## 4 Discussion
The comparison between F and S at 86, 87 and 88 DAFB revealed that, even if the two treatments had the same Sv and midday stem water potential, S showed a cumulative net photosynthesis and leaf transpiration lower than F (Figure 4). The same behavior was observed in 2016, comparing M and S at 124 DAFB and F and S at 135 DAFB. This late ripening peach cultivar seemed to have a \"pessimistic\" (also called conservative or near iso-hydric) behavior. At low soil water content and high vapor pressure deficit, S sustained its stem water potential, at the same level of F, above a safe threshold to prevent embolism [57; 58]. This defense strategy was at the expense of CO2 fixation since it was regulated by stomatal closure [59; 60]. These findings are in contrast with those described by [PERSON] et al. (1980) on another late ripening peach cultivar considered aniso-hydric [61], suggesting the needing to deepen this issue. During the first year of study, the pattern of fruit growth of the four treatments was similar till the end of fruit cell division stage (38-77 DAFB); however, M and S, receiving less water, showed an average absolute growth rate lower than T and F (Table 2). This difference was completely recovered in M during the pit hardening stage (77-105 DAFB), while S continued to have an average AGR lower than the remaining treatments (Table 2). Passing from pit hardening to the fruit cell expansion stage (105-125 DAFB), peach fruit became more water and carbon demanding [62]. Water shortage, jointly with the reduction in net photosynthesis, led to fruit growth limitation. As revealed by the average V and AGR in the period 105-125 DAFB (Table 2; Figure 6), the reduced AGR initially observed in S during the pit hardening (77-105 DAFB) resulted in fruit size lower than the remaining treatments (Table 2). In August, during the last part of fruit cell expansion and close to the harvest (125-148 DAFB), fruit growth was limited even in F, suggesting that the rapid water depletion occurring in this period affected fruit volume and growth rate (Table 2, Figure 6). All the advantage of F on S was lost, and, at the end of the season, the two treatments showed the smallest fruits (Figure 6, Table 3). The same behavior was observed in 2016. The rainier season alleviated the effect of water shortage and till 140 DAFB (first part of fruit cell expansion) no differences were recorded among the treatments for fruit volume and AGR (Table 4, Figure 7). During the last part of fruit cell expansion (140-164 DAFB), even in this season, F and S showed the lowest average AGR (Table 4), fruit volume (Figure 6) and fruit size (Table 5). Fruit yield was generally low considering that Calred is a late ripening cultivar. However, it should be taken into account that this cultivar was subjected to a late fruit drop in both the years and that, probably, trees were not at a fully mature productive status, as in 2015 and 2016, they were at third and fourth leaf, respectively. The different orchard floor management and water supply did not affect yield, but the fruit size with biggest fruit picked on T and M (Tables 3 and 5). Water productivity of M was about 70 and 90% higher than T suggesting that the use of artificial reflective mulching could be considered a water friendly strategy in rainfed [14] as well as in irrigated peach orchards (Tables 3 and 5). Although in 2015 peaches seemed to ripe earlier in M in comparison with the remaining treatments (Table 3), fruit quality (TSS, FF and RC) was generally not affected by the different managements (Tables 3 and 4).