Skip to main content
. 2018 Oct 29;99(3):1425–1433. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.9324

Table 1.

Effects of different irrigation and bagging treatments on pomegranate total yield (TY, kg tree−1), marketable yield (MY, kg tree−1), average fruit weight (FW, g), fruit equatorial diameter (ED. mm), peel thickness (PT. mm), arils weight ratio (AW, %) and fruit physiopathies incidence (splitting (SPI, %) and sunburn (SUI, %), B = bagged fruits, FI = full irrigation, NB = no bagged fruits, WS = water stress. Values followed by the same letter, within the same column and factor, were not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 (*), P ≤ 0.01 (**) or P ≤ 0.001 (***). n.s. = not significant

Treatment TY MY FW ED PT AW SPI SUI
ANOVA
Irrigation *** *** *** *** n.s. n.s. *** n.s.
Bagging n.s. ** *** *** *** n.s. n.s. ***
Irrigation × bagging ** *** *** *** *** ** ** ***
Irrigation
FI 63.38a 50.83a 454.83a 95.80a 5.29a 52.95a 7.22b 12.23a
WS 39.70b 26.53b 429.87b 93.76b 5.41a 53.96a 20.82a 12.74a
Bagging
B 50.79a 42.19a 399.07b 92.70b 4.98b 53.80a 14.48a 3.57b
NB 52.29a 35.18b 485.63a 96.86a 5.72a 53.11a 13.55a 21.40a
Tukey's multiple range test
Irrigation × bagging
FIB 60.30a 48.68a 396.85b 92.50b 4.51b 55.48a 7.79b 5.49b
FINB 66.46a 52.99a 512.80a 99.09a 6.07a 50.42b 6.64b 18.97a
WSB 41.29b 31.39b 401.28b 92.90b 5.45a 52.11ab 22.32a 1.65b
WSNB 38.12b 21.68c 458.46ab 94.62b 5.36a 55.80a 19.31a 23.82a