Table 2.
Details of recommended deficit irrigation and compared irrigation methods and responses of fruit quality on fruit trees in China
The relative fruit quality parameter is the ratio of fruit quality under the recommended deficit irrigation method to that under the conventional method. There was significant difference for data with an asterisk under the recommended deficit irrigation method compared with the control.
| Plants | Study no. | Details of recommended deficit irrigation and compared irrigation methods | Location and time | Relative fruit quality parameters | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apple | 1 | Moderated water deficit irrigation (water amount at 60% of US Class A pan-evaporation) during 10 June to 10 July; 80% in other growth period, compared with 80% in whole stages under micro- sprinkler irrigation | Changping, Beijing, 1999–2000 | – | Huang et al. (2001) |
| 2 | Half irrigation water amount was applied using alternate partial root-zone block irrigation compared with conventional block irrigation | Shexian, Hebei, 2004, 2006 | No significant difference in TSS, fruit firmness, fructose, and TA | Cheng et al. (2008) | |
| 3 | Control irrigation water amount of two-thirds during sprouting to bloom flowering compared with conventional block irrigation | Shexian, Hebei, 2004–2006 | No significant difference in TSS, fruit firmness, fructose, and TA | Cheng et al. (2008) | |
| 4 | Half irrigation water amount was applied using alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation compared with conventional drip irrigation; the alternate cycle was 2–4 weeks | Yantai, Shandong, 2006–2007 | 1.05–1.07* (fruit firmness); 1.09–1.10* (TSS); 0.90–0.96* (TA) | Liu et al. (2010c) | |
| Pear | 5 | Controlled soil water content at 40–60% θ f for 25–80 d after full blooming, compared with conventional block irrigation above 60% θ f during all stages | Handan, Hebei, 1998–2001 | 1.08* (TSS); 1.28*– 1.72* (fructose); 1.27* (TA); 1.10*–1.17* (K) | Cheng et al. (2003) |
| 6 | Moderated water deficit irrigation (water amount at 60% of US Class A pan-evaporation) in slow fruit enlargement stage, 80% in cell division and slow fruit growth period, compared with 80% in all three stages under drip irrigation | Korla, Xinjiang, 2009–2010 | 1.00–1.04 (TSS); 0.55*–1.24* (TA); 1.01–1.10* (fructose) | Wu et al. (2012) | |
| 7 | Alternate partial root-zone block irrigation (300 l of water per plant per irrigation) compared with conventional block irrigation (500 l of water per plant per irrigation); the low limit of soil water content is 60% θ f. | Yongnian, Hebei,2004–2005 | – | Zhao et al. (2007) | |
| 8 | Alternate partial root-zone block irrigation (50mm per plant per irrigation) compared with conventional block irrigation (60mm per irrigation); the low limit of soil water content is 60% θ f. | Yongnian, Hebei, 2006–2007 | 1.08–1.14* (TSS); 0.92–0.95 (TA); 1.04– 1.06 (fruit firmness) | Zhao et al. (2008) | |
| Peach | 9 | Moderated water deficit irrigation (water amount as 60% of US Class A pan-evaporation) in slow fruit enlargement stage, 80% in cell division and slow fruit growth period, compared with all 80% in three stages under drip irrigation | Haidian, Beijing, 1997–1998 | – | Li et al. (2001) |
| 10 | Half irrigation water amount was applied using APRI compared with conventional drip irrigation; the alternate cycle is 2–4 weeks | Haidian, Beijing, 2004–2005 | – | Song et al. (2008) | |
| 11 | Alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation compared with conventional drip irrigation; the irrigation water amount was 70% of the control treatments | Yangling, Shaanxi, 2001 | – | Gong et al. (2004) | |
| Table grape | 12 | Half irrigation water amount was applied using alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation compared with conventional drip irrigation with the same irrigation cycle | Wuwei, Gansu, 2004–2006 | 1.15–1.42* (Vc); 1.01–1.04 (TSS); 0.87*–1.00 (TA) | Du et al. (2008) |
| 13 | Two-thirds irrigation water amount was applied using alternate partial root-zone furrow irrigation compared with conventional furrow irrigation with same irrigation cycle | Wuwei, Gansu, 2004–2006 | 1.26*–1.38* (Vc); 0.96–1.01 (TSS); 0.82*–0.91* (TA) | Du et al. (2013) | |
| 14 | The limit of irrigation was controlled at 40% θ f during the sprout and heading period | Shihezi, Xinjiang, 2009 | – | Liu et al. (2010a ) | |
| Wine grape | 15 | Controlled soil water content of 65–70% θ f under conventional drip irrigation (CK); the irrigation water amount was 26 l per plant; 18.2–20.8 l per plant is recommended for three varieties (Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Pinot Noir) | Yinchuan, Ningxia, 2011 | 1.02–1.10 (TSS); 0.93– 0.97 (TA); 1.02–1.11* (fructose); 1.20*–1.31* (tannins); 1.01 (total phenols); 1.04–1.08* (anthocyanins) | Fang et al. (2013) |
| Jujube | 16 | Moderate water deficit (half water of CK) at bud burst to leafing stages, compared with full irrigation (90mm per stage) using block irrigation method | Dali, Shaanxi, 2005–2006 | 1.15–1.31* (fruit firmness); 1.03–1.05 (Vc); 0.90–1.04 (TSS) | Cui et al. (2008) |
| Litchi | 17 | APRI (half water of CK) compared with conventional irrigation; the irrigation method was micro-sprinkler | Haikou, Hainan, 2007 | No significant difference in TSS, TA, and anthocyanins | Zhou et al. (2008) |
θ f, field capacity; CK, control treatment; TSS, total soluble solid content; TA, titrated acid content; Vc, vitamin content.