Adapting fruit production to climate change: how to increase intrinsic fruit quality and save water through deficit irrigation scheduling.

Fruit crops are an important resource for food security, since more than being nutrient they are also a source of natural antioxidant compounds, such as polyphenols and vitamins. However, fruit crops are also among the cultivations threatened by the harmful effects of climate change This study had the objective of investigating the physiological effects of deficit irrigation on apple (2020-2021), sour cherry (2020-2021-2022) and apricot (2021-2022) trees, with a special focus on fruit nutraceutical quality. On each trial, the main physiological parameters were monitored along the growing season: i) stem and leaf water potentials; ii) leaf gas exchanges; iii) fruit and shoot growth. At harvest, fruit quality was evaluated especially in terms of fruit size, flesh firmness and soluble solids content. Moreover, it was performed: i) total phenolic content determination; ii) anthocyanidin concentration evaluation; and iii) untargeted metabolomic study. Irrigation scheduling in apricot, apple and sour cherry is surely overestimated by the decision support system available in Emilia-Romagna region. The water stress imposed on different fruit crops, each during two years of study, showed as a general conclusion that the decrease in the irrigation water did not show a straightforward decrease in plant physiological performance. This can be due to the miscalculation of the real water needs of the considered fruit crops. For this reason, there is the need to improve this important tool for an appropriate water irrigation management. Furthermore, there is also the need to study the behaviour of fruit crops under more severe deficit irrigations. In fact, it is likely that the application of lower water amounts will enhance the synthesis of specialized metabolites, with positive repercussion on human health. These hypotheses must be verified.

Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Retrofit Options to Support Decision Making

How to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repair/retrofit intervention vs. demolition/replacement and what level of shaking intensity can the chosen repairing/retrofit technique sustain are open questions affecting either the pre-earthquake prevention, the post-earthquake emergency and the reconstruction phases. The (mis)conception that the cost of retrofit interventions would increase linearly with the achieved seismic performance (%NBS) often discourages stakeholders to consider repair/retrofit options in a post-earthquake damage situation. Similarly, in a pre-earthquake phase, the minimum (by-law) level of %NBS might be targeted, leading in some cases to no-action. Furthermore, the performance measure enforcing owners to take action, the %NBS, is generally evaluated deterministically. Not directly reflecting epistemic and aleatory uncertainties, the assessment can result in misleading confidence on the expected performance. The present study aims at contributing to the delicate decision-making process of repair/retrofit vs. demolition/replacement, by developing a framework to assist stakeholders with the evaluation of the effects in terms of long-term losses and benefits of an increment in their initial investment (targeted retrofit level) and highlighting the uncertainties hidden behind a deterministic approach. For a pre-1970 case study building, different retrofit solutions are considered, targeting different levels of %NBS, and the actual probability of reaching Collapse when considering a suite of ground-motions is evaluated, providing a correlation between %NBS and Risk. Both a simplified and a probabilistic loss modelling are then undertaken to study the relationship between %NBS and expected direct and indirect losses.