Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 158 items for :

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

Thomas A. Obreza, Robert E. Rouse, and Kelly T. Morgan

three 25-cm increments and total P was measured with an ashing procedure ( Anderson, 1976 ). Tree canopy volume was estimated from measurements of canopy width and tree height [canopy volume = 4/3 (π) (tree height) (canopy radius) 2 ]. Fruit production

Free access

Nicole Burkhard, Derek Lynch, David Percival, and Mehdi Sharifi

incident, weed samples from Trial 1 R were not separated into broadleaf, grass, and legume categories during weed biomass sampling in August, but instead recorded as total biomass per subplot. Plant measurements. Plant canopy volume for each bush was

Free access

Kelly T. Morgan, T. Adair Wheaton, William S. Castle, and Laurence R. Parsons

of application along with the continuing two irrigation rates. Data collection and sample analysis. Average canopy volume of the middle four trees was measured annually using a spheroid canopy shape model described by Whitney et al. (1991) . To

Open access

Lloyd L. Nackley, Brent Warneke, Lauren Fessler, Jay W. Pscheidt, David Lockwood, Wesley C. Wright, Xiaocun Sun, and Amy Fulcher

canopy. A spray rate that does not adapt to match the canopy volume and density increases the likelihood of overspraying when the canopy is sparsely developed and underspraying when the canopy is at its fullest. Most specialty crop producers rely on

Free access

Maria Gomez-del-Campo

at nine positions per tree: above the trunk and at distances of 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, and 0.8 m on both the east–west and north–south sides of the tree. Hedgerow external surface area and canopy volume were calculated by considering a monocone shape. This

Full access

Andrew G. Reynolds, Amal Ehtaiwesh, and Christiane de Savigny

relative humidity, wind speed, solar radiation, and temperature values, which are downloaded from databases such as the Weather Innovations Network in Ontario. ET o values can then be used with a crop coefficient (normally based upon canopy volume) to

Free access

Ryan N. Contreras, John M. Ruter, and Wayne W. Hanna

morphological comparison of field-grown material, the octoploid was shorter on both measurement dates, had a smaller canopy volume, shorter internodes, and smaller leaves than tetraploid H. acetosella ‘Panama Red’ ( Table 2 , Fig. 5 ). Table 2

Free access

W. Alan Erb and Mark Pyeatt

This study was conducted in the greenhouse by running two experiments at different temperature regimes (22°C day and 13°C night and 33°C day and 22°C night). One-year-old tissue culture propagated plants were irrigated at three different soil moisture tension levels (5, 15, and 30 cnbars) and either exposed to moving or still air. The moving air treatment was created by two 51-cm-diameter fans running at either low (5.6 mph) or medium (8.2 mph) speed. Each experiment included, forty-eight plants arranged in a randomized complete block design. Each block consisted of a greenhouse bench containing two fans, a plastic dividing wall and two plant replications for each treatment. Canopy volume measurements were taken at the beginning, middle and end of each experiment to estimate growth rate. At the end of each experiment, total leaf area and leaf, stem and root dry weight data were collected. In the moderate temperature experiment, the still air treated plants had the highest canopy volume and leaf weight ratio while the moving air treated plants had the highest stem weight ratio. The only difference for the moisture treatments was the 5-cnbar treatment had the highest canopy volume. In the high temperature experiment, the still air treated plants had the highest canopy volume, total leaf area, leaf dry weight, shoot/root ratio, leaf weight ratio and leaf area duration while the moving air treated plants had the highest root weight ratio. The 5-cnbar treatment had the highest canopy volume and biomass accumulations. The 30-cnbar treatment had the highest root weight ratio.

Open access

Flavia T. Zambon, Davie M. Kadyampakeni, and Jude W. Grosser

extracted using the Mehlich III method and analyzed using the ICP-AES method at the WaterAg Laboratory (Camilla, GA). The nutrient concentration was expressed as nutrient mass per unit of soil mass (mg·kg −1 ). The tree canopy volume and trunk cross

Free access

James N. Cummins

Rootstock influence on tree architecture may be seen in a variety of expressions. Above ground effects include canopy volume and shape, crotch angles, branch display angles, relative distribution of long shoots and spurs, internode length, relative distribution of fruit buds and spurs, and trunk taper. Below the graft union, effects include relative distribution of fine vs. coarse roots, total root mass, and numbers, nature and distribution of burrknots. Many of these phenomena are indirect effects that stare from induction of fruiting by the rootstock, e.g., early fruit production induced by the rootstock will result in reduced canopy volume, reduced aboveground total mass, flatter branch display angles, and reduced root mass. The rootstock also plays a major role in the duration of shoot extension growth; by influencing the production of growth regulators in the shoot tip, the rootstock indirectly influences the inhibit ion of lateral buds and therefore the production of feathers.