WATER MANAGEMENT AND FRESH CUT PRODUCE · Agriculture Industry Urban River flows Global Freshwater...

IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE ?IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE ?

WATER MANAGEMENT AND FRESH CUT PRODUCE

Elias FereresInstitute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAS-CSIC) and Unive rsity of Cordoba

AgricultureAgriculture

IndustryIndustry

UrbanUrbanRiverRiver flowsflows

Global Freshwater Distribution

TOTAL 40,000 kmTOTAL 40,000 km3 3

AVAILABLE 10,000 kmAVAILABLE 10,000 km33

At present we use about 55 % ofthe runoff available

In 2025, we will use about 70 % of availablerunoff

Water Use orWater Consumption?

UNDERSTANDING BASIC WATER MANAGEMENT

Irrigation Water Irrigation Water SupplySupply

Area 1Area 1

ETET

RunoffRunoff

IrrigationIrrigationReturnReturnFlowsFlows

Deep Deep PercolationPercolation

Irrigation WaterIrrigation WaterSupplySupply

Area 2Area 2

Water Use in IrrigationWater Use in Irrigation(BASIC HYDROLOGY)

WATER SCARCITYWATER SCARCITY

WATER PRODUCTIVITY

YIELD (or GROSS INCOME)

WP =

EVAPOTRANSPIRATION

Water use (mm)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Yie

ld (

t/ha)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6 n = 691

China Loess PlateauMediterranean BasinNorth American Great PlainsSE Australia22 x (water use - 60)

wheat yields and water use (Sadras and Angus)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000G

rain

yie

ld (

kg/h

a)

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005Year

AustraliaChinaIndiaUSA

Wheat

89 kg ha-1 year-1

51 kg ha-1 year-1

24 kg ha-1 year-1

21 kg ha-1 year-1

41 kg ha -1 year -1World

Projections based on Yield Trends

Source: FAOSTAT

Wheat

E. Fereres, IAS-CSIC

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Gra

in y

ield

(kg

/ha)

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004Year

Wheat

24 kg ha -1 year -1

World Trends Last 10 Years

Wheat

Source: FAOSTATE. Fereres, IAS-CSIC

WHERE WOULD THE ADDITIONAL WHEAT COME FROM?PLANT MORE LAND? GREAT!AGRICULTURAL R&D HIJACKED FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS!

(8 kg/ha/yr)

IS CROP WATER IS CROP WATER MANAGEMENT RELEVANT MANAGEMENT RELEVANT TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE?TO FRESH CUT PRODUCE?

YES, BECAUSE TISSUE, ORGAN, AND PLANT WATER STATUS AFFECT A NUMBER OF CHARACTERISTICS DETERMINING

PRODUCE QUALITY

WHAT ARE THE MECHANISMS?

FRUIT QUALITY IS AFFECTED BY WATER MANAGEMENT (URIU, 1967)

TURGOR-MEDIATED RESPONSE:

WATER POTENTIAL= OSMOTIC POTENTIAL + PRESSURE POTENTIAL (T)

Water deficits lower the water potential of plant tissues

TYPICAL VALUES (MPa) : -1.0 (WP) = -1.5 (OP) + 0.5 (T) (midday, no stress)-1.3 (WP) = -1.5 (OP) + 0.2 (sudden stress, turgor loss)

Cell expansion and expansive growth slows down, then

MANY METABOLIC RESPONSES FOLLOW:

Osmotic adjustmentCell wall deposition

Root-shoot ratio changesRoot signals

0.0-0.5-1.0 MPa

SENSITIVITYOF EXPANSIVE GROWTH TO WATER DEFICITS

Water Potential of the growing zone

EXPANSIONRATE (mm/h)

BIOMASS PRODUCTION IS PROPORTIONAL TO INTERCEPTED SOLAR RADIATION WHICH IS PROPORTIONAL TO GROUND COVER BY THE CROP

Data for lettuce in Gallardo et al., (1996)

CO2

H2O

H2OCO2

Effects on photosynthesis

As the soil dries

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

Fresh weight (g plant-1)

Lettuce “Target”

Dry matter (g m-2)

Applied water (mm)

0.45% FC

0.70% FC0.87% FC

FC

FC= Field Capacity

0.45% FC

0.70% FC

0.87% FC

FC

Fresh weight isMore sensitiveTo water stressThan biomassproduction

Gallardo et al., (1996)

IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT AFFECTS:

•FRUIT SIZE (VIA CELL SIZE)•CELL WALL THICKNESS•EXOCARP (CUTICLE..)•FIRMNESS, COLOUR•SOLUBLE SOLIDS•TITRATABLE ACIDITY•SUCEPTIBILITY TO DISEASES•CHILLING INJURY•MANY OTHER FLAVORS AND CHEMICALS (THE CASE OF WINE)

Crisosto et al. (1994). HortScience

PEACH:EXOCARP

Mpelasoka et al. (2001). Scientia Horticulturae

APPLE FRUITS:TSSFIRMNESS

Pérez-Pastor et al. (2007). J Sci Food Agric

APRICOT:

FIRMNESSTSS, TA,PULP COLOUR,MATURITY

Pérez-Pastor et al. (2007). J Sci Food Agric

APRICOT: RESPIRATION, ETHYLENE PRODUCTION

WATERMELON RESPONSE TO IRRIGATIONFRUIT SIZE< TSS> Sugars>

Size decreases, sugars increase

Crisosto et al. (1994). HortScience

HOW TO GENERATE THE DESIRED RESPONSES?

HOW CAN WE MANAGE PLANT WATER DEFICITS ?

Yie

ld(t

ha-1

)

ET

ET

0

3

6

9

12

0 250 500 750 1000

YieldYield response response toto ET ET ofof annualannual cropscrops

Consumptive use

YIELD RESPONSE TO ET AND TO APPLIED WATER

ETET

0

3

6

9

12Y

ield

(t/h

a)

0 250 500 750 1000ET or Applied Irrigation Water (mm)

Losses

IWP IM

APPLIEDWATER

DEFICIT IRRIGATION IN FIELD CROPS

2

4

6

8

10

12

Fru

it Y

ield

(t h

a-1)

400 500 600 700 800 900ETc (mm)

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

4

4 5

5

5

11

22

3

3

3

4

4

4

5

5

5

OLIVE YIELD RESPONSE to ET, Three DI treatments. Cordoba, 1996-2000.

(Moriana et al., 2003, JASHS)

Max.WP

DEFICIT IRRIGATIONDEFICIT IRRIGATION = APPLICATIONS= APPLICATIONSBELOW CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS (ET)BELOW CROP WATER REQUIREMENTS (ET)

((SoilSoil waterwater deficitsdeficits may may oror may may notnot cause cause cropcrop waterwaterdeficitsdeficits andand reductionreduction in ET)in ET)

REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION (RDI)REGULATED DEFICIT IRRIGATION (RDI) ==

PLANNED CROP WATERPLANNED CROP WATERDEFICITS AT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES.DEFICITS AT SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES.

((CropCrop waterwater stress stress occursoccurs atat certaincertain stagesstages; ET may ; ET may orormay may notnot be be reducedreduced significantlysignificantly; RISKS ; RISKS increasedincreased))

Sammis et al. (1988). Irrig Sci

WATER PRODUCTION FUNCTION FOR LETTUCE

ETAIW

Regulated Deficit Irrigation (RDI):

Planned water deficits at specificdevelopmental stages that control vegetative growth without affectingfruit production.

Higher farm profits andreduced water use.

Goals:

Sackler Colloquium, NAS 2004

RDI: Mature Navel Oranges; San Joaquin Valley; 3 Season Mean

19,219,219,219,2

19,419,419,419,4

19,619,619,619,6

19,819,819,819,8

20,020,020,020,0

20,220,220,220,2

20,420,420,420,4

20,620,620,620,6

20,820,820,820,8

21,021,021,021,0

21,221,221,221,2

20202020 22222222 24242424 26262626 28282828 30303030 32323232 34343434

Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)

Gross Yield (tons/acre)

Gross Yield (tons/acre)

Gross Yield (tons/acre)

Gross Yield (tons/acre)

ControlControlControlControl

T3T3T3T3

T2T2T2T2

T4T4T4T4

T5T5T5T5

T6T6T6T6

T7T7T7T7

T8T8T8T8

T9T9T9T9

T10T10T10T10

T11T11T11T11

T12T12T12T12

T13T13T13T13

T14T14T14T14

1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship

y = 0.162x + 16.0

R2 = 0.599

(Courtesy Dr. D.Goldhamer, UCDavis)

6500650065006500

7000700070007000

7500750075007500

8000800080008000

8500850085008500

9000900090009000

20202020 22222222 24242424 26262626 28282828 30303030 32323232 34343434

Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)Applied Water (inches/season)

Gross Revenue ($/acre)

Gross Revenue ($/acre)

Gross Revenue ($/acre)

Gross Revenue ($/acre) ControlControlControlControl

T2T2T2T2T3T3T3T3

T4T4T4T4

T5T5T5T5

T6T6T6T6 T7T7T7T7

T8T8T8T8T9T9T9T9

T10T10T10T10

T11T11T11T11

T12T12T12T12

T13T13T13T13

T14T14T14T14

1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship1:1 Relationship

y = -57.4x + 9739

R2= 0.091

Mature Navel Oranges; San Joaquin Valley; 3 Season Mean

(Courtesy Dr. D.Goldhamer, UCDavis)

Regulated Deficit Irrigation in PEACH RegulatedRegulated DeficitDeficit IrrigationIrrigation in PEACH in PEACH

cv. ‘cv. ‘BabyBaby GoldGold’; 1993; 5m x 3.25m; ’; 1993; 5m x 3.25m; dripdrip

2002-2006, Córdoba20022002--2006, Córdoba2006, Córdoba

Full

SDI

RDI

42.2 a

38.6 b

41.2 a

213 a

198 b

213 a

Yield Fruit volume Relative FV(t ha-1) (cm3)

Treatment

100

92.9

100

PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION:

A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO STRATEGIES

(SDI:Sustained deficit; RDI: Regulated Deficit)

Averages for five years (2002-2006)

PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION: PEACH YIELD RESPONSE TO DEFICIT IRRIGATION:

A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO STRATEGIES

(SDI:Sustained deficit; RDI: Regulated Deficit)

Averages for five years (2002-2006)

año 2003

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Ri e

go

(m

m)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Llu

via

(mm

)

120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260dda

RDCRDSRF+AA

Lluvia

año 2003

RM

6 mayo-13 septiembre

year 2003

TreatmentsYIELD

(kg/TREE)

FRUITNUMBER(nº/TREE)

FRUITDIAMETER

(mm)

FRUITWEIGHT(g/fruit)

RDI 59,0 b 286 b 73,7 a 206 ab

SDI 311 b 199 b

Farm 63,6 b 296 b 74,0 a 214 a

RM 74,0 a 208 ab

61,5 b

86,1 a

72,3 b

416 a

año 2003

Tratamiento

Riego

SST

(%)

RDC 11,9 b

RDS 12,9 a

RF 11,8 bc

RM 11,4 c

Tratamiento

Riego

Acidez

(%)

RDC 0,608 a

RDS 0,598 a

RF 0,608 a

RM 0,561 a

sólidos solubles totales ACIDEZ

(g sacarosa/100 g muestra) (g ácido málico/100 g muestra)

SST/Acidez

(g/g)

19,6 b

21,8 a

19,7 b

20,5 ab

DUREZAmedia(kgf)

5,89 a

5,57 ab

5,64 ab

5,27 b

Distribución Calibre Cosecha Melocotón 2003

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

<50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 >90Diámetro máximo (mm)

Fre

cuen

cia

RDC

Finca

RDS

RM

Fruit size distribution is affected by water management

SDI

Fruit diameter, mm

Distribución Calibre Cosecha Melocotón 2003

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

<50 50-55 55-60 60-65 65-70 70-75 75-80 80-85 85-90 >90

Diámetro máximo (mm)

Fre

cuen

cia

RDC

Finca

Fecha recolección: 8 agosto 2003 (2ª pasada; más fruta)

Evolución en cámara: 1 ºC (±1); HR⇑

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Fir

mn

ess

(kg

f)

RDCRDSRFRM

0

8 Aug

6

14 Aug

14

22 Aug

21

29 Aug

28

5 Sep

Días de conservación

Treatment differencesare conservedin storage

10

11

12

13

14

SS

T (

%),

ºB

rix

RDCRDSRFRM

08 Aug

614 Aug

1422

Aug

2129

Aug

285 Sep

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

Aci

de z

(%

)

RDCRDSRFRM

08

Aug

614 Aug

1422

Aug

2129

Aug

285 Sep

H

The total soluble solids are conserved in storage

Acidity declines faster in DIin storage; thus, TSS/TAIMPROVES IN STORAGE

Fecha recolección: 8 agosto 2003 (2ª pasada; más fruta)

Evolución en cámara: 1 ºC (±1); HR⇑

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

TS

S/a

cid

ity

(g/g

)

RDCRDSRFRM

0

8 Aug

6

14 Aug

14

22 Aug

21

29 Aug

28

5 Sep

Días de conservación

TSS/TAIMPROVESWITH TIME

Date: 5 Sept 2003 (Harvest: 8 Aug - 2ª)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Conservation date

Fles

h br

owni

ng (%

)

RDC

RDS

RF

RM

Some indication of increased CI in peach in the deficit irrigation treatmentsAfter one month in storage –indicated by fresh browning--(as reported by Uriu for dryland peaches in 1964)

Health aspects of irrigation management

What are the factors determining water quality from the microbial standpoint?What are the factors affecting the presence, persistence, and growth of pathogens in irrigation water? How are pathogens transferred in the different irrigation methods?Uptake by roots? Is it possible?

Human pathogens and irrigation management: for a given crop/system: identifypathogens, where are the reservoirs, how do they survive in produce and how are theytransferred, how to sample, lowering the risks with respect to intended use.

Water sourcesContact of the water with the producePre and post-harvest issuesIndicators and testing programs

EFFECTS OF IRRIGATION METHOD AND MANAGEMENT ON SURVIVAL OF BACTERIA

GENERAL RULES:

IRRIGATION EXTENDS LIFE BEYOND DRYLAND

LEACHING REDUCES SURVIVAL RELATIVE TO LACK OF LEACHING