Cargando…

Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard

In 2009, the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester project was set to develop such technology. The prototype comprises two symmetrical harvesters trailed by a farm tractor. Each harvester has a vibratory rotor with flexible rods, a catching platform with conveyors belts delivering fruits to a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dias, António Bento, Falcão, José M., Pinheiro, Anacleto, Peça, José O.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32010154
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01631
_version_ 1783490129109712896
author Dias, António Bento
Falcão, José M.
Pinheiro, Anacleto
Peça, José O.
author_facet Dias, António Bento
Falcão, José M.
Pinheiro, Anacleto
Peça, José O.
author_sort Dias, António Bento
collection PubMed
description In 2009, the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester project was set to develop such technology. The prototype comprises two symmetrical harvesters trailed by a farm tractor. Each harvester has a vibratory rotor with flexible rods, a catching platform with conveyors belts delivering fruits to a temporary storage bag. The removal efficiency of canopy shakers are influenced by factors like shaking frequency, ground speed as well as the dimension and shape of olive canopy. In 2014 authors started a trial to evaluate the influence of pruning in olive yield and in the performance of the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester. The trial was established in an irrigated olive orchard of Picual cultivar planted in 1996 with the array 7 m x 3.5 m. In a randomised complete block design with three replications, four treatments are being compared leading to 12 plots with 30 trees/plot. The treatments under study are: T1—manual pruning using chain saws, in 2014 and 2017; T2—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy, followed by manual pruning complement to remove wood suckers inside the canopy, in 2014 and 2017; T3—mechanical pruning: topping the canopy parallel to the ground and hedging southeast side of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning); hedging northwest side in winter 2016; T4—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning). Regarding to olive yield per tree, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. However, no significant differences were found regarding the average olive yield per tree, over the period of 2014–2017. Regarding to the olive removal efficiency, only in 2016, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. No significant differences were found regarding the average of the olive removal efficiency, over the period of 2014–2017.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6974585
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69745852020-01-31 Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard Dias, António Bento Falcão, José M. Pinheiro, Anacleto Peça, José O. Front Plant Sci Plant Science In 2009, the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester project was set to develop such technology. The prototype comprises two symmetrical harvesters trailed by a farm tractor. Each harvester has a vibratory rotor with flexible rods, a catching platform with conveyors belts delivering fruits to a temporary storage bag. The removal efficiency of canopy shakers are influenced by factors like shaking frequency, ground speed as well as the dimension and shape of olive canopy. In 2014 authors started a trial to evaluate the influence of pruning in olive yield and in the performance of the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester. The trial was established in an irrigated olive orchard of Picual cultivar planted in 1996 with the array 7 m x 3.5 m. In a randomised complete block design with three replications, four treatments are being compared leading to 12 plots with 30 trees/plot. The treatments under study are: T1—manual pruning using chain saws, in 2014 and 2017; T2—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy, followed by manual pruning complement to remove wood suckers inside the canopy, in 2014 and 2017; T3—mechanical pruning: topping the canopy parallel to the ground and hedging southeast side of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning); hedging northwest side in winter 2016; T4—mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning). Regarding to olive yield per tree, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. However, no significant differences were found regarding the average olive yield per tree, over the period of 2014–2017. Regarding to the olive removal efficiency, only in 2016, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. No significant differences were found regarding the average of the olive removal efficiency, over the period of 2014–2017. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC6974585/ /pubmed/32010154 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01631 Text en Copyright © 2020 Dias, Falcão, Pinheiro and Peça http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Plant Science
Dias, António Bento
Falcão, José M.
Pinheiro, Anacleto
Peça, José O.
Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title_full Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title_fullStr Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title_short Evaluation of Olive Pruning Effect on the Performance of the Row-Side Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester in a High Density Olive Orchard
title_sort evaluation of olive pruning effect on the performance of the row-side continuous canopy shaking harvester in a high density olive orchard
topic Plant Science
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6974585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32010154
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01631
work_keys_str_mv AT diasantoniobento evaluationofolivepruningeffectontheperformanceoftherowsidecontinuouscanopyshakingharvesterinahighdensityoliveorchard
AT falcaojosem evaluationofolivepruningeffectontheperformanceoftherowsidecontinuouscanopyshakingharvesterinahighdensityoliveorchard
AT pinheiroanacleto evaluationofolivepruningeffectontheperformanceoftherowsidecontinuouscanopyshakingharvesterinahighdensityoliveorchard
AT pecajoseo evaluationofolivepruningeffectontheperformanceoftherowsidecontinuouscanopyshakingharvesterinahighdensityoliveorchard