mechanical pruning of sweet cherry and...

12/3/2014

1

MECHANICAL PRUNING OF

SWEET CHERRY AND APPLE

Jacqueline GordonJacqueline GordonJacqueline GordonJacqueline Gordon

WSU IAREC

Why mechanical pruning?

• Reduce pruning labor requirements

• Improve worker safety and efficiency

• Reduce pruning cost: second greatest

annual expense

• Increase long term sustainability of

fruit production

• Set block up for mechanization

(Whiting, M., 2014)

12/3/2014

2

Mechanical pruning

• Gillison’s GVF Center

Mount

Topper and Hedger

• Side shift 3’6”on either

side of the tractor

• Height adjustment of 3'6"

to 20‘

• 360° rotation of cutting

head

Objective

Determine best

management practices for

pruning sweet cherry and

apple mechanically, by

understanding equipment

and orchards

requirements.

12/3/2014

3

Experiment outline

Apple

Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning

Apple

Mechanical pruning vs. hand pruning

Sweet cherry

Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning

Pre/postharvest topping

Sweet cherry

Mechanical hedging and topping vs/+ hand pruning

Pre/postharvest topping

Sweet cherry trials: Set up

Trial block details

Variety Tieton

Rootstock ‘Gisela ®5’

Training system UFO

Tree age 6th leaf

Tree spacing 8’ x 10’

YEAR 1 YEAR 2

Hand pruning Hand pruning

Mechanical pruning (1) Mechanical pruning

Mechanical pruning (2) Mechanical + hand

pruning

12/3/2014

4

Preliminary results

• Hand pruning 2 times more wood removed than mechanical pruning

• Hand pruning 10 kg wood removed/tree

• Mechanical pruning 5 kg wood removed/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 times 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: 1.2 m/h

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Mechanical pruning Hand pruning

Tim

e/re

p (

min

)

12/3/2014

5

Hedging

Example

Sweet cherry orchard

UFO training system

Spacing: 8’ x 10’

8 h work/day

Mechanical pruning: 2h 25min/acre

3.3 acre/day

Hand pruning: 55 h/acre

0.15 acre/day

12/3/2014

6

Apple trials: treatments

Treatment Dormant pruning Summer pruning

1 Hand

2 Mechanical

3 Hand Mech. 12-15 leaves

4 Mechanical Mech. 12-15 leaves

5 Hand Mech. 20 leaves

Results

Hand pruningHand pruning Mechanical pruningMechanical pruning

12/3/2014

7

Performance of the machine

• Wind can affect

stability of the bar

• Motor on top of bar

• Tractor position in the

row

• High speed hit

branches

Effects of Near-Harvest

Irrigation on Fruit Quality

Nadia Nadia Nadia Nadia ValverdiValverdiValverdiValverdi

Department of Horticulture

WSU IAREC

12/3/2014

8

Objective:

Improve fruit quality by understanding the role of near-harvest

irrigation on key quality traits and fruit susceptibility to splitting.

This project was carried out in 3 commercial orchards:

Site 1: Pasco, WA. Drip irrigated 12-year-old ‘Chelan’/Mazzard.

Site 2: Brewster, WA. Microsprinkler irrigated 14-year-old ‘Lapins’/Mazzard.

Site 3: Dufur, OR. Drip irrigation 10-year-old ‘Skeena’/’Gi6’

1 2 3

Materials and Methods

• Site 1: ‘Chelan’/Mazzard

– T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)

– T2: Withhold of the irrigation 7 dbh


• Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard

– T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)



Extensive Scale

- T1: Normal irrigation until harvest (control)

- T2: Withhold of the irrigation 15 dbh

12/3/2014

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 7 18

Kg

/Tre

e

Days Before Harvest

Yield a

bab

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

17 14 11 7 4 0

Cra

ckin

g I

nd

ex

Days Before Harvest

Cracking Index

T1=control

T2=withheld 7 dbh

T3=withheld 18 dbh

Results:Site 1: ‘Chelan’/Mazzard

Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Yield ColorPFRF

g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) (kg/tree) CTIFL (kg)

Control 359 10.5 27.7 1.76 17.3 24.84 4.2 1.17

7 dbh 323 10.7 27.8 1.80 17.5 13.79 4.2 1.21

18 dbh 360 10.4 27.8 1.55 17.8 16.89 4.2 1.21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

21 18 15 11 7 0

Cra

ckin

g I

nd

ex

Days Before Harvest

Cracking Index

T1=control

T2=withheld 11 dbh

T3=withheld 21 dbh

Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Yield Color PFRF

g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) (kg/tree) CTIFL (kg)

Control 310 11.1 27.6 1.23 17.3 69.68 4.8 0.81

11 dbh 300 11.8 28.6 1.21 19.7 67.30 4.8 0.84

21 dbh 295 12.0 28.6 1.20 19.1 73.34 5.1 0.86

Results:Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard

1 need to add the treatment explanations instead of T1 T2 etc.

Also need to add statistical analyses to the yield figuresMatthew Whiting, 11/9/2014

12/3/2014

10

Results:

Site 2: ‘Lapins’/Mazzard

Treatment Firmness Weight Size T.A. S.S. Color PFRF g/mm (g) (mm) (%) (%) CTIFL (kg) First harvest Control 286 12.8 29.1 1.08 19.6 5.0 0.76 13 dbh 276 11.9 28.6 1.08 20.7 4.9 0.65 p-value 0.317 0.026 0.341 0.935 0.600 0.824 0.112

Second harvest Control 320 12.5 29.5 1.17 17.7 5.1 0.63 17 dbh 279 12.2 28.8 1.30 19.9 5.2 0.60 p-value 0.003 0.488 0.569 0.020 0.100 0.687 0.614 T.A.=titratable acidity; S.S.=soluble solids; PFRF=pedicel-fruit retention force. (n=25)

Significant Findings

• Withholding irrigation up to 21 dbh may improve resistance to splitting

• Withholding irrigation from 21 dbh did not affect yield of Lapins trees but, did reduce yield of Chelan trees

• Differences in soil water content among treatments were only apparent in the top 6’’ of soil

• Stem water potential is a good indicator of plant water stress.

12/3/2014

11

ProbirProbirProbirProbir Kumar DasKumar DasKumar DasKumar Das

Department of Horticulture

WSU IAREC

Mechanical pollinationFor yield security and resilience to:

• Colony collapse disorder, variable environmental conditions, poor bloom overlap, insufficient pollinizers/pollinators all threaten ability to set a crop

Proposed solution:• Collect pollen

• Suspend pollen

• Apply pollen via sprayer

• Challenges:

– Stigma is a small target!

– Pollen loses viability in liquid

12/3/2014

12

a) b)

c) d)

Loading intervals, ranging form 0 to 60 minutes (a to d)

In vitro Germination

Electrostatic sprayer

12/3/2014

13

Mechanical pollination

‘Tieton’/ ‘Gisela 5’: 8 years old trained to UFO


12/3/2014

14


a

b

• Proof of concept study• Supplemental pollination• Sprayed pollen once at 50% bloom

• Fruit set improved 15%• Increased pollen deposition


• 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

01234567

Control TreatedFru

it y

ield

(kg

/tre

e)

12/3/2014

15

Efficacy of a Solid Set Canopy Delivery System

in Sweet Cherry and Apple

WSHA ~ Dec 2014

Niemann, SNiemann, SNiemann, SNiemann, S1111, Whiting, M, Whiting, M, Whiting, M, Whiting, M1111, and , and , and , and HanrahanHanrahanHanrahanHanrahan, I, I, I, I2222

1Washington State University IAREC, Prosser, USA2Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission, Yakima, USA

Changing the Model

Dwarfing Root Stocks

Denser Plantings

Trellis Systems

12/3/2014

16

Role of Current Application Methods

90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through 90% of agrochemicals application are applied through airblastsprayersairblastsprayersairblastsprayersairblastsprayers

→ Plant growth regulators (thinning, fruit quality management)

→ Pesticides

→ Nutrient Sprays

→ Crop Protectants (sunburn protection, rain cracking protection)

Solid Set Canopy Delivery System (SSCDS)

Permanent sprinkler system

designed to apply Agrochemicals in

fruiting wall canopies and reduce

reliance on airblast sprayers

SSCDS

Less Time

Decrease Environmental

impactLower Cost

Utilize favorable Utilize favorable Utilize favorable Utilize favorable

weather weather weather weather

conditionsconditionsconditionsconditions

FuelFuelFuelFuel

LaborLaborLaborLabor

Wasted ProductWasted ProductWasted ProductWasted Product

DriftDriftDriftDrift

Soil Soil Soil Soil

compactioncompactioncompactioncompaction

COCOCOCO2222 outputoutputoutputoutput

3 3 3 3 minsminsminsmins to spray to spray to spray to spray

one acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPAone acre block at 100 GPA

12/3/2014

17

Objectives

1. Assess coverage of SSCDS compared to traditional airblast sprayer

2. Compare efficacy of PGR applications in sweet cherry

(Airblast vs. SSCDS vs. UTC)

i. Chemical bloom thinning

ii. Gibberellic Acid

3. Lead refinement decisions for future SSCDS engineering

VS.

Coverage

Water sensitive spray cards

Sweet cherryApple

8’

6’

3’

7’

5’

3’

(1(1(1(1” x 1”)” x 1”)” x 1”)” x 1”)

Top

Bottom

36 spray cards/ replication

→ Orientations

adaxial (Top)

abaxial (bottom)

→ 3 Heights

High

Middle

Low

6’ horizontal span ( each 1’ apart)

12/3/2014

18

Varied deposition from

Coverage Trials

Spray Patterns

Lighter areas

<5% 25% 50% 75% >95%

Airblast

SSCDS

% blue surface area

correlates to % coverage

Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of Evidence of runrunrunrun----off from SSCDS off from SSCDS off from SSCDS off from SSCDS

Coverage Results

1. Airblast maintained superior coverage (Cherry: +24%; Apple: +54%)

2. SSCDS coverage was better on top cards compared to bottom cards (Cherry: +42%; Apple: +67%)

3. Airblast sprayer coverage was better on bottom cards than top cards (Cherry: +16% Apple: +20%)

Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10). Groups with different letters are significantly different (p value ≤ 0.10).

A

B

AA

B

A

B

B

C

B

C

C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Total Top Bottom 7' 5' 3'

% C

ov

era

ge

Card Orientation Sample Heights

AirBlast SSCDS

A

B

A

B B

A

B

C

D

D D

C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Total Top Bottom 8' 6' 3'

%C

ove

rag

e

Card Orientation Sample Heights

Airblast SSCDS

12/3/2014

19

MethodsSweet Cherry

8 year old ‘Selah/Giesla 6’ UFO block

Randomized Block Design

3 treatments (Airblast, SSCDS, UTC)

4 Replications

5 Trees/ Rep (3 sample trees)

Buffer tree between treatments

Main LineMain Line

SSCDS

Nozzles

SSCDS

Nozzles

PVC drop down

and risers

PVC drop down

and risers

Nozzle Heights:

9’

6’

3.5’ 10 nozzle per tree (6’)

(7260 nozzles per acre)

MethodsSweet Cherry

Treatments:

All applications made at 100GPA

→ Chemical bloom thinner

Ammonium thiosulfate (ATS 2%)

→ Gibberellic Acid

ProGibb® 4% at 20ppm

Data Collection:

→ % Fruit set (fruit/flower)

→ Color, Diameter, Weight, Firmness, Brix

12/3/2014

20

ResultsSweet Cherry

→ Chemical Bloom Thinning

No significant treatment differences

→ GA3

• 2013: Treatment difference with Airblast

14% decrease in cuticle color

10% increase in fruit firmness

• 2014: Treatment difference with Airblast and SSCDS

17% decrease in cuticle color

20% increase in fruit firmness

Airblast

SSCDS

UTC

Conclusions

- The airblast had greater coverage than SSCDS

- SSCDS showed varied deposition, product run off, and lack of coverage on bottom cards

- Continue engineering of nozzle placement

- Inconsistent coverage from the SSCDS could lead to inconsistent product efficacy of agro

chemicals

12/3/2014

21

Contributors:

Cornell University, Michigan State University, Specialty Crop Research Initiative

(SCRI:2011-51181-31037), Dr. Ines Hanrahan and crew (Washington Tree Fruit Research

Commission), Dr. David Felicetti (Pace International), Dr. Ajay Sharda and Dr. Manoj

Karkee (WSU Center for Precision & Automated Agricultural System), Dr. Jay Brunner and

Keith Granger (WSU Tree Fruit Research Extension Center)

For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:For Further Information Please Contact:

Suzanne Niemann

WSU Department of Horticulture

Graduate Student

Email: [email protected]

Dr. Matthew Whiting

WSU Department of Horticulture

Stone Fruit Physiologist

Email: [email protected]

Thank You!Thank You!Thank You!Thank You!

http://www.canopydelivery.msu.edu/Or Visit:Or Visit:Or Visit:Or Visit:

mechanical pruning of sweet cherry and...

Documents