Effect of Water Stress and Shading on Lime Yield and Quality

Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the combined effect of water stress and cropping system on yield and fruit quality in Bearss lime trees. For this purpose, two irrigation treatments were applied during stage II of fruit growth: control (well irrigated, automatically managed by soil water content sensors) and stress (non-irrigated), both under open-field and shaded conditions. Soil water status was assessed by determining soil water content and plant water status by measuring stem water potential (Ψstem), stomatal conductance (gs), and net photosynthesis (Pn). Yield parameters (kg and the number of fruits per tree and fresh mass per fruit) and fruit quality were assessed on two harvest dates. In addition, on the second harvest date, the content of metabolites and nutrients in the lime juice was analyzed. The results showed that soil water deficit induced 35% lower gs values in open-field than in shaded conditions. The highest kg and the number of fruits per tree were observed in the shaded system, especially on the first harvest date. The lowest yield was observed in stressed trees grown without netting. Slightly higher fresh mass and equatorial diameter were observed in shaded fruits than in open-field fruit. Soil water deficit increased fruit total soluble solids and decreased juice content, especially in open-field trees. Shaded conditions made the lime trees more resilient to soil water deficit, which led to higher yields and better external fruit quality traits. In addition, fruit precocity was significantly higher in the shaded system.

Effect of Shading and Foliar Spraying with Nutrient Solution on Vegetative Growth and Yield Traits of Sweet Orange Trees cv. Local.

“…Treatment A0 recorded the lowest value of 194.1 cm³. These results are consistent with the study of [47] conducted on lemon trees. The data in the same table shows that spraying with the Brexil Duo nutrient solution and the interaction between the two factors did not significantly affect the average fruit size, although treatment B1, A1B2 recorded the highest values.…”