Field Performance of a Solid Set Canopy Delivery System Configured for High-Density Tall Spindle Architecture Trained Apple Canopies

Abstract

HighlightsVariants of a solid set canopy delivery system were evaluated in a high-density apple orchard.A pair of hollow-cone nozzles installed in three tiers had optimum spray performance for studied crop growth stages.A shower-down arrangement of emitters was the simplest design but had lesser deposition on abaxial leaf surfaces.Abstract. Optimally configured solid set canopy delivery system (SSCDS) based spraying has potential to improve tree-fruit crop pest and disease management by reducing application time and eliminating dependence on ground conditions. In such an effort, this study attempted to optimize SSCDS variants. Four different emitter types (E1 to E4) installed in different mounting configurations (C1 to C4) were evaluated for spray deposition and coverage in a high-density apple orchard trained in tall spindle architecture. Emitters E1, E2, and E4 had full circle spray patterns, and E3 had a hollow-cone pattern. Configuration C1 had a pair of E1 emitters spraying in a vertical plane and installed between two trees at 1.5 m above ground level (AGL). Another E1 emitter spraying in a horizontal plane was mounted atop each tree at 3.3 m AGL. Configurations C2 and C4 had emitters (E2 and E4, respectively) mounted atop each tree at 3.3 m AGL, and C3 had a pair of E3 emitters installed in a three-tier arrangement between two trees in the crop row. During field trials, a tree canopy about 3.0 m tall was divided into three zones (0 to 1.4 m, >1.4 to 2.2 m, and >2.2 to 3.0 m AGL) as bottom, middle, and top canopy zones, respectively. Mylar cards were used to quantify spray deposition using fluorometry, and water-sensitive papers (WSPs) were used to quantify coverage using image processing. Configuration C3 with 80° hollow-cone nozzles in a twin-emitter, three-tier arrangement had the highest overall spray deposition (581.1 ±77.8 ng cm-2, mean ± standard error) and coverage (18.4% ±4.1%). Moreover, C3 also had a significantly higher coverage on the abaxial surfaces of leaves compared to the other configurations. Configurations C1 was non-optimal because it lacked abaxial surface coverage as the canopy grew in the middle and late growth stages. Moreover, significant spray runoff from leaf surfaces was observed visually in the middle zone for C1 during the middle and late stages. This may be attributed to canopy growth around the emitters. Configurations C2 and C4, with emitters in a shower-down arrangement, had the highest deposition and coverage in the top canopy zone compared to the middle and bottom zones. Configurations C2 and C4 also had significantly higher spray coverage on the adaxial surfaces of leaves compared to the abaxial surfaces. Overall, despite the complex design of configuration C3 with six emitters per tree, it may be the most ideal arrangement for agrochemical application in an apple orchard trained in tall spindle architecture. For commercial feasibility, we recommend exploring this three-tier SSCDS configuration with low-cost emitter alternatives. Pertinent continuing efforts have been published by our group in which we successfully modified low-cost irrigation emitters, and the resulting three-tier SSCDS configurations had improved spray performance over expensive hollow-cone nozzles. Keywords: Fixed spray system, High-density apple orchard, Solid set canopy delivery system, Spray coverage, Spray deposition, SSCDS.