Drip irrigation of raspberries in heavy soils – David Bryla, Research

Drip irrigation of raspberries in heavy soils – David Bryla, Research

Optimum
Deficit
Drip Irrigation of Raspberries
in Heavy Soils
David Bryla
USDA-ARS Horticultural Crops Research Unit
Corvallis, Oregon
Raspberry Production in the Pacific Northwest
‘Meeker’
Washington
•  2.5 ft. spacing
•  Raised beds
•  Arced canes
•  Surface/subsurface drip (WA)
& sprinklers/big guns (OR)
•  Granular fertilizers/fertigation
What’s the Best Way to Irrigate
Raspberries?
How much water is
needed and how is it
best applied?
Sprinklers?
Drip?
Aurora, Oregon
Two irrigation studies were planted
STUDY 1
Cultivars
•  Meeker (standard)
•  Coho (new)
STUDY 2
Irrigation methods
•  Sprinklers
•  Drip
Cultivars
•  Cascade Delight
•  Cowichan
•  Meeker
•  Tulameen
•  Caroline
Fall fruiters
•  Heritage
Irrigation levels (% of crop ET)
•  50% (deficit)
•  100% (optimum)
•  150% (excess)
Drip configurations
•  Surface drip
•  Subsurface drip (1 line)
•  Subsurface drip (2 lines)
STUDY 1
Overhead sprinkler
STUDY 2
Subsurface drip
(1 line)
Surface drip
Subsurface drip
(2 lines)
drip
line
drip
line
wetting
front
drip
lines
wetting
front
**Applied 2.5x’s more water with
sprinklers than with drip
wetting
front
wetting
fronts
Study 1 was machine-harvested
*2006 was “baby crop” & 2007 was first year of full production
STUDY 1
Irrigation level
50% ETc (deficit)
100% ETc (optimum)
150% ETc (excess)
Berry wt. (2006-09)
(g/fruit)
Optimum
3.76 b
3.89 a
3.97 a
Deficit
Berry wt. in 2006-09 (g/fruit)
Cultivar*
Sprinkler
Subsurface drip
%Difference
Coho
Meeker
3.98 b
3.66 c
4.24 a
3.62 c
7%
-1%
9%
17%
%Difference
STUDY 1
Effects of irrigation system
& level on yield
Yield in 2007 (ton/acre)
Irrigation level
50% ETc (deficit)
100% ETc (optimum)
150% ETc (excess)
Sprinkler
5.3 b
5.2 b
5.2 b
Subsurface drip
5.3 b
6.1 a
5.8 a
%Difference
0%
18%
12%
STUDY 1
Cultivar
Irrigation
system
Irrigation
level
(%ETc)
2006*
2007
2008
2009
Total
Coho
Coho
Coho
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
50
100
150
2.5 a
2.4 a
2.4 a
5.4 b-e
5.2 c-e
5.4 b-e
2.0 b
2.0 b
2.3 b
1.8 d
1.5 d
2.1 cd
11.7 ef
11.1 f
12.2 e
Coho
Coho
Coho
SDI
SDI
SDI
50
100
150
2.4 a
2.6 a
2.4 a
5.7 a-c
6.3 a
6.0 ab
2.1 b
2.3 b
2.4 b
2.3 cd
2.6 c
2.7 c
12.5 e
13.8 d
13.5 d
Meeker
Meeker
Meeker
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
50
100
150
2.4 a
2.4 a
2.2 a
5.2 c-e
5.2 c-e
5.0 de
3.7 a
3.7 a
3.8 a
4.8 b
4.5 b
5.0 ab
16.1 bc
15.8 c
15.7 c
Meeker
Meeker
Meeker
SDI
SDI
SDI
50
100
150
2.3 a
2.7 a
2.3 a
4.9 e
5.9 ab
5.6 b-d
3.5 a
4.0 a
3.7 a
4.8 b
5.7 a
5.2 ab
15.5 c
17.4 a
16.8 ab
*“Baby crop” year
Yield (ton/acre)
‘Coho’ was severely affected by
root rot beginning in 2008 (year 3)
STUDY 1
Root rot was most prevalent in the lower areas
where water tended to pool
STUDY 1
Root rot was also greater with sprinklers
& under-irrigation
Root rot rating
Irrigation
level
(%ETc)
Coho
Meeker
Sprinkler
SDI
Sprinkler
SDI
50
100
150
3.6 de
2.9 e
4.2 bc
3.9 cd
4.0 b-d
4.5 ab
4.9 a
4.8 a
5.0 a
4.9 a
5.0 a
5.0 a
Ratings:
1 = >50% of the plants collapsed
2 = some plant death but <50% of the plants collapsed
3 = at least half the plants were severely stunted & yellowing
4 = mild stunting and yellowing
5 = completely healthy
SUMMARY
STUDY 1
Overhead sprinkler
Subsurface drip
(1 line)
drip
line
**Applied 2.5x’s
more water with
sprinklers
Yield
Increased yield by
up to 18% over
sprinklers
Fruit size
Increased fruit
weight by 7% over
sprinklers – but
only in ‘Coho’
Root rot
STUDY 2
Root rot was higher with sprinklers and
lower rates of water application
Fruit rot
Fruit rot was higher with sprinklers
than with drip
Water use
Maximum
production at
100% ETc
Surface drip
drip
line
Subsurface drip
(2 lines)
drip
lines
STUDY 1
Overhead sprinkler
STUDY 2
Subsurface drip
(1 line)
Surface drip
Subsurface drip
(2 lines)
drip
line
drip
line
wetting
front
drip
lines
wetting
front
wetting
front
wetting
fronts
**Applied the same amount of water with each method
STUDY 2
Yield (t/ha)
Cultivar
2007
2008
Cascade Delight
Cowichan
Meeker
Tulameen
6.6 a
5.6 c
5.8 bc
6.3 ab
2.7 a
2.4 a
2.2 ab
1.7 b
Fruit were hand-picked in
2007 but machineharvested in 2008
Yield (t/ha)
Drip configuration
2007
2008
Surface drip from trellis wire
Subsurface drip (1 line)
Subsurface drip (2 lines)
6.1 a
6.3 a
5.8 a
2.4 a
2.1 a
2.3 a
No difference
STUDY 2
Berry wt. (g/fruit)
Cultivar
2007
2008
Cascade Delight
Cowichan
Meeker
Tulameen
5.48 a
4.07 c
3.56 d
4.68 b
3.37 a
3.14 b
2.65 c
3.19 b
Fruit size was
affected by drip
placement
Berry wt. (g/fruit)
Drip configuration
2007
2008
Surface drip from trellis wire
Subsurface drip (1 line)
Subsurface drip (2 lines)
4.58 a
4.36 b
4.40 b
3.12 a
3.10 a
3.03 a
The cultivar trial was also affected by root rot, but
root rot was not related to irrigation treatment
SUMMARY
STUDY 1
Overhead sprinkler
STUDY 2
Subsurface drip
(1 line)
drip
line
Surface drip
drip
line
Subsurface drip
(2 lines)
drip
lines
**Applied the same amount of water with each method
Yield
Fruit size
Yield was similar among the three drip placements
Produced larger
berries than the
other configurations
Root rot
Root & fruit rot were not affected by drip placement
Fruit rot
Water use
Water use was similar among the drip placements
Conclusions
Drip is better than sprinklers (even in
heavy soil)
• 
• 
• 
• 
Much lower water requirements
Higher yield
Larger berries
Less fruit & root rot
Placement of the drip lines is flexible
What about fertigation?
6-year-old
plants
Sprinklers or
1 line of drip
80 lb/acre N
Granular fertilizer vs. fertigation
1)  Granular fertilizer (split application)
2)  Fertigation (bi-weekly, April-July)
3)  Granular fertilizer (spring) & fertigation
(summer)
N fertilizer
Granular
CAN-27*
CaNO3
No fertilizer
Liquid
CAN-17
AN 20-0-0
UAN-32
7/13/11
Sprinkler
CaNO3
Sprinkler
CAN-27
Sprinkler
No fertilizer
Drip
CAN-17
No harvester available in 2011
Aurora, OR - 2011
Meeker
3.5
3.0
Normal
range
Leaf N (%)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Granular
Sprinkler
*Leaves were sampled Aug. 3, 2011
Granular
Fertigation
Drip
-3
2
AN
U
-1
7
AN
C
AN
20
-0
-0
-3
2
AN
U
-1
7
AN
-0
C
-0
20
AN
liz
er
fe
N
o
AN
C
rti
-2
7
3
O
aN
C
liz
er
rti
N
o
fe
AN
C
C
aN
O
-2
7
3
0.0
Granular (CAN-27)
+ Fertigation
Aurora, OR - 2011
Nitrogen management effects on fruit production in ‘Meeker’ red
raspberry.
Irrigation
method
Fertilizer
source1
Fertilizer
placement
Yield
(ton/acre)
Fruit size
(g/berry)
Sprinkler
CAN-27 (gr.)
Banded
4.8 b
3.1 b
Drip
CAN-27 (gr.)
Banded
6.5 a
3.4 a
Drip
CAN-17 (liq.)
Fertigation
6.7 a
3.5 a
Drip
CAN-27 (gr.) +
CAN-17 (liq.)
Banded +
fertigation
6.2 a
3.3 ab
1Each
treatment was fertilized with a total of 80 lb/acre N.
Hand-harvested
Aurora, OR - 2012
Same as
granular
fertilizer
only
Meeker
Nitrogen
source
No nitrogen
8
Yield (ton/acre)
6
4
No nitrogen
2
Granular
Sprinklers
Machine-harvested
Granular
Fertigation
Drip
20
-0
-0
CA
N17
UA
N32
AN
20
-0
-0
CA
N17
UA
N32
AN
3
CA
N27
No
fe
rt i
liz
er
Ca
NO
Ca
NO
3
CA
N27
No
fe
rt i
liz
er
0
Granular (CAN-27) +
Fertigation
Conclusion & Recommendations
Fertigation: Same as or worse than
granular fertilizers
•  Use granular fertilizers or a combination of
granular fertilizers (spring) + fertigation
(summer)
•  Avoid fertigation with fertilizers containing
high levels of NO3-N
What’s next?
What about organic (humic) acids?
+ Organic acids
- Organic acids
Root
236 g
Root
349 g
Blueberry
Treatments
Location: Mt. Vernon
Co-PI: Lisa DeVetter
+ Organic acids
Meeker
Malahat
- Organic acids
Meeker
Malahat
+ Organic acids
- Organic acids
Meeker
(industry standard)
Malahat
(highly susceptible
to root rot)
17 days after
transplanting
+ Organic acids
- Organic acids
Meeker
1 month after
transplanting
225 200 Average biomass of 'Meeker' raspberries with or without organic acid soil amendments, 2014
175 Biomass (g) 150 125 100 75 50 25 0 Root Leaf Treated + Organic
acids
Cane Tissue Type Untreated - Organic
acids
End of first
growing
season
Acknowledgements
v 
Collaborators: Bernadine Strik, Diane Kaufman, Lisa
DeVetter
v 
Technical Support: Amber Shireman, Ruth Hamlyn, OSU
students
v 
Financial Support: Oregon Raspberry & Blackberry
Commission, Northwest Center for Small Fruit Research