Dias António Bento, Falcão José M, Pinheiro Anacleto, Peça José O
Departmento de Engenharia Rural, Instituto de Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais Mediterrânicas (ICAAM), University of Évora, Évora, Portugal.
Torre das Figueiras Sociedade Agrícola Lda, Monforte, Portugal.
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Jan 15;10:1631. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01631. eCollection 2019.
In 2009, the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester project was set to develop such technology. The prototype comprises two symmetrical harvesters trailed by a farm tractor. Each harvester has a vibratory rotor with flexible rods, a catching platform with conveyors belts delivering fruits to a temporary storage bag. The removal efficiency of canopy shakers are influenced by factors like shaking frequency, ground speed as well as the dimension and shape of olive canopy. In 2014 authors started a trial to evaluate the influence of pruning in olive yield and in the performance of the Side-Row Continuous Canopy Shaking Harvester. The trial was established in an irrigated olive orchard of Picual cultivar planted in 1996 with the array 7 m x 3.5 m. In a randomised complete block design with three replications, four treatments are being compared leading to 12 plots with 30 trees/plot. The treatments under study are: T1-manual pruning using chain saws, in 2014 and 2017; T2-mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy, followed by manual pruning complement to remove wood suckers inside the canopy, in 2014 and 2017; T3-mechanical pruning: topping the canopy parallel to the ground and hedging southeast side of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning); hedging northwest side in winter 2016; T4-mechanical pruning: topping and hedging the two sides of the canopy in 2014 and 2017; topping the canopy in July 2015 (summer pruning). Regarding to olive yield per tree, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. However, no significant differences were found regarding the average olive yield per tree, over the period of 2014-2017. Regarding to the olive removal efficiency, only in 2016, significant differences were found among treatments on different years. No significant differences were found regarding the average of the olive removal efficiency, over the period of 2014-2017.
2009年，侧排连续树冠振动式采摘机项目着手研发此类技术。该原型机由两台对称的采摘机组成，由一台农用拖拉机牵引。每台采摘机都有一个带柔性杆的振动转子、一个带有输送带的承接平台，可将果实输送至临时储存袋。树冠振动采摘机的采收效率受振动频率、地面速度以及橄榄树冠的尺寸和形状等因素影响。2014年，研究人员开始进行一项试验，以评估修剪对橄榄产量及侧排连续树冠振动式采摘机性能的影响。该试验在一个1996年种植的皮夸尔品种的灌溉橄榄园中进行，种植间距为7米×3.5米。试验采用随机完全区组设计，重复三次，比较四种处理方式，共得到12个小区，每个小区有30棵树。所研究的处理方式包括：T1——2014年和2017年使用链锯进行人工修剪；T2——机械修剪：2014年和2017年对树冠两侧进行打顶和绿篱修剪，随后进行人工修剪以去除树冠内的萌蘖；T3——机械修剪：2014年和2017年平行于地面对树冠进行打顶，并对树冠东南侧进行绿篱修剪；2015年7月进行树冠打顶（夏季修剪）；2016年冬季对西北侧进行绿篱修剪；T4——机械修剪：2014年和2017年对树冠两侧进行打顶和绿篱修剪；2015年7月进行树冠打顶（夏季修剪）。关于单株橄榄产量，不同年份的处理方式之间存在显著差异。然而，在2014 - 2017年期间，单株橄榄平均产量方面未发现显著差异。关于橄榄采收效率，仅在2016年不同年份的处理方式之间发现了显著差异。在2014 - 2017年期间，橄榄采收效率的平均值方面未发现显著差异。
