After initially withholding irrigation (WI) to dry out the root zone of pear trees, regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) applied to replace 23% and 46% of evaporation over the planting square (Eps) was compared with 69% and 92% Eps applied during the WI and RDI periods, respectively (full irrigation). Irrigation was increased to 120% Eps on all treatments after rapid fruit growth commenced. Leaf water potential (ψ 1 ) measured at dawn and midday became less negative during RDI than during WI but in both periods was more negative than the control (69%/92% Eps). On the other hand, ψ 1 of treatments receiving WI and RDI became less negative than the control when all irrigation treatments were increased to 120% Eps. Withholding irrigation followed by RDI reduced vegetative growth by 52%. In contrast, however, WI did not inhibit fruit growth, while, during RDI following WI fruit, growth was stimulated. A similar but greater stimulation of fruit growth (consistent with relatively less negative ψ 1 ) was measured on WI/RDI plants when all treatments received 120% Eps. This stimulation of fruit growth increased yields by about 20%. The results indicate fruit osmoregulate to maintain and/or increase growth at the expense of inhibited vegetative growth when WI and or RDI reduce ψ 1 in spring to values approaching −0.5 MPa at dawn.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chalmers et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: