IntroductionTop
Peach fruit yield and quality depend on environmental factors, especially water supply, and, in areas with scarce water resources, deficit irrigation strategies (application of water below full crop water requirements) are strongly recommended. The application of regulated deficit irrigation requires an accurate knowledge of the critical phenological periods during which the sensitivity of plants to water stress is maximal (Girona et al., 2005; Ruiz-Sánchez et al., 2010; Vera et al., 2013). However, the availability of carbohydrate resources also limits reproductive growth and, thus, it has been reported that carbohydrate distribution within the tree - fruit number and position (thinning), vegetative growth and tree configuration (pruning) - affect peach yield (DeJong, 1999; Naor et al., 1999; López et al., 2006). Studies on carbon allocation (the process of distribution of carbon within the plant to different plant parts) reveal the importance of root and aboveground processes to whole-plant physiology and plant productivity (Kozolowski, 1992; Dickson & Isenbrands, 1993). The differential sink capacities of the different organs of the plant follow a hierarchy established by Kramer & Kozolowski (1979): fruits > young leaves and stem tips > mature leaves > cambium > roots > storage tissues.
In deciduous trees, the initial growth of reproductive and vegetative organs depends on the mobilization of carbohydrate stores in roots (Kozolowski, 1992), and individual fruits compete with other fruits and with vegetative growth for resources (DeJong et al., 1987). Besides the continual changes that occur naturally in the above-below ground ratio during tree growth, the ratio is also affected by managing fruit load and consequently the extent of the fruit sink. In this sense, several studies have revealed that crop load affects the segregation of carbohydrates, early ripening cultivars being more sensitive to an excessive load than late maturing ones and therefore requiring more intense thinning (Pavel & DeJong, 1993; Miranda & Royo, 2002). Reductions in the number of fruits have been related with increased growth of the root system (Marsal et al., 2003; López et al., 2008).
Among vegetative parts of the tree, the root system is the organ responsible for water and nutrient absorption. Root studies under field conditions are labour intensive and the destructive methods involved make repeated measurements at the same site virtually impossible (Böhm, 1979; Ruiz-Sánchez et al., 2005). Recent studies describe the use of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) as a non-invasive means for field root investigations, although the technique is limited to coarse roots (Guo et al., 2013). Apart from these, the minirhizotron technique, which uses a miniature video camera or a scanner to view and record root images through a transparent tube inserted in the soil, is less destructive than coring and enables time-course changes in root growth to be monitored (Upchurch & Ritchie, 1983; McMichael & Taylor, 1987; Smit et al., 2000; Hendricks et al., 2006). This methodology has been widely applied to the study of root dynamics in annual plants (Machado et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2003), forest trees (Day et al., 2006) and fruit trees (Fernández et al., 1992; Abrisqueta et al., 1994, 2008; Wells et al., 2002; Bernier & Robitaille, 2004), as well as for measuring root production and mortality in several tree species (Comas et al., 2000; Crocker et al., 2003), but has been little used for evaluating the response to different crop management practices.
The phenological stages of the aerial parts of young early-maturing peach trees in a Mediterranean climate have been described by Mounzer et al. (2008). Furthermore, deficit irrigation has been shown to reduce root growth in the same peach cultivar (Abrisqueta et al., 2008). The aim of this paper was to study the seasonal pattern of root growth (measured by minirhizotrons) in relation to other plant organs (trunk, fruit and shoot) to test trade-offs between vegetative and reproductive growth in a drip-irrigated adult early-maturing peach tree orchard during one growing season. Also, the effect of thinning practices (commercial and low crop load) on tree growth and yield was studied under non-limiting irrigation conditions to enlighten the interactions between root and aerial growth.
Material and methodsTop
Experimental site conditions
The study was performed at the CEBAS-CSIC experimental station in Santomera, Murcia, Spain (38º06’N, 1º02’W, 110 m altitude). The soil, classified as Lithic xeric haploxeroll, is stony and shallow, with a clay-loam texture. It has high lime content (50%) and very low organic matter content (0.34%), low cationic exchange capacity and low levels of available potassium and phosphorus. The available soil water content was 140 mm/m and bulk density was 1560 kg/m3. Volumetric soil water content at field capacity and wilting point were 0.29 and 0.15 m3/m3, respectively.
The climate in the region is semiarid Mediterranean, with hot and dry summers. Annual evaporation and rainfall, measured by an automatic weather station located at the orchard, were 1218 and 357 mm, respectively for the experimental period.
Plant material and crop load treatments
The plant material consisted of a 0.8 ha plot adult early-maturing peach trees (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch cv. Flordastar) grafted on GF-677 peach rootstock, trained to an open-centre canopy and spaced 5 × 5 m, with an average ground cover of 78%. Crop management (including pest control) was that commonly used in commercial orchards. Seasonal fertilizer applications were 200, 75, and 140 kg/ha of N, P2O5, and K2O, respectively, applied through the drip irrigation system (Vera & De la Peña, 1994). The soil was kept free of weeds and was not tilled, while the peach trees were pruned annually during the dormancy period (˜15 kg of dry matter per tree), hand-thinned in March, and harvested in the first week of May.
Trees were irrigated to replace 100% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) requirements, using one lateral pipe per tree row, with eight 2 L/h emitters per tree. Crop evapotranspiration was estimated by multiplying daily reference evapotranspiration (ET0), calculated using the Penman-Monteith method (Allen et al., 1998), by the crop coefficient (Abrisqueta et al., 2013). Irrigation was scheduled weekly and the water was applied daily during the night as needed. The annual amount of water applied, measured with in-line water meters with digital output pulses (ARAD), was 770 mm.
At the time of thinning, in March 2010, two fruit crop load treatments were established: a commercial crop load (fruitlets were hand-thinned to leave approximately 20 cm between the fruits) and a low crop load (approx. one fruit per 40 cm), with no effect on leaf area. Crop load treatments were arranged in a completely randomized design with four replicates, each consisting of one row of 5 trees.
Root measurements
Root growth was evaluated using the minirhizotron method. For this, transparent plastic tubes were installed at a 45º angle, 50 cm from the second emitter (located 1 m from the tree trunk) (Fig. 1a), in one representative tree in three out of the four replications in both crop load treatments. The tubes were 1.8 m long with outer and inner diameters of 70 and 64 mm, respectively. The total length of each buried tube was 1.4 m, so that it reached a total depth of 1 m; the centre of each tube was located directly beneath the emitter (Fig. 1a). The part of the tube protruding from the soil surface was covered with isolating material to prevent light from entering the tube and the tube from becoming heated. Six years after installation of the tubes, root images were captured twice per month using a CI-600 Root Growth Scanning System and analysed using WinRHIZOTM Tron software v.2008 (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada). The number, length and diameter of roots were determined at seven depths (minirhizotron section) from 0 to 140 cm, at 20 cm intervals. Roots were classified into three diameter classes: very fine (<0.5 mm), fine (0.5–2.0 mm) and coarse (>2 mm).
|
|
Root length density (RLD) was calculated according to the formula proposed by Upchurch (1987), based on Newman’s line intersection method, which uses the number of root points which intersect the minirhizotron tube within the view frame: RLD = (N · d) / (A · d), where N is the number of roots, A is the minirhizotron frame area observed by the scanner (439.82 cm2), and d is the outside diameter of minirhizotron tube (7 cm). It calculates the expected value of root length within the soil volume occupied by the tube as if the tube were not present (Merrill & Upchurch, 1994). RLD was expressed as total root length per unit of sampled soil volume (cm of root/cm3 of soil). Two analysis procedures were compared: the first included the determination of all the roots observed in the image (total roots) and in the second, only newly grown roots, characterized by their distinctive white colour, were traced (new roots).
Soil cores (52 mm diameter; 452 cm3) were collected in July from the commercial crop load treatment only, in four trees (three of them the same as those equipped with minirhizotrons). Six successive 15 cm soil samples to a depth of 90 cm were taken at distances of 0 and 30 cm both sides from the second emitter (Fig. 1a). The samples were placed in 12 L containers filled with water and sodium hexametaphosphate (˜ 20 g per sample), which causes flocculation of the clays, in order to separate the roots from the soil. After cleaning and sieving (0.55 mm mesh), the roots were digitalised with a scanner (LA 1600+, Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada) with a resolution of 600 dpi. Images were analysed with the WinRhizo ProTM software (Regent Instruments Inc., Quebec, Canada). Data were expressed as RLD (cm root/cm soil), considering the diameter classes indicated above.
A comparison was made between RLD data from the soil cores and the data obtained by the minirhizotron at the summer sampling date, taking into account the relative location of the minirhizotron: values from sections 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the minirhizotron were compared with soil samples at 15, 30, 75 and 90 cm depth, respectively, taken 30 cm from the emitter; while values from sections 4 and 5 were compared with soil samples at 45 and 60 cm depth, respectively, taken below the emitter (Fig. 1a).
Aboveground measurements
The equatorial fruit diameter was measured weekly from early March until harvest in 100 fruits, randomly selected from four trees (one for each replication) of each crop load treatment using an electronic digital calliper. Fruit diameter (D, mm) was converted into fruit dry weight (DW, g) using the allometric relationship derived from data collected in the same orchard (DW = 4·10-4 · D2.54; n = 190; r2 = 0.90; Mounzer et al., 2008).
The shoot length was taken twice monthly, measuring four tagged shoots per tree, one from each compass direction, on four trees (one tree per replication) of each crop load treatment with a tape measure. Trunk diameter was monitored continuously with linear variable displacement transducers (model DF ±2.5 mm, accuracy ±10 mm, Solartron Metrology, Bognor Regis, UK) attached to the trunk. Measurements were taken every 2 s and the datalogger (model CR10X with AM25T multiplexer, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT, USA) was programmed to report 15 min means. Growth rates for root, shoot, trunk and fruit were expressed as increases in length or weight per day.
Stem water potential (Ystem) was determined using a pressure chamber (Soil Moisture Equip. Crop. Model 3000, Santa Barbara, CA, USA) on mature leaves located on the north face of the tree near the trunk. Leaves were placed in plastic bags covered with aluminium foil for at least 2 h prior to the measurements, which were carried out at midday every 7-15 days from April to October. One leaf per tree and one tree per replication of each crop load treatment was cut and immediately placed into the chamber following the recommendations of Hsiao (1990).
Peach yield was evaluated at harvest during the first week of May in two picks, weighing and counting the total number of fruits per tree, in twenty trees per crop load treatment (five trees from each replication). Peach fruits were divided in the field by manual calibration into 5 fruit diameter categories (<56, 56-61, 61-67 and 67-73 and >73 mm) and all the fruits of each category were weighed on a field scale. According to Commission Regulation Directive 1221/2008 (EC, 2008), 56 mm is the minimum diameter for a peach fruit to be considered in the “Extra class”. Total soluble solids were evaluated in a 10 fruit sample of each replication and treatment on each picking date, using a hand-held refractometer (Atago ATC-1, Tokyo, Japan). Values were expressed as ºBrix.
Statistical analysis
Plant growth data were analysed by a general linear model of repeated measures ANOVA using SPSS v. 20 software (SPSS, 2012), which considers the within-subject factor as a series of measurements taken in the same experimental subject over time (root, shoot and fruit growth) and the between-subject factor (crop load treatment). Regression analysis was performed for the methodological procedures used to obtain root data.
ResultsTop
Methodological procedures using minirhizotrons
The root images captured from minirhizotrons were analysed with two procedures: total roots (all the roots in the image were traced) and new roots (only newly grown white roots were traced). The comparison made between RLD data (including all diameters classes) from the commercial crop load trees calculated by the two analysis procedures showed good correlation, with a significant coefficient (r = 0.96***) (Fig. 1b).
The results of the comparison made between RLD data from the soil cores and the data obtained by the minirhizotron at the summer sampling date revealed a high correlation and a clear tendency for the minirhizotron to underestimate RLD data (1:100 ratio) compared to the RLD obtained for the soil samples (Figure 1c). Peach root length density through the soil profile was similarly described by both methods, with maximum root exploration located above 45 cm (Fig. 1c).
Root vs. aerial peach growth pattern
The annual growth pattern of the different organs (roots, fruits, shoots and trunk) of peach trees from the commercial crop load treatment is showed in Fig 2. Root length data included all diameters [in general, most roots (88%) corresponded to very fine roots (<0.5 mm), 7 and 5% for fine and coarse roots, respectively]. Data were expressed as percentage of the total growth at the end of the season (Fig. 2b) and as daily growth rates (Fig. 2c), both graphs showing alternating dynamics between aerial part (shoots and fruits) and roots. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is also included to depict seasonal peach tree water consumption, with maximum ETc values observed after harvest, but decreasing from September onwards (Fig. 2a).
Root growth rates increased immediately after harvest, with a peak at mid-summer. A slight increase was observed just before dormancy (Fig. 2c). While fruits had completed their growth in early May, the roots and trunk had only completed 20% of their total growth at this time. On the other hand, shoots had already reached more than 60% of their final development (Fig. 2b).
Low root growth rates were observed during the active growth phase of the fruits (Fig. 2c). The maximum shoot growth rate coincided with the lowest root growth (Fig. 2c). Trunk growth followed the same pattern as the roots, with maximum growth occurring during the postharvest period (Fig. 2c).
|
|
Crop load and peach tree growth
The plant water status was unaffected by the crop load, and similar values of Ystem were observed in commercial and low crop load treatments, varying by around -0.30 and -0.45 MPa, during stages II and III of the fruit growth periods, respectively (data not shown). Trees were irrigated to satisfy their water needs and hence the soil water content in both crop load treatments, as measured by capacitance probes, remained on average at about 0.28 m3/m3 (around field capacity values) during the season (data not shown).
Differences were observed in fruit growth, the peaches of the commercial crop load treatment were significantly (p < 0.05) smaller than those of the low crop load treatment at stage III of fruit growth (Fig. 3a). The growth of lateral shoots was also seen to be affected by the crop load, and higher shoot length values were measured in the trees with a low crop load compared with those of the commercial load treatment, although this effect was only statistically significant after fruits were harvested (Fig. 3b).
|
|
Root growth was enhanced in the low crop load treatment (Fig. 3c), with the most active root growth period, as indicated above, occurring after harvest; however, according to the ANOVA, this effect was not statistically significant (p = 0.39). Root growth through the soil profile showed that this increase mainly affected the 30-60 cm soil layer (Fig. 3c´).
Peach total yield was lower (p < 0.001) in trees subjected to low crop load conditions than the trees with a commercial crop load due to the lower number of fruits collected in the second pick (Table 1). Nevertheless, the average fruit size was significantly higher in trees of the low crop load treatment (Table 1), with more than 90% of the harvested fruits corresponding to commercial size (>61 mm diameter), compared to 84% in the commercial crop load. The ANOVA of the size distribution provided statistically significant values for fruits of <56 mm diameter (1 and 4% for low and commercial crop load treatments, respectively), while the opposite was found for fruits of >73 mm diameter (19 and 6% for low and commercial crop load treatments, respectively) (Table 1). The crop load had a significant effect (p = 0.02) on total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits from the first pick (6.65 and 7.87 ºBrix for commercial and low crop load treatments, respectively), while higher (p <0.001) values were recorded in fruits harvested in the second pick (10.5 and 10.9 ºBrix for commercial and low crop load treatments, respectively).
Table 1. Effect of crop load on yield and fruit size distribution of early-maturing peach trees
DiscussionTop
Methodological procedures using minirhizotrons
The minirhizotron technique was designed for demographic studies and to evaluate root growth dynamics (Taylor, 1987; Comas et al., 2000; Hendricks et al., 2006; Krasowski et al., 2010), providing a unique method to repeatedly measure root segment growth over time. WinRHIZO-Tron® requires the roots to be manually traced by the operator, the good correlation obtained between total and new roots (Fig. 1b) demonstrated that the method of simply tracing the new roots is a more practical approach to the evaluation of peach root dynamics in the field, since data can be obtained more quickly, speeding up the analysis.
Many authors consider that minirhizotron and soil sampling provide different evaluations of standing root length in field conditions due to the heterogeneous distribution of roots and the effect of collecting soil vertically, which will provide different values to those obtained at an angle of 45° (Johnson et al., 2001; Milchunas, 2009). Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that the root system of fruits trees under drip irrigation, especially those in semi-arid zones such as in the Mediterranean area, is practically restricted to the wetted zone of the soil, with most root activity concentrated just below the emitters (Fernández et al., 1992; Ruiz-Sánchez et al., 2005; Pérez-Pastor et al., 2014). As regard the effectiveness of using minirhizotrons to study peach root distribution, the results of both methods revealed a high degree of correlation (r=0.97***, Fig. 1c) but there was a clear tendency for the minirhizotron to underestimate RLD data compared with the data obtained from soil samples. This underestimation was related to the conditions at the tube interface, which may inhibit roots as they come up against the surface of the minirhizotron (Upchurch, 1987; Rytter & Rytter, 2012). Similar discrepancies in absolute root length values between soil sampling and minirhizotron methods were found in almond (Franco & Abrisqueta, 1997) and maize (Majdi et al., 1992). Nevertheless, leaving aside any comparison of absolute values, the soil exploration profile of peach roots was similarly described by both methods, with maximum RLD values at 15-45 cm soil depth (Fig. 1c), suggesting that minirhizotrons can be used for studies on root dynamics and morphology (Rytter & Rytter, 2012).
Root vs. aerial peach growth patterns
Tree phenology can be defined by temporal dynamics of organ growth, an accurate knowledge of which is essential for designing crop management practices such as irrigation, thinning and pruning. Growth pattern of the peach roots, fruits, shoots and trunk showed a clear alternating dynamics between aerial (shoots and fruits) and root parts (Fig. 2).
Coinciding with low water demand conditions (Fig. 2a), the root growth rate was lower during the active growth phase of the fruits (Fig. 2b), which act as powerful photo-assimilate sinks. Analogous behaviour has been observed in other deciduous fruit species such as almond (Ross & Catlin, 1978) and apricot (Pérez-Pastor et al., 2004) and in perennials, such as citrus trees (Bevington & Castle, 1985). Also, a decrease in root production was related to the presence of growing fruits in late-maturing peach trees (Williamson & Coston, 1989) and walnut trees, whose roots followed a unimodal seasonal curve (Contador et al., 2015). Also, the maximum peach shoot growth rate coincided with the minimum of root growth (Fig. 2c). One or two peaks in the annual root growth of apple trees have been reported to occur at different times, depending on the scion/rootstock combination, but always asynchronous with the peaks of shoot growth (Ma et al., 2013). Similarly, avocado root growth was slower during shoot growth flushes (Mickelbart et al., 2012).
Shoot growth in mature trees is fairly independent of the distribution of carbon during the growing season, once the initial elongation has ceased (Sprugel et al., 1991), although some researchers have suggested that this autonomy is not total (Marsal et al., 2003). In this sense, Chalmers & van den Ende (1975) indicated that the growth of the fruit, roots and frame is competitively inter-related throughout the life of the peach tree, while the growth of leaves and the annual shoots that support them is independent.
Although carbohydrates were not measured in this study, a possible role for carbohydrate use/storage related to plant phenology might be inferred, as Comas et al. (2005) suggested for the intricate relationship between internal carbon demands and environmental conditions in regulating vine root allocation. Thus, peach root and trunk growth increased once harvesting was completed and the canopy was big enough to distribute the photo-assimilates to organs that would ensure a successful yield the following season.
On the other hand, it was observed that peach root growth continued during the whole year (Fig. 2), demonstrating that both soil temperature and humidity were favourable. This suggests that roots were not dormant in the sense that buds were, underlying the importance of monitoring root growth between the growing seasons as well (Rytter & Rytter, 2012).
Crop load and peach tree growth
The early maturing nature of the studied peach cultivar and the adequate water supply, as indicated by the high soil water content values in both crop load treatments, may have been responsible for the absence of significant differences in plant water status, reflecting the results obtained by Naor et al. (1999), Conejero et al. (2010) and Alcobendas et al. (2012), who reported no differences in Ystem values even between extreme crop load treatments (unthinned and defruited). In this sense, too, Berman & DeJong (1996) indicated that in well-watered peach trees, plant water status was independent of crop load, while in trees receiving reduced irrigation, the degree of water stress increased with increasing crop load, water-stressed trees with heavy crop loads making significantly greater demands, thus limiting photosynthesis.
It is commonly assumed that reductions in crop load increase the total amount of carbohydrates available for the growth of other organs (Wardlaw, 1990; Grossman & DeJong, 1995; Marsal et al., 2003). The higher peach tree growth under low crop load conditions compared with trees with a commercial load (Fig. 3) was probably due to increased competition for photo-assimilates among fruit themselves and, also, between the fruit and other organs that were developing at the same time (Grossman & DeJong, 1994). High cropping peach trees generally have reduced vegetative growth (Berman & DeJong, 2003) and root growth (Chalmers & Van den Ende, 1975). Results in support of this were found in experiments with late-maturing peach trees in both potted (López et al., 2008) and field grown (Ben Mimoun & DeJong, 2006) conditions, in which root growth was significantly higher in defruited than in commercial crop load treatments. Nii (1993) reported that the total root volume of non-bearing peach trees was larger and the starch content per root dry weight higher than in bearing trees.
Changes in vegetative growth could have major implications as regards a plant’s ability to cope with soil water deficits. The negative effects of water stress on fruit could be partially compensated by more severe fruit thinning, as previously reported for mid-late maturing peach cultivars in Mediterranean regions (Marsal et al., 2006; López et al., 2010). However, no improvement in fruit size in low loaded early-maturing peach trees was observed under deficit irrigation conditions (Alcobendas et al., 2012).
Peach yield, although considered low in the year described (Vera et al., 2013), was lower in trees subjected to low crop load conditions than in the trees with a commercial crop load due to the lower number of fruits (about half the number of the commercial crop load) (Table 1). Nevertheless, peach fruit size improved in low crop load trees (Table 1), showing similar levels of soluble solids to the commercial loaded trees. Thus, the low crop load enhanced marketability because size is one of the most important quality criteria. Mahhou et al. (2006) reported a negative relationship between crop load and fruit size in late-maturing peach trees. This relationship also was influenced by the cultivar, early-maturing cultivars being more sensitive to excess load than late-maturing cultivars (Pavel & DeJong, 1993; Alcobendas et al., 2012). Fruit farmers might be interested in adopting high thinning practices (low crop load treatment) when market demands favour larger fruits.
It is clear that in areas with scarce water resources, deficit irrigation strategies are strongly recommended, and its application requires an accurate knowledge of the critical phenological periods during which the sensitivity of plants to water stress is maximal. Thus, understanding the relationship between vegetative and reproductive growth provides insight into the timely relationships among growth events and should help growers to adopt the best cultural practices: e.g. irrigating, fertilizing, spraying and pruning. The literature describes the stage II of fruit growth in medium- and late-maturing cultivars, and the post-harvest period as the most suitable for reducing irrigation in peach trees (Ruiz-Sánchez et al., 2010); however, deficit irrigation strategies should be adjusted to limit water deficits during the exceedingly long post-harvest period for early-maturing peach cultivars (Vera et al., 2013).
On the other hand, crop load management to partially alleviate the effects of water deficit has been considered a useful technique, which interacts with deficit irrigation to decide carbon allocation within the tree (López et al., 2006; Mirás-Avalos et al., 2013). Thinning practices in deficit irrigated peach trees should be adapted to the actual tree size (especially shoot length), but leaving a certain distribution to ensure their exposure to sunlight.
In conclusion, the evaluation of the growth of new roots is proposed for studying peach root dynamics using minirhizotrons. The seasonal growth of roots of early-maturing peach trees was asynchronous with that of shoots. Root growth continued throughout the season, with lower rates during the active fruit growth phase. Root and trunk growth rates increased immediately after harvest when the canopy was big enough to destine the photo-assimilates to organs that would ensure the following season’s yield.
Trees with a low crop load showed more active shoot and fruit growth than commercial crop-loaded trees, a non-significant increase in root growth being noted in the low crop load treatment. Low crop loads led to a lower total yield, although individual fruit size was larger, which might increase profits if the market demands larger fruit. Such a change in tree architecture might
AcknowledgmentsTop
This work is dedicated to the late Jose María Abrisqueta, who advised us on taking root measurements.
ReferencesTop
|
Abrisqueta I, Abrisqueta JM, Tapia LM, Munguía JP, Conejero W, Vera J, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, 2013. Basal crop coefficients for early-season peach trees. Agric Water Manage 121: 158-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.02.001 Abrisqueta JM, Hernansáez A, Franco JA, 1994. Root dynamics of young almond tree under different drip-irrigation rates. J Hortic Sci 69: 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1994.11516450 Abrisqueta JM, Mounzer O, Álvarez S, Conejero W, García-Orellana Y, Tapia LM, Vera J, Abrisqueta I, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, 2008. Root dynamics of peach trees submitted to partial rootzone drying continuous deficit irrigation. Agric Water Manage 95: 959-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2008.03.003 Alcobendas R, Mirás-Avalos JM, Alarcón JJ, Pedrero F, Nicolás E, 2012. Combined effects of irrigation, crop load and fruit position on size, color and firmness of fruits in extra-early cultivar of peach. Sci Hortic 142: 128-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2012.05.003 Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M, 1998. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrig Drain 56, FAO, Roma. Ben Mimoun MB, DeJong TM, 2006. Effect of fruit crop load on peach root growth. Acta Hortic 713: 169-171. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.713.23 Berman ME, DeJong TM, 1996. Water stress and crop load effects on fruit fresh and dry weights in peach (Prunus persica). Tree Physiol 16: 859-864. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/16.10.859 Berman ME, DeJong TM, 2003. Seasonal patterns of vegetative growth and competition with reproductive sinks in peach (Prunus persica). J Hortic Sci Biotech 78: 303-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2003.11511622 Bernier PY, Robitaille G, 2004. A plane intersect methods for estimating fine root productivity of trees from minirhizotrons images. Plant Soil 265: 165-173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-005-0056-y Bevington KB, Castle WS, 1985. Annual root growth pattern of young citrus trees in relation to shoot growth, soil temperature, and soil water content. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 110: 840-845. Böhm W, 1979. Methods of studying root systems. Ecological Studies nº 33. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg. 188 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-67282-8 Chalmers DJ, Van den Ende B, 1975. Productivity of peach trees. Factors affecting dry weight distribution during tree growth. Ann Bot 39: 423-432. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a084956 Comas LH, Eissenstat DM, Lakso AN, 2000. Assessing root death and root system dynamics in a study of grape canopy pruning. New Phytol 147: 171-178. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00679.x Comas LH, Anderson LJ, Dunst RM, Lakso AN, Eissenstat DM, 2005. Canopy and environmental control of root dynamics in a long-term study of Concord grape. New Phytol 167: 829-840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01456.x Conejero W, Ortuño MF, Mellisho CD, Torrecillas A, 2010. Influence of crop load on maximum daily trunk shrinkage reference equations for irrigation scheduling of early maturing peach trees. Agric Water Manage 97: 333-338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2009.10.003 Contador ML, Comas LH, Metcalf SG, Stewart WL, Porris I, Negrin C, Lampinen B, 2015. Root growth dynamics linked to above-ground growth in walnut (Juglans regia). Ann Bot 116: 49-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv064 Crocker TL, Hendrick RL, Ruess RW, Pregitzer KS, Burton AJ, Allen MF, Shan J, Morris LA, 2003. Substituting root numbers for length: improving the use of minirhizotrons to study fine root dynamics. App Soil Ecol 23: 127-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00024-6 Day FP, Stover DB, Pagel AL, Hungate BA, Dilustro JJ, Herberts Drake BG, Hinkle CR, 2006. Rapid root closure after fire limits fine root responses to elevated atmospheric CO2 in a scrub oak ecosystem in central Florida USA. Glob Change Biol 12: 1047-1053. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01148.x DeJong TM, 1999. Development and environmental control of dry matter partitioning in peach. HortScience 34: 1037-1040. DeJong TM, Doyle JF, Day KR, 1987. Seasonal patterns of reproductive and vegetative sink activity in early and late maturing peach (Prunus persica) cultivars. Physiol Plant 71: 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1987.tb04621.x Dickson RE, Isenbrands JG, 1993. Carbon allocation terminology: should it be more rational? Bull Ecol Soc Amer 74: 175-177. EC, 2008. Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1221/2008 of 5 December, 2008. Amending Regulation (EC) No. 1580/2007 laying down implementing rules of Council Regulations (EC) No. 2200/96, (EC) No. 2201/96 and (EC) No. 1182/2007 in the fruit and vegetable sector as regards marketing standards. Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. 51, L336. 80 pp. Fernández JE, Moreno F, Martín-Aranda J, Fereres E, 1992. Olive-tree root dynamics under different soil water regimes. Agric Medit 122: 225-235. Franco JA, Abrisqueta JM, 1997. A comparison between minirhizotron and soil coring methods of estimating root distribution in young almond trees under trickle irrigation. J Hortic Sci 72: 797-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1997.11515573 Girona J, Gelly M, Mata M, Arbonés A, Rufat J, Marsal J, 2005. Peach tree response to single and combined de?cit irrigation regimes in deep soils. Agric Water Manage 72: 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2004.09.011 Grossman YL, DeJong TM, 1994. PEACH: a simulation model of reproductive and vegetative growth in peach trees. Tree Physiol 14: 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/14.4.329 Grossman YL, DeJong TM, 1995. Maximum vegetative growth potential and seasonal patterns of resource dynamics during peach growth. Ann Bot 76: 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1995.1122 Guo L, Chen J, Cui X, Fan B, Lin H, 2013. Application of ground penetrating radar for coarse root detection and quantification: A review. Plant Soil 362: 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1455-5 Hendricks RL, Hendrick RJ, Wilson CA, Mitchell RJ, Rechot SD, Guo D, 2006. Assessing the patterns and controls of fine root dynamics: an empirical test and methodological review. J Ecol 94: 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2745.2005.01067.x Hsiao TC, 1990. Measurements of plants water stress. In: Irrigation of agricultural crops. ASA, CSSA & SSSA Agron Monog Nº 30, Steward BA & Nielsen DR (eds.). pp: 243-279. Madison, WI, USA. Johnson MG, Tingey DT, Philips DL, Storm MJ, 2001. Advancing fine root research with minirhizotrons. Environ Exp Bot 45: 263-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0098-8472(01)00077-6 Kozolowski TT, 1992. Carbohydrate sources and sinks in woody plants. Bot Rev 58: 208-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02858600 Kramer PJ, Kozolowski TT, 1979. Physiology of woody plants. Academic Press, NY. 811 pp. Krasowski MJ, Lavigne MB, Olesinski J, Bernier PY, 2010. Advantages of long-term measurement of fine root demographics with a minirhizotron at two balsam fir sites. Can J Forest Res 40: 1128-1135. https://doi.org/10.1139/X10-068 López G, Mata M, Arbonés A, Solans JR, Girona J, Marsal J, 2006. Mitigation of effects of extreme drought during stage III of peach fruit development by summer pruning and fruit thinning. Tree Physiol 26: 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/26.4.469 López G, Arbonés A, Mata M, Paris C, Girona J, Marsal J, 2008. Root growth following defruiting improves peach tree water status. J Hort Sci Biotech 83: 804-808. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2008.11512464 López G, Behboudian MH, Vallverdú X, Mata M, Girona J, Marsal J, 2010. Mitigation of severe water stress by fruit thinning in ‘O’Henry’ peach: implications for fruit quality. Sci Hortic 125: 294-300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.04.003 Ma L, Hou CW, Zhang XZ, Li HL, Han DG, Wang Y, Han ZH, 2013. Seasonal growth and spatial distribution of apple tree roots on different rootstocks or interstems. J Am Soc Hort Sci 138: 79-87. Machado RMA, Rosário M, Oliveira G, 2003. Comparison of tomato root distribution by minirhizotron and destructive sampling. Plant Soil 255: 375-385. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026198919074 Mahhou A, DeJong TM, Shackel KS, Cao T, 2006. Water stress and crop load effects on yield and fruit quality of Elegant Lady peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batch]. Fruits 61: 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits:2006040 Majdi H, Smucker AJM, Persson H, 1992. A comparison between minirhizotron and monolith sampling methods for measuring root growth of maize (Zea mays L.). Plant Soil 147: 127-134. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00009378 Marsal J, Basile B, Solari L, DeJong TM, 2003. Influence of branch autonomy on fruit, scaffold, trunk and root growth during Stage III of peach fruit development. Tree Physiol 23: 313-323. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/23.5.313 Marsal J, Lopez G, Mata M, Girona J, 2006. Branch removal and defruiting for the amelioration of water stress effects on fruit growth during Stage III of peach fruit development. Sci Hortic 108: 55-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006.01.008 McMichael BL, Taylor HM, 1987. Applications and limitations of rhizotrons and minirhizotrons. In: Minirhizotron observation tubes: Methods and applications for measuring rhizosphere dynamics; Taylor HM (ed) pp: 1-13. Am Soc Agron Spec Publ No. 50 Madison, WI, USA. Merrill SD, Upchurch DR, 1994. Converting root numbers observed at minirhizotrons to equivalents root length density. Soil Sci Soc Am J 58: 1061-1067. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1994.03615995005800040009x Mickelbart MV, Robinson PW, Witney G, Arpaia ML, 2012. ‘Hass’ avocado tree growth on four rootstocks in California.II. Shoot and root growth. Sci Hortic 143: 205-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2012.06.021 Milchunas DG, 2009. Estimating root production: comparison of 11 methods in shortgrass steppe and review of biases. Ecosystems 12: 1381-1402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-009-9295-8 Miranda C, Royo JB, 2002. Fruit distribution and early thinning intensity influence fruit quality and productivity of peach and nectarine trees. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 127: 892-900. Mirás-Avalos JM, Alcobendas R, Alarcón JJ, Pedrero F, Valsesia P, Lescourret F, Nicolás E, 2013. Combined effects of water stress and fruit thinning on fruit and vegetative growth of a very early-maturing peach cultivar: assessment by means of a fruit tree model, QualiTree. Irrig Sci 31: 1039-1051. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0385-6 Mounzer OH, Conejero W, Nicolás E, Abrisqueta I, García-Orellana Y, Tapia LM, Vera J, Abrisqueta JM, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, 2008. Growth pattern and phenological stages of early maturing peach trees under a Mediterranean climate. HortScience 43: 1813-1818. Naor A, Klein I, Hupert H, Grinblat Y, Peres M, Kaufman A, 1999. Water stress and crop level interactions in relation to nectarine yield, fruit size distribution, and water potentials. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 124: 189-193. Nii N, 1993. Fruiting effects of leaf characteristics, photosynthesis, and root growth in peach trees. J Jpn Soc Hortic Sci 62: 519-526. https://doi.org/10.2503/jjshs.62.519 Pavel EW, DeJong TM, 1993. Source and sink-limited growth periods of developing peach fruits indicated by relative growth rate analysis. J Am Soc Hort Sci 118: 820-824. Pérez-Pastor A, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, Domingo R, Torrecillas A, 2004. Growth and phenological stages of ‘Búlida’ apricot trees in south-east Spain. Agronomie 24: 93-100. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2004004 Pérez-Pastor A, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, Domingo R, 2014. Effects of timing and intensity of deficit irrigation on vegetative and fruit growth of apricot trees. Agric Water Manage 134: 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.12.007 Ross NW, Catlin PB, 1978. Rootstocks and root physiology. In: Almond orchard management; Micke W, Kester D (eds.). pp: 25-29. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California. Ruiz-Sánchez MC, Plana V, Ortuño MF, Tapia LM, Abrisqueta JM, 2005. Spatial root distribution of apricot trees in different soil tillage practices. Plant Soil 272: 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-004-4781-4 Ruiz-Sánchez MC, Domingo R, Castel JR, 2010. Review. Deficit irrigation in fruit trees and vines in Spain. Span J Agric Res 8 (S2): 5-20. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/201008S2-1343 Rytter RS, Rytter L, 2012. Quantitative estimates of root densities at minirhizotrons differ from those in the bulk soil. Plant Soil 350: 205-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-011-0896-6 Smit AL, Bengough AG, Engels C, van Noordwijk M, Pellerin S, van de Geijn SC, 2000. Root methods: A handbook. Springer, Berlin. 587 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-04188-8 Sprugel DG, Hinckley TM, Schaap W, 1991. The theory and practice of branch autonomy. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22: 309-334. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.22.110191.001521 SPSS Inc, 2012. SPSS-IBM Professional Statistics 21 update. Chicago, ILL, USA. Taylor HM, 1987. Minirhizotron observation tubes: Methods and applications for measuring rhizosphere dynamics. Am Soc Agron, Spec Publ No. 50, Madison, WI, USA. 143 pp. Upchurch DR, 1987. Conversion of minirhizotron-root intersections to root length density. In: Minirhizotron observation tubes: Methods and applications for measuring rhizosphere dynamics; Taylor HM (ed.). pp: 51-66. Am Soc Agron, Spec Publ No. 50, Madison, WI, USA. Upchurch DR, Ritchie JT, 1983. Root observation using a video recording system in minirhizotrons. Agron J 75: 1009-1015. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1983.00021962007500060033x Vera J, De la Peña JM, 1994. FERTIGA: Programa de fertirrigación de frutales. CEBAS-CSIC, Murcia, Spain. 69 pp. Vera J, Abrisqueta I, Abrisqueta JM, Ruiz-Sánchez MC, 2013. Effect of deficit irrigation on early-maturing peach tree performance. Irrig Sci 31: 747-757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-012-0358-9 Wardlaw IF, 1990. The control of carbon partitioning in plants. Tansley Review No. 27. New Phytol 116: 341-381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00524.x Wells CE, Glenn DM, Eissenstat DM, 2002. Changes in the risk of ?ne-root mortality with age: A case study in peach Prunus persica (Rosaceae). Am J Bot 89: 79-87. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.89.1.79 Williamson JG, Coston DC, 1989. The relationship among root growth, shoot growth, and fruit growth of peach. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 114: 180-183. Yang J, Hammer D, Blanchar RW, 2003. Minirhizotron quanti?cation of soybean root growth as affected by reduced A horizon in soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 166: 708-711. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200321193
|