Simulation Study of Citrus Tree Canopy Motion During Harvesting Using a Canopy Shaker

2010 ◽  
Vol 53 (5) ◽  
pp. 1373-1381 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. J. U. Savary ◽  
R. Ehsani ◽  
J. K. Schueller ◽  
B. P. Rajaraman
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Study ◽  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Citrus Tree ◽  
Canopy Shaker

Study of force distribution in the citrus tree canopy during harvest using a continuous canopy shaker

2011 ◽  
Vol 76 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.K.J. Udumala Savary ◽  
R. Ehsani ◽  
M. Salyani ◽  
M.A. Hebel ◽  
G.C. Bora
Keyword(s):  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Force Distribution ◽  
Citrus Tree ◽  
Canopy Shaker

Distribution of rainfall and soil moisture content in the soil profile under citrus tree canopy and at the dripline

1999 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. K. Alva ◽  
O. Prakash ◽  
Ali Fares ◽  
Arthur G. Hornsby
Keyword(s):  
Soil Moisture ◽  
Moisture Content ◽  
Soil Profile ◽  
Soil Moisture Content ◽  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Citrus Tree

Laser, ultrasonic and manual measurements of citrus tree canopy volume

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. Tumbo ◽  
M. Salyani ◽  
J. D. Whitney ◽  
T. A. Wheaton ◽  
W. M. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Citrus Tree ◽  
Laser Ultrasonic ◽  
Canopy Volume

scholarly journals Stem Flow, Throughfall, and Canopy Interception of Rainfall by Citrus Tree Canopies

HortScience ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 1059-1160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y.C. Li ◽  
A.K. Alva ◽  
D.V. Calvert ◽  
M. Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Storm Event ◽  
Citrus Paradisi ◽  
Citrus Tree ◽  
Canopy Interception ◽  
Canopy Effect ◽  
Tree Canopies ◽  
Stem Flow ◽  
Citrus Cultivar ◽  
Rain Events

It is generally believed that the interception of rain by the citrus tree canopy can substantially decrease the throughfall under the canopy as compared to that along the dripline or outside the canopy (incident rainfall). Therefore, the position of placement of soil-applied agrichemicals in relation to the tree canopy may be an important consideration to minimize their leaching during rain events. In this study, the distributions of rainfall under the tree canopies of three citrus cultivars, `Marsh' grapefruit (Citrus paradisi Macf.), `Hamlin' orange (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck), and `Temple' orange (Citrus hybrid), were evaluated at four directions (north, south, east, west), two positions (dripline and under the canopy), and stem flow. There was not a significant canopy effect on rainfall amounts from stem flow or dripline, compared with outside canopy, for any citrus cultivar or storm event. However, throughfall varied significantly among the four cardinal directions under the canopy of all three citrus cultivars and was highly related to the wind direction. Among the three citrus cultivars evaluated in this study, throughfall, stem flow, and canopy interception accounted for 89.5% to 92.7%, 0.5% to 4.7%, and 5.8% to 9.3% of the incident rainfall, respectively.

Simulation study on the effects of tine-shaking frequency and penetrating depth on fruit detachment for citrus canopy-shaker harvesting

2018 ◽  
Vol 148 ◽  
pp. 54-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tian-Hu Liu ◽  
Gang Luo ◽  
Reza Ehsani ◽  
Arash Toudeshki ◽  
Xiang-Jun Zou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Simulation Study ◽  
Canopy Shaker

Air-tower sprayers increase spray application efficiency in mature citrus trees

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (8) ◽  
pp. 871 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Cunningham ◽  
J. Harden
Keyword(s):  
Urban Areas ◽  
Tree Canopy ◽  
Citrus Tree ◽  
Air Contamination ◽  
Run Off ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
Tree Canopies ◽  
Citrus Leaves ◽  
Full Height ◽  
Citrus Trees

Summary. Conventional pesticide spraying in citrus crops with low-profile sprayers results in pest management problems because of the poor distribution of pesticide throughout the tree. Pesticide losses, particularly drift, are a concern with this type of sprayer especially in orchards situated in or near urban areas. The spray deposit on citrus leaves and fruit and off-target losses (canopy run-off and drift) were determined for air-assisted low-profile sprayers and air-assisted sprayers fitted with tower air conveyors (air-towers). The air-tower sprayers produced even distribution of leaf spray deposits through the full height of the tree canopy while the low-profile sprayers produced decreasing leaf spray deposits with increasing height in the trees. The Metters tower sprayer and Cropliner low-profile sprayer resulted in increasing deposits from the 0˚ axis through to the 90˚ axis to sprayer travel while the Barlow tower sprayer and the Hardi low-profile sprayer produced a more even distribution of deposits through the axes to sprayer travel. Fruit deposits were not significantly different between sprayers. The Barlow tower sprayer produced significantly less canopy spray run-off compared with the low-profile sprayers. The Barlow tower sprayer resulted in a significant reduction in spray drift in the above tree zone compared with the Hardi low-profile sprayer. Better distribution of pesticides in citrus tree canopies will improve pest control especially in the top sections of the tree as this is where the greatest increase in pesticide deposit is achieved with air-tower sprayers. Both ground and air contamination from pesticides can also be reduced by using sprayers fitted with air-tower conveyors designed to produce even airflows for the full height of the citrus trees being sprayed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document