Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

Effect of irrigation cut-off strategies on yield, water productivity and gas T

exchange in a drip-irrigated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L. cv. Tonda di
Giffoni) orchard under semiarid conditions
Samuel Ortega-Fariasa,*, Emilio Villalobos-Soublettb, Camilo Riveros-Burgosa, Mauricio Zúñigac,
Luis E. Ahumada-Orellanad
a
Research and Extension Center for Irrigation and Agroclimatology (CITRA) and Research Program on Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change (A2C2), Faculty of
Agricultural Sciences, Universidad de Talca, Campus Talca, Chile
b
Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias (INIA) Intihuasi, Colina San Joaquín s/n, La Serena, Chile
c
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Universidad Católica del Maule, Curicó, Chile
d
C. Abud & Cia., Departamento de investigación, desarrollo e innovación. Curicó, Chile

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: An experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of irrigation cut-off (ICO) strategies on yield components,
Regulated deficit irrigation water productivity (WP), and gas exchange in drip-irrigated hazelnut (Corylus avellana L., cv. Tonda di Giffoni)
Plant-water relations trees during two consecutive growing seasons. The experimental design was completely randomized, with four
Water productivity ICO treatments and four replicates per treatment based on threshold values of the midday stem water potential
(Ψstem). In the T1 treatment, Ψstem was maintained around –0.7 MPa, while T2, T3, and T4 treatments did not
receive irrigation from the beginning of stage III (fruit growth curve) until trees reached approximately the
following Ψstem thresholds: –1.0 MPa in T2, –1.3 MPa in T3 and –1.6 MPa in T4. Once reached the specific
thresholds, irrigation was restored and maintained according to T1 in all treatments until harvest. Besides,
measurements of Ψstem, stomatal conductance (gs), net CO2 assimilation rate (An), transpiration rate (E), yield
components, α-tocopherol kernel content, and WP were evaluated in this study. Results indicated that values of
Ψstem, An, gs, and E observed in T3 and T4 were between 24–29, 15–37, 15–40, and 11–32 % lower than those
found in T1, respectively. T4 significantly decreased yield (kg tree–1), kernel (KW), and fruit (FW) weights, but
KW/FW ratio and the α-tocopherol kernel content (μg g–1) were not significantly different among treatments.
Also, this study indicated that the T2, T3, and T4 treatments had 10, 17, and 25 days without irrigation, which
produced water savings of 19, 24, and 29 % in comparison with T1, respectively. Finally, WP was significantly
affected by ICO strategies, with the minimum and maximum values observed in T1 (0.51 kg m–3) and T4
(0.86 kg m–3), respectively.

1. Introduction traditional production areas having mean annual rainfall between

Hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) is one of the most important nut crops
in the world, as its kernel plays an essential role in nutrition and human
health. The composition of its nut is rich in monounsaturated fatty acids
and α–tocopherol content, which makes it desirable for direct con-
sumption in addition to cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries
(Ghirardello et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2018; Pannico et al., 2017). For
these reasons, the worldwide surface area planted with hazelnut orch-
ards has increased significantly during recent years, especially in
southern hemisphere countries such as Chile, whose cultivated area has
increased by approximately 80 % (FAOSTAT, 2016). Unlike to the
800–1000 mm, distributed evenly throughout the year (Cristofori et al.,
2014), the new hazelnut plantations are located in Mediterranean cli-
mate zones with rainfall mostly distributed during the winter and early
spring (Deitch et al., 2017; Stolpe and Undurraga, 2016; Uribe et al.,
2012). In this regard, water scarcity in Mediterranean areas due to
climatic change has become the main limitation to maintaining ha-
zelnut production (Garreaud et al., 2017; Roco et al., 2016; Ustaoglu
and Karaca, 2014). Under this scenario, it is necessary to develop irri-
gation strategies to increase water productivity (WP, yield per unit of
water applied by irrigation) and maintain adequate yield (Fereres and
Soriano, 2007; Medrano et al., 2015; Ruiz-Sanchez et al., 2010).

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106173
Received 29 April 2019; Received in revised form 14 March 2020; Accepted 25 March 2020
0378-3774/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
S. Ortega-Farias, et al. Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173

Table 1 blueberry (González-Altozano and Castel, 2000; Lobos et al., 2018).

Mean and standard deviation values for the canopy width, tree height, leaf area This technique consists of reducing the volume of water applied during
index and stem-shrubs diameter obtained at the at the beginning of the ex- a less–sensitive phenological stage to water stress (Adu et al., 2018;
periment (second week of Dicember 2016). Chai et al., 2016; Keen and Slavich, 2011; Ortega-Farias et al., 2012).
Treatment Width (m) Height (m) Leaf area index Stem-shrubs Several authors have noted that RDI strategies can reduce water
(m2 m−2) diameter (cm) application between 20–30 % with minimal impact on pistachio, olive
and vineyard production (Carbonell-Barrachina et al., 2015; Girona
T1 5.1 ± 0.11 4.6 ± 0.76 2.5 ± 0.13 9.7 ± 0.22
T2 5.1 ± 0.16 4.6 ± 0.71 2.5 ± 0.52 9.2 ± 0.56
et al., 2006; Gómez-del-Campo, 2013; Iniesta et al., 2009; Romero
T3 5.0 ± 0.03 4.8 ± 0.59 2.9 ± 0.65 9.6 ± 0.42 et al., 2015). In addition, the RDI strategy using irrigation cut-off (ICO)
T4 5.1 ± 0.09 4.7 ± 0.37 2.5 ± 0.64 9.2 ± 0.55 has been suggested to be applied in prunes, vineyards and olive orch-
significance 0.59 0.91 0.55 0.32 ards (Ahumada-Orellana et al., 2017, 2018; Girona et al., 2006;
Lampinen et al., 2001; Moriana et al., 2012; Trentacoste et al., 2015).
Data are mean ± standard deviation (n = 3); T1 (control) indicates that ha-
The ICO strategy consists of suppressing irrigation completely during a
zelnut trees were irrigated according to 100 % of actual evapotranspiration
which maintained a midday stem water potential (Ѱstem) > -0.7 MPa; T2, T3, less–sensitive phenological period to water deficit and replenishing it
and T4 indicate that irrigation was re-established when trees reached ap- once a predefined threshold of water deficit is reached. The correct
proximately a Ψstem threshold of -1.0, -1.3 and -1.7 MPa, respectively. application of the ICO strategy requires maintaining tree water status
and gas exchange within an optimal range (Flexas et al., 2004; Galindo
Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) has been demonstrated to be an ef- et al., 2018; Girona et al., 2006) so that when water stress occurs, the
fective management strategy to improve WP with nonnegative effects reduction of stomatal conductance (gs) does not cause a significant
on yield and quality in different soft fruit species such as citrus and decrease in CO2 net assimilation rate (An), (Cifre et al., 2005; Medrano

Fig. 1. Seasonal evolution of the reference evapotranspiration (ET0) and effective rainfall (R) during the 2016–2017 (A) and 2017–2018 (B) growing seasons (“Río
Claro” Valley, Maule Region of Chile).

2
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
Fig. 2. Maximum, minumum and average daily values of relative humidty (%) and air temperature (°C) during the irrigation cut-off period in the 2016–2017 (A and
B) and 2017–2018 (C and D) growing seasons. (“Río Claro” Valley, Maule Region of Chile).
et al., 2002). For this reason, the stem water potential (Ψstem) has been
suggested as a tool for monitoring irrigation management in a wide
range of species such as sweet cherry, peach, pecan, pistachio, olive,
and grapes (Abrisqueta et al., 2015; Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2010;
Ahumada‑Orellana et al., 2019; Blanco et al., 2018; Jara-Rojas et al.,
2015; Marino et al., 2018; Memmi et al., 2016; Othman et al., 2014;
Williams and Trout, 2005). In this matter, several reports have in-
dicated that the Ψstem is accurate enough to detect small but statistically
significant differences among irrigation treatments compared to both
predawn and leaf water potential measurements (Choné, 2001;
Hernandez-Santana et al., 2016; Spinelli et al., 2017).
Several studies indicated that ICO strategies using Ψstem as a
threshold increased both water savings and WP between 20–30 and
25–40 %, respectively, in prunes, vineyards, and olives (Girona et al.,
2006; Lampinen et al., 2001; Moriana et al., 2012; Trentacoste et al.,
2015). Furthermore, the cumulative effects of water deficit throughout
the growing season can be determined using the water stress integral
(SIΨ) that has been well-correlated with the WP in loquats, olives and
vineyards (Ahumada-Orellana et al., 2017; Fernández et al., 2010;
Myers, 1988; Zúñiga et al., 2018). However, there are no studies for
hazelnut trees regarding the application of ICO strategies in combina-
tion with the monitoring of Ψstem. Additionally, the majority of studies
about deficit irrigation in hazelnut trees has established the threshold as
a percentage of the replenishment of the actual evapotranspiration
(ETa) (Bignami et al., 2009; Dias et al., 2005; Girona et al., 1994;
Tombesi and Rosati, 1997).
A sigmoid curve represents the growth of both fruits and kernels of
hazelnut trees with three consecutive stages (I = Beginning of fruit
(ovary) growth; II = The ovary attains full size and kernel growth
starts; and III = The growth of fruit becomes steady and the kernel
begins to evolve rapidly, reaching its final volume between 2–3 weeks)
(Valentini et al., 2015). In this sense, RDI strategy is required because
severe water stress from stage I to near the harvest (stage III) can reduce
the final fruit size (Girona et al., 1994; Marsal et al., 1997;
Mehlenbacher et al., 1993; Tombesi and Rosati, 1997). Also, Cincera
et al. (2019) reported that the stomatal regulation by water stress
causes the decrease of photosynthetic activity and the early cessation of
the kernel–filling. Some authors suggest that late water stress (July and
3
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
August) may not have adverse effects on the yield (Grau and Sandoval,
2009; Tombesi and Rosati, 1997).
Considering climate change, the expansion of hazelnut cultivation
in areas other than those of origin, and the need to know how to save
water without reducing the yield, the principal aim of this work was to
evaluate the effect of three ICO strategies based on Ψstem thresholds on
yield, water productivity and gas exchange of a drip-irrigated hazelnut
orchard under semiarid conditions.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site and plant material
The experiment was carried out during the 2016–2017 and
2017–2018 growing seasons in a drip-irrigated commercial hazelnut (cv
Tonda Di Gifonni) orchard located in Río Claro, Maule Region, Chile
(35°18′21.1″ S 71°21′33.4″ W; 219 m.a.s.l.). The climate for this region
is classified as Mediterranean semiarid with an average daily tem-
perature of 17 °C and a mean annual rainfall of 516 mm (Poblete-
Echeverría et al., 2012). The summer period is usually cloudless, dry
and hot, and only 3 % of the annual rainfall occurs during this period,
while spring is considered wet (16 % of the annual rainfall occurs
during this period). The soil of the hazelnut orchard is classified as the
San Rafael series (Mollisols, fine, mixed, thermal from the Aquic dur-
ixerolls) with a clay loam texture. For the effective rooting depth
(0–50 cm), the volumetric soil water content at field capacity (θFC) and
wilting point (θWP) were 32.4 % and 19.8 %, respectively.
The hazelnut orchard was established in 2009 with a spacing of
5 m × 6 m (333 tree ha–1) and trained on a multiple stem-shrub system.
Two drip lines irrigated each tree with emitters supplying water at a
rate of 1.8 l h–1 spaced at 1.0 m (10 emitters per tree). The experimental
site was managed according to conventional agricultural practices used
in commercial hazelnut orchards in terms of fertilization, pest and
disease control, and pruning during the two seasons. The orchard irri-
gation was scheduled to replenish 100 % of actual evapotranspiration
(ETa = ET0 x Kc, where ET0 and Kc are reference evapotranspiration
(mm day–1) and crop coefficient (dimensionless), respectively) from
October (bud break) to March (leaf fall). ET0 was estimated using the
S. Ortega-Farias, et al. Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173

Fig. 3. Cumulated water application (m3 ha−1) in each treatment during 2016-2017 (A), and 2017-2018 (B) growing seasons. T1 (control) indicates that hazelnut
trees were irrigated according to 100 % of actual evapotranspiration which maintained a midday stem water potential (Ѱstem) > −0.7 MPa; T2, T3, and T4 indicate
that irrigation was re-established when trees reached approximately a Ψstem threshold of −1.0, −1.3 and −1.7 MPa, respectively. The black arrow indicates the
beginning of the irrigation restriction of T2, T3, and T4.

Penman–Monteith equation, which uses as input air temperature (Ta),
relative humidity (RH), solar radiation (Rs), and wind speed (Ws)
(Allen et al., 1998). Near the experimental site, an automatic weather
station (A733, Adcon Telemetry, Klosterneuburg, Austria) was installed
over a reference grass to measure Ta, RH, Rs, Ws, and precipitation
(Pp). The Kc values used in this study were 0.7 from September to
November and 0.8 from December to April. These values were obtained
using an eddy-covariance system installed above the commercial ha-
zelnut orchard (Ortega-Farias et al.; unpublished data). Finally, the
effective rainfall (R, mm) was calculated as R = [Pp – 5]∗0.75 where R
and Pp are in mm day−1 (Goodwin and Victoria, 1995).
2.1.1. Experimental design
The experiment was conducted with four treatments and four re-
plications, where four continuous trees formed the experimental unit,
and the observation unit were the two central trees. For treatment T1,
the trees were irrigated according to 100 % of ETa, which maintained a
Ψstem around –0.7 MPa. The three remaining treatments corresponded
to an RDI, where the irrigation was cut-off from the beginning of stage
III (fruit growth curve) until trees reached approximately the following
Ψstem thresholds: –1.0 MPa in T2, –1.3 MPa in T3 and –1.6 MPa in T4.
Once the treatments reached their respective Ψstem thresholds, the ir-
rigation was re–established. In this case, the irrigation cut–off started
on December 27th and December 21th for the first and second season,
respectively.
Stage III in the fruit growth curve was determined according to
Valentini et al. (2015), and the stabilization of shell growth was ob-
served on the day of the year (DOY) 349 (December 14th) in
2016–2017 and DOY 353 (December 19th) in 2017–2018. A completely
randomized experimental design was used since the tree canopy and

4
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
soil conditions in the experimental site were homogeneous. In this case,
Table 1 indicated that there were no significant differences among
treatments for the tree height, canopy width, leaf area index (LAI), and
diameters of the stem-shrubs. This data was collected at the beginning
of the experiment (second week of Dicember 2016).
2.2. Measurements of stem water potential and gas exchange parameters
The Ψstem was measured weekly at solar noon (between 12:00 and
15:00 h; Coordinated Universal Time UTC–3) from November to March
using a pressure chamber (PMS Instrument Co., model 600, Corvallis,
Oregon, USA). The used samples corresponded to fully mature and
healthy leaves (two per replication) located in the middle third of the
tree. The leaves were covered with completely hermetic aluminum foil
bags for at least 2 h before the measurement time. The leaves were cut
and immediately placed in the chamber. Additionally, in order to de-
scribe the accumulated effect of the deficit irrigation treatments, the
water stress integral (SIΨ) was calculated as follows (Myers, 1988):
SIΨ= ∑ (Ψ̄stem − c) n
5
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
Fig. 4. Effect of irrigation cut-off (ICO) strategies on
the seasonal evolution of the midday stem water po-
tential (Ѱstem) during 2016-2017 (A) and 2017-2018
(B) growing seasons. T1 (control) indicates that ha-
zelnut trees were irrigated according to 100 % of ac-
tual evapotranspiration which maintained a midday
stem water potential (Ѱstem) > −0.7 MPa; T2, T3,
and T4 indicate that irrigation was re-established
when trees reached approximately a Ψstem threshold
of −1.0, −1.3 and −1.7 MPa, respectively. Vertical
bars represent the standard error. Black and white
arrows indicate the beginning and replenishment of
irrigation, respectively, in T2, T3 and T4. “n.s” = non
significance difference; “*” = significative difference,
and “**” = highly significant differences according to
the Tukey multiple comparison test (P < 0.05).
where Ψ̄ stem is the average stem water potential for any interval (MPa-
day), c is the maximum value of stem water potential during the season,
and n is the number of days in each interval (Moriana et al., 2007). The
measured values of c were –0.45 and –0.6 MPa for the first and second
growing season, respectively.
Values of gs, E, and An were measured between 12:00 and 14:00 h
(Coordinated Universal Time UTC–3) using a portable infrared gas
analyzer (LI–6400, LICOR Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska, USA) equipped with
a 6 cm2 transparent leaf chamber. Moreover, water use efficiency
(WUE) was calculated as a ratio of An to E. Values of gs, E, and An were
simultaneously measured with Ψstem, using completely sunny, fully
mature, and healthy leaves (two per replication) located in the middle
third of the trees. Finally, the molar air-flow rate was set at
500 μmol s−1, and the CO2 concentration was kept constant at
400 μmol s−1 using a CO2 injector system provided by the manu-
facturer.
2.2.1. Yield components, α-tocopherol kernel content, and water
productivity
The fruit was harvested on DOY 96 (April 6th) and DOY 85 (March
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
Fig. 5. Relationship between the water stress integral and fruit weight (A),
kernel weight (B), and water productivity (C). T1 (control) indicates that ha-
zelnut trees were irrigated according to 100 % of actual evapotranspiration
which maintained a midday stem water potential (Ѱstem) > -0.7 MPa; T2, T3,
and T4 indicate that irrigation was re-established when trees reached ap-
proximately a Ψstem threshold of -1.0, -1.3 and -1.7 MPa, respectively.
26th) for the 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 growing seasons, respectively.
For this activity, the two central trees of each replication were har-
vested separately using a specialized machine. The yield components
were yield per tree, fruit weight (FW), kernel weight (KW), and KW/FW
ratio. The measured yield per tree (kg tree–1) was weighing the fruit in
the field immediately after being harvested. The KW and the KW/FW
ratio were estimated using a sample of 50 fruits per replication (200
fruits per treatment), which were randomly collected to weigh them
individually in the laboratory. Additionally, a composite sample of
6
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
500 g from the same two harvested trees per replication was used to
determined α-tocopherol kernel content (vitamin E) using high-per-
formance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with electrochemical detec-
tion (Podda et al., 1996; Wang et al., 2018).
2.3. Data analysis
A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the
treatment as well as the season and its interaction effects on tree water
status, gas exchange, and yield components. Also, the effects of dif-
ferent treatments on yield parameters for both seasons were evaluated
by covariance analysis using fruit load (number of fruits per tree) as a
covariate. Significant differences between treatments or seasonal means
were evaluated with Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) test
(α = 0.05). Data analyses was done using the student version of the
statistical software Infostat (Di Rienzo et al., 2017). Finally, a regression
analysis was performed to determine the relationship between SIΨ
versus FW, KW, and WP.
3. Results
3.1. Climatic conditions
In general, the atmospheric conditions during both study seasons
were dry and hot without significant rainfall events. The values of an-
nual precipitation were 353 and 679 mm, while those of seasonal
rainfall (from September to April) were 35 and 56 mm for the
2016–2017 and 2017–2018 seasons, respectively (Fig. 1). The daily
values of Ta ranged between 5–32 and 5–29 °C while those of RH were
between 24–95 and 22–94 % for the first and second season, respec-
tively (Fig. 2). The cumulative ET0 ranged between 860−891 mm
during the two growing seasons, with maximum values observed during
December and January (Fig. 1). Under these atmospheric conditions,
the mean water applications for T1, T2, T3, and T4 treatments were
5494, 4462, 4201, and 3906 m3 ha−1 season−1 for the two seasons,
respectively (Fig. 3). In this case, the water savings were 19 % in T2, 24
% in T3 and 29 % in T4.
3.2. Physiological responses
For both seasons, there were no significant differences for Ψstem
among treatments at the beginning of the water restriction period.
However, significant differences in Ψstem were observed after a week of
applying the ICO treatment (Fig. 4). Throughout the two growing sea-
sons, the Ѱstem values in T1 ranged between –0.90 and –0.54 MPa, with
minimum values observed on DOY 24 for the first season and DOY 10
for the second season. For T2, T3, and T4 treatments, Ѱstem decreased
until reaching the mean values of –1.0, –1.3, and –1.6 MPa after 10, 17,
and 25 days without irrigation, respectively. The lowest values of Ѱstem
were observed in the T4 treatment on DOY 18 and 20 for the first and
second seasons, respectively. The SIΨ also reflects the effect of water
stress experienced by trees during the ICO period. SIΨ was significantly
increased by ICO treatments with mean values (at harvest) of 105, 98
and 89 MPa for T4, T3, and T2, respectively (Table 3). Besides, SIΨ
presented a significant linear relationship with KW (R2 = 0.77) and FW
(R2 = 0.75) which decreased as irrigation cut-off was increased (Fig. 5A
and B). Finally, Fig. 5C indicates that there was a significant linear
correlation between WP and SIΨ indicating that WP improved by the
water restriction.
Significant differences were observed for the mean seasonal values
of An, gs, and E. The T1 presented higher values than other treatments
with 10.5 μmol CO2 m–2 s–1, 0.20 mol H2O m–2 s–1 and 5.7 mmol H2O
m–2 s–1, respectively. Additionally, An, gs and E in T3 and T4 were
significantly lower than those in T1 with mean values ranging between
7.5–6.6 μmol CO2 m–2 s–1, 0.16–0.12 mol H2O m–2 s–1 and 4.8–3.9 mmol
H2O m–2 s–1, respectively. The mean seasonal values of An, gs, and E for
S. Ortega-Farias, et al. Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173

Table 2
Effect of different irrigation treatments on mean seasonal values of gas exchange parameters and water stress integral.
Net assimilation rate of CO2 Stomatal conductance Transpiration rate Water stress integral Water use efficiency (μmol
(μmol CO2 m−2 s−1) (mol H2O m−2 s−1) (mmol H2O m−2 s−1) (MPa) CO2 mmol H2O−1)

Treatment T1 10.5 a 0.20 a 5.7 a 78.1 a 1.86

T2 8.9 ab 0.17 ab 5.1 ab 89.3 b 1.85
T3 7.5 bc 0.16 b 4.8 bc 98.3 c 1.66
T4 6.6 c 0.12 c 3.9 c 104.8 d 1.69
Season 2016−2017 8.3 0.17 5.0 95.4 1.90 a
2017−2018 8.5 0.15 4.7 89.9 1.58 b

Treatment 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018
x
Season
T1 10.5 9.9 0.21 0.20 5.8 5.5 79.9 76.2 1.96 1.72
T2 8.6 9.1 0.18 0.16 5.0 5.2 92.1 86.6 2.01 1.62
T3 7.5 7.3 0.18 0.14 5.1 4.4 101.9 94.6 1.82 1.43
T4 6.4 7.3 0.13 0.11 4.0 3.8 107.6 102.1 1.80 1.54

Analysis of variance (P- values)

Treatment < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0002 < 0.0001 0.4378
Season 0.6154 0.0612 0.3337 0.0002 0.0035
Treatment 0.9465 0.8955 0.0827 0.7920 0.9373
x
Season

T1 (control) indicates that hazelnut trees were irrigated according to 100 % of actual evapotranspiration which maintained a midday stem water potential (Ѱstem) > -
0.7 MPa; T2, T3, and T4 indicate that irrigation was re-established when trees reached approximately a Ψstem threshold of -1.0, -1.3 and -1.7 MPa, respectively.

T2 did not show significant differences with T1 and T3, but they were
significantly higher than those observed for T4. (Table 2). In addition,
there were not a significant effect of treatments on WUE; however, the
lowest mean seasonal values were observed during the 2017/18
growing season. For a 3-year-old hazelnut trees (cv. Tonda di Giffoni)
grown in pots, Tombesi (1994) observed that WUE was between
0.82−0.84 μmol CO2/mmol H2O from field capacity to 60 % of avail-
able water, after which, it decrease to 0.57 μmol CO2/mmol H2O.
3.3. Yield parameters, α-tocopherol kernel content, and water productivity
The statistical analysis indicates that there was a significant effect of
ICO strategies on yield with the highest and lowest values observed in
T1 (8.1 kg tree–1) and T4 (7.5 kg tree–1), respectively. Additionally,
yields were significantly similar among T1, T2, and T3 and there was
not significant interaction among treatments and growing seasons.
The KW and FW were significantly affected by ICO treatments,
where T1 and T4 presented the highest and lowest values, respectively.
In this case, the KW of T1 (1.52 g) and T2 (1.46 g) did not present
significant differences, but they were statistically higher than those of
T4 (1.37 g) and T3 (1.41 g). The FW only demonstrated significant
differences between T1 and T4, whose average values were 3.32 g and
3.04 g, respectively (Table 3).
The KW/FW ratios ranged between 0.42–0.45, and there was no
significant effect among treatments and seasons. Moreover, the season
had a significant effect on α-tocopherol content, with values of 223 and
602 μg g−1 for the first and second season, respectively. Finally, the WP
was significantly higher during the first growing season, and average
values of WP were significantly higher in T3 (0.76 kg m–3) and T4
(0.86 kg m–3) in comparison with T1 (0.51 kg m–3) (Table 3).
4. Discussion
The weather conditions during the two study seasons agreed with
those of the expected climatic description of the area with a negligible
level of precipitation (less than 60 mm) during the two growing sea-
sons. In these seasons, the cumulative ETa from October to March was
between 628–686 mm, which was higher than those reported by Özmen
(2016) on rainfed conditions (251–289 mm) and those published by
Cristofori et al. (2014), who observed ETa and precipitation ranging
between 124–315 mm and 89–537 mm, respectively.
The Ψstem values presented significant differences among treatments
during the ICO application. For T1, Ψstem remained higher than the
other treatments and almost constant during both seasons with values
greater than –0.7 MPa (Fig. 4). Similarly, Grau and Sandoval (2009)
observed values greater –0.9 MPa for three-year-old hazelnut trees
under nonwater restriction. For T2 treatment, Ψstem was reduced up to
–1.0 MPa during the ICO application, which reduced the total irrigation
volume by about 19 % respect to T1. Moreover, a decrease up to 24 and
29 % of the full irrigation treatment led to a minimum Ψstem equal to
–1.7 and –1.3 MPa for T4 and T3, respectively. The results of this study
showed a decline of 27 % in tree water status, which agrees with lit-
erature, that shows water status reduction between 12–50 % when
using the Ψleaf and ΨPD (Awada and Josiah, 2007; Catoni et al., 2017;
Dias et al., 2005; Girona et al., 1994; Marsal et al., 1997).
About the response of gas exchange, the ICO treatments sig-
nificantly reduced the An, gs, and E values between 15–37, 15–40, and
11–32 % of T1, respectively. In this case, the lowest gs and An values
observed in T4 were 0.12 mol H2O m–2 s–1 and 6.6 μmol CO2 m–2 s–1,
respectively. Similar pattern was reported by Marsal et al. (1997), who
observed that an application of 20 % of ETa during the fruit growing
period (from DOY 190–240) for hazelnut trees reduced gs and An from
0.25 to 0.05 mol H2O m–2 s–1 and 8.8 to 1.4 μmol CO2 m–2 s–1, respec-
tively. Moreover, the average values of An and gs obtained in T2 were
not significantly different than those in T1, but they were significantly
higher than those observed in T4. These results can explain the non-
significant differences between T2 and T1 for yield, FW and KW
(Table 3). Instead, with a longer water stress period (T3 and T4), An, gs
and E were reduced significantly. This gas exchange response supports
the reduction in the KW seen in T3 (1.41 g) and T4 (1.37 g). Several
studies have noted that this response is related to stomatal closure
preventing water loss, which reduces gs, An, and, therefore, the yield
(Flexas et al., 2004; Flexas and Medrano, 2002; Marino et al., 2018).
However, the T3 treatment, having even reduced its gas exchange
parameters and water status, did not result in a significant loss of yield,
FW or KW/FW ratio, which contrasts with previous studies carried out
on hazelnut trees (Bignami et al., 2009; Cristofori et al., 2008).
Grau and Sandoval (2009) suggested that the impact of water re-
striction during stage III would be minimized since there is only a
translocation of dry matter. However, Cristofori et al. (2015) reported

7
 S. Ortega-Farias, et al.

Table 3
Effect of different irrigation treatments on yield, kernel weight, fruit weight, ratio of kernel to fruit, α-tocopherol kernel content and water productivity (WP).
Yield (kg tree−1) Kernel weight (g) Fruit weight (g) Kernel/Fruit (%) α-tocopherol (μ g−1) WP (kg m−3)

Treatments T1 8.1 a 1.52 a 3.32 a 44.5 392.3 0.51 c

T2 8.0 ab 1.46 ab 3.25 ab 42.2 418.1 0.68 b
T3 7.8 ab 1.41 b 3.14 ab 41.6 409.2 0.76 ab
T4 7.5 b 1.37 b 3.04 b 42.6 428.8 0.86 a
Seasons 2016−2017 7.9 1.47 a 3.20 42.8 222.7 b 0.82 a
2017−2018 7.8 1.41 b 3.18 42.7 601.5 a 0.59 b

Treatment 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018 2016−2017 2017−2018
x
Season

8
T1 8.9 7.3 1.54 1.59 3.17 3.27 44.8 44.2 190.9 592.4 0.57 0.45
T2 8.9 7.2 1.46 1.49 3.05 3.22 42.6 41.9 226.6 605.2 0.85 0.50
T3 8.5 6.8 1.39 1.38 2.97 3.12 41.5 41.7 223.7 599.2 0.92 0.61
T4 7.9 6.4 1.36 1.34 2.73 2.93 42.2 42.9 238.4 619.8 0.92 0.79

Analysis of covariance (P-values)

Treatments 0.0148 0.0015 0.0048 0.0905 0.5481 < 0.0001
Seasons 0.4295 0.0325 0.7844 0.6984 < 0.0001 0.0001
Treatment 0.7774 0.2808 0.8429 0.8734 0.9490 0.0810
x
Season
Covariate < 0.0001 0.6328 0.2808 0.2122 0.4631 0.2205

T1 (control) indicates that hazelnut trees were irrigated according to 100 % of actual evapotranspiration which maintained a midday stem water potential (Ѱstem) > -0.7 MPa; T2, T3, and T4 indicate that irrigation was
re-established when trees reached approximately a Ψstem threshold of -1.0, -1.3 and -1.7 MPa, respectively.
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
that the KW increased a lot due to oil accumulation during stage III,
affecting the final yield. In this study, the physiological and yield re-
sponses suggested that T2 applied during stage III could be used to save
water without reducing significantly the hazelnut yield. Guerrero et al.
(2006) indicated that the application of RDI based on Ψstem (–1.5 MPa)
during the dry matter translocation stage of pistachio trees did not
cause a significant decrease in yield respect to well-watered trees. Ac-
cording to Catoni et al. (2017), a Ψstem threshold of –1.7 MPa (T4 for
this study) resulted in a prolonged delay in the recovery of gs, with
concomitant negative effects on long-term hazelnut FW and KW. Ad-
ditional studies are necessary to evaluate the effect of different levels of
water stress on oil and dry matter accumulation during stage III.
On the other hand, Rao and Chaitanya (2016) and Hossain et al.
(2016) explained that under water stress, the activities of antioxidant
enzymes such as α-tocopherol are modulated by genetic and environ-
mental factors that could also vary every year. The higher α-tocopherol
kernel content observed during the second season (601.5 μg g–1) was in
agreement with those found in the literature with a large difference
among years (Cristofori et al., 2008; Parcerisa et al., 1999). In the same
way, Zhu et al. (2015) also reported similar results in almond trees,
where relative humidity and air temperature variation was the main
factor to explain variation of α-tocopherol content (from 12.9–18 mg
100 g–1) among seasons (Bacchetta et al., 2013; Cristofori et al., 2008;
Kodad et al., 2018; Sivakumar and Bacchetta, 2005).
The reduction of irrigation generated significant increases on the
WP for the ICO treatments respect to the control. Similar results have
been reported in vineyards where the reduction of water application
generated an increase of WP in Cabernet Sauvignon (Intrigliolo et al.,
2016) and Carménère (Zúñiga et al., 2018). In contrast, Ahumada-
Orellana et al. (2017) found a reduction of WP in treatments that
caused severe water stress in olive trees. Meanwhile, treatments causing
moderate water stress did not present any differences in comparison to
well-irrigated trees. These results suggest that total irrigation (T1) is not
guaranteed to maximize commercial yield in hazelnut trees grown in
semiarid climatic conditions and that it is possible to reduce up to 19 %
(T2) of the water applied without affecting the yield and KW. Finally,
strong correlations between SIΨ versus yield components (fruit and
kernel weight) and SIΨ versus WP were observed for the dataset. These
results are similar to those indicated by Ahumada-Orellana et al.
(2017), who showed a linear relationship between SIΨ and fruit yield
(R2 > 0.6) in olive trees. Additionally, Zúñiga et al. (2018) also found a
nonlinear relationship between SIΨ and WP (R2 = 0.74).
5. Conclusions
Results indicated that yield, KW and FW, and gas exchange were not
affected by the ICO strategy applied from the beginning of stage III until
trees reached a Ψstem threshold of –1.0 MPa (T2). In this treatment,
hazelnut trees had ten days without irrigation, which produced a water
savings of 19 %. On the other hand, the ICO treatments (T3 and T4)
with Ψstem thresholds lower than –1.3 MPa, improved water pro-
ductivity (WP) but reducing significantly yield components and gas
exchange parameters. In this case, maximum and minimum values of
yield were 8.1 and 7.5 kg plant–1 for T1 and T4, respectively. Also,
kernel and fruit weights decreased as the water stress integral, and ir-
rigation cut-off increased. Finally, major studies about the effect of
different levels of water stress on oil and dry matter accumulation
during stage III are needed for drip-irrigated hazelnut orchards located
in Mediterranean climate zones.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
9
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by the Research Program on Adaptation of
Agriculture to Climate Change (A2C2, Universidad de Talca, Chile).
Additionally, the authors would like to thank Camilo Scocco (General
Manager) and Maria José Lisperguer (Research Associate) from the
Agrichile Company, for their technical support and allowing the trials
to be conducted in their hazelnut orchard.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106173.
References
Abrisqueta, I., Conejero, W., Valdés-Vela, M., Vera, J., Ortuño, M.F., Ruiz-Sánchez, M.C.,
2015. Stem water potential estimation of drip-irrigated early-maturing peach trees
under Mediterranean conditions. Comput. Electron. Agric. 114, 7–13. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compag.2015.03.004.
Acevedo-Opazo, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Fuentes, S., 2010. Effects of grapevine (Vitis vini-
fera 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.
Adu, M.O., Yawson, D.O., Armah, F.A., Asare, P.A., Frimpong, K.A., 2018. Meta-analysis
of crop yields of full, deficit, and partial root-zone drying irrigation. Agric. Water
Manag. 197, 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.11.019.
Ahumada-Orellana, L.E., Ortega-Farías, S., Searles, P.S., Retamales, J.B., 2017. Yield and
water productivity responses to irrigation cut-off strategies after fruit set using stem
water potential thresholds in a super-high density olive orchard. Front. Plant Sci. 8,
1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01280.
Ahumada-Orellana, L., Ortega-Farías, S., Searles, P., 2018. Olive oil quality response to
irrigation cut-off strategies in a super-high density orchard. Agric. Water Man. 102,
81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.02.008.
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). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-019-
00623-9.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines
for Computing Crop Water Requirements-Fao Irrigation And Drainage Paper 56. FAO,
pp. 6541 Rome 300.
Awada, T., Josiah, S., 2007. Physiological responses of four hazelnut hybrids to water
availability in Nebraska. Gt. Plains Res. 17, 193–202.
Bacchetta, L., Aramini, M., Zini, A., Giammatteo, V., Di, Spera D., Drogoudi, P., Rovira,
M., Silva, A.P., Solar, A., Botta, R., 2013. Fatty acids and alpha-tocopherol compo-
sition in hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.): a chemometric approach to emphasize the
quality of European germplasm. Euphytica 191, 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10681-013-0861-y.
Bignami, C., Cristofori, V., Ghini, P., Rugini, E., 2009. Effects of irrigation on growth and
yield components of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) in Central Italy. Acta Hortic. 845,
309–314. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.845.47.
Blanco, V., Domingo, R., Pérez-Pastor, A., Blaya-Ros, P.J., Torres-Sánchez, R., 2018. Soil
and plant water indicators for deficit irrigation management of field-grown sweet
cherry trees. Agric. Water Manag. 208, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2018.05.021.
Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A., Memmi, H., Noguera-Artiaga, L., del Carmen Gijón-López,
M., Ciapa, R., Pérez-López, D., 2015. Quality attributes of pistachio nuts as affected
by rootstock and deficit irrigation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 95, 2866–2873. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jsfa.7027.
Catoni, R., Gratani, L., Bracco, F., Granata, M.U., 2017. How water supply during leaf
development drives water stress response in Corylus avellana saplings. Sci. Hortic.
(Amsterdam) 214, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.11.022.
Chai, Q., Gan, Y., Zhao, C., Xu, H.L., Waskom, R.M., Niu, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., 2016.
Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review.
Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0338-6.
Choné, X., 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive Indicator of grapevine water status.
Ann. Bot. 87, 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1361.
Cifre, J., Bota, J., Escalona, J.M., Medrano, H., Flexas, J., 2005. Physiological tools for
irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): an open gate to improve water-
use efficiency? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 106, 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2004.10.005.
Cincera, I., Frioni, T., Ughini, V., Poni, S., Farinelli, D., Tombesi, S., 2019. Intra-specific
variability of stomatal sensitivity to vapour pressure deficit in Corylus avellana L.: a
candidate factor influencing different adaptability to different climates? J. Plant
Physiol.
Cristofori, V., Ferramondo, S., Bertazza, G., Bignami, C., 2008. Nut and Kernel Traits and
Chemical Composition of Hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) Cultivars 1098. pp.
1091–1098. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.
Cristofori, V., Muleo, R., Bignami, C., Rugini, E., 2014. Long term evaluation of hazelnut
response to drip irrigation. Acta Hortic. 1052, 179–185. https://doi.org/10.17660/
actahortic.2014.1052.23.
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
Cristofori, V., Bertazza, G., Bignami, C., 2015. Changes in kernel chemical composition
during nut development of three Italian hazelnut cultivars. Fruits 70, 311–322.
https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits/2015025.
Deitch, M.J., Sapundjieff, M.J., Feirer, S.T., 2017. Characterizing precipitation variability
and trends in the world’s mediterranean-climate areas. Water (Switzerland) 9, 1–21.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w9040259.
Di Rienzo, J.A., Casanoves, F., Balzarini, M.G., Tablada, M., Robledo, C.W., 2017. Infostat
versión 2017. Grupo Infostat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina. .
http://www.infostat.com.ar.
Dias, R., Conçalves, B., Moutinho-Pereira, J., Carvalho, J.L., Silva, A.P., 2005. Effect of
irrigation on physiological and biochemical traits of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana L.).
Acta Hortic. 686, 201–206. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.686.27.
FAOSTAT, F., 2016. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Database.
Fereres, E., Soriano, M.A., 2007. Deficit irrigation for reducing agricultural water use. J.
Exp. Bot. 58, 147–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl165.
Fernández, M.D., Hueso, J.J., Cuevas, J., 2010. Water stress integral for successful
modification of flowering dates in ‘Algerie’ loquat. Irrig. Sci. 28, 127–134. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0165-0.
Flexas, J., Bota, J., Cifre, J., Escalona, J.M., Galmés, J., Gulías, J., Lefi, E.K., Martínez-
Cañellas, S.F., Moreno, M.T., Ribas-Carbó, M., Riera, D., Sampol, B., Medrano, H.,
2004. Understanding down-regulation of photosynthesis under water stress: future
prospects and searching for physiological tools for irrigation management. Ann. Appl.
Biol. 144, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00343.x.
Galindo, A., Collado-González, J., Griñán, I., Corell, M., Centeno, A., Martín-Palomo,
M.J., Girón, I.F., Rodríguez, P., Cruz, Z.N., Memmi, H., Carbonell-Barrachina, A.A.,
Hernández, F., Torrecillas, A., Moriana, A., López-Pérez, D., 2018. Deficit irrigation
and emerging fruit crops as a strategy to save water in Mediterranean semiarid
agrosystems. Agric. Water Manag. 202, 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2017.08.015.
Garreaud, R., Alvarez-Garreton, C., Barichivich, J., Boisier, J.P., Christie, D., Galleguillos,
M., LeQuesne, C., McPhee, J., Zambrano-Bigiarini, M., 2017. The 2010–2015 mega
drought in Central Chile: impacts on regional hydroclimate and vegetation. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 1–37. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2017-191.
Ghirardello, D., Bertolino, M., Belviso, S., Dal Bello, B., Giordano, M., Rolle, L., Gerbi, V.,
Antonucci, M., Spigolon, N., Zeppa, G., 2016. Phenolic composition, antioxidant
capacity and hexanal content of hazelnuts (Corylus avellana L.) as affected by dif-
ferent storage conditions. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 112, 95–104. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.09.039.
Girona, J., Cohen, M., Mata, M., Marsal, J., Miravete, C., 1994. Physiological, growth and
yield responses of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) to different irrigation regimes. Acta
Hortic. 463–472. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.351.50.
Girona, J., Mata, M., del Campo, J., Arbonés, A., Bartra, E., Marsal, J., 2006. The use of
midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards. Irrig. Sci.
24, 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-005-0015-7.
Gómez-del-Campo, M., 2013. Summer deficit irrigation in a hedgerow olive orchard cv.
Arbequina: relationship between soil and tree water status, and growth and yield
components. Span. J. Agric. Res. 11, 547–557. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/
2013112-3360.
González-Altozano, P., Castel, J.R., 2000. Regulated deficit irrigation in ‘Clementina de
Nules’ citrus trees. II: vegetative growth. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 75, 388–392.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2000.11511256.
Goodwin, I., Victoria, A., 1995. Irrigation of Vineyards: A Winegrape Grower’s Guide to
Irrigation Scheduling and Regulated Deficit Irrigation. Institute ofSustainable
Irrigated Agriculture.
Grau, P., Sandoval, P., 2009. Xylematic water potential and stomata density in three
cultivars of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) in Region del Bio Bio, Chile. Acta Hortic.
845, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.845.35.
Guerrero, J., Moriana, A., Pérez-López, D., Couceiro, J.F., Olmedilla, N., Gijón, M.C.,
2006. Regulated deficit irrigation and the recovery of water relations in pistachio
trees. Tree Physiol. 26, 87–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/26.1.87.
Hernandez-Santana, V., Rodriguez-Dominguez, C.M., Fernández, J.E., Diaz-Espejo, A.,
2016. Role of leaf hydraulic conductance in the regulation of stomatal conductance in
almond and olive in response to water stress. Tree Physiol. 36, 725–735. https://doi.
org/10.1093/treephys/tpv146.
Hossain, M.A., Wani, S.H., Bhattacharjee, S., Burritt, D.J., Tran, L.S.P., 2016. Drought
Stress Tolerance in Plants, Molecular and Genetic Perspectives. Springerhttps://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-32423-4.
Iniesta, F., Testi, L., Orgaz, F., Villalobos, F.J., 2009. The effects of regulated and con-
tinuous deficit irrigation on the water use, growth and yield of olive trees. Eur. J.
Agron. 30, 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2008.12.004.
Intrigliolo, D.S., Lizama, V., García-Esparza, M.J., Abrisqueta, I., Álvarez, I., 2016. Effects
of post-veraison irrigation regime on Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines in Valencia,
spain: yield and grape composition. Agric. Water Manag. 170, 110–119. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.020.
Jara-Rojas, F., Ortega-Farías, S., Valdés-Gómez, H., Acevedo-Opazo, C., 2015. Gas ex-
change relations of ungrafted grapevines (cv. Carménère) growing under irrigated
field conditions. South African J. Enol. Vitic. 36, 231–242. https://doi.org/10.
21548/36-2-956.
Keen, B., Slavich, P., 2011. Comparison of irrigation scheduling strategies for achieving
water use efficiency in highbush blueberry. New Zeal. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 40, 3–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2011.599398.
Kodad, O., Socias, R., Alonso, J.M., 2018. Genotypic and environmental effects on to-
copherol content in almond. Antioxidants 7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3390/
antiox7010006.
Lampinen, B.D., Shackel, K.A., Southwick, S.M., Olson, W.H., 2001. Deficit irrigation
strategies using midday stem water potential in prune. Irrig. Sci. 20, 47–54. https://
10
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
doi.org/10.1007/s002710000028.
Liu, J., Xing, J., Fang, J., Ai, P., Cheng, Y., 2018. New insight into ovary abortion during
ovary development of hazelnut through a combined proteomic and transcriptomic
analysis. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 234, 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.
2018.02.003.
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.
Marino, G., Caruso, T., Ferguson, L., Marra, F., 2018. Gas exchanges and stem water
potential define stress thresholds for efficient irrigation management in olive (Olea
europea L.). Water 10, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030342.
Marsal, J., Girona, J., Mata, M., 1997. Leaf water relation parameters in almond com-
pared to hazelnut trees during a deficit irrigation period. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 122,
582–587. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.122.4.582.
Medrano, H., Escalona, J.M., Bota, J., Gulias, J., Flexas, J., 2002. Regulation of photo-
synthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a
reference parameter. Ann. Bot. 89, 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf079.
Medrano, H., Tomás, M., Martorell, S., Escalona, J.-M., Pou, A., Fuentes, S., Flexas, J.,
Bota, J., 2015. Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A
review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-
0280-z.
Mehlenbacher, S.A., Smith, D.C., Brenner, L.K., 1993. Variance components and herit-
ability of nut and kernel defects in hazelnut. Plant Breed. 110, 144–152. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.1993.tb01226.x.
Memmi, H., Couceiro, J.F., Gijón, C., Pérez-López, D., 2016. Impacts of water stress,
environment and rootstock on the diurnal behaviour of stem water potential and leaf
conductance in pistachio (Pistacia vera L.). Span. J. Agric. Res. 14, e0804. https://
doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016142-8207.
Moriana, A., Pérez-López, D., Gómez-Rico, A., Salvador, M., de los, D., Olmedilla, N.,
Ribas, F., Fregapane, G., 2007. Irrigation scheduling for traditional, low-density olive
orchards: water relations and influence on oil characteristics. Agric. Water Manag.
87, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.06.017.
Moriana, A., Pérez-López, D., Prieto, M.H., Ramírez-Santa-Pau, M., Pérez-Rodriguez, J.M.,
2012. Midday stem water potential as a useful tool for estimating irrigation re-
quirements in olive trees. Agric. Water Manag. 112, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agwat.2012.06.003.
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.
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.
Othman, Y., VanLeeuwen, D., Heerema, R., Hilaire St., R., 2014. Midday stem water
potential values needed to maintain photosynthesis and leaf gas exchange established
for pecan. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 139, 537–546. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.
139.5.537.
Özmen, S., 2016. Quantification of leaf water potential, stomatal conductance and pho-
tosynthetically active radiation in rainfed hazelnut. Erwerbs-Obstbau 58, 273–280.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-016-0292-8.
Pannico, A., Cirillo, C., Giaccone, M., Scognamiglio, P., Romano, R., Caporaso, N., Sacchi,
R., Basile, B., 2017. Fruit position within the canopy affects kernel lipid composition
of hazelnuts. J. Sci. Food Agric. 97, 4790–4799. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8348.
Parcerisa, J., Codony, R., Boatella, J., Rafecas, M., 1999. Triacylglycerol and phospholipid
composition of hazelnut (Corylus aveliana L.) lipid fraction during fruit development.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 47, 1410–1415. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf980879q.
Poblete-Echeverría, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Zuñiga, M., Fuentes, S., 2012. Evaluation of
compensated heat-pulse velocity method to determine vine transpiration using
combined measurements of eddy covariance system and microlysimeters. Agric.
Water Manag. 109, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.01.019.
Podda, M., Weber, C., Traber, M.G., Packer, L., 1996. Simultaneous determination of
tissue tocopherols, tocotrienols, ubiquinols, and ubiquinones. J. Lipid Res. 37,
893–901.
Rao, D.E., Chaitanya, K.V., 2016. Photosynthesis and antioxidative defense mechanisms
in deciphering drought stress tolerance of crop plants. Biol. Plant. 60, 201–218.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-016-0584-8.
Roco, L., Poblete, D., Meza, F., Kerrigan, G., 2016. Farmers’ options to address water
scarcity in a changing climate: case studies from two basins in Mediterranean Chile.
Environ. Manage. 58, 958–971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0759-2.
Romero, P., Muñoz, R.G., Fernández-Fernández, J.I., del Amor, F.M., Martínez-Cutillas,
A., García-García, J., 2015. Improvement of yield and grape and wine composition in
field-grown Monastrell grapevines by partial root zone irrigation, in comparison with
regulated deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 149, 55–73. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2014.10.018.
Ruiz-Sanchez, M.C., Domingo, R., Castel, J.R., 2010. Review. Deficit irrigation in fruit
trees and vines in Spain. Spanish. J. Agric. Res. 8, 5. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/
201008s2-1343.
Sivakumar, G., Bacchetta, L., 2005. Determination of natural vitamin E from Italian ha-
zelnut leaves. Chem. Nat. Compd. 41, 654–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10600-
006-0005-x.
Spinelli, G.M., Shackel, K.A., Gilbert, M.E., 2017. A model exploring whether the coupled
effects of plant water supply and demand affect the interpretation of water potentials
and irrigation management. Agric. Water Manag. 192, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agwat.2017.07.019.
Stolpe, N., Undurraga, P., 2016. Long term climatic trends in Chile and effects on soil
moisture and temperature regimes. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 76, 487–496. https://doi.org/
10.4067/S0718-58392016000400013.
Tombesi, A., 1994. Influence of soil water levels on assimilation and water use efficiency
S. Ortega-Farias, et al.
in hazelnut. Acta Hortic. 351, 247–256. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.
351.25.
Tombesi, A., Rosati, A., 1997. Hazelnut response to water levels in relation to productive
cycle. Acta Hortic. 445, 269–278. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.
445.36.
Trentacoste, E.R., Puertas, C.M., Sadras, V.O., 2015. Effect of irrigation and tree density
on vegetative growth, oil yield and water use efficiency in young olive orchard under
arid conditions in Mendoza, Argentina. Irrig. Sci. 33, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00271-015-0479-z.
Uribe, J.M., Cabrera, R., de la Fuente, A., Paneque, M., 2012. Atlas Bioclimático de Chile.
Ustaoglu, B., Karaca, M., 2014. The effects of climate change on spatiotemporal changes
of hazelnut (Corylus avellana) cultivation areas in the Black Sea Region, Turkey.
Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 12, 309–324. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1202_
309324.
Valentini, N., Moraglio, S.T., Rolle, L., Tavella, L., Botta, R., 2015. Nut and kernel growth
and shell hardening in eighteen hazelnut cultivars (Corylus avellana L.). Hortic. Sci.
11
Agricultural Water Management 238 (2020) 106173
42, 149–158. https://doi.org/10.17221/327/2014-HORTSCI.
Wang, W., Jung, J., McGorrin, R.J., Traber, M.G., Leonard, S.W., Cherian, G., Zhao, Y.,
2018. Investigation of drying conditions on bioactive compounds, lipid oxidation,
and enzyme activity of Oregon hazelnuts (Corylus avellana L.). LWT 90, 526–534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.01.002.
Williams, L.E., Trout, T.J., 2005. Relationships among vine- and soil-based measures of
water status in a Thompson Seedless vineyard in response to high-frequency drip
irrigation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56, 357–366.
Zhu, Y., Taylor, C., Sommer, K., Wilkinson, K., Wirthensohn, M., 2015. Influence of deficit
irrigation strategies on fatty acid and tocopherol concentration of almond (Prunus
dulcis). Food Chem. 173, 821–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.10.
108.
Zúñiga, M., Ortega-Farías, S., Fuentes, S., Riveros-Burgos, C., Poblete-Echeverría, C.,
2018. Effects of three irrigation strategies on gas exchange relationships, plant water
status, yield components and water productivity on grafted carménère grapevines.
Front. Plant Sci. 9, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00992.