J. Appl. Hort.

, 2(2):108-110, July-December, 2000

Effects of different irrigation methods and moisture regimes on

vegetative growth parameters of Starking Delicious apple trees

A. Halim Orta1, M. Emin Akçay2 and Tolga Erdem1

1
Department of Farm Structure and Structure and Irrigation, Faculty of Tekirdað Agriculture, University of Trakya
59030 – Tekirdað - Turkey. 2 Atatürk Horticulture Research Central Instýtute-Yalova-Turkey, E-Mail : [email protected].

Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the effects of different irrigation methods and regimes on vegetative growth of “Starking
Delicious” apple trees in Thrace conditions. Experiment was designed as split plots in the randomized block with three replications.
Drip and surface (ponding) irrigation methods were basic treatments; allowable depletion levels of soil moisture (40% and 70% of
available water holding capacity) in 120 cm soil depth were sub treatments. Seasonal evapotranspiration and total amount of irrigation
water in drip irrigation plots were lower than those of surface irrigation plots as 62.7% and 72.5%, respectively. Although, the effect of
irrigation regimes on vegetative growth parameters was non significant. Drip irrigation gave better results than surface irrigation
when irrigation water requirements, evapotranspiration and vegetative growth parameters were evaluated together. In conclusion, it
can be suggested that drip irrigation should to be preferred for apple trees in Thrace conditions and irrigation water should be applied
when moisture reaches 40% of available water holding capacity .

Key words: Apple trees, irrigation methods, water requirements, irrigation scheduling, evapotranspiration, vegetative growth

Introduction The soils in the research field are generally deep, moderately heavy
and heavy textured. There was no salinity, alkalinity and shallow
Improvement of existing irrigation technologies is one of the underground water.
most important way out for irrigating maximum area with current
available water sources. Moreover, it is necessary to select most Starking Delicious apple trees were planted at a spacing of 6 x 6 m
suitable irrigation method for existing conditions to lay out and in 1989. Moreover, trees had not been irrigated until the beginning
operate the system properly. It is suggested that pressurized of research. The size of plot was 24 m x 24 m and each plot had 16
irrigation methods should be used because of scarcity of water apple trees. Measurements were done on 4 trees chosen in the
resources in Thrace region of Turkey. But, surface irrigation middle of the plots. The experiment was designed as split plots in
methods are commonly used for apple trees and irrigation water is the randomized block with three replications. The experiment
applied without taking any irrigation data into consideration. consisted of two irrigation methods (main treatments) and two
Consequently, irrigation cost per unit area increases. allowable depletion levels of soil moisture (sub treatments), which
were as follows;
Many studies have been reported on the irrigation of apple trees
(Gergely, 1979; Middleton et al., 1981; Beukes and Weber, 1982; Main treatments
Evans and Proebsting, 1985; Levin et al., 1985; Fluyurtse and D=Drip irrigation, S=Surface (ponding) irrigation method,
Roitman, 1986; Kulkov and Saidaliev, 1986; Assaf et al., 1989;
Tender and Czynczyk, 1997; Köksal et al., 1999). These studies Sub treatments
have consistently shown increase in vegetative growth parameters
40% = Irrigation when 40% of available soil moisture was
and yield components of apple trees in drip irrigation method when
consumed and 70%= Irrigation when 70% of available soil moisture
compared to the other irrigation method or no irrigation regimes.
was consumed.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of irrigation
The irrigation water was taken from the municipal water distribution
method and allowable depletion of available soil moisture as
system and conveyed to experimental plots by f 40 PVC main line.
irrigation threshold on vegetative growth parameters on apple trees
Two lateral lines (f 16 PE and 4 atm. operating pressure) were laid
in Thrace conditions.
for each tree row in drip irrigation plots. Dripper spacing was chosen
as 90 cm taking soil characteristics into account therefore, wetting
Materials and methods rate was 30%. Dripper discharge rate was 4 l h-1 at 1 atm. operating
Experiments were conducted in the orchard of Agricultural Faculty pressure. For the surface irrigation method, polietilen lateral lines
of Tekirdað, Turkey, in 1997 and 1999, at 40o59′ N, 27o29′ E and (f 20) were used to convey water to ponds arranged under each
4 m altitude. The averages of annual temperature, relative humidity, tree with 3 m diameter. Irrigation water quality was analyzed as
wind speed, sunshine duration and total precipitation are 13.7oC, C2S1.
75%, 3.1 m/s, 6.5 h and 579.7 mm, respectively. Soil moisture content in each plot was monitored by neutron probe
 Irrigation methods and mositure regimes on vegetative growth of apple trees 109

(CPN, 503 DR Hydroprobe). To do this, aluminum access tubes gave better results on the annual increase in values of cross-section
were driven in 150 cm soil depth. Although, calibration equations area of trunk. Although the annual increasing values of height of
were obtained to every 15 cm soil layers, one equation was used canopy tree were not affected by treatments statistically, differences
because there were not any significant differences between them on the years were found to be significant (Table 3).
(Evett et al., 1993). Soil moisture content of the first 20 cm was
Table 2. Effect of irrigation methods on the annual increasing
measured gravimetrically since it was not possible to monitor by
values of cross-section area of trunk (cm2)
neutron probe. The measurement in 120 cm were done daily and
irrigation water was applied when 40% and 70% available holding Irrigation Allowable depletion 1997 1999
capacity was consumed. Irrigation was started in middle of the method level of soil moisture
May (when the flowering period was over) and stopped in
Drip 40% 63.42a1 16.95b
September. Evapotranspiration for decade periods were calculated
a2 d
according to the method of water balance in 150 cm soil depth.
70% 37.95 a 25.93b
To determine vegetative growth parameters, the annual increasing c d
values of cross-section area of trunk and height of canopy tree Surface 40% 43.97 a 23.39b
were measured before and after irrigation season. The cross-section bc d
area of trunk was determined by measuring of trunk diameter at 70% 53.89a 15.76b
the height 15 cm above the vaccination region. Also, number of ab d
shoots, shoot lengths and number of flower clusters were measured 1Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for years (p < 0.05)
on three branch selected in different directions at the end of the 2Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for interaction of year x irrigation
vegetative growth period (Köksal et al., 1999).
method x allowable depletion level of soil moisture (p < 0.01)
The results of vegetative growth parameters were statistically Table 3. Effect of irrigation methods on the annual increase in
analyzed by analysis of variance according to interaction of year x tree canopy height (m)
irrigation method x allowable depletion level of soil moisture
(Yurtsever, 1984). Irrigation Allowable depletion 1997 1999
method level of soil moisture
Results and discussion Drip 40% 0.44 a1 0.31 b
70% 0.36 a 0.35 b
The total number of irrigation, the total amount of irrigation water
and seasonal evapotranspiration for each treatment are given in Surface 40% 0.44 a 0.30 b
Table 1. The total number of irrigation varied between 7-13. 70% 0.41 a 0.33 b
Naturally, these values were maximum for treatments irrigated 1Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for years ( p < 0.05)
when 40% of available soil moisture was consumed. According to The number of shoots and shoot lengths are presented in Table 4
the total amount of irrigation water, water was saved in drip and no difference on these vegetative parameters between the years
irrigation treatments by 70.9% and 74.0% in first and second year, was obtain.
respectively, than surface irrigation treatments. Besides, seasonal
Table 4. Effect of irrigation methods on the number of shoots
evapotranspiration values were lower in drip irrigation treatments
and shoot lengths (cm)
than surface irrigation treatments by 60.5% in first year and 64.9%
in second year because a definite area is irrigated instead of full Irrigation Allowable Number of shoots Shoot length (cm)
area in drip irrigation method. method depletion 1997 1999 1997 1999
level of
The research was conducted by fixed experiment design since apple soil moisture
trees were planted before beginning of experiment. Therefore, the
results of two years were evaluated together. The effects of irrigation Drip 40% 31.67* 36.33 40.33 38.00
treatments on annual increasing values of cross-section area of trunk 70% 35.33 27.33 38.67 36.33
were found different between the years (Table 2). The annual Surface 40% 32.33 23.00 35.33 36.67
increasing values in second year were lower than those of first 70% 29.33 19.33 36.00 34.33
year. This is probably because the trees were irrigated for the first
time and in first year naturally the response was higher. Also, *Treatment effects were non significant
interaction of year x irrigation method x allowable depletion level The number of flower clusters was affected by treatments and
of soil moisture was found to be significant and Drip 40% treatment years (Table 5). Specially, differences on irrigation method were

Table 1. The total number of irrigations, the total amount of irrigation water and seasonal evapotranspiration
Treatments 1997 1999
Irrigation Allowable Number Irrigation Seasonal Number Irrigation Seasonal
method depletion level of of water evapotranspiration of water evapotranspiration
soil moisture irrigations applied (mm) (mm) irrigations applied (mm) (mm)
Drip 40% 12 313.60 470.94 10 264.93 363.53
70% 9 307.74 460.16 7 235.13 347.23
Surface 40% 13 1096.01 1188.43 12 990.04 1058.21
70% 9 1039.66 1167.74 8 930.89 968.00
110 Journal of Applied Horticulture

found to be significant and drip irrigation method gave better References

results than surface irrigation method. Also, drip irrigation
method was found to be first group according to interaction of
year x irrigation method. At evaluation of interaction of year x Assaf, R., I. Levin, B. Bravdo and C.J. Phene, 1989. Optimization of
water by automated drip irrigation control for apple trees. Standard
irrigation method x allowable depletion level of soil moisture, BARD Cover Page for Scientific Reports, Project No: 1123-86 C,
Drip+40% treatment gave better result. 49 p, Israel.
Table 5. Effect of irrigation methods on the number of flower Beukes, D. J. and H.W. Weber, 1982 The effects of irrigation at different
soil water levels on the water use characteristics of apple trees.
clusters
Jour. Hort. Sci., 57(4): 383-391.
Irrigation Allowable depletion 1997 1999 Evans, R.G. and E.L. Proebsting, 1985. Response of Red Delicious
method level of soil moisture Apples to Trickle Irrigation. Proceedings of the Third International
Drip/Trickle Irrigation Congress, 18-21 November, California,
Drip 40% 45.33 a1 38.00 b USA.
a2 a Evett, S.R., T.A. Howell and J.L. Steiner, 1993. Cresap management
a3 b of irrigation and drainage systems. Sponsored by the Irrigtaion
Drainage Div./ASCE, Part City, Utah.
a4 a
70% 42.67a 33.33b Fluyurtse, I. and L.V. Roitman, 1986. Effect of irrigation regimes and
methods on the growth and productivity of spur-type apple trees,
a a Sadavostro i Vinogradarstro Modavil, 3: 44-45.
a b Gergely, I. 1979. Effect of Irrigation on Apple Tree Condition. Ujabb
b b Kutatasi Eredmenyek a Gyömolcstermesztesben, 6, 51-58.
Surface 40% 42.33a 29.00 b Köksal, Ý., H. Dumanoðlu, N. Güneþ, O.ve Yýldýrým and A.
b b Kadayýfçý, 1999. Farklý Sulama Yöntemleri ve Programlarýnýn
a c Elma Aðaçlarýnýn Vegetatif Geliþimi, Meyve Verimi ve Kalitesi
b b Üzerine Etkileri. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 3(4): 909-
70% 38.33a 30.33b 920
b b Kulkov, O.P. and A.U. Saidaliev, 1986. Drip Irrigation on Gravel Soils,
Sadovostro, 6:10-11.
b c
b b Levin, I., R. Assaf and B. Brawdo, 1985. Apple response to drip
irrigation and fertigation treaments. Proc. Third Int. Drip/Trickle
1: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for years (p < 0.05) Irrigation Cong., 18-21 November, California, USA.
2: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for irrigation methods (p < 0.01) Middleton, J.E., E.L. Proebsting and S. Roberts, 1981. A Comparison
3: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for interaction of year x irrigation of Trickle Irrigation for Apple Orchards. Wash. Agric. Exp. Sta.
method (p < 0.05) Bull.
4: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test for interaction of irrigation method x Tender,W. and A. Czynczyk, 1997. Effect of drip irrigation on growth,
allowable depletion level of soil moisture (p < 0.05). flowering and yield of Lobo apple. Journal Fruit and Ornamental
Plant Res., 5(2): 61-67. (Poland).
Measurements of vegetative growth parameters in the first year were
greater then those of the second year because the trees were irrigated Yurtsever, N. 1984. Deneysel Ýstatistik Metotlarý. Köy. Hizm. Genel.
for the first. Drip irrigation method gave better results when irrigation Müd.Yayýnlarý: No: 121, Ankara
water requirements, evapotranspiration and vegetative growth
parameters were evaluated together. Moreover, according to annual
increasing values of cross-sectional area of trunk and number of flower
cluster, the better results were measured in Drip 40% treatment. This
was also found for the experiments carried out in different places by
other researchers (Evans et al., 1985, Assaf et al., 1989, Köksal et al.,
1999).
In conclusion, it can be suggested that irrigation has to be applied
when 40% available water holding capacity was consumed under
drip irrigation method for apple trees in Thrace conditions,
Turkey.