4.7 Article

Effects of Different Irrigation Rates on Remontant Strawberry Cultivars Grown in Soil

Journal

HORTICULTURAE
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae9091026

Keywords

strawberry; water stress; remontant; sensorial quality; nutritional compounds; soil

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study assessed the responses of three remontant strawberry cultivars to different irrigation regimes, and found that reducing irrigation had minimal impact on yield, quality, and nutritional features. The study also demonstrated the potential for significant water savings through more accurate water management.
The present study assessed the responses, in terms of vegetative, productive, qualitative, and nutritional features, of plants and berries of three remontant strawberry cultivars cultivated in soil and irrigated using three irrigation regimes: standard irrigation regime (W100), 20% (W80) less irrigation than the standard irrigation, and 40% (W60) less irrigation than the standard irrigation. The tested plants were Albion, San Andreas, and Monterey, which were cultivated in the east coast area of Marche, Italy. Specifically, the study examined the response of the genotype to irrigation deficit, highlighting the performance of the Monterey cultivar, which showed improvement in terms of fruit firmness, folate content, and antioxidant capacity at the W80 irrigation regime without a significant yield reduction. In all the cultivars, when irrigation was reduced by up to 20% of the standard irrigation regime (W100), there were no significant losses of yield or reduction in the fruits' sensorial quality or antioxidant activity. The results showed that the standard irrigation regime (W100) commonly adopted by the farmers in the Marche area uses more water than necessary. With more accurate water management, it will be possible to save almost 226 m3 of water per hectare per cultivation cycle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available