Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

Soil water distribution, water use, and yield response

to partial root zone drying under a shallow
groundwater table condition in a pear orchard
Shaozhong Kanga,*, Xiaotao Hua, Ian Goodwinb, Peter Jerieb
a
Key Lab of Agricultural Soil and Water Engineering in Arid and Semiarid Areas by Ministry of Education,
Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry, Yangling, Shaanxi 712100, PR China
b
Institute of Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Private Bag 1, Ferguson Road, Tatura, Vic. 3616, Australia
Accepted 5 June 2001

Abstract

Partial root zone irrigation was tested for its soil water distribution, water uptake, and water use
ef®ciency (WUE) on pear trees in a commercial orchard (Goulburn Valley, central Victoria,
Australia) in 1998±1999. Irrigation was applied through in three ways: conventional ¯ood irrigation
(CFI), ®xed partial root zone irrigation (FPI), and alternate partial root zone irrigation (API). CFI
means that both sides of the root zone were ¯ood-irrigated. Under FPI, ¯ood irrigation was ®xed to
one side of the root zone, and the other side was kept dry. The API means that one of the two sides
of the root zone was alternately ¯ood-irrigated during consecutive watering. A total of four
irrigations were applied for all treatments during the pear fruit-growing season.
Results showed that water use peaked after each irrigation and rainfall. Maximum water use of
the pear orchard exceeded 7.0 mm/day in mid-summer and thereafter it declined to around 3.5 mm/
day during mid-autumn. Irrigation on the FPI and API was reduced by 52 and 23% and water use by
28 and 12%, respectively, compared to the CFI in the 0±110 cm soil layer. The water uptake in the
irrigated wet sides of API and FPI was more than the same side in the CFI, suggesting a
compensatory effect in the wet part of the root zone. When less irrigation was introduced in the FPI,
the fruit number, yield per tree, and the total yield in unit area were not affected. As a result, WUE
of the pear trees was substantially improved in the FPI treatment under a shallow groundwater table
condition. We conclude that the ®xed partial root zone drying technique could substantially save
water without much reduction of fruit yield. # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

Keywords: Partial root zone drying; Water use ef®ciency; Root signal; Pear tree

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: ‡86-29-7092129; fax: ‡86-29-7092559.
E-mail address: kangshaozhong@163.net (S. Kang).

0304-4238/02/$ ± see front matter # 2002 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.

PII: S 0 3 0 4 - 4 2 3 8 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 3 0 0 - 4
278 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

1. Introduction

Effective irrigation has become a key component in the reliable production of high
quality fruit crops. Applying water to fruit tree crops is a widely used practice but
ef®cient water use has become important only in recent years due to the rapid depletion
of available water resources in some areas. Much effort, such as regulated de®cit
irrigation (RDI) and partial root-zone drying (PRD), has been spent on improving water
use ef®ciency (WUE) on ®eld and fruit crops (e.g. Goodwin and Jerie, 1992; Boland et al.,
1993; Kang et al., 1997, 1998, 2000).
PRD is an irrigation method in which half the root zone is wetted as in full irrigation,
while the other half is not irrigated. This technique has the potential to signi®cantly
reduce water use, enhance canopy vigour, and maintain yields when compared to normal
irrigation methods (e.g. Dry and Loveys, 1998). The theory behind this technique is from
earlier research which showed that plant roots can sense soil drying and produce a root
signal such that the shoot physiology is regulated (Davies and Zhang, 1991). More
detailed research has shown that such a root signal is chemical in nature and produces
an elevated abscisic acid (ABA) concentration in the xylem (Zhang and Davies, 1989a,b,
1990, 1991; Khalil and Grace, 1993; Jia et al., 1996; Jeffrey and Jerome, 1998; Hoffman
et al., 1999). Such regulation can occur in the absence of visible leaf water de®cit and
may be regarded as a `feed-forward' mechanism with which plants may maximise their
survival according to the availability of water in the soil. Obviously, reduction of water
loss, by narrowing stomatal openings before the catastrophic leaf wilting occurs, can
potentially save water and therefore enhance the chance of plant survival (Jones, 1980;
Cowan, 1882; Proebsing et al., 1989).
PRD was therefore designed to let part of the roots exposed to drying soil and produce
the root signal of drying, while the other part of the roots in wet soil can maintain the
water supply so that leaves are kept hydrated. It is hoped that the root signal will reduce
the stomatal openings and hence the transpiration, while the leaf photosynthesis is hardly
affected. Photosynthesis may not be substantially reduced if the limited stomatal closure
is from the `luxury' (the fully open) state, but the transpiration rate can be substantially
inhibited because of the increased stomatal resistance for the diffusion (Jones, 1992;
Kang et al., 1997; Liang et al., 1997).
We (Kang et al., 1998) conducted an experiment with pot-grown maize plants where
plant root system was divided into two or three parts and watered on these partially
divided root zones. Compared to conventional watering, alternate irrigation on 1/2 root
zone reduced water consumption by 35% with a total biomass reduction of only 6±11%.
A ®eld experiment in 1997±1998 for furrow-irrigated maize showed that PRD by
alternate furrow irrigation maintained high grain yield with up to 40% reduction of
irrigation water (Kang et al., 2000). Another experiment in 1999 for hot pepper by drip
irrigation also showed that alternate PRD could reduce 41.6% irrigation water use (Kang
et al., 2001). Such an approach was also encouraged by more recent investigations on
grapevines led by Loveys (see Loveys et al., 1997; Dry and Loveys, 1998).
In orchards, a PRD of fruit trees often occurs, using either drip emitters or mini-
sprinklers, which wet only part of the root zone. This practice has prompted a number
of ®eld experiments in which different fractions of the soil's surface area were wetted
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 279

and corresponding changes in three performances monitored (Green and Clothier, 1995,
1999). Applying water more frequently to a smaller wetted-surface area improved uptake
ef®ciency and had little impact on fruit growth (Bielorai, 1982; Moreshet et al., 1983). Tan
and Buttery (1982) found that the complete water requirements of peach seedlings could
be met by supplying only half of the root zone with water. From their results it is apparent
that a compensatory effect occurred in the wet part of the root zone. However, these
experiments were only for a short period or in split-root fruit trees. The water use, yield,
water dynamics and water uptake in different sides of the root zone or in different growing
seasons are still not clear.
This experiment was designed to test the PRD on pear trees by using a ¯ood irrigation
system in a commercial orchard. The hypothesis was that water might be saved by PRD
and WUE might be enhanced without fruit yield reduction with less irrigation. We
aimed to compare the ®xed PRD with the whole root zone irrigation and alternate
PRD on pear trees in terms of root water uptake, fruit yield and size, water use and
WUE.

2. Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted during 1998±1999, at the Nethersole's packham pear
orchard near Tatura, Victoria, Australia (latitude 368260 S, longitude 1458160 E). The area
is in a semiarid zone with an average annual rainfall of about 487 mm and underground
water table 1.8 m below soil surface. The soil was a lemnos loam (see Skene and
Poutsma, 1962) and had moderately slow water permeability. Field capacity, de®ned as
the water content at 0.002 MPa, was approximately 0.415 cm3/cm3 averaged in the
upper 110 cm for the soil pro®le. The bulk density was about 1.5 g/cm3.
The cultivar, fertilising and insect control in all the plots were the same. Grass sward
with herbicide strip. The experimental design was a randomised block design with four
replications. The within-row spacing was 3.1 m with 5.8 m between the rows.
The ¯ood irrigation method was used, and three irrigation treatments were designed.
The treatments were conventional ¯ood irrigation (CFI); ®xed 1/2 PRD and the other 1/2
part irrigated (FPI) and alternate 1/2 PRD and irrigating (API). CFI means that two sides
of the root zone were irrigated during each watering, i.e. the control treatment. FPI
means that irrigation was ®xed to one side of the root zone, and the other side was kept
drying. API means that one of the two sides of root zone was alternately irrigated during
consecutive watering. Totally, four irrigations in the fruit-growing season were applied: 9
and 30 December 1998, and 16 January and 6 February 1999, for all the treatments. The
®rst irrigation was in the east side of the root zone in API treatment, and only west side
of the root zone was irrigated in FPI treatment. All treatments were watered on the same
day.
The irrigation was controlled according to the advance of water to the borders
between the trees. When irrigation water advanced to the end of the border, the gate
would be switched off. The amount of water irrigated was determined by the measure-
ments of soil water content before and after each irrigation. The total amount of irrigation
water use in the fruit-growing season was 291, 223 and 141 mm for CFI, API and
280 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

FPI treatments, respectively. Irrigation runoff in this study was negligible. Thus, the net
amounts of irrigation were the amounts of water added to the ®eld. The tree water use
was estimated by water balance equation based on the soil water content, rainfall and
irrigation.
Soil water contents were measured with a calibrated Gopher capacitance probe (Soil
Moisture Technology, Gopher, Australia) at 5±10 day intervals, and in 10 cm increments
from 10 to 110 cm deep into the pro®le. Apart from the regular measurements, soil
water content was also measured the day before and after each irrigation. Tubes of
110 cm long for the Gopher probe were installed equidistantly at ®ve positions between
tree lines in each plot for such measurements. The soil water content was averaged by
three point measurements between tree line and the middle of two lines for `east' and
`west' parts.
Meteorological data were measured in a standard weather station located in the Tatura, it
was about 10 km distance from the experiment plots. Parameters measured included air
temperature, air humidity, wind speed at 2 m above ground, rainfall and global radiation,
and evaporation with Class A pan. Rainfall and pan evaporation changes over the fruit-
growing season are presented in Fig. 1.
Prior to harvest for yield assessment, eight trees were sampled near the soil water
content measurements of each treatment for the determination of the fruit yield, fruit
number per tree, and average fruit weight, and for each plot were weighed and recorded.
Data were averaged for each treatment. Final results were tested by Duncan's multiple
range tests.

Fig. 1. Variation of rainfall and pan evaporation in pear fruit-growing season.

 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 281

3. Result analysis

3.1. Soil water distribution and changes in water content of the root zone

Prior to the start of our experiment, some 70 mm of rainfall was recorded on day 12
(12 November) and the root zone of the three irrigation treatments was initially quite wet.
The average water content at the position of tree line in the layer 0±60 cm and 0±110 cm
of the root zone was about 300 and 540 mm on day 13, close to saturation (Fig. 2).
Similar changes of soil water contents were observed at the tree line positions for three
irrigation treatments. On day 39, the ®rst irrigation was applied to two sides of root zone
for CFI and one side for FPI and API, the soil water contents in CFI and API were larger
than that of FPI, and the same tendency occurred after the second, third and fourth
irrigation. However, after day 122, three times of heavy rainfall were recorded, and
the soil water contents were back to the same level in the three irrigation treatments. The
difference in soil water content variation in pear fruit-growing season was caused by
the different irrigation water supply and root water uptake. The minimum soil water
contents of the three irrigation treatments were approximately about 400 and 200 mm for
0±110 cm and 0±60 cm soil layer, respectively, in pear fruit-growing season.
The soil water content pro®les at tree line before and after each irrigation are shown in
Fig. 3. For CFI, a marked change in soil water content occurred at about 60 cm depth.
The soil water content reached a maximum value at this depth (Fig. 3a). Thus a gradient
of soil water content existed in the soil pro®le towards the ground water table below this
depth. Therefore, percolation to the deep soil layer might have occurred after each
irrigation.

Fig. 2. Variation of average soil water content of root zone in tree line for different irrigation treatments in pear
fruit-growing season.
282 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

Fig. 3. Volumetric water content profile on the tree line before and after each irrigation for different treatments.
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 283

Fig. 4. Variation of soil water content of west and east sides in root zone for different irrigation treatments in
pear fruit-growing season.

For API treatment, the soil water distribution pro®le was nearly linear. The soil water
content in the top layer was less than that of the deeper layer before and after each
irrigation (Fig. 3b). Hence, there was a gradient of soil water content upward in root zone.
It indicated that an upward water ¯ow ¯ux might have occurred from the deeper soil layer
from 110 cm to root zone in pear fruit-growing season. Similar soil water distribution
pro®le as API was also recorded in FPI treatment (Fig. 3c).
The difference of soil water content variations was marked between west and east
sides of the root zone for different irrigation treatment (Fig. 4). Before the ®rst irrigation,
soil surface was wetted uniformly by rainfall. There was no marked difference between
284 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

west and east sides of the root zone for all of three irrigation treatments. In the whole
fruit-growing season, water content variations had no apparent difference between east
and west sides for CFI in 0±60 cm and 0±110 cm layers. After the ®rst irrigation, the
marked difference of soil water content variation existed between west and east sides of
the root zone, even if the in®ltration ¯ux was not avoided from the wet side to the dry
side. Soil water content in the east side with permanent drying was much smaller than
that of the west side for FPI treatment. Soil water content in API plots changed
alternately in west and east sides for each irrigation. After day 122, the difference of
soil water contents in east and west sides was gradually disappeared because of three large
rainfall events.

3.2. Water use and water uptake in different sides of the root zone

The distribution pattern of water uptake can be deduced from the rate at which soil
water content changes, irrigation and rainfall within different sides of the root zone. The
total volume of water being drawn each period from the root zone of the pear tree can be
calculated from an integration of soil water balance estimation. The average daily water
use was equal to the total volume divided by the number of days of the period. Fig. 5
shows the results of such calculation of daily water use variation during pear fruit-
growing season. The variation was similar as the soil water content. The peaks occurred
after each irrigation and rainfall, the value of water use gradually declined with soil water
de®cit occurring. The maximum water use in CFI of the pear tree exceeded 7.0 mm/day
in mid-summer (e.g. 65 and 82 days) and thereafter it declined to around 3.5 mm/day
during mid-autumn. This decline is due to a reducing atmospheric demand for water (e.g.
pan evaporation reducing in Fig. 1). The marked difference of daily water use existed
among different irrigation treatments, the water use in CFI was larger than that of API

Fig. 5. Daily water use variation of pear tree based on water balance calculation in different soil layers for
different irrigation treatments.
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 285

Fig. 6. The accumulated water use process of pear tree in different soil layers for three irrigation treatments.

and FPI. Fig. 6 shows the accumulated water use process in pear fruit-growing season. It
can be seen that the slope of the accumulated curves is large during 55±120 days, s
period in the mid-summer. The total water use in the pear fruit-growing season is shown
in Table 1. Based on the results of water balance calculation in 0±110 cm soil layer, 28.3
and 11.5% of water use were saved in FPI and API as compared to the CFI, and 51.5 and
23.3% of irrigation water were reduced in FPI and API (Table 1).
Throughout the experimental period, we observed a different rate of change in the
average water content on both sides of the root zone (Fig. 4 and Table 2). In Table 2, y is the
soil volumetric water content, z the soil layer depth, Dy the temporal change in average
water content over different
R 110soil depth, and the subscripts W and E refer to the west and east
sides of the root zone. 0 DyW‡E dz is the average water uptake estimated by water
balance equation over the soil depths 0±110 cm. The results in Table 2 suggest that root
water uptake was different on both sides of the root zone, presumably because of the
differential irrigation. There were four irrigations in pear fruit-growing season on 9
December (39 days) and 30 December (60 days) 1998, and 16 January (77 days) and
6 February (98 days) 1999, respectively, in addition to the heavy rainfalls in the ®rst

Table 1
Water balance estimation in pear fruit-growing season for different irrigation treatments

Soil layer Irrigation Effective Irrigation Total soil Total soil Water use Pear tree
depth (cm) treatments rainfall water water in water in from soil water use
(mm) (mm) the beginning the end water change (mm)a
time (mm) time (mm) (mm)

0±110 CFI 172.2 291.0 456.75 440.85 15.90 479.10 a

API 223.0 476.33 448.20 28.13 424.03 b
FPI 141.0 467.84 439.90 27.94 343.42 c
a
Letters indicate statistical significance at P0.05 level within the same column and the same soil layer depth.
286 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

Table 2
The ratio of water uptake in west and east side with the average water use in whole root zone in different stagesa
R R 110 R R 110
Irrigation Days West side, DyW dz= 0 DyW‡E dz East side, DyE dz= 0 DyW‡E dz
treatments
0±60 cm 60±110 cm 0±110 cm 0±60 cm 60±110 cm 0±110 cm

CFI 11±24 0.70 0.29 1.00 0.56 0.32 0.88

25±54 0.72 0.60 1.32 0.77 0.23 1.00
55±76 0.57 0.25 0.82 0.61 0.50 1.11
77±90 0.45 0.39 0.84 0.37 0.40 0.76
91±109 0.74 0.47 1.21 1.02 0.29 1.31
110±164 0.63 0.50 1.14 0.59 0.42 1.01
11±164 0.63 0.44 1.06 0.62 0.36 0.98
API 11±24 0.69 0.35 1.05 0.60 0.32 0.92
25±54 0.34 0.22 0.55 0.81 0.40 1.22
55±76 1.18 0.16 1.34 0.33 0.11 0.44
77±90 0.16 0.07 0.23 0.75 0.33 1.08
91±109 1.50 0.44 1.94 0.87 0.15 1.02
110±164 0.74 0.44 1.17 0.30 0.40 0.70
11±164 0.69 0.30 0.98 0.57 0.31 0.89
FPI 11±24 0.63 0.26 0.89 0.46 0.31 0.77
25±54 1.28 0.29 1.57 1.11 0.27 1.38
55±76 0.81 0.33 1.14 0.21 0.09 0.30
77±90 0.39 0.37 0.76 0.26 0.15 0.41
91±109 1.45 0.59 2.04 0.14 0.09 0.23
110±164 0.71 0.52 1.23 0.02 0.39 0.37
11±164 0.83 0.38 1.21 0.35 0.24 0.59
a
Days refer to the days after the experiment beginning (1 November, 1998). There were four irrigations in
fruit-growing season on 9 December (39 days), 30 December (60 days) 1998 and 16 January (77 days), 6
February (98 days) 1999, respectively, there were heavy rainfall in the first period and the last two periods. The
first irrigation was in the east side of the root zone in API treatment, and only west side of the root zone was
irrigated in FPI treatment.

period and the last two periods. The ®rst irrigation was in the east side of the root zone in
API treatment, and only west side of the root zone was irrigated in FPI treatment.
We observed a similar water uptake on both sides of the root zone for CFI treatment in
the whole fruit-growing season, and in the ®rst period (11±24 days) for API and FPI,
because of the similar water content in both sides of the root zone in this period. How-
ever, this balanced pattern of water uptake was altered for the following four differential
irrigations in the FPI and API plots (Table 2).
Following the differential irrigation, water uptake from the irrigated, west side of the
root zone increased relative to the uptake from the drier east side of the root zone (Table 2)
for FPI. The ratio of water uptake in `mm water depth' in the east side with the average
water uptake in `mm water depth' in whole root zone was smaller than that of the west
side. Following the ®rst irrigation, the ratio of the drier side (east side) in the days 25±54
was still larger than 1.0 for FPI treatment, probably because the soil water storage in
0±110 cm layer was enough to satisfy the requirements of root water uptake, and in the
periods of days 91±109 and days 110±164, the ratio in the east side was negative, we
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 287

attribute that some side in®ltration from the west wet part to the east drier part was larger
than the root water uptake from the drier side. The ratio of water uptake in west side with
the average water uptake in whole root zone was larger than 1.0 in most of periods, it
indicated a compensatory effect of root water uptake occurring in the wet part of the root
system.
For API, following the differential irrigation, the ratio of water uptake in the east side
was larger or smaller alternately than that of the west side. It was larger in the irrigated
side with large soil water content. And also the ratio in the wet part was larger than 1.0.
In the last two periods, the ratios in west and east sides were similar with rainfall
supplied to the both sides of the root zone, and nearly to 1.0. This also explained that the
complete water requirements of pear tree could be met by supplying only half of the root
zone with water, and pear trees are able to modify their spatial patterns of water uptake
in response to different levels of available water in their root zone.
Table 3 shows the ratio of water uptake in west and east sides in API and FPI with that
in the same side in CFI, y is the soil volumetric water content, z the soil layer depth, Dy
the temporal change in average water content over the different soil R depth, and the
subscripts
R W and E refer to the west and east sides of the root zone. DyW…CFI† dz and
DyE…CFI† dz are the water uptake in west and east sides of CFI treatment. The results
showed that the ratio was large in the irrigated side, and small in the permanent drying
side for FPI. Even if three times of heavy rainfall supplied to the permanent drying side,

Table 3
The ratio of water uptake in west and east sides of the root zone in API and FPI with that in same side of CFI in
different stagesa
R R R R
Irrigation Days West side, DyW dz= DyW…CFI† dz East side, DyE dz= DyE…CFI† dz
treatments
0±60 cm 60±110 cm 0±110 cm 0±60 cm 60±110 cm 0±110 cm

API 11±24 1.07 1.31 1.14 1.17 1.10 1.14

25±54 0.40 0.31 0.36 0.92 1.51 1.06
55±76 2.15 0.66 1.69 0.55 0.22 0.40
77±90 0.26 0.12 0.19 1.45 0.59 1.00
91±109 1.72 0.79 1.36 0.72 0.42 0.66
110±164 1.01 0.77 0.90 0.44 0.82 0.60
11±164 0.98 0.60 0.82 0.82 0.76 0.80
FPI 11±24 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.88 1.04 0.94
25±54 1.22 0.34 0.82 1.00 0.79 0.95
55±76 1.30 1.17 1.26 0.31 0.16 0.24
77±90 0.38 0.42 0.40 0.31 0.17 0.24
91±109 1.00 0.64 0.86 0.07 0.15 0.09
110±164 0.84 0.77 0.81 0.03 0.69 0.27
11±164 0.95 0.63 0.82 0.41 0.48 0.43
a
Days refer to the days after the experiment beginning (1 November 1998). There were four irrigations in
fruit-growing season on 9 December (39 days), 30 December (60 days) 1998 and 16 January (77 days), 6
February (98 days) 1999, respectively, there were heavy rainfall in the first period and the last two periods. The
first irrigation was in the east side of the root zone in API treatment, and only west side of the root zone was
irrigated in FPI treatment.
288 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

Table 4
Pear yield, average fruit weight and fruit number per tree for different irrigation treatmentsa

Irrigation treatments Yield (kg/tree) Average fruit weight (g) Fruit number per tree

CFI 244 b 200 a 1232 b

API 237 b 184 b 1321 a
FPI 256 a 191 a 1343 a
a
Letters indicate statistical significance at P0.05 level within the same column.

the ratio was still much smaller than 1.0. This also explained that the ability of root water
uptake was not restored to the level of the same side in CFI. The ratio in the wet side was
larger than 1.0 in API, indicating that the ability of root water uptake exceeded that of the
same side in CFI. The results suggest that a compensatory effect occurred in the wet part
of the root system again.

3.3. Yield, size and WUE

Data in Table 4 show that with less irrigation water in FPI, the average fruit weight
was not reduced signi®cantly, but fruit number and yield per tree was increased as
compared to the CFI. In API, the fruit yield per tree was not reduced signi®cantly, but
average fruit weight was slightly reduced as compared to the CFI. The most important
result from the investigation was that when less irrigation was introduced in FPI, the total
yield per unit area was increased (Table 5). Table 5 summarises the total water con-
sumption, irrigation water and yield for all the treatments. WUEE, calculated as the fruit
yield per unit amount of water consumption, was substantially improved in FPI treat-
ment. It was increased 46.4% as compared with CFI based on the water balance
calculation of 0±110 cm layer. The production ef®ciency of irrigation water, WUEI, cal-
culated as the fruit yield per unit amount of irrigation water use, was markedly improved
in FPI treatment. It was increased by 116.5% over the CFI treatment. This result is not
similar as that reported in the ®eld crop (Kang et al., 1998, 2000; Liang et al., 1997).
Possibly the soil water content in the permanent drying side of FPI in this investigation
was not reduced to such a lower value and the roots in this side can still extract water
from the soil because of a shallow ground water table and a different root distribution
pattern in this research.

Table 5
Pear WUE and production efficiency of irrigation water for different irrigation treatmentsa

Soil layer Irrigation Irrigation Water use Yield WUEE ˆ WUEI ˆ

depth (cm) treatments water (mm) (mm) (kg/ha) Y=ET …kg=m3 † Y=I …kg=m3 †

0±110 CFI 291.0 a 479.10 a 81325.2 b 16.966 c 27.933 c

API 223.0 b 424.03 b 78992.1 b 18.620 b 35.405 b
FPI 141.0 c 343.42 c 85324.8 a 24.833 a 60.483 a
a
Letters indicate statistical significance at P0.05 level within the same column.
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 289

4. Discussion

Why could the PRD method save irrigation water without a trade-off for fruit yield? We
believe one possibility is a compensatory effect in the wet part of the root system. We
indeed observed that the fruit yield was not reduced but the irrigation water use was largely
curtailed, and the water uptake in the wet part was enhanced with a much larger rate, when
PRD method was used.
The ratio of water uptake in wet west side with that in the same side of CFI was larger
than 1.0 in most of periods for FPI and API, suggesting that the ability of root water
uptake exceeded that of the same side in CFI. The result is in agreement with that in
hydraulic conductivity of root system (Kang and Zhang, 1997; Kang et al., 1999). We
found earlier that hydraulic conductivity of root system could be improved greatly when
re-wetted after experiencing drying. From the results, it indicated that a compensatory
effect occurred in the wet part of the root system for FPI and API. It is apparent that pear
trees are able to modify their spatial patterns of water uptake in response to different
levels of available water in their root zone.
The result indicated that the fruit number, yield per tree and the total yield per unit
area were not reduced and WUEE and WUEI were substantially improved when less
irrigation was introduced in FPI. This result is different from that reported with ®eld crop
(Kang et al., 1998, 2000; Liang et al., 1997). We found earlier (Kang et al., 1998, 2000;
Liang et al., 1997) that WUEE and WUEI could be substantially improved and the grain
yield in maintained in maize production in API, but the effect was not apparent in FPI
under furrow irrigation. The result explained that FPI prolonged the exposure of roots to
dried soil which could cause anatomical changes in the roots (North and Nobel, 1991),
e.g. suberisation of epidermis, collapse of cortex and loss of succulent secondary roots.
These changes were such that these roots in the dried soil may become sort of `pipes'. It
is possible that the soil water content in the permanent drying side for FPI treatment in
this investigation was not reduced to such a lower value and roots could still extract
water from the soil because of a shallow ground water table and a different structure and
distribution pattern of root system in this research.
Another possibility for the improved WUE in API and FPI came from the analysis of soil
water distribution. The soil water distribution pro®le was almost linear (water content
versus depth) in API and FPI, and there was a gradient of soil water content upward in
their root zone. In contrast, a gradient of soil water content existed in the soil pro®le
towards the ground water table in CFI. It can be concluded that the irrigation water
remained in the root zones of API and FPI and there was little percolation in API and FPI.
However, deep drainage to deep soil layer may have occurred after each irrigation in CFI.
Where did the tree water use come from when irrigation water use was reduced more
than 50% in the FPI? The possibility is that the ground water contribution to root zone
might have occurred continuously in this investigation with a shallow ground water table.
In conclusion, we have found that FPI reduced 28.3% of water use, saved 51.5% of
irrigation water, maintained the fruit yield and doubled of irrigation water production
ef®ciency as compared with CFI in pear fruit production in areas with a shallow ground
water table. More research is needed in areas without shallow water table, otherwise the
reported effects at least might be overestimated. This result should be of signi®cant value
290 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291

to arid and semiarid areas because many of such areas face a shrinking water resource. A
sustainable use of water resource is increasingly becoming an urgent worldwide problem.

Acknowledgements

S. Kang is grateful to the support by Chinese National Excellent Young Scientist Fund
(49725102) and G1999011708 project. We are also grateful to the ®nancial support from
ACIAR project and want to thank the technician James Selman for his assistance with the
®eldwork.

References

Bielorai, H., 1982. The effect of partial wetting of the root zone on yield and water use efficiency in a drip- and
sprinkler-irrigated mature grapefruit grove. Irrig. Sci. 3, 89±100.
Boland, A.M., Mitchell, P.D., Jerie, P.H., Goodwin, I., 1993. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on tree water
use and growth of peach. J. Hortic. Sci. 68, 261±274.
Cowan, I.R., 1882. Regulation of water use in relation to carbon gain on higher plants. In: Lange, O.L., et al.
(Eds.), Physiological Plant Ecology II. Springer, Berlin, pp. 589±614.
Davies, W.J., Zhang, J., 1991. Root signals and the regulation of growth and development of plants in drying
soil. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42, 55±76.
Dry, P.R., Loveys, B.R., 1998. Factors influencing grapevine vigour and the potential for control with partial root
zone drying. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 4, 140±148.
Goodwin, I., Jerie, P., 1992. Regulated deficit irrigation: from concept to practice. The Aust. NZ Wine Ind. J. 5,
131±133.
Green, S.R., Clothier, B.E., 1995. Root water uptake by kiwifruit vines following partial wetting of the root
zone. Plant Soil 173, 317±328.
Green, S.R., Clothier, B.E., 1999. The root zone dynamics of water uptake by a mature apple tree. Plant Soil
206, 61±77.
Hoffman, A., Shock, C., Feibert, E., 1999. Taxane and ABA production in yew under different soil water
regimes. HortScience 34, 882±885.
Jeffrey, L., Jerome, G., 1998. Abscisic acid signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 49,
199±222.
Jia, W., Zhang, J., Zhang, D.-P., 1996. Metabolism of xylem delivered ABA in relation to ABA flux and
concentration in leaves of maize and Commelina communis. J. Exp. Bot. 47, 1085±1091.
Jones, H.G., 1980. Interaction and integration of adaptive responses to water stress: the implications of an un-
predictable environment. In: Turner, N.C., Kramer, P.J. (Eds.), Adaptation of Plant to Water and High
Temperature Stress. Wiley, New York, pp. 353±365.
Jones, H.G., 1992. Plants and Microclimate: A Quantitative Approach to Environmental Plant Physiology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Kang, S., Zhang, J., 1997. Hydraulic conductivities in soil±root system and relative importance at different soil
water potential and temperature. Trans. CSAE 13 (2), 76±81.
Kang, S., Zhang, J., Liang, Z., Hu, X., Cai, H., 1997. The controlled alternate irrigation: a new approach for
water saving regulation in farmland. Agric. Res. Arid Area (Chinese) 15 (1), 1±6.
Kang, S., Liang, Z., Hu, W., Zhang, J., 1998. Water use efficiency of controlled alternate irrigation on root-
divided maize plants. Agric. Water Mgmt. 38, 69±76.
Kang, S., Zhang, J., Liang, J., 1999. Combined effects of soil water content and temperature on plant root
hydraulic conductivity. Acta Phytoecologica Sinica 23 (3), 211±219.
Kang, S., Liang, Z., Pan, Y., Shi, P., Zhang, J., 2000. Alternate furrow irrigation for maize production in arid
area. Agric. Water Mgmt. 45, 267±274.
 S. Kang et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 92 (2002) 277±291 291

Kang, S., Li, Z., Cai, H., et al., 2001. An improved water use efficiency for hot pepper grown under controlled
alternate drip irrigation on partial roots. Sci. Hortic. 89, 257±267.
Khalil, A.A.M., Grace, J., 1993. Does xylem sap ABA control the stomatal behaviour of water-stressed
sycamore (Acer pseudoplatanus L.) seedlings? J. Exp. Bot. 44, 1127±1134.
Liang, Z., Kang, S., Hu, W., Zhang, J., 1997. Effect of controlled alternate watering on maize water use. Trans.
CSAE 13 (4), 58±63.
Loveys, B.R., Grant, J., Dry, P.R., McCarthy, M., 1997. Progress in the development of partial root zone drying.
The Australian Grape Grower and Winemaker 404, 18±20.
Moreshet, S., Cohen, Y., Fuchs, M., 1983. Response of mature `Shamouti' orange trees to irrigation of different
soil volumes and similar levels of available water. Irrig. Sci. 3, 223±236.
North, G.B., Nobel, P.S., 1991. Changes in hydraulic conductivity and anatomy caused by drying and rewetting
roots of Agave deserti (Agavaceae). Am. J. Bot. 78, 906±915.
Proebsing, E.L., Jerie, P.H., Irvine, J.L., 1989. Water deficits and rooting volume modify peach and pear trees.
Sci. Hortic. 52, 223±236.
Skene, J.K.M., Poutsma, T.J., 1962. Soils and land use in part of Goulburn Valley, Victoria. Technical Bulletin
No. 14. Department of Agriculture, Victoria, Australia.
Tan, C.S., Buttery, B.R., 1982. The effect of soil moisture stress to various fractions of the root system on
transpiration, photosynthesis, and internal water relations of peach seedlings. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 107,
845±849.
Zhang, J., Davies, W.J., 1989a. Abscisic acid produced in dehydrating roots may enable the plant to measure the
water status of the soil. Plant Cell Environ. 12, 73±81.
Zhang, J., Davies, W.J., 1989b. Sequential responses of whole plant water relations towards prolonged soil
drying and the mediation by xylem sap ABA concentrations in the regulation of stomatal behaviour of
sunflower plants. New Phytologist 113, 167±174.
Zhang, J., Davies, W.J., 1990. Changes in the concentration of ABA in xylem sap as a function of changing soil
water status will account for changes in leaf conductance. Plant Cell Environ. 13, 277±285.
Zhang, J., Davies, W.J., 1991. Antitranspirant activity in the xylem sap of maize plants. J. Exp. Bot. 42,
317±321.