4.7 Article

Fruit abscission pattern of 'Valencia' orange with canopy shaker system

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 246, 期 -, 页码 916-920

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.11.087

关键词

Citrus; Calyx; Abscission zone; Pull test; Mechanical harvesting

资金

  1. National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA, Spain) - European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) [RTA2014-00025-C05-03]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fruit detachment can occur due to natural causes or be mechanically performed by a combination of mechanical stresses that cause tissue breakage in the plant. Forced abscission should not coincide with natural abscission zones (AZ). Abscission zones are very important in citrus harvesting both in terms of the destination market and of the possible damage caused to the tree or fruit. The objective of this study is to determine the abscission pattern of sweet oranges with a canopy shaker and compare it with other detachment systems. Five plots of Valencia oranges were tested during the 2017 and 2018 harvesting seasons, using a commercial tractor-drawn canopy shaker. The diameter, weight and breakage type were evaluated in the cases of natural fall, snap method, mechanical harvesting with canopy shaker, and pull test. Breakage type AZ-C predominated in natural fall (89.0%) and the snap method (79.5%). Similarly, AZ-A predominated for the canopy shaker (58.8%) and pull test (45.3%). Mechanical action on the fruit produced peel tear by breaking the flavedo, which reached highest frequency in the snap method (7.6%). Peel tear breakage required a mean fruit detachment force value of 99.3 N, higher than the average abscission values for AZ-C (88.7 N) and AZ-A (66.6 N). The fruit that remained on the tree after canopy shaker harvesting showed lower mean values of fruit detachment force (16.3%) than the pre-harvest fruit. The frequency of fruit with calyx with the canopy shaker and snap methods was similar, with a mean value of 36%.

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

4.7
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