Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE ?IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE ?
WATER MANAGEMENT AND FRESH CUT PRODUCE
Elias FereresInstitute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAS-CSIC) and Unive rsity of Cordoba
AgricultureAgriculture
IndustryIndustry
UrbanUrbanRiverRiver flowsflows
Global Freshwater Distribution
TOTAL 40,000 kmTOTAL 40,000 km3 3
AVAILABLE 10,000 kmAVAILABLE 10,000 km33
At present we use about 55 % ofthe runoff available
In 2025, we will use about 70 % of availablerunoff
Water Use orWater Consumption?
UNDERSTANDING BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT
Irrigation Water Irrigation Water SupplySupply
Area 1Area 1
ETET
RunoffRunoff
IrrigationIrrigationReturnReturnFlowsFlows
Deep Deep PercolationPercolation
Irrigation WaterIrrigation WaterSupplySupply
Area 2Area 2
Water Use in IrrigationWater Use in Irrigation(BASIC HYDROLOGY)
WATER SCARCITYWATER SCARCITY
WATER PRODUCTIVITY
YIELD (or GROSS INCOME)
WP =
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
Water use (mm)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Yie
ld (
t/ha)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6 n = 691
China Loess PlateauMediterranean BasinNorth American Great PlainsSE Australia22 x (water use - 60)
wheat yields and water use (Sadras and Angus)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000G
rain
yie
ld (
kg/h
a)
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year
AustraliaChinaIndiaUSA
Wheat
89 kg ha-1 year-1
51 kg ha-1 year-1
24 kg ha-1 year-1
21 kg ha-1 year-1
41 kg ha -1 year -1World
Projections based on Yield Trends
Source: FAOSTAT
Wheat
E. Fereres, IAS-CSIC
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Gra
in y
ield
(kg
/ha)
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004Year
Wheat
24 kg ha -1 year -1
World Trends Last 10 Years
Wheat
Source: FAOSTATE. Fereres, IAS-CSIC
WHERE WOULD THE ADDITIONAL WHEAT COME FROM?PLANT MORE LAND? GREAT!AGRICULTURAL R&D HIJACKED FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS!
(8 kg/ha/yr)
IS CROP WATER IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE?TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE?
YES, BECAUSE TISSUE, ORGAN, AND PLANT WATER STATUS AFFECT A NUMBER OF CHARACTERISTICS DETERMINING
PRODUCE QUALITY
WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS?
FRUIT QUALITY IS AFFECTED BY WATER MANAGEMENT (URIU, 1967)
TURGOR-MEDIATED RESPONSE:
WATER POTENTIAL= OSMOTIC POTENTIAL + PRESSURE POTENTIAL (T)
Water deficits lower the water potential of plant tissues
TYPICAL VALUES (MPa) : -1.0 (WP) = -1.5 (OP) + 0.5 (T) (midday, no stress)-1.3 (WP) = -1.5 (OP) + 0.2 (sudden stress, turgor loss)
Cell expansion and expansive growth slows down, then
MANY METABOLIC RESPONSES FOLLOW:
Osmotic adjustmentCell wall deposition
Root-shoot ratio changesRoot signals
0.0-0.5-1.0 MPa
SENSITIVITYOF EXPANSIVE GROWTH TO WATER DEFICITS
Water Potential of the growing zone
EXPANSIONRATE (mm/h)
BIOMASS PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO INTERCEPTED SOLAR RADIATION WHICH IS PROPORTIONAL TO GROUND COVER BY THE CROP
Data for lettuce in Gallardo et al., (1996)
CO2
H2O
H2OCO2
Effects on photosynthesis
As the soil dries
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Fresh weight (g plant-1)
Lettuce “Target”
Dry matter (g m-2)
Applied water (mm)
0.45% FC
0.70% FC0.87% FC
FC
FC= Field Capacity
0.45% FC
0.70% FC
0.87% FC
FC
Fresh weight isMore sensitiveTo water stressThan biomassproduction
Gallardo et al., (1996)
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AFFECTS:
•FRUIT SIZE (VIA CELL SIZE)•CELL WALL THICKNESS•EXOCARP (CUTICLE..)•FIRMNESS, COLOUR•SOLUBLE SOLIDS•TITRATABLE ACIDITY•SUCEPTIBILITY TO DISEASES•CHILLING INJURY•MANY OTHER FLAVORS AND CHEMICALS (THE CASE OF WINE)
Crisosto et al. (1994). HortScience
PEACH:EXOCARP
Mpelasoka et al. (2001). Scientia Horticulturae
APPLE FRUITS:TSSFIRMNESS
Pérez-Pastor et al. (2007). J Sci Food Agric
APRICOT:
FIRMNESSTSS, TA,PULP COLOUR,MATURITY
Pérez-Pastor et al. (2007). J Sci Food Agric
APRICOT: RESPIRATION, ETHYLENE PRODUCTION
WATERMELON RESPONSE TO IRRIGATIONFRUIT SIZE< TSS> Sugars>
Size decreases, sugars increase
Crisosto et al. (1994). HortScience
HOW TO GENERATE THE DESIRED RESPONSES?
HOW CAN WE MANAGE PLANT WATER DEFICITS ?
Yie
ld(t
ha-1
)
ET
ET
0
3
6
9
12
0 250 500 750 1000
YieldYield response response toto ET ET ofof annualannual cropscrops
Consumptive use
YIELD RESPONSE TO ET AND TO APPLIED WATER
ETET
0
3
6
9
12Y
ield
(t/h
a)
0 250 500 750 1000ET or Applied Irrigation Water (mm)
Losses
IWP IM
APPLIEDWATER
DEFICIT IRRIGATION IN FIELD CROPS
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fru
it Y
ield
(t h
a-1)
400 500 600 700 800 900ETc (mm)
1
1
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4 5
5
5
11
22
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
OLIVE YIELD RESPONSE to ET, Three DI treatments. Cordoba, 1996-2000.
(Moriana et al., 2003, JASHS)
Max.WP
DEFICIT IRRIGATIONDEFICIT IRRIGATION = APPLICATIONS= APPLICATIONSBELOW CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS (ET)BELOW CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS (ET)
((SoilSoil waterwater deficitsdeficits may may oror may may notnot cause cause cropcrop waterwaterdeficitsdeficits andand reductionreduction in ET)in ET)
REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION (RDI)REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION (RDI) ==
PLANNED CROP WATERPLANNED CROP WATERDEFICITS AT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES.DEFICITS AT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES.
((CropCrop waterwater stress stress occursoccurs atat certaincertain stagesstages; ET may ; ET may orormay may notnot be be reducedreduced significantlysignificantly; RISKS ; RISKS increasedincreased))
Sammis et al. (1988). Irrig Sci
WATER PRODUCTION FUNCTION FOR LETTUCE
ETAIW
Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI):
Planned water deficits at specificdevelopmental stages that control vegetative growth without affectingfruit production.
Higher farm profits andreduced water use.
Goals:
Sackler Colloquium, NAS 2004
RDI: Mature Navel Oranges; San Joaquin Valley; 3 Season Mean
19,219,219,219,2
19,419,419,419,4
19,619,619,619,6
19,819,819,819,8
20,020,020,020,0
20,220,220,220,2
20,420,420,420,4
20,620,620,620,6
20,820,820,820,8
21,021,021,021,0
21,221,221,221,2
20202020 22222222 24242424 26262626 28282828 30303030 32323232 34343434
Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)
Gross Yield (tons/acre)
Gross Yield (tons/acre)
Gross Yield (tons/acre)
Gross Yield (tons/acre)
ControlControlControlControl
T3T3T3T3
T2T2T2T2
T4T4T4T4
T5T5T5T5
T6T6T6T6
T7T7T7T7
T8T8T8T8
T9T9T9T9
T10T10T10T10
T11T11T11T11
T12T12T12T12
T13T13T13T13
T14T14T14T14
1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship
y = 0.162x + 16.0
R2 = 0.599
(Courtesy Dr. D.Goldhamer, UCDavis)
6500650065006500
7000700070007000
7500750075007500
8000800080008000
8500850085008500
9000900090009000
20202020 22222222 24242424 26262626 28282828 30303030 32323232 34343434
Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)
Gross Revenue ($/acre)
Gross Revenue ($/acre)
Gross Revenue ($/acre)
Gross Revenue ($/acre) ControlControlControlControl
T2T2T2T2T3T3T3T3
T4T4T4T4
T5T5T5T5
T6T6T6T6 T7T7T7T7
T8T8T8T8T9T9T9T9
T10T10T10T10
T11T11T11T11
T12T12T12T12
T13T13T13T13
T14T14T14T14
1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship
y = -57.4x + 9739
R2= 0.091
Mature Navel Oranges; San Joaquin Valley; 3 Season Mean
(Courtesy Dr. D.Goldhamer, UCDavis)
Regulated Deficit Irrigation in PEACH RegulatedRegulated DeficitDeficit IrrigationIrrigation in PEACH in PEACH
cv. ‘cv. ‘BabyBaby GoldGold’; 1993; 5m x 3.25m; ’; 1993; 5m x 3.25m; dripdrip
2002-2006, Córdoba20022002--2006, Córdoba2006, Córdoba
Full
SDI
RDI
42.2 a
38.6 b
41.2 a
213 a
198 b
213 a
Yield Fruit volume Relative FV(t ha-1) (cm3)
Treatment
100
92.9
100
PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION:
A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO STRATEGIES
(SDI:Sustained deficit; RDI: Regulated Deficit)
Averages for five years (2002-2006)
PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION: PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION:
A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO STRATEGIES
(SDI:Sustained deficit; RDI: Regulated Deficit)
Averages for five years (2002-2006)
año 2003
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Ri e
go
(m
m)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Llu
via
(mm
)
120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260dda
RDCRDSRF+AA
Lluvia
año 2003
RM
6 mayo-13 septiembre
year 2003
TreatmentsYIELD
(kg/TREE)
FRUITNUMBER(nº/TREE)
FRUITDIAMETER
(mm)
FRUITWEIGHT(g/fruit)
RDI 59,0 b 286 b 73,7 a 206 ab
SDI 311 b 199 b
Farm 63,6 b 296 b 74,0 a 214 a
RM 74,0 a 208 ab
61,5 b
86,1 a
72,3 b
416 a
año 2003
Tratamiento
Riego
SST
(%)
RDC 11,9 b
RDS 12,9 a
RF 11,8 bc
RM 11,4 c
Tratamiento
Riego
Acidez
(%)
RDC 0,608 a
RDS 0,598 a
RF 0,608 a
RM 0,561 a
sólidos solubles totales ACIDEZ
(g sacarosa/100 g muestra) (g ácido málico/100 g muestra)
SST/Acidez
(g/g)
19,6 b
21,8 a
19,7 b
20,5 ab
DUREZAmedia(kgf)
5,89 a
5,57 ab
5,64 ab
5,27 b
Distribución Calibre Cosecha Melocotón 2003
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
<50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 >90Diámetro máximo (mm)
Fre
cuen
cia
RDC
Finca
RDS
RM
Fruit size distribution is affected by water management
SDI
Fruit diameter, mm
Distribución Calibre Cosecha Melocotón 2003
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
<50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 >90
Diámetro máximo (mm)
Fre
cuen
cia
RDC
Finca
Fecha recolección: 8 agosto 2003 (2ª pasada; más fruta)
Evolución en cámara: 1 ºC (±1); HR⇑
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Fir
mn
ess
(kg
f)
RDCRDSRFRM
0
8 Aug
6
14 Aug
14
22 Aug
21
29 Aug
28
5 Sep
Días de conservación
Treatment differencesare conservedin storage
10
11
12
13
14
SS
T (
%),
ºB
rix
RDCRDSRFRM
08 Aug
614 Aug
1422
Aug
2129
Aug
285 Sep
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
Aci
de z
(%
)
RDCRDSRFRM
08
Aug
614 Aug
1422
Aug
2129
Aug
285 Sep
H
The total soluble solids are conserved in storage
Acidity declines faster in DIin storage; thus, TSS/TAIMPROVES IN STORAGE
Fecha recolección: 8 agosto 2003 (2ª pasada; más fruta)
Evolución en cámara: 1 ºC (±1); HR⇑
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
TS
S/a
cid
ity
(g/g
)
RDCRDSRFRM
0
8 Aug
6
14 Aug
14
22 Aug
21
29 Aug
28
5 Sep
Días de conservación
TSS/TAIMPROVESWITH TIME
Date: 5 Sept 2003 (Harvest: 8 Aug - 2ª)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Conservation date
Fles
h br
owni
ng (%
)
RDC
RDS
RF
RM
Some indication of increased CI in peach in the deficit irrigation treatmentsAfter one month in storage –indicated by fresh browning--(as reported by Uriu for dryland peaches in 1964)
Health aspects of irrigation management
What are the factors determining water quality from the microbial standpoint?What are the factors affecting the presence, persistence, and growth of pathogens in irrigation water? How are pathogens transferred in the different irrigation methods?Uptake by roots? Is it possible?
Human pathogens and irrigation management: for a given crop/system: identifypathogens, where are the reservoirs, how do they survive in produce and how are theytransferred, how to sample, lowering the risks with respect to intended use.
Water sourcesContact of the water with the producePre and post-harvest issuesIndicators and testing programs
EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION METHOD AND MANAGEMENT ON SURVIVAL OF BACTERIA
GENERAL RULES:
IRRIGATION EXTENDS LIFE BEYOND DRYLAND
LEACHING REDUCES SURVIVAL RELATIVE TO LACK OF LEACHING