MECS-VINE®: A new proximal sensor for segmented mapping of vigor and yieldparameters on vineyard rows

Title MECS-VINE®: A new proximal sensor for segmented mapping of vigor and yield parameters onvineyard rows

Title (native language)

Category Recording or mapping technology

Short summary forpractitioners (Practiceabstract) in English)

Ground-based proximal sensing of vineyard features is gaining interest due to its ability to serve in evenquite small plots with the advantage of being conducted concurrently with normal vineyard practices (i.e.,spraying, pruning or soil tilling) with no dependence upon weather conditions, external services or law-imposed limitations. The purpose of the present work was to test performance of the new terrestrialmulti-sensor MECS-VINE® in terms of reliability and degree of correlation with several canopy growthand yield parameters in the grapevine. MECS-VINE®, once conveniently positioned in front of the tractor,can provide simultaneous assessment of growth features and microclimate of specific canopy sectionsof the two adjacent row sides. MECS-VINE® integrates a series of microclimate sensors (air relativehumidity, air and surface temperature) with two (left and right) matrix-based optical RGB imagingsensors and a related algorithm, termed Canoyct). MECS-VINE® was run five times along the season ina mature cv. Barbera vineyard and a Canopy Index (CI, pure number varying from 0 to 1000), calculatedthrough its built-in algorithm, validated vs. canopy structure parameters (i.e., leaf layer number, fractionsof canopy gaps and interior leaves) derived from point quadrat analysis. Results showed that CI washighly correlated vs. any canopy parameter at any date, although the closest relationships were found forCI vs. fraction of canopy gaps (R2 = 0.97) and leaf layer number (R2 = 0.97) for data pooled over 24 testvines. While correlations against canopy light interception and total lateral leaf area were stillunsatisfactory, a good correlation was found vs. cluster and berry weight (R2 = 0.76 and 0.71,respectively) suggesting a good potential also for yield estimates. Besides the quite satisfactorycalibration provided, main improvements of MECS-VINE® usage versus other current equipment are: (i)MECS-VINE® delivers a segmented evaluation of the canopy up to 15 different sectors, thereforeallowing to differentiate canopy structure and density at specific and crucial canopy segments (i.e., basalpart where clusters are located) and (ii) the sensor is optimized to work at any time of the day with anyweather condition without the need of any supplemental lighting system. © 2016 by the authors; licenseeMDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

Short summary forpractitioners

Website https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84998978786&doi=10.3390%2fs16122009&partnerID=40&md5=7bedb491393328a4b998c74a9cfcd2f6

Audiovisual materialLinks to otherwebsites

Additional commentsKeywords Farming practice | Plant production and horticulture | Water managementAdditional keywords Canopy density; Precision viticulture; Vine vigor; Vitis vinifera L; yield componentsGeographical location(NUTS) EU

Other geographicallocation Paolo Malvicini Estate (45.1° N, 9.6° E, Piacenza, Italy

Cropping systems VineyardsField operations Tillage | Crop protection | IrrigationSFT users FarmerEducation level ofusers Secondary education | Apprenticeship or technical school education

Farm size (ha) 50-100

Scientific article

Title MECS-VINE®: A new proximal sensor for segmented mapping of vigor and yield parameters onvineyard rows

Full citation Gatti, M.; Dosso, P.; Maurino, M.; Merli, M.C.; Bernizzoni, F.; Pirez, F.J.; Platè, B.; Bertuzzi, G.C.; Poni, S.(2016). Sensors (Switzerland), Volume 16, Issue 12, DOI:10.3390/s16122009

Effects of this SFTProductivity (crop yield per ha) No effectQuality of product No effectRevenue profit farm income Some increaseSoil biodiversity No effectBiodiversity (other than soil) No effectInput costs Some decreaseVariable costs No effectPost-harvest crop wastage No effectEnergy use Some decreaseCH4 (methane) emission No effectCO2 (carbon dioxide) emission No effectN2O (nitrous oxide) emission No effectNH3 (ammonia) emission No effectNO3 (nitrate) leaching No effectFertilizer use Some decreasePesticide use Some decreaseIrrigation water use Some decreaseLabor time No effectStress or fatigue for farmer No effectAmount of heavy physical labour No effectNumber and/or severity of personal injury accidents No effectNumber and/or severity of accidents resulting in spills property damage incorrectapplication of fertiliser/pesticides etc. No effect

Pesticide residue on product No effectWeed pressure No effectPest pressure (insects etc.) No effectDisease pressure (bacterial fungal viral etc.) No effect

Information related to how easy it is to start using the SFTThis SFT replaces a tool or technology that is currently used. The SFT is better than thecurrent tool no opinion

The SFT can be used without making major changes to the existing system no opinionThe SFT does not require significant learning before the farmer can use it disagreeThe SFT can be used in other useful ways than intended by the inventor no opinionThe SFT has effects that can be directly observed by the farmer disagree

Using the SFT requires a large time investment by farmer agreeThe SFT produces information that can be interpreted directly disagree

View this technology on the Smart-AKIS platform.

This factsheet was generated on 2018-Apr-03 11:57:21.