4.7 Article

Profitability of Artificial Pollination in 'Manzanillo' Olive Orchards

期刊

AGRONOMY-BASEL
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agronomy10050652

关键词

Olea europaea; monovarietal orchards; fruit set; fruit size; yield; cost-benefit ratio

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The fruit set in monovarietal 'Manzanillo' olive orchards is significantly increased under cross-pollination. This response lead to pollination designs including pollinizer selection, the number of pollinizer trees per hectare and their distribution in the orchard. However, the assignment of a substantial area to pollinizers of lesser commercial value might decrease profits. The strong influence of variable climates on the overlap of the blooming phenology of 'Manzanillo' and its pollinizer, and on pollen production and dispersal, are also notable risks. Artificial pollination is a feasible alternative to pollination designs, especially for wind-pollination crops such as olives. Here, we present the effects of treatments with different number (zero, one, two or four) of mechanical applications of 'Barouni' pollen on fruit set, size, yield, and cost-benefit ratios in heavy- and light-flowering trees of 'Manzanillo' trees situated in monovarietal orchards in Sonora, Mexico. Our results showed that, in on years (seasons where most trees display abundant flowering), a larger number of cross-pollen artificial applications increased more the final fruit set, yield and, hence, the profits. Fruit size was scarcely affected by the number of applications, although treatments with lower fruit sets had a higher proportion of large-sized fruit and less fruit of petite size. Despite its higher costs, the higher increase in yield made it more profitable to apply cross-pollination four times throughout the blooming period. On the other hand, no significant differences were observed among treatments, regardless of the number of pollinations, in the off season (the season in which most trees had a light flowering level).

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