4.7 Article

New Tools for Mechanical Thinning of Apricot Fruitlets

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11111138

关键词

Prunus armeniaca L.; crop load; young fruits; thinning machine

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Agriculture (MiPAAF) [DM 36503.7305.2018 del 20/12/2018]
  2. AGROENER project [26329]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study tested a thinner machine equipped with a yellow rod device in relation to tree branch length and orientation in an apricot orchard in Italy. The results showed satisfactory thinning efficiency and reduced damage to fruits and branches, especially in relation to branch length and insertion point.
In this study, the thinner machine with yellow rod equipment was tested in relation to tree branch length and orientation in April 2019, in a narrow-canopied apricot orchard of Emilia Romagna Region, Italy. The trees were mechanically thinned with manual finishing, and comparative tests were carried out simultaneously with the ordinary hand thinning (control). Three groups of two plants were identified as replication for a total of six plants per row. Three rows were checked, considering field uniformity average. The branches were grouped into four classes according to their length: < 30 cm, 30-60 cm, 60-90 cm and > 90 cm. Branch inclination on the plant, radial or longitudinal with respect to the row, was evaluated. Fruit number before the thinning, after the first and the second machine intervention, after three days of the mechanical thinning and after the hand finishing was recorded. This experience showed satisfactory results in terms of thinning efficiency and reduced damage to both fruits and branches, as a function of the class length and insertion point in the main branch of the plant. Thinning efficiency was always kept above 37% of the left load after hand finishing, and on average between the treatments close to 44%. Fruit damages always remained below the economic thresholds to marketable production or to the plant.

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