Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 147 items for :

  • "canopy volume" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Full access

Benjamin D. Toft, Mobashwer M. Alam, John D. Wilkie, and Bruce L. Topp

–16 and 2016–17) representing the fourth and fifth years since field planting. Multiscale measurements. Whole tree scale measurements were recorded for canopy dimensions, yield, nut number, and nut weight. Canopy volume was estimated by calculating the

Free access

Charles G. Embree, Marina T.D. Myra, Douglas S. Nichols, and A. Harrison Wright

.2-m herbicide strip and no supplemental irrigation was used. Tree growth. Canopy volume (CV) was calculated using a geometrical model that accounts for the specific contours in shape of each tree (CV = [(¼) π a b h ] / [ m ( x ) + m ( y ) + 1

Free access

Richard P. Marini, Donald S. Sowers, and Michele Choma Marini

`Sweet Sue' peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) trees were subjected to a factorial arrangement of treatments. At planting, trees were headed at 10 or 70 cm above the bud union and trees were trained to an open-vase or central-leader form. For the first 4 years, high-headed trees were larger than low-headed trees. After 7 years, open-vase trees had larger trunk cross-sectional area, tree spread, and canopy volume than central-leader trees. Open-vase trees had higher yield and crop value per tree, but lower yield and crop value per unit of land area or unit of canopy volume than central-leader trees. Crop density and yield efficiency were similar for all treatments.

Full access

Q.U. Zaman, A.W. Schumann, and H.K. Hostler

Many citrus groves in Florida were affected by hurricanes in Summer 2004. A commercial 42-acre `Valencia' sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) grove of 2980 trees was routinely scanned with an automated ultrasonic system to measure and map tree canopy volumes. We estimated tree damage by comparing canopy volumes measured before and after the hurricanes of 2004. Ultrasonically sensed tree canopy volume was mapped and the relative tree canopy volume loss percentage (TCVL%) for each tree was calculated and classified into six categories [≤0 (no damage), 1% to 24%, 25% to 49%, 50% to 74%, 75% to 99%, and 100%]. Authenticity of the ultrasonically sensed missing trees was established by ground truthing or matching visually observed and georeferenced missing tree locations with ultrasonically sensed missing trees in the grove. Ninety-one trees were found missing during ground inspections after hurricanes and they exactly matched with ultrasonically sensed missing tree locations throughout the grove. All of the missing trees were in TCVL% categories 5 and 6 (≥75% damage). Some canopy volume was still detected with ultrasonics at the missing tree locations because of the presence of tall grass, weeds, or branches of large adjacent trees. More than 50% of trees in the grove were damaged (completely or partially) and generally larger trees (>100 m3) were damaged more by the hurricanes than small or medium size trees in each tree canopy volume loss category. The automated ultrasonic system could be used to rapidly identify missing trees (completely damaged) and to estimate partial tree canopy volume loss after hurricanes.

Free access

Terence L. Robinson, Alan N. Lakso, and Stephen G. Carpenter

A field planting of `Empire' and `Redchief Delicious' apple trees (Malus domestics Borkh.) was established in 1978 to evaluate four planting systems: 1) slender spindle/M.9, 2) Y-trellis/M.26, 3) central leader/M.9/MM.111, and 4) central leader/M.7a. During the first 5 years, yields per hectare for `Empire' were positively correlated with tree density. In the second 5 years, the Y-trellis/M.26 trees produced the highest yields while yields of the other systems continued to be related to tree density. Cumulative yields were highest with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees. With `Delicious', the Y-trellis/M.26 yields were greatest during all 10 years despite lower tree density than the slender spindle/M.9. Yields of `Delicious' with the other three systems were a function of tree density during the 10 years. At maturity, canopy volume per tree was greatest on the central leader/M.7a trees and smallest on the slender spindle/M.9 trees; however, there were no significant differences in canopy volume per hectare between the systems despite large differences in yield. Trunk cross sectional area (TCA) per hectare was greatest with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees and smallest with the central leader/M.7 trees. Yield was highly correlated to TCA/ha. Yield efficiency with `Empire' was greatest for the slender spindle/M.9 system, followed by the Y-trellis/M.26, central leader/M.9/MM.111, respectively. With both cultivars, the central leader/M.7a system had the lowest yield efficiency. With `Delicious', there were no differences in yield efficiency for the other three systems. The greater yield of the Y-trellis/M.26 system was the result of greater TCA/ha and not greater efficiency. `Empire' fruit size was largest on the central leader/M.7a and the central leader/M.9/MM.111 trees and smallest on the slender spindle/M.9 and the Y-trellis/M.26 trees. With `Delicious', fruit size was larger with the Y-trellis/M.26 trees than the other systems. When fruit size was adjusted for crop density, there were no significant differences due to system with `Empire', but with `Delicious' the Y-trellis/M.26 trees had larger adjusted fruit size than the other systems. Crop density calculated using TCA correlated better to fruit size than did crop density calculated using annual increase in TCA, canopy volume, or land area. Fruit color and quality with `Redchief Delicious' were not influenced by system. With `Empire', average fruit color and soluble solids content were lower for the Y-trellis/M.26 and slender spindle/M.9 in some years when canopy density was allowed to become. excessive.

Free access

Terence L. Robinson and Alan N. Lakso

Bases of orchard productivity were evaluated in four 10-year-old apple orchard systems (`Empire' and `Redchief Delicious' Malus domestics Borkh. on slender spindle/M.9, Y-trellis/M.26, central leader/M.9/MM.111, and central leader/M.7a). Trunk cross-sectional areas (TCA), canopy dimension and volume, and light interception were measured. Canopy dimension and canopy volume were found to be relatively poor estimators of orchard light interception or yield, especially for the restricted canopy of the Y-trellis. TCA was correlated to both percentage of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) intercepted and yields. Total light interception during the 7th to the 10th years showed the best correlation with yields of the different systems and explained most of the yield variations among systems. Average light interception was highest with the Y-trellis/M.26 system of both cultivars and approached 70% of available PAR with `Empire'. The higher light interception of this system was the result of canopy architecture that allowed the tree canopy to grow over the tractor alleys. The central leader/M.7a had the lowest light interception with both cultivars. The efficiency of converting light energy into fruit (conversion efficiency = fruit yield/light intercepted) was significantly higher for the Y-trellis/M.26 system than for the slender spindle/M.9 or central leader/M.9/MM.111 systems. The central leader/M.7a system bad the lowest conversion efficiency. An index of partitioning was calculated as the kilograms of fruit per square centimeter increase in TCA. The slender spindle/M.9 system had significantly higher partitioning index than the Y-trellis/M.26 or central leader/M.9/MM.111. The central leader/M.7a system had the lowest partitioning index. The higher conversion efficiency of the Y/M.26 system was not due to increased partitioning to the fruit; however, the basis for the greater efficiency is unknown. The poor conversion efficiency of the central leader/M.7a was mostly due to low partitioning to the fruit. The Y-trellis/M.26 system was found to be the most efficient in both intercepting PAR and converting that energy into fruit.

Free access

Michael W. Smith

footprint in meters squared; D c1 and D c2 are the canopy diameters in meters at right angles from each other, S is the surface area in meters squared; 3.1416 is a constant; H is the height of the tree in meters; and V is the canopy volume in meters cubed

Free access

W.A. Erb, A.D. Draper, and H.J. Swartz

Abbreviations: A, net photosynthesis; CYV, canopy volume; E, transpiration; FCYV, fraction of canopy volume; GCA, general combining ability; g 1 , leaf conductance of water; LT, leaf temperature; SCA, specific combining ability; VPD, vapor pressure

Free access

W.A. Erb, A.D. Draper, G.J. Galletta, and H.J. Swartz

Abbreviations: BS, berry size; CYV, canopy volume; DFR, days to fruit ripe; DIF, differences in canopy volume; #DBF&F, number of days between flowering and fruiting; GCA, general combining ability; SCA, specific combining ability, TFW, total fruit

Full access

J.G. Williamson and E.P. Miller

differences in estimated canopy volume among the plants that had received low, medium, or high fertilizer rates, or between plants receiving granular or liquid fertilizer during 2000 through 2002. The same plants that received low, medium, and high fertilizer