Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Peach tree response to single and combined

deficit irrigation regimes in deep soils
J. Girona, M. Gelly, M. Mata, A. Arbonès, J. Rufat, J. Marsal*
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries, Area de Tecnologia Frutı́cola,
Centre UdL-IRTA, Avda. Rovira Roure 177, E-25198 Lleida, Spain
Accepted 3 September 2004

Abstract

The response of mature ‘Andross’ cling peach (Prunus persica L. Batch) trees to regulated deficit
irrigation in deep soils was studied for 3 years. Trees were either fully irrigated or subjected to deficit
irrigation during Stage II of fruit development and/or during post-harvest. Single regulated deficit
irrigation regimes reduced irrigation by 13–24%, while combined regime reduced it by 23–35%.
Deficit irrigation during Stage II and/or post-harvest significantly reduced vegetative growth of the
trees. Fruit production was not affected by any irrigation regime until the fourth year when fruit set
decreased slightly with combined deficit irrigation. Overall, the results indicate that regulated deficit
irrigation can be used successfully on peach trees grown in deep soils.
# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Prunus persica; Water stress; Bloom return; Fruit size

1. Introduction

Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) in fruit trees reduces irrigation during certain periods
of the tree development (Chalmers et al., 1981), and can also reduce excessive vegetative
growth (Chalmers et al., 1981; Li et al., 1989; Girona et al., 1993, 2003) and improve fruit
quality (Li et al., 1989; Gelly et al., 2003). However, soil conditions can affect the
productive response of the trees to RDI. For example, in peach, RDI maintains or enhances

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 973 003423; fax: +34 973 238301.
E-mail address: jordi.marsal@irta.es (J. Marsal).

0378-3774/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2004.09.011
98 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

fruit production in shallow soils (Chalmers et al., 1981; Girona et al., 2003) or in conditions
of small soil volume (Boland et al., 1994), but may decrease production in deep soils when
the recovery of tree water status is delayed after full irrigation, particularly if water stress
extends into the final stage (i.e. Stage III) of fruit development (Girona et al., 1993;
Goldhamer et al., 2002).
In a previous study, we found in shallow soils that a combined RDI technique, where
deficit irrigation was applied during the ‘resting’ stage (i.e. Stage II) of fruit development
and at post-harvest, was most effective at increasing water savings without reducing yield
in lightly pruned peach trees (Girona et al., 2003). The purpose of this study was to develop
an RDI schedule for peach trees in deep soils located in the Lleida province of Spain
(41.388N, 0.358E).

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Experimental orchard

The experiment was conducted from 1998 to 2000 in a 0.7-ha plot of ‘Andross’ peach
trees on GF-677 rootstock located in a commercial orchard. The orchard was planted in
1992 on a 2.0-m deep loam (Xerochrept calcixerollic) soil with trees spaced 5 m
3 m and
pruned to a vase system. Average precipitation at the site was 270 mm during each
irrigation season with a maximum daily temperature of 33 8C and minimum relative
humidity of 30%. Trees were irrigated by an automated drip system with four
compensating emitters (4 L h1) per tree and water applications were monitored with
multijet water meters (Wherle, model D85, Germany). One drip lateral per row was used
and located directly beneath the trees. The system wet approximately 35% of the shaded
(measured at midday) soil area. The plot was managed according to commercial practices
with a mowed cover grass strip between rows. Fruits were thinned in late May
(approximately 2.5 months after full bloom) to a target crop load of ffi350 fruit per tree.
Fruit were harvested twice between 8 and 20 August.

2.2. Experimental design

Four irrigation treatments were applied: RDI during Stage II of fruit development (RDI-
SII), RDI during post-harvest (RDI-P), RDI during Stage II and post-harvest (RDI-SII-P),
and a control with no RDI (Control). Irrigations were scheduled weekly and initiated each
season in early March at flowering and stopped by early November. The control treatment
was fully irrigated to replace 100% of crop evapotranspiration (minus any effective
precipitation), which was estimated by multiplying reference evapotranspiration (see
below) by a modified crop coefficient (Kc) for peach (Goldhamer and Snyder, 1989). Initial
Kc during rapid vegetative growth was 0.25; mid-season Kc was 1.0–1.05 during rapid fruit
growth; and late-season Kc was 0.55. The RDI-SII and RDI-P treatments were irrigated at
35% of the control treatment during Stage II or post-harvest, respectively, while the RDI-
SII-P treatment was irrigated at 35% of the control during both Stage II and post-harvest.
To increase the potential for water stress during deficit periods, irrigation was withheld for
 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108 99

4–14 days prior to the onset of all RDI treatments in 1999 and 2000. The duration of each
withholding period was established as a function of the water stress development,
considering the value of 0.85 MPa in midday stem water potential as indicative for the
initiation of water stress (cf. Shackel et al., 1997). Irrigation treatments were arranged in
randomized complete block design with four replicate blocks per treatment. Each
treatment plot consisted of three adjacent rows of 10 trees; physiological measurements
were made on the two center trees of the middle row, and growth and production
measurements were made on the six center trees of the middle row.

2.3. Measurements

Weather data were collected from a XAC (Xarxa Agrometeorologica de Catalunya)

weather station located 6 km from the study plot (Generalitat de Catalunya, 1994) and used
to calculate reference evapotranspiration weekly with the Penman equation (Doorenbos
and Pruitt, 1977).
Soil water content (SWC) was continuously measured at the site with capacitance
sensors (EnviroSCAN, Sentek PTY Ltd. Kent Town, SA, Australia) following the
manufacturer’s recommendations. Measurements were recorded by datalogger every
20 min with sensors located at 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 and 1.6 m depths. Average SWC for the 0–0.5
and 0–1.6 m soil layers were calculated from SWC for each layer included in the profile
considering the depth of each layer. Two access tubes were installed in each irrigation
treatment. The sensors were located 0.2 m from the center of the tree row equidistant from
two drip emitters.
Trunk circumference was measured monthly during the growing season with a metal
tape, 0.01 m above the soil surface, and used to estimate trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA).
Intercepted photosynthetic photon flux density was measured with an Accupar Linear PAR
Ceptometer (Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, Wash., USA). A grid of 30 measurements
was made just above the soil surface at 0, 1 and 2 m from the trunk on both sides of the tree
row.
Midday stem water potential was measured periodically over the growing season on two
trees per treatment plot with a pressure chamber (model 3005; Soil Moisture Equipment
Corp., Santa Barbara, CA), following procedures outlined by McCutchan and Shackel
(1992). Leaf conductance was also measured at midday under light-saturated conditions on
two leaves per plot using a steady-state porometer (model LI-1600, LI-COR, Inc., Lincoln,
NE).
Fruit set and fruit load after thinning were determined from flower and fruit counts on
four fruiting shoots per tree; the number of flower buds per node and flower number per unit
shoot length were also determined. Fruit set was calculated as percent flowers that
continued to grow as fruit 1 month after full bloom. Fruit load was calculated as the number
of fruits per shoot immediately after thinning. Fruit fresh and dry weights were measured
weekly from early April to harvest on two random fruits per tree; fruit were dried at 70 8C
to a constant weight. Fruit relative dry matter (RDM) was calculated as 100
(dry weight/
fresh weight). The remaining fruit were counted, sized using an electronic calibrator
manager (SAMMO s.r.l., model S2010, Italy), and weighed during commercial harvest.
Fruit load efficiency was calculated as fruit number per tree divided by TCSA.
100 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

2.4. Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed by analysis of variance, using PROC GLM (SAS Inc., 1988), and
means were separated using Duncan’s multiple range test.

3. Results

Fully irrigated trees required 593–647 mm of water between 1998 and 2000 (Table 1).
Deficit irrigation reduced irrigation by 17–24% when applied during Stage II of fruit
development, and by 13–16% when applied during post-harvest. Meanwhile, deficit
irrigation applied during both Stage II of fruit development and post-harvest reduced
applied water by 23–35%. The effective period for developing water stress during post-
harvest was typically of 4–5 weeks (since late August until mid to late September) before
the onset of the rainy season (Table 2).
Soil water content in RDI treatments decreased during water deficits (i.e., Stage II and/
or post-harvest), but were similar to the Control at 0.2 and 0.5 m soil depth within 2 weeks

Table 1
Irrigation applied to ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998 to 2000
RDI treatmenta Irrigation (mm)
1998 1999 2000
RDI-SII 539 451 501
RDI-P 560 508 501
RDI-SII-P 458 385 460
Control 647 593 603
a
See Section 2 for description of treatments.

Table 2
Water balance components for the different experiment years and growth periods
Year Stage I Stage II Stage III Post-harvest
ETo (mm/period)
1998 147 198 302 207
1999 155 171 307 249
2000 161 146 213 223
ETc (mm/period)
1998 103 185 328 208
1999 87 146 327 205
2000 98 136 231 188
Rainfall (mm/period)
1998 105 58 2 45 (23 September)a
1999 175 6 24 128 (13 September)
2000 121 73 1 98 (19 September)
a
Period free of rainfall from harvest until indicated date.
 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108 101

after irrigation was resumed in Stage III of fruit development or once winter rains began
after post-harvest (Fig. 1). However, at deeper soil depths of 0.8 and 1.6 m, SWC was
consistently lower in RDI than Control treatments, even during winter months.
Stem water potentials were significantly reduced by deficit irrigation, particularly in
1999 and 2000 when irrigation was withheld for up to 2 weeks prior to exposing trees to
deficit irrigation (Fig. 2). However, no significant differences in stem water potential were
found among the treatments at harvest, which indicates the water status of trees fully
recovered following deficit irrigation during Stage II of fruit development. Leaf
conductance also decreased when trees were exposed to RDI, and appeared to recover with

Fig. 1. Daily changes in soil water content at 0–1.6 m (top panel) and 0–0.5 m (bottom panel) depths in ‘Andross’
peach trees either well watered (Control) or exposed to regulated deficit irrigation during Stage II of fruit
development and post-harvest (RDI-SII-P). Weekly precipitation is indicated by grey bars.
102 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

Fig. 2. Midday stem water potential and midday leaf conductance of ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated
deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998 to 2000. Error bars represent least-squared difference (LSD) of the mean (P = 0.05).

stem water potential during Stage III (Fig. 2). Leaf conductance was lower during water
deficits in 1999 and 2000 than in 1998.
Trunk cross-sectional area and the size of canopy, as indicated by crop light
interception, were similar among treatments during the first 2 years of the study, but by the
third year, trees exposed to two periods of deficit irrigation (i.e. Stage II and post-harvest)
had significantly smaller trunks and canopies than fully irrigated trees, or trees deficit-
irrigated at post-harvest only (Fig. 3 and Table 3).
Fruit fresh weight and relative dry matter are illustrated for each stage of fruit
development in Fig. 4. Fruit from trees deficit irrigated during Stage II underwent
substantial dehydration, particularly in 1999, as indicated by an increase in the relative dry
 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108 103

Fig. 3. Trunk cross-sectional area of ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998
to 2000. See Section 2 for description of treatments. Error bars represent 1 standard error of the mean; treatment
symbols followed by different letters are significantly different at P < 0.05 on the last measured date.

matter. However, by the end of Stage III, fruit fresh weight fully recover all water content
lost during Stage II (Fig. 4). Deficit irrigation at any time did not affect fruit production at
any year (Table 4). Deficit irrigation also had no effect on flower production or fruit set
during years when treatments were applied (results not shown). However, in 2001, the year
after treatments were applied, deficit irrigation at post-harvest significantly reduced the
number of flower buds and nodes per unit length of branches (Table 5). Deficit irrigation
during both Stage II and post-harvest also significantly reduced fruit set in 2001, but did not
influence the number of fruit after thinning (Table 5).

4. Discussion

In this study and during the first 3 years of experiment, combined regulated deficit
irrigation applied during Stage II and post-harvest reduced the irrigation needs for fruit

Table 3
Crop light interception by ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998 to 2000
RDI treatmenta Crop light interception (%)
1998 1999 2000
RDI-SII 0.65 0.63 0.56 abb
RDI-P 0.69 0.63 0.60 a
RDI-SII-P 0.67 0.60 0.51 b
Control 0.58 0.63 0.61 a
a
See Section 2 for description of treatments.
b
Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at P < 0.05.
104 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

Fig. 4. Fresh weight and relative dry matter of fruit harvested from ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated
deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998 to 2000. See Section 2 for description treatments.

production of peach trees grown in deep soils more than single RDI regimes, and increased
water savings over fully irrigated trees by 30% without reducing fruit production (Tables 1
and 4). Production was probably maintained because trees experienced only moderate
water stress during irrigation deficit periods (Stage II and post-harvest) and tree water
status recovered quickly once full irrigation was resumed, even when water was reduced by
>65%. Canopy management strategies, such as heavy pruning, an open-vase training
system and low cropping levels (to obtain the best fresh market quality) may have
 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108 105

Table 4
Effects of irrigation treatments on fruit yield and its components in response to the irrigation treatments for the
experimental period 1998–2000
Year RDI treatmenta Crop loadb Fruit size Yield Fruit load efficiency
(fruits tree1) (g fruit1) (kg tree1) (fruits cm2)
1998 RDI-SII 400 154 53.4 3.52
RDI-P 397 159 51.2 3.21
RDI-SII-P 401 158 55.0 3.59
Control 408 156 53.2 3.49
1999 RDI-SII 359 176 57.9 2.75
RDI-P 342 172 50.3 2.35
RDI-SII-P 404 175 61.6 3.29
Control 359 176 54.7 2.56
2000 RDI-SII 311 171 49.0 2.28 abc
RDI-P 295 183 49.7 1.95 b
RDI-SII-P 307 177 49.1 2.33 a
Control 301 183 48.3 2.02 b
a
See Section 2 for description of treatments.
b
Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at P < 0.05.
c
Measured at harvest.

facilitated this rapid recovery of tree water status following each deficit period by reducing
tree water consumption (Ayars et al., 2003; Naor et al., 1999).
Moderate water stress can also be the result of trees taking more time to deplete a large
soil moisture reservoir that would have allowed trees to use more rainfall and/or carry over
water from previous year. Indeed, water deficit developed so slowly the first year of the
experiment that with-holding periods had to be implemented the subsequent years at the
onset of every deficit irrigation period. Another possible explanation for slow water stress
development would be that Control treatment trees might simply have been over-irrigated
or waterlogged. However, this possibility does not seem likely because leaf conductance
values for Control trees were optimal for most of the growing season (Fig. 2), and crop
coefficients derived in this study were slightly lower than others referred to in the literature
(Allen et al., 1998).
On the other hand, long-term effects of using combined RDI were detected; changes in
flowering behavior were first observed after 3 years of applying RDI and fruit set
diminished for RDI-SII-P trees during the spring of 2001 (Table 5). Flowering density was
also lower in the RDI-P treatment in 2001, but in this case, this was the result of a lower
number of nodes per shoot (Table 5). Girona et al. (2003), Johnson et al. (1992) and
Goldhamer and Viveros (2000), in respective research involving peach and almond trees,
reported that water stress experienced during post-harvest impaired the flowering response
during the subsequent year. Girona et al. (2003) related not only flower density but also
fruit set to the degree of water stress experienced during the previous year’s post-harvest
period. It is not clear, however, whether the effect of water stress on subsequent fruit set is
mediated by depletion of assimilates (Esparza et al., 2001) or whether it is only triggered by
the effects of water status on reproductive tissue. This time factor seems to support the
hypothesis that available carbon is progressively depleted from the tree reservoir. Even so,
a flowering response to threshold water potentials cannot be ruled out either. As the level of
 106
J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108
Table 5
Flower production and fruit set in 2001 by ‘Andross’ peach trees exposed to regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) from 1998 to 2000
RDI treatmenta Flower density Node density Bloom return Fruit Fruit count after
(buds m1) (nodes m1) (buds node1) set (%) thinning (fruit shoot1)
RDI-SII 49 ab 59 ab 0.83 75.2 a 2.10
RDI-P 42 b 56 b 0.89 75.6 a 2.15
RDI-SII-P 50 a 64 a 0.79 66.0 b 2.11
Control 55 a 65 a 0.86 75.9 a 2.21
a
See Section 2 for description of treatments.
b
Means followed by different letters within a column are significantly different at P < 0.05.
 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108 107

water deficit during post-harvest increased year after year, with the highest level being
achieved in 2000 (1.5 MPa as indicated in Cstem), this value of stem water potential could
perhaps constitute a threshold for impairing bloom fertility.
The increase of maximum water deficits with the year of the experiment could perhaps
be explained by the considerable quantity of water stored in the soil during the first year of
the trial. Indeed, the variation in the average level of soil water content in the first 1.6 m of
the soil profile indicated that if there had been a ‘‘carry over’’ effect with respect to water
content, this would have occurred during the first year of the trial, when soil water content
at deeper soil depths never fully recharged following the irrigation deficits (Fig. 1).
Differences in soil water content at 1.6 m profile during the dormant season were
apparently maintained during the subsequent season, indicating an apparent equilibrium
between the reduction in water consumption associated with RDI-SII-P and the
contribution to soil water content from rainfall and irrigation (Fig. 1). However, soil water
content at 1.6 m was not as reliable an indicator for representing changes in stem water
potential as at 0.5 m, as the former never indicated a full recovery in water status at the end
of stage III whereas stem water potential did. It seems that the combination of rainfall
during post-harvest and the possible reduction in RDI tree water consumption (smaller
canopies with lower leaf conductance) was sufficient to permit a recovery in soil water
status at a soil depth of 0.5 m after the periods of irrigation deficit and to produce the
desired changes in tree water status (Figs. 1 and 2). Autumn and winter precipitation was
therefore important for plant water stress recovery after the post-harvest period.
In summary, our results indicate that irrigation schedulings based on RDI can maintain
productions as well in deep soils as in shallow soils. Although Girona (1989) found that
peach trees grown in deep soils in California had a reduction in fruit growth, this was
because of delayed recovery during Stage III and water infiltration problems in dry soil
(Girona et al., 1993). The RDI-P results of our study are more encouraging than those
reported by Johnson et al. (1992) and by Girona (1989). The most probable reason for this
was that the level of water deficit registered in this study was more moderate than in the
other two studies cited. As a result, bloom was not as impaired as in Girona (1989) and the
increase of fruit doubles as reported by Johnson et al. (1992) was not noticeable either in
this experiment between 1998 and 2000. However, caution is required with respect to the
potential effects of the combined RDI treatment on fruit yield over periods of greater than 3
years, because canopies tended to become smaller each year (Table 3) and the fruit load
increased in the case of RDI-SII-P trees (Table 4). Application of RDI according to a
simple procedure based on percentages of orchard water consumption could be useful from
the point of view of managing irrigation scheduling, but no single formula – other than that
of measuring water potential – can be adapted to meet the needs of all cases, as what
constitute optimal orchard management practices (i.e. pruning and thinning) can – along
with soil depth – affect the rate of plant water stress development.

Acknowledgements

This research was partially funded by the Spain’s Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones
Agrarias (INIA-SC97-042) and the different associations, cooperatives and Council of
108 J. Girona et al. / Agricultural Water Management 72 (2005) 97–108

Alcarras. We would like to thank T.M. DeJong for revising the manuscript. The authors
would also like to thank Josep Godia, the owner of the plot where the experiment was
carried out, for his understanding and collaboration, and Alex Mata, Carlos Franco and
Judith Gasulla for their participation and hard work.

References

Allen, R.A., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop
water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome.
Ayars, J.E., Johnson, R.S., Phene, C.J., Trout, T.J., Clark, D.A., Mead, R.M., 2003. Water use by drip-irrigated
late-season peaches. Irrigation Sci. 22, 187–194.
Boland, A.M., Mitchell, P.D., Goodwin, I., Jerie, P.H., 1994. The effect of soil volume on young-tree growth and
water-use. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 119, 1157–1162.
Chalmers, D.J., Mitchell, P.D., van Heek, L., 1981. Control of peach tree growth and productivity by regulated
water supply, tree density, and summer pruning. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 106, 307–312.
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W.O., 1977. Crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. FAO, Rome,
Italy, 194 pp.
Esparza, G., DeJong, T.M., Weinbaum, S.A., 2001. Effects of irrigation deprivation during the harvest period on
nonstructural carbohydrates and nitrogen contents of dormant, mature almond trees. Tree Physiol. 21, 1081–
1086.
Gelly, M., Recasens, I., Mata, M., Arbones, A., Rufat, J., Girona, J., Marsal, J., 2003. Effects of water deficit during
stage II of peach fruit development and postharvest on fruit quality and ethylene production. J. Hort. Sci.
Biotechnol. 78, 324–330.
Generalitat de Catalunya, 1994. PAC-COM. Version 2.00 (Manual reference). Survey Center of Xarxa Agro-
meterològica de Catalunya.
Girona, J., 1989. Physiological, growth and production responses of late maturing peach (Prunus persica L.
Batsch) to controlled deficit irrigation. M.S. Thesis. University of California, Davis.
Girona, J., Mata, M., Arbonés, A., Alegre, S., Rufat, J., Marsal, J., 2003. Peach tree response to single and
combined regulated deficit irrigation regimes under shallow soils. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 128, 432–440.
Girona, J., Mata, M., Goldhammer, D.A., Johnson, R.S., DeJong, T.M., 1993. Patterns of soil and tree water status
and leaf functioning during regulated deficit irrigation scheduling in peach. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118, 580–586.
Goldhamer, D., Snyder, R.L., 1989. Irrigation scheduling: a guide for efficient on-farm water management. Div. of
Agr. and Nat. Res. Publ. 21454. University of California.
Goldhamer, D.A., Viveros, M., 2000. Effects of preharvest irrigation cutoff durations and postharvest water
deprivation on almond tree performance. Irrigation Sci. 19, 125–131.
Goldhamer, D.A., Salinas, M., Crisosto, C., Day, K.R., Soler, M., Moriana, A., 2002. Effects of regulated deficit
irrigation and partial root zone drying on late harvest peach tree performance. Acta Hort. 592, 343–350.
Johnson, S.R., Handley, D.F., DeJong, T.M., 1992. Long-term response of early maturing peach trees to
postharvest water deficits. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117, 881–886.
Li, S.H., Huguet, J.G., Schoch, P.G., Orlando, P., 1989. Response of peach tree growth and cropping to soil water
deficit at various phonological stages of fruit development. J. Hort. Sci. 64, 541–552.
McCutchan, H., Shackel, K.A., 1992. Stem-water potential as a sensitive indicator of water stress in prune trees
(Prunus domestica L. cv. French). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117, 607–611.
Naor, A., Klein, I., Ruppert, H., Grinblat, Y., Peres, M., Kaufman, A., 1999. Water stress and crop level interactions
in relation to nectarine yield, fruit size distribution and water potentials. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 124 (2), 189–193.
SAS Inc., 1988. SAS/STAT User’s Guide, Release 6.03 ed.. SAS Institute Inc., Cary.
Shackel, K.A., Ahmadi, H., Biasi, W., Buchner, R., Goldhamer, D., Gurusinghe, S., Hasey, J., Kester, D., Krueger,
B., Lampinen, B., Mcgourty, G., Micke, W., Mitcham, E., Olson, B., Pelletrau, K., Philips, H., Ramos, D.,
Schwankl, L., Sibbet, S., Snyder, R., Southwick, S., Stevenson, M., Thorpe, M., Weinbaum, S., Yeager, J.,
1997. Plant water status as an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit trees. Hortechnology 7, 23–29.