Fig. 1
Seasonal course of daily pluviometry (
) and the daily plant evapotranspiration (•) during the growth period in 2012 (A) and 2013 (B)
Table 1
Soil characteristics in 2012 at three different depths
| Depth (m) | pH | Granulometry (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| clay | silt | sand | ||
| 0.00–0.25 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 16.7 | 73.1 |
| 0.25–0.50 | 8.7 | 09.1 | 18.9 | 72,0 |
| 0.50–0.75 | 8.9 | 11.7 | 22.8 | 65.5 |
Table 2
Amounts of water (mm) applied in 2012 and 2013 for comfort (T1) and deficit irrigation (T2) during the fruit growth periods
| TGP | Days after transplanting | Treatment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 2013 | ||||
| T1 | T2 | T1 | T2 | ||
| I | 1–45 | 242.7 | 242.7 | 266.7 | 266.7 |
| II | 46–90 | 169.8 | 169.8 | 193.2 | 193.2 |
| III | 90–150 | 187.5 | 125.0 | 218.8 | 140.6 |
| I, II, III | 1–150 | 600.0 | 537.5 | 678.6 | 600.5 |
| Reduction of water use | −10.5% | −11.5% | |||
Fig. 2
Soil water potential in 2012 at 0.3 m (A) and 0.6 m (B), and in 2013 at 0.3 m (C) and 0.6 m (D) in relation to different irrigation strategies: T1 – comfort irrigation (•); T2 – comfort irrigation in TGP I, II and RDI during TGP III (Δ). Each point corresponds to the median of three measurements.
Table 3
Tomato fruit weight, yield, diameter, fruit moisture, amount of water and water productivity in relation to comfort irrigation and deficit irrigation in 2012 and 2013
| Treatments | Single fruit weight (g) | Yield (kg per plant) | Water applied (mm) | |||
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | |
| T1 | 244.3 ± 36.5a | 231.7 ± 21.3a | 10.5 ± 0.9a | 11.4 ± 0.7a | 600 | 678.6 |
| T2 | 195.9 ± 7.9a | 186.3 ± 09.8a | 09.4 ± 1.3a | 10.9 ± 1.7a | 537 | 600.5 |
| % of reduction (−) or increase (+) | −19.8 | −19.6 | −10.5 | −4.4 | −10.5 | −11.5 |
| Treatments | Fruit diameter (mm) | Fruit moisture (%) | Water productivity (kg·m−3) | |||
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | |
| T1 | 90.7 ± 9.7a | 87.5 ± 9.0a | 92.5 ± 3.1a | 89.8 ± 3.0a | 43.9 | 42.1 |
| T2 | 82.8 ± 5.5a | 81.3 ± 4.5a | 76.9 ± 5.9b | 84.7 ± 4.8b | 43.8 | 45.7 |
| % of reduction (−) or increase (+) | −8.7 | −7.1 | −16.9 | −5.7 | 0 | +8.6 |
[i] Each data value corresponds to the mean (± SD) with three replications. In parenthesis reduction in comparison to comfort irrigation. Means followed by different letters for each parameter were significantly different by Student’s t-test (p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4
Chemical characteristic of tomato fruit in relation to comfort and deficit irrigation in 2012 and 2013
| Treatments | Titratable acidity (g·dm−3) | pH | Total soluble solids (°Brix) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | |
| T1 | 4.2 ± 0.3b | 5.1 ± 0.1b | 4.4 ± 0.2a | 4.1 ± 0.1a | 5.2 ± 0.9b | 5.5 ± 1.2b |
| T2 | 4.9 ± 0.2a | 5.9 ± 0.4a | 4.2 ± 0.2a | 4.6 ± 0.3a | 7.6 ± 0.9a | 8.2 ± 0.9a |
| % of reduction (−) or increase (+) | +16.7 | +15.7 | −4.5 | +12.2 | +46.2 | +49.1 |
| Treatments | Carotenoids content (mg·100 g−1) | Total phenolic content (mg·100 g−1) | Vitamin C content (mg·100 g−1) | Reducing power (mg·100 g−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | 2012 | 2013 | |
| T1 | 23.7±2.9a | 28.5±1.9a | 23.8±1.3a | 25.5±1.1a | 12.2±0.6a | 10.5±0.8a | 36.4±2.60a | 34.2±3.02a |
| T2 | 18.8±2.4a | 24.6±1.8a | 25.5±3.6a | 28.6±3.0a | 09.7±0.9b | 11.7±1.6a | 31.9±2.49a | 30.1±2.67a |
| % of reduction (−) or increase (+) | −20.7 | −13.6 | +7.1 | +12.2 | −20.5 | +11.4 | −12.4 | −12 |
[i] Each data value corresponds to the mean (± SD) of three replications. Means followed by different letters for each parameter were significantly different according to Student’s t-test (p ≤ 0.05).