Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Effects of different irrigation levels on plant water status, yield, fruit

quality, and water productivity in a drip-irrigated blueberry orchard under
Mediterranean conditions
Samuel Ortega-Farias a, *, Sergio Espinoza-Meza b, Rafael López-Olivari c, Miguel Araya-Alman d,
Marcos Carrasco-Benavides d
a
Centro de Investigación y Transferencia en Riego y Agroclimatología (CITRA) and Programa de Investigación Adaptación de la Agricultura al Cambio Climático
(A2C2), Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Talca, Casilla 747, Talca, Chile
b
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Católica del Maule, Avenida San Miguel 3605, Talca, Chile
c
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, INIA Carillanca, km 10 camino Cajón-Vilcún s/n, Casilla 929, Temuco, Chile
d
Departamento de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Católica del Maule, Campus “San Isidro”, km 6 Camino Los Niches, Curicó, Chile

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: J.E. Fernández As blueberries are susceptible to water stress and their future cultivation in semiarid Mediterranean areas will be
challenged by drought, irrigation management strategies will be needed to optimize water productivity and
Keywords: maintain sufficient levels of fruit yield and quality. This study aim was to evaluate the effect of different irri­
Deficit irrigation gation levels on plant water status, yield, fruit quality, and water productivity in a drip-irrigated rabbiteye
Irrigation scheduling
blueberry (Vaccinium ashei Reade ’Tifblue’) orchard. Four irrigation treatments based on crop evapotranspiration
Midday stem water potential
(ETc) were applied to blueberry plants during two consecutive growing seasons (2012/2013 and 2013/2014):
Water savings
125 (farmers’ irrigation management, T1), 100 (T2), 75 (T3), and 50 (T4) % ETc. During the study, the average
values of midday stem water potential (Ψstem) were − 0.85, − 0.86, − 0.97 and − 1.11 MPa for the T1, T2, T3, and
T4 treatments, respectively. Fruit weight (FW), yield (Y), fruits per plant (FP), soluble solids (SS), and the water
stress integral (WSI) were significantly affected by the irrigation treatments. The water productivity (WP), juice
pH, and weight/volume ratio were statistically similar among the treatments. The highest values of Y, FP, and
FW were observed in the T1 and T2 treatments, while the lowest values were found in the T4 treatment. In
addition, the Y, FP, FW and WSI in the T1 and T2 treatments were significantly similar, but the total water
application in the T2 treatment was between 20% and 27% lower than that in the T1 treatment. For the T1 and T2
treatments, the values of Y were between 8.8 and 9.4 kg plant − 1, and the Ψstem was >− 0.85 MPa during the two
growing seasons. The interaction between irrigation treatments and growing season was only significant for the
FW, with the lowest values observed in the T4 treatment during the 2012/2013 growing season.

addition, rainfall has significantly decreased since 2010 due to a

1. Introduction
Blueberries are functional foods, and their consumption has
increased because of their positive effects on people’s well-being and
health (Romo-Muñoz et al., 2020). In Chile, blueberry production has
increased during the last year concentrating 20% of worldwide pro­
duction (Brazelton and Young, 2017). The total planted area was 19,000
ha in 2019 with mainly highbush and rabbiteye blueberries (CIREN,
2020). The blueberry orchards are mainly located in
Mediterranean-climate areas having high atmospheric demand for water
vapor and scarce precipitation during the spring and summer period. In
mega-drought limiting the water availability for irrigation in Mediter­
ranean regions (Garreaud et al., 2020). Under these water scarcity
conditions, irrigation management strategies are required in blueberry
production to avoid plant water stress that negatively affects yield and
fruit quality (Carrasco-Benavides et al., 2020; del Pozo et al., 2019).
Rabbiteye blueberry is well adapted to semi-arid conditions, but it is
sensitive to soil water deficit. It is characterized by its low water ab­
sorption capacity, shallow root system, lack of root hairs, and high water
requirements for profitable production (Bryla, et al., 2011; Gough,
1994). Soil moisture is the most important factor affecting blueberry
root growth, and any water deficit negatively affects vegetative growth

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sortega@utalca.cl (S. Ortega-Farias).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106805
Received 18 May 2020; Received in revised form 26 January 2021; Accepted 6 February 2021
Available online 16 February 2021
0378-3774/© 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
List of acronyms and abbreviations
An CO2 assimilation rate
ANOVA analysis of variance
AWS automatic weather station
DOY days of the year
ER effective rainfall (mm)
ETc crop evapotranspiration (mm)
ET0 reference evapotranspiration (mm)
FP fruits per plant
FW fruit weight (g fruit–1)
Kc crop coefficient
PCA principal component analysis
R rainfall (mm)
SDI sustained deficit irrigation
SS soluble solids (ºBrix)
and fruit production (Bryla and Strik, 2007; Bryla et al., 2011; Holzapfel
et al., 2004; Spiers, 1998a, 1998b). Thus, irrigation management has
become an important decision-making tool for improving water pro­
ductivity (WP, kg m− 3) without compromising yield or fruit quality
(Ortega-Farias et al., 2012).
Evidence has demonstrated significant reductions in fruit size and
yield losses under severe water stress conditions. Depending on the
cultivar, less frequent irrigation and drought periods from one to three
weeks decreased the leaf water potential (ΨLeaf) from − 0.3 to − 1.6 MPa,
which significantly reduced the yield and dry weight of the plants
(Mingeau et al., 2001; Bryla and Strik, 2007). Additionally, water stress
induces stomatal closure and diminishes CO2 assimilation, with conse­
quent yield losses. For highbush blueberries, Lee et al. (2006) reported
that the ΨLeaf and CO2 assimilation rate (An) decreased from − 1.07 to
− 1.79 MPa and from 8.84 to 4.6 µmol m− 2 s− 1, respectively, after
withholding water for seven days. For lowbush blueberries, Glass et al.
(2005) observed values of midday stem water potential (Ψstem) ranging
from − 1.45 to − 1.41 MPa for stressed plants irrigated at 75% of crop
evapotranspiration (ETc). For well-irrigated highbush blueberries at
different plant densities, Bryla and Strik (2007) recorded Ψstem values
ranging from − 0.5 to − 0.4 MPa at the end of spring, and from − 1.6 to
− 1.4 MPa at harvest.
Blueberries are also susceptible to over-irrigation, which reduces
root activity, increases soil erosion and nutrient leaching, and increases
the prevalence of fungal diseases, such as phytophthora root rot (Bryla
and Linderman, 2007; Bryla et al., 2008, 2011; Starr et al., 2004). The
effects of under- or overirrigation on yield, fruit quality, and water
productivity depends on weather conditions, site, cultivar, age, spacing,
and irrigation method, among other factors. For the young highbush
blueberry (cultivar ’Duke’), Ehret et al. (2012) found that compared to
moderate irrigation treatments (soil matric potential (ΨM) from − 20 to
− 50 kPa), over-irrigation (ΨM from − 20 to − 25 kPa) significantly
reduced fruit firmness and the soluble solids of the fruits. In addition,
total yields were not significantly different between over-and moder­
ately irrigated plants, but they were significantly greater than those in a
rainfed treatment (ΨM from − 20 to − 90 kPa). In this case, yields were
6.3, 6.6, and 6.0 kg plant− 1 for the overirrigated, moderately irrigated
and rainfed treatments, respectively. For six-year-old plants, Ehret et al.
(2015) found no difference in berry weight, fruit firmness, or soluble
solids for plants irrigated under “moderated irrigation” (total water
application (TWA) between 150 and 170 L plant− 1 year− 1) and over­
irrigation (TWA between 300 and 340 L plant− 1 year− 1) treatments. In a
two-year experiment carried out in nursery plants of the northern
highbush blueberry (cultivar ‘Elliott’), Bryla et al. (2011) found that
plants drip-irrigated at 100% ETc (TWA = 289 mm year− 1) had a su­
perior yield and berry weight compared to plants irrigated at 150% ETc
2
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
T1 125 % ETc (standard farmer irrigation)
T2 100 % ETc
T3 75 % ETc
T4 50 % ETc
TDR time-domain reflectometer
TWA total water applied (m3 ha–1)
WP water productivity (kg m–3)
WSI water stress integral (MPa day)
Y yield (kg plant–1)
ΨLeaf leaf water potential (MPa)
ΨM soil matric potential (MPa)
Ψstem Stem water potential (MPa)
ƟV volumetric soil water content (m3 m–3)
ƟFC volumetric field capacity (m3 m–3)
ƟWP volumetric wilting point (m3 m–3)
(TWA = 411 ± 163 mm year− 1), which showed a reduction in growth,
new canes, and cane dry weight. In the same study, the WP for plants
irrigated at 50% ETc (TWA = 104 mm year− 1) was 54% higher than
those watered at 100% ETc, but the yield and berry weight were
significantly reduced by water restriction. In summary, the scheduling of
irrigation in blueberry orchards must be done to avoid over and under
irrigation to optimize yield and fruit quality.
In Chile, for a seven-year experiment with highbush blueberries (cv.
‘Bluetta’), Holzapfel et al. (2004) reported no significant differences in
berry weight among plants irrigated at 33 (TWA = 208.3 mm year− 1),
100 (TWA = 624.9 mm year− 1) and 133% ETc (TWA = 833.2 mm
year− 1). These authors pointed out that yield was reduced when water
was applied at a rate of 200 mm year− 1 (≈3.6 t ha− 1) and remained
relatively constant when water was applied at a rate of 600 mm year− 1
(6,8 t ha− 1). For a commercial, drip-irrigated rabbiteye blueberry
(Vaccinium virgatum ‘Bonita’) orchard, Ortega-Farías (2013) found that
plants irrigated at 80% ETc (TWA ≈270 mm year− 1) presented the
highest yield (12.3 t ha− 1) and WP (4.3 kg m− 3). In this study, the water
application of 40% and 120% ETc significantly reduced yield and WP,
corroborating that under- or overirrigation had negative effects on
blueberry yield. In a drip-irrigated highbush blueberry (cv. ‘Brigitta’)
experiment, Lobos et al. (2016, 2018) indicated that depending on the
growing season, the application of 75% ETc (TWA between 180 and 200
mm) produced a similar yield (≈4.8 kg plant− 1), berry weight (≈1.6 g
fruit− 1), and WP (≈6.9 kg m− 3) as the application of 100% ETc. Plants
irrigated at 50% ETc produced less yield (≈3.0 kg plant− 1) and berry
weight (≈1.4 g fruit− 1) but higher WP (≈7.5 kg m− 3). The same authors
observed that the Ψstem values were − 1.2 and − 0.7 MPa for plants in
50% and 100% ETc treatments, respectively.
However, the effects of nonlinear interactions among soil, cultivar,
and climate on irrigation scheduling are still poorly understood by the
blueberry farmers. Thus, irrigation management strategies are required
to optimize water productivity, yield, and quality of rabbiteye blueberry
orchards growing under water scarcity conditions. In this context, the
purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of four irrigation levels on
plant water status, yield, fruit quality, and water productivity in a drip-
irrigated rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei Reade, ‘Tifblue’) orchard
growing under Mediterranean climate conditions.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
A sustained deficit irrigation (SDI) experiment was established in
Colbún, Maule Region, Chile (35◦ 41.15′ S, 71◦ 25.18′ W), during the
2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons (from September 15 to
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
April 15). The open-field experiment was installed inside a drip-irrigated
rabbiteye blueberry (Vaccinium ashei Reade ‘Tifblue’) orchard planted in
2007 (i.e., five years old at the beginning of the experiment) with a
spacing of 3 × 1 m (plant density of 3333 plants ha− 1). The climate at the
study site is considered Mediterranean semiarid, with an average daily
temperature of 6 ◦ C during winter (from June to September) and 20 ◦ C
during summer (from December to March). In this area, the average
annual precipitation is 740 mm and is mainly concentrated between
May and August. The cumulative annual reference evapotranspiration
(ET0) is approximately 1026 mm, with maximum values observed dur­
ing January. The soil at the experimental site is classified as a Colbún
series (Mollisol, in the Ultic Argixerolls family) with a clay loam texture
(32% sand, 37% lime, and 31% clay). For the effective rooting depth
(0.60 m), the bulk density, volumetric field capacity (ƟFC), and wilting
point (ƟWP) were 1.4 g cm− 3, 0.34 m3 m− 3, and 0.20 m3 m− 3,
respectively.
2.2. Experimental design
The experimental design was a randomized complete design with
four treatments and four replications per treatment. The irrigation
treatments were 125 (farmer´s irrigation management, T1), 100 (T2), 75
(T3), and 50 (T4) % of ETc. Sixty-four plants with similar vigor and
health were selected, and each replication consisted of one row with four
plants. Two plants from the middle of each replication were used for all
the measurements, and two plants were guarded to avoid edge effects.
All the plants were irrigated using one line of 2 L h− 1 drippers spaced
every 0.5 m along the rows (standard farming practice).
2.3. Measurements of weather conditions during the experiment
Rainfall, relative humidity, and air temperature were recorded daily
for the two evaluated growing seasons using an automatic weather
station (AWS) (A733 GSM/GPRS, Adcon Telemetry, Austria) located 1.3
km from the study area. From the climate data, reference evapotrans­
piration (ET0) was computed using the Penman–Monteith equation
(Allen et al., 1998). The ETc was obtained by multiplying the ET0 by the
single crop coefficient (Kc), which ranged between 0.10 and 0.75,
depending on phenological stages. The values of Kc were 0.10, 0.27,
0.50 and 0.75 for bud set, early bloom, fruit coloring, and harvest,
respectively (Allen et al., 1998; Retamales and Hancock, 2012; Hunt
et al., 2008). Finally, the daily effective rainfall (ER) was computed as
follows (Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2010; Goodwin and Victoria, 1995):
ER = (R − 10) × 0.75 (1)
where rainfall (R) and effective rainfall (ER) are in mm day− 1.
2.4. Plant and soil measurements
At each replicate, the volumetric soil water content (θv) in the
effective root zone (0.6 m depth) was measured five times per month
during all the growing seasons using a portable time-domain reflec­
tometer (TDR) sensor (Trase System 6050 × 1, Soilmoisture Equipment
Corp., USA). The Ψstem was measured at solar noon using a pressure
chamber (Model 600, PMS Instrument Co., USA) to evaluate the plant
water status in each irrigation treatment (Ahumada-Orellana et al.,
2019). Each sample was previously prepared as follows: healthy stem
tips (15–20 cm long) with nine to 12 leaves each were selected per
replicate. The stem tips were absent of fruits and were wrapped with
plastic transparent film and aluminum foil at least 1 h before the mea­
surements. All the Ψstem measurements were made twice a week from
November to March for each season. Additionally, to describe the
accumulated effect of the SDI treatments, the water stress integral (WSI)
was calculated as follows (Myers, 1988):
3
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
⃒ ⃒
⃒∑ j
) ⃒⃒
⃒
WSI = ⃒
(
Ψ − c n⃒ (2)
⃒ i=0 stem i,i+1 ⃒
where Ψstemi, i+1 is the average midday stem water potential for any time
interval i, i + 1 (MPa); c is the value of the maximum midday stem water
potential measured during a season; and n is the number of days in each
interval. The values of c were − 0.34 and − 0.45 MPa for the growing
seasons 2012/2013 and 2013/2014, respectively.
2.5. Yield components, water productivity, and fruit quality
From early January to early March, fruits with >80% external blue
color were harvested during each growing season. The fruits were har­
vested nine times from January 8th to March 6th (2013) during the first
season and eight times from January 9th to February 26th (2014) during
the second season, respectively. For each harvest, the fruits were
counted and weighed to estimate the total yield (Y, kg plant− 1), number
of fruits per plant (FP), and fruit weight (FW, g fruit− 1). The average
values of FW were determined by counting and weighing a random
sample of 60 fruits from each replicate. Water productivity (WP) was
calculated as the ratio of blueberry yield (kg ha− 1) to water applied (m3
ha− 1).
For fruit quality, a subsample of 700 fruits from each plot was
analyzed for quality characteristics. Three hundred grams of berries
randomly selected from each replicate were frozen and later used for
measuring soluble solids (◦ Brix) using an automatic temperature
compensated refractometer (model BRIX30, Leica AG, Germany). The
ratio of berry weight to volume was estimated at harvest by a subsample
of 10 fruits per plant randomly taken from each replicate. Then, the
subsample was weighed and subsequently introduced into a test tube
(containing water) to measure the volume of water displaced.
2.6. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant
effects of the treatments, growing seasons, and their interactions on the
yield components, fruit quality, water productivity, and water stress
integral. The repeated measurements, such as θv, Ψstem, and WSI, were
analyzed over time. The treatment means were compared at p ≤ 0.05
using Tukey’s studentized range test (HSD) (Lee and Lee, 2018), and a
regression analysis was performed to determine the relationship be­
tween WSI and fruit yield. The statistical analyses were performed using
SPSS version 18.0 software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Illinois, USA).
2.7. Temporal stability analysis
A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to identify the
temporal patterns of the irrigation treatments in the field. The raw data
were standardized on a per-year basis before applying the PCA to
remove the influence of temporal variations. This method assumes that
if a significant amount of variance is explained by the first principal
component, then this component should represent the behavior of the
irrigation treatment at each individual plant. Identifying patterns within
the data through the use of exploratory analysis is a convenient way to
discriminate influential variables or components that explain the
intrinsic variability (Araya-Alman et al., 2019). The PCA analysis was
performed using Matlab’ R2019a (Mathworks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).
3. Results
3.1. Climatic variables
The total water application varied according to blueberry phenology,
irrigation treatments, and weather conditions (Table 1 and Fig. 1). The
annual values of rainfall were 750 and 786 mm, while those of ET0 were
S. Ortega-Farias et al. Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805

Table 1 the T2, T3, and T4 treatments were between 20 and 27, 40–45, and
Effect of four irrigation levels on the total water application (m3 ha− 1 season− 1) 60–63% lower than that in the farmers’ irrigation treatment (T1),
of drip-irrigated blueberry orchards during the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 respectively.
growing seasons. The effective rainfall is included as a reference.
Irrigation Growing season
treatment 3.2. Midday stem water potential and soil water content
(% of ETc) 2012/2013 (m3 2013/2014 (m3 Average (m3 ha− 1

ha− 1 season− 1) ha− 1 season− 1) season− 1) At the end of November (green fruit stage) in both growing seasons
125 (T1) 4748 5636 5192 (≈DOY 335), the Ψstem values were less than − 0.85 MPa, with signifi­
100 (T2) 3798 4509 4153 cant differences in the first season (Fig. 2A). After DOY 338, the Ψstem
75 (T3) 2849 3382 3115
values were significantly lower in the T4 treatment than in the other
50 (T4) 1899 2255 2077
Effective 1391 773 1082 treatments, especially during the harvest period (from January to
rainfall March) (Fig. 2). For the two seasons, the average values of the Ψstem
were − 0.85, − 0.86, − 0.97, and − 1.11 MPa for the T1, T2, T3, and T4
Note: ETc = crop evapotranspiration.
treatments, respectively. The lowest Ψstem values (close to − 2.0MPa)
were observed in plants at 50% ETc on DOY 42 (first season), which
1002 and 1037 mm for the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons,
showed a high atmospheric demand for water vapor (ET0
respectively. In general, seasonal variations in temperatures were
= 6.8 ± 0.7 mm day− 1). At the end of the seasons, the average Ψstem for
similar for the two growing seasons, except for 2013/14, in which the
all the treatments ranged between − 0.72 and − 0.74 MPa, indicating
maximum average temperatures were higher during the summer months
that the level of plant water stress was reduced due to decreasing water
(mid-December to mid-March) (Fig. 1B). As expected, minimum tem­
requirements. Additionally, there was a significant effect of the SDI
peratures were recorded during the winter months, and the first growing
treatments on the WSI, with the lowest and highest values for the T1
season presented the lowest values during July (0.9 ◦ C) (Fig. 1A). The
(28.07 MPa day) and T4 (57.90 MPa day) treatments, respectively
pattern of ET0 was similar between the two seasons, with peaks between
(Table 2). This table also shows that the WSI was similar for both
146 and 147 mm month− 1 during December and January. During the
growing seasons due to similar atmospheric conditions and irrigation
growing seasons (from September to April), the rainfall events were
management. Fig. 3 indicates that significant differences between the
minimal, with the highest effective rainfall occurring during the 2012/
WSI values among the treatments started in the last week of December
2013 season (139 mm) (Fig. 1C and D; Table 1). For both growing
(≈DOY 361) and increased during the harvest period. In this period, the
seasons, Table 1 indicates that the total water applications (TWAs) for
cumulative water stress was greater in the T4 treatment (50% ETc) than

Fig. 1. Monthly values of climatic variables for the study area during the two growing seasons. Rainfall = precipitation, ETo = reference evapotranspiration,
T_max = maximum temperature, T_min = minimum temperature, T_avg = average temperature.

4
S. Ortega-Farias et al. Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805

Fig. 2. Evolution of the midday stem water potential (Ψstem) and volumetric soil water content (θv) (at 0.60 m depth) during the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing
seasons. DOY is the day of the year; ETa is the actual evapotranspiration. *=Statistically significant differences in the Ψstem and θv among the treatments (Tukey test;
p ≤ 0.05). The solid and dotted lines in panels C and D represent the soil water content at the wilting point and field capacity, respectively.

Table 2
Effect of four irrigation levels on the total yield (Y), fruits per plant (FP), fruit weight (FW), water productivity (WP), and water stress integral (WSI) of a drip-irrigated
blueberry orchard during the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons.
Irrigation treatments (% of ETc) Y (kg plant− 1) FP FW (g fruit− 1) WP (kg m− 3) WSI (MPa day)

125 (T1) 9.41 ± 0.40a 7248 ± 397 a 1.28 ± 0.02a 3.80 ± 0.16a 28.07 ± 1.53c
100 (T2) 8.77 ± 0.45a 6337 ± 375 ab 1.21 ± 0.01a 4.05 ± 0.21a 31.01 ± 1.60c
75 (T3) 7.13 ± 0.35b 5525 ± 258bc 1.18 ± 0.03 ab 3.48 ± 0.19a 41.33 ± 2.57b
50 (T4) 5.76 ± 0.28c 4763 ± 275c 1.07 ± 0.05b 3.71 ± 0.15a 57.90 ± 1.90a
Growing seasons
2012/2013 7.90 ± 0.36A 6576 ± 282A 1.16 ± 0.02A 3.85 ± 0.13A 41.09 ± 3.55A
2013/2014 7.63 ± 0.37A 5361 ± 242B 1.21 ± 0.02A 3.84 ± 0.12A 38.06 ± 2.96A
Significance level
Irrigation treatments (I) 0.000 0.013 0.012 0.781 0.000
Growing seasons (S) 0.445 0.001 0.084 0.942 0.160
I✕S 0.228 0.809 0.014 0.168 0.428

Notes: Different lowercase and uppercase letters indicate significant differences (Tukey test; p ≤ 0.05) among the irrigation treatments and growing seasons,
respectively. The significant p values are in bold.

that in the other treatments, but no significant differences were observed
between the T1 and T2 treatments in either growing seasons. Addition­
ally, the regression analysis indicated that there was a significant linear
correlation between the yield and WSI (r = 0.64); however, dispersion
points were observed, especially for plants in the T1 and T2 treatments
(≈WSI < 35 MPa day) (Fig. 4).
A significant effect of water application was observed on the evolu­
tion of the volumetric soil water content (θv) during both growing
seasons. In general, the values of θv in the T1 treatment were greater than
those in the T2, T3, and T4 treatments at the end of November, and this
pattern was maintained throughout the two seasons (Fig. 2C and D). For
both seasons, the average values of θv ranged from 26 to 31, 22–29,
22–29 and 20–28% for the T1, T2, T3, and T4 treatments, respectively.
Additionally, the values of θv in the T2, T3, and T4 treatments were
similar in the first season, and variable responses to the irrigation
treatments were observed in the second season. Similar to the Ψstem, the

5
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
Fig. 3. Evolution of the water stress integral (WSI) for blueberry plants during the 2012/2013 (A) and 2013/2014 (B) growing seasons. *Statistically significant
differences among the treatments (Tukey test; p ≤ 0.05). The arrows indicate when harvests were performed.
Fig. 4. Linear regression between the water stress integral (WSI) and fruit yield
(Y) during the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons.
lowest value of θv was observed in the most water-restricted treatment
(50% ETc) on DOY 44 (2012/2013 season) when the θv was close to the
wilting point (Fig. 2C).
3.3. Yield components, water productivity, and fruit quality
Table 2 indicates significant effects of irrigation levels on the Y, FP,
and FW, with higher values observed in the T1 and T2 treatments. The
interactions between the irrigation treatments and growing seasons
were only significant for FW, with the lowest values observed in plants
irrigated at 50% ETc during the 2012/2013 growing season (Fig. 5).
Similarly, the plants irrigated at 100% and 125% ETc presented the
highest Y and FP values compared to those irrigated at 75% and 50%
ETc. Also, Fig. 6 shows that significant differences in the Y and FP among
the treatments occurred mostly from the third to the seventh harvests
(from late January to middle February for each growing season), with
the plants irrigated at 50% ETc consistently showing the lowest Y and
FP. Similarly, Fig. 7 shows that the cumulative Y was lower in the plants
irrigated at 50% ETc than in the plants in the other treatments, but the
plants with WSI values <31 MPa day (T1 and T2) presented similar
6
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
Fig. 5. Effects of the interaction between the irrigation treatments and growing
seasons on the fruit weight (FW, g fruit− 1). Different letters indicate significant
differences (Tukey test; p ≤ 0.05) between the irrigation treatments within
each growing season. The bars indicate the standard error.
cumulative yields. No significant response of WP was observed for the
irrigation treatments, growing seasons, or interactions. For all the
treatments, the WP ranged between 3.48 and 4.05 kg m− 3.
In the case of fruit quality, the irrigation levels were significant for
soluble solids, with the highest and lowest values for plants irrigated at
50% and 125% ETc, respectively (Table 3). In addition, the statistical
analysis indicated that there were no significant effects among the
treatments for juice pH and weight/volume ratio, but the juice pH was
significantly lower in the second season than in the first season.
3.4. Temporal stability of the irrigation treatments
The first (PC 1) and second (PC 2) principal components explained a
significant proportion of the variability in the irrigation treatment (68%)
for the two growing seasons (Fig. 8). The Y appeared to be correlated to
the WP and inversely correlated to the SS. The plants that consistently
exhibited low Y, low WP and high SS are located on the left side of PC 1
(negative coordinates), while the plants with consistently high Y, high
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
Fig. 6. Effect of irrigation treatments on the evolution of the yield (Y, kg plant− 1) and fruits per plant (FP) of blueberry plants during the harvest period. Different
lowercase letters in each figure indicate significant differences among irrigation treatments (Tukey test; p ≤ 0.05). Only days of the year (DOY) with significant
differences among treatments were included in the figure.
WP and low SS can be found on the right side of PC 1 (positive co­
ordinates). The ratio of weight to volume (WV) and pH did not correlate
with the other variables (Fig. 8).
4. Discussion
The main differences in the yield components and SS were attributed
to the irrigation treatments, and the interactions between the irrigation
treatments and growing seasons were significant only for FW. Similarly,
the plants irrigated at 100% and 125% ETc presented higher produc­
tivity than those irrigated at 50% and 75% ETc, but the WP was similar
among the treatments. In general, the harvest period coincided with the
increase in plant water stress and blueberry water requirements. During
the harvest period, water consumption was especially high and
accounted for 53% of the seasonal ETc; this pattern was similar to that
observed in blueberry plants by Bryla and Strik (2007) and Mingeau
et al. (2001). In this study, the field performance of blueberry plants was
severely affected when water application was reduced, with significant
reductions in Ψstem and Ɵ, which were lower in the plants irrigated at
50% ETc (T4). For both growing seasons, the soil water content for the
plants irrigated at 50% ETc (T4) was close to the wilting point (average
7
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
Ɵ = 23.4%) from December (DOY 336) to February (DOY 60), with the
values of the Ψstem ranging between − 1.11 and − 1.89 MPa. These water
stress levels may have negatively affected CO2 assimilation in the plants
in the 50% ETc treatment, which in turn significantly reduced the Y, FP,
and FW. Under greenhouse conditions, Rho et al. (2012) reported that
‘Bluecrop’ blueberry plants under severe water stress (ΨLeaf of approx­
imately − 1.94 MPa) exhibited several restrictions in gas exchange and
chlorophyll fluorescence, while Améglio et al. (1999) reported that ΨLeaf
equal to − 1.2 MPa is the threshold for xylem cavitation in Vaccinium
corymbosum L. Keen and Slavich (2012) reported that five-year-old
highbush blueberry plants irrigated close to 50% ETc presented the
highest WP, but there were not significant differences in Y or FW among
the treatments. In a drip-irrigated highbush blueberry ‘Brigitta’ orchard,
Lobos et al. (2018) found that plants irrigated at 50% ETc had Ψstem
values between − 0.87 and − 1.23 MPa and produced less Y
(≈3.0 kg plant − 1) and FW (≈1.4 g fruit− 1) but higher WP
(≈7.5 kg m− 3) than plants in fully watered treatments.
In this study, plants in the 75% ETc treatment were under moderate
and severe water stress (Ψstem between − 1.1 and − 1.5 MPa) during the
harvest periods. They exhibited lower Y, FP, and FW than the fully
irrigated plants (i.e., those in the T1 and T2 treatments). Even though the
S. Ortega-Farias et al. Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805

Table 3
Effect of four irrigation regimes on the fruit quality components of a drip-
irrigated blueberry orchard during the 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 growing
seasons.
Irrigation treatments Juice pH Soluble solids Weight to volume
(% of ETc) (◦ Brix) ratio

125 (T1) 7.21 ± 0.17a 13.5 ± 0.16c 1.02 ± 0.00a

100 (T2) 7.32 ± 0.19a 13.7 ± 0.16bc 1.02 ± 0.00a
75 (T3) 7.38 ± 0.19a 14.3 ± 0.24ab 1.03 ± 0.01a
50 (T4) 7.41 ± 0.27a 14.9 ± 0.21a 1.02 ± 0.00a
Growing seasons
2012/2013 7.94 ± 0.12A 13.8 ± 0.18B 1.03 ± 0.00A
2013/2014 6.72 ± 0.06B 14.4 ± 0.13A 1.03 ± 0.00A
Significance level
Irrigation treatments 0.921 0.002 0.712
(I)
Growing seasons (S) 0.000 0.004 0.745
I✕S 0.738 0.081 0.764

Note: Different lowercase and uppercase letters indicate significant differences

(Tukey test; p ≤ 0.05) among the irrigation treatments and growing seasons,
respectively. The significant p values are in bold.

Fig. 7. Evolution of the yield (Y) of blueberry plants during the 2012/2013 (A)
and 2013/2014 (B) growing seasons. Different lowercase letters in each figure
indicate significant differences among irrigation treatments (Tukey test;
p ≤ 0.05). Only days of the year (DOY) with significant differences among
treatments were included in the figure.
water application in the T2 treatment was between 20% and 27% lower
than that in the T1 treatment, the plants in these irrigation management
treatments were not under water stress conditions, with θv values close
to field capacity (θv > 25%) and Ψstem values >− 0.85 MPa. For these
reasons, no significant differences in blueberry production or fruit
quality were observed between the T1 and T2 treatments.
In a drip-irrigated blueberry orchard, Lobos et al. (2016, 2018)
observed that the application of water at 75% ETc produced a similar Y
(≈4.8 kg plant− 1), FW (≈1.6 g fruit− 1), and WP (≈6.9 kg m− 3) as the
application of water at 100% ETc. In these cases, the average values of
Ψstem were − 0.94 and − 0.91 MPa for plants at 75% and 100% ETc,
respectively. In this regard, Estrada et al. (2015) and Lobos et al. (2018)
suggested that threshold values of Ψstem <− 1.0 MPa can be used to
avoid water stress and significant reductions in yield and quality.
Finally, the negative relationship between the WSI and Y indicates that
the yield was reduced as cumulated water stress increased during the
harvest period, especially for drip-irrigated blueberry plants under
moderate and severe water stress. In addition, differences among
Fig. 8. Scatter plot of the principal component analysis (first two principal
components) with the data centered and reduced on a per-year basis. The cir­
cles represent the irrigation treatments (all measurements) during the 2012/
2013 and 2013/2014 growing seasons. WP = water productivity, pH = juice
pH, SS = soluble solids, W:V = weight to volume ratio.
treatments for the Y and FP increased as plant water stress (WSI)
augmented during the harvest periods. Plants irrigated at 50% ETc
consistently showing the lowest Y and FP and highest WSI in comparison
with other treatments.
The fruit quality analysis indicated that compared to the fully
watered treatments, plants irrigated at 50% ETc presented the highest
SS. This is corroborated by the PCA, which indicates that the yield is
inversely correlated to the SS. In ‘Brigitta’ highbush blueberry, Lobos
et al. (2018) observed the highest SS in fruits from plants irrigated at
50% ETc, suggesting osmotic adjustment. The data analysis also indi­
cated that the FP was lower and the SS was higher in the second season
than in the first season. In this regard, several researchers have indicated
that the fruit load could affect solute accumulation in fruits with higher
SS concentrations at low fruit loads (Léchaudel et al., 2005; Souty et al.,
1999; Wünsche et al., 2000). Finally, plants watered at 50% ETc
increased in SS, but at the expense of the Y, FP and FW as a consequence

8
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
of severe water stress. In the studies by Lobos et al. (2016, 2018), plants
irrigated at 75% and 100% ETc exhibited similar SS and FW levels, but
plants irrigated at 50% ETc had reduced FW and increased SS levels.
These results indicated that the SS and FW were similar between plants
irrigated at 75% and 100% ETc, but Y and FP at 75% ETc were superior
to those at 100% ETc.
In this study, principal component 1 (Fig. 8) was strongly correlated
with the WP, Y, and SS and can be related to the differences in the yield.
This indicates the relative temporal stability of the data (irrigation
treatment) related to the quality and yield parameters associated with
the blueberry orchard. Results indicated that it is possible to identify the
main variables that explained the temporal distribution of the differ­
ences between the sampling sites (irrigation treatments) over the two
years of the study (Fig. 8). Furthermore, the pH and WV did not show a
relationship with the yield parameters or plant water status. A nonlinear
approach will be required to relate berry quality parameters with plant
water status according to the results of other studies of perennial crops
(Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2008; Ojeda et al., 2005; Peterlunger et al.,
2002).
5. Conclusions
The results of this study indicated that irrigation treatments signifi­
cantly affected yield, fruit quality, and plant water status but not water
productivity. Blueberry plants irrigated at 100–125% ETc presented
higher yield, fruits per plant, and fruit weight than plants watered at
75–50% ETc. The water application in the 100% ETc treatment was
between 20% and 27% lower than that in the 125% ETc treatment, but
the yield and quality were similar in both treatments, which were not
under water stress conditions (Ψstem > − 0.85 MPa). The plants in the
50% ETc treatment yielded the fruits with the highest SS, but the Y, FP,
and FW were significantly reduced because of severe water stress (Ψstem
from − 1.11 to 1.89 MPa), observed especially during the harvest period.
Finally, the application of water at 100% ETc and Ψstem > − 1.0 MPa
could be a good irrigation management strategy for drip-irrigated
blueberry orchards because it led to a reduction in the total water
application between 950 and 1130 m3 ha− 1 season− 1 without affecting
the yield or quality. This water-saving is very important for the sus­
tainable production of blueberry orchards located in Mediterranean
climate zones that are facing continuous water scarcity.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Research Program on Adaptation of
Agriculture to Climate Change (A2C2), Universidad de Talca.
References
Acevedo-Opazo, C., Tisseyre, B., Guillaume, S., Ojeda, H., 2008. The potential of high
spatial resolution information to define within-vineyard zones related to vine water
status. Precis. Agric. 9, 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-008-9073-1.
Acevedo-Opazo, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Fuentes, S., 2010. Effects of grapevine (Vitis
vinifera L.) water status on water consumption, vegetative growth and grape quality:
an irrigation scheduling application to achieve regulated deficit irrigation. Agric.
Water Manag. 97, 956–964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.01.025.
Ahumada-Orellana, L., Ortega-Farías, S., Poblete-Echeverría, C., Searles, P.S., 2019.
Estimation of stomatal conductance and stem water potential threshold values for
water stress in olive trees (cv. Arbequina). Irrig. Sci. 37, 461–467. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00271-019-00623-9.
Allen, R., Pereira, L., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration. Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper. FAO,
Italy.
9
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
Améglio, T., Perrier, C., Le Roux, X., Mingeau, M., 1999. Drought effect on water
relations and fruit yield in highbush blueberries. Fruits 54, 423–430. https://prodi
nra.inra.fr/record/56398.
Araya-Alman, M., Leroux, C., Acevedo-Opazo, C., Guillaume, S., Valdés-Gómez, H.,
Verdugo-Vásquez, N., Pañitrur-De la Fuente, C., Tisseyre, B., 2019. A new localized
sampling method to improve grape yield estimation of the current season using yield
historical data. Precis. Agric. 20, 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-
09644-y.
Brazelton, C., Young, K., 2017. World Blueberry Statistics and Global Market Analysis.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/581373dbe4fcb5675436dbf7/t/58dd0a
421b10e38a0a19447f/1490881114392/Cort+Brazelton+GBC2017.pdf (Accessed
12 January 2021).
Bryla, D.R., Linderman, R.G., 2007. Implications of Irrigation Method and Amount of
Water Application on Phytophthora and Pythium Infection and Severity of Root Rot
in Highbush Blueberry. HortScience 42, 1463–1467. https://doi.org/10.21273/
HORTSCI.42.6.1463.
Bryla, D.R., Strik, B.C., 2007. Effects of cultivar and plant spacing on the seasonal water
requirements of highbush blueberry. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 132, 270–277. https://
doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.132.2.270.
Bryla, D.R., Linderman, R.G., Yang, W.Q., 2008. Incidence of Phytophthora and Pythium
infection and the relation to cultural conditions in commercial blueberry fields.
HortScience 43, 260–263. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.43.1.260.
Bryla, D.R., Gartung, J.L., Strik, B.C., 2011. Evaluation of irrigation methods for
highbush blueberry—I. Growth and water requirements of young plants.
HortScience 46, 95–101.
Carrasco-Benavides, M., Espinoza Meza, S., Olguín-Cáceres, J., Muñoz-Concha, D., von
Bennewitz, E., Ávila-Sánchez, C., Ortega-Farías, S., 2020. Effects of regulated post-
harvest irrigation strategies on yield, fruit quality and water productivity in a drip-
irrigated cherry orchard. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 48, 97–116. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01140671.2020.1721544.
CIREN, 2020. Centro de Información de Recursos Naturales. Catastro Frutícola. htt
ps://www.ciren.cl/proyectos/catastros-fruticolas/ (Accessed 10 January 2021).
del Pozo, A., Brunel-Saldias, N., Engler, A., Ortega-Farias, S., Acevedo-Opazo, C.,
Lobos, G.A., Jara-Rojas, R., Molina-Montenegro, M.A., 2019. Climate change impacts
and adaptation strategies of agriculture in Mediterranean-climate regions (MCRs).
Sustainability 11, 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102769.
Ehret, D.L., Frey, B., Forge, T., Helmer, T., Bryla, D.R., 2012. Effects of drip irrigation
configuration and rate on yield and fruit quality of young highbush blueberry plants.
HortScience 47, 414–421. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.47.3.414.
Ehret, D.L., Frey, B., Forge, T., Helmer, T., Bryla, D.R., 2015. Age-related changes in
response of highbush blueberry plants to drip irrigation. HortScience 50, 486–490.
https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.50.3.486.
Estrada, F., Escobar, A., Romero-Bravo, S., González-Talice, J., Poblete-Echeverría, C.,
Caligari, P.D.S., Lobos, G.A., 2015. Fluorescence phenotyping in blueberry breeding
for genotype selection under drought conditions, with or without heat stress. Sci.
Hortic. 181, 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.11.004.
Garreaud, R.D., Boisier, J.P., Rondanelli, R., Montecinos, A., Sepúlveda, H.H., Veloso-
Aguila, D., 2020. The Central Chile Mega Drought (2010–2018): a climate dynamics
perspective. Int J. Climatol. 40, 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6219.
Glass, V.M., Percival, D.C., Proctor, J.T.A., 2005. Tolerance of lowbush blueberries
(Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) to drought stress. II. Leaf gas exchange, stem water
potential and dry matter partitioning. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85, 919–927. https://doi.
org/10.4141/P03-028.
Goodwin, I., Victoria, A., 1995. Irrigation of Vineyards: A Winegrape Grower’s Guide to
Irrigation Scheduling and Regulated Deficit Irrigation. Institute of Sustainable
Irrigated Agriculture.
Gough, R.E., 1994. The Highbush Blueberry and Its Management. Food Product Press (an
Imprint of the Haworth Press, Inc), Binghamton, NY.
Holzapfel, E.A., Hepp, R.F., Mariño, M.A., 2004. Effect of irrigation on fruit production in
blueberry. Agric. Water Manag. 67, 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agwat.2004.02.008.
Hunt, J.F., Honeycutt, C.W., Starr, G., Yarborough, D., 2008. Evapotranspiration rates
and crop coefficients for lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium). Int J. Fruit.
Sci. 8, 282–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538360802597549.
Keen, B., Slavich, P., 2012. Comparison of irrigation scheduling strategies for achieving
water use efficiency in highbush blueberry. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 40, 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2011.599398.
Léchaudel, M., Joas, J., Caro, Y., Génard, M., Jannoyer, M., 2005. Leaf:fruit ratio and
irrigation supply affect seasonal changes in minerals, organic acids and sugars of
mango fruit. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 251–260. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1968.
Lee, H.J., Kim, S.J., Yu, D.J., Lee, B.Y., Kim, T.C., 2006. Changes of photosynthetic
characteristics in water-stressed ‘Rancocas’ blueberry leaves. Acta Hortic. 11–118.
https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.715.15.
Lee, S., Lee, D.K., 2018. What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test?
Korean J. Anesthsiol. 71, 353–360. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.18.00242.
Lobos, T.E., Retamales, J.B., Ortega-Farías, S., Hanson, E.J., López-Olivari, R., Mora, M.
L., 2016. Pre-harvest regulated deficit irrigation management effects on post-harvest
quality and condition of V. corymbosum fruits cv. Brigitta. Sci. Hortic. 207, 152–159.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.05.022.
Lobos, T.E., Retamales, J.B., Ortega-Farías, S., Hanson, E.J., López-Olivari, R., Mora, M.
L., 2018. Regulated deficit irrigation effects on physiological parameters, yield, fruit
quality and antioxidants of Vaccinium corymbosum plants cv. Brigitta. Irrig. Sci. 36,
49–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-017-0564-6.
Mingeau, M., Perrier, C., Améglio, T., 2001. Evidence of drought-sensitive periods from
flowering to maturity on highbush blueberry. Sci. Hortic. 89, 23–40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0304-4238(00)00217-X.
S. Ortega-Farias et al.
Myers, B.J., 1988. Water stress integral-a link between short-term stress and long-term
growth. Tree Physiol. 4, 315–323. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/4.4.315.
Ojeda, H., Carrillo, N., Deis, L., Tisseyre, B., Heywang, M., Carbonneau, A., 2005.
Precision viticulture and water status II: quantitative and qualitative performance of
different within field zones, defined from water potential mapping. In: Shultz, H.R.
(Ed.), Proceedings of 14th GESCO Congress. Groupe d′ Etudes des systèmes de
Conduite de la Vigne, Geisenheim, Germany, pp. 741–748.
Ortega-Farías, S., 2013. Gestión Hídrica del Arándano. Aplicación de un Sistema Integral
en Retiro, Región del Maule. Berries Cherries Rev. Frutíc. Chile 18, 18–24.
Ortega-Farias, S., Fereres, E., Sadras, V.O., 2012. Special issue on water management in
grapevines. Irrig. Sci. 30, 335–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0356-y.
Peterlunger, E., Sivilotti, P., Bonetto, C., Paladin, M., 2002. Water stress induces changes
in polyphenol concentration in Merlot grapes and wines. Riv. Vitic. Enol. 1, 51–66.
Retamales, J.B., Hancock, J.F., 2012. Blueberries. Crop Production Science in
Horticulture, vol. 21. CABI, UK.
Rho, H., Yu, D.J., Kim, S.J., Lee, H.J., 2012. Limitation factors for photosynthesis in
“Bluecrop” highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum) leaves in response to
moderate water stress. J. Plant Biol. 55, 450–457. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12374-
012-0261-1.
10
Agricultural Water Management 249 (2021) 106805
Romo-Muñoz, R., Dote-Pardo, J., Garrido-Henríquez, H., Araneda-Flores, J., Gil, J.M.,
2020. Blueberry consumption and healthy lifestyles in an emerging market. Span. J.
Agric. Res. 17, e0111 https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019174-14195.
Souty, M., Génard, M., Reich, M., Albagnac, G., 1999. Effect of assimilate supply on
peach fruit maturation and quality. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79, 259–268. https://doi.org/
10.4141/P97-095.
Spiers, J.M., 1998a. Establishment and early growth and yield of “Gulfcoast” southern
highbush blueberry. HortScience 33, 1138–1140. https://doi.org/10.21273/
HORTSCI.33.7.1138.
Spiers, J.M., 1998b. Influence of cultural practices on root distribution of “Gulfcoast”
blueberry. Acta Hortic. 247–254. https://doi.org/10.17660/
ActaHortic.1998.513.28.
Starr, G., Seymour, R.M., Olday, F., Yarborough, D.E., 2004. Determination of
evapotranspiration and drainage in lowbush blueberries (Vaccinium angustifolium)
using weighing lysimeters. Small Fruits Rev. 3, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J301v03n03_04.
Wünsche, J.N., Palmer, J.W., Greer, D.H., 2000. Effects of Crop load on fruiting and gas-
exchange characteristics of “Braeburn”/M.26 apple trees at full canopy. J. Am. Soc.
Hortic. Sci. 125, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.125.1.93.