| Literature DB >> 27213391 |
Francisco J Castillo-Ruiz1, Sergio Castro-Garcia2, Gregorio L Blanco-Roldan3, Rafael R Sola-Guirado4, Jesus A Gil-Ribes5.
Abstract
Crown porosity influences radiation interception, air movement through the fruit orchard, spray penetration, and harvesting operation in fruit crops. The aim of the present study was to develop an accurate and reliable methodology based on transmitted radiation measurements to assess the porosity of traditional olive trees under different pruning treatments. Transmitted radiation was employed as an indirect method to measure crown porosity in two olive orchards of the Picual and Hojiblanca cultivars. Additionally, three different pruning treatments were considered to determine if the pruning system influences crown porosity. This study evaluated the accuracy and repeatability of four algorithms in measuring crown porosity under different solar zenith angles. From a 14° to 30° solar zenith angle, the selected algorithm produced an absolute error of less than 5% and a repeatability higher than 0.9. The described method and selected algorithm proved satisfactory in field results, making it possible to measure crown porosity at different solar zenith angles. However, pruning fresh weight did not show any relationship with crown porosity due to the great differences between removed branches. A robust and accurate algorithm was selected for crown porosity measurements in traditional olive trees, making it possible to discern between different pruning treatments.Entities:
Keywords: Olea europaea L.; canopy shaker; gap fraction; harvesting; leaf area density; leaf area index; mechanical pruning; radiation balance; trunk shaker
Year: 2016 PMID: 27213391 PMCID: PMC4883414 DOI: 10.3390/s16050723
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Pruning schedule in both olive groves. X means the year in which pruning was applied for each treatment.
| Pruning Treatment | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trunk-shaker-targeted pruning | X | X | |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted manual pruning | X | X | X |
| Mechanical manual pruning | X |
Figure 1Ceptometer during calibration process. (a) Ceptometer with wood structure to avoid diffuse radiation at sun-exposed conditions. (b) Ceptometer with wood structure under drilled sheets. (c) Ceptometer with wood structure under porous nets.
Figure 2Sunscan calibration and regression between PAR and porosity using drilled sheets to shade the probe.
Figure 3Repeatability depending on solar zenith angle and net porosity.
Figure 4PAR measures evolution depending on solar zenith angle and radiation exposure under porous nets.
Figure 5The accuracy of porosity measurement and absolute error of different porous nets depending on solar zenith angle. (a) Absolute error for Algorithm 1; (b) absolute error for algorithm 2; (c) absolute error for algorithm 3; (d) absolute error for algorithm 4.
Olive crown porosity (Φ) measurements depending on solar zenith angle. Values are mean ± standard deviation. Significance (ρ) was calculated according to Wilcoxon signed rank test. ρ = 1 indicated that both measurements were equal and that the method was robust against solar zenith angle.
| Algorithm | Φ at High Solar Zenith Angle (28–43°) | Φ at Low Solar Zenith Angle (14–18°) | ρ |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 21.6 ± 4.1 | 24.2 ± 3.6 | 0.000 |
| 2 | 17.6 ± 4.1 | 17.8 ± 3.7 | 0.679 |
| 3 | 16.4 ± 4.3 | 17.1 ± 3.9 | 0.043 |
| 4 | 17.9 ± 4.3 | 18.0 ± 3.7 | 0.983 |
Crown porosity measured in different olive varieties and dates for each pruning treatment. Values are mean ± standard deviation. Different letters showed significant differences (ρ < 0.05) according to Duncan’s test between different pruning treatments and in the same sampling date.
| Variety | Sampling Date | Pruning Treatment | Φ (Algorithm 4) (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hojiblanca | 17/07/2013 | Trunk-shaker-targeted | 21.3 ± 0.9 a |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted | 23.8 ± 2.5 a | ||
| Mechanical | 13.8 ± 2 b | ||
| 05/06/2014 | Trunk-shaker-targeted | 13.9 ± 1.4 c | |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted | 24.6 ± 3.8 a | ||
| Mechanical | 18.8 ± 3.9 b | ||
| Picual | 15/07/2015 | Trunk-shaker-targeted | 18.9 ± 4.2 a |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted | 17.7 ± 3.4 a | ||
| Mechanical | 13.3 ± 1.5 b |
Pruning residues removed from the trees for each variety, treatment, and year. Values are mean ± standard deviation. Different letters in same columns showed significant differences (ρ < 0.05) according to Duncan’s test between different pruning treatments and in the same sampling date.
| Variety | Pruning Treatment | Pruning Fresh Weight 2013 | Pruning Fresh Weight 2014 | Pruning Fresh Weight 2015 | Pruning Cumulated Fresh Weight 2013–2014 | Pruning Cumulated Fresh Weight 2013–2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hojiblanca | Trunk-shaker-targeted | 39.5 ± 25.0 a | - | 30.6 ± 18.9 a | 39.5 ± 25.0 b | 70.1 ± 35.4 b |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted | 20.5 ± 14.3 b | 50.3 ± 32.2 a | 32.8 ± 26.7 a | 76.5 ± 31.1 a | 108.7 ± 53.1 a | |
| Mechanical | - | 55.5 ± 33.4 a | - | 31.9 ± 14.8 b | 55.5 ± 33.4 b | |
| Picual | Trunk-shaker-targeted | 47.9 ± 18.5 a | - | 87.7 ± 38.1 a | 47.9 ± 18.5 b | 135.5 ± 47.5 a |
| Canopy-shaker-targeted | 34.1 ± 12.2 b | 58.2 ± 24.6 a | 31.9 ± 25.7 b | 92.3 ± 25.6 a | 124.2 ± 26.6 a | |
| Mechanical | - | 36.8 ± 15.7 b | - | 36.8 ± 15.6 b | 36.8 ± 15.7 b |