Search Results

You are looking at 111 - 120 of 154 items for :

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

Heping Zhu, James Altland, Richard C. Derksen, and Charles R. Krause

tree volume as an exponential function of tree height. Since the amount of spray required for adequate deposition and coverage is determined by canopy volume, the exponential function to express this relationship of canopy volume between the spray

Open access

Adolfo Rosati, Andrea Paoletti, Raeed Al Hariri, Alessio Morelli, and Franco Famiani

cultivars and more traditional ones that do not fruit until much older. In a previous study ( Rosati et al., 2017 ), we found that tree growth, in terms of both tree diameter and canopy volume increments, was inversely related to tree yield across 12

Free access

Michael W. Smith

/tree with current yield/tree (0.24–0.37) ( Figs. 2 and 3 ). Trunk cross-sectional area of pecan trees with minimal pruning was closely related to canopy volume and surface area ( Smith, 2008 ). Therefore, a closer correlation between the previous year and

Free access

Antònia Ninot, Agustí Romero, Joan Tous, and Ignasi Batlle

weight per canopy volume (CV) in 2007: CV (m 3 ) = 4/3 π (D 1 /2*D 2 /2*H/2), where D 1 was maximum diameter, D 2 was minimum diameter, and H was canopy height. Bloom intensity. In May 2008 and 2009, to assess the possible effects of leaf drop on the

Free access

Jacqueline K. Burns, Louise Ferguson, Kitren Glozer, William H. Krueger, and Richard C. Rosecrance

was evaluated in the orchard using a subjective leaf abscission score (LAS) of 0 (no defoliation), 1 (light defoliation), 2 (moderate defoliation), and 3 (severe defoliation, greater than 50% canopy volume). Average maximum, minimum, and overall

Full access

Rebecca L. Darnell, Bruno Casamali, and Jeffrey G. Williamson

cultivars and both locations following the first complete growing season. The following year (2.5 growing seasons from planting), treatment effects on canopy volume in ‘Farthing’ were similar to what was observed in the first year ( Casamali et al., 2013

Full access

Lisa McFadyen, David Robertson, Stephen Morris, and Trevor Olesen

) in shady parts of the canopy ( Olesen et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, canopy management practices that promote strong, vertical, vegetative regrowth in mature trees inhibit flowering on a canopy volume basis ( Olesen et al., 2016 ). There was evidence

Open access

Coral Ortiz, Antonio Torregrosa, Enrique Ortí, and Sebastià Balasch

canopy diameter perpendicular to the row was 2.5 ± 0.2 m. The canopy diameter parallel to the row was 2.2 ± 0.2 m. The equivalent canopy volume was 6.8 ± 1.3 m 3 . Thinning procedures. In 2016, three treatments, additional manual thinning, mechanical

Free access

William S. Castle and James C. Baldwin

difference was not statistically significant, but it could be explained by the difference in canopy volume because the latter trees grew more vigorously and were clearly taller by the time the trial was 8 years old. Among the midseason oranges, ‘Pineapple’ is

Free access

Ockert P.J. Stander, Graham H. Barry, and Paul J.R. Cronjé

between treated rows. The trees were selected for uniformity in tree condition based on a dark green leaf color. All trees were similar in canopy volume with a height of between ≈3.5–4.0 m and an across-row width of 2.5–3.5 m. The trees had a trunk