Next Article in Journal
An Improved iTransformer with RevIN and SSA for Greenhouse Soil Temperature Prediction
Next Article in Special Issue
Drought–Rewatering Dynamics in Chinese Cropping Systems: A Meta-Analysis of Yield Loss Mitigation, Water Use Efficiency, and Compensatory Physiological Response
Previous Article in Journal
Smart Agricultural Pest Detection Using I-YOLOv10-SC: An Improved Object Detection Framework
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Spatial Analysis of Coffee Plant Temperature and Its Relationship with Water Potential and Stomatal Conductance Using a Thermal Camera Embedded in a Remotely Piloted Aircraft
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy15010222
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agronomic Performance of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro Region

by
Giovani Belutti Voltolini
1,
Gladyston Rodrigues Carvalho
1,*,
Vinícius Teixeira Andrade
1,
André Dominghetti Ferreira
2,
Francislei Vitti Raposo
1,
João Paulo Felicori Carvalho
1,
Diego Junior Martins Vilela
3,
Cleidson Alves da Silva
3,
Jéfferson de Oliveira Costa
4,
Guilherme Barbosa Abreu
2,
Juliana Costa de Rezende Abrahão
1,
César Elias Botelho
1,
Denis Henrique Silva Nadaleti
1,
Marcelo Ribeiro Malta
1,
Vânia Aparecida Silva
1,
Sônia Maria de Lima Salgado
1,
Reginério Soares de Faria
3,
Antônio Carlos Baião de Oliveira
2 and
Antônio Alves Pereira
3
1
Experimental Field of Lavras, Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency (EPAMIG), Lavras 37200-970, MG, Brazil
2
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), EMBRAPA Coffee, Brasília 70770-901, DF, Brazil
3
Experimental Field of Patrocínio, Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency (EPAMIG), Patrocínio 38740-000, MG, Brazil
4
Experimental Field of Gorutuba, Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency (EPAMIG), Nova Porteirinha 39525-000, MG, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2025, 15(1), 222; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010222
Submission received: 14 November 2024 / Revised: 13 January 2025 / Accepted: 15 January 2025 / Published: 17 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Optimizing Crop Water Use: Advances and Applications in Deficit Irrigation Strategies)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Coffee genetic improvement programs have been evolving very quickly, with frequent launches of new cultivars. The adoption of these new genetic materials by rural producers requires knowledge of agronomic performance in different production systems. Thus, this research aimed to evaluate the agronomic performance of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.) cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region. Evaluations were conducted in experimental fields across 22 farms of Arabica coffee producers, and 11 used an irrigated production system and 11 used a rainfed system. Twelve cultivars were evaluated as follows: Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144, Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, Topázio MG 1190, MGS Epamig 1194, Catiguá MG2, MGS Catiguá 3, MGS Ametista, Pau Brasil MG1, MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Aranãs, Sarchimor MG 8840, and IAC 125 RN. Based on grain yield, processing yield, seed density, grain size, and cup quality, agronomic performance evaluations were conducted annually for the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 harvests. The results showed that the grain yield was higher in the irrigated system compared to the rainfed system. In irrigated fields, the average increases in grain yield were 38%. Irrigation improved the performance of the cultivars in terms of processing yield, although it reduced cup quality. MGS Paraíso 2 cultivar showed the best productive performance, with an average of over four harvests of 52 and 42 bags ha−1 (1 bag = 60 kg) in irrigated and rainfed systems, respectively. The cultivars least responsive to irrigation were IAC 125 RN, MGS Catiguá 3, MGS Ametista, and MGS Paraíso 2, with grain yield increases of 24%, 26%, 27%, and 28%, respectively. The most responsive cultivars were MGS EPAMIG 1194, Sarchimor MG 8840, and Pau Brasil MG1, with grain yield increases of 33%, 35%, and 39%, respectively. The agronomic performance results of coffee cultivars in irrigated and rainfed production systems will allow rural producers to adopt cultivars that are more suitable for the Cerrado Mineiro region.

1. Introduction

Brazil is the largest producer and exporter of coffee in the world. In 2024, Brazil’s coffee production reached approximately 55 million bags (1 bag = 60 kg), representing 30% of global production. The current coffee plantation area in Brazil is 2.3 million ha. Furthermore, Brazil is the second largest consumer market for coffee. Minas Gerais is the Brazilian state most notable for the production of Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L.), with a planted area of 1.1 million ha and a production of 28 million bags in 2024 [1,2]. The Cerrado Mineiro region is one of the most important Arabica coffee-producing areas in Minas Gerais, with 195 thousand ha of Arabica coffee in production, distributed across more than 4500 farms in 55 municipalities, producing more than 5 million bags in 2024. This region accounts for 18% of the planted area and 19% of Arabica coffee production in Minas Gerais, with an average grain yield of 27 bags ha−1 [2].
In the Cerrado Mineiro region, Arabica coffee is grown in two production systems: irrigated and rainfed. The irrigated production system has been growing in recent years because it allows the establishment of coffee plantations in regions with high annual water deficits and results in significant increases in grain yield [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. In Brazil, irrigated coffee plantations exceed 600 thousand hectares, representing 25% of the planted area. The rainfed production system, depending on the climate conditions, can lead to significant losses in grain yield. Therefore, irrigation is the most viable option to reduce the risks of adverse climate conditions [10,11,12,13].
The irrigation methods used in Arabica coffee cultivation are sprinkler and localized irrigation. The sprinkler systems used to irrigate coffee plants are conventional mobile or fixed sprinklers (including mesh sprinkler systems), self-propelled sprinklers, and center pivots [3,13]. As for localized, the most widely used system is drip irrigation due to its technical characteristics that allow for highly uniform irrigation and water and energy savings [11,14].
In the irrigated production system, the application of water to meet the water requirements of the coffee plant in the Cerrado Mineiro region is around 1100 to 1400 mm year−1. However, the amount of water to be applied to the crop depends on the climate, soil, and plant conditions [15,16]. In the rainfed production system, the distribution of rainfall throughout the cycle can compromise the agronomic performance of the coffee plant even in the years of satisfactory total rainfall. There are indications that the coffee plant can withstand a period of water deficit of up to 150 mm well, especially when it does not extend until the flowering phase. In years with an annual water deficit greater than 150 mm, or in places subject to dry spells or prolonged drought, the adoption of irrigation to supply water during the critical periods of the crop is essential to obtain high grain yield [17,18,19,20,21,22,23].
Another factor that directly affects the grain yield and cup quality of coffee is the choice of cultivar. Currently, the main objective of the coffee genetic improvement program in Brazil is to increase grain yield. In addition, it aims to develop cultivars with good cup quality, adapted to environmental conditions and resistant to the main diseases and pests [24,25,26,27,28]. Thus, coffee genetic improvement programs have launched new cultivars with high agronomic potential [29,30]. However, the adoption of these new genetic materials by rural producers requires knowledge of agronomic performance in different production systems.
In this context, it is essential to know the agronomic performance of Arabica coffee cultivars in different production systems. Such information is crucial for decision-making, not only in selecting the best cultivars for the Cerrado Mineiro region but also in directing the most efficient production system, aiming to use cultivars with significant productive and qualitative responses according to water availability. The appropriate positioning of new coffee cultivars is crucial, as coffee is a perennial crop that remains in cultivation for at least 10 harvests or 12 years. Therefore, incorrect planning decisions will persist until the crop is renewed, impacting the sustainability of the business.
Thus, this research aimed to evaluate the agronomic performance of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region. Information on agronomic performance, scarce in the literature, will contribute to the recommendation of new Arabica coffee cultivars for rural producers in the Cerrado Mineiro region.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Characterization of Experimental Fields

This research was conducted in experimental fields located on 22 Arabica coffee farms in the Cerrado Mineiro region, from October 2016, at planting, to October 2022, at the end of the fourth harvest. The location of the farms, municipalities, and altitude above sea level of each experimental field can be seen in Figure 1. The selected experimental fields represent the microregions of Cerrado Mineiro, including the municipalities of Araguari, Campos Altos, Carmo do Paranaíba, Coromandel, Ibiá, Monte Carmelo, Patrocínio, Rio Paranaíba, and Varjão de Minas. The experimental fields were located within a radius of approximately 150 km and the elevation ranged from 881 to 1250 m.
Among the 22 experimental fields, 11 had irrigated production systems and 11 had rainfed systems (Table 1). The particle size fractions of the soils in the experimental fields also varied, resulting in clayey and clay loam soil textures. According to Fernandes et al. [3], approximately 54% of the predominant soils in the Cerrado Mineiro region are Latosols, which are generally nutrient poor (mainly phosphorus), highly weathered, with low cation exchange capacity, and high acidity and aluminum toxicity. The topography is predominantly flat to slightly undulating, providing good drainage conditions.
The soils in the experimental fields varied in available water capacity (AWC), ranging from 78 to 242 mm, considering a 1 m soil profile. The irrigated experimental fields received water through an irrigation system (center pivot and drip irrigation) to maintain soil moisture at field capacity. The amount of water applied was defined by the irrigation scheduling method based on evapotranspiration and soil water balance. The coffee crop evapotranspiration estimates were calculated according to Equation (1) [31].
ETc = ETo × Kc
where ETc is the daily actual evapotranspiration of soybean (mm), Kc is the crop coefficient (dimensionless), and ETo is the daily reference evapotranspiration (Penman–Monteith method) (mm). The adopted specific Kc values and the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) in a daily step were obtained through recommendations by Allen et al. [31].
The climate in the Cerrado Mineiro region is classified as an Aw-tropical climate, according to Köppen’s classification [32], characterized by two well-defined seasons (a dry winter and a rainy summer). Considering the location of the 22 experimental fields and the 30-year period from 1993 to 2022, the average annual temperature is 21.6 °C, with the highest monthly average temperatures occurring in September and October, exceeding 23 °C. From May to July, the monthly average temperatures are around 19 °C. Annual precipitation is 1253 mm, concentrated from October to March. During much of this period, there is an excess of water (EXC), and soil water storage (STO) reaches the limit of the available water capacity (AWC) of 126 mm. From April to October, the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is higher than the average monthly precipitation, resulting in a water deficit (DEF) over 21 ten-day periods throughout the year (Figure 2). The normal climatology of each experimental field and the annual precipitation from 2019 to 2022 can be seen in Figure A1 and Figure A2.

2.2. Cultivars and Production Systems

Twelve Arabica coffee cultivars, already registered in the National Cultivar Register, were evaluated, two of which were comparison standards for grain yield (cultivar Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144) and for cup quality (cultivar Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10). The other cultivars (Topázio MG 1190, MGS Epamig 1194, Catiguá MG2, MGS Catiguá 3, MGS Ametista, Pau Brasil MG1, MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Aranãs, Sarchimor MG 8840, and IAC 125 RN) were selected based on specific characteristics, aiming to generate field data for the recommendation and positioning of new Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region. The cultivars Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144, Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, and IAC 125 RN belong to the Agronomic Institute of Campinas (IAC), while all the other cultivars originate from the genetic improvement program of the Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency (EPAMIG) (Table 2).
Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144 is the most widely used cultivar in Brazilian coffee production. It is hardy, has high production and is short, which makes harvesting and phytosanitary care easier. Its fruit ripens later and is more uneven, as it produces several blooms from the beginning of spring, particularly in higher altitudes and mild climates, and is less exposed to cold winds and heat, making it more resistant to periods of drought. Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10 cultivar is highly susceptible to rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and has a medium/tall size, early maturity, and large seeds. It has excellent cup quality [22].
Topázio MG 1190 cultivar is short in stature, has excellent grain yield and high vegetative vigor, and does not exhibit early impoverishment after high grain yield. The main characteristic of this cultivar is the uniformity of fruit ripening, a factor that exists due to the greater regularity of flowering [33]. MGS EPAMIG 1194 cultivar presents uniform ripening, red fruits, low growth, and abundant primary and secondary productive branches, with a greater insertion angle with the main stem, thus allowing greater light insertion and greater aeration. It is very good for mechanized harvesting, especially for selective harvesting, due to the low fruit detachment force.
Catiguá MG 2 cultivar is resistant to coffee rust. When fully ripe, the fruits are intensely red in color. It is characterized by being short, having high vegetative vigor, intermediate maturation, and high cup quality [34]. MGS Catiguá 3 cultivar is resistant to rust and the nematode Meloidogyne exigua. The plant height, average canopy diameter, and grain yield are similar to those of the Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144 cultivar. When fully ripe, the fruits are intensely red in color and have a high sieve [35].
MGS Ametista cultivar stands out for its high vegetative vigor, good plant architecture, high grain yield, and resistance to rust. It presents red fruits, with intermediate to late maturation and good cup quality. Pau-Brasil MG1 cultivar has a high level of resistance to rust. It has other characteristics such as fruits that have a medium sieve, green shoots on the branches, high production capacity, and intermediate maturation, in addition to a small canopy diameter, red fruits, medium vigor, and good cup quality [36].
MGS Paraíso 2 cultivar is short and has yellow fruits. It is resistant to coffee rust. It has other characteristics such as high fruit sieve, high production capacity, intermediate maturation, suitability for corporate coffee growing, and a high propensity to produce fruits with superior cup quality [37]. MGS Aranãs is resistant to rust, has high grain yield, and stands out for its large grains and cup quality. It is short, the ripe fruits are red in color, and the seeds are large [38].
Sarchimor MG 8840 cultivar has red-colored fruits, with intermediate precocity, combined with good suitability for cup quality [39]. It is a cultivar with low-growing plants and has good resistance to rust. It also has a high production capacity, combined with a sieve with large grains. IAC 125 RN is short in stature, with large, red fruits that ripen early. It is resistant to rust and both races of the nematode Meloidogyne exigua [40]. It has good cup quality. It is demanding in terms of nutrition and is more sensitive to drought than the cultivar Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144. The photos of the Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in the experimental fields can be seen in Figure 3.

2.3. Establishment and Management of Experimental Fields

For the establishment of the experimental fields, seeds from the 12 Arabica coffee cultivars were collected in the 2016 harvest and sent to the partner farmers. The seedlings were grown on the farms themselves or at nearby nurseries. The plantings were carried out at the end of 2016, ensuring that the seedlings of the 12 Arabica coffee cultivars were separated and properly identified in the field.
In each experimental field, 100 seedlings of each cultivar were planted. The adopted spacing was 3.8 m between rows and 0.6 m between plants, resulting in approximately 4386 plants per hectare. The soils were prepared before planting and subjected to fertility analysis and then liming; gypsum application and mineral fertilization were carried out as recommended by Raij et al. [41]. Organic fertilization was carried out in all agricultural years. All soil processes and corrections were made according to the recommendations of the agronomist responsible for each experimental field.
The nutritional and phytosanitary management practices followed a high technological standard adopted by each farmer, aiming to better understand the performance of the cultivars in the two production systems evaluated. It is worth mentioning that, among all the Arabica coffee cultivars studied, four of them are susceptible to coffee rust (Hemileia vastatrix) [42]. To isolate this factor, annual applications were made for the management of this disease, using both soil and foliar treatments.

2.4. Agronomic Performance Assessments

Agronomic performance evaluations of the cultivars were conducted annually during the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 harvests. Coffee was always harvested from 10 plants previously chosen to adequately represent the cultivars and minimize bias in the comparisons. The volume of coffee per plot was quantified in liters to estimate the grain yield in bags ha−1 (1 bag = 60 kg), considering the population density of 4386 plants ha−1.
For the remaining coffee harvested from each plot, 3 L of coffee was separated, consisting of fruits at all stages of maturation, standardized according to the harvest day for drying and subsequent physical analyses related to granulometry and grain density. Processing yield evaluation considered the amount of coffee harvested in liters per plot to obtain one bag of processed coffee.
Regarding the physical analyses, the methodology of the Official Brazilian Classification was applied, classifying the coffee grains based on granulometry, using sieves 17 and 16 for flat beans and 11 and 10 for peaberry beans. The bulk density of the green coffee after processing was determined using the free-fall method [43].
For the determination of cup quality, 12 L of coffee were collected, consisting of ripe fruits at the physiological maturity of each cultivar, with a red or yellow color standard for all fruits and no green fruits. The harvested fruits were dried on appropriate sieves using the layered drying method [44]. After drying and a resting period of 60 days, a sensory evaluation was conducted following Lingle’s specifications [45], using the Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) standard protocol. Through this evaluation, the final cup quality score was obtained. The cup quality evaluation was performed by three Q-Grader tasters.

2.5. Data Analysis

For the variance analyses, the GLM procedure from the SAS software, version 9.4, was used. Quadrennial analyses were performed using a split-plot-in-time model, with each location evaluated considered as a repetition. Splits were performed for grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality within each harvest, each cultivar and production system evaluated, and then with each cultivar within a production system (Table A1). The models were tested using the F-test at a 5% probability level. Subsequently, Duncan’s mean comparison tests were conducted for grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality. Grain density and granulometry were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Productive and Qualitative Performance by Harvest and Cultivar

The average values of the grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee evaluated in the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 harvests in the Cerrado Mineiro region can be seen in Table 3. The average grain yield was 47, 34, 55, and 35 bags ha−1 (1 bag = 60 kg) in the years 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. These values reveal the effects of bienniality, as well as the dynamics of grain yield evolution. Although new Arabica coffee plantations show low effects of bienniality on the grain yields obtained [46], in the Cerrado Mineiro region, the technological adherence index significantly impacts coffee plants. Consequently, the plants show high grain yields in the first harvests, and due to the strong drain of photoassimilates into the fruits, the plants have a reduced capacity for vegetative growth. This tends to occur, to varying degrees, because the development of the fruits formed after flowering occurs simultaneously with the vegetative growth that will form in the next harvest [47,48].
The average processing yield was lower in 2022, requiring 587 L of coffee harvested from the field to obtain one bag of processed coffee. In 2021, 2020, and 2019, the average processing yield values were 563, 562, and 497 L bag−1, respectively. The processing yield is a variable greatly affected by precipitation, which explains this variation over the years (Figure A2).
As for the average values of cup quality, it was observed that in the 2019 and 2021 harvests, which were the years of highest grain yields, the cup quality scores were lower, 83.3 and 83.4 points, respectively. For the 2020 and 2022 harvests with lower grain yields, higher cup quality scores were found: 84.5 and 84.1 points, respectively.
The average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality per Arabica coffee cultivar in the Cerrado Mineiro region can be seen in Table 4. The cultivars MGS Paraíso 2 and MGS EPAMIG 1194 were equal to each other and superior to the others, with 49 and 48 bags ha−1, respectively. The cultivar MGS Ametista was one of the highlights in grain yield with 46 bags ha−1, being statistically equal to the cultivars MGS Paraíso 2 and MGS EPAMIG 1194.
The cultivars MGS Paraíso 2 and MGS EPAMIG 1194 proved to be productive. However, considering that current coffee breeding programs prioritize the development of cultivars resistant to coffee leaf rust, it should be emphasized that the cultivar MGS EPAMIG 1194 does not possess resistance genes to this pathogen. Even though it is a susceptible cultivar, it achieved high average grain yields in fields with high rainfall indices and conditions favorable for the development of the disease. Therefore, it may be recommended for planting in the Cerrado Mineiro region, provided that leaf rust control measures are properly implemented.
Fernandes et al. [29] evaluated the grain yield of various cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region and found the cultivar Topázio MG 1190 to be superior. Freitas et al. [30] observed that, among several tested cultivars, Topázio MG 1190 exhibited the greatest growth in the early months post planting. Knowing that Topázio MG 1190 is one of the most adapted cultivars with the highest yield responses, as documented in these studies, a similar performance was expected from the cultivar MGS EPAMIG 1194, since both cultivars are derived from the cross between Catuaí and Mundo Novo cultivars. However, MGS EPAMIG 1194 proved to be superior to Topázio MG 1190 in this evaluation. The average values of grain yield components and cup quality over four consecutive harvests at 22 distinct locations across various microregions of the Cerrado Mineiro region provide confidence in positioning and recommending the cultivars MGS Paraíso 2 and MGS EPAMIG 1194 for the region as the best performers in terms of grain yield.
On the other hand, the cultivar Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10 was the least outstanding, performing worse than most cultivars, with an average grain yield of 37 bags ha−1 across the four harvests and 22 locations. It is worth noting that the Bourbon variety, widely disseminated across the country, is mainly prized for its notable cup quality, but it generally presents lower grain yields compared to other cultivars. This is due to factors such as its high susceptibility to coffee pathogens, which reduces its competitive ability in cultivation environments, leading to lower grain yields.
In terms of processing yield, the cultivar MGS Paraíso 2 performed the best, with 482 L bag−1. Meanwhile, the cultivars IAC 125 RN, Catiguá MG2, and Pau Brasil MG1 had the lowest performances, with 608, 608, and 603 L bag−1, respectively. Thus, MGS Paraíso 2 was 26% more efficient in the conversion process. Even if this cultivar produced up to 26% less coffee per plant, it would still yield the same amount of processed coffee bags ha−1. Rocha et al. [49], evaluating the processing yield of Arabica coffee cultivars after skeleton pruning, found that the cultivar Paraiso H-419-1, the first in the Paraíso group to be registered, ranked among the best performers.
Regarding cup quality, the cultivar MGS Paraíso 2 stood out, with an average of 85 points, classifying it as specialty coffee. The consistency of positive results for MGS Paraíso 2 reinforces previous studies by Malta et al. [50], which confirmed its potential for producing specialty coffees in the Cerrado Mineiro region. The average score for MGS Paraíso 2 was 1.1 points higher than Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, representing a significant difference, as small numerical differences in this scale imply notable gustatory and commercial distinctions. However, other studies highlighted the potential of Bourbon in the Cerrado Mineiro region, specifically in the municipality of Monte Carmelo, where it outperformed MGS Paraíso 2 [51].
The average values of the grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee evaluated in irrigated and rainfed production systems in the Cerrado Mineiro region can be seen in Table 5. The average grain yield was 50 and 36 bags ha−1 in irrigated and rainfed production systems, respectively. The average processing yield was lower in rainfed production systems, requiring 557 L of coffee harvested from the field to obtain one bag of processed coffee. In irrigated production systems, the average processing yield was 537 L bag−1. As for the average values of cup quality, it was observed that irrigated and rainfed production systems present the cup quality scores 83.7 and 83.9 points, respectively.

3.2. Grain Yield and Processing Yield of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars

The average values and data dispersion for the grain yield of Arabica coffee cultivars in the irrigated and rainfed production systems are shown in Figure 4. All the Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in this research in the Cerrado Mineiro region exhibited higher grain yields in the irrigated production system compared to the rainfed system. In irrigated fields, an average increase of 38% in grain yield was observed for the coffee cultivars across the four harvests evaluated. The cultivars with the least response to irrigation were IAC 125 RN, MGS Catiguá 3, MGS Ametista, and MGS Paraíso 2, showing grain yield increases of 24%, 26%, 27%, and 28%, respectively. On the other hand, the most responsive cultivars were MGS EPAMIG 1194, Sarchimor MG 8840, and Pau Brasil MG1, with grain yield increases of 33%, 35%, and 39%, respectively. As the occurrence of extreme weather events increases, there has been a greater adoption of irrigation in fields where coffee has already been planted. These results can help in selecting cultivars with a higher potential for responding to irrigation in the Cerrado Mineiro region.
In the irrigated production system, the Arabica coffee cultivars that achieved the highest grain yields were MGS EPAMIG 1194, MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Ametista, and Sarchimor MG 8840, with average yields of 57, 56, 52, and 52 bags ha−1, respectively. The cultivar with the lowest grain yield under irrigation was Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, with an average yield of 44 bags ha−1. In the rainfed production system, the cultivars that achieved the highest grain yields were MGS Paraíso 2, MGS EPAMIG 1194, and MGS Ametista, with average yields of 42, 40, and 40 bags ha−1, respectively. The cultivars with the lowest grain yields in rainfed conditions were Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, Pau Brasil MG1, and Catiguá MG2, with averages of 31, 31, and 33 bags ha−1.
Fernandes et al. [52] evaluated coffee under different irrigation systems in the Cerrado Mineiro region and concluded that, under the edaphoclimatic conditions of Uberaba-MG, grain yield from rainfed coffee plantations is lower compared to irrigated plantations. In irrigated fields, grain yields were 75 to 137% higher than those in rainfed fields. Bonomo et al. [53], who studied the effect of irrigation on the grain and processing yields of various Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Goiano region, found that irrigation led to an average increase of 100% in grain yield. Fernandes et al. [3] observed increases of 20 to 30% in grain yield in Arabica coffee through irrigation, depending on the climatic conditions of the region, which aligns with the results found in this study. The greater the water limitation in a given cultivation field, the higher the productive increase with irrigation.
The average values and dispersion of the data for the processing yield of Arabica coffee cultivars in the irrigated and rainfed production systems can be seen in Figure 5. In general, higher processing yields were observed in rainfed fields compared to irrigated fields, considering the four harvests evaluated. However, the difference in processing yields between the irrigated and rainfed systems did not exceed 35 L bag−1. The cultivars that performed best in terms of processing yield under irrigation were MGS Paraíso 2 and Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, with averages of 476 and 489 L bag−1, respectively. Similarly, the cultivars that performed best in processing yield under rainfed conditions were also MGS Paraíso 2 and Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10, with an average of 486 L bag−1.
Karasawa et al. [33] evaluated the response of the Arabica coffee cultivar Topázio MG 1190, subjected to different irrigation levels and rainfed treatments in the region of Lavras-MG and found that irrigation resulted in increased coffee processing yields. With 100% irrigation replacement, they achieved a significant processing yield of 429 L bag−1. In another study conducted in Lavras-MG, Rezende et al. [54] reported that the processing yield of the Arabica coffee cultivar Topázio MG 1190 under irrigation was 430 L bag−1. The differences observed between the Cerrado Mineiro region and Sul de Minas may be due to the varying climatic conditions during the evaluated harvests. Long periods of water deficit and high temperatures can influence the processing yield of Arabica coffee cultivars.

3.3. Grain Size and Density of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars

The average grain density values of Arabica coffee cultivars in the irrigated and rainfed production systems can be seen in Figure 6. Generally, higher average grain density was observed in rainfed fields compared to irrigated fields, except for the cultivars MGS EPAMIG 1194 and MGS Paraíso 2, considering the four evaluated harvests. However, these differences in grain density between the irrigated and rainfed production systems did not exceed 27 g L−1, or approximately 4%. It was found that the Arabica coffee cultivars with the best grain density performance under irrigation were MGS Paraíso 2 and MGS Ametista, with averages of 657 and 622 g L−1, respectively. Arabica coffee cultivars with the best grain density performance under rainfed conditions were MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Ametista, and Catiguá MG2, with averages of 630, 623, and 623 g L−1, respectively.
The average grain size values of Arabica coffee cultivars in the irrigated and rainfed production systems can be seen in Figure 7. Generally, in the rainfed fields, higher percentages of grain retention on sieve 17+ were observed compared to irrigated fields, considering the four evaluated harvests. However, these differences in grain retention percentages on sieve 17+ between the irrigated and rainfed production systems did not exceed 7%. It was found that the Arabica coffee cultivars that showed the best grain size performance under irrigation were MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Aranãs, and IAC 125 RN, with grain retention percentages on sieve 17+ around 50%. The Arabica coffee cultivars that showed the best grain density performance under rainfed conditions were also MGS Paraíso 2, MGS Aranãs, and IAC 125 RN, with grain retention percentages on sieve 17+ above 50%.

3.4. Cup Quality of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars

The average values and dispersion of the data for the cup quality of Arabica cultivars in the irrigated and rainfed production systems can be seen in Figure 8. In general, higher average scores for cup quality were observed in rainfed fields compared to irrigated fields, considering the four harvests evaluated. However, these differences in cup quality scores between the irrigated and rainfed systems did not exceed one point. It was found that the Arabica coffee cultivars with the highest average cup quality scores under irrigation were MGS Paraíso 2 and Pau Brasil MG1, with scores of 84.7 and 84.3, respectively. The cultivar with the highest average cup quality score under rainfed conditions was MGS Paraíso 2, with a score of 85.3, demonstrating that cultivars consistently producing specialty coffee maintain this characteristic regardless of irrigation supplementation.
Silva et al. [55] studied the influence of environmental conditions and irrigation on the chemical composition and cup quality of coffee in the Paulista regions of Adamantina, Mococa, and Campinas. They did not find significant differences between irrigated and rainfed treatments. The authors highlighted the influence of factors such as the chemical composition of the beans, determined by genetic, environmental, and cultural factors, as well as the harvesting, processing, and storage methods, which directly affect the cup quality. Fernandes et al. [3] stated that coffee in the Cerrado Mineiro region is known for its high cup quality due to its elevation above sea level and favorable climatic conditions, especially during the harvest period when the weather is drier with low humidity, preventing the risk of fermentation in the fruit while still on the plants and/or after harvest. They also emphasized that irrigation management can promote uniform flowering and, consequently, more uniform maturation, contributing to the achievement of higher cup quality scores.

4. Conclusions

The agronomic performance of the Arabica coffee cultivars studied in this research was influenced by irrigation. Grain yield was higher in the irrigated production system compared to the rainfed system. In irrigated fields, the average increases in grain yield were 38%. Irrigation improved the performance of the cultivars in terms of processing yield, although it reduced cup quality.
Among the cultivars, MGS Paraíso 2 demonstrated the best productive performance, with an average over four harvests of 52 and 42 bags ha−1 (1 bag = 60 kg) in the irrigated and rainfed systems, respectively. In addition to being the most productive cultivar for the Cerrado Mineiro region, MGS Paraíso 2 showed the highest average in grain density and processing yield, and it also provided the best cup quality among the tested cultivars.
Based on the agronomic performance from the 2019 to 2022 harvests, the cultivars best suited for recommendation in the Cerrado Mineiro region for both irrigated and rainfed production systems are MGS Paraíso 2, MGS EPAMIG 1194, and MGS Ametista.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.B.V. and G.R.C.; methodology, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R. and J.P.F.C.; software, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R. and J.P.F.C.; validation, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; formal analysis, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R. and J.P.F.C.; investigation, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; resources, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A. and A.D.F.; data curation, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; writing—original draft preparation, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; writing—review and editing, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; visualization, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A., A.D.F., F.V.R., J.P.F.C., D.J.M.V., C.A.d.S., J.d.O.C., G.B.A., J.C.d.R.A., C.E.B., D.H.S.N., M.R.M., V.A.S., S.M.d.L.S., R.S.d.F., A.C.B.d.O. and A.A.P.; supervision, G.R.C.; project administration, G.B.V., G.R.C., V.T.A. and A.D.F.; funding acquisition, G.R.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Coffee Research Consortium (Consórcio Pesquisa Café), grant number 835103/2016 and Minas Gerais State Research Support Foundation (Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais—FAPEMIG), grant number APQ-01396-23.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency (EPAMIG), the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), the Federal University of Lavras (UFLA), the Federation of Coffee Growers of the Cerrado (FUNDACCER), all the rural producers and collaborators of the 22 farms included in this project, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), the Minas Gerais State Research Support Foundation (FAPEMIG), the National Institute of Coffee Science and Technology (INCT Café), and the Coffee Research Consortium. We would also like to thank Nutrien Agricultural Solutions for providing meteorological data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the average agronomic performance (grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality) of Arabica coffee cultivars in different harvest years and production systems.
Table A1. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the average agronomic performance (grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality) of Arabica coffee cultivars in different harvest years and production systems.
Source of Variation Degrees of FreedomSum of SquaresMean SquareF
Grain Yield (bags ha−1)
Locations (L) 21133,041.36335.347.7 *
Harvest years (Hy) 372,799.524,266.5182.7 *
Cultivars (C) 119488.6862.66.5 *
Production systems (Ps) 139,719.439,719.4299.1 *
Interaction (C × Ps) 11927.384.30.6 *
Coefficient of variation (%)26.8
General media42.9
Processing Yield (L bag−1)
Locations (L) 211,369,334.465206.418.4 *
Harvest years (Hy) 3984,566.4328,188.892.6 *
Cultivars (C) 11952,183.186,562.124.4 *
Production systems (Ps) 181,041.881,041.822.9 *
Interaction (C × Ps) 11379,182.134,471.19.7 *
Coefficient of variation (%)10.9
General media547.1
Cup Quality (points)
Locations (L) 21317.115.19.8 *
Harvest years (Hy) 315.65.23.4 *
Cultivars (C) 11168.315.39.9 *
Production systems (Ps) 113.513.58.8 *
Interaction (C × Ps) 1115.41.40.9 *
Coefficient of variation (%)1.5
General media83.8
* significant at a probability level of 5%.
Agronomy 15 00222 g0a1
Figure A1. Climatological normals for average temperature and precipitation in the experimental fields evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Figure A1. Climatological normals for average temperature and precipitation in the experimental fields evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Agronomy 15 00222 g0a1
Agronomy 15 00222 g0a2
Figure A2. Monthly precipitation in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 recorded in the experimental fields evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Figure A2. Monthly precipitation in 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 recorded in the experimental fields evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Agronomy 15 00222 g0a2

References

  1. Faostat, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Data-Dataset-Crops-National Production. 2024. Available online: www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  2. Conab, Companhia Nacional de Abastecimento. Coffee Harvest Bulletin. Brasília: CONAB. 2024. Available online: www.conab.gov.br (accessed on 1 November 2024).
  3. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Partelli, F.L.; Bonomo, R.; Golynski, A. The modern coffee planting in the Brazilian savannah. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2012, 42, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lima, L.A.; Custódio, A.A.D.P.; Gomes, N.M. Coffee yield and production during the initial five harvests under irrigation with center pivot in Lavras, MG. Ciência Agrotecnologia 2008, 32, 1832–1842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Santinato, R.; Lessi, R.; Yamada, A.; Silva, V.A. Water stress effect and use of granulated products in coffee crop irrigated by the drip system. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2000, 4, 376–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Koh, I.; Garrett, R.; Janetos, A.; Mueller, N.D. Climate risks to Brazilian coffee production. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 104015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Silva, C.A.D.; Teodoro, R.E.F.; Melo, B.D. Productivity and yield of coffee plant under irrigation levels. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2008, 43, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tesfaye, S.G.; Ismail, M.R.; Kausar, H.; Marziah, M.; Ramlan, M.F. Plant water relations, crop yield and quality in coffee (Coffea arabica L.) as influenced by partial root zone drying and deficit irrigation. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2013, 7, 1361–1368. [Google Scholar]
  9. Teodoro, R.E.F.; Santos, C.D.; Mendonça, F.C. Diagnostics of coffee crop irrigation in the Cerrado. Biosci. J. 2001, 17, 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  10. Soares, A.R.; Mantovani, E.C.; Rena, A.B.; Soares, A.A. Irrigation and physiology of mature coffee blooming in the Zona da Mata region—State of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Acta Sci. Agron. 2005, 27, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Tavares, T.D.O.; Santinato, F.; Ferreira, R.T.; Santinato, R. Technical and economic viability of drip irrigation of coffee in Araxá, MG. Coffee Sci. 2016, 11, 347–358. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ho, T.Q.; Hoang, V.N.; Wilson, C. Sustainability certification and water efficiency in coffee farming: The role of irrigation technologies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 180, 106175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Vicente, M.R.; Mantovani, E.C.; Fernandes, A.L.T.; Neves, J.C.L.; Delazari, F.T.; Figueredo, E.M. Effects of irrigation on the production and development of coffee in the West region of Bahia. Coffee Sci. 2017, 12, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Fraga Júnior, E.F.; Santana, M.J.D.; Silva, R.D.O.; Dias, M.M. Use of organic fertilization with irrigation in coffee production in Brazilian cerrado. Rev. Ambiente Água 2020, 15, e2578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Mengua, R.E.C.G.; de Melo, G.L.; de Assis, L.C. Estimation of reference evapotranspiration for coffee irrigation management in a productive region of Minas Gerais Cerrado. Coffee Sci. 2018, 13, 426–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sakai, E.; Barbosa, E.A.A.; de Carvalho Silveira, J.M.; de Matos Pires, R.C. Coffee productivity and root systems in cultivation schemes with different population arrangements and with and without drip irrigation. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 148, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Assis, G.A.D.; Scalco, M.S.; Guimarães, R.J.; Colombo, A.; Dominghetti, A.W.; Matos, N. Drip irrigation in coffee crop under different planting densities: Growth and yield in southeastern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2014, 18, 1116–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pereira, A.R.; Camargo, M.B.P.D.; Villa Nova, N.A. Coffee crop coefficient for precision irrigation based on leaf area index. Bragantia 2011, 70, 946–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tilahun, E.; Tadesse, M.; Asefa, A.; Admasu, R.; Shimbir, T. Determination of optimal irrigation scheduling for coffee (Coffea arabica L.) at Gera, South West of Ethiopia. Int. J. Res. Stud. Agric. Sci. 2021, 7, 37–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Flumignan, D.L.; de Faria, R.T.; Prete, C.E.C. Evapotranspiration components and dual crop coefficients of coffee trees during crop production. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 791–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, X.; Qi, Y.; Li, F.; Yang, Q.; Yu, L. Impacts of regulated deficit irrigation on yield, quality and water use efficiency of Arabica coffee under different shading levels in dry and hot regions of southwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 204, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rezende, F.C.; Arantes, K.R.; Oliveira, S.D.R.; Faria, M.D. Coffee pruning and differents irrigation periods: Productivity and quality. Coffee Sci. 2010, 5, 229–236. [Google Scholar]
  23. Amarasinghe, U.A.; Hoanh, C.T.; D’haeze, D.; Hung, T.Q. Toward sustainable coffee production in Vietnam: More coffee with less water. Agric. Syst. 2015, 136, 96–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Resende, M.D.V.D.; Furlani-Júnior, E.N.E.S.; Moraes, M.L.T.D.; Fazuoli, L.C. Estimation of genetic parameters and prediction of genotypic values in coffee breeding by the reml/blup method. Bragantia 2001, 60, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Guerreiro Filho, O. Coffee leaf miner resistance. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 18, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Assis, G.A.; Assis, F.A.; Scalco, M.S.; Parolin, F.J.T.; Fidelis, I.; Moraes, J.C.; Guimarães, R.J. Leaf miner incidence in coffee plants under different drip irrigation regimes and planting densities. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2012, 47, 157–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. de Paiva Custódio, A.A.; Pozza, E.A.; de Paiva Custódio, A.A.; de Souza, P.E.; Lima, L.A.; da Silva, A.M. Effect of center-pivot irrigation in the rust and brown eye spot of coffee. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 943–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fernandes, F.L.; Mantovani, E.C.; Bonfim Neto, H.; Nunes, V.D.V. Effects of irrigation, environmental variability and predatory wasp on Leucoptera coffeella (Guérin-Méneville)(Lepidoptera: Lyonetiidae), in coffee plants. Neotrop. Entomol. 2009, 38, 410–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fernandes, M.I.S.; Assis, G.A.; Nascimento, L.G.; Cunha, B.A.; Airão, A.L.C.; Gallet, D.S. Coffee cultivars productive and quality parameters in the Alto Paranaiba region, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Res. Soc. Dev. 2020, 9, e147996681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Freitas, Z.M.T.S.D.; Oliveira, F.J.D.; Carvalho, S.P.D.; Santos, V.F.D.; Santos, J.P.D.O. Evaluation of quantitative traits related with the vegetative growth among arabica coffee cultivars. Bragantia 2007, 66, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; Volume 300, p. D05109. [Google Scholar]
  32. Alvares, C.A.; Stape, J.L.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Gonçalves, J.D.M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorol. Z. 2013, 22, 711–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Karasawa, S.; Faria, M.A.D.; Guimarães, R.J. Response of cv. Topázio MG-1190 coffee submitted to different periods of irrigation. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2002, 6, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Silva, L.C.; Pereira, P.V.; Cruz, M.A.D.; Costa, G.X.; Rocha, R.A.; Bertarini, P.L.; do Amaral, L.R.; Gomes, M.S.; Santos, L.D. Enhancing Sensory Quality of Coffee: The Impact of Fermentation Techniques on Coffea arabica cv. Catiguá MG2. Foods 2024, 13, 653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Barbosa, I.D.P.; Oliveira, A.C.B.D.; Rosado, R.D.S.; Sakiyama, N.S.; Cruz, C.D.; Pereira, A.A. Sensory quality of Coffea arabica L. genotypes influenced by postharvest processing. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Carvalho, A.M.D.; Mendes, A.N.G.; Carvalho, G.R.; Botelho, C.E.; Gonçalves, F.M.A.; Ferreira, A.D. Correlation between growth and yield of coffee cultivars in different regions of the state of Minas Gerais, Brazil. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2010, 45, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lima, A.E.D.; Guimarães, R.J.; Cunha, S.H.B.D.; Castro, E.D.M.; Carvalho, A.M.D.; Faria, M.M.L. Seedling production of Coffea arabica from different cultivars in a modified hydroponic system and nursery using different containers. Ciência Agrotecnologia 2021, 45, e017821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Botelho, C.E.; de Rezende, J.C.; Pereira, A.A.; de Oliveira, A.C.B.; Carvalho, G.R.; Ferreira, A.D. MGS Aranãs: The new Arabica coffee cultivar developed by Epamig with wide adaptation. Coffee Sci. 2021, 16, e161942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Graciano, P.D.; Siquieroli, A.C.S.; Assis, G.A.; Junior, L.D.F.; Fernandes, M.I.S.; Paiva, C.R. Cultivar maturation stages of Coffea arabica L. in Monte Carmelo-MG and its sensory characteristics. Rev. Ciência Agrícola 2019, 17, 7–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fazuoli, L.C.; Braghini, M.T.; Silvarolla, M.B.; Gonçalves, W.; Mistro, J.C.; Gallo, P.B.; Guerreiro Filho, O. IAC 125 RN-A dwarf coffee cultivar resistant to leaf rust and root-knot nematode. Crop Breed. Appl. Biotechnol. 2018, 18, 237–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Raij, B.V.; Andrade, J.C.; Cantarella, H.; Quaggio, J.A. (Eds.) Chemical Analysis for Evaluation of Tropical Soil Fertility; Agronomic Institute of Campinas: Campinas, Brazil, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  42. Sera, G.H.; de Carvalho, C.H.S.; Abrahão, J.C.R.; Pozza, E.A.; Matiello, J.B.; de Almeida, S.R.; Bartelega, L.; Botelho, D.M.B. Coffee leaf rust in Brazil: Historical events, current situation, and control measures. Agronomy 2022, 12, 496–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buenaventura, C.E.; Castaño, J.J. Influence of altitude on the cup quality of coffee samples from ecotope 206B in Colombia. Cenicafe 2002, 53, 119–131. [Google Scholar]
  44. Coradi, P.C.; Borém, F.M.; Oliveira, J.A. Quality of natural and washed coffee after different types of drying and storage. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2008, 12, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lingle, T.R. The Coffee Cupper’s Handbook: Systematic Guide to the Sensory Evaluation of Coffee’s Flavor, 4th ed.; Specialty Coffee Association of America: Long Beach, CA, USA, 2011; 66p. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pereira, S.P.; Bartholo, G.F.; Baliza, D.P.; Sobreira, F.M.; Guimarães, R.J. Growth, productivity and bienniality of coffee plants according to cultivation spacing. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2011, 46, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Rena, A.B.; Maestri, M. Coffee tree physiology. Inf. Agropecuário 1985, 11, 26–40. [Google Scholar]
  48. Laviola, B.G.; Martinez, H.E.P.; Salomão, L.C.C.; Cruz, C.D.; Mendonça, S.M.; Neto, A.P. Assimilates allocation in fruits and leaves of coffee plants cultivated in two altitudes. Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras. 2007, 42, 1521–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rocha, O.C.; Guerra, A.F.; Ramos, M.L.G.; Oliveira, A.S.; Bartholo, G.F. Physical-hydric quality of oxisol under irrigation and brachiaria in farming of coffee in the Cerrado region. Coffee Sci. 2014, 9, 516–526. [Google Scholar]
  50. Malta, M.R.; Oliveira, A.C.B.; Liska, G.R.; Carvalho, G.R.; Pereira, A.A.; Silva, A.D.; Alvaro, L.N.; Mota, D.M. Selection of elite genotypes of Coffea arabica L. to produce specialty coffees. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 715385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pereira, D.R.; Aguiar, J.A.R.D.; Nadaleti, D.H.S.; Fassio, L.D.O.; Carvalho, J.P.F.; Carvalho, S.P.D.; Carvalho, G.R. Morphoagronomic and sensory performance of coffee cultivars in initial stage of development in Cerrado Mineiro. Coffee Sci. 2019, 14, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fernandes, A.L.T.; Santinato, R.; Drumond, L.C.; Oliveira, C.B.D. Evaluation of use of chemical and organic fertilizers through fertigation in drip irrigated coffee crop. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola Ambient. 2007, 11, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bonomo, R.; Oliveira, L.F.C.; Neto, A.N.S.; Bonomo, P. Irrigated Arabica coffee tree productivity in the Cerrado area of the Goiás state, Brazil. Pesqui. Agropecuária Trop. 2008, 38, 233–240. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rezende, F.C.; Oliveira, S.D.R.; Faria, M.A.D.; Arantes, K.R. Productivity characteristics of pruned drip irrigated arabica coffee plants (Coffea arabica L., cv. Topázio MG 1190). Coffee Sci. 2006, 1, 103–110. [Google Scholar]
  55. Silva, E.A.D.; Mazzafera, P.; Brunini, O.; Sakai, E.; Arruda, F.B.; Mattoso, L.H.C.; Carvalho, C.R.L.; Pires, R.C.M. The influence of water management and environmental conditions on the chemical composition and beverage quality of coffee beans. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 17, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 15 00222 g001
Figure 1. Location of experimental fields of Arabica coffee producers evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. AR—Araguari; CA—Campos Altos; CP—Carmo do Paranaíba; CO—Coromandel; IB—Ibiá; MC—Monte Carmelo; PA—Patrocínio; RP—Rio Paranaíba; VM—Varjão de Minas.
Figure 1. Location of experimental fields of Arabica coffee producers evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. AR—Araguari; CA—Campos Altos; CP—Carmo do Paranaíba; CO—Coromandel; IB—Ibiá; MC—Monte Carmelo; PA—Patrocínio; RP—Rio Paranaíba; VM—Varjão de Minas.
Agronomy 15 00222 g001
Agronomy 15 00222 g002
Figure 2. Climatological normal for average temperature, precipitation, and reference evapotranspiration; normal climatological water balance and normal soil water storage for the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. ETo—reference evapotranspiration; DEF—deficit; EXC—excess; AWC—available water capacity; STO—soil water storage; J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Figure 2. Climatological normal for average temperature, precipitation, and reference evapotranspiration; normal climatological water balance and normal soil water storage for the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. ETo—reference evapotranspiration; DEF—deficit; EXC—excess; AWC—available water capacity; STO—soil water storage; J—January; F—February; M—March; A—April; M—May; J—June; J—July; A—August; S—September; O—October; N—November; D—December.
Agronomy 15 00222 g002
Agronomy 15 00222 g003
Figure 3. Photos of Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Figure 3. Photos of Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Agronomy 15 00222 g003
Agronomy 15 00222 g004
Figure 4. Grain yield of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test. 1 bag = 60 kg.
Figure 4. Grain yield of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test. 1 bag = 60 kg.
Agronomy 15 00222 g004
Agronomy 15 00222 g005
Figure 5. Processing yield of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test; 1 bag = 60 kg.
Figure 5. Processing yield of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test; 1 bag = 60 kg.
Agronomy 15 00222 g005
Agronomy 15 00222 g006
Figure 6. Grain density of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Figure 6. Grain density of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Agronomy 15 00222 g006
Agronomy 15 00222 g007
Figure 7. Percentage of grains retained according to irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Figure 7. Percentage of grains retained according to irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Agronomy 15 00222 g007
Agronomy 15 00222 g008
Figure 8. Cup quality of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test.
Figure 8. Cup quality of irrigated and rainfed Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil. The box represents the interquartile range (IQR), and whiskers represent the range of data. The median is depicted by a horizontal line within the box, and the averages are illustrated by individual x symbols inside the boxes. Means followed by the same letter within the same production system do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test.
Agronomy 15 00222 g008
Table 1. Municipality, farm name, production system, available water capacity, soil granulometric fractions, and soil texture from experimental fields of Arabica coffee producers evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Table 1. Municipality, farm name, production system, available water capacity, soil granulometric fractions, and soil texture from experimental fields of Arabica coffee producers evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
LocationMunicipalityFarm NameProduction SystemAWC (mm)Soil Granulometric Fractions (%)Soil Texture *
ClaySiltSand
1PatrocínioDuas PontesIrrigated96412138Clayey
2Varjão de MinasSão João195642214Clayey
3Monte CarmeloLondrina224741511Clayey
4Monte CarmeloCastelhana212711613Clayey
5PatrocínioRainha da Paz146483419Clayey
6Araguari Bom Jardim11752940Clayey
7PatrocínioCongonhas167543116Clayey
8CoromandelRio Brilhante20564288Clayey
9Monte CarmeloRural Montes198671816Clayey
10PatrocínioNunes Coffee192642215Clayey
11Monte CarmeloExperimental Field of UNIFUCAMP165591923Clayey
12PatrocínioExperimental Field of EPAMIGRainfed161513415Clayey
13Campos AltosAmizade78293833Clay loam
14PatrocínioSemente8346351Sandy clay
15Rio ParanaíbaOnze Mil Virgens153503119Clayey
16Rio ParanaíbaCruzeiro216731314Clayey
17CoromandelNaimeg Coffee22773198Clayey
18IbiáQuilombo21468257Clayey
19Carmo do ParanaíbaSão Lourenço20967259Clayey
20IbiáSanta Maria155483715Clayey
21Campos AltosEspigão do Palmital102334225Clay loam
22PatrocínioNossa Senhora de Fátima24279147Clayey
AWC—Available water capacity; EPAMIG—Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency; UNIFUCAMP—Mario Palmério University Center. * USDA soil classification criteria.
Table 2. Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Table 2. Arabica coffee cultivars evaluated in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
CultivarsResearch InstitutionGenealogy
Catuaí Vermelho IAC 144IACCaturra Amarelo × Mundo Novo
Bourbon Amarelo IAC J10IACAmarelo de Botucatu × Bourbon Vermelho
Topázio MG 1190EPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo × Mundo Novo
MGS Epamig 1194EPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo × Mundo Novo
Catiguá MG2EPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo IAC 86 × Timor Hybrid
MGS Catiguá 3EPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo IAC 86 × Timor Hybrid
MGS AmetistaEPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo IAC 86 × Timor Hybrid
Pau Brasil MG1EPAMIGCatuaí Vermelho IAC 15 × Timor Hybrid
MGS Paraíso 2EPAMIGCatuaí Amarelo IAC 30 × Timor Hybrid
MGS AranãsEPAMIGIcatu Vermelho × Catimor
Sarchimor MG 8840EPAMIGVilla Sarchi × Timor Hybrid
IAC 125 RNIACVilla Sarchi × Timor Hybrid
EPAMIG—Minas Gerais Agricultural Research Agency; IAC—Agronomic Institute of Campinas.
Table 3. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee evaluated in the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 harvest years in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Table 3. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee evaluated in the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 harvest years in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Harvest YearsGrain Yield
(bags ha−1)		Processing Yield
(L bag−1)		Cup Quality
(Points)
201947 b497 c83.3 c
202034 c562 b84.5 a
202155 a563 b83.4 c
202235 c587 a84.1 b
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test. 1 bag = 60 kg.
Table 4. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Table 4. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
CultivarsGrain Yield
(bags ha−1)		Processing Yield
(L bag−1)		Cup Quality
(Points)
Catuaí Vermelho IAC 14442 bcd535 cd83.5 de
Bourbon Amarelo IAC J1037 e487 e83.9 cd
Topázio MG 119042 cde534 cd83.2 ef
MGS Epamig 119448 a520 d83.8 d
Catiguá MG240 cde608 a84.2 bc
MGS Catiguá 342 cd531 d82.9 ef
MGS Ametista46 ab554 bc83.7 d
Pau Brasil MG139 de603 a84.4 b
MGS Paraíso 249 a482 e85.0 a
MGS Aranãs42 cde564 b84.0 bcd
Sarchimor MG 884044 bc540 cd83.7 d
IAC 125 RN44 bc608 a83.5 de
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test. 1 bag = 60 kg.
Table 5. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee in irrigated and rainfed production systems in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Table 5. Average values of grain yield, processing yield, and cup quality of Arabica coffee in irrigated and rainfed production systems in the Cerrado Mineiro region, Brazil.
Production SystemsGrain Yield
(bags ha−1)		Processing Yield
(L bag−1)		Cup Quality
(Points)
Irrigated50 a537 b83.7 b
Rainfed36 b557 a83.9 a
Means followed by the same letter in the column do not differ from each other at the 5% probability level using Duncan’s test. 1 bag = 60 kg.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Voltolini, G.B.; Carvalho, G.R.; Andrade, V.T.; Ferreira, A.D.; Raposo, F.V.; Carvalho, J.P.F.; Vilela, D.J.M.; da Silva, C.A.; Costa, J.d.O.; Abreu, G.B.; et al. Agronomic Performance of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro Region. Agronomy 2025, 15, 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010222

AMA Style

Voltolini GB, Carvalho GR, Andrade VT, Ferreira AD, Raposo FV, Carvalho JPF, Vilela DJM, da Silva CA, Costa JdO, Abreu GB, et al. Agronomic Performance of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro Region. Agronomy. 2025; 15(1):222. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010222

Chicago/Turabian Style

Voltolini, Giovani Belutti, Gladyston Rodrigues Carvalho, Vinícius Teixeira Andrade, André Dominghetti Ferreira, Francislei Vitti Raposo, João Paulo Felicori Carvalho, Diego Junior Martins Vilela, Cleidson Alves da Silva, Jéfferson de Oliveira Costa, Guilherme Barbosa Abreu, and et al. 2025. "Agronomic Performance of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro Region" Agronomy 15, no. 1: 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010222

APA Style

Voltolini, G. B., Carvalho, G. R., Andrade, V. T., Ferreira, A. D., Raposo, F. V., Carvalho, J. P. F., Vilela, D. J. M., da Silva, C. A., Costa, J. d. O., Abreu, G. B., Abrahão, J. C. d. R., Botelho, C. E., Nadaleti, D. H. S., Malta, M. R., Silva, V. A., Salgado, S. M. d. L., de Faria, R. S., de Oliveira, A. C. B., & Pereira, A. A. (2025). Agronomic Performance of Irrigated and Rainfed Arabica Coffee Cultivars in the Cerrado Mineiro Region. Agronomy, 15(1), 222. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15010222

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop