Effect of
Regulating
Water Deficit
On Some growth
Properties of Young
Peach Trees
Team Members

Zeinab, H. Behairy
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
z_behairy@yahoo.com

Mahmoud, M. Hegazi
Department of Agriculture Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt

Ahmed, El-Gazzar
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

Noha, A. Hassan
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture,
Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.

Mohamed, A. Shehata
Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation, Cairo, Egypt.
Why Water Saving?
•
Egypt is one of the countries facing
great challenges due to its limited
water resources represented mainly by
its fixed share of the Nile Water and its
aridity as a general characteristic.
•
Egypt is the only country in the world
that depends on irrigation 100%
Why water saving? Con’t



Current Water
Resources in Egypt
(Millar m3)




Nile Water
55.5
 Drainage Reuse 5.5
 Ground Water
7.5
 Treated Sewage
0.7
 Rain Harvesting
1.0
-------------------------------Total
70.2

Current Water Requirements in Egypt (Millar m3)
Irrigated Agriculture 59.0
Industrial
7.6
Municipal
6.5
Nile Transfer
0.3
Evaporation Network 2.2
------------------------------------Total
75.6

Future Water Requirements in Egypt (Millar m3)
(2017)

Irrigated Agriculture
65.1

Industrial
10.5

Municipal
7.5

Nile Transfer
0.4

Evaporation Network
2.1
------------------------------------Total
85.6
Why water saving? Con’t
•
•
The per capita share of water is less
than 900 m3/year which is considered
"the water poverty limit”
The value may even decrease to 500
m3/capita is the year 2025 due to the
growth population
So the formulated policy
focuses on:
Developing new water
resources
Harvesting rainfall and
desalination
Improving water use
efficiencies
About Peach
 Peach
trees, officially known as “Prunus
Persica”, got their start in China before
spreading in another parts of the World
 A variety of Fruit trees are native to China
tend to require a lot of sun.
 They also tolerate partial shade but
usually would not produce as much as
fruit.
 They prefer soil that is rich and moist but
not saturated with water .
Peach Origin




The peach originated in China and has been
cultivated at least 1000 years B.C
It has special significance in Chinese culture:
the peach tree is considered to be the tree of
life, and peaches are symbols of immortality
and unity
Peach blossoms are carried by Chinese
brides.
True wild peaches are only found in China,
the wild fruit is small, sour and very fuzzy.
Global Peach Production
 Globally,
China is by far the largest
producer of peaches and Nectarines
accounting for approximately 50% of the
World production, followed by Italy (10%),
Spain (7%), USA (6%), Greece (6%) and
France (3%) (FAO 2009).
 Total production 1.3 Million Tons produced
from 3.5 Million acres
Peach in Egypt
 Peaches,
Pears, Almonds and Cherries
were not introduced to Egypt until the
Roman Period (117 – 138 AD)
 Peach is considered one of the most
important fruit crop in Egypt with 79,199
Fed. [Feddan = 4200 m2] dedicated to its
cultivation produced 425000 Tons (2009)
What is the problem?
 Traditionally,
peach cultivation used to be
dominant in Egypt's rainfed areas
 80% of the peach cultivation is rainfed
while the rest is irrigated farms
 Despite of the high productivity
characterizing the irrigated lands, limited
water availability is well known
Aim of the study
 This
induces the development of studies
focusing on the optimization and
efficiency of irrigation water.
 One of the options proposed for that
purpose is the use of regulated deficit
irrigation (RDI) (Behboudian and Mills,
1997).
Materials & Methods




The trial was conducted at the Experimental
Farm, Faculty of Agriculture-Ain Shams
University, Egypt.
Peach trees were two and three years old,
growing in loamy soil, with a field capacity
36,25%and welting point 19.50% under drip
irrigation system.
The source of irrigation is the River Nile with EC
0.3 ds/m.
Trees were spaced 2.00 x 1.25 apart, high
density farm, and trained to “Y” shape system
The experiment included 5
irrigation treatments
Table 1. The treatment multiplication (F) factors for the different irrigation
treatments.
Stages
Treatments
T1
T2
T3 *
T4
T5
Initial stage
1/2-31/3
0.25
0.35
0.45
0.55
0.65
Mid stage
1/4-31/7
(F) factors
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
* Control treatment (F) factors according to Allen et al (1998).
Final stage
1/8-30/9
0.45
0.55
0.65
0.75
0.85
 For
calculating the daily irrigation amount
for each treatment for the two growing
seasons the following formula
recommended by Awady et al (1975)
was used
Q = H A R F............ (1)
Where: Q
= Irrigation amount, l / plant / day.
H = Reference evapotranspiration (ET0), mm /day.
A = Land area, m2/ plant.
R = Canopy ratio =
plant shadow area at noon, m2
plant area, m2
F = The treatment multiplication factor for different irrigation treatments.
Different estimations and
measurements:
Reference evapotranspiration
“Eto” (mm)
Water use “WU” (mm)
Crop coefficient “Kc”
Irrigation water saving %
Some growth parameters
Experimental design and
statistical analysis
 The
complete randomized block design was
used with four replicates. Each replicate was
represented by one tree.
 Statistical
analysis was carried out using SAS
Computer Program (1998) Duncan's multiple
range tests was used for comparison
between means.
Results
2003
2004
8.00
ETo(mm)
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
Se
p.
Au
g.
Ju
ly
Ju
ne
M
ay
Ap
ri .
M
ar
.
Fe
b.
2.00
Months
Fig. 1. Reference evapotranspirations (ETo) during 2003 and 2004 seasons.
Water use “WU”
Table 2. Water use “WU” (mm/stage) of young peach trees during
2003 and 2004 seasons.
2003
Seasons
Stages
2004
Initial
stage
Mid
stage
Final
stage
T1
14.81
327.11
142.87
484.79
T2
26.70
436.71
213.58
T3 *
42.20
525.73
T4
55.56
T5
66.57
Initial
stage
Mid
stage
Final
stage
Total
18.97
523.73
177.78
720.48
676.99
39.83
709.96
219.75
969.54
252.41
820.34
56.27
792.59
253.26 1102.12
621.23
254.78
931.57
77.59
804.04
299.66 1181.29
673.53
296.74
1036.84
80.69
983.56
339.62 1403.87
Total
Treatment
* Control treatment (F) factors according to Allen et al (1998).
Crop Coefficient
"Kc"
coefficient
Crop
Recommended
"Kc" values
2003
2004
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Initial stage
Mid stage
Final stage
Grow th stages
Fig.
"Kc"
of of
young
peach
trees
during
2003
and
2004
seasons.
Fig.3.2.Crop
Cropcoefficient
Coefficient
“Kc”
young
peach
trees
during
2003
and
2004
seasons.
Fig. 3. Water use percentage for the different growth stages of young
peach trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.
Irrigation water Saving
 The
initial stage that took place during the first two
months (February and March) consumed the
lowest irrigation water percentage (5.16% and
5.55%) for each growing season respectively.
 This stage could be considered a phenological
stage tolerant to water deficit (non critical period)
and RDI can save irrigation water during this
stage. On the other hand, comparing these results
with what has been done in the private farms
without controlling irrigation.
 Water saving could reach to about 20%.
Growth measurements
T2
T3
T4
T5
2003
2004
350.00
300.00
250.00
200.00
150.00
100.00
50.00
Fi
na
l
M
id
In
i ti
al
Fi
na
l
M
id
0.00
In
i ti
al
increase
Net
Shoot
extensionrate
(cm)(cm)
T1
Grow th stages
Fig. 4. Effect of different irrigation treatments on the net increase rate of shoot extension
of young peach trees during 2003 and 2004 seasons.
Table 3. Effect of different irrigation treatments on leaf area (cm2) of young peach trees during 2003
and 2004 seasons
2003
Seasons
Stages
2004
Initial stage
31/1-31/3
Mid
stage
31/3- 31/7
Final
stage
31/7-30/9
Initial
stage
31/1-31/3
Mid
stage
31/3- 31/7
Final
stage
31/7-30/9
T1
30.61bc
38.75b
31.94ab
32.79bc
39.04b
29.89bc
T2
35.32ab
38.87b
33.90a
36.59b
40.42b
31.29ab
T3 *
37.46a
47.78a
35.22a
40.92a
48.58a
35.90a
T4
36.59a
47.79a
30.06ab
40.51a
48.70a
32.71ab
T5
27.74c
38.21b
26.26b
28.96c
39.91b
26.17c
Treatment
Means having the same letter (s) in a column are not significantly different at a level 5%.
* Control treatment (F) factors according to Allen et al (1998).
Recommendations
 It
is recommended to use the crop
coefficient “Kc” 0.28 for scheduling the
irrigation program for the initial stage,
“Kc” 0.88 for the Mid stage and “Kc” 0.65
for the final stage to obtain vigorous
growth and efficient water saving under
the same circumstances.
 Farmers should be advised to follow the
indicative cropping pattern
Recommendations Con’t
 Increasing
water association supervisors
who will facilitate and coordinate
between farmers to insure that they work
as one team.
 Research as a dynamic process, is
considered the key action of the policies
success.