Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions

Abstract Processing tomato is a high water demanding crop, thus requiring irrigation throughout growing season in arid and semiarid areas. The application of deficit irrigation (DI) strategies to this crop may greatly contribute to save irrigation water. A two-year study was carried out in order to assess the effects of DI upon water productivity, final biomass, fruit yield and some quality traits of open-field processing tomato cv. Brigade in a typical semi-arid Mediterranean environment of South Italy. Four irrigation treatments were studied: no irrigation following plant establishment (V0); 100% (V100) or 50% (V50) evapotranspiration (ETc) restoration up to fruit maturity, 100% ETc restoration up to flowering, then 50% ETc restoration (V100-50). Total dry biomass accumulation was significantly depressed by early soil water deficit in V0; irrigation at a reduced rate (50% ETc) from initial stages (V50) or from flowering onwards (V100-50) did not induce any losses in final dry biomass. The marketable yield did not significantly differ among plots irrigated, but an averaged irrigation water saving of 30.4% in V100-50 and 46.2% in V50 was allowed as compared to V100. Marketable yield was negatively affected by the early water shortage in V0, due to the high fruit losses (>44%). The effects of DI on fruit quality were generally the converse of those on fruit yield. DI improved total soluble solids content, titratable acidity and vitamin C content. Water use efficiency was positively affected by DI, suggesting that the crop does not benefits from the water when this last is supplied to fulfil total crop requirements for the whole season. Yield response factor, which indicates the level of tolerance of a crop to water stress, was 0.49 for total dry biomass ( K ss) and 0.76 for marketable yield ( K y), indicating that in both cases the reduction in crop productivity is proportionally less than the relative ET deficit. In conclusion, the adoption of DI strategies where a 50% reduction of ETc restored is applied for the whole growing season or part of it could be suggested in processing tomato, to save water improving its use efficiency, minimizing fruit losses and maintaining high fruit quality levels. This aspect is quite important in semi-arid environments, where water scarcity is an increasing concern and water costs are continuously rising.

[1]  C. Stanghellini,et al.  Enhancing environmental quality in agricultural systems , 2003 .

[2]  M. Gallo,et al.  Antioxidants profile of small tomato fruits: Effect of irrigation and industrial process , 2010 .

[3]  Maria Manuela Chaves,et al.  Deficit Irrigation as a Strategy to Save Water： Physiology and Potential Application to Horticulture , 2007 .

[4]  W. A. Marouelli,et al.  Water tension thresholds for processing tomatoes under drip irrigation in Central Brazil , 2007, Irrigation Science.

[5]  Michele Perniola,et al.  Yield response factor to water (Ky) and water use efficiency of Carthamus tinctorius L. and Solanum melongena L , 2007 .

[6]  Mario Dadomo,et al.  Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidantcontent of tomatoes , 2003 .

[7]  Marshall English,et al.  Perspectives on deficit irrigation , 1996 .

[8]  Michael D. Dukes,et al.  Tomato yield, biomass accumulation, root distribution and irrigation water use efficiency on a sandy soil, as affected by nitrogen rate and irrigation scheduling , 2009 .

[9]  G. W. Snedecor.  Statistical Methods , 1964 .

[10]  J. Doorenbos,et al.  Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements , 1977 .

[11]  J. T. Musick,et al.  Plant water stress at various growth stages and growth and yield of soybeans , 1987 .

[12]  Robert G. Evans,et al.  Irrigation of fruit trees and vines: an introduction , 2005, Irrigation Science.

[13]  A. Öktem.  Effect of water shortage on yield, and protein and mineral compositions of drip-irrigated sweet corn in sustainable agricultural systems , 2008 .

[14]  Y. Singh,et al.  Deficit irrigation and nitrogen effects on seed cotton yield, water productivity and yield response factor in shallow soils of semi-arid environment. , 2010 .

[15]  Baanda A. Salim,et al.  Effects of deficit irrigation scheduling on yields and soil water balance of irrigated maize , 2008, Irrigation Science.

[16]  H. Jones.  Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. , 2004, Journal of experimental botany.

[17]  Y. Rouphael,et al.  Evapotranspiration, seed yield and water use efficiency of drip irrigated sunflower under full and deficit irrigation conditions , 2007 .

[18]  Luis S. Pereira,et al.  Irrigation management under water scarcity , 2002 .

[19]  H. Kirnak,et al.  Effects of Different Irrigation Regimes and Mulches on Yield and Macronutrition Levels of Drip-Irrigated Cucumber Under Open Field Conditions , 2006 .

[20]  A. Yazar,et al.  Yield and quality response of drip irrigated green beans under full and deficit irrigation , 2008 .

[21]  W. Horwitz.  Official Methods of Analysis , 1980 .

[22]  P. Johnstone,et al.  Managing Fruit Soluble Solids with Late-season Deficit Irrigation in Drip-irrigated Processing Tomato Production , 2005 .

[23]  Y. Daşgan,et al.  Yield response and N-fertiliser recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation , 2007 .

[24]  C. Gary,et al.  WATER FLUXES AND GROWTH OF GREENHOUSE TOMATO FRUITS UNDER SUMMER CONDITIONS , 1999 .

[25]  Camille Bénard,et al.  How does tomato quality (sugar, acid, and nutritional quality) vary with ripening stage, temperature, and irradiance? , 2008, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[26]  C. Patané.  Leaf Area Index, Leaf Transpiration and Stomatal Conductance as Affected by Soil Water Deficit and VPD in Processing Tomato in Semi Arid Mediterranean Climate , 2011 .

[27]  T. Oweis,et al.  Reducing peak supplemental irrigation demand by extending sowing dates , 2001 .

[28]  J. Flexas,et al.  Prospects for crop production under drought: research priorities and future directions , 2005 .

[29]  J. M. Faci,et al.  Comparative response of maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) to deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean environment , 2006 .

[30]  James W. Jones,et al.  Growth and canopy characteristics of field-grown tomato. , 2000 .

[31]  B. Clothier,et al.  Deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying maintain fruit dry mass and enhance fruit quality in ‘Petopride’ processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill.) , 2003 .

[32]  F. Galgano,et al.  Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling , 2009 .

[33]  Ahmet Istanbulluoglu,et al.  Effects of irrigation regimes on yield and water productivity of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) under Mediterranean climatic conditions , 2009 .

[34]  R. Machado,et al.  Tomato root distribution, yield and fruit quality under different subsurface drip irrigation regimes and depths , 2005, Irrigation Science.

[35]  A. F. Tarı,et al.  Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions , 2010 .

[36]  Salvatore L. Cosentino,et al.  Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate , 2010 .

[37]  C. Kirda,et al.  Deficit irrigation scheduling based on plant growth stages showing water stress tolerance , 2002 .