4.5 Article

Frequency response of Pinus Pinea L. for selective cone harvesting by vibration

期刊

TREES-STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 801-808

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00468-011-0556-8

关键词

Pinus pinea; Stone pine; Mechanical harvesting; Vibration frequency; Acceleration transmissibility

类别

资金

  1. Empresa de Gestion Medioambiental, S.A
  2. Obras y Servicios Ambientales S.A
  3. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [AGL2007-61533]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) is exploited for wood production and its edible kernels. Cones take 3 years to mature, while other newer cones are growing on the tree. Currently, mechanical cone harvesting by tree vibration drives the profitability and development of this crop in forest ecosystems. However, the adaptation of vibration parameters is necessary to avoid damage to the tree and for the implementation of good harvesting practices. Direct measurements of acceleration transmissibility along fruit-bearing branches under controlled laboratory conditions showed that vibrations in the frequency range of 18.0 +/- 5.3 Hz were capable of producing resonance phenomena in mature cones. Morphological changes produced in the mature cones, especially in the stalk and total weight, amplified the acceleration transmissibility, providing more favourable conditions for fruit detachment. Field tests with stone pines and a trunk shaker confirmed the potential of selective mechanical harvesting, which is conditional on the vibration parameters applied. The frequency range of the resonance of the mature cone proved to be suitable for vibration of the tree at its trunk. The quality and efficiency of the mechanical harvesting were determined to be inversely related parameters during harvesting by vibration. Trunk vibration at a frequency of 18 Hz and approximate acceleration of 65 m/s 2 achieved a high harvest quality, with limited detachment of shoots and unripe cones, and a harvesting efficiency near 85%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据