrogen wasdeterminedwithanEuroVectorEA3000CHNanalyzer(EuroVectorS.p.A.,Milan,Italy)bytheDumasprocedure(Dumas,1831).TotalPwas determined by colorimetry using the method described byMurphy and Riley (1962). Boron was determined in the extract bycolorimetry (Greweling, 1976). Potassium, Ca
2+
, Mg
2+
, Zn, Mn, Feand Cu were measured using an atomic absorption spectro-phometer (PerkinElmer 1100B, PerkinElmer Inc., Wellesley, MA,USA). Chloride ions were extracted with 10% (v/v) acetic acid froma similar sample of leaves collected at the same time andconcentrations were determined colorimetrically (LKB BiochromNovaspec 4049 Spectrophotometer, Cambridge, UK) by themercuric thiocyanate reaction (Florence and Farrar, 1971).
2.4. Vegetative growth, yield and fruit characteristics
Leaf water content was determined from samples of fullyexpanded, mature leaves taken from the middle portion of non-bearing shoots in July, September and December. Four leaves pertree were sampled, introduced in closed test tubes and fresh-weighed (FW). After being oven-dried at 80
8
C for 72 h, dry weight(DW) was measured and leaf water content (%) calculated asLWC = 100 (FW
À
DW)/FW.Eighty leaves were fresh weighed and scanned every year tomeasure leaf area using an image analysis software (APS Assess,Winnipeg, Canada). Specific leaf area (SLA) was determined as theratio of leaf area to leaf fresh weight. Vegetative growth wasobtained at the end of each growing season by measuring shootlength on 20 random shoots per tree.Yield per tree was measured at harvest, and a representativesample of 2 kg of fruit per plot was taken to determine fruitcharacteristics. Fruit size was determined as 100 fruit weight.Pulp:stone ratio was calculated after pitting a fruit sample of approximately140 g.Oilcontent(%FW)wasdeterminedbynuclearmagneticresonance(NMR)(MinispecNMS100,BrukerOptikGmbH,Ettlingen, Germany) as reported inDel Rı´o and Romero (1999).
2.5. Fruit analysis
Pulp and stone were separately put in paper bags and dried at80
8
Cforatleast72 h.Subsequently,bothweregroundandmineralanalyses were done following the same methods previouslydescribed for leaves.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Data were subjected to analyses of variance and regressionanalyses. Yield data were analysed by covariance using the above-ground tree volume as covariate. Vegetative growth, yield, treenutritional status and fruit mineral contents were subjected to afactorialanalysis,studyingtheinteractionbetweenfactorswhenitexisted. Non-irrigated treatment was compared with salinetreatments running an ANOVA based on a randomized blockanalysis. Means were separated using Tukey’s test and a 5%rejection level was applied. All statistical analyses were madeusing Statistix 8.0 statistical package (Analytical Software,Tallahassee, FL, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Soil measurements
Winter leaching of salts reduced soil salinity mainly in thesuperficiallayer(0–30 cm);salinitydecreasedmorethan60%after
Table 1
Effective precipitation (estimated as 80% of annual precipitation), annual ET
c
and irrigation applied (mm) in the dry period during the 9 experimental years.1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Effective precipitation 374 530 551 450 588 453 565 322 489ET
c
493 573 628 627 713 763 742 644 627Irrigation appliedRain fed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Short irrigation 74 320 160 170 159 231 120 153 53Long irrigation 180 410 295 266 199 287 147 192 62NaCl (kg tree
À
1
)Short irrigation 5 dS m
À
1
5 21 12 14 11 13 9 11 2Short irrigation 10 dS m
À
1
8 39 21 23 22 25 16 20 4Long irrigation 5 dS m
À
1
5 26 22 19 15 18 12 13 3Long irrigation 10 dS m
À
1
28 47 39 38 27 28 21 25 5CaCl
2
(kg tree
À
1
)Short irrigation 5 dS m
À
1
3 12 7 10 8 9 6 8 2Short irrigation 10 dS m
À
1
8 37 20 26 25 27 18 22 5Long irrigation 5 dS m
À
1
7 15 13 13 10 12 8 9 2Long irrigation 10 dS m
À
1
25 45 37 42 30 31 23 28 5
J.C. Melgar et al./Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1105–1113
1107
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
2009-Long Term Responses of Olive Trees to Salinity
991
Reads
2
Readcasts
3
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
