Irrigation Management Scale and Water Application Method to Improve Yield and Water Productivity of Field-Grown Strawberries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
3.1. Soil Properties
3.2. Spatial Variability of Soil Properties
3.3. Root Uptake Limiting SWP
3.4. Irrigation Management and Water Use
3.5. Yield, WP and Growth Indicators
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
- P0 = Inlet pressure head (kPa)
- Pi = Pressure head at the ith emitter (kPa)
- k = Constant for unit conversion (9.81 kPa m−1)
- hl = Friction pressure losses calculated with the Hanzen-Williams equation (m)
- dz = Elevation difference (m)
- Qi = Discharge rate at the ith emitter (l h−1)
- k = Unit conversion constant
- x = Manufacturer supplied emitter exponent (0.5)
References
- Assouline, S.; Möller, M.; Furman, A.; Narkis, K.; Silber, A. Impact of Water Regime and Growing Conditions on Soil–Plant Interactions: From Single Plant to Field Scale. Vadose Zo. J. 2012, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). Sustainable Management of Water Resources in Agriculture; OECD Publishing: Paris, Italy, 2010; ISBN 9789264083455. [Google Scholar]
- Morillo, J.G.; Martín, M.; Camacho, E.; Díaz, J.A.R.; Montesinos, P. Toward precision irrigation for intensive strawberry cultivation. Agric. Water Manag. 2014, 151, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanson, B.R.; Bendixon, W. Drip irrigation evaluated in Santa Maria Valley strawberries. Calif. Agric. 2004, 58, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gumiere, S.J.; Lafond, J.A.; Hallema, D.W.; Yann, P.; Caron, J.; Gallichand, J. Irrigated Agriculture Mapping soil hydraulic conductivity and matric potential for water management of cranberry: Characterisation and spatial interpolation methods. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 128, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
- Muralidharan, D.; Knapp, K.C. Spatial dynamics of water management in irrigated agriculture. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W05411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, D. A geostatistical approach to the trickle irrigation design in heterogeneous soil: 1. Theory. Water Resour. Res. 1983, 19, 632–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sadler, E.J.; Evans, R.G.; Buchleiter, G.W.; King, B.A.; Camp, C.R. Design considerations for site specific irrigation. In Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 14–16 November 2000; pp. 304–315. [Google Scholar]
- Kandelous, M.M.; Kamai, T.; Vrugt, J.A.; Šimůnek, J.; Hanson, B.; Hopmans, J.W. Evaluation of subsurface drip irrigation design and management parameters for alfalfa. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 109, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Létourneau, G.; Caron, J.; Anderson, L.; Cormier, J. Matric potential-based irrigation management of field-grown strawberry: Effects on yield and water productivity. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 161, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shock, C.C.; Wang, F.X. Soil water tension, a powerful measurement for productivity and stewardship. HortScience 2011, 46, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelletier, V.; Gallichand, J.; Caron, J. Effect of Soil Water Potential Threshold for Irrigation on Cranberry Yield and Water Productivity. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2013, 56, 1325–1332. [Google Scholar]
- Pelletier, V.; Gallichand, J.; Caron, J.; Jutras, S.; Marchand, S. Critical irrigation threshold and cranberry yield components. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 148, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Périard, Y.; Caron, J.; Jutras, S.; Lafond, J.A.; Houlliot, A. Irrigation management of romaine lettuce in histosols at two spatial scales: Water, energy, leaching and yield impacts. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2012, 168, 171–188. [Google Scholar]
- Rekika, D.; Caron, J.; Rancourt, G.T.; Lafond, J.A.; Gumiere, S.J.; Jenni, S.; Gosselin, A. Optimal Irrigation for Onion and Celery Production and Spinach Seed Germination in Histosols. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 981–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergeron, D. Régie de l’irrigation goutte à goutte dans la production de fraises à jour neutres au Québec. Master’s Thesis, Laval University, Québec, QC, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Guimerà, J.; Marfà, O.; Candela, L.; Serrano, L. Nitrate leaching and strawberry production under drip irrigation management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 1995, 56, 121–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppula, K.; Salo, T. Tensiometer-based irrigation scheduling in perennial strawberry cultivation. Irrig. Sci. 2007, 25, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peñuelas, J.; Savé, R.; Marfà, O.; Serrano, L. Remotely measured canopy temperature of greenhouse strawberries as indicator of water status and yield under mild and very mild water stress conditions. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1992, 58, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, B.A.; Stark, J.C.; Wall, R.W. Comparison of Site-Specific and Conventional Uniform Irrigation Management for Potatoes. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2006, 22, 677–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El Nahry, A.H.; Ali, R.R.; Baroudy, A.A. El An approach for precision farming under pivot irrigation system using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 517–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hedley, C.B.; Yule, I.J.; Tuohy, M.P.; Vogeler, I. Key performance indicators for simulated variable-rate irrigation of variable soils in humid regions. Trans. ASABE 2009, 52, 1575–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jobbágy, J.; Simoník, J.; Findura, P. Evalutaion of efficiency of precision irrigation for potatoes. Res. Agr. Eng. 2011, 57, S14–S23. Available online: http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/52458.pdf (accessed on 15 Jan 2015).
- Feinerman, E. Site-specific management of agricultural inputs: An illustration for variable-rate irrigation. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2000, 27, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, R.G.; King, B.A.; Food, T. Site-Specific Sprinkler Irrigation in a Water-Limited Future. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 493–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Communar, G.; Friedman, S.P. Relative Water Uptake Rate as a Criterion for Trickle Irrigation System Design: I. Coupled Source–Sink Steady Water Flow Model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cook, F.J.; Fitch, P.; Thorburn, P.J.; Charlesworth, P.B.; Bristow, K.L. Modelling trickle irrigation: Comparison of analytical and numerical models for estimation of wetting front position with time. Environ. Model. Softw. 2006, 21, 1353–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Naglic, B.; Kechavarzi, C.; Pintar, M. Modelling of Water Distribution Under Drip Irrigation Systems. Hop Bull. 2012, 19, 100–114. [Google Scholar]
- Russo, D.; Laufer, A.; Silber, A.; Assouline, S. Water uptake, active root volume, and solute leaching under drip irrigation: A numerical study. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W12413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaggs, T.H.; Trout, T.J.; Rothfuss, Y. Drip Irrigation Water Distribution Patterns: Effects of Emitter Rate, Pulsing, and Antecedent Water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010, 74, 1886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Subbaiah, R. A review of models for predicting soil water dynamics during trickle irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 2011, 31, 225–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kandelous, M.M.; Šimůnek, J. Numerical simulations of water movement in a subsurface drip irrigation system under field and laboratory conditions using HYDRUS-2D. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1070–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, F.; Lu, Z. Analytical Solutions for Vertical Flow in Unsaturated, Rooted Soils with Variable Surface Fluxes. Vadose Zo. J. 2005, 4, 1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, L. Détermination de la stratégie d’irrigation optimale de la fraise basée sur le potentiel matriciel du sol et un modèle climatique. Master’s Thesis, Laval University, Québec, QC, Canada, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Friedman, S.P.; Communar, G.; Gamliel, A. DIDAS—User-friendly software package for assisting drip irrigation design and scheduling. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2016, 120, 36–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cote, C.M.; Bristow, K.L.; Charlesworth, P.B.; Cook, F.J.; Thorburn, P.J. Analysis of soil wetting and solute transport in subsurface trickle irrigation. Irrig. Sci. 2003, 22, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camposeo, S.; Rubino, P. Effect of irrigation frequency on root water uptake in sugar beet. Plant Soil 2003, 253, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segal, E.; Ben-Gal, A.; Shani, U. Root Water Uptake Efficiency Under Ultra-High Irrigation Frequency. Plant Soil 2006, 282, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dukes, M.D.; Davis, W.E.; Simonne, E.H.; Studstill, D.W.; Hochmuth, R. Effects of sensor-based high frequency irrigation on bell pepper yield and water use. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Irrigation and Drainage, Phoenix, AZ, USA, 12–15 May 2003; pp. 665–674. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Classification Working Group. The Canadian System of Soil Classification, 3rd ed.; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646, National Research Council: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, G.S.; Hazen, A. Hydraulic Tables: The Elements of Gagings and the Friction of Water Flowing in Pipes, Aqueducts, Sewers, Etc. as Determined by the Hazen and Williams Formula and the Flow of Water Over Sharp-edged and Irregular Weirs, and the Quantity Discharged, as Determined by Bazin’s Formula and Experimental Investigations Upon Large Models, 2nd ed.; J. Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1914. [Google Scholar]
- Gee, G.W.; Or, D. 2.4.3.5 Hydrometer Method. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4. Physical Methods; Soil Science Society of America Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 278–283. [Google Scholar]
- Reynolds, W.D.; Elrick, D.E.; Young, E.G. 3.4.2.2 Constant Head Soil Core (tank) Method. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 4-Physical Methods; Dane, J.H., Topp, C.G., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 804–809. [Google Scholar]
- Romano, N.; Hopmans, J.W.; Dane, J.H. 3.3.2.6 Suction Table. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4. Physical Methods; Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; Volume 5, pp. 692–698. [Google Scholar]
- Hopmans, J.W.; Šimůnek, J.; Romano, N.; Durner, W. Multistep Outflow Method. In Method of soil analysis, Part 4. Physical Methods; Dane, J.H., Topp, C.G., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 971–978. [Google Scholar]
- Banton, O.; Côté, D.; Trudelle, M. Détermination au champ de la conductivité hydraulique saturée à l’aide de l’infiltromètre à charge constante de côté: Théorie et approximations théoriques. Can. J. Soil Sci. 1991, 71, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, R.B.; Reinsch, T.J. 2.1.1.4 Dealing with Rock Fragments. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 4. Physical Methods; Dane, J.H., Topp, C.G., Eds.; Soil Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WI, USA, 2002; pp. 205–207. [Google Scholar]
- Elzhov, T.V.; Mullen, K.M.; Spiess, A.-N.; Bolker, B. minpack.lm: R Interface to the Levenberg-Marquardt Nonlinear Least-Squares Algorithm Found in MINPACK, Plus Support for Bounds 2016, version 1.2-1, p. 14. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/minpack.lm/minpack.lm.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2019).
- Schaap, M.G.; Leij, F.J.; Van Genuchten, M.T. Rosetta: A computer program for estimating soil hydraulic parameters with hierarchical pedotransfer functions. J. Hydrol. 2001, 251, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinheiro, J.; Bates, D.; DebRoy, S.; Sarkar, D.; Team, T.R.C. nlme: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Packag. 2013, 3, 111. [Google Scholar]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, R.; Oliver, M.A. Geostatistics for Environmental Scientists, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ribeiro, P.J.; Diggle, P.J. geoR: A package for geostatistical analysis. R-News 2001, 1, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
- Poesen, J.; Lavee, H. Rock fragments in top soils: significance and processes. CATENA 1994, 23, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milne, A.E.; Lark, R.M.; Addiscott, T.M.; Goulding, K.W.T.; Webster, C.P.; O’Flaherty, S. Wavelet analysis of the scale- and location-dependent correlation of modelled and measured nitrous oxide emissions from soil. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2005, 56, 3–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cousin, I.; Nicoullaud, B.; Coutadeur, C. Influence of rock fragments on the water retention and water percolation in a calcareous soil. CATENA 2003, 53, 97–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tetegan, M.; Richer de Forges, A.C.; Verbeque, B.; Nicoullaud, B.; Desbourdes, C.; Bouthier, A.; Arrouays, D.; Cousin, I. The effect of soil stoniness on the estimation of water retention properties of soils: A case study from central France. CATENA 2015, 129, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strudley, M.; Green, T.; Ascoughii, J. Tillage effects on soil hydraulic properties in space and time: State of the science. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 99, 4–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alletto, L.; Coquet, Y. Temporal and spatial variability of soil bulk density and near-saturated hydraulic conductivity under two contrasted tillage management systems. Geoderma 2009, 152, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Hao, X.; Kang, S. Spatiotemporal Variability of Soil Moisture as Affected by Soil Properties during Irrigation Cycles. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2014, 78, 598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torri, D.; Poesen, J.; Monaci, F.; Busoni, E. Rock fragment content and fine soil bulk density. CATENA 1994, 23, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bechini, L.; Bocchi, S.; Maggiore, T. Spatial interpolation of soil physical properties for irrigation planning. A simulation study in northern Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 19, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, F.-X.; Kang, Y.; Liu, S.-P. Effects of drip irrigation frequency on soil wetting pattern and potato growth in North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2006, 79, 248–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Giné Bordonaba, J.; Terry, L.A. Manipulating the taste-related composition of strawberry fruits (Fragaria × ananassa) from different cultivars using deficit irrigation. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 1020–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pires, R.C.D.M.; Folegatti, M.V.; Passos, F.A.; Arruda, F.B.; Sakai, E. Vegetative growth and yield of strawberry under irrigation and soil mulches for different cultivation environments. Sci. Agric. 2006, 63, 417–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Keutgen, A.J.; Pawelzik, E. Impacts of NaCl stress on plant growth and mineral nutrient assimilation in two cultivars of strawberry. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009, 65, 170–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Savé, R.; Penuelas, J.; Marfa, O.; Serrano, L. Changes in Leaf Osmotic and Elastic Properties and Canopy Structure of Strawberry under mild water stress. Hortscience 1993, 28, 925–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15 cm Depth | 30 cm Depth | 0–30 cm Depth | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Clay | Silt | Sand | Clay | Silt | Sand | Rock Fragments | |
(%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | (%) | |
average | 12.7 | 59.6 | 27.7 | 12.5 | 57.2 | 30.3 | 12.1 |
max | 16.7 | 72.4 | 51.3 | 16.4 | 65.0 | 41.8 | 34.8 |
min | 8.5 | 39.9 | 11.3 | 7.7 | 47.2 | 20.9 | 1.6 |
standard deviation | 2.6 | 11.0 | 13.4 | 2.8 | 5.3 | 7.0 | 10.3 |
coefficient of variation (%) | 20.6 | 18.4 | 48.2 | 22.2 | 9.2 | 23.0 | 85.3 |
number of samples | 13 | 13 | 13 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 24 |
15 cm Depth | 30 cm Depth | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ρbulk | KS-Core | KS-in Situ | EAW | ρbulk | KS-Core | KS-in Situ | |
(g cm−3) | (cm h−1) | (cm h−1) | (g cm−3) | (g cm−3) | (cm h−1) | (cm h−1) | |
average | 1.24 | 100.2 | 47.1 | 0.05 | 1.62 | 51.6 | 8.5 |
max | 1.49 | 197.8 | 220.7 | 0.07 | 1.71 | 278.6 | 28.4 |
min | 1.06 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.02 | 1.47 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
standard deviation | 0.10 | 59.9 | 34.4 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 87.0 | 10.2 |
coefficient of variation (%) | 8.38 | 59.8 | 73.0 | 25.0 | 5.00 | 168.6 | 119.7 |
number of samples | 61 | 10 | 49.0 | 13 | 9 | 8 | 10.0 |
Calculations from Measured Properties | Calculations from Theoretical Soils | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location | KsG | α* | hc | Soil Class | KsG | α* | hc |
(cm h−1) | (cm−1) | (−kPa) | (cm h−1) | (cm−1) | (−kPa) | ||
loc_2 | 0.028 | 0.021 | 12.0 | SC | 0.002 | 0.0093 | 7.5 |
loc_4 | 0.039 | 0.0224 | 12.5 | S | 0.366 | 0.049 | 8.4 |
loc_5 | 0.393 | 0.0272 | 17.9 | C | 0.005 | 0.0108 | 13.5 |
loc_8 | 0.03 | 0.0232 | 10.7 | SiC | 0.007 | 0.0117 | 14.6 |
loc_9 | 0.025 | 0.0198 | 12.5 | LS | 0.039 | 0.0189 | 15.7 |
loc_11 | 0.278 | 0.0342 | 12.5 | SCL | 0.01 | 0.0123 | 16.7 |
loc_14 | 0.01 | 0.0161 | 10.8 | SL | 0.022 | 0.0148 | 17.9 |
loc_15 | 0.161 | 0.0293 | 13.3 | CL | 0.016 | 0.0134 | 18.3 |
loc_16 | 0.014 | 0.0194 | 10.0 | L | 0.024 | 0.0133 | 21.6 |
loc_18 | 0.011 | 0.0203 | 8.0 | SiCL | 0.023 | 0.0125 | 23.2 |
loc_19 | 0.01 | 0.0165 | 10.7 | Si | 0.068 | 0.0134 | 29.0 |
loc_22 | 0.038 | 0.0253 | 10.4 | SiL | 0.041 | 0.0108 | 33.3 |
loc_23 | 0.026 | 0.0183 | 14.2 | ||||
avg | 0.076 | 0.0217 | 12.1 | ||||
sd | 0.119 | 0.0059 | −2.4 | ||||
Coefficient of variation (%) | 149.541 | 99.2312 | −11.8 | ||||
max | 0.393 | 0.0342 | 8.0 | ||||
min | 0.005 | 0.0108 | 17.9 |
TRT | Number of Irrigations | Total Irrigation Time | avg IT | avg SWP | Time Spent Below hc | Water Use |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(−) | (min) | (−kPa) | (−kPa) | (%) | (m3 ha−1) | |
Pulse | 53 ± 9a | 1963 ± 349a | 15.7 ± 5.5a | 8.3 ± 1.5a | 23.0 ± 7.0a | 1427.2 ± 304.1a |
Inter | 62 ± 17a | 2471 ± 510a | 22.7 ± 3.5b | 10.0 ± 1.7ab | 26.7 ± 2.4a | 1322 ± 218.0a |
Local | 56 ± 7a | 2247 ± 275a | 20.3 ± 2.5ab | 9.3 ± 2.1a | 24.2 ± 6.9a | 1566.7 ± 119.8a |
Global 1 | 63a | 2353a | 20.3 ± 5.9ab | 12.7 ± 1.1b | 23.4 ± 4.1a | 1097.2 ± 132.1 2 |
p | 0.4098 | 0.2554 | 0.1084 | 0.0342 * | 0.8724 | 0.2333 |
TRT | Marketable Yield | WP | Dry Biomass | Fruit Size | Brix Index | Firmness | Crown DiameterGrowth Rate | Leaf AreaGrowth Rate |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(kg ha−1) | (kg m−3) | (g/plant) | (g/fruit) | (%) | (g g−1) | (mm d−1) | (cm2 d−1) | |
Pulse | 28961 ± 3097a | 21 ± 4a | 40.7 ± 7.5a | 13.5 ± 0.4a | 9.4 ± 0.5a | 225.2 ± 0.5a | 0.3 ± 0.1a | 77.9 ± 20.2a |
Inter | 23805 ± 3205b | 18 ± 3ab | 41.6 ± 6.6a | 13.1 ± 0.3a | 9.4 ± 0.2a | 222.9 ± 5.2a | 0.2 ± 0.1a | 85.7 ± 15.9a |
Local | 23740 ± 2065b | 15 ± 2b | 35.0 ± 4.7a | 13.5 ± 0.4a | 8.9 ± 0.1a | 243.1 ± 19.0a | 0.2 ± 0.1a | 75.4 ± 21.9a |
Global | 23444 ± 2725b | 21 ± 4 1 | 36.8 ± 11.4a | 13.0 ± 0.2a | 9.5 ± 0.1a | 225.2 ± 0.5a | 0.2 ± 0.1a | 74.7 ± 27.5a |
p | 0.0022 ** | 0.02695 * | 0.1436 | 0.2050 | 0.0538 | 0.1400 | 0.4736 | 0.3521 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Létourneau, G.; Caron, J. Irrigation Management Scale and Water Application Method to Improve Yield and Water Productivity of Field-Grown Strawberries. Agronomy 2019, 9, 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060286
Létourneau G, Caron J. Irrigation Management Scale and Water Application Method to Improve Yield and Water Productivity of Field-Grown Strawberries. Agronomy. 2019; 9(6):286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060286
Chicago/Turabian StyleLétourneau, Guillaume, and Jean Caron. 2019. "Irrigation Management Scale and Water Application Method to Improve Yield and Water Productivity of Field-Grown Strawberries" Agronomy 9, no. 6: 286. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060286