Search Results

You are looking at 91 - 100 of 154 items for :

  • "canopy volume" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Kim D. Bowman and Greg McCollum

’ and ‘US-1284’ making the largest trees, ‘Flying Dragon’ making the smallest trees, and all the other rootstocks somewhat intermediate in canopy height and diameter. Between 2006 and 2014, average canopy volume decreased for trees on all rootstocks

Open access

Bernadine C. Strik, Amanda J. Davis, David R. Bryla, and Scott T. Orr

season, plant width tended to be lower in plants with weed mat alone, whereas those with black or green weed mat produced the narrowest canopies parallel and perpendicular to the row, respectively ( Table 2 ). Consequently, canopy volume was smaller that

Open access

Tamara Wynne and Dale Devitt

measured at 10.52 ± 5.05 cm for C. linearis . The trees had basal canopy areas between 5.7 and 29.6 m 2 ( L. indica and P. florida , respectively). The canopy volume also varied greatly based on species with a maximum of 93.10 m 3 for P. florida and

Free access

Kim D. Bowman, Lynn Faulkner, and Mike Kesinger

measured. Tree trunk and canopy size information was collected in 2008 and 2010. Canopy volume was calculated by the formula, volume = (width 2 × height)/4 as described by Wutscher and Hill (1995) . Collier county field trial. A second trial comparing

Open access

Sameer Pokhrel, Bo Meyering, Kim D. Bowman, and Ute Albrecht

. Canopy volume was calculated using the formula described in Wutscher and Hill (1995) , given as follows: canopy volume = (diameter 2 × height)/4. Scion and rootstock trunk diameters were measured at 5 cm above and below the graft union using a digital

Free access

Dario Stefanelli, Roberto J. Zoppolo, Ronald L. Perry, and Franco Weibel

insertion angle at the time of selection. Canopy volume was calculated measuring the total height as well as two orthogonal diameters of the canopy at 0.7 m from the soil surface. Production variables. Yield (kg/tree) and fruit number as well as cumulative

Free access

A. Morales-Sillero, R. Jiménez, J.E. Fernández, A. Troncoso, and L. Rejano

processing were analyzed in 2003. No significant differences in trunk perimeter and canopy volume were found between the fertigation treatments. Trunk perimeter mean values, measured at 0.2 m aboveground, were 0.62 m (±0.04) in 2002 and 0.67 m (±0.05) in

Full access

Thomas A. Obreza and Arnold Schumann

are processed by a computer program to create a canopy volume map. Because citrus yield is directly related to canopy volume, this map helps growers make decisions about long-term management. For example, a grove with a wide range of canopy volumes can

Free access

Ed Stover, Sharon Inch, Matthew L. Richardson, and David G. Hall

number, HLB phenotypic symptoms, and tree mortality were assessed monthly to quarterly beginning 20 months after planting. Tree canopy volume (TCV) was assessed using the assumption that tree shape was one-half a prolate spheroid (TCV = 4π/6 × H × W1 × W2

Free access

Giuseppe Reforgiato Recupero, Giuseppe Russo, Santo Recupero, Roberto Zurru, Bruno Deidda, and Maurizio Mulas

cumulative yield to canopy volume for the last year, calculated as V = 0.5238 × h × d 2 (h = plant height; d = plant lateral mean diameter). Table 2. Yield, tree size, and efficiency of ‘Tarocco’ TDV orange on 19 rootstocks planted at Palazzelli (SR). Table