Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Water Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat

Kaolin improves salinity tolerance, water use efficiency and quality of

tomato
Francesca Boari a,∗ , Antonio Donadio a , Bernardo Pace a , Maria Immacolata Schiattone b ,
Vito Cantore a
a
Institute of Sciences of Food Production, National Research Council (CNR-ISPA), Via Amendola, 122/O, 70125 Bari, Italy
b
School of Agriculture, Forest, Food and Environmental Sciences—University of Basilicata, Viale dell’Ateneo Lucano 10, 85100 Potenza, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Many areas in Southern Italy covered by tomato crops suffer from problems of high salinity in the irriga-
Received 14 May 2015 tion water, that adversely affects yield. The reduction in transpiration rate mitigates the adverse effects
Received in revised form of salinity. Thus, spraying the crop with kaolin-based aqueous suspension, which has an antitranspirant
22 December 2015
effect, can help improve tolerance to salinity.
Accepted 23 December 2015
A three-year research study was carried out in open-field conditions in the Basilicata region (Southern
Available online 13 January 2016
Italy), to study the combined effect of three irrigation-water salinity levels (ECw = 0.5, 5, and 10 dS m−1 )
and spraying or non-spraying of kaolin on tomato cultivars, in terms of yield, fruit quality, biomass
Keywords:
Salt stress
and yield water use efficiency (respectively B WUE and Y WUE). Irrigation with brackish water reduced
Heat stress tomato yield mainly because of declining fruit weight, but fruit quality was better in terms of dry matter
WUE content and total soluble solids. In addition, salinity increased blossom-end rot mainly on cultivars with
Sunburn elongated fruits.
Solanum lycopersicum L. Overall, using the average from the three years, kaolin improved total (12.7%) and marketable yield
(17.7%), fruit weight (8.1%) and harvest index (10.3%), and reduced fruit sunburn by 76.4%. In addition,
kaolin contributed to reducing insect attack on the fruit (58.7%), improvement in total soluble solids
(6.2%) and redness (10.2% for the skin and 16.6% for the pulp) of fruits, and increased Y WUE (19.7%).
Furthermore, kaolin mitigated the detrimental effects of salinity through a smaller decrease (averaging
the three years) in total yield (22.8%), marketable yield (34.4%), fruit weight (21.1%), B WUE (22.9%) and
Y WUE (34.7%), between the control irrigated with fresh water and the more saline treatment.
Kaolin can be used to increase salinity tolerance, as well as to protect the tomato crop from pests
damage, radiation and heat stress.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Many Mediterranean countries suffer from the problem of
groundwater salinity due to seawater intrusion caused by the over-
exploitation of wells for irrigation purposes. This causes problems
of soil salinization, with detrimental effects on crops and yield.
The European Environment Agency has recognized that
the problem of saltwater intrusion due to groundwater over-
exploitation is one of the major threats to coastal area freshwater
resources in Europe (Rapti-Caputo, 2010; Scheidleger et al., 2004).
Italy has been indicated as one of the countries where the prob-
lem is felt most severely (Capaccioni et al., 2005; Cau et al., 2002;
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: francesca.boari@ispa.cnr.it (F. Boari).
Scheidleger et al., 2004) with several hot-spot areas in the Apulia
region (Southern Italy) (Ancona et al., 2010; Polemio and Limoni,
2001).
In many irrigated areas, especially those characterized by inten-
sive agricultural activities, dwindling supplies of quality water for
irrigation and increasing demand from other users are forcing farm-
ers to use saline irrigation waters (Rhoades, 1987; Rhoades et al.,
1992; Shani and Dudley, 2001). In arid and semi-arid areas, such as
those in Southern Italy, crops need high watering volumes, which
in turn leads to high quantities of salt entering the soil, that are
insufficiently leached by rainfall from the uppermost to the deeper
soil layers.
Salinity inhibits plant growth because of its osmotic effect,
which reduces the ability of the plant to take up water, and due
to its specific ion toxicity (e.g., Na+ and Cl− ) (Munns, 2002, 2005;
Yeo et al., 1991) which reduces net photosynthesis (Cantore et al.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.12.021
0378-3774/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
30 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37

2007; Munns et al., 2006; Munns and Tester, 2008), and ionic imbal-
2007 (a)
ances acting on biophysical and/or metabolic components of plant 80 40
growth (Grattan and Grieve, 1999). These adverse effects result in a
reduction in yield that, for a given level of salinity can vary depend- 60 30
ing on the genotype, climatic conditions and agronomic techniques
(Flagella et al., 2002; Maas, 1986). 40 20
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) for processing is among the
most common open-field crops cultivated in Southern Italy and
20 tt R Tmin Tmax 10
plays a key role in the local economy. It is often grown on soils
affected by salinity problems and/or irrigated with saline water.
Experimental results indicate tomato is a moderately salt- 0 0
sensitive crop with differences among genotypes (Cantore et al., 2008 (b)

Temperature (°C)
2008; Cucci et al., 2000; Flagella et al., 2002), according to Maas 80 40

Rainfall (mm)
and Hoffman’s (1977) model, and also stress the negative effects of
salinity on absorption and translocation of Ca++ (Grattan and Grieve, 60 30
1999) that is clearly connected with blossom-end rot (Adams and
Ho, 1992; Belda and Ho, 1993; Cantore et al., 2008; Max and Horst, 40 20
2009).
Several authors report that air temperature and relative humid- 20 10
ity (RH) are the main environmental factors affecting tolerance
to salinity (Li et al., 2001; Rauf et al., 2010; Shalhevet, 1994). In
- 0
practice, it has been shown that reducing the environmental evap-
otranspiration demand (low temperature and high RH) increases 2009 (c)
tolerance to salinity because of the reduction in water flow in the 80 40
soil-plant-atmosphere continuum, which leads to less build-up of
salts in the root zone (Helal and Mengel, 1981; Meiri et al., 1982). 60 30
Therefore, any techniques that help reduce vegetation tempera-
ture and transpiration rate may be effective at limiting the negative 40 20
effects of salinity on crops.
Among these techniques, spraying with kaolin-based aqueous 20 10
suspension, whose effects mitigate vegetation temperature, limit
transpiration rate and improve yield, is well known for numerous
0 0
crops (Le Grange et al., 2004; Lombardini et al., 2005; Pace and
Cantore, 2009; Schroeder and Johnson, 2004), including tomato 1/5 31/5 30/6 30/7 29/8 28/9
(Boari et al., 2015; Cantore et al., 2009; Pace et al., 2007). Date
Kaolin, marketed as Surround® WP, is an environmentally-
Fig. 1. Daily values of rainfall (R), minimum (Tmin ) and maximum (Tmax ) air temper-
friendly, clay-based compound, which is becoming more
ature during the growing cycle of tomato in the three years.
widespread because of its efficacy in the control of various
pests which damage a range of crops (Glenn and Puterka, 2005).
After water evaporation, kaolin creates a white protective film on rain gauge, for measuring solar radiation, air temperature, rela-
vegetation (particle film technology, Pft) that reflects part of the tive humidity, wind speed, evaporation and rainfall, respectively.
incident radiation, reduces stomatal conductance and improves The weather data were collected by the electronic system operated
plant water status (Boari et al., 2014, 2015; Cantore et al., 2009). through a data-logger connected via modem to a PC.
Therefore, it was hypothesized that applying kaolin could help The soil was a fine, mixed, subactive, thermic Chromic Haplox-
to reduce salt stress, increasing the salt tolerance of tomato, a crop ererts (Cassi et al., 2006), with the following physical and chemical
widespread in many areas of Southern Italy suffering from salinity characteristics: sand (2 > Ø > 0.02 mm) 30%, silt 37.1%, clay (Ø < 2 ␮)
problems. To verify the hypothesis, an experimental trial was car- 32.9%; pH 7.7; total N (Kjeldahl method) 1.67 g kg−1 , available
ried out in open-field conditions to study the combined effect of P2 O5 (Olsen method) 26.7 mg kg−1 , exchangeable K2 O (ammo-
kaolin and salinity at physiological level (Boari et al., 2014), and on nium acetate method) 227 mg kg−1 , organic matter (Walkley–Black
yield, quality and water use efficiency (WUE), as reported in this method) 36.4 g kg−1 , total limestone 15 g kg−1 , active limestone
paper. 5 g kg−1 ; saturated paste extract electrical conductivity (ECe)
0.95 dS m−1 ; ESP 1.9%; bulk density 1.25 kg dm−3 ; soil moisture
at field capacity (measured in situ) 31.5% and at wilting point
2. Materials and methods (−1.5 MPa) 15% (w/w) of soil dry weight.

2.1. Experimental site and climate 2.2. Climate trend

The field trial was carried out in the summer of 2007, 2008 and
2009 at the University Aldo Moro of Bari’s ‘E. Pantanelli’ experi-
mental farm near Policoro (MT), Southern Italy (40◦ 10 NL, 16◦ 39
EL, altitude 15 m a.s.l.).
This site is characterized by a sub-humid climate according to
the De Martonne classification (Cantore et al., 1987). Climate data
were obtained from a standard weather station located about 50 m
from the experimental field equipped with a pyranometer, ther-
mistor, hygrometer, anemometer, ‘class A’ pan, and tipping bucket
2.2.1. 2007
During the tomato growth cycle, precipitation was very low,
with only 20 mm of rainfall. The minimum temperatures (Tmin )
ranged between 9.5 and 29.5 ◦ C, with the lowest value being
recorded at the end of ripening, while the highest occurred on 9
August at the fruit-enlargement stage. The maximum temperatures
(Tmax ) ranged between 21.5 and 41.5 ◦ C, almost always exceeded
30 ◦ C from mid-June until the end of August, with values above 40 ◦ C
being recorded on 25 and 26 June, 24 July and 26 August (Fig. 1a).
 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37
Table 1
Date of kaolin application.
2007 2008 2009
30 July 13 July 20 July
07 August 22 July 27 July
17 August 31 July 05 August
25 August 09 August 17 August
2.2.2. 2008
Again in 2008 there was a drought, with 54 mm of rainfall,
of which about 80% occurred in the first ten days of June. Tmin
ranged between 12 and 29 ◦ C, showing values below 20 ◦ C until 10
June, and almost always exceeding the latter value thereafter. Tmax
ranged between 20.3 and 40 ◦ C, showing values exceeding 32–35 ◦ C
after the middle of June, with peaks of 38–40 ◦ C from 8 to 15 July
(Fig. 1b).
2.2.3. 2009
The crop cycle suffered less drought than in the other two years,
with 77 mm rainfall, of which 80% occurred during the first 40 days
of the crop cycle. Tmin ranged between 12.5 and 26 ◦ C, almost always
above 20 ◦ C after the end of June. Tmax ranged between 22 and
42.1 ◦ C, showing values exceeding 30 ◦ C after the end of June, and
peaks of 42.1 and 40 ◦ C on July 25 and August 6 (Fig. 1c).
2.3. Treatments
The treatments compared were as follows: three irrigation-
water salinity levels (ECw = 0.5 –5 and 10 dS m−1 , shown as S0, S1
and S2, respectively), two kaolin treatments (kaolin-treated and
untreated control, shown as K and C, respectively) and two tomato
cultivars (‘HLY 19’ and ‘perfectpeel’ in 2007 and 2008, ‘Coimbra’
and ‘ISI 24424’ in 2009). In the saline treatments (S1 and S2), the
ECw was achieved by adding commercial sea salt to the fresh water
(S0). The main chemical characteristics of the irrigation water in
the three salinity treatments are reported by Boari et al. (2014).
To evaluate the combined effect of salinity, kaolin and cultivar on
above-ground dry biomass, yield, yield components, fruit quality,
damage by sunburn, blossom-end rot and tomato fruitminer (Tuta
absoluta Meyrick), a split-plot experimental plan with 3 repetitions
was used.
In the K treatment, every 7–10 days starting from the fruit-
enlargement stage until fruit ripening, four kaolin sprayings were
performed (Table 1) by Surround® WP suspension (4% w/v), uti-
lizing a backpack power sprayer. In the control, fresh water was
sprayed with the same sprayer.
2.4. Cultural practices
Information on the main cultural practices is reported in a pre-
vious work (Boari et al., 2014).
More details on irrigation management are reported below.
Water was applied by drip method (drip lines, with in-line emit-
ters located 0.30 m apart and an emitter flow rate of 4 L h−1 , at a
distance of 10 cm from the plants) every 2–3 days to keep soil water
content in the root zone close to that of readily available water (40%
of available water depletion) and to restore 100% of crop evapotran-
spiration (ETc) plus 5%, considering an irrigation efficiency of 95%.
Soil water depletion was calculated using an Excel-based irrigation
tool (Todorovic, 2006) that employs meteorological, soil and crop
data for a day-by-day estimation of the soil water balance in the
effective root zone. ETc was calculated on a daily basis by utiliz-
ing daily values of ‘class A’ pan evaporation, pan coefficient (Kp )
reported by Castrignanò et al. (1985), and the crop coefficients (Kc )
reported by Tarantino and Caliandro (1984), reduced by 10–30%
31
(related to the crop ground cover) because of the presence of plas-
tic mulch and adjusted for saline-stressed treatments (Ks , ranged
throughout the crop cycle between 1 and 0.85 for S1 and between
1 and 0.75 for S2 treatment, according to the soil salinity) (Allen
et al., 1998) (Table 2).
To calculate Ks , the salinity tolerance parameters of tomato
as reported by Allen et al. (1998) were used: a = 2 dS m−1 ;
b = 9%/dS m−1
Runoff and capillary rise were assumed negligible due to the
ground being completely flat with a very deep soil water table,
while deep percolation, caused by excessive precipitation and/or
irrigation, was calculated as the surplus of water over field capacity
in the root zone.
Irrigation was cut off 22–24 days before harvest, a common local
strategy to improve fruit quality in terms of total soluble solids and
dry matter content.
Throughout the crop cycle, water was supplied 28 times in the
first year and 27 times in both the second and third years. The sea-
sonal irrigation volume decreased from the non-saline treatment
to the more saline one, according to the differences among saline
treatments in calculated ETc (Table 2).
2.5. Soil water content and salinity measurements
During the crop cycles, in three places per plot (0, 25 and 50 cm
from the emitters) and at three different depths (0–20, 20–40 and
40–60 cm), the following measurements were performed: (i) soil
water content (by gravimetric method) to make occasional adjust-
ments of soil water content estimated by the model, (ii) in situ
electrical conductivity of saturated extract (ECe) by an EC-probe
(Rhoades and van Schilfgaarde, 1976).
2.6. Crop and fruit measurements
2.6.1. Yield and fruit characteristics
At the end of the crop cycles, harvest took place by hand, in
sampling areas of 4.5 m2 , on 18 September 2007, 26 August 2008
and 4 September 2009.
Immediately after harvest, yield (total, marketable and unmar-
ketable), morphological characteristics of fruits and quality
parameters were determined. Fruits that were green, cracked, with
symptoms of blossom-end rot, sunburn, or damaged by pests (par-
ticularlyby T. absoluta) were considered unmarketable. From each
plot, a homogeneous sample (in triplicate) of about 3 kg of total
product was taken to assess the percentage of fruits with blossom-
end rot, cracking, sunburn and pest attacks. Dry matter (DM), total
soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity, pH, firmness, colour of skin
and pulp, and morphological parameters including mean weight
and shape index (ratio between fruit length and diameter) were
determined for the marketable product.
DM was assessed in triplicate on a sample of 6 chopped fruits,
placed in a ventilated oven at a temperature of 55 ◦ C until a con-
stant weight was reached (about 48 h). TSS, titratable acidity and pH
were determined on the juice (using about 2 kg of fruits) obtained
by liquefying fruit in a blender (1 min; 14,000 rev. min−1 ) and
then filtering all mesocarp; from a well-homogenised juice each
parameter was analyzed in triplicate. TSS was determined using a
refractometer (model DBR35, XS instruments, Poncarale-BS, Italy)
and expressed as ◦ Brix at 20 ◦ C. Titratable acidity was determined
by titrating NaOH 0.1 M in the presence of phenolphthalein with
an automatic titrating machine (Technotrate, Kartell, Noviglio-MI,
Italy) until colour change with the result expressed in terms of
monohydrate acid. Fruit juice pH was measured using a pH meter
(Acorn pH 6 Meter, Oakton Instruments, Vernon Hills, Illinois). Fruit
firmness was measured on a sample of ten fruits after skin peeling
(1 mm in thickness); specfically, two measures were carried out at
32 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37

Table 2
Crop evapotranspiration (ETc), seasonal irrigation volume (IV) and watering number (WN) of tomato crop for the different years and salinity treatments.

Year S0 S1 S2

ETc IV WN ETc IV WN ETc IV WN

(mm) (m3 ha−1 ) (n.) (mm) (m3 ha−1 ) (n.) (mm) (m3 ha−1 ) (n.)

2007 458.7 4.690 28 427.2 4.360 28 397.7 4.050 28

2008 460.5 4.310 27 429.1 3.980 27 401.4 3.690 27
2009 489.1 4.400 27 463.3 4.130 27 436.7 3.850 27

S0, S1 and S2 indicate respectively the electrical conductivity of irrigation water (ECw) equal to 0.5, 5, and 10 dS m−1 .

Table 3 3.2. Yield and fruit characteristics

Values (±SD) of electrical conductivity of the soil saturation extract (ECe, dS m−1 ),
as mean of crop cycle, in different salinity treatments, in three experimental years.
Salinity treatments 2007 2008 2009
S0 0.85 ± 0.10 0.90 ± 0.12 0.95 ± 0.12
S1 2.80 ± 1.66 2.91 ± 1.79 3.05 ± 1.74
S2 4.41 ± 2.24 4.38 ± 2.37 4.55 ± 2.28
Note: S0, S1 and S2 indicate respectively the electrical conductivity of irrigation
water, ECw equal to 0.5, 5 and 10 dS m−1 . Each value is the average of values mea-
sured at three depths (0–20, 20–40 and 40–60 cm) and three distances from the
dripper (0, 25 and 50 cm).
equatorial level using a digital fruit firmness tester (model 53205
TR, Turoni, Italy) with a 3 mm diameter round-head probe.
Hunter colour parameters L* (brightness), a* (redness) and b*
(yellowness) were measured on the pulp and skin surface of ten
fruits using a Minolta colorimeter (model CR-400, Konica Minolta,
Osaka, Japan) and SpectraMagic NX software. Three measurements
at the equator of each fruit were made on the fruits, both with and
without skin.
2.6.2. Biomass, harvest index and water use efficiency
Immediately after harvest, total above-ground dry biomass
(AGDB) was measured on five plants per plot. Harvest index (HI)
was assessed as ratio between total fruit yield dry mass and AGDB.
Biomass water use efficiency (B WUE) was calculated as the
ratio between AGDB and ETc. Yield water use efficiency (Y WUE)
was calculated as the ratio between marketable yield and ETc.
2.7. Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance of the treatment effects was performed
using the SPSS Software package, and means separated with the
Student–Newman–Keuls test.
3. Results
3.1. Soil water content and salinity
The water content of the soil in the volume most explored by
the roots, almost throughout the crop cycle, remained within read-
ily available water (RAW) in all treatments. Only in the last week
before the harvest, following the suspension of irrigation, did soil
water content drop to just below RAW (data not shown).
Irrigation with brackish water led to a gradual increase in soil
salinity. Indeed, during the crop cycle, the average ECe of the rhizo-
sphere was almost unchanged (1.0 dS m−1 ) in the control irrigated
with fresh water (S0), while in the two saline treatments it reached
values of between 4 and 5 dS m−1 in S1 and between 7 and 8 dS m−1
in S2 (data not shown), also as a result of the lack of precipitation
that could leach the salts.
With increasing irrigation-water salinity, averaged across the
crop cycle, ECe rose from about 0.9 to 4.4 dS m−1 in 2007 and 2008
and from about 1 to 4.6 dS m−1 in 2009 (Table 3).
In general, morphological, qualitative and yield parameters for
the tomatoes differed according to the years and treatments com-
pared (Tables 4 and 5).
Total and marketable yield were highest in 2008 and lowest in
2007.
These two parameters were similar for the cultivars used in
2007 and 2009; in 2008, by contrast, ‘Perfectpeel’ provided 42 and
58% higher total and marketable yield than ‘HLY 19’. Average fruit
weight was highest in ‘perfectpeel’ in 2007, in ‘HLY 19’ in 2008, and
in ‘ISI 24424’ in 2009.
As expected, with increasing salinity, from S0 to S2, total yield
reduced by 42%, 55% and 35%, while marketable yield fell by 46%,
66% and 37%, respectively in 2007, 2008 and 2009. The reductions
in yield were mainly due to a corresponding reduction in average
fruit weight.
Salinity resulted in a significant increase in the amount of fruit
suffering from blossom-end rot, especially in cultivars with elon-
gated fruits (’HLY 19’ and ‘Coimbra’).
Salinity and cultivars did not lead to a significant change in
the incidence of fruit damaged by sunburn, except in 2008 when
‘perfectpeel’ showed a greater amount of sunburnt fruit.
The amount of fruit damaged by pests, however, was differen-
tiated between cultivars and among salinity levels only in 2009,
when overall this problem was more a more pressing issue; the
most susceptible cultivar proved to be ‘ISI 24424’ at lower salinity
levels.
With regard to the qualitative parameters of the fruits, the cul-
tivars were differentiated in 2007 for firmness and in 2008 for TSS
(highest in ‘HLY 19’).
Shape index reflected the characteristics of the cultivars used:
‘HLY 19’ and ‘Coimbra’ produced elongated fruits, while ‘perfect-
peel’ and ‘ISI 24424’ featured sub-spherical ones.
Salinity affected DM and TSS content of fruits each year and firm-
ness in the first two years. Over the three years, DM and TSS were
higher by an average of 16.9% and 18.7% in S2, compared with S0.
Average firmness for 2007 and 2008 was 17% higher in S0 compared
with S2.
Some chromatic parameters of the fruits varied in relation to
salinity and cultivars. In particular, salinity improved the bright-
ness (L*) of the fruit skin in the first year and its yellowness (b*) in
the first and second year. The effects of cultivar were mainly evident
on redness (a*), a parameter closely related to the fruit’s lycopene
content (Dumas et al., 2003). As expected, ‘HLY 19’ and ‘Coim-
bra’, both notoriously high-lycopene cultivars, displayed higher
lycopene content.
Kaolin resulted in a general increase in yield, mainly due to the
increase in the average weight of the fruits. Total yield increased
by an average of 12%, 16% and 10%, and marketable yield by 20%,
22% and 11%, respectively in 2007, 2008 and 2009. Fruit weight
was generally higher in K, but was statistically differentiated only
in 2008 when the difference was 19%.
The magnitude of the improvement in yield determined by
kaolin differed according to salinity levels (significative interaction
 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37 33

Table 4
Main effects of salinity level, kaolin application and cultivar on tomato total and marketable yield, mean weight, fruits damaged by blossom-end rot, sunburn and pests, fruit
dry matter (DM), total soluble solids (TSS), pH, titratable acidity, firmness and shape index.

Treatments Yield Mean weight Blossom-end rot Sunburn Pests DM TSS pH Titratable acidity Firmness Shape index

Total Marketable
(Mg ha−1 ) (Mg ha−1 ) (g) (%) (%) (%) (g 100 g−1 f.w.) (◦ Brix) (g 100 mL−1 ) (kg cm−2 ) (mm mm-1 )

2007
Salinity ** ** * * ns ns * * ns ns * ns
S0 89.1 a 85.0 a 70.7 a 0.8 b 1.6 5.7 8.2 b 7.1 b 4.4 0.4 5.3 a 1.9
S1 75.7 b 70.5 b 59.3 b 1.2 b 2 4.8 8.6 b 7.5 b 4.4 0.5 4.8 ab 1.7
S2 51.6 c 46.0 c 45.6 c 3.8 a 2.3 6.1 9.5 a 8.6 a 4.4 0.5 4.2 b 1.7
Kaolin ** ** ns ns * * ns * ns ns ns ns
K 76.2 73.4 59.1 1.6 0.3 2.3 8.9 7.9 4.4 0.4 4.9 1.8
C 68.0 60.9 58.0 2.3 3.6 8.7 8.7 7.5 4.4 0.5 4.7 1.8
Cultivar ns ns * * ns ns ns ns ns ns * **
HLY 19 70.2 65.2 53.5 3.2 1.7 4.2 8.8 7.8 4.4 0.5 5.4 2.4
Perfectpeel 74.0 69.1 63.6 0.7 2.2 6.8 8.8 7.6 4.4 0.4 4.2 1.1

2008
Salinity ** ** ** ** ns ns * * ns ns * ns
S0 144.6 a 108.7 a 61.3 a 1.0 c 3.8 3.9 6.2 b 5.4 b 4.5 0.4 5.7 a 1.8
S1 106.7 b 75.6 b 51.0 b 6.6 b 4.4 5.7 6.2 b 5.5 b 4.4 0.4 5.5 a 1.7
S2 64.9 c 37.2 c 37.1 c 9.7 a 3.9 4.6 7.3 a 6.5 a 4.4 0.4 5.0 b 1.9
Kaolin * * * ns ** * * * ns ns ns ns
K 113.4 81.2 54.0 5.5 1.3 2.5 6.9 6 4.5 0.4 5.4 1.9
C 97.4 66.4 45.5 6 6.7 7 6.2 5.6 4.4 0.4 5.4 1.8
Cultivar ** ** * ** * ns ns * ns ns ns **
HLY 19 87.0 57.3 53.5 9.4 2.5 3.6 6.7 6.1 4.5 0.4 5.6 2.4
perfectpeel 123.8 90.4 46.1 2.1 5.6 5.9 6.4 5.5 4.4 0.4 5.2 1.2

2009
Salinity ** ** ** ** ns * * * ns ns ns ns
S0 125.6 a 117.4 a 79.9 a 1.6 b 6.7 27.8 a 5.1 b 4.7 b 4.5 0.3 4.6 1.6
S1 110.3 b 102.0 b 66.5 b 5.1 ab 5.6 22.0 ab 5.7 a 5.0 ab 4.5 0.3 5.1 1.6
S2 82.1 c 74.4 c 59.1 c 7.1 a 8.2 17.5 b 6.0 a 5.3 a 4.5 0.3 4.9 1.5
Kaolin ** ** ns ns * * ns ns ns ns ns ns
K 112.3 104.3 70.1 4.4 4.1 17.6 5.6 5 4.5 0.3 5.1 1.6
C 101.8 93.8 67.8 4.6 9.5 28.5 5.5 5 4.5 0.3 4.6 1.5
Cultivar ns ns * ** ns * ns ns ns ns ns **
Coimbra 110.6 101.9 62.3 7.0 5.9 17.9 5.6 5.1 4.5 0.3 5.0 2.0
ISI 24424 104.2 96.8 75.8 1.9 7.7 27.6 5.5 4.9 4.5 0.3 4.7 1.2

ns, *, ** indicate F test not significant or significant at P < 0.05 and < 0.01, respectively. Mean separation within columns by SNK test ( P< 0.05).

of salinity x kaolin treatments). Indeed, the improvement in yield
caused by kaolin occurred in saline treatments and average growth
over the three years rose from 16.1% and 23.2% for S1 to 22.8% and
34.4% for S2, respectively for total and marketable yield. In addition,
kaolin also led to heavier fruit with increasing salinity, averaging
from 11.8% (S1) to 21.1% (S2) (Fig. 2).
The major differences in marketable yield between kaolin treat-
ments, compared to total yield, are attributable to the positive effect
of kaolin on controlling pests and sunburn, which reduced fruit rot.
In the first two years, the incidence of sunburn was almost negligi-
ble in K, while in C it was equal to 3.6 and 6.7%; in 2009, however
it was 4.1% in K and 9.5% in C.
Kaolin did not affect the incidence of blossom-end rot, pH, titrat-
able acidity, firmness and shape index. However, it led to an 11.3%
increase in DM in 2008 and of 5.3% and 7.1% in TSS, respectively in
2007 and 2008. Kaolin affected some chromatic features of fruits,
increasing redness in particular. Indeed, on average, a* increased by
10.2% and 16.6%, while a*/b* rose by 21.0% and 16.7%, respectively
for skin and pulp (Table 5).
Salinity led to a reduction in WUE, especially Y WUE. Indeed,
from S0 to S2, while B WUE reduced on average by 14.3%, Y WUE
dropped by 42.9% (Table 6).
Variation in WUE between the cultivars, as also observed for
AGDB and HI, occurred only in 2008. ‘perfectpeel’ performed better
than ‘HLY 19’, with B WUE and Y WUE showing increases of 30.6%
and 59%, respectively (Table 6).
Overall, kaolin led to an increase in WUE, especially Y WUE,
whereas B WUE showed an increase (19.0%) in 2008 alone. Y WUE,
however, rose following kaolin application throughout the study
period (by an average of 19.7%) (Table 6).
As with yield, the magnitude of the improvement in WUE
caused by kaolin differed according to salinity levels (significantly,
the interaction of salinity × kaolin treatments), with remarkable
improvements in B WUE and Y WUE caused by kaolin occurring in
saline treatments, averaging from 10.6% and 14.1% for S1 to 22.9%
and 34.7% for S2, respectively for B WUE and Y WUE over the three
years (Fig. 3).

3.3. Biomass, harvest index and water use efficiency
With rising salinity, there was a progressive reduction in AGDB
and HI, which fell by an average of 24.8% and 15.0%, from S0 to S2,
differing between cultivars only in 2008, when values rose by 29.9%
(AGDB) and 6.0% (HI) in ‘perfectpeel’ compared to ‘HLY 19’. Kaolin
increased AGDB by 18.7% in 2008, and HI each year (average 9.5%)
(Table 6).
4. Discussion
As expected, irrigation with brackish water reduced biomass
accumulation in the tomatoes, in agreement with the observed
reduction in net assimilation (Boari et al., 2014). Salinity adversely
affected yield, because of the reduction in both AGDB and HI, as also
observed by other authors (Ehret and Ho, 1986).
The reduction in yield caused by salinity occurred mainly
because of the reduction in fruit weight rather than in their num-
34 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37

Table 5
Main effects of salinity level, kaolin application and cultivar on colour characteristics of skin and pulp of tomato.

Treatments Skin Pulp

L* a* b* a*/b* L* a* b* a*/b*

2007
Salinity * ns ** ns ns ns ns ns
S0 43.2 33.6 31.9 1.1 35.9 30.4 22.4 1.4
S1 – – – – – – – –
S2 45.6 35.2 36.6 1.0 35.8 31.1 23.0 1.4
Kaolin ns * ns ns ns * ns *
K 44.4 35.9 34 1.1 35.8 32.4 22.2 1.5
C 44.4 32.8 34.5 1.0 35.8 29.1 23.2 1.3
Cultivar ns ns * ns ns * ns *
HLY 19 45 34.3 35.9 1.0 34.8 33.5 23.1 1.5
Perfectpeel 43.7 34.4 32.6 1.1 36.8 28 22.3 1.3

2008
Salinity ns ns * ns ns ns ns ns
S0 42.2 30.6 30.4 1.0 39.6 27.1 24.9 1.1
S1 – – – – – – – –
S2 43.4 30.6 32.2 1.0 39.0 27.5 24.7 1.1
Kaolin ns * * * ns * ns *
K 43.2 31.2 30.5 1.1 39.5 29.2 24.9 1.2
C 42.4 29.1 32.2 0.9 39.1 25.4 24.7 1.0
Cultivar ns ns * ns ns * * ns
HLY 19 43.4 30.4 32.6 0.9 38.8 29.2 25.6 1.1
Perfectpeel 42.2 30.9 30.1 1.0 39.9 25.4 24.0 1.1

2009
Salinity ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
S0 42.0 31.6 30.0 1.1 39.6 27.2 24.8 1.1
S1 – – – – – – – –
S2 42.7 30.6 29.9 1.0 39.4 27.9 24.9 1.1
Kaolin ns ** * * ns * ns *
K 42.3 33.2 28.9 1.2 39.7 30.5 25.0 1.2
C 42.4 29.1 30.9 0.9 39.3 24.5 24.6 1.0
Cultivar ns ns ns ns ns * * ns
Coimbra 42.7 30.9 29.9 1.0 39.0 28.8 25.6 1.1
ISI 24424 42.0 31.3 30.0 1.1 40.0 26.2 24.1 1.1

ns, *, ** indicate F test not significant or significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively.

Table 6
Main effects of salinity level, kaolin application and cultivar on above ground dry biomass (AGDB), harvest index (HI), biomass and yield water use efficiency (B WUE, Y WUE)
of tomato crop.

2007 2008 2009

Treatments AGDB HI B WUE Y WUE AGDB HI B WUE Y WUE AGDB HI B WUE Y WUE
(g m−2 ) (kg m−3 ) (kg m−3 ) (g m−2 ) (kg m−3 ) (kg m−3 ) (g m−2 ) (kg m−3 ) (kg m−3 )

Salinity * * * ** ** ** * ** * * ns **
S0 1308.1 a 0.59 a 2.9 a 18.5 a 1482.6 a 0.65 a 3.2 a 23.6 a 1111.3 a 0.64 a 2.3 24.0 a
S1 1222.9 ab 0.57 a 2.9 a 16.5 b 1168.3 b 0.61 b 2.7 b 17.6 b 1129.6 a 0.61 ab 2.4 22.0 b
S2 1022.5 b 0.51 b 2.6 b 11.6 c 919.8 c 0.54 c 2.3 b 9.3 c 949.8 b 0.55 c 2.2 16.7 c
Kaolin ns * ns ** * * * ** ns * ns *
K 1196.2 0.59 2.8 17.0 1292.2 0.62 3.0 18.6 1095.0 0.62 2.4 22.4
C 1172.9 0.52 2.7 14.1 1088.3 0.57 2.5 15.1 1032.2 0.57 2.2 19.5
Cultivara ns ns ns ns * * * ** ns ns ns ns
HLY 19/Coimbra 1173.1 0.54 2.7 15.1 1035.4 0.58 2.4 13.0 1094.4 0.60 2.4 21.5
Perfectpeel/ISI24424 1195.9 0.56 2.8 16.0 1345.1 0.62 3.1 20.7 1032.7 0.59 2.2 20.4

ns, *, ** indicate F test not significant or significant at P < 0.05 and P < 0.01, respectively. Mean separation within columns by SNK test (P < 0.05).
a
‘HLY 19’ and ‘Perfectpeel’ in 2007 and 2008; ‘Coimbra’ and ‘ISI 24424’ in 2009.

ber, in agreement with the literature (Cantore et al., 2008, 2012;
Cuartero and Soria, 1997; van Ieperen, 1996). The magnitude of
the reduction in yield caused by salinity appears to be consider-
ably higher than found in the literature, taking into account that
the average ECe of the crop cycle in the more saline treatment was
equal to 4.4–4.5 dS m−1 in the different years. Indeed, according
to the classical model of response to salinity (Maas and Hoffman,
1977), tomato is a moderately sensitive species, having a tolerance
threshold at ECe of 2.5 dS m−1 , with a slope (reduction in relative
yield for each unit increase in ECe) equal to 9.9% dS−1 m, and an
ECe50 (salinity value at which the relative yield is reduced by 50%)
equal to 7.6 dS m−1 (Flagella et al., 2002; Maas, 1986). However, tol-
erance can vary due to factors intrinsic to the plant (e.g., genotype),
or external (e.g., climate) and related to the phenological stage and
duration of exposure to salt stress (Adams, 1986; Ehret and Ho,
1986; van Ieperen, 1996), or related to salt and root distribution in
the soil (Papadopoulos and Rendig, 1983).
In all three years, salinity favoured the occurrence of blossom-
end rot, mainly in cultivars with elongated fruits (’HLY 19’
and ‘Coimbra’), in agreement with many experimental findings
reported in the literature. Indeed, this physiopathology manifests
especially on cultivars with elongated fruits (Adams and Ho, 1995;
Belda and Ho, 1993;) and, besides the high evapotranspirative
demand of the environment (Adams and Ho, 1993; Ho and White,
 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37 35

2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009

160 4.0
* ** * * K
* *
Total Yield (Mg ha )
-1

120 K C

B_WUE (kg m )
3.0

-3
C

80
2.0

40
1.0

0
S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 0.0
160
S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2
Marketable Yield (Mg ha )

**
-1

* * 30
120 * ** **
25

Y_WUE (kg m )
-3
80 20

15
40
10

0 5
S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2
100
0
* * * S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2
Fruit mean weight (g)

80
Fig. 3. Biomass water use efficiency (B WUE) and yield water use efficiency (Y WUE)
as affected by salinity levels (S0–S2) and kaolin application (C—control without
60 kaolin; K—kaolin sprayed plants), in the three years. S0, S1 and S2 indicate respec-
tively the electrical conductivity of irrigation water, ECw equal to 0.5, 5, and
10 dS m−1 . The vertical bars indicate the standard deviation. *, ** indicate F test
40 significant at P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.01, respectively.

20

0 Pace et al., 2007). Indeed, Pearce et al. (1993) argue that the speed
S0 S1 S2 S0 S1 S2 S0 S1
Fig. 2. Total yield, marketable yield and fruit mean weight as affected by salinity
levels (S0–S2) and kaolin application (C—control without kaolin; K—kaolin sprayed
plants), in the three years. S0, S1 and S2 indicate respectively the electrical con-
ductivity of irrigation water, ECw equal to 0.5, 5, and 10 dS m−1 . The vertical bars
indicate the standard deviation. *, ** indicate F test significant at P ≤ 0.05 and P ≤ 0.01,
respectively.
2005) as found during the experimental period, it is notoriously
favoured also by concomitant water stress conditions and/or salin-
ity (Adams and Ho, 1992; Max and Horst, 2009).
Salinity improved some important quality parameters of the
tomato such as DM and TSS, while others, such as fruit firmness,
deteriorated. These results agree with those reported in the liter-
ature, in which salinity improved several qualitative parameters
of tomatoes such as dry matter and soluble solids (Cantore et al.,
2001; Cucci et al., 2000; Segura et al., 2009; Wu and Kubota, 2008)
as well as reducing firmness (Sharaf and Hobson, 1986).
Kaolin resulted in yield increase, mainly due to the increase
in fruit weight. In the literature, similar behaviour has been
observed for tomato (Cantore et al., 2009), apple (Glenn et al.,
2003; Glenn et al., 2005), orange (Saleh and El-Ashry, 2006) and
peach (Lalancette et al., 2005), attributable to the lower tempera-
tures reached by fruits sprayed with kaolin (Cantore et al., 2009;
S2 of growth of tomato fruits is positively correlated with their tem-
perature, especially in the range between 10 and 30 ◦ C. However,
temperatures above 30 ◦ C, even though they lead to a further
increase in the intensity of fruit growth, tend to accelerate the
ripening process, which results in lower fruit weights (Adams et al.,
2001; Ho, 1996; Sawhney and Polowick, 1985). Therefore, since the
air temperature often exceeded 30 ◦ C during the growth period, the
mitigation of the fruit temperature by kaolin helped to slow down
the ripening process and, consequently, increased mean weight.
The increase in yield, by contrast, cannot be attributed to kaolin on
fruit-set, as reported by several authors (Holtz and Martin-Duvall,
2008; Phillips and Bell, 2006; Saleh and El-Ashry, 2006), because
the first kaolin spraying was performed at the fruit-enlargement
stage, when almost all fruits were already present on the plant.
The positive effect of kaolin on yield increased with the increase
in salinity, confirming what had already been observed for tomato
net assimilation within the same trial (Boari et al., 2014) and wheat
yield (Gaballah and Moursy, 2004). This is probably due both to the
antitranspirant action of kaolin which significantly improved the
water status of the salinity-stressed plants (Boari et al., 2014), and
to the decline in canopy temperature of salinity-stressed plants,
which overall resulted in lower crop stress conditions (Boari et al.,
2014, 2015). The lower transpiration may have also led to a decrease
in the transport and accumulation of salts harmful to plant tissues,
thus reducing the magnitude of toxic stress.
36 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37
The increase in yield occurring in kaolin-sprayed plants arose
mainly from the improvement in HI, in agreement with the findings
of Cantore et al. (2009).
Based on the increase in AGDB (in 2008 alone) and in yield,
kaolin improved B WUE and especially Y WUE, as also observed
by Lukic et al. (2012). Such results are consistent with results of
response to kaolin application on tomato crop in terms of WUE at
leaf scale (Boari et al., 2014, 2015). The magnitude of the improve-
ment in WUE by kaolin application increased with rising salinity,
consistent with observations made at leaf scale in the same trial
(Boari et al., 2014).
Kaolin resulted in a considerable reduction in insect damage on
the fruit, confirming the results reported by Cantore et al. (2009)
for tomato and by many other authors for a variety of pests and
crops (Glenn and Puterka, 2005).
Kaolin considerably reduced fruit sunburn, consistent with
the corresponding reduction in fruit temperature (Cantore et al.,
2009; Pace et al., 2007). Similar results have been obtained on
tomato (Phillips and Bell, 2006; Saavedra et al., 2006), and also
on other species such as sweet pepper, pomegranate, apple and
walnut (Cosic et al., 2015; Glenn et al., 2002; Le Grange et al.,
2004; Melgarejo et al., 2004; Weerakkody et al., 2010; Wünsche
et al., 2004). The authors ascribed these interesting results to the
lower temperatures reached in kaolin-sprayed fruit. For tomato,
Rabinowitch et al. (1974) attributed this physiopathology to condi-
tions of high solar radiation and air temperature, and fruit surface
temperatures exceeding 40 ◦ C.
Although this was not the case in all of the years, kaolin
improved fruit quality in terms of DM and TSS, in harmony with
findings reported by Saavedra et al. (2006) for tomato and by
Lalancette et al. (2005) and Yazici and Kaynak (2009), respectively
for peach and pomegranate.
Moreover, kaolin probably also increased fruit lycopene content
because of its positive effect on redness. Indeed, in literature, exper-
imental findings demonstrate the positive correlation between a*
and a*/b* vs lycopene content (Arias et al., 2000; D’souza et al.,
1992). Therefore, an increase in lycopene content was assumed,
linked to the lower temperatures of kaolin-sprayed fruit during
the hottest hours of the day, which reduced the amount of time
when thermal levels reached values detrimental to accumulation
of the pigment (Arias et al., 2000; Cantore et al., 2009; Dumas et al.,
2003; López Camelo and Gómez, 2004; Pace et al., 2007). Therefore,
the content of this important antioxidant, besides being consider-
ably influenced by genotype (Cantore et al., 2008), can be improved
by applying kaolin. Similar results have been observed on tomato
(Cantore et al., 2009), and also on apple trees, for which it has been
reported that kaolin can improve the chromatic characteristics of
the fruits (Wand et al., 2006).
5. Conclusions
Our results underline that, overall, the main effects of applying
kaolin on tomato were improvements in yield, especially mar-
ketable yield, as a result of (i) mitigating the harmful effects of
radiation and heat stress on the fruits, leading to a reduction in sun-
burn, (ii) reducing insect damage, that overall reduced the number
of rotten fruits. In addition, kaolin improved some major qualitative
characteristics such as dry matter content, total soluble solids and
redness, the latter being notably positively correlated to lycopene
content. The improvement in yield and above-ground biomass also
led to an increase in the water use efficiency of kaolin-sprayed
plants.
The effects of kaolin on reduction of transpiration and improve-
ment in plant water status, shown in a previous work (Boari et al.,
2014), mitigate the harmful effect of heat and drought induced by
salinity and contribute to improving the yield, water use efficiency
and, consequently, the salt tolerance of tomato. Further contri-
butions to increased salinity tolerance caused by kaolin can be
attributed to the lower accumulation of harmful salts in plant tis-
sues by reduced transpiration flux. The results of this research have
not been reported previously in the literature and, if confirmed,
could have positive repercussions in many areas affected by salin-
ity similar to the Apulia region where tomato cultivation is very
widespread.
However, it should be underlined that kaolin should not be used
specifically to improve salinity tolerance, as its main purposes must
remain to limit heat stress and to control pests.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by (i) Research Project founded by
Serbios S.r.l., Badia Polesine (RO), Italy, and (ii) Research Projects
funded by the Italian Ministries of Finance and Economy, of Educa-
tion, University and Research, for the Environment and Territory,
of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies (CLIMESCO contract N.
285-20/02/2006; Coordinator: dr. D. Ventrella)”.
We thank Egidio De Palma (CNR-ISPA) for technical support, and
Anthony Green for the English revision of the manuscript.
References
Adams, P., 1986. The test of raised salinity. Hortic. Now, 23–27.
Adams, P., Ho, L.C., 1992. The susceptibility of modern tomato cultivars to
blossom-end rot in relation to salinity. J. Hortic. Sci. 67, 827–839.
Adams, P., Ho, L.C., 1993. Effects of environment on the uptake and distribution of
calcium in tomato and on incidence of blossom-end rot. Plant Soil 154,
127–132.
Adams, P., Ho, L.C., 1995. Uptake and distribution of nutrients in relation to tomato
fruit quality. Acta Hortic. 412, 374–387.
Adams, S.R., Cockshull, K.E., Cave, C.R.J., 2001. Effect of temperature on the growth
and development of tomato fruits. Ann. Bot. 88, 869–877.
Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. In: FAO
Irrig. and Drain. Paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300 pp.
Ancona, V., Bruno, D.E., Lopez, N., Pappagallo, G., Uricchio, V.F., 2010. A modified
soil quality index to assess the influence of soil degradation processes on
desertification risk: the Apulia case. Ital. J. Agron./Riv Agron. (Suppl. 3), 45–55.
Arias, R., Lee, T.C., Logan, L., Janes, H., 2000. Correlation of lycopene measured by
HPLC with the L*, a*, b* color readings of a hydroponic tomato and the
relationship of maturity with color and lycopene content. J. Agric. Food Chem.
48 (5), 1697–1702.
Belda, R., Ho, L.C., 1993. Salinity effects on the network of vascular bundles during
tomato fruit development. J. Hortic. Sci. 68, 557–564.
Boari, F., Cucci, G., Donadio, A., Schiattone, M.I., Cantore, V., 2014. Kaolin influences
tomato response to salinity: physiological aspects. Acta Agric. Scand. B 64 (7),
559–571.
Boari, F., Donadio, A., Schiattone, M.I., Cantore, V., 2015. Particle film technology: a
supplemental tool to save water. Agric. Water Manage. 147, 154–162.
Cantore, V., Boari, F., Pace, B., 2008. Salinity effects on tomato, Proceedings of the
XVth EUCARPIA Tomato, Acta Hortic., 789, 229–234.
Cantore, V., Boari, F., Pace, B., Bianco, V.V., Bianchimano, V., 2007. Brakish water
and physiological aspects of artichoke. Acta Hortic. 730, 231–237.
Cantore, V., Boari, F., Stelluti, M., De Palma, E., 2001. Irrigazione del pomodoro con
acqua salmastra in fasi fenologiche diverse. Atti Convegno POM-OTRIS Palermo
1 marzo, 139–152.
Cantore, V., Iovino, F., Pontecorvo, G., 1987. Aspetti climatici e zone fitoclimatiche
della Basilicata. CNR-IEIF 2, 49 p.
Cantore, V., Pace, B., Albrizio, R., 2009. Kaolin-based particle film technology affects
tomato physiology, yield and quality. Environ. Exp. Bot. 66, 279–288.
Cantore, V., Pace, B., Todorovic, M., De Palma, E., Boari, F., 2012. Influence of salinity
and water regime on tomato for processing. Ital. J. Agron. 7 (1), 64–70.
Capaccioni, B., Didero, M., Paletta, C., Didero, L., 2005. Saline intrusion and
refreshening in a multilayer coastal aquifer in the Catania Plain (Sicily,
Southern Italy): dynamics of degradation processes according to the
hydrochemical characteristics of groundwater. J. Hydrol. 307, 1–16.
Cassi, F., Viviano, L., et al., 2006. I Suoli della Basilicata—Carta pedologica della
Regione Basilicata in scala 1:250.000. Regione Basilicata—Dip. Agricoltura e
Sviluppo Rurale. Direzione Generale.
Castrignanò, A., de Caro, A., Tarantino, E., 1985. Verifica sulla validità di alcuni
metodi empirici di stima dell’evapotraspirazione potenziale nel Metapontino.
L’Irrigazione 32 (4), 23–28.
Cau, P., Lecca, G., Muscas, Barrocu, G., Uras, G., 2002. Saltwater intrusion in the
plain of Oristano (Sardinia). In: 17th Salt Water Intrusion Meeting, Delft, The
Netherlands, pp. 435–444.
 F. Boari et al. / Agricultural Water Management 167 (2016) 29–37
Cosic, M., Djurovic, N., Todorovic, M., Maletic, R., Zecevic, B., Stricevic, R., 2015.
Effect of irrigation regime and application of kaolin on yield, quality and water
use efficiency of sweet pepper. Agric. Water. Manage. 159, 139–147.
Cuartero, J., Soria, T., 1997. Productividad de tomates cultivados en condiciones
salinas. Acta Hortic. 16, 214–221.
Cucci, G., Cantore, V., Boari, F., De Caro, A., 2000. Water salinity and influence of
SAR on yield and quality parameters in tomato. Acta Hortic. 537, 663–670.
D’souza, M.C., Singha, S., Ingle, M., 1992. Lycopene concentration of tomato fruit
can be estimated from chromaticity values. HortScience 27, 465–466.
Dumas, Y., Dadomo, M., Di Lucca, G., Grolier, P., 2003. Effects of environmental
factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J. Sci.
Food Agric. 83, 369–382.
Ehret, D.L., Ho, L.C., 1986. The effects of salinity on dry matter partitioning and fruit
growth in tomatoes grown in nutrient film culture. J. Hortic. Sci. 61, 361–367.
Flagella, Z., Cantore, V., Giuliani, M.M., Tarantino, E., De Caro, A., 2002. Crop salt
tolerance: physiological, yield and quality aspects. In: Pandalai, S.G. (Ed.),
Recent Research Developments in Plant Molecular Biology, vol. 2, pp. 155–186,
ISBN:81-7736-149-X.
Gaballah, M.S., Moursy, M., 2004. Reflectants application for increasing wheat
plant tolerance against salt stress. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 7, 956–962.
Glenn, D.M., Drake, S., Abbott, G.A., Puterka, G.J., Gundrum, P., 2005. Season and
cultivar influence the fruit quality response of apple cultivars to particle film
treatments. HortTechnology 15, 249–253.
Glenn, D.M., Erez, A., Puterka, G.J., Gundrum, P., 2003. Particle films affect carbon
assimilation and yield in ‘Empire’ apple. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 128, 356–362.
Glenn, D.M., Prado, E., Erez, A., Mcferson, J.R., Puterka, G.J., 2002. A reflective,
processed-kaolin particle film affects fruit temperature, radiation reflection,
and solar injury in apple. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 127, 188–193.
Glenn, D.M., Puterka, G.J., 2005. Particle films: a new technology for agriculture.
Hortic. Rev. 31, 1–44.
Grattan, S.R., Grieve, C.M., 1999. Salinity-mineral nutrient relations horticultural
crops. Sci. Hortic. 78, 127–157.
Helal, H.M., Mengel, K., 1981. Interaction between light intensity and NaCl salinity
and their effects on growth CO2 assimilation, and photosynthate conversion in
young broad beans. Plant Physiol. 67, 999–1002.
Ho, L.C., 1996. The mechanism of assimilate partitioning and carbohydrate
compartmentation in fruit in relation to the quality and yield of tomato. J. Exp.
Bot. 47, 1239–1243.
Ho, L.C., White, P.J., 2005. A cellular hypothesis for the reduction of blossom-end
rot in tomato fruit. Ann. Bot. 95, 571–581.
Holtz, B.A., Martin-Duvall, T., 2008. Processed-kaolin particle film on almond
surround: processed-kaolin particle film on almond. Nova Source Advisory
Council. Tch. Rep. 2–6.
Lalancette, N., Belding, R.D., Shearer, P.V., Frecon, J.L., Tietjen, W.H., 2005.
Evaluation of hydrophobic and hydrophilic kaolin particle films for peach crop,
arthropod and disease management. Pest Manage. Sci. 61, 25–39.
Le Grange, M., Wand, S.J.E., Theron, K.I., 2004. Effect of kaolin applications on apple
fruit quality and gas exchange of apple leaves. Acta Hortic. 636, 545–550.
Li, Y.L., Stanghellini, C., Challa, H., 2001. Effect of electrical conductivity and
transpiration on production of greenhouse tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumL.).
Sci. Hortic. 88, 11–29.
Lombardini, L., Harris, M.K., Glenn, D.M., 2005. Effects of particle film application
on leaf gas exchange water relations, nut yield, and insect populations in
mature pecan trees. HortScience 40, 1376–1380.
López Camelo, A.F., Gómez, P.A., 2004. Comparison of colour indexes for tomato
ripening. Hortic. Brasil. Brasìlia 22, 534–537.
Lukic, I., Stricevic, R., Durovic, N., Cosic, M., 2012. Impact of kaolin-based particle
film on tomato water use efficiency. In: Proceedings Conference BALVOIS,
Ohrid (FYROM), 28 May–2 June.
Maas, E.V., 1986. Salt tolerance of plants. Appl. Agric. Res. 1, 12–26.
Maas, E.V., Hoffman, G.J., 1977. Crop salt tolerance—current assessment. J. Irrig.
Drain. Div. ASCE 103, 115–134.
Max, J.F.J., Horst, W.J., 2009. Influence of nighttime electrical conductivity of
substrate solution on fruit cracking and blossom-end rot of greenhouse tomato
in the tropics. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 172, 829–838.
Meiri, A., Hoffman, G.J., Shannon, M.C., Poss, J.A., 1982. Salt tolerance of two
muskmelon cultivars under two radiation levels. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 107,
1168–1172.
Melgarejo, P., Martinez, J.J., Hernandez, F., Martinez-Font, R., Barrows, P., Erez, A.,
2004. Kaolin treatment to reduce pomegranate sunburn. Sci. Hortic. 100,
349–353.
Munns, R., 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell
Environ. 25, 239–250.
Munns, R., 2005. Genes and salt tolerance: bringing them together. New Phytol.
167, 645–663.
Munns, R., James, R.A., Lauchli, A., 2006. Approaches to increasing the salt
tolerance of wheat and other cereals. J. Exp. Bot. 57, 1025–1043.
Munns, R., Tester, M., 2008. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol.
59, 651–681.
37
Pace, B., Boari, F., Cantore, V., Leo, L., Phillips, N., Vanadia, S., 2007. Effect of particle
film technology on temperature, yield and quality of tomato. Acta Hortic. 758,
287–294.
Pace, B., Cantore, V., 2009. Colture in pien’aria: una protezione in più con il caolino.
Colture Protette 38 (1), 75–82.
Papadopoulos, I., Rendig, V.V., 1983. Tomato plant response to salinity. Agron. J. 75,
696–700.
Pearce, B.D., Grange, R.I., Hardwick, K., 1993. The growth of young tomato fruit. I.
Effects of temperature and irradiance on fruit grown in controlled
environments. J. Hortic. Sci. 68, 1–11.
Phillips, N., Bell, D., 2006. Surround WP crop protectant for reduction of heat stress
and sunburn damage in processing tomatoes. In: 10th ISHS Symposium on the
processing tomato, Tunis 6–8 June, Abstract, p. 126.
Polemio, M., Limoni, P.P., 2001. L’evoluzione dell’inquinamento salino delle acque
sotterranee della Murgia e del Salento. Mem. Soc. Geol. Ital. 56, 327–331.
Rabinowitch, H.D., Kedar, N., Budowski, P., 1974. Induction of sunscald damage in
tomatoes under natural and controlled conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2, 265–272.
Rapti-Caputo, D., 2010. Influence of climatic changes and human activities on the
salinization process of coastal aquifer systems. Ital. J. Agron./Riv. Agron. (Suppl.
3), 7–79.
Rauf, S., Adil, M.S., Naveed, A., Munir, H., 2010. Response of wheat species to the
contrasting saline regimes. Pak. J. Bot. 42 (5), 3039–3045.
Rhoades, J.D., 1987. Use of saline water for irrigation. Water Qual. Bull. 12, 14–20.
Rhoades, J.D., Kandiah, A., Mashali, A.M., 1992. The use of saline waters for crop
production. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper, 48, Rome, Italy, 147 p.
Rhoades, J.D., van Schilfgaarde, J., 1976. An electrical conductivity probe for
determining soil salinity. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 40, 647–651.
Saavedra, Del R.G., Escaff, G.M., Hernández, V.J., 2006. Kaolin effects in processing
tomato production in Chile. Acta Hortic. 724, 191–198.
Saleh, M.M.S., El-Ashry, S.M., 2006. Effect of some antitranspirants on leaf mineral
content, fruit set, yield and fruit quality of Washington navel and Succary
orange trees. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 2 (8), 486–490.
Sawhney, V.K., Polowick, P.L., 1985. Fruit development in tomato: the role of
temperature. Can. J. Bot. 63, 1031–1034.
Scheidleger, A., Grath, J., Lindinger, H., 2004. Saltwater intrusion due to
groundwater over-exploitation EEA inventory throughout Europe. In: 18th
Saltwater Intrusion Meeting, Cartagena, Spain, p. 125.
Schroeder, K.R., Johnson, M.A., 2004. Response of container-grown Acer rubrum
and Quercus rubra to foliar application of a kaolin particle film. SNA Res. Conf.
49, 27–30.
Segura, M.L., Contreras, J.I., Salinas, R., Lao, M.T., 2009. Influence of salinity and
fertilization level on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Commun. Soil Sci.
Plant Anal. 1, 485–497.
Shalhevet, J., 1994. Using water of marginal quality for crop production: major
issues. Agric. Water Manage. 25, 233–269.
Shani, U., Dudley, L.M., 2001. Field studies of crop response to water and salt stress.
Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 65, 1522–1528.
Sharaf, A.R., Hobson, G.E., 1986. Effect of salinity of normal and non-ripening
mutant tomatoes. Acta Hortic. 190, 175–181.
Tarantino, E., Caliandro, A., 1984. Water requirements and crop coefficients of
different of different crop in Italy as related to the climatic characteristics and
the growth stage. In: International Conference on Crop Water Requirements,
Paris, pp. 291–304.
Todorovic, M., 2006. An Excel-based tool for real time irrigation management at
field scale. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Water and Land
Management for Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, Çukurova University,
Adana, Turkey, 4–8 April, 2006.
van Ieperen, W., 1996. Effects of different day and night salinity levels on
vegetative growth, yield and quality of tomato. J. Hortic. Sci. 71, 99–111.
Wand, S.J.E., Theron, K.I., Ackerman, J., Marais, S.J.S., 2006. Harvest and
post-harvest apple fruit quality following applications of kaolin particle film in
South African orchards. Sci. Hortic. 107, 271–276.
Weerakkody, P., Jobling, J., Infante, M.M.V., Rogers, G., 2010. The effect of maturity,
sunburn and the application of sunscreens on the internal and external
qualities of pomegranate fruit grown in Australia. Sci. Hortic. 124, 57–61.
Wu, M., Kubota, C., 2008. Effects of high electrical conductivity of nutrient solution
and its application timing on lycopene, chlorophyll and sugar concentrations
of hydroponic tomatoes during ripening. Sci. Hortic. 116, 122–129.
Wünsche, J.N., Lombardini, L., Greer, D.H., 2004. ‘Surround’ particle film
applications—effects on whole canopy physiology of apple. Acta Hortic. 636,
565–571.
Yazici, K., Kaynak, L., 2009. Effects of kaolin and shading treatments on sunburn on
fruit of Hicaznar cultivar of pomegranate (Punica granatum L. cv. Hicaznar).
Acta Hortic. 818, 181–186.
Yeo, A.R., Lee, K.S., Izard, P., Bourssier, P.J., Flowers, T.J., 1991. Short- and long-term
effects of salinity on leaf growth in rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Exp. Bot. 42,
881–889.