際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo
Matthew Whiting
Recent advances in
cherry horticulture
(Whats new at WSU)
Output vs. Input:
OUTPUT
INPUT
LO/LO
HI/LO HI/HI
LO/HI
Production systems
Innovations in cherry
production
 Genetic
 Orchard systems
 Automation/mechanization
 Mechanical pruning
 Mechanical harvest
 Precision management
 Plant growth regulators
Current orchard systemsFuture orchard systems
Pruning rules:
1.Remove all lateral wood (leave short stubs)
2.Renew vigorous uprights (leave renewal sites)
Simplified Pruning of the UFO System:
Mechanical pruning
 Simplified planar systems  simplify pruning
 Investigated potential for mechanical
pruning in UFO since 2010
 Collard system
 7 (vertical) or 4 (horizontal) circular saw blades
 6-th leaf UFO
 Hand vs. Mech. Vs. Mech + hand
Mechanical pruning
CONCLUSIONS
Hand pruning
2 min 40 s per tree (1800 trees/ha = 80 hr/ha)
Full mechanical pruning:
 12.5-times faster (6.5 hr/ha)
 Removed ca. 60% less wood than hand pruning
Mechanical + hand pruning:
 25% faster than hand pruning
 Same amount of wood removed as hand pruning
Good potential to reduce pruning time/costs using mechanical
systems.
Objective
Determine best
management practices
for pruning sweet cherry
and apple mechanically,
by understanding
equipment and orchard
requirements.
Mechanical pruning
 Gillisons GVF Center Mount
Topper and Hedger
 Side shift ca. 1 .2 m on
either side of the tractor
 Height adjustment of 1 m to
6.5 m
 360属 rotation of cutting head
Experiment outline
Apple
Mechanical pruning vs. hand
pruning
Sweet cherry
Mechanical hedging and
topping vs/+ hand pruning
Pre/postharvest topping
Sweet cherry trials:
Trial block details
Variety Tieton
Rootstock Gisela 速5
Training system UFO
Tree age 8th leaf
Tree spacing 2.5 x 3.1 m
Trial design:
3 treatments x 5 reps
 20 trees/rep
 Completely randomized design
 Post-harvest hedging and topping
Mechanical pruning vs. Hand pruning
YEAR 1
1. Hand pruning
2. Mechanical pruning (1)
3. Mechanical pruning (2)
YEAR 2
1. Hand pruning
2. Mechanical pruning
3. Mechanical pruning + Hand pruning
Data collection
 Time to prune
 Performance of the
machine
 Weight wood pruned
 Wood damage
 Economic evaluation
Preliminary results
(2014)
 Hand pruning removed 2 x wood removed than mechanical pruning
 Hand pruning 10 kg/tree
 Mechanical pruning 5 kg/tree
 Dirty cuts
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
Hand pruning Mechanical pruning
Kg/cm2
Wood pruned
Results - Time
 Mechanical pruning 23 x faster than hand pruning (hedging and topping)
 Hand pruning 374 sec/tree 6 min/tree
 Mechanical pruning 16 sec/tree 0.3 min/tree
 Tractor speed: 1.9 km/h
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Mechanical pruning Hand pruning
Time/rep(min)
Topping
Hedging
Example
 Sweet cherry orchard trained to
UFO training system
 Spacing: 2 m x 3.1 m
 8 h work/day
 Mechanical pruning:
 2.5 h/ac
 3.2 ac/day
 Hand pruning:
 55 h/ac
 0.14 ac/day
Mechanical pollination
 Colony collapse disorder,
variable environmental
conditions, poor bloom
overlap, insufficient
pollenizers/pollinators all
threaten ability to set a crop
For yield security and resilience to:
8.2 t/ha
Proposed solution:
 Collect pollen
 Suspend pollen
 Apply pollen via sprayer
 Challenges:
 Stigma is a small target!
 Pollen loses viability in liquid
Electrostatic sprayer
Mechanical pollination
Tieton/ Gisela 5: 8 years old trained to UFO
Mechanical pollination
Mechanical pollination
a
b
 Proof of concept study
 Supplemental pollination
 Sprayed pollen once at 50% bloom
 Fruit set improved 15%
 Increased pollen deposition
Mechanical pollination
 Proof of concept study
 Replacement pollination
 Sprayed pollen through bee
exclusion netting
 Two applications (50% and 90%
)
 Yield similar to open-pollinated trees
a
b
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Control Treated
Fruityield(kg/tree)
Mechanical pollination
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Treated Control
Fruitset(%)
a
b
Mechanical shaking to transfer pollen
Self-fertile cultivars
Mechanical harvest
 Harvest costs are >50% of all
 Labor cost increasing
 Labor availability decreasing
Mechanical harvest
 Taking short- and long-term approach
using total systems approach
 Mechanical assist (shake-and-catch)
 Fully mechanical harvest
In domestic and export markets, stem-free cherries are accepted/preferred
New packaging + marketing by Chelan Fresh
Plant growth regulators
 Post-bloom thinning
 AVG for improving fruit set
Kordia in Tasmania
Treatment Fruit set (%) Fruit wt (g) Cracked fruit
(%)
Control 9.7 a 14.5 b 25.1 b
AVG 500 g/ha 15.3 b 12.9 a 14.0 a
(ca. 他 pouch/ac)
Rate of AVG ns ns ns
Time of
application
ns ns ns
Collaboration with Dugald Close, Sally Bound; UTas
Increasing fruit set
Rate and timing studies
 Rates:
 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 pouches/acre
 0, 166, 333, 500 g/ac
 Timings:
 Popcorn, 10% FB, 50% FB, ca. FB
Pacific Northwest, 2013
Regina in Zillah
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Control 0.5 AVG 1.0 AVG 1.5 AVG
10%fullbloom
10%fullbloom
10%fullbloom
popcorn
50%fullbloom
fullbloom
Fruit set - % available flowers
1.0 AVG
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Control Retain: 30 %
FB
Retain: 65 %
FB
Retain: 30 &
65 % FB
FruitSet(%)
AVG Improves Regina Fruit Set
 Surfactant 0.1% v:v
 Rate 1 pouch per ac
 Timing between 10 to 80% of full bloom
Data from Todd Einhorn, OSU
Recommendations:
 ReTain速 applied at 10% to full bloom
 333 g per acre
 Single application
 Particularly during warm weather
Questions? FB: WSUStoneFruitPhysiology

More Related Content

StoneFruitDay_Wenatchee 20 January, 2015