Levy ­1­                   

Almeria Univ. Complut. 16.7.92

Quantity and quality of irrigation water—the example of citriculture

Yoseph Levy
Agricultural Research Organization
Gilat Experiment Station
Mobile Post Negev 85-280, Israel

Abstract

Citrus is one of the major fruit crops, with a world production of about 60 million 
tons.  It is a subtropical mesophytic tree with many xerophytic characteristics.  The leaves are
rigid, with a thick cuticle and no effective stomata on the adaxial side, capable of reaching 
very low leaf with no permanent damage.  Stomatal conductance decreases under low 
humidity.  However, irrigation water, at least as a supplemental source, is essential for full 
production, in most of the citrus­growing regions of the world.

The water requirements of citrus are lower than those of most other major crops.  
Typical midsummer values range from 4 to 5 mm day­1, compared with 7 to 8 mm day­1 for 
other crops.  The low transpiration is due to low stomatal and canopy conductance.  The 
production function showed a unit increase in relative yield per unit increase in relative 
evapotranspiration. 

Root and vegetative development are suppressed by water deficiency and salinity and 
is closely related to the water use and fruit yield.  Nevertheless, while the suppression of 
vegetative growth under water deficiency can be detected within one season, it may take 
some years before yield reduction due to water shortage or salinity is observed.

Fruit quality is affected by drought stress.  Drought­stressed fruit is normally smaller 
with a thicker peel, lower juice content, greater total soluble solids (TSS) content, higher 
juice acidity and lower TSS : acid ratio.  Salinity, within the range tolerated by the trees, has 
negligible effects on the quality of citrus fruit, unlike tomatoes or melons.

Some plant growth characteristics may be used as a guide in determining irrigation 
timing.  They are: fruit growth rate, changes in trunk diameter (dendrometry), stomatal 
opening, leaf water content, leaf, and stem sap flow.  None of the methods is used 
commercially.

All three major irrigation methods—surface, sprinkler and microirrigation —are used 
for citrus irrigation.  Microirrigation techniques are gaining in popularity because they 

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­2­                   

provide good control over water application at a low installation price and low labor 
requirement.  

The sensitivity of citrus to excess moisture due to phytophthora foot rot and lime­
induced chlorosis should be taken into account in any irrigation system.  These  concerns may
change with the development of new fungicides and iron chelates in the future.

Water quality, especially ground water, is deteriorating, in many citrus­growing areas, 
ironically, sometimes due to improved water­use efficiency and better irrigation techniques.  
Citrus is sensitive to salinity, and especially to high concentration of chloride salts.  There are
substantial differences among citrus rootstocks in Cl accumulation.  Some rootstocks 
(Rangpur lime, Cleopatra mandarin, sour orange) limit Cl transport to the scion, while others 
(trifoliata, Troyer, rough lemon, macrophylla) do not.  The relationship of yield to Cl 
accumulation is cumulative, and can take years to get fully pronounced.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­3­                   

1. Introduction

Citrus is one of the most important horticultural crops, with an annual world
production of about 60.7 million tons (Anon., 1991). About 50% of this production
came from irrigated orchards, the largest citrus production is in Brazil, second is the
US, and the third is Spain, with production of about 4.5 million tons, though China
may be taking its place and its planted area may be the world largest.

Citrus is still the biggest water consumer in Israeli agriculture, and a large
effort was invested in research in order to better understand its water relations, the
result till now is that water consumption was reduced substantially, with a large
increase in yields.

2. Citrus Water Relations

2.1. The leaves

I will not deal with the basic aspects of citrus water relations, except as they
pertain directly to the crop behavior under field conditions. Three excellent reviews
were recently published by Kriedemann and Barrs (1981), Jones et al. (1985) and by
Shalhevet and Levy, 1990, to whom the reader is referred.

Most of the cultivated species within the genus Citrus appear to be indigenous
to humid, tropical regions of southeast Asia, southern China and the Philippines.
The cultivated range is between latitudes 40°N and 40°S, in climates from desert to
tropical. Most of the commercial citrus is grown under Mediterranean or summer-
rain climates and requires irrigation for maximum production.

Citrus trees have some xeromorphic characteristics, the adaxial epidermis is

covered by a thick cuticle, without active stomata (Baker et al., 1980; Levy & Horesh,
1984). Water vapor diffusion cannot be detected when a porometer is placed on the
adaxial side of healthy citrus leaves (Levy, 1980, 83). Citrus stomata, like those of
many other plants, close under conditions of high evaporation demand (figures 1,
2
Kaufmann & Levy, 1976; Kriedemann, 1971; Levy, 1980, 83; Levy & Syvertsen,
1981).
insert
fig.1,2 The effect of ambient humidity was demonstrated in observations of
Hilgeman et al. (1969); who found that the apparent transpiration and drought stress
of orange trees were similar on summer days in Arizona and Florida, although the
evaporative demands were much greater under Arizona desert conditions
(Kaufmann, 1977). In Israel, consumptive use of citrus is similar in the desert and the
humid coastal plain, although the evaporative demand is very different.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­4­                   

2.2. Tree development

insert
fig. 3 The vegetative development of young trees is closely dependent on the
irrigation regime imposed on these trees. In a long-range irrigation experiment on
grapefruit trees in the Negev area, drought stress was induced by irrigation at long
intervals. The main effect of stress was to limit canopy development (figure 3).
During the first 20 years of orchard development a good relationship was found
between canopy volume and yield (figure 4, Levy et al., 1978b). However, as trees
reach full size, excessive growth, induced by intensive irrigation and fertilization, can
lead to decreased yields, mainly because of shading and the need for severe hedging.
Controlled drought stress can be used to limit canopy development (Cohen et al.,
1988, Wiegand & Swanson, 1982) or to induce vegetative growth flushes out-of-
season (Goell et al., 1981).
insert
fig. 4
2.3. The roots

2.3.1. Effect of drought

Hilgeman (1977) reported reduced root development in 'Valencia' orange trees
that were irrigated at 950 mm y-1 per summer, compared to irrigation of 1750 mm y-1
at the same interval. This is especially true when the upper soil layers dry out
between irrigations at long intervals. Bielorai and Levy (1971) found higher water
uptake from deep soil layers when irrigation was applied at 40 days interval,
compared to shorter interval down to 14 days.

2.3.2. Effect of salinity

The distribution of sour orange roots is affected by soil salinity. Increased
salinity was reported to cause a 10% reduction in root development in the layer
below 0.3 m and increased roots in the upper layers. Water uptake was reduced as
salinity increased (Bielorai et al., 1978, Levy et al. 1990, 92)

3. Citrus Water Requirements

Crop evapotranspiration is controlled by climatic factors. This is true for citrus

as well as for other crop plants. However, there are some specific crop characteristics
which may alter the level of water loss from crop canopies. Under similar climatic
conditions citrus trees are known to have lower transpiration rates than other crop
plants. For example, the midsummer evapotranspiration in Israel was found to be 7
to 8 mm day-l for many field crops, 8.5 mm day-l for apple orchards, but only 4.5
mm day-l for citrus orchards (Shalhevet et al., 1981). The low transpiration is due to
low citrus canopy conductance. Van Bavel et al. (1967) calculated canopy
conductance from Et estimated from soil water depletion data, and potential evapo-
transpiration (Eo) estimated from a modified Penman equation. The values thus
obtained were 0.22 to 0.29 cm s-l compared with 2.00 to 3.30 cm s-l for a number of

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­5­                   

field crops. Direct measurement of leaf diffusion conductance was in agreement with
the calculated values. Stanhill (1972) reported Et values of 840 mm y-1 for a
'Shamouti' orchard in Israel when Eo was 1570 mm y-l. The difference was due to
canopy conductance of 0.62 cm s-l.

3.1. Irrigation of young trees

As with annual crops, the degree of ground cover (leaf area index) influences
on Et. However, it takes a number of years after planting, depending on planting
distances to achieve full ground cover and maximum E t. The amount of water
applied during the period of establishment should take into account the canopy size.
The recommendations of the irrigation extension service in the central citrus region of
Israel are given in terms of the water required per tree (Anon., 1985). With modern
microirrigation methods, it is possible to irrigate individual trees and increase the
size of the wetted area or the number of emitters as the tree develops. The
recommendation for midsummer weekly applications is 10, 15, 25, 45 and 65 L tree -l
day-l from the first to the sixth year, respectively. From the sixth year on, the full
amount of 4.0 to 4.5 mm day-l is applied (100 L tree-l day-l).

3.2. Quantity of water for optimum yields

The total seasonal amount of irrigation water needed by a fully grown orchard
for optimum yield depends on the daily course of evapotranspiration, the rainfall
distribution, and the citrus variety grown, and the anticipated yield.
Will it be possible to get a yield of 200 ton ha-1 of citrus? It will probably be
possible, and these trees will probably consume double the water of 100 ton ha-1
trees, however this does not mean that just increasing the amount of water will
double the yield, it will most probably reduce the yield, unless other genetic and
cultural practices are met.

In a Mediterranean-type climate there is no need for winter irrigation except

under extreme drought conditions. Information on the relationship of yield to
changes in winter irrigation scheduling is, however, not available. The E t values
given by Van Bavel et al. (1967) for Tempe, Arizona, range from 1.0 during January to
5.2 mm day-l during June. These values corresponded to the ratio of
evapotranspiration to pan evaporation of 0.40 and 0.62, respectively. In the fall
(October), the value was 0.71. Thus, unlike the situation with most field crops, the
maximum ratio is not obtained at the time of maximum transpiration. Under the
conditions of Phoenix, Arizona, the consumptive use of grapefruit ranged from 0.15
in January to 5.6 mm day-l in July, and from 1.0 to 4.4 mm day-l for Navel oranges.
The total annual Et for the two crops was 1217 and 990 mm y-1, respectively (Erie et
al., 1965). For Yuma, Arizona, Hoffman et al. (1984) reported E t values for Navel
oranges of 0.8 mm day-l in December and 7.5 mm day-l in August.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­6­                   

In Florida and Texas there may be a considerable amount of rainfall during the
summer growing season. Yet, in most years, rainfall is insufficient to satisfy crop
water requirements and supplemental irrigation is beneficial. Koo (1979) found a
response of 'Valencia' to irrigation in 8 out of 9 years of experiments, with an average
yield increase of 22% when 276 mm y-1 of irrigation water was added to the 1100
mm y-1 of rain. Most of the rain in Florida falls from June to September, while
during the critical period of January to June, rainfall is low. For 50% rainfall
probability, the net irrigation requirements were calculated to be 280 and 530 mm y-1
when the usable soil water-holding capacity was 100 and 25 mm, respectively. The
total Et for a 10-year-old orchard under these conditions was 1070 to 1220 mm y-1
(Anon., 1977). The recommendation for allowable available water depletion was 50
to 75% of soil water holding capacity.

In a 7-year irrigation experiment using three citrus varieties, 'Marrs' and

'Valencia' oranges, and 'Ruby Red' grapefruit, Wiegand and Swanson (1982)
supplemented the 732 mm y-1 of rainfall with 216 to 676 mm y-1 of irrigation water.
Water was applied at an available water depletion of 30 to 40%, respectively. An
optimum irrigation interval of 28 days was recommended for grapefruit and 35 days
for oranges for the rainless summer season. The daily water use for summer and
winter, respectively, was 4.0 and 1.3 mm. There was no yield response to irrigation
when rainfall exceeded 600 mm y-1, if it was well distributed during the season.
Lyons (1977) recommends under Rio Grande Valley conditions, an application of 100
to 150 mm five to seven times during the year, with a summer irrigation interval of
21 days and a winter interval of 60 days.

3.3. Water production function

The construction of reliable water production functions require many data
points of yield and water use under controlled experimental conditions. The size and
the number of years required for such experiments with citrus orchards are large and
therefore little information is available. The best data available are those of Shalhevet
et al. (1981), who summarized results from several experiments conducted in Israel
over a number of years. The data for some locations are presented in figure 5 for
'Shamouti' oranges on sour orange and sweet lime rootstock, and for grapefruit.
There is considerable scatter in the data because of year-to-year variability and
because of soil water content variability in orchards irrigated by under-tree
sprinklers. Nevertheless, the general response curve is quite apparent, showing a
water requirement for optimum yield in the coastal plain of Israel of 600 to 660
mm y-l and 500 to 570 mm y-l for 'Shamouti' on sour orange and sweet lime,
respectively.
insert
fig. 5 Grapefruit is grown in the inland areas of Israel and produce much
higher yields. Therefore, the water requirement of 650 to 700 mm y-1 for the western
Yizre'el Valley and 800 to 860 mm y-1 for the northern Negev estimated from figure 4

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­7­                   

cannot be compared directly with the other varieties. The evapotranspiration (E)
data for grapefruit normalized on the basis of Class A pan evaporation (E p)
(Shalhevet & Bielorai, 1978) can be described by the equation:
Y = 377 + 1022 r = 0.730
where Y is the relative yield in percent.

The positive x-axis intercept indicates that not all the water used up by the
trees for yield production was taken into account. Indeed, the relationship presented
includes only summer irrigation and not winter precipitation.

The slope of the production function shows a unit increase in relative yield for
each unit increase in relative evapotranspiration. For sorghum and cotton there was a
two-unit increase in yield per unit increase in relative evapotranspiration (Shalhevet
& Bielorai, 1978).

3.4. Irrigation during severe water shortage

In many citrus growing areas, subsequent drought years can limit the amounts
of water available to agriculture on certain years, as happened in California and Israel
in 1991, and in some areas of Spain in 1992. Trials in Arizona (Hilgeman, 1956),
California (Pehrson, 1992) and Israel (Bielorai et al. 1972) suggested that citrus
responds with less damage to yield when stress was avoided during flowering and
fruit set. Experiments with drip irrigated lemons growing in sandy soil in Israel
proved that trees can withstand a drought from May to September without any
permanent damage to the trees, yields were reduced of course.

4. Salinity
As consumptive water use increases around the world, degradation of surface
and ground-water quality is inevitable (Jensen et al., 1990), Rhoades and Loveday
(1990) report that about one half of the world's irrigation systems are seriously
affected by salinity. It is, thus necessary to have dependable information on the field
response of citrus to the salinity of the irrigation water.

Citrus is a salt-sensitive crop, like most of the woody perennial fruit trees. Its
high sensitivity is related to a specific toxic effect of the accumulation of Cl and Na in
the leaves. The considerable variability in sensitivity among various citrus rootstocks,
contrary to the experience with most field crops support of this assumption
(Bernstein, 1980), giving hope for developing better salt tolerant rootstocks in the
future.

4.1. Rootstocks and salinity

The pioneering work of Cooper and Gorton (1952) at Weslaco, Texas, showed
that there are distinct differences in the rate of Cl and Na uptake among the
rootstocks tested. Rangpur lime and Cleopatra mandarin accumulated Cl at a slow
rate (71 to 1 2 4 mg kg-1 day-1 ), rough lemon and sour orange at a medium rate (248

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­8­                   

to 298 mg kg-1 day-1), and calamondin and 'Etrog' citron at the fastest (348 to 515 mg
kg-1 day-1). In the above experiment, one year old grapefruit trees grafted on the
various rootstocks were used. The results of this and other experiments by Cooper et
al. (1951, 59) were the basis for the salt tolerance ratings of citrus rootstock given by
Bernstein. These results were later verified by many other investigators (Cerdá et al.,
1976, 79, 86, 90; Furr & Ream, 1969; Nieves et al. 1990, 91a, 91b; Ream & Furr, 1976,
Rokba et al., 1979 and Levy & Shalhevet (1990) to cite a few).

According to Bernstein, the following values of the Cl concentration in the soil

saturation extract are levels which will result in not more than 10% yield reduction:
Cleopatra mandarin and Rangpur lime, 25 mol m-3, rough lemon, sour orange and
tangelo, 15 mol m-3; sweet orange and citrange, 10 mol m-3. Measurements of
vegetative development of seedlings of the various rootstock correlated with the rate
of Cl accumulation. For example, the dry wt of Cleopatra mandarin was reduced by
45% as the Cl concentration of the irrigation water increased to 62 mol m -3, while
growth of sour orange was reduced by 62% and that of rough lemon by 74% (Rokba
et al.).

The comparative tolerance of the young seedlings of the various rootstocks has
not been verified quantitatively for mature orchards. The only comparable work
known to us is that of Levy and Shalhevet (1985) on 25 year-old 'Marsh' grapefruit
and 'Washington' navel orange trees grafted on Cleopatra mandarin, sour orange and
rough lemon rootstocks. Our results and those of Cerda et al. in lemons, confirmed
that Cleopatra indeed gave higher tolerance, as attested by water use and Cl
accumulation in the leaves, but it was found that sour orange is much more tolerant
than rough lemon, the last suffered at salinities above 250 mg L–1 Cl.

4.2. The effect of salinity on yield

Maas and Hoffman (1977) reassessed the previous salinity ratings of Bernstein
and reported the tolerance of orange and grapefruit, in terms of the total salt
concentration [electrical conductivity (ECe) of the soil saturation extract]. They
ignored the differences in sensitivity among the various rootstocks. Their analysis
resulted in a threshold salinity of 1.7 dS-m-1 (l.8 dS m-1 for grapefruit) and a yield
reduction of 16% per 1 dS m-1 increase in ECe.
insert
fig 6 Figure 6 presents data of experiments and surveys in California, Israel
and Australia on the response of various citrus varieties to the increase in ECe. The
uniformity in response of the various varieties and rootstocks is striking and supports
the approach taken by Maas and Hoffman. Giving a threshold salinity of 1.3 dS m -1
and a slope of 13% per 1 dS m-1 increase in ECe. Exceptions to this relationship are
the data obtained by Cole (1985) in a 5-year field experiment in Australia and by
Hausenberg et al. (1974) in a 10-year salinity survey in Israel. The difference between

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­9­                   

the results of Cole and Hausenberg et al. and those of Francois and Clark is in the
predominance of Cl in the former experiments and of SO4 in the latter.

Different stocks can have different salt accumulation patterns (Levy &
Shalhevet, 1990, 91, 92; Lloyd et al., 1990). The specific toxicity of Cl may have
played a part in these differences. Ca can alleviate the toxic effect of Cl in citrus
plants (Bañuls et al., 1991, Zekri & Parsons, 1990)

4.3. Specific toxicity and total salt effect

The accumulation of Cl in the leaves of varieties grafted on certain rootstocks
is well established. The symptoms of Cl injury to citrus leaves are not very marked.
Marginal leaf burn and necrotic spots are usually absent. Leaves normally become
chlorotic and drop or drop green, without any symptoms. Na toxicity is manifested
in necrotic spots and marginal burn, but Na toxicity is uncommon except following
direct contact with the spray solution.

The significance of Cl accumulation and the level at which it becomes toxic are
not always clear. Chapman et al. (1969) indicated 0.75% Cl on a dry-wt basis as the
maximum permissible level in the leaves. Cole (1985), on the other hand, reported
that concentrations above 0.25% in 'Valencia' on rough lemon cause a reduction in
yield. Furr and Ream (1969) found no leaf burn below a concentration of 2.0%.
Obviously there is no clear cut level of toxicity in the leaves: it depends on time,
climatic conditions, size of the root system, and possibly other factors. In the Israel
Salinity Survey (Hausenberg et al.) there was a low correlation between leaf Cl
concentration and tree response to salinity.
insert
fig. 7 Lately we presented (figure 7, Levy & Shalhevet, 1992) a significant
negative correlation between Cl accumulation in grapefruit and orange leaves and
yield, we also demonstrated (figure 8 Levy & Shalhevet, 1990) that measurement of
juice Cl contents may be a better indicator of susceptibility to salinity.
insert
fig. 8 Grapefruit on sour orange did not absorb Cl or Na into leaves (Bielorai
et al., 1978) and minor yield reduction was attributed to the total salt (osmotic) effect.
They found, that the ECe at the bottom of the root zone reached similar levels to the
extrapolated salinity intercept at the zero-yield level (8 dS m-1). At this ECe, water
uptake ceased, as is the case with other crops.

Similar results were found in an experiment with 3 rootstocks and 2 cultivars

at Gilat (Levy & Shalhevet, 1989, 90, 91, 92), water uptake was reduced initially by
salinity, but as the experiment progressed the effect changed, and Cl started to
accumulate in the leaves of grapefruit and orange grafted on rough lemon. It seems
that when the dominant anion in the soil solution is Cl- and the rootstock readily
absorbs this anion, its toxicity overshadows the total salt effect. Rootstocks that are

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­10­                   

"tolerant" to high Cl cannot however be expected to do better than the relationship

given in the figure.

4.4. Foliar damage due to direct absorption of salt from irrigation water
Sprinkler irrigation can wet the foliage, either partially or fully. Harding et al.
(1956) were the first to describe severe damage to the leaves in the skirt of the trees of
undertree sprinkler-irrigated orchards. They reported results from three orchards—
grapefruit, 'Valencia' and 'Washington' navel—where Cl and Na concentrations of the
lower leaves were about four times greater than those of the upper leaves. The water
used in these orchards was of "good" quality (2.0 to 3.3 mol m-3 Cl). The lowest
concentration of either Na or Cl generally associated with leaf burn was 0.25% . In
1959, Eaton & Harding and Ehlig & Bernstein showed through controlled
experiments that citrus leaves easily accumulate Cl and Na from direct contact with
water drops, and that the accumulation was greater from intermittent than
continuous wetting.

Reports from South Australia (Cole & Till, 1977) are in complete agreement
with the above findings. When overhead sprinkler irrigation was changed from
daytime to nighttime, or to undertree, Cl foliar concentration was reduced from 0.42
to 0.28%.

5. Irrigation and Orchard Management

5.1. Fruit quality

Fruit quality is an important factor in determining the value and marketability
of citrus. Fruit quality parameters can be divided into two main groups: (i) physical
parameters, which include fruit size, peel thickness, color and juice contents and (ii)
chemical parameters of the juice, which include acid, sugar, their ratio, and the
amount of minor constituents, such as bitter or aromatic compounds which influence
fruit palatability.

The effect of changes in irrigation regime on yield and tree development is

cumulative and slow to become evident. In contrast, the changes in fruit quality can
be detected within a season (Cohen et al., 1968; Levy et al., 1978a, 79).

5.1.1. Physical properties of fruit

Fruit size and juice contents are the major fruit characteristic influenced by
irrigation (Fishler, 1976; Legaz et al., 1981). The enlargement of fruit by increased
irrigation quantities is not always linear (Levy et al., 1979).

Drought increased the peel-to-pulp ratio in grapefruits (Cohen et al., 1968) and
'Valencia' oranges (Hilgeman, 1977). Irrigation increased juice percent and decreased
peel thickness in navel oranges (Mougheith et al., 1977). Increased salinity, which

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­11­                   

reduced water uptake by the trees and increased plant drought stress during the
summer did not affect the physical characteristics of grapefruits, although it affected
the internal quality (Levy et al., 1979). Shortening the interval between irrigations
from 40 to 21 days increased grapefruit size, but further shortening of the interval to
14 days decreased fruit size (Levy et al., 1979). Drip, when compared with sprinkler
irrigation, reduced the size of grapefruits in the inland valleys of Israel. Also, in most
years drip irrigation of trees resulted in smaller fruit than did flood-irrigation (Fishler,
1976).

Rind color development decreases when the irrigation is increased. Bielorai et al.
(1981) studied 'Shamouti' orange under different soil wetting regimes. Irrigation
with stationary microsprinklers, which wet 35% of the soil surface area, caused 72%
of the fruits to reach full orange color, compared to 65% full color in sprinkler
irrigation. Huff et al. (1981) showed that drip-irrigation of 'Ruby red' grapefruit
increased the chlorophyll and lycopene content of the rind, caused more regreening,
but did not increase  carotene. It is not clear, however, if this was the effect of the
drip-irrigation water regime or an indirect effect of drip-irrigation on improved N
uptake, leading to increase in leaf N. Kuriyama et al. (1981) enhanced color
development in Satsuma mandarin by inducing drought stress, using plastic sheets to
drain rain-water away from trees during the rainy months of October-November in
Japan.

5.1.2. Internal quality

Sugar amount in the juice, expressed as total soluble solids (TSS) is an important
parameter in determining the price of processed fruit. Acid concentration and the
ratio between TSS and acid are important parameters in defining fruit quality,
picking time, and value. In general, water shortage causes increased concentration of
TSS in the juice (Cruse et al., 1982; Koo & Smajstrla, 1985; Kuriyama et al., 1981; Levy
et al., 1978b, 79; Mougheith et al., 1977).

Acid. Drought increases citrus juice acidity (Cruse et al., 1982; Kuriyama et al., 1981;
Levy et al., 1978a, 79; Maotani & Machida, 1980; Mougheith et al., 1977). Acidity
may increase more than the TSS, lowering the TSS:acid ratio and thereby diminishing
fruit quality (Levy et al. 1978a, 79; Mougheith et al., 1977). Grapefruit may be more
sensitive than orange (Wiegand & Swanson, 1982). Levy et al. (1978a) reported that
the effect of summer drought stress on acid accumulation in grapefruit lasted long
after the stress was relieved and was more pronounced than the effect of stress on
TSS.

5.1.3. Effect of irrigation technique

Changing the irrigation technique can affect fruit quality. Drip irrigation
increased acid and TSS in 'Valencia' orange when compared with jet-irrigation in
Florida, and reduced the TSS:acid ratio in South Africa (Bredell & Barnard, 1977).

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­12­                   

Irrigation methods that wet only a portion of the soil surface tend to increase the
TSS:acid ratio, as reported for furrow-irrigated 'Valencia' oranges in California
(Jordan, 1981), and for drip-irrigated early season grapefruits in the Jordan Valley of
Israel, in comparison with sprinkler or flood irrigation (Fishler, 1976). Daily sprinkler
irrigation at very frequent pulses (every 90 minutes) has been found to reduce the
TSS:acid ratio (Fishler; Zur et al., 1974).

5.2. Using drought stress to induce flowering

Rainfall, after a period of drought, can induce flowering in many trees in
tropical climates while in subtropical climates, cold weather usually induces
dormancy, followed by flowering in spring. Citrus trees growing in tropical climates
can bloom continuously all year round, and rainfall or irrigation, after a period of
drought, can trigger a flush of flowering. In subtropical climates, some citrus species,
notably lemon, lime, citron and pumello, are capable of flowering all year round.
The capability of orange trees to re-flower after a severe drought is important in
Brazil, where citrus is usually not irrigated and may suffer from a spring drought,
which harms the normal spring flowering flush. Irregular irrigation can cause out-of-
season flowering in oranges and mandarins. The fruit that may set is usually
undesirable, and heavy out-of-season flowering can reduce the amount of main
season fruit.

Forzatura (forcing) is a traditional orchard management practice in lemon

culture in Sicily: withholding irrigation for periods of a month or longer, in order to
cause wilting and induce summer bloom. Lemon cultivars differ in their response to
this treatment. The amount of stress necessary to induce flowering is important,
since excessive stress can be harmful. Torrisi (1952) noticed that 64% of the flowers
aborted after excessive drought stress, compared with only 20% after a moderate
stress. Calabrese and Di Marco (1981) noticed that excessive stress also harmed the
development of fruits already on the trees. In their work, they treated 'Femminello'
lemon in Sicily and reported that soil water-content in the 0 to 0.6 m depth should be
decreased from 22% to 15-16%. Barbera et al. (1985) also studied 'Femminello' lemon
in Sicily and reported that the leaves should reach a maximum (pre-dawn) leaf of
-1.3 MPa.

5.3. Excess moisture

Some problems prevent the application of too much water to citrus.

Gummosis, or citrus foot-rot, a fungal disease caused by Phytophthora parasitica, is

closely related to conditions of high soil water content, since the zoospores of
Phytophthora spp. need free water to infect healthy bark. Orange and lemon are most
sensitive to this disease, which almost destroyed the citrus industry about 100 years
ago, and is the main reason for the beginning of the use of rootstocks, mainly sour
orange, in citriculture.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­13­                   

However, any rootstock can be damaged by Phytophthora. Planting in heavy

soils, and in old orchard soils, greatly aggravates the problem. The best preventive
measure is soil drainage, keeping the soil around the trunk dry and avoiding
irrigation regimes that wet the trunk for long periods. Use of flood irrigation or
frequent irrigation with microsprinklers should be avoided, especially in heavy soils.
If this is not done, even comparatively tolerant rootstocks, such as sour orange, may
be affected, as experienced in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas. A preventive measure
is to plant on ridges and avoid deep planting. Klotz et al. (1967) observed that trees
in one-furrow systems had only 25% of the rot found in two-furrow systems.

Drip-irrigated trees were found in Israel to suffer less from foot-rot than trees
irrigated with microsprinklers, but drippers should not be placed in contact with the
trunk. Timmer and Leyden report that drip-irrigated trees planted on level soil
suffered from increased foot-rot, because freeze-protection tree-wraps became
saturated by irrigation water. Planting on ridges greatly reduced infection.

Lime-induced chlorosis, iron deficiency is closely related to irrigation and soil

aeration, and can be aggravated by high soil water content. Hilgeman and Sharples
(1957) found that frequent irrigation in Arizona caused chlorosis and Levy (1984)
reported that chlorosis was increased by shortening the interval between sprinkler
irrigations, but was reduced by drip-irrigation, fertigation with sequestrin iron
chelate is very effective, but expensive.

6. Irrigation Techniques

Irrigation methods differ in the way water is distributed over the field.
Surface irrigation, where water is conveyed to the point of consumption
directly on the land surface, is the traditional method of irrigation of citrus, as
of many other crops. This method is gradually being replaced by closed
conduit, pressurized distribution systems. Sprinkler irrigation was the most
prevalent method used in citrus-growing regions, however, irrigation systems
changed drastically during the last 25 years, the main change is in the transfer
to systems that wet only a small portion of the soil surface.

6.1. Surface irrigation

Water may be distributed in furrows or border strips along the tree rows or in
flood basins around each tree. Water distribution by this method is less uniform than
by other methods, and usually larger quantities of water are needed to obtain good
coverage. Hoffman et al. (1984) used a third less water in a drip irrigated orange plot
in Arizona, at 20% leaching, than in flood irrigated plots. The yield obtained was
similar for the two methods. The water use in a 'Valencia' orange orchard was 1700
mm y-1 under flood irrigation, 390 for sprinkler and 430 mm y-1 for drip irrigation.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­14­                   

The yields were: 112, 146 and 194 kg tree-l for the three methods, respectively.
(Rodney et al., 1977).

Rawlins (1977) proposed a water distribution system into basins—bubbler

irrigation. The method has the advantages of a closed conduit system of low labor
requirements and good water distribution into basins, with low energy requirements,
unfiltered river water, uniform discharge is achieved by laser-leveling the hose
outlets.

6.2. Sprinkler irrigation

The application of water drops through the air by the use of a sprinkler,
imitating natural rain is common in field crops. Sprinkler irrigation may be applied
by overhead solid-set sprinklers, traveling gun, undertree low angle solid-set or
portable systems. Overhead sprinkler irrigation is still used in Florida orchards, the
advantages of the system are its low cost compared with an undertree solid-set
system, and its use for frost protection. However, ice accumulation on the canopy
will break the trees during a severe frost (Parsons & Tucker, 1985).

Salt in the irrigation water, even at low concentration, may cause foliar
damage, as with be discussed later. For this reason overhead sprinkling has been
abandoned in Australia (Cole & Till, 1977) and Israel.

Evaporation is greater from solid-set above the canopy system, which keeps
the whole canopy area wet for a longer period. Traveling overhead gun, a common
irrigation method in Florida, puts more water in a small area, then moves on. Lately,
huge, linear traveling irrigation machine is being tested in Florida for under-the-
canopy irrigation of citrus.

Under-the-canopy sprinklers do not provide the distribution uniformity that is

obtained with overhead systems, however, that uniformity in orchards is of little
significance. Heller et al. (1973) used under-the-canopy sprinkler irrigation, because
of canopy interference, only the space between the rows and the sprinkler line was
wetted, while the other side of the row remained dry. Alternate irrigation of the tree
row of 'Shamouti' orange reduced water use by 18% with no reduction in yield. The
water uptake pattern depends on the availability of water in any portion of the root
zone. When water is deficient or depleted in one portion of the soil, the roots take up
water from others, still wet portions (Dirksen et al., 1979; Myers et al., 1976) and thus
the trees do not suffer from water deficiency.

6.3. Microirrigation
The method includes microsprinklers, sprayers and drip irrigation. Its
advantages are high application efficiency, low pressure requirements, relative ease
of operation, and the fact that better frost protection can be achieved with this
system, compared with drip irrigation and overhead irrigation (Parsons et al. 1991).

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­15­                   

Microsprinklers are used in many new plantations, because they can be tailor-
designed to the size of the tree: the discharge and the wetted diameter can be
increased as the tree grows. The conversion of Florida orchards from flood to
microjet resulted in a 37% increase in yield. A 10% yield increase was realized when
a grapefruit orchard was converted from a pull-over sprinkler system to
microsprinklers (Anon., 1976). Trials in Nelspruit, South Africa (Bredell & Barnard,
1977), showed the microsprinkler system to be superior in both yield and fruit quality
to drip irrigation. The yield of a 'Washington' navel orange in California remained
the same when the orchard was converted from furrow to drip irrigation. The
amount of water used under drip was 25% less than under furrow or sprinkler
irrigation, and the direct energy use was about 915 Kwh ha-l for drip and furrow
compared with 2270 Kwh ha-l for sprinkler irrigation. Total energy use was least for
drip irrigation (Aljibury, 1981).

Experiments were conducted in Israel to determine the minimum surface area

that can be wetted without causing yield reduction. Bielorai (1977) showed that the
minimum area depended on the irrigation interval. The yield of grapefruit trees on
sour orange rootstock was the same for drip irrigation — which wetted 30% of the
soil surface area, as for sprinkler irrigation — which wetted 70% of the area, when
the irrigation interval was 3 days for drip and 7 days for sprinkler irrigation. At the 7-
day interval, yield under drip was 7% less than under sprinkler irrigation. Increasing
the sprinkler irrigation interval to 21 days had not effect on yield (Bielorai, 1982).

In another experiment with 'Shamouti', Bielorai reported no yield differences

among three irrigation methods — microsprayers (30% wetted area), microsprinklers
(67% wetted area) and under-the-canopy sprinklers (90% wetted area). The mean
yield was 72 ton ha-1.

Some very successful orchards are being irrigated on Israel with microjets that
wet less than 10% of the soil surface, the most important with such extremely small
soil volume irrigation is the fertilization management, which should be almost
continuous during most of the year.

7. Indicators for Irrigation Timing

7.1. Irrigation according to soil moisture

7.1.1. Gravimetric soil water measurement

Soil water content can be determined directly by taking core samples from the
soil and determining weight differences before and after the soil has been dried in an
oven. This is the simplest and most effective method for monitoring soil moisture.
However, it is labor-intensive and time-consuming and cannot be used routinely to
determine irrigation requirements.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­16­                   

7.1.2. Tensiometers
Kaufmann and Elfving (1972) found a good correlation between tensiometer
readings and leaf. Gerard and Sleeth (1960) recommended installation of
tensiometers at a depth of 0.6m and irrigation when the matric potential was reduced
to -0.05 to -0.07 MPa. Hilgeman and Howland (1955) suggested that the critical value
of leaf was -0.05 MPa (-50 cb) at a depth of 0.75m. Marsh (1968) advocated the use
of electro-tensiometers for automatic scheduling of irrigation. Electro-tensiometers,
coupled to automatic irrigation systems, were used in experimental plots in Israel..

7.1.3. Other methods

The use of neutron scattering to measure soil water content has been limited
mainly to research purposes and has not been used in commercial orchards. Lower
prices and simpler operation and calibration procedures may change this. Other
transducers such a s thermal conductivity may enable future automation of the
irrigation system, with direct feedback from the soil.

7.2. Irrigation according to plant physiological indicators

Pioneering work was done in this direction by Oppenheimer and Mendel in
Israel and Furr in California. Kriedemann and Barrs (1981) suggested that trees can
be used as biological indicators, since they are continuously "solving" their own water
balance equations and, in principle, an appropriate physiological parameter is all that
should be required. Many such indicators have been suggested and used in
citriculture.

7.2.1. Fruit growth

The use of fruit growth to time irrigation was suggested by Taylor and Furr
(1937) and by Furr and Taylor (1939), who calculated fruit volume from fruit
circumference in order to obtain reliable data for a long period. Fruit volume increase
was correlated with stomatal aperture (Oppenheimer & Elze, 1941) and with leaf
water deficit and soil suction (Lombard et al., 1965). Ashizawa et al. (1979) reported
that fruit growth of Satsuma mandarin stopped when maximum leaf dropped to
-0.8 MPa. The main obstacle to the use of this indicator is that fruit growth is not
uniform throughout the irrigation season, or that no fruit is available. Good
agreement was found between fruit growth and shrinkage and leaf (Ashizawa et al.,
1981).

7.2.2. Stomatal opening

This parameter was used by Oppenheimer and Elze (1941). The rate of
kerosene infiltration into the leaf of 'Shamouti' orange and grapefruits was used as a
measure of stomatal aperture. This was correlated with soil water content and fruit
growth. Stomatal aperture measurement proved particularly useful when fruit was
small and its growth could not be measured as an indicator (Mendel, 1951). Van

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­17­                   

Bavel et al. (1967) confirmed that actual water use agrees with stomatal opening,
measured with a diffusion porometer.

7.2.3. Trunk growth (dendrometry)

Monitoring of trunk growth with a dendrometer is a good means of following
the tree water relations (Cooper et al., 1964; Hilgeman, 1963) and can even detect
oscillations in the tree water-status (Levy & Kaufmann, 1976). The diurnal changes in
trunk diameter are related to the tree  xylem (Levy & Kaufmann). Periods in which
the tree shrinks during the day and does not recover at night, indicate severe drought
stress.

7.2.4. Leaf water potential ( leaf)

The pressure chamber can be used in the field for rapid estimation of leaf
water potential. leaf depends on leaf exposure and location in the canopy. Ideally,
leaf should be determined before sunrise (maximum leaf), to prevent the effect of
differing exposure and differing transpiration in different leaves. Some critical leaf
values are presented in Table 1 (Shalhevet & Levy, 1990).

Table 1. Critical leaf (MPa) values suggested by different authors for

initiating irrigation.

Cultivar max(MPa) min(MPa) Author

'Satsuma' mandarin ­0.7
'Satsuma' mandarin  ­0.8 ­1.2 to ­2.0
'Valencia' orange ­1.1 ­1.9
'Toroco' orange ­0.3 ­0.6
'Marsh' grapefruit
    young leaves ­1.7
    old leaves ­2.5
'Marsh' grapefruit ­3.5 Syvertsen 1982
'Eureka' lemon ­2.8 Levy 1980

7.2.5. Sap velocity

The measurement of sap velocity in the trunk by the heat pulse method was
perfected by Cohen et al. (1981) and Steinberg et al. (1990). The use of this methods
should be ideal for estimating the tree water use and could be connected with an

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­18­                   

automated irrigation system, providing an automatic feedback system. At this stage,

the system seems to need more work (Shackel et al. 1992).

7.2.6. Canopy-to-air temperature difference (T)

T indicates the rate of evaporative cooling due to transpiration and is
sensitive enough to detect cycling in stomatal opening (Levy and Kaufmann). T
was measured with an infrared thermometer by Sardo and Germana (1985), and
were found to be correlated with leaf. However, T measurement is detectable only
at high levels of stress.

REFERENCES
Aljibury, F.K. 1981. Water and energy conservation in drip irrigation. Drip / Trickle
Irrigation 18: 26-28.

Alva, A.K. and J.P. Syvertsen. 1991. Irrigation water salinity affects soil nutrient
distribution, root density, and leaf nutrient levels of citrus under drip fertigation.
J. Plant Nutrition 14:715-27.

Anonymous. 1976. A new look in irrigation systems. Citrus & Vegetable Mag. 40:20, 28.

Anonymous. 1977. Water requirements for Citrus. Citrus & Vegetable Mag. 41: 6-7, 32.

Anonymous. 1985. Irrigation and fertilizer recommendations for citrus. (In Hebrew).
Israel Ministry of Agriculture, Extension Service.

Anonymous. 1991. China: number 3 and climbing. Citrograph 77(2):20,22.

Ashizawa, M., T. Goto & K. Manabe. 1979. Studies on leaf water stress in citrus trees.
I. Effects of sunlight, temperature and drought on leaf water potential of Satsuma
mandarin trees. Tech. Bull., Faculty of Agric., Kagawa Univ. 30(2): 133-41.

Ashizawa, M., G. Kondo & T. Chujo. 1981. Effect of soil moisture on the daily change
of fruit size in summer season of Satsuma mandarin. Tech. Bull., Faculty of Agric.,
Kagawa Univ. 32(2): 87-94.

Baker, E.A., J. Procopiou & G.M. Hunt. 1980. The cuticles of some "citrus" species.
Composition of leaf and fruit waxes. J. Sci. Food Agr. 55: 85-87.

Bañuls, J., F. Legaz and E. Primo-Millo. 1991. Salinity-calcium interactions on growth

and ionic concentration of citrus plants. Plant & Soil 133:39-46.

Barbera, G., G. Fatta del Bosco & B. Lo Cascio. 1985. Effects of water stress on lemon
summer bloom: The "forzatura" technique in the Sicilian citrus industry. Acta Hort.
171: 391-97.

Bernstein, L. 1980. Salt tolerance of fruit crops. USDA Inf. Bull. No. 292.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­19­                   

Bielorai, H. 1977. The effect of drip and sprinkler irrigation on grapefruit yield, water
use and soil salinity. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Orlando) l: 99-103.

Bielorai, H. 1982. The effect of partial wetting of the root zone on yield and water use
efficiency in a drip and sprinkler-irrigated mature grapefruit grove. Irrig. Sci. 3: 89-
100.

Bielorai, H & Y. Levy. 1971. Irrigation regimes in a semi-arid area and their effects on
grapefruit yield, water use and soil salinity. Israel J. Agric. Res. 21: 3-12.

Bielorai, H., S. Dasberg, Y. Erner & M. Brum. 1981. The effect of various soil moisture
regimes and fertilizer levels on citrus yield under partial wetting of the root zone.
Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Tokyo). 1: 585-589.

Bielorai, H., J. Shalhevet & Y. Levy. 1978. Grapefruit response to variable salinity in
irrigation water and soil. Irrig. Sci. 1: 61-70.

Bielorai, H., J. Shalhevet & Y. Levy. 1983. The effect of high sodium irrigation water
on soil salinity and yield of a mature grapefruit orchard. Irrig. Sci. 4: 255-266.

Calabrese, F. & L. Di Marco. 1981. Researches on the "Forzatura" of lemon trees.

Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Tokyo). 2: 520-521.

Cerdá, A., M. Caro, F.G. Fernandez & M. G. Guillen. 1976. Foliar content of sodium
and chloride in citrus rootstocks irrigated with saline water. In H. E. Dregne (ed.)
Managing Saline Water for Irrigation. Proc. Int. Salinity Conference (Lubbock, Texas),
pp. 155-163.

Cerdá, A., M. Caro, F.G. Fernandez & M.G. Guillen. 1986. Effect of irrigation water
quality on Verna lemon response and soil salinity. Agrochimica 30:207-14.

Cerdá, A., F.G. Fernandez, M. Caro & M.G. Guillen. 1979. Growth and mineral
composition of two lemon varieties irrigated with saline water. Agrochimica
23:389-96.

Cerdá, A., M. Nieves & M.G. Guillen. 1990. Salt tolerance of lemon trees as affected
by rootstock. Irrig Sci 11:245-49.

Chapman, H.D., J. Harrietann & D. S. Reyner. 1969. Effect of variable maintained

chloride levels on orange growth, yield, and leaf composition. Proc. First Int.
Citrus Symp. (Riverside) 3: 1811-17.

Cohen, A., A. Goell, S. Cohen & R. Ismajovitch. 1988. Effect of leaf distribution in the
canopy on the total dry matter production in grapefruit trees. Israel J. Botany.
37:257-66.

Cohen, A., A. Goell, A. Rassis & H. Gokkes. 1968. Effects of irrigation regimes on
grapefruit peel and pulp relations. Israel J. Agric. Res. 18: 155-60.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­20­                   

Cohen, Y., M. Fuchs & G. L. Green. 1981. Improvement of the heat pulse method for
determining sap flow in trees. Plant Cell & Environ. 4: 391-97.

Cole, P.J. 1985. Chloride toxicity in citrus. Irrig. Sci 6: 63-71.

Cole, P.J. & M. R. Till. 1977. Evaluation of alternatives to overhead sprinklers for
citrus irrigation. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Orlando) l: 103-106.

Cooper, W. C & B. S. Gorton. 1952. Toxicity and accumulation of chloride salts in

citrus on various rootstocks. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 59: 143-46.

Cooper, W. C., B. S. Gorton & C. Edwards. 1951. Salt tolerance of various rootstocks.
Proc. Rio Grande Valley Hort. Soc. 5:46-52.

Cooper, W. C. & A. Peynado. 1959. Chloride and boron tolerance of young-line citrus
trees on various rootstocks. J. Rio Grande Valley Hort. Soc. 13: 89-96.

Dasberg, S., H. Bielorai & Y. Erner. 1981. Partial wetting of the root zone and
nitrogen effect on growth and quality of Shamouti orange. Acta Hort. 119:103-5.

Dirksen, C., J. D. Oster & P.A.C. Raats. 1979. Water and salt transport, water uptake
and leaf water potentials during regular and suspended high frequency irrigation
of citrus. Agric. Water Mgmt. 2: 241-56.

Eaton, F.M. & R.B. Harding. 1959. Foliar uptake of salt constituents of water by citrus
plants during intermittent sprinkling and immersion. Plant Physiol. 33:22-26.

Ehlig, C. F. & L. Bernstein. 1959. Foliar absorption of sodium and chloride as a factor
in sprinkler irrigation. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 74: 661-70.

Erie, L. J., O. F. French & K. Harris. 1965 (reprinted 1976). Consumptive use of water
by crops in Arizona. Univ. of Ariz. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 169.

Fishler, Michal. 1976. Research and field experiments on grapefruit irrigation in the
inland valleys.(In Hebrew). Ministry of Agriculture, Bet Shean.

Furr, J.R. & C.L. Ream. 1969. Breeding citrus rootstocks for salt tolerance. Proc. First
Int. Citrus Symp. 1: 373-79.

Furr, J.R. & C.A. Taylor. 1939. Growth of lemon fruits in relation to moisture content
of the soil. USDA Tech. Bull. 640.

Gerard, C.I. & B. Sleeth. 1960. The use of tensiometers in the irrigation of citrus
groves. J. Rio Grande Valley Hort. Soc. 14:99-103.

Goell, A., A. Golomb, D. Kalmar, A. Mantell & Sh. Sharon. 1981. Moisture stress—a
potent factor for affecting vegetative growth and tree size in citrus. Proc. Int. Soc.
Citriculture (Tokyo). 2: 503-506.

Harding, R.B., M.P. Miller & M. Fireman. 1956. Sodium and chloride absorption by
citrus leaves from sprinkler-applied water. Citrus Leaves 36: 6-8.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­21­                   

Heller, J., J. Shalhevet & A. Goell. 1973. Response of a citrus orchard to soil moisture
and soil salinity, In A. Hadas et al. (eds.). Physical Aspects of Soil Water and Salts
in Ecosystems. Ecol. Studies 4: 409-419. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Hilgeman, R.H. 1956. New irrigation plan for orange trees. Citrograph 41:455

Hilgeman, R.H. 1963. Trunk growth of 'Valencia' orange in relation to soil moisture
and climate. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 82: 193-98.

Hilgeman, R.H. 1966. Effect of climate of Florida and Arizona on grapefruit fruit
enlargement and quality, apparent transpiration and internal water stress. Proc.
Fla. State Hort. Soc. 79: 99-106.

Hilgeman, R.H. 1977. Response of citrus to water stress in Arizona. Proc. Int. Soc.
Citriculture (Orlando). 1:70-74.

Hilgeman, R.H., C.E. Ehrler, C.E. Everling & F.O. Sharp. 1969. Apparent
transpiration and internal water stress in 'Valencia' oranges as affected by soil
water, season and climate. Proc. First Int. Citrus Symp. 3:1713-23.

Hilgeman, R.H. & L.H. Howland. 1955. Fruit Measurements And Tensiometers Can
Tell You When To Irrigate Citrus Trees. Progr. Agr. Arizona 7(1): 10-11 (Cited By
Marsh, 1973).

Hilgeman, R.H. & G.C. Sharples. 1957. Irrigation trials with Valencia in Arizona.
Citrograph 42: 404-407.

Hoffman, G.J., J.D. Oster, E.V. Maas, J.D. Rhoades & J. van Schilfgaarde. 1984.
Minimizing salt in drain water by irrigation management—Arizona field studies
with citrus. Agric. Water Mgmt. 9: 61-78.

Huff, A., M.Z. Abdel-Bar, D.R. Rodney & R.L. Roth. 1981. Enhancement of citrus
regreening and peel lycopene by trickle irrigation. HortScience 16: 301-302.
Jensen, M.E., W.R. Rangeley & P.J. Dieleman. 1990. Irrigation trends in world
agriculture. p 31-67. In: D.R. Nielsen & A.R. Steward (eds.). Irrigation of
Agricultural Crops. vol. 30. Agronomy, Crop Science and Soil Science Societies of
America, Madison.

Jones, H.G., A.N. Lasko & J.P. Syvertsen. 1985. Physiological control of water status
in temperate and subtropical fruit trees. Hort. Reviews. 7: 301-343.

Jordan, L. S. 1981. Weeds affect citrus growth, physiology, yield and fruit quality.
Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Tokyo). 2: 481-83.

Kaufmann, M.R. 1977. Citrus - a case study of environmental effects on plant water
relations. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Orlando). 1: 57-62.

Kaufmann, M.R. & Y. Levy. 1976. Stomatal response of Citrus jambhiri to water stress
and humidity. Physiol. Plant. 38: 105-108.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­22­                   

Klotz, L. J., S.J. Richards & T.A. DeWolfe. 1967. Irrigation effects on root rot of young
citrus trees. Citrograph. 52: 91.

Koo, R.C.J. 1979. The influence of N, K and irrigation on tree size and fruit
production of 'Valencia' orange. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92: 10-13.

Koo, R.C.J. & R.L. Reese. 1975. Water distribution and evaporation loss from
sprinkler irrigation in citrus. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 88: 5-9.

Koo, R.C.J. & R.L. Reese. 1977. Fertility and irrigation effects on 'Temple' orange. II.
Fruit quality. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102: 152-55.

Kriedemann, P.E. 1971. Photosynthesis and transpiration as a function of gaseous

diffusive resistances in orange leaves. Physiol. Plant. 24: 218-25.

Kriedemann, P.E. & M.D. Barrs. 1981. Citrus orchards. In T. T. Kozlowski (ed.) Water
Deficit and Plant Growth, Vol. 6: 325-417. Academic Press.

Legaz, F., D.G. Ibanez, D. deBarreda & E. Primo-Millo. 1981. Influence of irrigation
and fertilization on productivity of the 'Navelate' sweet orange. Proc. Int. Soc.
Citriculture (Tokyo). 591-95.

Levy, Y. 1980. Effect of evaporative demand on water relations of Citrus limon. Ann.
Bot. 46: 695-700.

Levy, Y. 1983. Acclimation of citrus to water stress. Sci. Hort. 20: 267-73.

Levy, Y. 1984. The effect of sprinkler and drip irrigation on lime-induced chlorosis of
citrus. Sci. Hort. 22: 249-55.

Levy, Y., A. Bar-Akiva & Y. Vaadia. 1978a. Influence of irrigation and environmental
factors on grapefruit acidity. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103: 73-76.

Levy, Y., H. Bielorai & J. Shalhevet. 1978b. Long-term effects of different irrigation
regimes on grapefruit tree development and yield. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 103: 680-
83.

Levy, Y., J. Dodd & J. Krikun. 1983a. Effect of irrigation, water salinity and rootstock
on the vertical distribution of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza in citrus roots. New
Phytol. 95: 397-403.

Levy, Y. & I. Horesh. 1984. Importance of penetration through stomata in the

correction of chlorosis with iron salts and low-surface-tension surfactants. J. Plant
Nutr. 7:279-81.

Levy, Y. & M.R. Kaufmann. 1976. Cycling of leaf conductance in citrus exposed to
natural and controlled environments. Can. J. Bot. 54: 2215-18.

Levy, Y. & J. Krikun. 1980. The effect of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza in Citrus

jambhiri water relations. New Phytol. 85: 25-31.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­23­                   

Levy, Y. & J. Shalhevet. 1990. Ranking the salt tolerance of citrus rootstocks by juice
analysis. Sci. Hort. 45::89-98.

Levy, Y. & J. Shalhevet. 1991. The interaction between stock, scion and salinity in a
mature citrus orchard. XXIII Int.Hort.Cong. (Firenze, abstract 2043).

Levy, Y. & J. Shalhevet. 1992. Response of mature orange and grapefruit trees to
irrigation with saline water, interaction with rootstock., p. 419-429. In: H.
Bangyan and Y. Qian (eds.). International Citrus Symposium International
Academic Publishers, Guangzhou, China.

Levy, Y., J. Shalhevet & H. Bielorai. 1979. Effect of irrigation regime and water
salinity on grapefruit quality. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 104: 356-59.

Levy, Y., J. Shalhevet & J. Lifshitz. 1992. The effect of salinity on citrus rootstocks and
scions. Proc. Int Citrus Cong, (Acireale, in press.)

Levy, Y. & J.P. Syvertsen. 1981. Water relations of citrus in climates with different
evaporative demands. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Tokyo) 2: 501-3.

Levy, Y., J.P. Syvertsen & S. Nemec. 1983. Effect of drought stress and vesicular-
arbuscular mycorrhiza on citrus transpiration and hydraulic conductivity of roots.
New Phytol. 93:61-66.

Lloyd, J., P.E. Kriedemann & D. Aspinall. 1990. Contrasts between Citrus species in
response to salinisation: An analysis of photosynthesis and water relations for
different rootstock-scion combinations. Physiol. Plant. 78:236-46.

Lombard, P.B., L.H. Stolzy, M.J. Garber & T. Szuszkiewicz. 1965. Effect of climatic
factors on fruit volume increase and leaf water deficits of citrus in relation to soil
suction. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 29: 205-8.

Lyons Jr., C.J. 1977. Water management in Texas citrus. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture
(Orlando). 1: 117.

Maas, E.V. & J.G. Hoffman. 1977. Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J. Irrig.
Drainage Div. ASCE 103(IR2): 115-34.

Maotani, T. & Y. Machida. 1980. Leaf water potential as an indicator of irrigation

timing for Satsuma trees in summer. J. Jap. Soc. Hort. Sci. 49: 41-48.

Marsh, A.W. 1968. Automatic tensiometer signaled irrigation systems for orchards.
Citrograph 54:2, 12.

Mendel, K. 1951. Orange leaf transpiration under orchard conditions. III. Prolonged
drought and the influence of stocks. Palestine J. Bot. Rehovot Ser. 8: 45-53.

Moreshet, S. & G.C. Green. 1984. Seasonal trends in hydraulic conductance of field-
grown 'Valencia' orange trees. Sci. Hort. 23: 169-180.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­24­                   

Mougheith, M.G., M. El-Ashram, G.W. Amerhom & M. Madbouly. 1977. Effect of

different rates of irrigation on navel orange trees. II. Yield and fruit quality. Ann.
Agric. Sc. Moshtohor. 8: 119-127.

Myers, M.J., Harrison, D.S.. & W.J. Phillips, Jr. 1976. Soil moisture distribution in a
sprinkler irrigated orange grove. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 89: 23-26.

Nieves, M., A. Cerdá & M. Botella. 1991a. Salt tolerance of 2 lemon scions measured
by leaf chloride and sodium accumulation. J Plant Nutr 14:623-636.

Nieves, M., A. Garcia & A. Cerdá. 1991b. Effects of salinity and rootstock on lemon
fruit quality. J. Hort. Sci. 66:127-130.

Nieves, M., V. Martinez, A. Cerdá & G. Guillén. 1990. Yield and mineral composition
of 'Verna' lemon trees as affected by salinity and rootstocks combination. J. Hort.
Sci. 65:359-66.

Oppenheimer, H.R. & D.A. Elze. 1941. Irrigation of citrus according to physiological
indicators. Bull. Agric. Res. Stn. Rehovot 31.

Parsons, L.R. & D.P.H. Tucker. 1985. Sprinkler irrigation for cold protection in citrus
groves and nurseries during an advective freeze. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 97: 28-
30.

Parsons, L.R., T.A. Wheaton, N.D. Faryna & J.L. Jackson. 1991. Elevated
microsprinklers improve protection of citrus trees in an advective freeze.
HortScience 26:1149-51.

Pherson, J. 1992. Citrus irrigation stress trials. Citrograph 77(6):6.

Rawlins, S.L. 1977. Uniform irrigation with a low-head bubbler system. Agriculture
Water Mgmt l: 167-178.

Ream, C.L. & Furr, J.R. 1976. Salt tolerance of some citrus species, relatives and
hybrids tested as rootstocks. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 101: 265-267.

Rodney, D.R., R.L. Roth & B.R. Gardener. 1977. Citrus response to irrigation
methods. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture (Orlando). 1: 106-110.
Rhoades, J.D. and J. Loveday. 1990. Salinity in irrigated agriculture. p 1089-1142 In:
D.R. Nielsen and A.R. Steward (eds.). Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. vol. 30.
Agronomy, Crop Science and Soil Science Societies of America, Madison.

Rokba, A.M., M.N. Abdel-Messih & M.A. Mohammed. 1979. Breeding and screening
some citrus rootstocks for salt tolerance in Egypt. Egypt J. Hort. 6: 69-79.

Shackel, K.A., R.S. Johnson, C.K. Medawar & C.J. Phene. 1992. Substantial errors in
estimate of sap flow using the heat balance technique on woody stems under field
conditions. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci 117:351-356.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­25­                   

Shalhevet, J. & Y. Levy. 1990. Citrus trees. p 951-986. In: : D.R. Nielsen & A.R.
Steward (eds.). Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. vol. 30. Agronomy, Crop Science
and Soil Science Societies of America, Madison.

Shalhevet, J., A. Mantell, H. Bielorai & D. Shimshi. 1981. Irrigation of field and
orchard crops under semi-arid conditions (revised). Int. Irrig. Inf. Center, Bet
Dagan, Pub. No. l.

Shalhevet, J. & H. Bielorai. 1978. Crop water requirement in relation to climate and
soil. Soil Sci. 25: 240-247.

Stanhill, G. 1972. Recent developments in water relation studies: Some examples

from Israel citriculture. Proc. 18th Int. Hort. Congr. (Tel Aviv). 4: 367-379.

Steinberg, S.L., C.H.M. van Bavel & M.J. McFarland, 1990. Improved sap flow gauge
for woody and herbaceous plants. Agron. J. 82:851-54.

Syvertsen, J.P. 1982. Minimum leaf water potential and stomatal closure in citrus
leaves of different ages. Ann. Bot. 49: 827-34.

Syvertsen, J.P. & Y. Levy. 1982. Diurnal changes in citrus leaf thickness, leaf water
potential and leaf to air temperature difference. J. Exp. Bot. 33: 783-89.

Syvertsen, J.P., M.L. Smith & J.C. Allen. 1981. Growth rate relations of citrus leaf
flushes. Ann. Bot. 47: 97-105.

Taylor, C.A. & J.R. Furr. 1937. Use of soil moisture and fruit growth records for
checking irrigation practices of citrus orchards. USDA Circ. 426.

Timmer, L.W. & R.F. Leyden. 1976. Effect of irrigation and soil management
practices on the incidence of Phytophthora foot rot of citrus. J. Rio Grande Valley
Hort. Soc. 30: 19-25.

Torrisi, M. 1952. Indagini fisioloiche sugli agrumi: la differenziazione della gemme a

fiore del limone e dati preleminari sulla forzatura. (In Italian) Ann. Sperimentazione
Agraria: 881-94. (Cited by Barbera et al. 1985).

Van Bavel, C.H.M., J.E. Newman & R.H. Hilgeman. 1967. Climate and the estimated
water use by an orange orchard. Agric. Meteorol. 4: 27-37.

Wiegand, C.L. & W.A. Swanson. 1982a. Citrus response to irrigation J. Rio Grande
Valley Hort. Soc. 35: 72-107.

Wiegand, C.L. & W.A. Swanson. 1982b. Marrs, Valencia and Ruby Red juice quality
as affected by irrigation plus rainfall. J. Rio Grande Valley Hort. Soc. 35: 109-20.

Zekri, M. & L.R. Parsons. 1990. Calcium influences growth and leaf mineral
concentration of citrus under saline conditions. HortScience 25:784-86.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
 Levy ­26­                   

Zur, B., S. Sharon, D. Kalmar, A. Golomb & A. Goell. 1974. Observations in daily
pulse irrigation of grapefruit orchards in the Western Galilee. The Technion - Israel
Inst. of Technology, Faculty of Agr., Haifa. Publication No. 214.

Quantity and quality of irrigation water­the example of citriculture
1 F
igure . Effect of leaf to air absolute humidity difference on conductance
2
Figure Effect of leaf to air absolute humidity difference on  leaf.

3
Figure . Canopy volume of 'Marsh' grapefruit as a function of ET. Dashed line
indicates overall linear regression, V= 0.681 + 0.296ET; r= 0.964 (Levy et al. 1978).

4
Figure . 'Marsh' grapefruit production in relation to canopy volumes (V) during a 9-
year experiment. Dashed line indicates overall linear regression, Yield = 1.449 +
0.397V + 0.004187V2; r2= 0.869 (Levy et al. 1978).

5
Figure . Relation between relative yield of citrus and gross water application in
several regions of Israel. (Shalhevet et. al. 1981).
a. 'Shamouti' orange on sour orange.
b. 'Shamouti' orange on sweet lime.
c. 'Marsh' grapefruit on sour orange.

6
Figure . Relative yield of citrus varieties and rootstocks versus electrical conductivity
of the soil saturation extract (ECe). Regression equation

= 1.0 -0.129(ECe-1.28)

7
Figure . Relation of yield to Cl accumulation in leaves (Levy & Shalhevet, 1992).
8
Figure . The concentration of Cl in juice plotted against the concnrations in leaves
(Levy & Shalhevet, 1990)