improving water use efficiency, yields and quality in soft...
TRANSCRIPT
Improving water use efficiency, yields and quality in soft fruit and potato fruit
production(HortLINK 0187 / SF 83, WU0118, WU0122)
Dr Mark A. Else
SH Chesson PartnershipNew Farm Produce LtdR & JM Place LtdHall Hunter Partnership
A Fair Share of Water for Agriculture’ UKIA Spring Conference, 7 March 2013
EMR - some facts and figures
EMR is in Kent, SE EnglandEMR is part of the East Malling Group
headed by the East Malling TrustWe are a charity and company limited
by guaranteeAssociate Institute of the University of
ReadingWe have about 45 staff and studentsOur research started in 1913 funded by
subscriptions from forward-looking farmers
Research programmes at EMRDr Mark Else
Resource efficiency for crop production
Resource use
efficiencyEnvironmental
interactionsFood chain
qualityBelow ground
bioticinteractions
Major crops
Perennial fruits (apple, pear, cherry, plum, strawberry, raspberry, blackcurrant)
Perennial trees and non-food products (biomass, plant factories, hardy nursery stock, protected ornamentals)
Other horticultural crops (mushrooms, tomato, field vegetables, potato, herbs, rose, garden plants)
Efficient irrigation schedulingMatching demand with supplyIncreasing water and fertiliser productivityImproving substrate water holding capacityScheduling tools for growers
Marker-assisted selection for improved WUEStrawberryApple rootstocks
Deficit irrigation strategiesRDI, PRD, novel irrigation regimesManipulating in planta chemical signalsImproving quality and shelf-life
Improving resource use efficiency and product quality
Improving water and nutrient acquisition from soils
Water availability for soft fruit production
76% of soft fruit growers farm in water-stressed areas
2008Soft fruit
7 million m3
Agricultural water consumption is only 1%... but is a low priority
Region PSMDmax
Baseline1961-1990 2050 Low 2050 High
East Anglia 178 233 251
Essex 198 261 280
Kent 178 228 251
Surrey, East and WestSussex 151 207 228
Potential Soil Moisture Deficit (PSMD) – indicator of aridity
PSMD forecasts suggest increasing dependence on irrigation
Why try to improve water use efficiency?
Drivers for change…Lower water bills (mains)Lower fertiliser costsLower energy costs Improved yields and quality’Improved profitabilityImproved environmental sustainability
Currently water is ‘cheap and readily available’ in some areas… but
Abstraction rates are unsustainableIncreasing pressure on finite water suppliesEnvironmental impactsLegislative pressuresProduce assurance schemes
Bewl Water, Kent 19 February 2012
2006: ‘Risk of diffuse pollution from substrate production is low’ (HH3606)2011: Environment Agency concerns over water quality in the South East
ADAS report 2012: Best Practice Advisory Programme for Soft Fruit…
Groundwater quality in the South East
Diffuse Pollution: Best PracticeAdvisory Programme for Soft Fruitin the South East Region
Report 26477 Produced by ADAS on behalf of the Environment AgencyFinal report issued - 2nd May 2012
Irrigation scheduling – matching demandwith supply
Days after start of experiment
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Dai
ly Ir
rigat
ion
volu
me
(ml)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Mea
n da
ytim
e ai
r tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
0
10
20
30
40
Air temp (08:00-20:00)
Plant water use can vary up to 15-fold Need effective irrigation scheduling toolsDevelop Grower Test Regime (GTR)
Deficit irrigation – exploiting root-sourced signalling
Partial RootzoneDrying(PRD)
Regulated DeficitIrrigation(RDI)
Intuition, experience, subjective score of soil sampleEvaporative demand + crop co-efficientsSoil water content (vertical profile or single depth)Soil water availability (soil matric potential)
Plant-based, continuous measuring tools are being developed
Current irrigation scheduling methods
3 6 7 8 9 10 13 17 19 20 21
Wat
er p
rodu
ctiv
ity (m
-3 to
nne
Cla
ss 1
frui
t-1)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
3 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 17 19 20 210
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Grower ID
3 5 8 9 13 17 18 19 200
20
40
60
80
100
120
140A) 60-day B) Main season C) Everbearer
Benchmarking water use efficiency (WU0122)
Performance depends on Soil type, source of water, environment, cropping system, yieldsDesign, efficiency and consistency of irrigation systemMethod of irrigation scheduling
Guidance on how to move towards ‘better’ and ‘best’ practice
Date
25/02/11 28/02/11 03/03/11 06/03/11 09/03/11 12/03/11 15/03/11
Soil
mat
ric p
oten
tial (
kPa)
-300
-200
-100
0
EMR DryEMR Wet
LWPgs
* *
*FER
*LER
Pn*
Deriving irrigation set points for field-grown ‘Elsanta’
CommercialGrower testregimeBuffer zone
Irrigation set points will be similar in different soil types
Quality & yieldsreduced…
Mild RDI
Managing the intensity of root-sourced signalling…
Leaf responses detected at ~15% VSMC during cropping15% VSMC -150 kPaIrrigation set points influenced by ET and crop developmental stageIrrigations raised VSMC to ~ 19% (-50 kPa)
Date
21/04/08 05/05/08 19/05/08 02/06/08 16/06/08 30/06/08 14/07/08
Vol
umet
ric s
oil m
oist
ure
cont
ent (
%)
010
15
20
25
Evaposensor4
hours3
hours2.5
hours3 irrigation
events
Flowering Picking
25 cm
Scientific field experiments at EMR
Industry average WP for main season crop in 2011 = 44 (m3 per tonne Class 1)Using irrigation scheduling and RDI, WP = 10Good commercial yields, aspects of berry quality improvedDemonstrates the potential for water savings…
Trials on grower partners’ sites - low risk strategy
Grower test regimeTypical commercial regime
Grower partner trials 2010 - 2011Commercial control
Date
18/04/11 02/05/11 16/05/11 30/05/11 13/06/11 27/06/11
Soil m
atric
pot
entia
l (kP
a)
-150
-100
-50
0
Volu
met
ric s
oil m
oist
ure
cont
ent (
%)
10
20
30
40
50
Soil matric potential VSMC
Wasting water‘Much more water wasted than we thought’
Class 1 yields of ~20 tonnes per hectareWater productivity = 37 L per kg
Field capacity
Date
18/04/11 02/05/11 16/05/11 30/05/11 13/06/11 27/06/11
Soil m
atric
pot
entia
l (kP
a)
-150
-100
-50
0
Volu
met
ric s
oil m
oist
ure
cont
ent (
%)
10
15
20
25
30
35Soil matric potential VSMC
Water savings of 21 - 36%
Field capacity
Class 1 yields of ~23 tonnes per hectare (15% increase)Water productivity = 27 L per kgFruit quality improved (bigger, firmer berries, better flavour [M&S])
Higher Class 1 yields under Grower Test Regime
Challenging our preconceptions
Soil moisture at Grower Test Regime irrigation set point‘Much drier than a grower would normally expect’…
Soil from Commercial Control plot
Soil from Grower Test Regime plot
But no effect on plant physiology under Grower Test Regime
Commercial exploitation
• New science-based irrigation scheduling service• Major benefits and managed risks• Phased introduction to include training • Additional strategic research by EMR• Emphasis on quality service
www.earthcare.co.uk
Sou
rce:
PC
L, 2
008
(sup
plie
dby
Dr J
erry
Kno
x)S
ourc
e: E
A, 2
008
(sup
plie
d by
Dr J
erry
Kno
x)
Maris PiperDrip irrigation / fertigationDevelop scientifically-derived irrigation guidelinesFertigation combined with basal applications
Potato - reducing water and fertiliser inputs (WU0118)
Irrigation scheduling for drip fertigation
When to irrigate?How much to apply?
Days after treatments applied0 10 20 30 40 50
Pla
nt la
min
a ar
ea (c
m2 )
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000100% ETp 300% ETp
B)
Fewer leaves, total leaf area reduced by 20% Reduced root export of jasmonic acid (JA)Lower tuber yields, reduced dry matter content
Over-irrigation during tuber initiation
Maris Piper, planted 15 MayIrrigation: 'best practice’ and GTRTwo fertiliser regimes: ‘100% basal’ and ’50% basal + 50% fertigation’ (RB209, soil mineral analyses)
Developing an irrigation scheduling tool
Irrigation scheduled effectively
No treatment effects on growth
and water relations
High yields of marketable tubers
74, 78, 68 tonnes per hectare
(2.6, 2.7, 2.4 kg per plant)
Tuber quality maintained (dry matter,
firmness, sugar and organic acid profiles)
High water productivities: 26, 25, 23 m3
water per tonne marketable tubers
192, 191 and 162 mm applied (123 mm rainfall)
Date
22/06/09 06/07/09 20/07/09 03/08/09 17/08/09 31/08/09 14/09/09
Soi
l mat
ric p
oten
tial (
kPa)
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Tuber initiation
Tuber bulking
Developing an irrigation scheduling tool Results
Testing the irrigation scheduling tool on commercial plantings - 2011
Branston Ltd – David NelsonG&D Matthews Ltd – David Matthews
Changes in soil matric potential in 2011
Summary
Effective irrigation scheduling will save water
Scientifically-derived guidelines must be tested in commercial trials
Collaboration between scientists, growers, Producer Organisations and retailers
Funds needed for translational activities
Establish industry ‘best’ and ‘better practice’
Demonstration sites to showcase ‘best practice’
‘Water conscious’ grower Champions
Deficit irrigation will deliver more water savings but is more risky
Fertigation has the potential to reduce fertiliser inputs and minimise nitrate leaching
Investigate varieties that are reputedly more drought tolerant
Investigate varieties that are reputedly more tolerant to soil flooding
Improving water use efficiency, yields and quality in soft fruit and potato fruit
production(HortLINK 0187 / SF 83, WU0107, WU0110, WU0115, WU0118, WU0122,
SF 107, SF 118, SF 136, TF 198, HNS 141, HNS 182)
Dr Mark A. Else SH Chesson PartnershipNew Farm Produce LtdR & JM Place LtdHall Hunter Partnership
A Fair Share of Water for Agriculture’ UKIA Spring Conference, 7 March 2013
Next steps…
Derive and test irrigation set points for other varieties in commercial field trials
Test potential of combining fertigation with base applications to reduce fertiliser inputs
Assess impacts of drip irrigation/fertigation on minimising nitrate leaching
Investigate varieties that are reputedly more drought tolerant
Modify rhizospheric pH during tuber initiation to suppress Streptomyces spp.
Determine potential to use microbial inoculants to suppress Streptomyces spp
Elucidate the suppressive effect of over-wet soils on the hormonal regulation of tuber initiation
Investigate varieties that are reputedly more tolerant soil flooding