This study evaluated the efficacy of two heat stress mitigation techniques, i.e., modified evaporative cooling (EC), and drape/shade net (SN) against untreated control (UC) in terms of fruit surface temperature (FST) suppression and internal fruit quality for cv. WA 38. The EC treatment used foggers (flow rate: 4.1 L s−1 ha−1) spaced at 3.3 m along the row to create mist within the canopy. The experiment was conducted in a 0.2 acre block planted on two randomly distributed rootstocks [Geneva 41 (G41) and Malling 9-Nic 29 (M9)], trained in a bi-axis vertical wall architecture. Treatments were divided into three sub-blocks. Alternate wet and dry zones were observed in the sub-block treated with fogger-based EC and was therefore subdivided into EC-Wet and EC-Dry treatments. The proximal thermal-RGB imaging and in-field weather sensing integrated crop physiology sensing system (CPS2.0) was upgraded with edge computing capability to monitor real-time apple FST, an indicator of heat stress. Deployed nodes monitored imagery and weather data based FST in each treatment at an interval of 5-min throughout the growing season (i.e., during fruit maturation). Aerial imagery-based canopy temperature mapping with ground sampling distance of 4 cm/pixel was also utilized to monitor the canopy heat stress at key growth stages. CPS2.0 imagery derived apple FST was effectively reduced by EC-Wet (G41: 27.1 ± 0.4 and M9: 28.8 ± 0.4 °C) (mean ± std. error) and SN (G41: 29.8 ± 0.2 and M9: 30.5 ± 0.1 °C) treatments compared to the UC (G41: 33.1 ± 0.2 and M9: 31.4 ± 0.4 °C) throughout the production season. However, convective cooling from EC-Dry (G41: 33.1 ± 0.2 and M9: 32.5 ± 0.2 °C) treatment failed to mitigate heat stress. Results suggest that fogger spacing, and orientation need adjustments along tree-rows for effective sunburn management. Overall, canopy temperature quantified by aerial imagery was significantly lower under modified EC (30.3 ± 1.3 °C) than UC (34.2 ± 1.3 °C) treatment. Compared to UC, EC-Wet and SN protection enhanced fruit quality with higher or similar crop load, fruit firmness, and quality.
Read full abstract