- Email: [email protected]
Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under regulated deficit irrigation: A meta-analysis
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under regulated deficit irrigation: A meta-analysis
T
⁎
Jia Lua, Guangcheng Shaoa, , Jintao Cuia, Xiaojun Wangb, Larona Keabetswea a b
College of Agricultural Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, PR China Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing 210029, PR China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Tomato yield Regulated deficit irrigation Water use efficiency Total soluble solids Vitamin C
Tomato is one of the most widely grown vegetables in the world because of special nutritive value of its fruit. Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) is widely applied in tomato production due to the water shortage. A lot of studies demonstrated that certain degree of deficit irrigation decreased the tomato yield but improved the fruit quality. The purpose of this paper is to use a meta-analysis to: 1) estimate the effect of RDI on processing tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality; 2) identify soil texture, growth stage and deficit severity that benefit yield and increase water use efficiency compared to full irrigation. We analyzed 25 research articles with 561 experimental groups and 145 control groups. Overall, RDI decreased processing tomato yield with mean difference of 18.61 t ha-1, increased water use efficiency with mean difference of 2.33 kg m-3, and improved fruit quality. The yield decreased with mean difference of 19.79 t ha-1 in loamy soil and 14.26 t ha-1 in non-loamy soil. The soil texture had no significant effects on yield and water use efficiency under severe RDI. Application of RDI at the first stage is recommended because of no significant yield loss and significant increase of water use efficiency. RDI can improve processing tomato total soluble solids and Vitamin C. Moreover, both of them were increased more when RDI was applied at the third stage than at previous two stages. Our findings can be helpful on how to use RDI correctly to balance the processing tomato yield, water conservation and fruit quality.
1. Introduction Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the popular vegetables (Battilani et al., 2012) as well as an important source of antioxidants such as lycopene, phenolic and vitamin C in human diet (Toor et al., 2006). The plant area of tomato was 4.8 × 106 ha worldwide in 2012, with an annual production > 160 × 106 t (FAOSTAT, 2014). Processing tomato principally provides source of significant phytonutrients such as β-carotene and lycopene (Dorais et al., 2008). The majority of tomatoes were consumed as tomato puree, paste, or sauce (Mirondo and Barringer, 2015). While tomato is important to ensure the security of global food, traditional tomato irrigation demands a lot of water inputs. Due to the incremental threat of water scarcity influencing 4 billion people all over the world at present (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016), it is crucial to develop water saving practices with the potential to increase water use efficiency while maintaining yields and fruit quality or reducing yields a little to support a growing population. Water is an increasingly rare resource and agricultural irrigation consumes a large amount of water resources which is not efficiently used. Water security is the basis for food security. Water is a key factor
⁎
to yield and crop quality, but water resources become rare to agriculture due to the increasing demands of household and industry (Bogale et al., 2016). Deficit irrigation is beneficial to save water. It’s a practice that deliberately allows crops to maintain water deficit at some degree, sometimes with losing yield lightly and significantly reducing irrigation water use (English and Raja, 1996; Kirda et al., 2004; Cantore et al., 2016; Giuliani et al., 2016). Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) has been proved to potentially save water in agriculture and it allows crops to bear mild water stress with no or only minimal decline of yield and quality (Costa et al., 2007). Many investigations studied the potential advantages of deficit irrigation in increasing water use efficiency in crop production (Chai et al., 2016). At the present time, RDI is used as a strategy of water-saving. Many studies reported that RDI was helpful to save water and improve crop quality (Wang et al., 2005; Li et al., 2013; Ji et al., 2015). Irrigation is thought to be one of the key factors to influence plant water status. Many studies have indicated that deficit irrigation can enhance tomato fruit quality (Mitchell et al., 1991; Pulupol et al., 1996; Veit-Köhler et al., 1999; Johnstone et al., 2005; Favati et al., 2009; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Patanè et al., 2011). In
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Shao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.06.008 Received 5 June 2018; Received in revised form 5 June 2019; Accepted 7 June 2019 Available online 17 June 2019 0378-3774/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
recent years, fruit quality has became a major concern for fruit production in response to the increasing demand of consumers (Guichard et al., 2001), because of its significance to human health and pleasure. It can lower the risk of developing some cancers (Giovannucci et al., 1995; Franceschi et al., 1994). Water deficit usually leads to decreased photosynthesis, plant growth and crop productivity and beneficial effects on some fruit quality parameters, for instance increased antioxidant compound levels and higher sugar accumulation (Ripoll et al., 2016). Given these benefits, many efforts have been made to disseminate RDI particularly in China. The definition of the influence of deficit irrigation on processing tomato fruit yield and quality are poor due to its complexity, though there are lots of articles (Renquist and Reid, 2001; Marouelli and Silva, 2007; Favati et al., 2009). What’s more, few studies (Patanè and Cosentino, 2010) quantified the effects of deficit irrigation on processing tomato at different growth stages. In this regard, we conducted a meta-analysis with the following objectives: 1) quantify the effect of RDI on processing tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality; 2) identify soil texture, growth stage and deficit severity that benefit yield and increase water use efficiency compared to full irrigation.
Table 1 Overview of the studies used for analysis.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Data collection
Authors and date
Country
Text
RDI timing
water use
Bakr et al. (2017) Favati et al. (2009) Gatta et al. (2007) Giuliani et al. (2011) Giuliani et al. (2016) Giuliani et al. (2017) Jensen et al. (2010) Johnstone et al. (2005) Kumar et al. (2015) Kuşçu et al. (2014) Lahoz et al. (2016) Liu (2005) Liu et al. (2006) Lovelli et al. (2017) Nangare et al. (2016) Ozbahce and Tari (2010) Patanè and Cosentino (2010) Patanè et al. (2011) Patanè et al. (2014) Rudich et al. (1977) Wahb-Alhb et al. (2014) Wang and Zhang (2014) Wu et al. (2016) Zhang et al. (2017) Zheng et al. (2016)
Iraq Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Denmark Amercian India Turkey Spain China China Italy India Turkey Italy Italy Italy Israel Saudi Arabia China China China China
L L L NL NL L L L NL L No No NL L NL NL L L L NL NL L L L L
T T NT NT T T T NT NT NT T NT NT NT NT T NT T T NT T NT NT T NT
Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Note: Soil texture (L = loamy, NL =non-loamy, No = data not available), RDI timing refers to regulated deficit irrigation timing (T = throughout the season, NT = not throughout the season), Water use efficiency (Yes = data available, No = data not available).
A comprehensive literature search was conducted on ISI Web of Science, Science Direct and China National Knowledge Internet for articles published from April 1960 to February 2019 about tomato under deficit irrigation. The literature search was conducted with a focus on the following keywords: 1) ‘tomato yield’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’; 2) ‘tomato quality’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’; 3) ‘water use efficiency’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’. After preliminary collection, we checked the varieties of tomato and the articles about tomato for processing were collected. Publications which consist of field experiments or pot experiments with contrast of RDI and the control without water deficit (CK) were chosen. Here, RDI technique mainly refers to that the plant sensitivity to water stress is not continuous at stages of crops growth period (Costa et al., 2007). In all situations, experiments with RDI were included. Except for collecting yield data from each research, we also recorded data on water use efficiency. Since the yield in each paper was a little different, such as total yield, total marketable yield, and total fresh weight and so on, we collected all of them as variable yield. The ratio between photosynthesis and transpiration at physiological level is the definition of water use efficiency (WUE) for agronomic evaluations (Zhang et al., 2017). WUE was calculated as: (i) the ratio between dry above ground biomass and evapotranspiration, i.e. biomass WUE (B WUE) and (ii) the ratio between marketable yield and evapotranspiration, i.e. yield WUE (Y WUE) (Cantore et al., 2016). For this study, we just collected the data of yield WUE. In addition to collecting the interesting response variables (yield, WUE), we also collected soil variables such as texture. The general soil texture groups include three classes (sandy, loamy or clayey) based on USDA soil texture classes (USDA, 1993). In our study, loamy soil was one group, and sandy and clayey soil was non-loamy soil group. Moreover, RDI timing data were also collected. The RDI timing means when water deficit was applied at the different growing stage. Since the treatments about the time of RDI were different in each articles, the RDI timing were divided into three stages: 1) the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting, it was abbreviated as V stage; 2) the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity, it was abbreviated as F stage; 3) the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested, it was abbreviated as R stage. The RDI timing was classified into: 1) water deficit happened only during one of the stage, such as at the first, the
second or the third stage; 2) water deficit occurred throughout the season, and it meant water deficit last for a long time not just applied only during one of the growth stages referred above. After the rigorous search and selection, we identified 25 articles in the final document data bases. The experiments reported on selected articles were different consisting of 561 experimental groups and 145 control groups (Table 1). The experimental groups stood for the RDI treatments and the control groups stood for no water deficit irrigation treatments in all articles searched. All the groups were calculated including replications. From the selected articles, 44.0% were from Asia and 24.0% from China. Most of the research used transplanted tomato crop. Water use efficiency was reported in 13 studies (387 observations). 2.2. Data analysis The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Review Manager (RevMan) is the Cochrane Collaboration’s software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews. RevMan facilitates preparation of protocols and full reviews, including text, characteristics of studies, comparison tables, and study data (Review Manager. Version 5.0, 2008). It can perform meta-analysis of the data entered, and present the results graphically. For continuous variables, we have used weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standard mean difference (SMD) for analysis; for categorical variables we have applied the odds ratios (ORs) for evaluation; for binary variables we analyzed the risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR). The degree of heterogeneity, which indicated variance between studies, was assessed using the Higgins I2 statistics and Q test (Higgins et al., 2003). The fixed effects model was performed for studies with low heterogeneity (I2 ≤ 50% and P > 0.05). In the presence of significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50% or P < 0.05), the random effect model was used to pool the data. Tau2 was also presented in random effect model. In this study, the outcome of variables (yield, water use efficiency, total soluble solids and Vitamin C) were continuous, so we used WMDs to do the analysis. Because the units of variables in most articles 302
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 1. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
3.1.2. Effect of RDI on water use efficiency As shown in Fig. 2, RDI resulted in a significant change in water use efficiency, with overall effect size (Z) of 3.25 (p = 0.001). However, there was heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 95%; p < 0.00001). Compared with CK, RDI increased water use efficiency (MD=2.33, 95% CI: 0.92 to 3.74).
collected were the same, we didn’t use SMD and excluded the data with different units. The pooled results were expressed by forest plots (Wang et al., 2017). In the forest plot, CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. An estimate of the effect magnitude was calculated for each study, and then averaged to determine the overall effect size (Z) index. The P value following Chi2 stood for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stood for statistical significance. The results were significant when the P value following Z was smaller than 0.05. Mean difference (MD) was the difference between two means and it stood for the effect of absolute values between multiple studies.
3.2. Soil texture and management practices affecting yield in RDI With respect to soil texture, we have observed impact on RDI yield. RDI yield decreased compared to CK in all situations (Fig. 3). When RDI was applied in loamy soils, yield decreased more (MD=-19.79, 95% CI:-26.53 to -13.06) in contrast to the experiments (MD=-14.26, 95% CI:-20.21 to -8.31) when practicing in non-loamy soils. About water management, we checked the phenological stage at which the water deficit was imposed (RDI timing) and its severity. These studies were significantly heterogeneous (I2 = 100%; p < 0.00001). Under the random effects model, the CK favored yield compared to RDI (MD=-18.61, 95% CI:-25.54 to -11.68). When RDI was carried out during the entire season, yield decreased (MD=-21.33, 95% CI:-31.36 to -11.29). It also made some difference when RDI was carried out at one of the three stages (MD=-15.24, 95% CI:-20.44 to -10.03). From Fig. 4, we found out that the effects of RDI on yield were not so different in throughout season group and not throughout season
3. Results 3.1. Overall impact of RDI on yield, water use efficiency 3.1.1. Effect of RDI on yield Studies with available data on processing tomato yield were gathered together for a visual representation of the results (Fig. 1). The effect of RDI on yield had statistical significance (Z = 5.26; p < 0.00001). There was heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 100%; p < 0.00001). In general, RDI decreased yield when comparing it with the control group (MD=-18.61, 95% CI: -25.54 to -11.68).
Fig. 2. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on water use efficiency. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
303
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 3. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
difference in yield was found at V and F stage, and the MD were -1.49 (95% CI: -4.96 to 1.99, p = 0.40) and -10.42 (95% CI: -22.29 to 1.45, p = 0.09) respectively (Fig. 5). However, RDI caused significant changes on yield at R stage. The yield decreased with the overall effect
group. With the purpose of a detailed study on how the RDI affected yield at different growth stages, we did an analysis on yield at three different stages. We collected 249 experiments from 8 articles. No significant
Fig. 4. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on time of carrying out regulated deficit irrigation. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
304
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 5. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
soil. The MD was -25.94 (95% CI: -29.40 to -22.49) in loamy soil group, and the MD was -16.46 (95% CI: -31.48 to -1.43) in non-loamy soil group. The result was the same as that of Fig. 3. The purpose of the subgroup analysis was to find whether the severe water deficit responded differently in different soil textures compared to mild water deficit.
size (Z) of 3.59 (p < 0.00001). The MD was -14.77 (95% CI: -22.84 to -6.71, p = 0.0003). In order to find the effect of RDI severity on tomato yield, we classified data into two groups. If the irrigation amount was less than 50% of the control group, RDI was classified as severe RDI. The rest was considered as mild RDI. Taking the soil texture into consideration, we did a subgroup analysis on the basis of the RDI severity. From Fig. 6, we discovered that yield decreased more in loamy soil than in non-loamy
Fig. 6. Effect of RDI severity on yield in consideration of soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. Severe RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is severe. Mild RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is mild. The irrigation water amount of severe RDI is less than 50% of that in the control group. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
305
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 7. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
CI: -0.36 to 4.52). We gathered available data on studies about how water use efficiency responded in different growth stages when RDI was carried out. One hundred and fifty six data were pooled from 4 articles. Fig. 9 showed that water use efficiency displayed no significant change at all stages except for the first stage, for the values of P were 0.04 at V stage, 0.78 at F stage and 0.50 at R stage. The result is the same as Fig. 8 in which we conducted a subgroup analysis about the timing of RDI. With the same purpose of finding the effect of RDI severity on tomato yield, we also divided the experiments into two groups to search out the effect of RDI severity on tomato water use efficiency. The overall effect size (Z) of loamy soil texture subgroup was 1.55 (p = 0.12) from Fig. 10. The result indicated that soil texture had no significant effect on water use efficiency under severe RDI. The MD was
3.3. Soil texture and management practices affecting water use efficiency in RDI We took 387 experiments from 13 articles for comparison of the influence of soil texture on processing tomato water use efficiency. From Fig. 7, we concluded that the soil texture significantly affected water use efficiency under RDI. The MD was 2.82 (95% CI: -0.02 to 5.65) in loamy soil. However, water use efficiency significantly increased in non-loamy soil with the MD of 2.48 (95% CI: 0.51 to 4.46). The effects of the RDI timing on water use efficiency was presented in Fig. 8, which was calculated from 387 experiment data. WUE significantly increased in groups throughout the season (MD = 2.83, 95% CI: 0.70 to 4.95). The data of the groups not throughout the season showed WUE did not significantly increase with the MD was 2.08 (95%
Fig. 8. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on time of carrying out RDI. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
306
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 9. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
3.4.2. Effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C The effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C was reported by 9 heterogeneous studies (I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001) (Fig. 13), so we took a random model to do the analysis. RDI associated with increase in vitamin C (MD = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.36 to 4.56; p = 0.0003). Vitamin C increased at R stage more than at F stage (Fig. 14), and the result was similar as the effect of RDI on total soluble solids in different stages. At V stage, the MD was 0.07 (95% CI: -0.85 to 0.99; p = 0.89); at F stage, the MD was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.32 to 1.87; p = 0.006); at R stage, the MD was 2.26 (95% CI: 1.48 to 3.04; p < 0.00001).
4.87 (95% CI: -6.89 to 16.64) and 3.15 (95% CI: -1.41 to 7.71) respectively.
3.4. Effect of RDI on tomato quality 3.4.1. Effect of RDI on tomato total soluble solids Eleven studies reported on the relationship between total soluble solids and RDI. The data from the 292 samples showed that RDI increased total soluble solids with mean difference of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.49 to 1.11) in processing tomato. The overall effect size was 5.13 (p < 0.00001). The studies had heterogeneity because of I2 of 94% (Fig. 11). During the growth stages, tomato total soluble solids responded differently to RDI. From the 118 samples, we concluded that conducting RDI at R stage increased more total soluble solids than that at F stage. However, RDI had no significant effect on total soluble solids at V stage. From Fig. 12, we learned that the MD was 0.48 (95% CI: -0.22 to 1.18) at V stage, 1.08 (95% CI: 0. 20 to 1.96) at F stage and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.72) at R stage respectively.
4. Discussion 4.1. RDI influencing yield Water is important to the growth of tomatoes. RDI applied to tomato is helpful in declining production cost and protecting water resources. The application of RDI decreased tomato yield. It proved that tomato is one of the crops which need large water volumes (Peet, 2005). A lot of Fig. 10. Effect of RDI severity on water use efficiency in consideration of soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. Severe RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is severe. Mild RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is mild. The irrigation water amount of severe RDI is less than 50% of that in the control group. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
307
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of RDI on tomato total soluble solids. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
conclusion demonstrated that processing tomato was sensitive to water stress at fruit ripening stage. Moreover, the sensitivity to water stress at the three growth stages were not equal in this study. The yield at the third stage significantly decreased while the yield did not significantly decreased in other two stages (Fig. 5). The possible reason was that the third stage was a key period for tomato plants and the fruit growth stage was most responsible to improve tomato yield (Kirda et al., 2004). Nuruddin et al. (2003) reported that sensitivity to water stress occurred primarily during fruit growth rather than flowering and fruit set. Marouelli and Silva (2007) found that yield decreased when regulated deficit irrigation occurred during fruit maturation growth stages, primarily because of many small green fruits aborting or not enlarging under water deficit conditions. The response of tomato to deficit irrigation not only depends on the period of water deficit but also on the degree of water deficit. We grouped the experiment data into two categories according to irrigation water amount. The severe RDI group included treatments in which the amount of irrigation water was less than 50% of that in the treatments without water deficit, and the rest was mild RDI group. Compared to mild RDI group, severe RDI group declined tomato yield with mean difference of -22.65 t ha-1 (Fig. 6). The figure suggested that the
studies had found that deficit irrigation to a certain degree declined tomato yield (Zegbe-Domínguez et al., 2003; Kirda et al., 2004; Patanè et al., 2011), though depending on the period and the degree of water stress (Helyes and Varga, 1994; Nuruddin et al., 2003; Zegbe et al., 2006). Whether the soil is loamy or not, the yield decreased and it decreased more in loamy soil (Fig. 3). Different soil texture may have different effect on tomato root system development thus affects yield differently. The effect of soil texture on root system development had been explored in previous studies (Konôpka et al., 2008; Tracy et al., 2013). De Pascale et al. (2015) had done experiments about the effects of irrigation and soil type on grown tomatoes. If we divided the experiment data into two subgroups according to the RDI timing, we found the effects of RDI on tomato yield were a little different (Fig. 4). For a deeper study, we classified the time of RDI into three stages and we could find which stage affected tomato yield more. From Fig. 5, we concluded that there was no significant yield penalty at the first stage. Early RDI did not significantly affect yield since water deficit at the vegetative stage is too early to influence tomato growth, which agreed with the previous studies (Ngouajio et al., 2007; Marouelli et al., 2004). Furthermore, the data showed that processing tomato yield decreased when carrying out RDI at the third stage. This
Fig. 12. RDI effect on total soluble solids in different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops, and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
308
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 13. Effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
affected plant length, leaves and total fresh weight and root dry weight. The same results were found by Abo-Hussein (1995) on potato. El-Zeiny and Ibrahim (2006) applied irrigation water of 80% and 100% ET0 to tomato grown in clay soil and found that the capability of plants to produce the vigorous vegetative growth was inspired. However, there are little studies about the effect of interaction between the water deficit severity and soil textures on tomato yield. Maybe later studies could study this aspect.
irrigation amount should not be less than 50% of the irrigation water in treatments without water deficit. If the water deficit was severe, tomato yield decreased. Favati et al. (2009) had indicated that the yield of processing tomatoes decreased when the irrigation water was only 50% of crop evapotranspiration in a Mediterranean climate condition. The result was in agreement with previous study (Wiertz and Lenz, 1987), which found yield was more negatively affected by low water supply. Deficit irrigation treatments received 1/3 or 2/3 irrigation amount of control group at three different growth stages of tomato were set in previous study (Wang et al., 2011), and the yields in 1/3 irrigation amount of control group treatments were all less than that in 2/3 irrigation amount of control group treatments. It may indicate that the degree of water deficit could not be too severe. What’s more, tomato yield was more sensitive in loamy soil in contrast to non-loamy soil. In conclusion, tomato tolerance of severe deficit irrigation was stronger in non-loamy soil than in loamy soil. As a suggestion, we would better apply severe RDI in non-loamy soil if water resources are rare, and it could reduce the influence of water stress on tomato yield. Ezzo et al. (2010) studied the effect of interaction between irrigation water levels and soil types on sweet pepper and found the interaction significantly
4.2. RDI influencing water use efficiency The shortage of water is one of the limits to crop production in the world. Though RDI made tomato yield loss, water use efficiency was positively affected by water deficit as Fig. 2 showed. In other words, it saved water, which agreed with the results reported by Topcu et al. (2007). The possibility to save irrigation water and make water use efficiency rise was proved by the experimental results by (Benković and Rakočević, 2011). With water resources becoming scarcer, this is an important advantage of RDI. The fact that water use efficiency increased under deficit irrigation could be owed to the stomata closure Fig. 14. RDI effect on vitamin C at different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
309
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
water deficit, the plant would control some metabolic activities, such as osmotic adjustment, to preferentially re-allocate more sucrose to the sink organs and to increase the organic acid transformation rate. Consequently, the gradient of sucrose concentration between the leaves and fruits would increase (Qi et al., 2003). As a result, fruits assimilate more to enhance Vitamin C.
(Zegbe et al., 2007). Factually, the control of stomata aperture represents a key aspect in the regulation of the WUE. The soil texture had significant effect on water use efficiency (Fig. 7). Moreover, WUE significantly increased in non-loamy soil while it didn’t in loamy soil. Water use efficiency significantly increased when the application of RDI was throughout the whole growth stage. On the other hand, there was no significant change in water use efficiency when application of RDI was at one of the tomato growth stage or just for a period. In a detailed analysis (Fig. 9), WUE significantly increased at the first stage while it did not significantly increase at the other two stages under RDI. In order to find out how water use efficiency responded to severe water deficit in different soil texture, we classified the treatments into two groups in each article. The treatments in which the amount of irrigation water was less than 50% of that in the control group were severe RDI group, and the rest were mild RDI group. The MD indicated water use efficiency under severe RDI group didn’t significantly change in both soils (Fig. 10). The result was a little different from that of Fig. 7, and the reason may be the severity of RDI. A majority of studies (Patanè et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013) had reported the increases in water use efficiency of tomato crop under RDI. What’s more, water use efficiency acted differently to soil textures with the same level of deficit irrigation. The result was proved in the studies of Katerji et al. (2010) and Turner (2004). There are many other factors affecting the water use efficiency: varietal tolerance to water stress (Katerji et al., 2008); the sensitivity of the growth stage to stress (Kirda et al., 1999); the climate (Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004). From Fig. 6, the result showed that yield decreased less in non-loamy soil than that in loamy soil under severe RDI; and from Fig. 10, it showed that soil texture did not have significantly effects on WUE under severe RDI. Taking yield and WUE into consideration, if water is in shortage, it will be better for transplanting tomato in non-loamy soil under severe RDI because of the less yield loss.
5. Conclusions The results of this study showed that soil texture had significant effect on tomato yield under severe RDI: tomato yield decreased more in loamy soil than that in non-loamy soil. In terms of the growth stage, the reduction of processing tomato yield was obvious under RDI at the third stage compared to other stages. Water use efficiency significantly increased in non-loamy soil while not in loamy soil. The timing affected the water use efficiency when the time was classified into three stages. Water use efficiency under RDI significantly increased at the first stage. It is beneficial to tomato if RDI was applied in non-loamy soil, since yield decreased less and water use efficiency increased. Moreover, it is also beneficial to tomato if severe RDI was applied in non-loamy soil. The implementation of RDI can improve tomato total soluble solids and Vitamin C. What’s more, both increased more under RDI at the third stage than at previous two stages. Application of RDI at the first stage is recommended because yield does not significantly decrease and water use efficiency significantly increases. Although application of RDI at the third stage could improve fruit quality, it decreased fruit yield. The application of RDI under severe conditions needs more study to balance the yield loss and the increase of water use efficiency. Acknowledgement The research was supported by key program granted by the National Nature & Science Foundation of China (No. 51879072) and supported by Scientific Research and Practice Innovation Program for Postgraduates in Jiang Su Province (SJKY19_0523), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019B68014), and Jiang Su Qing Lan, and the project of the Young Top-Notch Talent Support Program of National High-level Talents Special Support Plan. The authors extend their gratitude to the editor and anonymous reviewers for substantial comments on earlier versions of this paper.
4.3. RDI influencing quality Even though RDI had an unsatisfactory effect on tomato yield, fruit quality was improved to some extent. Fruit yield and soluble solids displayed a negative correlation in most cases, as Marouelli and Silva (2007) also found. The benefit of RDI on fruit quality has been largely reported in studies (Johnstone et al., 2005; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010). From Fig. 11, we concluded that deficit irrigation increased total soluble solids (MD = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.11) in tomato compared to control groups. Vitamin C also increased. Cutting water down resulted in a reduction of fruit water content and thus increased the fruit soluble solids content. Some studies concluded that water stress could promote Vitamin C and soluble solids (Zegbe-Domínguez et al., 2003; Favati et al., 2009; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010; Patanè et al., 2011). Both total soluble solids and Vitamin C were increased when RDI was applied at the second and the third stage (Fig. 12 and Fig. 14), but both of them increased more when RDI was applied at the last stage. It is anticipated that deficit irrigation at the first stage does not affect the content of total soluble solids and Vitamin C evidently because it’s too early to influence them. Total soluble solids were enhanced under RDI at the third stage. It was mainly due to a declined water accumulation in fruits and the lower dilution of fruits components without any significant change in the quantity of accumulated sugars (Guichard et al., 1999). Quite a lot of studies observed that deficit irrigation positively affected Vitamin C (Favati et al., 2009; Patanè et al., 2011). Veit-Köhler et al. (1999) assumed that accumulating more sugar combined with providing less water helped Vitamin C synthesis in the period of fruit ripening. Moreover, leaf area index was reduced under deficit irrigation and hence the light intensity and duration was increased, which favored the accumulation of Vitamin C (Dumas et al., 2003). The reason why tomato quality improved under deficit irrigation was that tomato fruit would be the strongest sink for assimilating nutrients among the plant’s organs (Gamareldawla et al., 2017). Once the tomato crop was under
References Abo-Hussein, S.D.A., 1995. Studies on Potato Fertigation in Newly Reclaimed Lands. M.Sc. Thesis. Fac. Agric., Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, Egypt. Bakr, J., Daood, H.G., Pék, Z., Helyes, L., Posta, K., 2017. Yield and quality of mycorrhized processing tomato under water scarcity. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 15, 401–413. Battilani, A., Prieto, M.H., Argerich, C., Campillo, C., Cantore, V., 2012. Tomato. In: Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Raes, D. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Water, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 66. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 192–198. Benković, S., Rakočević, B.S., 2011. Impact of legislation on infrastructure financing by public-private partnership concept. FU. Econ. Org. 8 (4), 401–409. Bogale, A., Nagle, M., Latif, S., Aguila, M., Müller, J., 2016. Regulated deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying irrigation impact bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity in two select tomato cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 213, 115–124. Cantore, V., Lechkar, O., Karabulut, E., Sellami, M.H., Albrizio, R., Boari, F., Stellacci, A.M., Todorovic, M., 2016. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of “cherry” tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agric. Water Manage. 167, 53–61. Chai, Q., Gan, Y., Zhao, C., Xu, H., Waskom, R.M., Niu, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., 2016. Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 3. Chen, J., Kang, S., Du, T., Qiu, R., Ping, G., Chen, R., 2013. Quantitative response of greenhouse tomato yield and quality to water deficit at different growth stages. Agric. Water Manage. 129, 152–162. Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Chaves, M.M., 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 49, 1421–1434. De Pascale, S., Maggio, A., Orsini, F., Barbieri, G., 2015. Cultivar, soil type, nitrogen source and irrigation regime as quality determinants of organically grown tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 199, 88–94.
310
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Liu, H., Qi, H., Liu, Y., Shi, G., 2006. Effects of deficit water deficit levels on the growth and development, yield and quality of tomato. J. Shengyang Agric. Univ. 37 (3), 414–418 (in Chinese, with English summary). Lovelli, S., Potenza, G., Castronuovo, D., Perniola, M., Candido, V., 2017. Yield, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomatoes produced under different irrigation regimes in Mediterranean environment. Ital. J. Agron. 12, 17–24. Marouelli, W.A., Silva, W.L.C., Moretti, C.L., 2004. Production, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomato as affected by the final irrigation timing. Hortic. Bras. 22 (2), 226–231. Marouelli, W.A., Silva, W.L.C., 2007. Water tension thresholds for processing tomatoes under drip irrigation in Central Brazil. Irrig. Sci. 25, 411–418. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2, 1–6. Mirondo, R., Barringer, S., 2015. Improvement of flavor and viscosity in hot and cold break tomato juice and sauce by peel removal. J. Food Sci. 80, 171–179. Mitchell, J.P., Shennan, C., Grattan, S.R., May, D.M., 1991. Tomato fruit yield and quality under water deficit and salinity. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 116, 215–221. Nangare, D.D., Singh, Y., Kumar, P.S., Minhas, P.S., 2016. Growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by deficit irrigation regulated on phenological basis. Agric. Water Manage. 171, 73–79. Ngouajio, M., Wang, G., Goldy, R., 2007. Withholding of drip irrigation between transplanting and flowering increases the yield of field-grown tomato under plastic mulch. Agric. Water Manage. 87, 285–291. Nuruddin, M.M., Madramootoo, C.A., Dodds, G.T., 2003. Effects of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Hortic. Sci. 38, 1389–1393. Ozbahce, A., Tari, A.F., 2010. Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 97 (9), 1405–1410. Patanè, C., Cosentino, S.L., 2010. Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Water Manage. 97, 131–138. Patanè, C., Tringali, S., Sortino, O., 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 129, 590–596. Patanè, C., La Rosa, S., Pellegrino, A., Sortino, O., Saita, A., 2014. Water productivity and yield response factor in two cultivars of processing tomato as affected by deficit irrigation under semi-arid climate conditions. Acta Hortic. 1038, 449–454. Peet, M.M., 2005. Irrigation and fertilization. In: Heuvelink, E. (Ed.), Tomatoes, Crop Production Science in Horiculture. CABI Publishing, UK, pp. 171–198. Pulupol, L.U., Behboudian, M.H., Fisher, K.J., 1996. Growth, yield and postharvest attributes of glasshouse tomatoes produced under water deficit. Hort. Sci. 31, 926–929. Qi, H., Li, T., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Chen, Y., 2003. Effects on sucrose metabolism, dry matter distribution and fruit quality of tomato under water deficit. Agric. Sci. China (Engl. Ed.) 11, 1253–1258. Renquist, A.R., Reid, J.B., 2001. Processing tomato fruit quality: influence of soil water deficits at flowering and ripening. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52, 793–799. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen. Ripoll, J., Urban, B., Brunel, B., Bertin, N., 2016. Water deficit effects on tomato quality depend on fruit developmental stage and genotype. J. Plant Physiol. 190, 26–35. Rudich, J., Kalmar, D., Geizenberg, C., Harel, S., 1977. Low water tensions in defined growth stages of processing tomato plants and their effects on yield and quality. J. Hortic. Sci. 52 (3), 391–399. Toor, R.K., Savage, G.P., Heeb, A., 2006. Influence of different types of fertilizers on the major antioxidant components of tomatoes. J. Food Anal. 19, 20–27. Topcu, S., Kirda, C., Dasgan, Y., Kaman, H., Cetin, M., Yazici, A., Bacon, M.A., 2007. Yield response and N-fertiliser recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 64–70. Tracy, S.R., Black, C.R., Roberts, J.A., Mooney, S.J., 2013. Exploring the interacting effect of soil texture and bulk density on root system development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environ. Exp. Bot. 91, 38–47. Turner, N.C., 2004. Agronomic options for improving rainfall-use efficiency of crops in dryland farming systems. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 2413–2425. USDA, 1993. Soil Survey Manual Handbook 18. Soil Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Division Staff. Veit-Köhler, U., Krumbein, A., Kosegarten, H., 1999. Effect of different water supply on plant growth and fruit quality of Lycopersicon esculentum. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162, 583–588. Wang, F., Du, T., Qiu, R., Dong, P., 2011. Effects of water stress at different growth stage on greenhouse multiple-trusses tomato yield and quality. 2011 International Conference on Agricultural Engineering New Technology & Taishan Academic Forum. pp. 282–287 (in Chinese, with English summary). Wang, G., Zhou, J., Sheng, W., Dong, M., 2017. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 15, 1–9. Wang, S., Liu, Q., Yu, H., Sun, R., 2005. The theory and technological system of regulated deficit irrigation for grapery. J. Agric. Mechan. Res. 2005 (02), 8–9 (in Chinese, with English summary). Wahb-Alhb, M., Abdel-Razzak, H., Alsadon, A., Ibrahim, A., 2014. Growth, yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato under arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation and irrigation level treatments. Life Sci. J. 11 (2), 109–117. Wang, Y., Zhang, H., 2014. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of processing tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum). Adv. Mat. Res. 864-867, 2009–2012. Wiertz, R., Lenz, F., 1987. Growth and yield of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) depending on water and nutrient supply. Gartenbaueissenschaft 52 (1), 39–45.
Dumas, Y., Dadomo, M., Di Lucca, G., Grolier, P., 2003. Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 83, 369–382. Dorais, M., Ehret, D.L., Papadopoulos, A.P., 2008. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem. Rev. 7, 231–250. English, M.J., Raja, S.N., 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 32, 1–14. El-Zeiny, O.H.A., Ibrahim, K.A., 2006. Response of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) to different levels of water irrigation under sand and clay soil condition. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 21 (12 A), 154–171. Ezzo, M.I., Glala, A.A., Habib, Hoda A.M., Helaly, A.A., 2010. Response of sweet pepper grown in sandy and clay soil lysimeters to water regimes. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 8 (1), 18–26. FAOSTAT, 2014. Area Harvested and Yield-tomatoes 2012. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Favati, F., Lovelli, S., Galgano, F., Miccolis, V., Di Tommaso, T., Candido, V., 2009. Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 122, 562–571. Franceschi, S., Bidoli, E., La Vecchia, C., Talamini, R., D’Avanzo, B., Negri, E., 1994. Tomatoes and risk of digestive-tract cancers. Int. J. Cancer 59, 181–184. Gamareldawla, H.D.A., She, D., Liu, Z., Nazar, A.E., Shao, G., Luis, C.T., 2017. Effects of deficit irrigation and biochar addition on the growth, yield, and quality of tomato. Sci. Hortic. 222, 90–101. Gatta, G., Giuliani, M.M., Monteleone, M., Nardella, E., De Caro, A., 2007. Deficit irrigation scheduling in processing tomato. In: In: Lamaddalena, N., Bogliotti, C., Todorvic, M., Scardigno, A. (Eds.), Water Saving in Mediterranean Agriculture and Future Reasearch Needs, vol. 1. CIHEAM, Bari, Italy, pp. 277–289. Giuliani, M.M., Nardella, E., Gatta, G., De Caro, A., 2011. Processing tomato cultivated under water deficit conditions: the effect of azoxystrobin. Acta Hort. 914, 287–294. Giuliani, M.M., Gatta, G., Nardella, E., Tarantino, E., 2016. Water saving strategies assessment on processing tomato cultivated in Mediterranean region. Ital. J. Agron. 11, 69–76. Giuliani, M.M., Nardella, E., Gagliardi, A., Gatta, G., 2017. Deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying techniques in processing tomato cultivated under mediterranean climate conditions. Sustain.-Basel. 9, 2197. Giovannucci, E., Ascherio, A., Rimm, E.B., Stampfer, M.J., Coldiz, G.A., Willett, W.C., 1995. Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 87 (23), 1767–1776. Guichard, S., Gary, C., Longuenesse, J.J., Leonardi, C., 1999. Water fluxes and growth of greenhouse tomato fruits under summer conditions. Acta Hortic. 507, 223–230. Guichard, S., Bertin, N., Leonardi, C., Gary, C., 2001. Tomato fruit quality in relation to water and carbon fluxes. Agronomie 21 (4), 385–392. Helyes, L., Varga, G., 1994. Irrigation demand of tomato according to the results of three decades. Acta Hortic. 376, 323–328. Higgins, J.P.T., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J., Altman, D.G., 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ-Brit. Med. J. 327, 557–560. Jensen, C.R., Battilani, A., Plauborg, F., Psarras, G., Chartzoulakis, K., Janowiak, F., Stikic, R., Jovanovic, Z., Li, G., Qi, X., Liu, F., Jacobsen, S.E., Andersen, M.N., 2010. Deficit irrigation based on drought tolerance and root signaling in potatoes and tomatoes. Agric. Water Manage. 98, 403–413. Ji, X., Chen, Z., Zhao, X., Zhang, R., 2015. Effect of regulated deficit drip irrigation on yield and quality of wine grape in desert oasis. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 4, 184–188 (in Chinese, with English summary). Johnstone, P.R., Hartz, T.K., LeStrange, M., Nunez, J.J., Miyao, E.M., 2005. Managing fruit soluble solids with late-season deficit irrigation in drip-irrigated processing tomato production. Hort. Sci. 40, 1857–1861. Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Rana, G., 2008. Water use efficiency of crops cultivated in the Mediterranean region: review and analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 28, 493–507. Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Cherni, H.E., 2010. Effects of corn deficit irrigation and soil properties on water use efficiency. A 25-year analysis of a Mediterranean environment using the Stics model. Eur. J. Agron. 32 (2), 177–185. Kirda, C., Kanber, R., Tulucu, K., 1999. Yield response of cotton, maize, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower, and wheat to deficit irrigation. In: Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland, pp. 21–38. Kirda, C., Cetin, M., Dasgan, Y., Topcu, S., Kaman, H., Ekici, B., Derici, M.R., Ozguven, A.I., 2004. Yield response of greenhouse grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 69, 191–201. Konôpka, B., Pagés, L., Doussan, C., 2008. Impact of soil compaction heterogeneity and moisture on maize (Zea mays L.) root and shoot development. Plant Soil Environ. 54, 509–519. Kumar, P.S., Singh, Y., Nangare, D.D., Bhagat, K., Kumar, M., Taware, P.B., Kumari, A., Minhas, P.S., 2015. Influence of growth stage specific water stress on the yield, physico-chemical quality and functional characteristics of tomato grown in shallow basaltic soils. Sci. Hortic. 197, 261–271. Kuşçu, H., Turhan, A., Demir, A.O., 2014. The response of processing tomato to deficit irrigation at various phenological stages in a sub-humid environment. Agric. Water Manage. 133, 92–103. Lahoz, I., Pérez-de-Castro, A., Valcárcel, M., Macua, J.I., Beltrán, J., Roselló, S., CebollaCornejo, J., 2016. Effect of water deficit on the agronomical performance and quality of processing tomato. Sci. Hortic. 200, 55–65. Li, Y., Zhao, X., Wang, H., Li, H., 2013. Research advance and prospect of regulated deficit irrigation on grapevines. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2013-01, 236–241 (in Chinese, with English summary). Liu, X., 2005. Study on Improving Fruit Qualities of Tomato by Deficit Irrigation. Master diss, (in Chinese, with English summary). China Agricultural University.
311
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Zhang, H., Xiong, Y., Huang, G., Xu, X., Huang, Q., 2017. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manage. 179, 205–214. Zheng, F., Yang, P., Ren, S., Jiang, G., He, X., 2016. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on the plant growth, yield and quality of processing tomato under border irrigation in Hetao Irrigation District. J. China Agric. Univ. 21 (5), 83–90 (in Chinese, with English summary). Zwart, S.J., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manage. 69 (2), 115–133.
Wu, Y., Han, G., Chen, N., 2016. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on yield, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomato. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 35 (7), 104–107 (in Chinese, with English summary). Zegbe-Domínguez, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Lang, A., Clothier, B.E., 2003. Deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying maintain fruit dry mass and enhance fruit quality in ‘Petopride’ processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Sci. Hortic. 98, 505–510. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2006. Responses of ‘Petoride’ processing tomato to partial root-zone drying at different phonological stages. Irrig. Sci. 24, 203–210. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2007. Response of tomato to partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 30, 125–131.
312
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under regulated deficit irrigation: A meta-analysis
T
⁎
Jia Lua, Guangcheng Shaoa, , Jintao Cuia, Xiaojun Wangb, Larona Keabetswea a b
College of Agricultural Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, PR China Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Nanjing 210029, PR China
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Tomato yield Regulated deficit irrigation Water use efficiency Total soluble solids Vitamin C
Tomato is one of the most widely grown vegetables in the world because of special nutritive value of its fruit. Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) is widely applied in tomato production due to the water shortage. A lot of studies demonstrated that certain degree of deficit irrigation decreased the tomato yield but improved the fruit quality. The purpose of this paper is to use a meta-analysis to: 1) estimate the effect of RDI on processing tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality; 2) identify soil texture, growth stage and deficit severity that benefit yield and increase water use efficiency compared to full irrigation. We analyzed 25 research articles with 561 experimental groups and 145 control groups. Overall, RDI decreased processing tomato yield with mean difference of 18.61 t ha-1, increased water use efficiency with mean difference of 2.33 kg m-3, and improved fruit quality. The yield decreased with mean difference of 19.79 t ha-1 in loamy soil and 14.26 t ha-1 in non-loamy soil. The soil texture had no significant effects on yield and water use efficiency under severe RDI. Application of RDI at the first stage is recommended because of no significant yield loss and significant increase of water use efficiency. RDI can improve processing tomato total soluble solids and Vitamin C. Moreover, both of them were increased more when RDI was applied at the third stage than at previous two stages. Our findings can be helpful on how to use RDI correctly to balance the processing tomato yield, water conservation and fruit quality.
1. Introduction Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the popular vegetables (Battilani et al., 2012) as well as an important source of antioxidants such as lycopene, phenolic and vitamin C in human diet (Toor et al., 2006). The plant area of tomato was 4.8 × 106 ha worldwide in 2012, with an annual production > 160 × 106 t (FAOSTAT, 2014). Processing tomato principally provides source of significant phytonutrients such as β-carotene and lycopene (Dorais et al., 2008). The majority of tomatoes were consumed as tomato puree, paste, or sauce (Mirondo and Barringer, 2015). While tomato is important to ensure the security of global food, traditional tomato irrigation demands a lot of water inputs. Due to the incremental threat of water scarcity influencing 4 billion people all over the world at present (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016), it is crucial to develop water saving practices with the potential to increase water use efficiency while maintaining yields and fruit quality or reducing yields a little to support a growing population. Water is an increasingly rare resource and agricultural irrigation consumes a large amount of water resources which is not efficiently used. Water security is the basis for food security. Water is a key factor
⁎
to yield and crop quality, but water resources become rare to agriculture due to the increasing demands of household and industry (Bogale et al., 2016). Deficit irrigation is beneficial to save water. It’s a practice that deliberately allows crops to maintain water deficit at some degree, sometimes with losing yield lightly and significantly reducing irrigation water use (English and Raja, 1996; Kirda et al., 2004; Cantore et al., 2016; Giuliani et al., 2016). Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) has been proved to potentially save water in agriculture and it allows crops to bear mild water stress with no or only minimal decline of yield and quality (Costa et al., 2007). Many investigations studied the potential advantages of deficit irrigation in increasing water use efficiency in crop production (Chai et al., 2016). At the present time, RDI is used as a strategy of water-saving. Many studies reported that RDI was helpful to save water and improve crop quality (Wang et al., 2005; Li et al., 2013; Ji et al., 2015). Irrigation is thought to be one of the key factors to influence plant water status. Many studies have indicated that deficit irrigation can enhance tomato fruit quality (Mitchell et al., 1991; Pulupol et al., 1996; Veit-Köhler et al., 1999; Johnstone et al., 2005; Favati et al., 2009; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010; Wang et al., 2011; Patanè et al., 2011). In
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Shao).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.06.008 Received 5 June 2018; Received in revised form 5 June 2019; Accepted 7 June 2019 Available online 17 June 2019 0378-3774/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
recent years, fruit quality has became a major concern for fruit production in response to the increasing demand of consumers (Guichard et al., 2001), because of its significance to human health and pleasure. It can lower the risk of developing some cancers (Giovannucci et al., 1995; Franceschi et al., 1994). Water deficit usually leads to decreased photosynthesis, plant growth and crop productivity and beneficial effects on some fruit quality parameters, for instance increased antioxidant compound levels and higher sugar accumulation (Ripoll et al., 2016). Given these benefits, many efforts have been made to disseminate RDI particularly in China. The definition of the influence of deficit irrigation on processing tomato fruit yield and quality are poor due to its complexity, though there are lots of articles (Renquist and Reid, 2001; Marouelli and Silva, 2007; Favati et al., 2009). What’s more, few studies (Patanè and Cosentino, 2010) quantified the effects of deficit irrigation on processing tomato at different growth stages. In this regard, we conducted a meta-analysis with the following objectives: 1) quantify the effect of RDI on processing tomato yield, water use efficiency and fruit quality; 2) identify soil texture, growth stage and deficit severity that benefit yield and increase water use efficiency compared to full irrigation.
Table 1 Overview of the studies used for analysis.
2. Materials and methods 2.1. Data collection
Authors and date
Country
Text
RDI timing
water use
Bakr et al. (2017) Favati et al. (2009) Gatta et al. (2007) Giuliani et al. (2011) Giuliani et al. (2016) Giuliani et al. (2017) Jensen et al. (2010) Johnstone et al. (2005) Kumar et al. (2015) Kuşçu et al. (2014) Lahoz et al. (2016) Liu (2005) Liu et al. (2006) Lovelli et al. (2017) Nangare et al. (2016) Ozbahce and Tari (2010) Patanè and Cosentino (2010) Patanè et al. (2011) Patanè et al. (2014) Rudich et al. (1977) Wahb-Alhb et al. (2014) Wang and Zhang (2014) Wu et al. (2016) Zhang et al. (2017) Zheng et al. (2016)
Iraq Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Denmark Amercian India Turkey Spain China China Italy India Turkey Italy Italy Italy Israel Saudi Arabia China China China China
L L L NL NL L L L NL L No No NL L NL NL L L L NL NL L L L L
T T NT NT T T T NT NT NT T NT NT NT NT T NT T T NT T NT NT T NT
Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
Note: Soil texture (L = loamy, NL =non-loamy, No = data not available), RDI timing refers to regulated deficit irrigation timing (T = throughout the season, NT = not throughout the season), Water use efficiency (Yes = data available, No = data not available).
A comprehensive literature search was conducted on ISI Web of Science, Science Direct and China National Knowledge Internet for articles published from April 1960 to February 2019 about tomato under deficit irrigation. The literature search was conducted with a focus on the following keywords: 1) ‘tomato yield’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’; 2) ‘tomato quality’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’; 3) ‘water use efficiency’ and ‘regulated deficit irrigation’. After preliminary collection, we checked the varieties of tomato and the articles about tomato for processing were collected. Publications which consist of field experiments or pot experiments with contrast of RDI and the control without water deficit (CK) were chosen. Here, RDI technique mainly refers to that the plant sensitivity to water stress is not continuous at stages of crops growth period (Costa et al., 2007). In all situations, experiments with RDI were included. Except for collecting yield data from each research, we also recorded data on water use efficiency. Since the yield in each paper was a little different, such as total yield, total marketable yield, and total fresh weight and so on, we collected all of them as variable yield. The ratio between photosynthesis and transpiration at physiological level is the definition of water use efficiency (WUE) for agronomic evaluations (Zhang et al., 2017). WUE was calculated as: (i) the ratio between dry above ground biomass and evapotranspiration, i.e. biomass WUE (B WUE) and (ii) the ratio between marketable yield and evapotranspiration, i.e. yield WUE (Y WUE) (Cantore et al., 2016). For this study, we just collected the data of yield WUE. In addition to collecting the interesting response variables (yield, WUE), we also collected soil variables such as texture. The general soil texture groups include three classes (sandy, loamy or clayey) based on USDA soil texture classes (USDA, 1993). In our study, loamy soil was one group, and sandy and clayey soil was non-loamy soil group. Moreover, RDI timing data were also collected. The RDI timing means when water deficit was applied at the different growing stage. Since the treatments about the time of RDI were different in each articles, the RDI timing were divided into three stages: 1) the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting, it was abbreviated as V stage; 2) the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity, it was abbreviated as F stage; 3) the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested, it was abbreviated as R stage. The RDI timing was classified into: 1) water deficit happened only during one of the stage, such as at the first, the
second or the third stage; 2) water deficit occurred throughout the season, and it meant water deficit last for a long time not just applied only during one of the growth stages referred above. After the rigorous search and selection, we identified 25 articles in the final document data bases. The experiments reported on selected articles were different consisting of 561 experimental groups and 145 control groups (Table 1). The experimental groups stood for the RDI treatments and the control groups stood for no water deficit irrigation treatments in all articles searched. All the groups were calculated including replications. From the selected articles, 44.0% were from Asia and 24.0% from China. Most of the research used transplanted tomato crop. Water use efficiency was reported in 13 studies (387 observations). 2.2. Data analysis The meta-analysis was performed by RevMan 5.0 software. Review Manager (RevMan) is the Cochrane Collaboration’s software for preparing and maintaining Cochrane reviews. RevMan facilitates preparation of protocols and full reviews, including text, characteristics of studies, comparison tables, and study data (Review Manager. Version 5.0, 2008). It can perform meta-analysis of the data entered, and present the results graphically. For continuous variables, we have used weighted mean differences (WMDs) or standard mean difference (SMD) for analysis; for categorical variables we have applied the odds ratios (ORs) for evaluation; for binary variables we analyzed the risk ratio (RR) and hazard ratio (HR). The degree of heterogeneity, which indicated variance between studies, was assessed using the Higgins I2 statistics and Q test (Higgins et al., 2003). The fixed effects model was performed for studies with low heterogeneity (I2 ≤ 50% and P > 0.05). In the presence of significant heterogeneity (I2 > 50% or P < 0.05), the random effect model was used to pool the data. Tau2 was also presented in random effect model. In this study, the outcome of variables (yield, water use efficiency, total soluble solids and Vitamin C) were continuous, so we used WMDs to do the analysis. Because the units of variables in most articles 302
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 1. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
3.1.2. Effect of RDI on water use efficiency As shown in Fig. 2, RDI resulted in a significant change in water use efficiency, with overall effect size (Z) of 3.25 (p = 0.001). However, there was heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 95%; p < 0.00001). Compared with CK, RDI increased water use efficiency (MD=2.33, 95% CI: 0.92 to 3.74).
collected were the same, we didn’t use SMD and excluded the data with different units. The pooled results were expressed by forest plots (Wang et al., 2017). In the forest plot, CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. An estimate of the effect magnitude was calculated for each study, and then averaged to determine the overall effect size (Z) index. The P value following Chi2 stood for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stood for statistical significance. The results were significant when the P value following Z was smaller than 0.05. Mean difference (MD) was the difference between two means and it stood for the effect of absolute values between multiple studies.
3.2. Soil texture and management practices affecting yield in RDI With respect to soil texture, we have observed impact on RDI yield. RDI yield decreased compared to CK in all situations (Fig. 3). When RDI was applied in loamy soils, yield decreased more (MD=-19.79, 95% CI:-26.53 to -13.06) in contrast to the experiments (MD=-14.26, 95% CI:-20.21 to -8.31) when practicing in non-loamy soils. About water management, we checked the phenological stage at which the water deficit was imposed (RDI timing) and its severity. These studies were significantly heterogeneous (I2 = 100%; p < 0.00001). Under the random effects model, the CK favored yield compared to RDI (MD=-18.61, 95% CI:-25.54 to -11.68). When RDI was carried out during the entire season, yield decreased (MD=-21.33, 95% CI:-31.36 to -11.29). It also made some difference when RDI was carried out at one of the three stages (MD=-15.24, 95% CI:-20.44 to -10.03). From Fig. 4, we found out that the effects of RDI on yield were not so different in throughout season group and not throughout season
3. Results 3.1. Overall impact of RDI on yield, water use efficiency 3.1.1. Effect of RDI on yield Studies with available data on processing tomato yield were gathered together for a visual representation of the results (Fig. 1). The effect of RDI on yield had statistical significance (Z = 5.26; p < 0.00001). There was heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 100%; p < 0.00001). In general, RDI decreased yield when comparing it with the control group (MD=-18.61, 95% CI: -25.54 to -11.68).
Fig. 2. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on water use efficiency. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
303
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 3. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
difference in yield was found at V and F stage, and the MD were -1.49 (95% CI: -4.96 to 1.99, p = 0.40) and -10.42 (95% CI: -22.29 to 1.45, p = 0.09) respectively (Fig. 5). However, RDI caused significant changes on yield at R stage. The yield decreased with the overall effect
group. With the purpose of a detailed study on how the RDI affected yield at different growth stages, we did an analysis on yield at three different stages. We collected 249 experiments from 8 articles. No significant
Fig. 4. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on time of carrying out regulated deficit irrigation. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
304
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 5. The effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield depending on different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
soil. The MD was -25.94 (95% CI: -29.40 to -22.49) in loamy soil group, and the MD was -16.46 (95% CI: -31.48 to -1.43) in non-loamy soil group. The result was the same as that of Fig. 3. The purpose of the subgroup analysis was to find whether the severe water deficit responded differently in different soil textures compared to mild water deficit.
size (Z) of 3.59 (p < 0.00001). The MD was -14.77 (95% CI: -22.84 to -6.71, p = 0.0003). In order to find the effect of RDI severity on tomato yield, we classified data into two groups. If the irrigation amount was less than 50% of the control group, RDI was classified as severe RDI. The rest was considered as mild RDI. Taking the soil texture into consideration, we did a subgroup analysis on the basis of the RDI severity. From Fig. 6, we discovered that yield decreased more in loamy soil than in non-loamy
Fig. 6. Effect of RDI severity on yield in consideration of soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. Severe RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is severe. Mild RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is mild. The irrigation water amount of severe RDI is less than 50% of that in the control group. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
305
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 7. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
CI: -0.36 to 4.52). We gathered available data on studies about how water use efficiency responded in different growth stages when RDI was carried out. One hundred and fifty six data were pooled from 4 articles. Fig. 9 showed that water use efficiency displayed no significant change at all stages except for the first stage, for the values of P were 0.04 at V stage, 0.78 at F stage and 0.50 at R stage. The result is the same as Fig. 8 in which we conducted a subgroup analysis about the timing of RDI. With the same purpose of finding the effect of RDI severity on tomato yield, we also divided the experiments into two groups to search out the effect of RDI severity on tomato water use efficiency. The overall effect size (Z) of loamy soil texture subgroup was 1.55 (p = 0.12) from Fig. 10. The result indicated that soil texture had no significant effect on water use efficiency under severe RDI. The MD was
3.3. Soil texture and management practices affecting water use efficiency in RDI We took 387 experiments from 13 articles for comparison of the influence of soil texture on processing tomato water use efficiency. From Fig. 7, we concluded that the soil texture significantly affected water use efficiency under RDI. The MD was 2.82 (95% CI: -0.02 to 5.65) in loamy soil. However, water use efficiency significantly increased in non-loamy soil with the MD of 2.48 (95% CI: 0.51 to 4.46). The effects of the RDI timing on water use efficiency was presented in Fig. 8, which was calculated from 387 experiment data. WUE significantly increased in groups throughout the season (MD = 2.83, 95% CI: 0.70 to 4.95). The data of the groups not throughout the season showed WUE did not significantly increase with the MD was 2.08 (95%
Fig. 8. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on time of carrying out RDI. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
306
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 9. RDI effect on water use efficiency depending on different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
3.4.2. Effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C The effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C was reported by 9 heterogeneous studies (I2 = 97%, p < 0.00001) (Fig. 13), so we took a random model to do the analysis. RDI associated with increase in vitamin C (MD = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.36 to 4.56; p = 0.0003). Vitamin C increased at R stage more than at F stage (Fig. 14), and the result was similar as the effect of RDI on total soluble solids in different stages. At V stage, the MD was 0.07 (95% CI: -0.85 to 0.99; p = 0.89); at F stage, the MD was 1.09 (95% CI: 0.32 to 1.87; p = 0.006); at R stage, the MD was 2.26 (95% CI: 1.48 to 3.04; p < 0.00001).
4.87 (95% CI: -6.89 to 16.64) and 3.15 (95% CI: -1.41 to 7.71) respectively.
3.4. Effect of RDI on tomato quality 3.4.1. Effect of RDI on tomato total soluble solids Eleven studies reported on the relationship between total soluble solids and RDI. The data from the 292 samples showed that RDI increased total soluble solids with mean difference of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.49 to 1.11) in processing tomato. The overall effect size was 5.13 (p < 0.00001). The studies had heterogeneity because of I2 of 94% (Fig. 11). During the growth stages, tomato total soluble solids responded differently to RDI. From the 118 samples, we concluded that conducting RDI at R stage increased more total soluble solids than that at F stage. However, RDI had no significant effect on total soluble solids at V stage. From Fig. 12, we learned that the MD was 0.48 (95% CI: -0.22 to 1.18) at V stage, 1.08 (95% CI: 0. 20 to 1.96) at F stage and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.57 to 1.72) at R stage respectively.
4. Discussion 4.1. RDI influencing yield Water is important to the growth of tomatoes. RDI applied to tomato is helpful in declining production cost and protecting water resources. The application of RDI decreased tomato yield. It proved that tomato is one of the crops which need large water volumes (Peet, 2005). A lot of Fig. 10. Effect of RDI severity on water use efficiency in consideration of soil texture. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. Severe RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is severe. Mild RDI refers that the degree of regulated deficit irrigation is mild. The irrigation water amount of severe RDI is less than 50% of that in the control group. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
307
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 11. Effect of RDI on tomato total soluble solids. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
conclusion demonstrated that processing tomato was sensitive to water stress at fruit ripening stage. Moreover, the sensitivity to water stress at the three growth stages were not equal in this study. The yield at the third stage significantly decreased while the yield did not significantly decreased in other two stages (Fig. 5). The possible reason was that the third stage was a key period for tomato plants and the fruit growth stage was most responsible to improve tomato yield (Kirda et al., 2004). Nuruddin et al. (2003) reported that sensitivity to water stress occurred primarily during fruit growth rather than flowering and fruit set. Marouelli and Silva (2007) found that yield decreased when regulated deficit irrigation occurred during fruit maturation growth stages, primarily because of many small green fruits aborting or not enlarging under water deficit conditions. The response of tomato to deficit irrigation not only depends on the period of water deficit but also on the degree of water deficit. We grouped the experiment data into two categories according to irrigation water amount. The severe RDI group included treatments in which the amount of irrigation water was less than 50% of that in the treatments without water deficit, and the rest was mild RDI group. Compared to mild RDI group, severe RDI group declined tomato yield with mean difference of -22.65 t ha-1 (Fig. 6). The figure suggested that the
studies had found that deficit irrigation to a certain degree declined tomato yield (Zegbe-Domínguez et al., 2003; Kirda et al., 2004; Patanè et al., 2011), though depending on the period and the degree of water stress (Helyes and Varga, 1994; Nuruddin et al., 2003; Zegbe et al., 2006). Whether the soil is loamy or not, the yield decreased and it decreased more in loamy soil (Fig. 3). Different soil texture may have different effect on tomato root system development thus affects yield differently. The effect of soil texture on root system development had been explored in previous studies (Konôpka et al., 2008; Tracy et al., 2013). De Pascale et al. (2015) had done experiments about the effects of irrigation and soil type on grown tomatoes. If we divided the experiment data into two subgroups according to the RDI timing, we found the effects of RDI on tomato yield were a little different (Fig. 4). For a deeper study, we classified the time of RDI into three stages and we could find which stage affected tomato yield more. From Fig. 5, we concluded that there was no significant yield penalty at the first stage. Early RDI did not significantly affect yield since water deficit at the vegetative stage is too early to influence tomato growth, which agreed with the previous studies (Ngouajio et al., 2007; Marouelli et al., 2004). Furthermore, the data showed that processing tomato yield decreased when carrying out RDI at the third stage. This
Fig. 12. RDI effect on total soluble solids in different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops, and after all fruits are harvested. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
308
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Fig. 13. Effect of RDI on tomato vitamin C. RDI refers to regulated deficit irrigation. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
affected plant length, leaves and total fresh weight and root dry weight. The same results were found by Abo-Hussein (1995) on potato. El-Zeiny and Ibrahim (2006) applied irrigation water of 80% and 100% ET0 to tomato grown in clay soil and found that the capability of plants to produce the vigorous vegetative growth was inspired. However, there are little studies about the effect of interaction between the water deficit severity and soil textures on tomato yield. Maybe later studies could study this aspect.
irrigation amount should not be less than 50% of the irrigation water in treatments without water deficit. If the water deficit was severe, tomato yield decreased. Favati et al. (2009) had indicated that the yield of processing tomatoes decreased when the irrigation water was only 50% of crop evapotranspiration in a Mediterranean climate condition. The result was in agreement with previous study (Wiertz and Lenz, 1987), which found yield was more negatively affected by low water supply. Deficit irrigation treatments received 1/3 or 2/3 irrigation amount of control group at three different growth stages of tomato were set in previous study (Wang et al., 2011), and the yields in 1/3 irrigation amount of control group treatments were all less than that in 2/3 irrigation amount of control group treatments. It may indicate that the degree of water deficit could not be too severe. What’s more, tomato yield was more sensitive in loamy soil in contrast to non-loamy soil. In conclusion, tomato tolerance of severe deficit irrigation was stronger in non-loamy soil than in loamy soil. As a suggestion, we would better apply severe RDI in non-loamy soil if water resources are rare, and it could reduce the influence of water stress on tomato yield. Ezzo et al. (2010) studied the effect of interaction between irrigation water levels and soil types on sweet pepper and found the interaction significantly
4.2. RDI influencing water use efficiency The shortage of water is one of the limits to crop production in the world. Though RDI made tomato yield loss, water use efficiency was positively affected by water deficit as Fig. 2 showed. In other words, it saved water, which agreed with the results reported by Topcu et al. (2007). The possibility to save irrigation water and make water use efficiency rise was proved by the experimental results by (Benković and Rakočević, 2011). With water resources becoming scarcer, this is an important advantage of RDI. The fact that water use efficiency increased under deficit irrigation could be owed to the stomata closure Fig. 14. RDI effect on vitamin C at different growth stage. V is the first stage, it begins from transplanting to first fruit setting; F is the second stage, it begins from first fruit setting to first fruit maturity; R is the third stage, it begins from first fruit maturity to uprooting crops and after all fruits are harvested. CK refers to the control without water deficit. SD refers to standard deviation. CI stands for 95% confidence intervals. The P value following Chi2 stands for the heterogeneity, while the P value following Z stands for statistical significance.
309
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
water deficit, the plant would control some metabolic activities, such as osmotic adjustment, to preferentially re-allocate more sucrose to the sink organs and to increase the organic acid transformation rate. Consequently, the gradient of sucrose concentration between the leaves and fruits would increase (Qi et al., 2003). As a result, fruits assimilate more to enhance Vitamin C.
(Zegbe et al., 2007). Factually, the control of stomata aperture represents a key aspect in the regulation of the WUE. The soil texture had significant effect on water use efficiency (Fig. 7). Moreover, WUE significantly increased in non-loamy soil while it didn’t in loamy soil. Water use efficiency significantly increased when the application of RDI was throughout the whole growth stage. On the other hand, there was no significant change in water use efficiency when application of RDI was at one of the tomato growth stage or just for a period. In a detailed analysis (Fig. 9), WUE significantly increased at the first stage while it did not significantly increase at the other two stages under RDI. In order to find out how water use efficiency responded to severe water deficit in different soil texture, we classified the treatments into two groups in each article. The treatments in which the amount of irrigation water was less than 50% of that in the control group were severe RDI group, and the rest were mild RDI group. The MD indicated water use efficiency under severe RDI group didn’t significantly change in both soils (Fig. 10). The result was a little different from that of Fig. 7, and the reason may be the severity of RDI. A majority of studies (Patanè et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2013) had reported the increases in water use efficiency of tomato crop under RDI. What’s more, water use efficiency acted differently to soil textures with the same level of deficit irrigation. The result was proved in the studies of Katerji et al. (2010) and Turner (2004). There are many other factors affecting the water use efficiency: varietal tolerance to water stress (Katerji et al., 2008); the sensitivity of the growth stage to stress (Kirda et al., 1999); the climate (Zwart and Bastiaanssen, 2004). From Fig. 6, the result showed that yield decreased less in non-loamy soil than that in loamy soil under severe RDI; and from Fig. 10, it showed that soil texture did not have significantly effects on WUE under severe RDI. Taking yield and WUE into consideration, if water is in shortage, it will be better for transplanting tomato in non-loamy soil under severe RDI because of the less yield loss.
5. Conclusions The results of this study showed that soil texture had significant effect on tomato yield under severe RDI: tomato yield decreased more in loamy soil than that in non-loamy soil. In terms of the growth stage, the reduction of processing tomato yield was obvious under RDI at the third stage compared to other stages. Water use efficiency significantly increased in non-loamy soil while not in loamy soil. The timing affected the water use efficiency when the time was classified into three stages. Water use efficiency under RDI significantly increased at the first stage. It is beneficial to tomato if RDI was applied in non-loamy soil, since yield decreased less and water use efficiency increased. Moreover, it is also beneficial to tomato if severe RDI was applied in non-loamy soil. The implementation of RDI can improve tomato total soluble solids and Vitamin C. What’s more, both increased more under RDI at the third stage than at previous two stages. Application of RDI at the first stage is recommended because yield does not significantly decrease and water use efficiency significantly increases. Although application of RDI at the third stage could improve fruit quality, it decreased fruit yield. The application of RDI under severe conditions needs more study to balance the yield loss and the increase of water use efficiency. Acknowledgement The research was supported by key program granted by the National Nature & Science Foundation of China (No. 51879072) and supported by Scientific Research and Practice Innovation Program for Postgraduates in Jiang Su Province (SJKY19_0523), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2019B68014), and Jiang Su Qing Lan, and the project of the Young Top-Notch Talent Support Program of National High-level Talents Special Support Plan. The authors extend their gratitude to the editor and anonymous reviewers for substantial comments on earlier versions of this paper.
4.3. RDI influencing quality Even though RDI had an unsatisfactory effect on tomato yield, fruit quality was improved to some extent. Fruit yield and soluble solids displayed a negative correlation in most cases, as Marouelli and Silva (2007) also found. The benefit of RDI on fruit quality has been largely reported in studies (Johnstone et al., 2005; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010). From Fig. 11, we concluded that deficit irrigation increased total soluble solids (MD = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.11) in tomato compared to control groups. Vitamin C also increased. Cutting water down resulted in a reduction of fruit water content and thus increased the fruit soluble solids content. Some studies concluded that water stress could promote Vitamin C and soluble solids (Zegbe-Domínguez et al., 2003; Favati et al., 2009; Patanè and Cosentino, 2010; Patanè et al., 2011). Both total soluble solids and Vitamin C were increased when RDI was applied at the second and the third stage (Fig. 12 and Fig. 14), but both of them increased more when RDI was applied at the last stage. It is anticipated that deficit irrigation at the first stage does not affect the content of total soluble solids and Vitamin C evidently because it’s too early to influence them. Total soluble solids were enhanced under RDI at the third stage. It was mainly due to a declined water accumulation in fruits and the lower dilution of fruits components without any significant change in the quantity of accumulated sugars (Guichard et al., 1999). Quite a lot of studies observed that deficit irrigation positively affected Vitamin C (Favati et al., 2009; Patanè et al., 2011). Veit-Köhler et al. (1999) assumed that accumulating more sugar combined with providing less water helped Vitamin C synthesis in the period of fruit ripening. Moreover, leaf area index was reduced under deficit irrigation and hence the light intensity and duration was increased, which favored the accumulation of Vitamin C (Dumas et al., 2003). The reason why tomato quality improved under deficit irrigation was that tomato fruit would be the strongest sink for assimilating nutrients among the plant’s organs (Gamareldawla et al., 2017). Once the tomato crop was under
References Abo-Hussein, S.D.A., 1995. Studies on Potato Fertigation in Newly Reclaimed Lands. M.Sc. Thesis. Fac. Agric., Ain Shams Univ., Cairo, Egypt. Bakr, J., Daood, H.G., Pék, Z., Helyes, L., Posta, K., 2017. Yield and quality of mycorrhized processing tomato under water scarcity. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 15, 401–413. Battilani, A., Prieto, M.H., Argerich, C., Campillo, C., Cantore, V., 2012. Tomato. In: Steduto, P., Hsiao, T.C., Fereres, E., Raes, D. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Water, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 66. FAO, Rome, Italy, pp. 192–198. Benković, S., Rakočević, B.S., 2011. Impact of legislation on infrastructure financing by public-private partnership concept. FU. Econ. Org. 8 (4), 401–409. Bogale, A., Nagle, M., Latif, S., Aguila, M., Müller, J., 2016. Regulated deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying irrigation impact bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity in two select tomato cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 213, 115–124. Cantore, V., Lechkar, O., Karabulut, E., Sellami, M.H., Albrizio, R., Boari, F., Stellacci, A.M., Todorovic, M., 2016. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of “cherry” tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agric. Water Manage. 167, 53–61. Chai, Q., Gan, Y., Zhao, C., Xu, H., Waskom, R.M., Niu, Y., Siddique, K.H.M., 2016. Regulated deficit irrigation for crop production under drought stress. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36, 3. Chen, J., Kang, S., Du, T., Qiu, R., Ping, G., Chen, R., 2013. Quantitative response of greenhouse tomato yield and quality to water deficit at different growth stages. Agric. Water Manage. 129, 152–162. Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Chaves, M.M., 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to save water: physiology and potential application to horticulture. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 49, 1421–1434. De Pascale, S., Maggio, A., Orsini, F., Barbieri, G., 2015. Cultivar, soil type, nitrogen source and irrigation regime as quality determinants of organically grown tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 199, 88–94.
310
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Liu, H., Qi, H., Liu, Y., Shi, G., 2006. Effects of deficit water deficit levels on the growth and development, yield and quality of tomato. J. Shengyang Agric. Univ. 37 (3), 414–418 (in Chinese, with English summary). Lovelli, S., Potenza, G., Castronuovo, D., Perniola, M., Candido, V., 2017. Yield, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomatoes produced under different irrigation regimes in Mediterranean environment. Ital. J. Agron. 12, 17–24. Marouelli, W.A., Silva, W.L.C., Moretti, C.L., 2004. Production, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomato as affected by the final irrigation timing. Hortic. Bras. 22 (2), 226–231. Marouelli, W.A., Silva, W.L.C., 2007. Water tension thresholds for processing tomatoes under drip irrigation in Central Brazil. Irrig. Sci. 25, 411–418. Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity. Sci. Adv. 2, 1–6. Mirondo, R., Barringer, S., 2015. Improvement of flavor and viscosity in hot and cold break tomato juice and sauce by peel removal. J. Food Sci. 80, 171–179. Mitchell, J.P., Shennan, C., Grattan, S.R., May, D.M., 1991. Tomato fruit yield and quality under water deficit and salinity. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 116, 215–221. Nangare, D.D., Singh, Y., Kumar, P.S., Minhas, P.S., 2016. Growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by deficit irrigation regulated on phenological basis. Agric. Water Manage. 171, 73–79. Ngouajio, M., Wang, G., Goldy, R., 2007. Withholding of drip irrigation between transplanting and flowering increases the yield of field-grown tomato under plastic mulch. Agric. Water Manage. 87, 285–291. Nuruddin, M.M., Madramootoo, C.A., Dodds, G.T., 2003. Effects of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Hortic. Sci. 38, 1389–1393. Ozbahce, A., Tari, A.F., 2010. Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions. Agric. Water Manage. 97 (9), 1405–1410. Patanè, C., Cosentino, S.L., 2010. Effects of soil water deficit on yield and quality of processing tomato under a Mediterranean climate. Agric. Water Manage. 97, 131–138. Patanè, C., Tringali, S., Sortino, O., 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam). 129, 590–596. Patanè, C., La Rosa, S., Pellegrino, A., Sortino, O., Saita, A., 2014. Water productivity and yield response factor in two cultivars of processing tomato as affected by deficit irrigation under semi-arid climate conditions. Acta Hortic. 1038, 449–454. Peet, M.M., 2005. Irrigation and fertilization. In: Heuvelink, E. (Ed.), Tomatoes, Crop Production Science in Horiculture. CABI Publishing, UK, pp. 171–198. Pulupol, L.U., Behboudian, M.H., Fisher, K.J., 1996. Growth, yield and postharvest attributes of glasshouse tomatoes produced under water deficit. Hort. Sci. 31, 926–929. Qi, H., Li, T., Zhang, J., Wang, L., Chen, Y., 2003. Effects on sucrose metabolism, dry matter distribution and fruit quality of tomato under water deficit. Agric. Sci. China (Engl. Ed.) 11, 1253–1258. Renquist, A.R., Reid, J.B., 2001. Processing tomato fruit quality: influence of soil water deficits at flowering and ripening. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 52, 793–799. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. The Nordic Cochrane Center, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen. Ripoll, J., Urban, B., Brunel, B., Bertin, N., 2016. Water deficit effects on tomato quality depend on fruit developmental stage and genotype. J. Plant Physiol. 190, 26–35. Rudich, J., Kalmar, D., Geizenberg, C., Harel, S., 1977. Low water tensions in defined growth stages of processing tomato plants and their effects on yield and quality. J. Hortic. Sci. 52 (3), 391–399. Toor, R.K., Savage, G.P., Heeb, A., 2006. Influence of different types of fertilizers on the major antioxidant components of tomatoes. J. Food Anal. 19, 20–27. Topcu, S., Kirda, C., Dasgan, Y., Kaman, H., Cetin, M., Yazici, A., Bacon, M.A., 2007. Yield response and N-fertiliser recovery of tomato grown under deficit irrigation. Eur. J. Agron. 26, 64–70. Tracy, S.R., Black, C.R., Roberts, J.A., Mooney, S.J., 2013. Exploring the interacting effect of soil texture and bulk density on root system development in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environ. Exp. Bot. 91, 38–47. Turner, N.C., 2004. Agronomic options for improving rainfall-use efficiency of crops in dryland farming systems. J. Exp. Bot. 55, 2413–2425. USDA, 1993. Soil Survey Manual Handbook 18. Soil Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Division Staff. Veit-Köhler, U., Krumbein, A., Kosegarten, H., 1999. Effect of different water supply on plant growth and fruit quality of Lycopersicon esculentum. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 162, 583–588. Wang, F., Du, T., Qiu, R., Dong, P., 2011. Effects of water stress at different growth stage on greenhouse multiple-trusses tomato yield and quality. 2011 International Conference on Agricultural Engineering New Technology & Taishan Academic Forum. pp. 282–287 (in Chinese, with English summary). Wang, G., Zhou, J., Sheng, W., Dong, M., 2017. Hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a meta-analysis. World J. Surg. Oncol. 15, 1–9. Wang, S., Liu, Q., Yu, H., Sun, R., 2005. The theory and technological system of regulated deficit irrigation for grapery. J. Agric. Mechan. Res. 2005 (02), 8–9 (in Chinese, with English summary). Wahb-Alhb, M., Abdel-Razzak, H., Alsadon, A., Ibrahim, A., 2014. Growth, yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato under arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculation and irrigation level treatments. Life Sci. J. 11 (2), 109–117. Wang, Y., Zhang, H., 2014. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on yield and water use efficiency of processing tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum). Adv. Mat. Res. 864-867, 2009–2012. Wiertz, R., Lenz, F., 1987. Growth and yield of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) depending on water and nutrient supply. Gartenbaueissenschaft 52 (1), 39–45.
Dumas, Y., Dadomo, M., Di Lucca, G., Grolier, P., 2003. Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 83, 369–382. Dorais, M., Ehret, D.L., Papadopoulos, A.P., 2008. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochem. Rev. 7, 231–250. English, M.J., Raja, S.N., 1996. Perspectives on deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 32, 1–14. El-Zeiny, O.H.A., Ibrahim, K.A., 2006. Response of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) to different levels of water irrigation under sand and clay soil condition. Egypt. J. Appl. Sci. 21 (12 A), 154–171. Ezzo, M.I., Glala, A.A., Habib, Hoda A.M., Helaly, A.A., 2010. Response of sweet pepper grown in sandy and clay soil lysimeters to water regimes. Am.-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 8 (1), 18–26. FAOSTAT, 2014. Area Harvested and Yield-tomatoes 2012. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Favati, F., Lovelli, S., Galgano, F., Miccolis, V., Di Tommaso, T., Candido, V., 2009. Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam) 122, 562–571. Franceschi, S., Bidoli, E., La Vecchia, C., Talamini, R., D’Avanzo, B., Negri, E., 1994. Tomatoes and risk of digestive-tract cancers. Int. J. Cancer 59, 181–184. Gamareldawla, H.D.A., She, D., Liu, Z., Nazar, A.E., Shao, G., Luis, C.T., 2017. Effects of deficit irrigation and biochar addition on the growth, yield, and quality of tomato. Sci. Hortic. 222, 90–101. Gatta, G., Giuliani, M.M., Monteleone, M., Nardella, E., De Caro, A., 2007. Deficit irrigation scheduling in processing tomato. In: In: Lamaddalena, N., Bogliotti, C., Todorvic, M., Scardigno, A. (Eds.), Water Saving in Mediterranean Agriculture and Future Reasearch Needs, vol. 1. CIHEAM, Bari, Italy, pp. 277–289. Giuliani, M.M., Nardella, E., Gatta, G., De Caro, A., 2011. Processing tomato cultivated under water deficit conditions: the effect of azoxystrobin. Acta Hort. 914, 287–294. Giuliani, M.M., Gatta, G., Nardella, E., Tarantino, E., 2016. Water saving strategies assessment on processing tomato cultivated in Mediterranean region. Ital. J. Agron. 11, 69–76. Giuliani, M.M., Nardella, E., Gagliardi, A., Gatta, G., 2017. Deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying techniques in processing tomato cultivated under mediterranean climate conditions. Sustain.-Basel. 9, 2197. Giovannucci, E., Ascherio, A., Rimm, E.B., Stampfer, M.J., Coldiz, G.A., Willett, W.C., 1995. Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr. 87 (23), 1767–1776. Guichard, S., Gary, C., Longuenesse, J.J., Leonardi, C., 1999. Water fluxes and growth of greenhouse tomato fruits under summer conditions. Acta Hortic. 507, 223–230. Guichard, S., Bertin, N., Leonardi, C., Gary, C., 2001. Tomato fruit quality in relation to water and carbon fluxes. Agronomie 21 (4), 385–392. Helyes, L., Varga, G., 1994. Irrigation demand of tomato according to the results of three decades. Acta Hortic. 376, 323–328. Higgins, J.P.T., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J., Altman, D.G., 2003. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ-Brit. Med. J. 327, 557–560. Jensen, C.R., Battilani, A., Plauborg, F., Psarras, G., Chartzoulakis, K., Janowiak, F., Stikic, R., Jovanovic, Z., Li, G., Qi, X., Liu, F., Jacobsen, S.E., Andersen, M.N., 2010. Deficit irrigation based on drought tolerance and root signaling in potatoes and tomatoes. Agric. Water Manage. 98, 403–413. Ji, X., Chen, Z., Zhao, X., Zhang, R., 2015. Effect of regulated deficit drip irrigation on yield and quality of wine grape in desert oasis. J. Arid Land Res. Environ. 4, 184–188 (in Chinese, with English summary). Johnstone, P.R., Hartz, T.K., LeStrange, M., Nunez, J.J., Miyao, E.M., 2005. Managing fruit soluble solids with late-season deficit irrigation in drip-irrigated processing tomato production. Hort. Sci. 40, 1857–1861. Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Rana, G., 2008. Water use efficiency of crops cultivated in the Mediterranean region: review and analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 28, 493–507. Katerji, N., Mastrorilli, M., Cherni, H.E., 2010. Effects of corn deficit irrigation and soil properties on water use efficiency. A 25-year analysis of a Mediterranean environment using the Stics model. Eur. J. Agron. 32 (2), 177–185. Kirda, C., Kanber, R., Tulucu, K., 1999. Yield response of cotton, maize, soybean, sugar beet, sunflower, and wheat to deficit irrigation. In: Kirda, C., Moutonnet, P., Hera, C., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Crop Yield Response to Deficit Irrigation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherland, pp. 21–38. Kirda, C., Cetin, M., Dasgan, Y., Topcu, S., Kaman, H., Ekici, B., Derici, M.R., Ozguven, A.I., 2004. Yield response of greenhouse grown tomato to partial root drying and conventional deficit irrigation. Agric. Water Manage. 69, 191–201. Konôpka, B., Pagés, L., Doussan, C., 2008. Impact of soil compaction heterogeneity and moisture on maize (Zea mays L.) root and shoot development. Plant Soil Environ. 54, 509–519. Kumar, P.S., Singh, Y., Nangare, D.D., Bhagat, K., Kumar, M., Taware, P.B., Kumari, A., Minhas, P.S., 2015. Influence of growth stage specific water stress on the yield, physico-chemical quality and functional characteristics of tomato grown in shallow basaltic soils. Sci. Hortic. 197, 261–271. Kuşçu, H., Turhan, A., Demir, A.O., 2014. The response of processing tomato to deficit irrigation at various phenological stages in a sub-humid environment. Agric. Water Manage. 133, 92–103. Lahoz, I., Pérez-de-Castro, A., Valcárcel, M., Macua, J.I., Beltrán, J., Roselló, S., CebollaCornejo, J., 2016. Effect of water deficit on the agronomical performance and quality of processing tomato. Sci. Hortic. 200, 55–65. Li, Y., Zhao, X., Wang, H., Li, H., 2013. Research advance and prospect of regulated deficit irrigation on grapevines. Agric. Res. Arid Areas 2013-01, 236–241 (in Chinese, with English summary). Liu, X., 2005. Study on Improving Fruit Qualities of Tomato by Deficit Irrigation. Master diss, (in Chinese, with English summary). China Agricultural University.
311
Agricultural Water Management 222 (2019) 301–312
J. Lu, et al.
Zhang, H., Xiong, Y., Huang, G., Xu, X., Huang, Q., 2017. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manage. 179, 205–214. Zheng, F., Yang, P., Ren, S., Jiang, G., He, X., 2016. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on the plant growth, yield and quality of processing tomato under border irrigation in Hetao Irrigation District. J. China Agric. Univ. 21 (5), 83–90 (in Chinese, with English summary). Zwart, S.J., Bastiaanssen, W.G.M., 2004. Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agric. Water Manage. 69 (2), 115–133.
Wu, Y., Han, G., Chen, N., 2016. Effects of regulated deficit irrigation on yield, quality and water use efficiency of processing tomato. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng. 35 (7), 104–107 (in Chinese, with English summary). Zegbe-Domínguez, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Lang, A., Clothier, B.E., 2003. Deficit irrigation and partial root-zone drying maintain fruit dry mass and enhance fruit quality in ‘Petopride’ processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Sci. Hortic. 98, 505–510. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2006. Responses of ‘Petoride’ processing tomato to partial root-zone drying at different phonological stages. Irrig. Sci. 24, 203–210. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E., 2007. Response of tomato to partial rootzone drying and deficit irrigation. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 30, 125–131.
312