mechanical pruning of sweet cherry and...
Post on 14-Apr-2018
238 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
12/3/2014
1
MECHANICAL PRUNING OF
SWEET CHERRY AND APPLE
Jacqueline GordonJacqueline GordonJacqueline GordonJacqueline Gordon
WSU IAREC
Why mechanical pruning?
• Reduce pruning labor requirements
• Improve worker safety and efficiency
• Reduce pruning cost: second greatest
annual expense
• Increase long term sustainability of
fruit production
• Set block up for mechanization
(Whiting, M., 2014)
12/3/2014
2
Mechanical pruning
• Gillison’s GVF Center
Mount
Topper and Hedger
• Side shift 3’6”on either
side of the tractor
• Height adjustment of 3'6"
to 20‘
• 360° rotation of cutting
head
Objective
Determine best
management practices for
pruning sweet cherry and
apple mechanically, by
understanding equipment
and orchards
requirements.
12/3/2014
3
Experiment outline
Apple
Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning
Apple
Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning
Sweet cherry
Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning
Pre/postharvest topping
Sweet cherry
Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning
Pre/postharvest topping
Sweet cherry trials: Set up
Trial block details
Variety Tieton
Rootstock ‘Gisela ®5’
Training system UFO
Tree age 6th leaf
Tree spacing 8’ x 10’
YEAR 1 YEAR 2
Hand pruning Hand pruning
Mechanical pruning (1) Mechanical pruning
Mechanical pruning (2) Mechanical + hand
pruning
12/3/2014
4
Preliminary results
• Hand pruning 2 times more wood removed than mechanical pruning
• Hand pruning 10 kg wood removed/tree
• Mechanical pruning 5 kg wood removed/tree
• “Dirty cuts”
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Hand pruning Mechanical pruning
Kg/
cm2
Wood pruned
Results - Time
• Mechanical pruning 23 times faster than hand pruning (hedging and topping)
• Hand pruning 374 sec/tree 6 min/tree
• Mechanical pruning 16 sec/tree 0.3 min/tree
• Tractor speed: 1.2 m/h
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Mechanical pruning Hand pruning
Tim
e/re
p (
min
)
12/3/2014
5
Hedging
Example
Sweet cherry orchard
UFO training system
Spacing: 8’ x 10’
8 h work/day
Mechanical pruning: 2h 25min/acre
3.3 acre/day
Hand pruning: 55 h/acre
0.15 acre/day
12/3/2014
6
Apple trials: treatments
Treatment Dormant pruning Summer pruning
1 Hand
2 Mechanical
3 Hand Mech. 12-15 leaves
4 Mechanical Mech. 12-15 leaves
5 Hand Mech. 20 leaves
Results
Hand pruningHand pruning Mechanical pruningMechanical pruning
12/3/2014
7
Performance of the machine
• Wind can affect
stability of the bar
• Motor on top of bar
• Tractor position in the
row
• High speed hit
branches
Effects of Near-Harvest
Irrigation on Fruit Quality
Nadia Nadia Nadia Nadia ValverdiValverdiValverdiValverdi
Department of Horticulture
WSU IAREC
12/3/2014
8
Objective:
Improve fruit quality by understanding the role of near-harvest
irrigation on key quality traits and fruit susceptibility to splitting.
This project was carried out in 3 commercial orchards:
Site 1: Pasco, WA. Drip irrigated 12-year-old ‘Chelan’/Mazzard.
Site 2: Brewster, WA. Microsprinkler irrigated 14-year-old ‘Lapins’/Mazzard.
Site 3: Dufur, OR. Drip irrigation 10-year-old ‘Skeena’/’Gi6’
1 2 3
Materials and Methods
• Site 1: ‘Chelan’/Mazzard
– T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)
– T2: Withhold of the irrigation 7 dbh
– T3: Withhold of the irrigation 18 dbh
• Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard
– T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)
– T2: Withhold of the irrigation 11 dbh
– T3: Withhold of the irrigation 21 dbh
Extensive Scale
- T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)
- T2: Withhold of the irrigation 15 dbh
12/3/2014
9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 7 18
Kg
/Tre
e
Days Before Harvest
Yield a
bab
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
17 14 11 7 4 0
Cra
ckin
g I
nd
ex
Days Before Harvest
Cracking Index
T1=control
T2=withheld 7 dbh
T3=withheld 18 dbh
Results:Site 1: ‘Chelan’/Mazzard
Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Yield ColorPFRF
g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) (kg/tree) CTIFL (kg)
Control 359 10.5 27.7 1.76 17.3 24.84 4.2 1.17
7 dbh 323 10.7 27.8 1.80 17.5 13.79 4.2 1.21
18 dbh 360 10.4 27.8 1.55 17.8 16.89 4.2 1.21
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
21 18 15 11 7 0
Cra
ckin
g I
nd
ex
Days Before Harvest
Cracking Index
T1=control
T2=withheld 11 dbh
T3=withheld 21 dbh
Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Yield Color PFRF
g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) (kg/tree) CTIFL (kg)
Control 310 11.1 27.6 1.23 17.3 69.68 4.8 0.81
11 dbh 300 11.8 28.6 1.21 19.7 67.30 4.8 0.84
21 dbh 295 12.0 28.6 1.20 19.1 73.34 5.1 0.86
Results:Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard
Slide 17
1 need to add the treatment explanations instead of T1 T2 etc.
Also need to add statistical analyses to the yield figuresMatthew Whiting, 11/9/2014
12/3/2014
10
Results:
Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard
Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Color PFRF g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) CTIFL (kg) First harvest Control 286 12.8 29.1 1.08 19.6 5.0 0.76 13 dbh 276 11.9 28.6 1.08 20.7 4.9 0.65 p-value 0.317 0.026 0.341 0.935 0.600 0.824 0.112
Second harvest Control 320 12.5 29.5 1.17 17.7 5.1 0.63 17 dbh 279 12.2 28.8 1.30 19.9 5.2 0.60 p-value 0.003 0.488 0.569 0.020 0.100 0.687 0.614 T.A.=titratable acidity; S.S.=soluble solids; PFRF=pedicel-fruit retention force. (n=25)
Significant Findings
• Withholding irrigation up to 21 dbh may improve resistance to splitting
• Withholding irrigation from 21 dbh did not affect yield of Lapins trees but, did reduce yield of Chelan trees
• Differences in soil water content among treatments were only apparent in the top 6’’ of soil
• Stem water potential is a good indicator of plant water stress.
12/3/2014
11
ProbirProbirProbirProbir Kumar DasKumar DasKumar DasKumar Das
Department of Horticulture
WSU IAREC
Mechanical pollinationFor yield security and resilience to:
• Colony collapse disorder, variable environmental conditions, poor bloom overlap, insufficient pollinizers/pollinators all threaten ability to set a crop
Proposed solution:• Collect pollen
• Suspend pollen
• Apply pollen via sprayer
• Challenges:
– Stigma is a small target!
– Pollen loses viability in liquid
12/3/2014
12
a) b)
c) d)
Loading intervals, ranging form 0 to 60 minutes (a to d)
In vitro Germination
Electrostatic sprayer
12/3/2014
13
Mechanical pollination
‘Tieton’/ ‘Gisela 5’: 8 years old trained to UFO
Mechanical pollination
12/3/2014
14
Mechanical pollination
a
b
• Proof of concept study• Supplemental pollination• Sprayed pollen once at 50% bloom
• Fruit set improved 15%• Increased pollen deposition
Mechanical pollination
• Proof of concept study• Replacement pollination• Sprayed pollen through bee
exclusion netting•Two applications (50% and 90%)
• Yield similar to open-pollinated trees
a
b
01234567
Control TreatedFru
it y
ield
(kg
/tre
e)
12/3/2014
15
Efficacy of a Solid Set Canopy Delivery System
in Sweet Cherry and Apple
WSHA ~ Dec 2014
Niemann, SNiemann, SNiemann, SNiemann, S1111, Whiting, M, Whiting, M, Whiting, M, Whiting, M1111, and , and , and , and HanrahanHanrahanHanrahanHanrahan, I, I, I, I2222
1Washington State University IAREC, Prosser, USA2Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, Yakima, USA
Changing the Model
Dwarfing Root Stocks
Denser Plantings
Trellis Systems
12/3/2014
16
Role of Current Application Methods
90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through airblastsprayersairblastsprayersairblastsprayersairblastsprayers
→ Plant growth regulators (thinning, fruit quality management)
→ Pesticides
→ Nutrient Sprays
→ Crop Protectants (sunburn protection, rain cracking protection)
Solid Set Canopy Delivery System (SSCDS)
Permanent sprinkler system
designed to apply Agrochemicals in
fruiting wall canopies and reduce
reliance on airblast sprayers
SSCDS
Less Time
Decrease Environmental
impactLower Cost
Utilize favorable Utilize favorable Utilize favorable Utilize favorable
weather weather weather weather
conditionsconditionsconditionsconditions
FuelFuelFuelFuel
LaborLaborLaborLabor
Wasted ProductWasted ProductWasted ProductWasted Product
DriftDriftDriftDrift
Soil Soil Soil Soil
compactioncompactioncompactioncompaction
COCOCOCO2222 outputoutputoutputoutput
3 3 3 3 minsminsminsmins to spray to spray to spray to spray
one acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPA
12/3/2014
17
Objectives
1. Assess coverage of SSCDS compared to traditional airblast sprayer
2. Compare efficacy of PGR applications in sweet cherry
(Airblast vs. SSCDS vs. UTC)
i. Chemical bloom thinning
ii. Gibberellic Acid
3. Lead refinement decisions for future SSCDS engineering
VS.
Coverage
Water sensitive spray cards
Sweet cherryApple
8’
6’
3’
7’
5’
3’
(1(1(1(1” x 1”)” x 1”)” x 1”)” x 1”)
Top
Bottom
36 spray cards/ replication
→ Orientations
adaxial (Top)
abaxial (bottom)
→ 3 Heights
High
Middle
Low
6’ horizontal span ( each 1’ apart)
12/3/2014
18
Varied deposition from
Coverage Trials
Spray Patterns
Lighter areas
<5% 25% 50% 75% >95%
Airblast
SSCDS
% blue surface area
correlates to % coverage
Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of runrunrunrun----off from SSCDS off from SSCDS off from SSCDS off from SSCDS
Coverage Results
1. Airblast maintained superior coverage (Cherry: +24%; Apple: +54%)
2. SSCDS coverage was better on top cards compared to bottom cards (Cherry: +42%; Apple: +67%)
3. Airblast sprayer coverage was better on bottom cards than top cards (Cherry: +16% Apple: +20%)
Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10).
A
B
AA
B
A
B
B
C
B
C
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Total Top Bottom 7' 5' 3'
% C
ov
era
ge
Card Orientation Sample Heights
AirBlast SSCDS
A
B
A
B B
A
B
C
D
D D
C
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Total Top Bottom 8' 6' 3'
%C
ove
rag
e
Card Orientation Sample Heights
Airblast SSCDS
12/3/2014
19
MethodsSweet Cherry
8 year old ‘Selah/Giesla 6’ UFO block
Randomized Block Design
3 treatments (Airblast, SSCDS, UTC)
4 Replications
5 Trees/ Rep (3 sample trees)
Buffer tree between treatments
Main LineMain Line
SSCDS
Nozzles
SSCDS
Nozzles
PVC drop down
and risers
PVC drop down
and risers
Nozzle Heights:
9’
6’
3.5’ 10 nozzle per tree (6’)
(7260 nozzles per acre)
MethodsSweet Cherry
Treatments:
All applications made at 100GPA
→ Chemical bloom thinner
Ammonium thiosulfate (ATS 2%)
→ Gibberellic Acid
ProGibb® 4% at 20ppm
Data Collection:
→ % Fruit set (fruit/flower)
→ Color, Diameter, Weight, Firmness, Brix
12/3/2014
20
ResultsSweet Cherry
→ Chemical Bloom Thinning
No significant treatment differences
→ GA3
• 2013: Treatment difference with Airblast
14% decrease in cuticle color
10% increase in fruit firmness
• 2014: Treatment difference with Airblast and SSCDS
17% decrease in cuticle color
20% increase in fruit firmness
Airblast
SSCDS
UTC
Conclusions
- The airblast had greater coverage than SSCDS
- SSCDS showed varied deposition, product run off, and lack of coverage on bottom cards
- Continue engineering of nozzle placement
- Inconsistent coverage from the SSCDS could lead to inconsistent product efficacy of agro
chemicals
12/3/2014
21
Contributors:
Cornell University, Michigan State University, Specialty Crop Research Initiative
(SCRI:2011-51181-31037), Dr. Ines Hanrahan and crew (Washington Tree Fruit Research
Commission), Dr. David Felicetti (Pace International), Dr. Ajay Sharda and Dr. Manoj
Karkee (WSU Center for Precision & Automated Agricultural System), Dr. Jay Brunner and
Keith Granger (WSU Tree Fruit Research Extension Center)
For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:
Suzanne Niemann
WSU Department of Horticulture
Graduate Student
Email: suzanne.niemann@email.wsu.edu
Dr. Matthew Whiting
WSU Department of Horticulture
Stone Fruit Physiologist
Email: mdwhiting@wsu.edu
Thank You!Thank You!Thank You!Thank You!
http://www.canopydelivery.msu.edu/Or Visit:Or Visit:Or Visit:Or Visit:
top related