Abstract
Observing plant damage following a frost or freeze is perhaps the oldest and likely one of the most frequently used methods by horticulturists to assess relative merits of protection methods. To facilitate that method, a citrus orchard of 66 Ambersweet on Sour Orange, 198 Orlando Tangelo and 197 Robinson tangerine, the latter two varieties on Carrizo Citrange, was planted in early April of 1990, on the main campus of UF. The variety rows run the N-S with trees separated by 4.6m. The 11 different sprinkling treatments run E-W with separations of 6.1m. When 461 sprinklers are utilized the well delivers rates up to 60 l/hr/nozzle. A visitor can walk a N_S middle and view each treatment on a particular variety in series. During the winter of 90-91, half the trees had conventional under-tree sprinklers while the other half had various types of in-tree sprinklers. Following an advective freeze, Feb. 15-17, 32% of the trees with in-tree sprinklers had broken limbs compared with 4% of those with under-tree sprinklers. But estimates of canopy damage indicated less difference between the treatments, and measurements of tree height before and after freezes were so variable that significant differences were not apparent. Observations following mild freezes in 91-92 indicated high variability in the effects of a particular method on individual trees. Problems in the development of a tree imaging technique using a still image video camera [Cannon RC-250] and the use of such observations in refining mechanismal models are highlighted.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
In tree sprinklers had 32% broken limbs after an advective freeze.
CitrusOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“32% of the trees with in-tree sprinklers had broken limbs compared with 4% of those with under-tree sprinklers.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Under tree sprinklers had 4% broken limbs after the freeze.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“32% of the trees with in-tree sprinklers had broken limbs compared with 4% of those with under-tree sprinklers.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Estimated canopy damage differed less between sprinkler types.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“estimates of canopy damage indicated less difference between the treatments”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Tree height changes showed no significant sprinkler difference.
- Treatment
- freezese0
- Outcome
- tree heighte0
- Direction
- differences were not apparente0
- Comparator
- before and after freezese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“measurements of tree height before and after freezes were so variable that significant differences were not apparent.”
t0“CITRUS”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of a sprinkler method varied highly among individual trees.
- Outcome
- high variability in the effects of a particular method on individual treese0
- Qualifier
- following mild freezes in 91-92e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Observations following mild freezes in 91-92 indicated high variability in the effects of a particular method on individual trees.”
t0“CITRUS”
The same questions in other papers
cold · growth · CitrusPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.