, Volume 28, Issue 6, pp 1607–1622 | Cite as

Model-assisted evaluation of crop load effects on stem diameter variations and fruit growth in peach

  • Tom De Swaef
  • Carmen D. Mellisho
  • Annelies Baert
  • Veerle De Schepper
  • Arturo Torrecillas
  • Wenceslao Conejero
  • Kathy Steppe
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Long Distance Transport: Phloem and Xylem


Key message

The paper identifies and quantifies how crop load influences plant physiological variables that determine stem diameter variations to better understand the effect of crop load on drought stress indicators.


Stem diameter (D stem) variations have extensively been applied in optimisation strategies for plant-based irrigation scheduling in fruit trees. Two D stem derived water status indicators, maximum daily shrinkage (MDS) and daily growth rate (DGR), are however influenced by other factors such as crop load, making it difficult to unambiguously use these indicators in practical irrigation applications. Furthermore, crop load influences the growth of individual fruits, because of competition for assimilates. This paper aims to explain the effect of crop load on DGR, MDS and individual fruit growth in peach using a water and carbon transport model that includes simulation of stem diameter variations. This modelling approach enabled to relate differences in crop load to differences in xylem and phloem water potential components. As such, crop load effects on DGR were attributed to effects on the stem phloem turgor pressure. The effect of crop load on MDS could be explained by the plant water status, the phloem carbon concentration and the elasticity of the tissue. The influence on fruit growth could predominantly be explained by the effect on the early fruit growth stages.


Prunus persica (L.) Batsch Dendrometers Stem radius changes Carbon relations Water relations Mechanistic modelling 


Author contributions statement

Tom De Swaef defined the research questions, developed the model, conducted the model simulations and wrote the manuscript. Carmen D. Mellisho conducted the field experiments, collected stem diameter and water potential data. Annelies Baert and Veerle De Schepper assisted in definition of the research questions, the model development and the writing of the manuscript. Arturo Torrecillas and Wenceslao Conejero supervised the field experiments and data collection. Kathy Steppe supervised the definition of research questions, the model development and simulations, and the writing of the manuscript.


The authors thank the Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT) for the Ph.D. funding granted to Annelies Baert (IWT/SB-91337), the Special Research Fund (BOF) from Ghent University for the Post-Doc funding granted to Veerle De Schepper (BOF12/PDO/027), the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness for the grant to Carmen D Mellisho. Part of the research was financed by Fundación Séneca, Centro de Coordinación de la Investigación de la CARM. No. 11981/PI/09.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Abrisqueta I, Abrisqueta JM, Tapia LM, Munguía JP, Conejero W, Vera J, Ruiz-Sánchez MC (2013) Basal crop coefficients for early season peach trees. Agric Water Manag 121:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56. Rome, Italy, pp 15–27Google Scholar
  3. Allen MT, Prusinkiewicz P, DeJong TM (2005) Using L-systems for modeling source-sink interactions, architecture and physiology of growing trees: the L-PEACH model. New Phytol 166:869–880PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Backes K, Leuschner C (2000) Leaf water relations of competitive Fagus sylvatica and Quercus petraea trees during 4 years differing in soil drought. Can J For Res 30:335–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baert A, Villez K, Steppe K (2012) Functional unfold principal component analysis for automatic plant-based stress detection in grapevine. Funct Plant Biol 39:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldet P, Devaux C, Chevalier C, Brouquisse R, Just D, Raymond P (2002) Contrasted responses to carbohydrate limitation in tomato fruit at two stages of development. Plant Cell Environ 25:1639–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Begg JE, Turner NC (1970) Water potential gradients in field tobacco. Plant Physiol 46:343–346PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berman ME, DeJong TM (2003) Seasonal patterns of vegetative growth and competition with reproductive sinks in peach (Prunus pesica). J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 78:303–309Google Scholar
  9. Bertin N, Borel C, Brunel B, Cheniclet C, Causse M (2003) Do genetic make-up and growth manipulation affect tomato fruit size by cell number, or cell size and DNA endoreduplication? Ann Bot 92:415–424PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buwalda JG, Lenz F (1992) Effects of cropping, nutrition and water supply on accumulation and distribution of biomass and nutrients for apple trees on ‘M9’ root systems. Physiol Plant 84:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen M, Goldhamer DA, Fereres E, Girona J, Mata M (2001) Assessment of peach tree responses to irrigation water deficits by continuous monitoring of trunk diameter changes. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 76:55–60Google Scholar
  12. Conejero W, Alarcon JJ, Garcia-Orellana Y, Nicolas E, Torrecillas A (2007) Daily sap flow and maximum daily trunk shrinkage measurements for diagnosing water stress in early maturing peach trees during the post-harvest period. Tree Physiol 27:81–88PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conejero W, Ortuño MF, Mellisho CD, Torrecillas A (2010) Influence of crop load on maximum daily trunk shrinkage reference equations for irrigation scheduling of early maturing peach trees. Agric Water Manag 97:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conejero W, Mellisho CD, Ortuño MF, Galindo A, Perez-Sarmiento F, Torrecillas A (2011) Establishing maximum daily trunk shrinkage and midday stem water potential reference equations for irrigation scheduling of early maturing peach trees. Irrig Sci 29:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cosgrove D (1986) Biophysical control of plant-cell growth. Ann Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 37:377–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Da Silva D, Favreau R, Auzmendi I, DeJong TM (2011) Linking water stress effects on carbon partitioning by introducing a xylem circuit into L-PEACH. Ann Bot 108:1135–1145PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daudet FA, Lacointe A, Gaudillère JP, Cruiziat P (2002) Generalized Münch coupling between sugar and water fluxes for modelling carbon allocation as affected by water status. J Theor Biol 214:481–4985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Daudet FA, Améglio T, Cochard H, Archilla O, Lacointe A (2005) Experimental analysis of the role of water and carbon in tree stem diameter variations. J Exp Bot 56:135–144PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. De Pauw DJW, Steppe K, De Baets B (2008) Identifiability analysis and improvement of a tree water flow and storage model. Math Biosci 211:314–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Schepper V, Steppe K (2010) Development and verification of a water and sugar transport model using measured stem diameter variations. J Exp Bot 61:2083–2099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Schepper V, Steppe K (2011) Tree girdling responses simulated by a water and carbon transport model. Ann Bot 108:1147–1154PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. De Schepper V, Steppe K, Van Labeke MC, Lemeur R (2010) Detailed analysis of double girdling effects on stem diameter variations and sap flow in young oak trees. Environ Exp Bot 68:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Schepper V, De Swaef T, Bauweraerts I, Steppe K (2013) Phloem transport: a review of mechanisms and controls. J Exp Bot 64:4839–4850PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. De Swaef T, Steppe K (2010) Linking stem diameter variations to sap flow, turgor and water potential in tomato. Funct Plant Biol 37:429–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Swaef T, Steppe K, Lemeur R (2009) Determining reference values for stem water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in young apple trees based on plant responses to water deficit. Agric Water Manag 96:541–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. De Swaef T, Verbist K, Cornelis W, Steppe K (2012) Tomato sap flow, stem and fruit growth in relation to water availability in rockwool growing medium. Plant Soil 350:237–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. De Swaef T, Driever SM, Van Meulebroek L, Vanhaecke L, Marcelis LFM, Steppe K (2013) Understanding the effect of carbon status on stem diameter variations. Ann Bot 111:31–46PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. DeJong TM (1986) Effects of reproductive and vegetative sink activity on leaf conductance and water potential in Prunus persica Batsch, L. Sci Hortic 29:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. DeJong TM, Grossman YL (1995) Quantifying sink and source limitations on dry matter partitioning to fruit growth in peach trees. Physiol Plant 95:437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fereres E, Goldhamer DA (2003) Suitability of stem diameter variations and water potential as indicators for irrigation scheduling of almond trees. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 78:139–144Google Scholar
  31. Fernandez JE, Cuevas MV (2010) Irrigation scheduling from stem diameter variations: a review. Agric For Meteorol 150:135–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fishman S, Génard M (1998) A biophysical model of fruit growth: simulation of seasonal and diurnal dynamics of mass. Plant Cell Environ 21:739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Frensch J, Hsiao TC (1995) Rapid response of the yield threshold and turgor regulation during adjustment of root-growth to water-stress in Zea mays. Plant Physiol 108:303–312PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Génard M, Fishman S, Vercambre G, Huguet JG, Bussi C, Besset J, Habib R (2001) A biophysical analysis of stem and root diameter variations in woody plants. Plant Physiol 126:188–202PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Goldhamer DA, Fereres E (2001) Irrigation scheduling protocols using continuously recorded trunk diameter measurements. Irrig Sci 20:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gucci R, Grappadelli LC, Tustin S, Ravaglia G (1995) The effect of defruiting at different stages of fruit developement on leaf photosynthesis of “Golden Delicious” apple. Tree Physiol 15:35–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hölttä T, Vesala T, Sevanto S, Perämäki M, Nikinmaa E (2006) Modeling xylem and phloem water flows in trees according to cohesion theory a nd Münch hypothesis. Trees 20:67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsiao TC, Frensch J, Rojas-Lara BA (1998) The pressure-jump technique shows maize leaf growth to be enhanced by increases in turgor only when water status is not too high. Plant Cell Environ 21:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Intrigliolo DS, Castel JR (2004) Continuous measurement of plant and soil water status for irrigation scheduling in plum. Irrig Sci 23:93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Intrigliolo DS, Castel JR (2006) Usefulness of diurnal trunk shrinkage as a water stress indicator in plum trees. Tree Physiol 26:303–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Intrigliolo DS, Castel JR (2007) Crop load affects maximum daily trunk shrinkage of plum trees. Tree Physiol 27:89–96PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson RW, Dixon MA, Lee DR (1992) Water relations of the tomato during fruit growth. Plant Cell Environ 15:947–953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jones HG (1992) Plants and microclimate, a quantitative approach to environmental plant physiology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Jones HG (2004) Irrigation scheduling: advantages and pitfalls of plant-based methods. J Exp Bot 55:2427–2436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Katerji N, Tardieu F, Bethenod O, Quetin P (1994) Behaviour of maize stem diameter during drying cycles: comparison of two methods for detecting water stress. Crop Sci 34:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lacointe A, Minchin PEH (2008) Modelling phloem and xylem transport within a complex architecture. Funct Plant Biol 35:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lescourret F, Moitrier N, Valsesia P, Génard M (2011) Qualitree, a virtual fruit tree to study the management of fruit quality. I. Model development. Trees 25:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lockhart JA (1965) An analysis of irreversible plant cell elongation. J Theor Biol 8:264–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marsal J, Gelly M, Mata M, Arbonés J, Rufat J, Girona J (2002) Phenology and drought affects the relationship between daily trunk shrinkage and midday stem water potential of peach trees. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 77:411–417Google Scholar
  50. Martre P, Bertin N, Salon C, Génard M (2011) Modelling the size and composition of fruit, grain and seed by process-based simulation models. New Phytol 191:601–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Moing A, Carbonne F, Zipperlin B, Svanella L, Gaudillere JP (1997) Phloem loading in peach: symplastic or apoplastic? Physiol Plant 101:489–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Moriana A, Fereres E (2002) Plant indicators for scheduling irrigation of young olive trees. Irrig Sci 21:83–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Moriana A, Fereres E (2004) Establishing reference values of trunk diameter fluctuations and stem water potential for irrigation scheduling of olive trees. Acta Hortic 664:407–412Google Scholar
  54. Mounzer OH, Conejero W, Nicolás E, Abrisqueta I, García-Orellana YV, Tapia LM, Vera J, Abrisqueta JM, Ruiz-Sanchez MC (2008) Growth pattern and phenological stages of early-maturing peach trees under a Mediterranean climate. Hort Sci 43:1813–1818Google Scholar
  55. Mpelasoka BS, Behboudian MH, Green SR (2001) Water use, yield and fruit quality of lysimeter-grown apple trees: responses to deficit irrigation and to crop load. Irrig Sci 20:107–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Murphy R, Ortega JKE (1995) A new pressure probe method to determine the average volumetric elastic modulus of cells in plant tissue. Plant Physiol 107:995–1005PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Naor A (2004) The interaction of soil- and stem-water potential with crop level, fruit size and stomatal conductance of field-grown ‘Black-Amber’ Japanese plum. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 79:273–280Google Scholar
  58. Naor A, Klein I, Hupert H, Grinblat Y, Peres M, Kaufman A (1999) Water stress and crop level interactions in relation to nectarine yield, fruit size distribution, and water potentials. J Am Soc Hortic 124:189–193Google Scholar
  59. Nelder JA, Mead R (1965) A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J 7:308–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nobel PS (1999) Physicochemical and environmental plant physiology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  61. Nortes PA, Perez-Pastor A, Egea G, Conejero W, Domingo R (2005) Comparison of changes in stem diameter and water potential in young almond trees. Agric Water Manag 77:296–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ortuño MF, Garcia-Orellana Y, Conejero W, Ruiz-Sanchez MC, Mounzer O, Alarcon JJ, Torrecillas A (2006) Relationships between climatic variables and sap flow, stem water potential and maximum daily trunk shrinkage in lemon trees. Plant Soil 279:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ortuño MF, Conejero W, Moreno F et al (2010) Could trunk diameter sensors be used in woody crops for irrigation scheduling? A review of current knowledge and future perspectives. Agric Water Manag 97:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Passioura JB, Munns R (1984) Hydraulic resistance in plants: 2. effects of rooting medium and time of day in barley and lupin. Aust J Plant Physiol 11:341–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Ryugo K, Nii N, Iwata M, Carlson RM (1977) Effect of fruiting on carbohydrate and mineral composition of stem and leaves of French prunes. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 102:813–816Google Scholar
  66. Sevanto S, Vesala T, Peramaki M, Nikinmaa E (2003) Sugar transport together with environmental conditions controls time lags between xylem and stem diameter changes. Plant Cell Environ 26:1257–1265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sevanto S, Hölttä T, Holbrook NM (2011) Effects of the hydraulic coupling between xylem and phloem on diurnal phloem diameter variation. Plant Cell Environ 34:690–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Steppe K, De Pauw DJW, Lemeur R, Vanrolleghem PA (2006) A mathematical model linking tree sap flow dynamics to daily stem diameter fluctuations and radial stem growth. Tree Physiol 26:257–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Steppe K, De Pauw DJW, Lemeur R (2008) A step towards new irrigation scheduling strategies using plant-based measurements and mathematical modelling. Irrig Sci 26:505–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Steudle E, Tyerman SD (1983) Determination of permeability coefficients, reflection coefficients, and hydraulic conductivity of Chara corallina using the pressure probe—effects of solute concentrations. J Membr Biol 75:85–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. van den Honert TH (1948) Water transport in plants as a catenary process. Farad Soc Disc 3:146–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Williamson JG, Coston DC (1989) The relationship among root growth, shoot growth and fruit growth of peach. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 114:180–183Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom De Swaef
    • 1
    • 2
  • Carmen D. Mellisho
    • 2
    • 3
  • Annelies Baert
    • 2
  • Veerle De Schepper
    • 2
  • Arturo Torrecillas
    • 3
  • Wenceslao Conejero
    • 3
  • Kathy Steppe
    • 2
  1. 1.Plant Sciences UnitInstitute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO)MelleBelgium
  2. 2.Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Bioscience EngineeringGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  3. 3.Dpto. RiegoCentro de Edafología y Biología Aplicada del Segura (CSIC)MurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations