Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

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

Response of citrus trees to deficit irrigation during different phenological periods

in relation to yield, fruit quality, and water productivity
I. Garcı́a-Tejero *, R. Romero-Vicente, J.A. Jiménez-Bocanegra, G. Martı́nez-Garcı́a, V.H. Durán-Zuazo,
J.L. Muriel-Fernández
IFAPA Centro ‘‘Las Torres-Tomejil’’. Ctra. Sevilla-Cazalla, Km. 12,2. C.P. 41200, Alcalá del Rı´o, Sevilla, Spain

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

Article history: Four strategies of deficit irrigation based on a different water-stress ratio (WSR) applied in each
Received 3 August 2009 phenological stage, and a control treatment were implemented in 11-year-old citrus trees (Citrus sinensis
Accepted 19 December 2009 L. Osb. Cv. Navelina) grafted onto carrizo citrange (C. sinensis L. Osb.  Poncirus Trifoliata L. Osb.). The
Available online 12 January 2010
midday stem-water potential and stomatal conductance were measured during the periods considered,
and these parameters were used to estimate the plant-water status. Integrated stem-water potential
Keywords: (CInt) and integrated stomatal conductance (gInt) were calculated for all treatments and used as a water-
Citrus trees
stress indicator for the crop. Reference equations were formulated to quantify the relations between
Deficit irrigation
Water-stress ratio
water-stress indicators (WSR, CInt, gInt) and the crop response, expressed as yield, yield components, and
Fruit quality fruit-quality parameters under limited seasonal water availability. Significant differences in yield were
found in the second year of experiment between the stressed treatments and control, although these
differences were evident during the first year. The main effects were detected in treatments with a
water-sever stress applied during the flowering and fruit-growth phases. When this degree of stress was
applied during the maturity phase, it was reflected mainly in fruit-quality parameters (total soluble
solids, and titrable acidity). These results lead to the conclusion that, in mature orange trees, deficit
irrigation affects yield and fruit quality, while enabling water savings of up to 1000 m3 ha1. Therefore,
yield declined on average 10–12% but boosted water productivity 24% with respect to the fully irrigated
treatment. Regarding the water-stress indicators used, CInt and gInt showed highly significant
correlations with the yield and fruit-quality parameters.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction valuable and sustainable production strategy in dry regions. These

Climatic conditions of the Guadalquivir river basin (SW Spain)
promote an annual accumulated water deficit, necessitating
irrigation for several crops such as citrus trees. The high demand
for agricultural products for food, fodder, and fuel with a growing
human population are requiring more efficient water use in
agriculture. In this context, there is an increasing challenge for
scientists to develop innovative soil-water-nutrient-crop-man-
agement practices that foment sustainable agricultural systems
(Anapalli et al., 2008), maximizing water savings and improving its
productivity. Irrigation water productivity (IWP) is defined as the
ratio of yield to water applied (Seckler, 1996), and can be improved
by augmenting yield or reducing crop evapotranspiration (Fereres
et al., 2003). Deficit irrigation (DI) has been widely investigated as a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 95 5045556; fax: +34 95 5045625.
E-mail address: ivanf.garcia@juntadeandalucia.es (I. Garcı́a-Tejero).
practices save water by reducing crop evapotranspiration and
increasing IWP. Such water-management methods cause different
effects in the crop, altering the potential development of the plant,
by depressing photosynthetic rates, reducing the sources of carbon
(Hsiao, 1973), and exerting a negative impact on the crop
development and production (González-Altozano and Castel,
2000a). Nevertheless, not all DI strategies have these negative
consequences. Many authors have reported that the response of
the citrus trees to water-stress depends mainly on the crop
phenology, and the different effects observed are closely related to
the moment, duration, crop physiological status, irrigation water
quality, plant genotype, and the degree of stress endured by the
crop (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1979; Ginestar and Castel, 1996;
Garcı́a-Tejero et al., 2008). The negative impact could be mitigated
by an improvement in fruit quality, as has been shown by several
authors in the citrus crop (Sánchez-Blanco et al., 1989 in verna
lemon trees; González-Altozano and Castel, 2000b in ‘Clementina
de Nules’; Verreynne et al., 2001 in ‘Marisol Clementines’).

0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.12.012
690 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699
The stress signals can be measured using several techniques,
the most accepted being to measure leaf- or stem-water
potential, although there is some controversy concerning the
time and method of measurements (González-Altozano and
Castel, 2003). These measurements offer information on the
water-retention force by the plant, but do not indicate the crop’s
physiological response to water-stress situations. Verasan and
Phillips (1978) proposed the use of cumulative plant evapo-
transpiration or transpiration as a good integrator of the effects
of water stress on various plant physiological processes. Plant
transpiration is related to stomatal conductance, this being a
key element in the plant system that can alter the main
physiological processes. However, it may vary over a wide
range and is affected by several climatic variables (i.e. vapour-
pressure deficit) as well as by plant-water stress (Anapalli et al.,
2008).
The aim of this work was to apply different DI strategies as an
on-farm way to assess the effects on yield, improvement on
fruit quality, and irrigation water productivity (IWP) in a
commercial 11-year-old orchard of ‘‘Navelino’’ sweet orange
grafted onto Carrizo Citrange. Also this work evaluated the main
relations between soil-plant-water status and crop response in
order to determine the best irrigation strategy, establishing the
critical phenological crop stages most sensitive to water
withholding under Mediterranean climate conditions (SW
Spain).
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site and soil and climatic conditions
The study was conducted in a commercial orchard of mature
orange trees (Citrus sinensis, L. Osbeck, cv navelino) grafted onto
Citrange Carrizo (C. sinensis, L. Osbeck  Poncirus trifoliate Raf.),
located in the Guadalquivir river basin, SW Spain (378440 4.5900 N;
58120 35.2400 W). The trees, planted 11 years prior to the study, were
spaced 6 m  5 m and were drip irrigated by two pipe lines with
pressure-compensating emitters at different flow rates. The total
surface area was 0.9 ha, under conventional practices since
planting. The average tree height was 3 m, with a canopy
diameter of 4 m. The orchard was planted on ridges of 0.3 m
high, with a NW–SE spatial orientation. The shaded soil surface
area and wet-drip zone were 30%, and 17%, respectively, of the
total.
The soil of the experimental site was a typical fluvisol (FAO,
1998), 1.5 m deep, the roots growing predominantly within 0.6 m
from surface. The texture was a sandy-clay loam, with 350 g kg1
of sand, 400 g kg1 of silt and 250 g kg1 of clay. The organic-
matter content was below 1.5%; slightly limey (10.6% of CO3); with
a high cation-exchange capacity (>15 mequiv./100 g) and a C:N
ratio of 10.5. Soil-water content at field capacity was 230 mm m1
and the wilting point was 100 mm m1, respectively; with an
available soil-water content of 78 mm in the root zone (0.6 m from
the soil surface).
The local climate was Mediterranean-dry, with an average
potential evapotranspiration (ETo) of 1500 mm year1 and annual
rainfall of 475 mm, distributed mainly during late autumn to early
spring, with a high inter-annual variability. The thermal range was
broad, with average temperatures being 10 8C in winter and 35 8C
in summer, often exceeding 40 8C during the maximum solar
radiation hours.
The average fertilizer rates were 240–65–179 kg ha1 of N,
P2O5 and K2O, respectively, applied with the irrigation water,
according to the legal policies published for agricultural
integrated production for citrus in Andalusia (BOJA, no 113 of
2000).
Table 1
Irrigation treatments defined as a function of water-stress ratio (WSR)a applied for
each phenological stage.
Phenological stage
Treatments Flowering Fruit-growth Maturity
A 0.55 0.70 0.55
B 0.55 0.70 0.70
C 0.55 0.55 0.70
D 0.70 0.70 0.55
E (control) 1 1 1
a
WSR is defined as the actual water-limited supply to stressed treatments to
water supply to control treatment at different phenological stages.
2.2. Experimental design and description of irrigation treatments
The experimental design was a randomised complete block,
with five replicates per treatment. The experimental unit (360 m2)
had three rows, with four trees per row, and the two central trees
were established as control trees, surrounded by 10 other trees
that received the same amount of irrigation water. The experi-
mental plot was located in the central part of a larger plot of the
farm.
Four irrigation treatments were applied (A, B, C, and D) during
two seasons (2007–2008), irrigated according to the different WSR,
defined as a ratio of actual water-limited supply in the stressed
treatment to the water supply in the control treatment (E) at
different phenological stages (flowering, fruit-growth and maturi-
ty). These WSR applied for each treatment can be summarized
according to Table 1.
Irrigation treatments were applied from early April to harvest
(mid-December). Analogical water meters were used to measure
the volume of irrigation applied to each treatment. The number
of drip emitters per tree ranged between 8 and 10, with flow
rates of 2.3 or 1.6 l h1 according to the treatments. Varying the
number of drip emitters and the flow rate, the required
irrigation volume was applied in each phenological period
defined.
The seasonal values of ETo were determined by the modified
Penman equation (Allen et al., 1998). Climatic data were recorded
at an automated weather station near the orchard, using the
Doorenbos and Pruitt (1974) equation for estimating the real
irrigation rates required by the crop:
" #
7
X
mm ¼ ET o  rain  K c  K r (1)
1
where Kc is the crop coefficient, and Kr is the reduction coefficient,
calculated as twice the ratio of the shaded surface area at noon
(Castel, 1991). In our case, a Kr of 0.6 and a Kc ranging between 0.5
from March to May; 0.55 from June to October and 0.5 in
November and December, respectively.
2.3. Soil-plant measurements
The soil-water content was measured at 10-cm intervals to
95 cm in depth, using TDR probes (TRIME-T, IMKO GmbH,
Germany). Two access tubes for treatment were located under
the influence of a wet-drip zone.
Midday stem-water potential (CStem) was measured with a
pressure chamber (Scholander et al., 1965), following the protocol
of Turner (1988) and Hsiao (1990), in two leaves per tree.
Determinations were made between 10:00 and 12:00 GTM every
10–15 days, in mature leaves in the north quadrant close to the
trunk. Integrated stem-water potential was calculated according to
the modified equation proposed by Myers (1988), which integrates
 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699 691

Table 2
Water balance for irrigation period at different phenological stages of citrus.

2007 2008
Phenological stage Phenological stage

Flowering Growth Maturity Total Flowering Growth Maturity Total

a
IP (days) 89 96 33 218 75 96 14 185
DOYb 77–165 166–261 262–294 91–294 91–165 166–261 262–275 77–275
ETc (mm)c 113.38 190.61 37.83 341.82 106.1 216.73 15.48 338.31
Rain (mm) 213.60 12.6 37.2 263.4 282.40 4.60 38 325
Deficit (mm)d 100.22 178.01 0.63 77.16 176.3 212.13 22.52 13.1
a
Irrigation period.
b
Day of the year.
c
Crop estimated evapotranspiration.
d
Annual water deficit (ETc-rainfall).

the water potential values with the time of stress: 3. Results and discussion

i¼t
X 1
cInt ¼ ciþ1  ðniþ1  ni Þ þ ðci  ciþ1 Þ  ðniþ1  ni Þ
i¼1
2
where Ci, and Ci+1 are the stem-water potential values measured
on two different sampling days (i and i + 1) and, ni+1 and ni, the days
corresponding to two serial days of sampling.
With a similar periodicity, stomatal conductance (gs) was
monitored in two sunny leaves per tree, using a diffusion
porometer AP-4 (Delta-T Devices, Cambridge, UK). Integrated
stomatal conductance was calculated also by Eq. (3). This data
shows the accumulated stomatal conductance by the crop during
the irrigation period:
i¼t
X 1
g Int ¼ g iþ1  ðniþ1  ni Þ þ ðg  g iþ1 Þ  ðniþ1  ni Þ
i¼1
2 i
where gi, and gi+1 are the stomatal conductance values on two
different sampling days (i and i + 1) and, ni+1 and ni, the days
corresponding to two serial days of sampling.
At the end of each season, fruit yield was determined for each
tree, by weighing the orange fruits. One sample of 100 fruits per
tree was collected to determine average fruit weight. Fruit number
per tree was determined by dividing the yield of each tree by the
average fruit weight. Fruit-quality characteristics were analysed at
harvest on 10 fruits per tree, including peel thickness (PT), juice
content and the commercial parameters of quality: total soluble
solids (TSS); titrable acidity (TA); maturity index (MI), equatorial
(ED) and polar diameter (PD).
2.4. Statistical analysis
An exploratory and descriptive analysis was made of yield and
its components, midday stem-water potential and stomatal
conductance values followed by an ANOVA with a mean separation
analysis. Similar analyses of gInt, CInt were performed to evaluate
the accumulated effects of crop-water stress.
An overall analysis of yield and its components was made by the
two years of collecting data. The annual datasets were homo-
genised, according to the methodology proposed by Sterk and Stein
(1997).
With the use of pooled data over two studied seasons (2007 and
2008), reference equations were formulated to quantify the main
relationships between the water-stress ratio (WSR), plant-water
stress integral, expressed in both stem-water potential (Cint) and
stomatal conductance (gInt) with yield as well as its components
and fruit-quality parameters.
Linear correlations were also established among the WSI, Cint,
and gInt, and fruit yield parameters.
3.1. Climatic conditions and soil-water relations
(2)
The pattern of ETc and rainfall was very similar in both seasons,
with an irregular distribution of rainfalls in flowering and maturity
periods, respectively (Table 2 and Fig. 1). Regarding the fruit-
growth period, the ETc rates were high, with an average water
deficit of 195 mm. Also, rainfalls events were especially
noticeable during the flowering in 2008, allowing an irrigation
water supply two weeks later than the previous year. This boosted
the accumulated rainfall (325 mm in 2008 vs. 263.4 mm in 2007),
which was reflected in the irrigation supplies during the flowering
period.
Water deficit accumulated during the irrigation period was
77.26 and 13.1 mm in 2007 and 2008, respectively. However,
this water deficit, during the fruit-growth stage was higher in 2008
(3)
than 2007, obligating a greater amount of irrigation water to be
applied during this stage in 2008. The erratic distribution of rainfall
during the flowering and maturity stages required irrigation,
although a natural water deficit did not result.
The water supplied in each treatment was also similar in both
years, C being the most restrictive treatment (0.53 ETc on average),
with a 45% water savings with respect to control treatment (E). The
A, B, and D treatments (0.60 ETc on average) had similar water
savings (roughly 33% with respect to control treatment), although
the water inputs in each phenological period differed according to
the treatments (Table 3). The irrigation water supplied to the control
treatment during the irrigation period averaged 320 mm, covering
the 94% of ETc. The rainfalls during the flowering and maturity period
covered the total crop evapotranspiration demand.
Water applied in stressed treatments diminished the soil-water
content in the profile, consistent with the water demands and
deficits incurred. Thus, the TDR measurements showed continued
water depletions in the soil profile according to the water supplied
for the differentiated phenological periods in the stressed
treatments (Fig. 2). The control treatment maintained moisture
contents close to the maximum storage capacity, with slight
decreases during 2008. For flowering and fruit-growth periods, the
soil-water content in C treatment was especially low, between 15
and 30% less than in the control treatment. Presumably, due to
rainfall at the beginning and end of irrigation period, and the
moderate stress level supported during the growth period
(WSI = 0.70), there were no significant differences between D
and E treatments for the first year, similar results being found
among the B, D, and E treatments during 2008.
3.2. Water deficit and crop response
During the flowering period, no significant differences were
detected among treatments in CStem. Differences became more
692 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699

Fig. 1. Irrigations and ETc accumulated during two-year monitoring period years.

evident later on, during fruit-growth and maturation. Seasonal
CStem evolution was consistent with the different water inputs and
the soil-water content registered. In both years, treatment C had
the most negative values with respect to other treatments, but
these differences were less evident, during the maturation phase,
when the water deficit was released in this treatment. Trees in D
underwent a considerable water potential decline because, during
fruit maturation, the level of water applied was higher during the
previous phenological periods. The other deficit treatments (B and
A) had similar CStem values, but slightly lower than control (Fig. 3).
In terms of the threshold value for midday CStem in citrus trees, the
control treatment (E) registered values ranging between 0.6 and
1.3 MPa, during minimum and maximum evapotranspiration
demand, respectively, which is close to that reported by Ortuño
et al. (2006a). According to De Swaef et al. (2009), CStem directly
reflects the plant’s water status, bearing strong relationships with
the sap-flow rate or daily radial-stem growth. In addition, many
authors (Goldhamer et al., 1999; Naor and Cohen, 2003; or Nortes
et al., 2005) have found similar results for the CStem, reporting the
advantages of estimating CStem for irrigation management
(Shackel et al., 1997; Naor, 2000).
Fig. 4 shows the time course of gs during the study years,
showing the strongest decline in the most restrictive treatment (C),
and the control treatment registered higher values during the two
years. Like CStem, the time course of gs was according to the WSR
applied and the soil-water availability for each treatment. The
 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699 693

Table 3
Irrigation water applied, actual water-stress ratio and water savings for each treatment at different phenological stages.

Year 2007 2008

Phenological stage Phenological stage

Flowering Growth Maturity Total Flowering Growth Maturity Total

Treatments
A
Irr (mm)a 41.7 144.7 20.3 206.7 17.1 178.1 19.2 214.4
WSRb 0.57 0.70 0.56 0.66c 0.56 0.70 0.56 0.67
WS (mm)d 31.3 63.5 16.1 110.9 13.6 78.7 15.3 107.6

B
Irr (mm) 41.7 144.7 25.3 211.7 17.1 178.1 24.0 219.2
WSR 0.57 0.70 0.70 0.67 0.56 0.70 0.70 0.68
WS (mm) 31.3 63.5 11.1 105.9 13.6 78.7 10.5 102.8

C
Irr (mm) 41.7 116.0 25.3 183 17.1 143.5 24.0 184.6
WSR 0.57 0.56 0.70 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.70 0.57
WS (mm) 31.3 92.2 11.1 134.6 13.6 113.4 10.5 137.5

D
Irr (mm) 49.7 144.7 20.3 214.7 21.3 178.1 19.2 218.6
WSR 0.68 0.70 0.56 0.68 0.70 0.70 0.56 0.68
WS (mm) 23.3 63.5 16.1 102.9 9.3 78.7 15.3 103.3

E
Irr (mm) 73.00 208.2 36.4 317.6 30.7 256.8 34.5 322
WSR 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
WS (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a
Irrigation.
b
Water-stress ratio (actual ratio of water supplied to each treatment referred to control treatment).
c
Average of water supplied to each treatment referred to control treatment during the irrigation period.
d
Water savings (related to E treatment).

Fig. 2. Soil-water content at 0.95 m depth for each treatment at the end of flowering and growth periods.

threshold values ranged from 50 mmol m2 s1 in the most
stressed treatment (C) to 200 mmol m2 s1 in the most irrigated
treatment (E). During the fruit-growth period, treatments A, B, and
D, with a similar WSR, registered values close to maximum and
minimum levels recorded in E and C, respectively. Under normal
conditions, gs is generally not sensitive to changes until a certain
threshold of CStem is exceeded.
In this context, Ortuño et al. (2004) have observed that
fluctuations in gs are higher than in CStem in well-irrigated
lemon trees, while, in other experiment the same author (Ortuño
et al., 2006b) observed that CStem was more sensitive to water
stress than gs, showing significant differences a week before for
CStem compared with gs. The CInt and gInt in each treatment were
compared each season (Fig. 5). The control treatment registered
significantly different values from those of the remaining
treatments, C treatment showing the highest value of CInt
mainly in the second year. These differences were highly
significant with respect to the A, B, and E treatments. The great
variability in treatment D during the first year caused a different
degree of significance in A, B, and D treatments. Thus, C and D
during the first year had significantly lower values than control,
but similar to the other treatments. This degree of significance
did not appear in the second year, where the differences
between all treatments were statistically undistinguishable but
showed the same patterns as in the previous year. It was notable
that treatments with similar water-consumption levels (A, B,
and D) showed similar values either for gInt or for CInt. This
implies that the evolution of these two variables respond to the
694 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699

Fig. 3. Evolution of midday stem-water potential in each treatment during 2007 and 2008.

Fig. 4. Evolution of stomatal conductance during 2007 and 2008.

time and intensity of water shortage at different phenological
periods.
On the other hand, a significant linear correlation (r2 = 0.69),
was found between the volume of irrigation water applied and CInt
(Fig. 6). The gs showed a great variability for the whole dataset,
with a lower linear correlation (r2 = 0.31) on average; but, the
relationship between the two variables was far more significant for
single years than for the dataset as a whole (r2 = 0.75 in 2007 and
0.65 in 2008). These results evidence that both integrated variables
are potentially promising indicators of the accumulated water
stress, although gInt showed a great inter-annual variability.
3.3. Yield and fruit quality
There was a clear response of the tree yield related to
irrigation treatments, so that in the morphological and organo-
leptic fruit characteristics (Table 4). The strongest effects were
appreciated in the C treatment, with an average yield reduction
of 21% with regard to the control treatment. The yield was
statistically similar in the A, B, and C treatments for the two study
years, although, the major effects were found in the A and C
treatments, with an irrigation volume of 210 and 184 mm,
respectively (Table 3).
 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699 695

Fig. 5. Box and whisker plots for CInt and gInt during the studied years.

Yield reductions could have been caused by a decline in the fruit

number per tree and/or a reduction in fruit weight or fruit size. Table 4
Yield components and fruit-quality parameters.
Severe water stress applied during the flowering was reflected in
the final fruit number per tree whereas when these water Treatments
restrictions were applied during the fruit-growth and maturity A B C D E
phases, these effects were reflected mainly in fruit size. For the C
Season 2007
treatment, when these reductions were applied during both Yield (kg tree1) 153.1a 164.4ab 147.5a 160.7ab 172.8b
periods the effects on yield was especially noticeable. Fruit weight (g) 209.2a 218.39a 207.65a 215.54a 267.64b
However, a greater water supply during fruit-growth with Fruits per tree 735a 758a 722a 765a 667a
respect flowering boosted fruit size, significantly mitigating the Juice weight (%) 39.7a 40.1a 37.7a 38.0a 39.2a
TSS (8Brix) 12.9b 12.8b 14.1b 13.1b 11.3a
reduction during the early developmental stages, especially for A
TA (g l1) 1.3abc 1.3ab 1.6c 1.4bc 1.2a
and B treatments. MI 9.8ab 10.2b 9.1a 9.3a 9.8ab
ED (mm) 75.0a 75.8ab 74.9a 76.0ab 89.8b
PD (mm) 79.7ab 79.2b 76.4a 77.8a 84.1ab
PT (mm) 6.0a 6.3a 6.7a 6.1a 6.6a

Season 2008
Yield (kg tree1) 131.3a 118.3a 117.1a 154.7b 157.9b
Fruit weight (g) 268.7ab 285.7b 214.2a 262.4ab 272b
Fruits per tree 509ab 424a 554ab 620b 588b
Juice weight (%) 46.8a 45.7a 46.3a 45.0a 45.9a
TSS (8Brix) 13.2b 13.0b 14.8c 13.4b 11.2a
TA (g l1) 1.0b 0.9ab 1.1c 1.0b 0.7a
MI 13.9ab 15.7b 13.3a 14.3ab 15.3ab
ED (mm) 81.2ab 84.0b 75.8a 80.9ab 82.5b
PD (mm) 86.9a 88.5a 85.8a 84.3a 86.3a
PT (mm) 6.7a 7.2a 6.8a 6.8a 6.5a

TSS, total soluble solids; TA, titrable acidity; MI, maturity index; ED, equatorial
diameter; PD, polar diameter; PT, peel thickness.
Fig. 6. Linear relationships among irrigation water applied, CInt and gInt in stressed Within each column, different letters indicate significant differences at P0.05 by
treatments (A, B, C, and D) during the irrigation period. Tukey’s test.
696 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699

Table 5 in the year-by-year analysis, especially for second year. Hence, the
Integrated stem-water potential, integrated stomatal conductance, yield and fruit-
rise in TSS and TA values registered in C and D treatments was
quality parameters for the entire study period (2007–2008).
especially noticeable.
Treatments Several works have shown that water stress exerts significant
A B C D E impact on some fruit organoleptic properties (Bielorai, 1982;
CInt 130.8bc 123.8b 160.1d 138.9c 109.4a
Kuriyama et al., 1981; Yakushiji et al., 1998; Hockema and
gInt 7918ab 7846ab 6851a 7589ab 8536b Etexeberria, 2001), showing that water stress increases TSS and
Yield (kg tree1) 150.2ab 149.2ab 139.7a 166.5ab 174.3b TA in citrus. In this context Pérez-Pérez et al. (2009) pointed out
Fruit weight (g) 206.8ab 218.1b 182.5a 206.8ab 233.9b that an overall irrigation reduction during maturity period in
Fruit per tree 726 684 765 805 745
‘Lane late’ sweet orange significantly increased TSS and TA,
Juice weight (%) 41.0a 40.6a 39.8a 39.3a 40.3a
TSS (8Brix) 14.1b 13.9b 15.6c 14.3b 12.1a without changes in MI, PD, or peel thickness. Moreover, this
1
TA (g l ) 1.3abc 1.2ab 1.5c 1.3bc 1.1a irrigation reduction lowered juice parameters and ED. However,
MI 12.0a 13.1a 11.3a 12.0a 12.7a this management strategy did not alter yield or fruit number per
ED (mm) 75.8ab 77.5b 73.1a 76.1ab 79.2b tree in many experiments (Ginestar and Castel, 1996; González-
PD (mm) 84.6a 85.2a 83.4a 82.3a 86.5a
Altozano and Castel, 1999; Hutton et al., 2007), although a
PT (mm) 6.7a 7.1a 7.1a 6.8a 6.9a
significant decline in fruit weight was noted, in agreement with
CInt, integrated stem-water potential; gInt, integrated stomatal conductance; TSS, our results.
total soluble solids; TA, titrable acidity; MI, maturity index; ED, equatorial
diameter; PD, polar diameter; PT, peel thickness. González-Altozano and Castel (2003) observed significant
Within each column, different letters indicate significant differences at P0.05 by effects on yield, due to a drop in fruit number when the crop
Tukey’s test. underwent moderate to severe water stress. However, this strategy
affected neither the fruit weight nor organoleptic properties. When
this reduction was applied during the growing period, the effects
Table 4 shows the effects on yield and morphological were related to fruit weight, but had no significant impact on crop
parameters (ED, PD, or fruit weight in the second year) that were yield.
less pronounced when a severe stress was applied during Our results suggest that any severe water stress (WSR 0.55)
maturation (WSR = 0.55), so long as the water supplied during at flowering, affected mainly the fruit number. This effect was
previous stages was up to 0.70 WSR (D treatment). In this sense, finally reflected in a significant decrease in the yield. Furthermore,
the fruit number registered an average yield reduction of only 5% in when this stress level was maintained during fruit-growth
relation to the control, promoted mainly by a fruit weight period the fruit weight significantly dropped. DI during maturity
reduction (15% on average). period affected the organoleptic fruit characteristics. DI strate-
With regard to the effect of water stress on organoleptic gies were influenced by the spring and autumn rainfall,
properties, fruit quality was affected mainly in treatments with suggesting that its application could be appropriate from
higher stressed levels during the fruit-growth and maturity mid-spring to the end of summer, coinciding with late flowering
periods. Hence, these treatments (A, C, and D) registered increases and the final fruit-growth period, respectively. Thus, DI applied
in TSS and TA, coupled with small decreases in MI. These effects from late fruit-growth to maturity, affect mainly fruit-quality
were particularly significant in C treatment, in which the severest parameters.
water restrictions were applied. Noteworthy results were found for
the D treatment, suggesting that a severe reduction of irrigation 3.4. Water productivity
water during fruit maturity improves a juice quality without
lowering the maturity index. An analysis was made of final water productivity, defined as the
The pooling of the data showed, on average, significant amount of harvested product per unit of water applied. Normally,
differences between treatments for CInt, gInt, yield, fruit weight, when water is withheld, it causes a yield drop and increases in
TSS, TA, and ED (Table 5). An overall analysis confirmed the results water productivity. When water stress is considered severe

Fig. 7. Water productivity for each treatment in 2007 and 2008, respectively.
 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699
Fig. 8. Relationships among WSR and yield and fruit-quality parameters.
(WSR = 0.55), production drastically declines, decreasing water
productivity to some extent. An amount of water applied at
different phenological periods can increase water productivity,
based on the distribution throughout the irrigation periods.
During the first year the water productivity for deficit irrigation
treatments were similar, but significantly higher than in the
control treatment (Fig. 7). Particularly remarkable were the results
for the D treatment, with higher water productivity
(0.74 kg tree1 mm1) than in the other deficit treatments (A
and C). Thus, this strategy offered the best results, with water
savings greater than 30% (Table 3) and non-significant yield losses
of 3% (Table 4). It was remarkable that A, B, and D treatments
showed similar WSR (0.66–0.68), with only the irrigation
distribution differing. However, this caused significant effects on
yield, and hence in final water productivity (Tables 3 and 4 and
Fig. 7). These results reflect the importance not only of the stress
697
Fig. 9. Relationships among CInt and yield and fruit-quality parameters.
level, but also the phenological period, emphasizing the great
importance of the timing of the stress application, attaining high
water productivity without significant yield reductions.
Increasing crop-water productivity may be a means of
achieving efficient and effective water use. In agriculture, the
interest is to produce more with less water, because available
water for irrigated land is a limiting factor in many world areas (Ali
and Talukder, 2008). Strategies such as DI have shown that water
productivity can be enhanced (Ali et al., 2007; Jalota et al., 2006)
and could be associated with acceptable commercial production.
Nowadays, the low importance given to improving WP must be
related to the reduced water costs in Mediterranean agricultural
areas (Lorite et al., 2004), where water represents only less than
10% of the total production costs, a clear contradiction with the
Common Agricultural Policy and the water Framework Directive
(Garcı́a-Vila et al., 2008).
698 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699
Fig. 10. Relationships among gInt and yield and fruit-quality parameters.
3.5. Water stress and physiological relations
An analysis of the relationship among yield and fruit-quality
parameters with WSR, gInt and CInt was performed in order to
define the parameter that provides the greatest information about
the crop response to the DI.
WSR offered significant correlations with yield, TSS, and ED.
Other parameters such as TA showed no significant correlations
with the pooling data, but the analysis for each year was
statistically significant (r2 = 0.64 in 2007 and 0.77 in 2008). Also,
PD showed a high correlation in 2007 year (r2 = 0.89) although this
effect was not observed for the year 2008 (Fig. 8).
The CInt values showed statistically significant relationships
with yield, fruit weight, TSS, TA, and ED. Other parameters, such as
PD, MI, or juice content showed no significant correlations with the
whole dataset, but these relations could be considered again
statistically significant for each year. Therefore, in 2007 year, the
juice content (r2 = 0.71) and PD (r2 = 0.80) had a significant
correlation with CInt. MI showed significant relations in both
years separately with a r2 = 0.76 in 2007 and 0.52 in 2008 (Fig. 9).
The gInt registered strong correlations with some parameters of
the yield and fruit properties (Fig. 10). Especially noteworthy were
the regression coefficients with fruit weight (r2 = 0.78), fruits per
tree (r2 = 0.55), juice content (r2 = 0.62), TA (r2 = 0.92), ED
(r2 = 0.49), PD (r2 = 0.79), MI (r2 = 0.76), and TSS (r2 = 0.42). Yearly,
yield and gInt showed significant correlations (r2 = 0.46 in 2007 and
2008), although, on average, the regression coefficients did not
register significant values.
These results suggested that WSR, CInt, and gInt are good
indicators of potential effects caused by water stress. Nevertheless,
gInt shows better results if we consider the relations year to year.
Because of the variability in climatic conditions and the stress
distribution over the phenological periods, the relations among
WSR, CInt and gs with yield and fruit-quality parameters were not
higher (treatments with similar WSR, CInt or gs showed different
effects on yield and fruit-quality parameters), and therefore the
irrigation strategies have a great importance of tree citrus
response.
Finally, our results confirm that DI successfully boosted water
productivity in the ‘‘Navelino’’ sweet orange, cultivated under
limited water resources in the Mediterranean area without causing
severe yield reductions so long as a certain minimum amount of
seasonal irrigation water is guaranteed.
Severe water stress (WSR 0.55) at flowering, affects mainly
the final fruit number. Furthermore, maintaining this stress
level during the fruit-growth period promoted a significant loss
in the fruit weight and some changes in fruit-quality para-
meters, such as an increase of TSS or TA. Nevertheless, when a
severe DI is applied during the maturity period, major effects
are detected in organoleptic fruit characteristics, with an
increase in TSS and TA, but with yield values similar to
control.
Thus, according to the present study, the relations among WSR,
CInt, gInt, and yield and quality parameters provide useful
information about of water-stress effects and yield components,
taking into account the phenological stage as a main factor for the
crop response to water stress.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of grants from INIA
(RTA2005-00045-C03-03 and RTA2006-00058-CO3-03). I. Garcia-
Tejero and G. Martinez were in receipt of research fellowships from
INIA (PRE-2007 and PRE-2005, respectively).
References
Ali, M.H., Talukder, M.S.U., 2008. Increasing water productivity in crop production—
a synthesis. Agric. Water Manage. 95, 1201–1213.
Ali, M.H., Hoque, M.R., Hassan, A.A., Khair, M.A., 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on
yield, water productivity, and economic returns of wheat. Agric. Water Manage.
92, 151–161.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration (Guide-
lines for computing crop water requirements). FAO Irrigation and Drainage
Paper 56. FAO. Rome, Italy.
Anapalli, S.S., Ahuja, L.R., Ma, L., Timlin, D.J., Stockle, C.O., Boote, K.J., Hoogenboom,
G., 2008. Current water deficit stress simulations in selected agricultural system
simulation models. In: Ahuja, L.R., Reddy, V.R., Saseendran, S.A., Yu, Q. (Eds.),
Response of crops to limited water: understanding and modeling water stress
effects on plant growth processes. Am. Soc. Agric., Crop Sci. Soc. Am., Soil Sci.
Soc. Am., Madison, WI, pp. 1–38.
Bielorai, H., 1982. The effect of partial wetting of the root zone on yield and
water use efficiency in drip and sprinkler mature grapefruit grove. Irrig. Sci.
3, 89–100.
Boletı́n Oficial de la Junta de Andalucı́a (BOJA) núm. 113. Orden de 21 de septiembre
de 2000 por la que se aprueba el Reglamento Especı́fico de Producción Integrada
de Cı́tricos. Consejerı́a de Agricultura y Pesca. Sevilla. 30 de Septiembre de 2000,
15287–15297.
Castel, J.R., 1991. El riego de los cı́tricos. Hortifruticultura 5, 41–52.
De Swaef, T., Steppe, K., Lemeur, R., 2009. Determining referemce values for stem
water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in young apple trees based
on plant responses to water deficit. Agric. Water Manage. 96, 541–550.
 I. Garcı´a-Tejero et al. / Agricultural Water Management 97 (2010) 689–699
Doorenbos, J., Pruitt, W.O., 1974. Crop water requirements. In: Irrigation and
Drainage 24, FAO, Rome, Italy.
Doorenbos, J., Kassam, A., 1979. Yield response to water. In: Irrigation and Drainage
33, FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO, 1998. World Reference Base for Soil Resources. Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Fereres, E., Goldhamer, D.A., Parsons, L.R., 2003. Irrigation water management of
horticultural crops. Hort. Sci. 38, 1036–1042.
Garcı́a-Tejero, I., Jiménez, J.A., Reyes, M.C., Carmona, A., Pérez, R., Muriel, J.L., 2008.
Aplicación de caudales limitados de agua en plantaciones de cı́tricos del valle
del Guadalquivir. Fruticultura Profesional 173, 5–16.
Garcı́a-Vila, M., Lorite, I.J., Soriano, M.A., Fereres, E., 2008. Management trends and
responses to water scarcity in an irrigation scheme of southern Spain. Agric.
Water Manage. 95, 458–468.
Ginestar, C., Castel, J.R., 1996. Responses of young Clementine citrus trees to
water stress during different phenological periods. J. Hortic. Sci. 74, 551–559.
González-Altozano, P., Castel, J.R., 1999. Regulated deficit irrigation in ‘‘Clem-
entina de Nules’’ citrus trees. I. Yield and fruit quality. J. Hort. Sci. Biotech. 74,
706–713.
González-Altozano, P., Castel, J.R., 2000a. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on
‘‘Clementina de Nules’’ citrus trees. II. Vegetative growth. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
75, 388–392.
González-Altozano, P., Castel, J.R., 2000b. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation in
‘Clementina de Nules’ citrus trees growth, yield and fruit quality. Acta Hort. 537,
749–758.
González-Altozano, P., Castel, J.R., 2003. Riego deficitario controlado en clementina
de nules’’ I. Efectos sobre la producción y la calidad de la fruta. Span. J. Agric. Res.
1, 81–92.
Goldhamer, D.A., Fereres, E., Mata, M., Girona, J., Cohen, M., 1999. Sensitivity of
continuous and discrete plant and soil water status monitoring in peach trees
subjected to deficit irrigation. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 124, 437–444.
Hockema, B.R., Etexeberria, E., 2001. Metabolic contributors to drought-enhanced
accumulation of sugars and acids in oranges. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 126, 599–605.
Hsiao, T.C., 1973. Plant response to water stress. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24, 519–570.
Hsiao, T.C., 1990. Measurements of plant water status. In: Stewart, Nielsen,
(Eds.), Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Agronomy Monograph No 30. ASA-
CSSA-SSA, Madison, WI, USA.
Hutton, R.J., Landsberg, J.J., Sutton, B.G., 2007. Timing irrigation to suit citrus
phenology: a means of reducing water use without compromising fruit yield
and quality? Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 47, 71–80.
Jalota, S.K., Sood, A., Chahal, G.B.S., Choudhury, B.U., 2006. Crop water productivity
of cotton–wheat system as influenced by deficit irrigation, soil texture and
precipitation. Agric. Water Manage. 84, 137–146.
Kuriyama, T., Shimoosako, M., Yoshida, M., Shiraishi, S., 1981. The effect of soil
moisture on the fruit quality of Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc). Proc.
Int. Soc. Citricult. 2, 524–527.
Lorite, I.J., Mateos, L., Fereres, 2004. Evaluating irrigation performance in a Medi-
terranean environment. I. Model and general assessment of an irrigation
scheme. Irrig. Sci. 23, 77–84.
699
Myers, B.J., 1988. Water stress integral. A link between short term stress and long
term growth. Tree Physiol. 4, 315–323.
Naor, A., Cohen, S., 2003. Sensitivity and variability of maximum trunk
shrinkage, midday stem water potential, and transpiration rate in response
to withholding irrigation from field-grown apple trees. HortScience 38,
547–551.
Naor, A., 2000. Midday stem water potential as a plant water stress indicator for
irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Acta Hort. 537, 447–454.
Nortes, P.A., Pérez-Pastor, A., Egea, G., Conejero, W., Domingo, R., 2005. Comparison
of changes in item diameter and water potential values for detecting water
stress in young almond trees. Agric. Water Manage. 77, 296–307.
Ortuño, M.F., Alarcón, J.J., Nicolás, E., Torrecillas, A., 2004. Comparison of continu-
ously recorded plant based water stress indicators for young lemon trees. Plant
Soil 267, 263–270.
Ortuño, M.F., Garcı́a-Orellana, Y., Conejero, W., Ruiz-Sánchez, M.C., Alarcón, J.J.,
Torrecillas, A., 2006a. Stem and leaf water potentials, gas exchange, sap flow
and trunk diameter fluctuations for detecting water stress in lemon trees. Trees
20, 1–8.
Ortuño, M.F., Garcı́a-Orellana, Y., Conejero, W., Ruiz-Sánchez, M.C., Mounzer, O.,
Alarcón, J.J., Torrecillas, A., 2006b. Relationships between climatic variables, sap
flow, stem water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in lemon trees.
Plant Soil 279, 229–242.
Pérez-Pérez, J.G., Robles, J.M., Botı́a, P., 2009. Influence of deficit irrigation in phase
III of fruit growth on fruit quality in ‘‘lane late’’ sweet orange. Agric. Water
Manage. 96, 969–979.
Sánchez-Blanco, M.J., Torrecillas, A., León, A., del Amor, F., 1989. The effect of
different irrigation treatments on yield and quality of Verna lemon. Plant Soil
120, 299–302.
Seckler, D., 1996. The new era of water resources management: from dry to wet
water savings. Res. Rpt. 1. Intl. Irr. Mgt. Inst., Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Scholander, P.F., Hammel, H.T., Bradstreet, E.D., Hemmingsen, E.A., 1965. Sap
pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–434.
Shackel, K.A., Ahmadi, H., Biasi, W., Bucner, R., Goldhamer, D., Gurusinghe, S., Hasey, J.,
Kester, D., Krueger, B., Lampinen, B., McGourty, G., Micke, W., Mitcham, E., Olson,
B., Pellettrau, K., Philips, H., Tamos, D., Schwankl, L., Sibbet, S., Snyder, R., Soutwick,
S., Stevenson, M., Thorpe, M., Weinbaum, S., Yeager, J., 1997. Plant water status as
an index of irrigation need in deciduous fruit trees. Hort. Tech. 7, 23–29.
Sterk, G., Stein, A., 1997. Mapping wind-blown mass transport by modelling
variability in space and time. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 61, 232–239.
Turner, N.C., 1988. Measurements of plant water status by pressure chamber
technique. Irrig. Sci. 9, 289–308.
Verasan, V., Phillips, R.E., 1978. Effects of soil water stress on growth and nutrient
accumulation in corn. Agron. J. 70, 613–618.
Verreynne, J.S., Rabe, F., Theron, K.I., 2001. The effect of combined deficit irrigation
and summer trunk girdling on the internal fruit quality of ‘Marisol’ Clemen-
tines. Sci. Hort. 91, 25–37.
Yakushiji, H., Morinaga, K., Nonami, H., 1998. Sugar accumulation and partitioning
in Satsuma mandarin tree tissues and fruit in response to drought stress. J. Am.
Soc. Hortic. Sci. 123, 719–726.