Prediction and evaluation of biomass obtained from citrus trees pruning

[EN] The aim of this work was to evaluate the amount of residual biomass obtained from citrus tree plantations. This amount is influenced by the variety and aim of the pruning. The trials show that the amount of pruned biomass can be considered similar in the varieties Naveline and Washington Navel, giving an average 4.73 kg per tree and 2.68 tons per hectare. The Valencia Late produced about 48% more than the other evaluated varieties. The amount of residual biomass per tree obtained in formation pruning was about 49% lower than the trees in full production, giving 4.7 tons of dry biomass per hectare. Furthermore, the amount of pruned biomass from mandarin varieties studied show that they can be classified two groups. Varieties Clemenvilla and Owall form the first homogeneous group with bigger amount of residues with average 9.6 kg per tree and 6.9 tons per hectare, while the second homogeneous group included by the rest of varieties, with 3.8 kg per tree and 2.9 tons per hectare. Factors, such as age or growing space per tree increase the wood residues production to 66% and 53.3%, respectively, in mandarin trees. Regression equations have been modeled to predict the available biomass per tree and per hectare from dendrometic characteristics of the trees. The coefficients of determination have been acceptable. The drying process of pruned materials has been depicted. The density and gross power heat have been measured. The information offered by these equations is of vital importance to estimate the amount of biomass that is generated in a given area, and for implementing GIS maps. In addition, logistic algorithms can be applied.The techniques shown in this paper were developed by the project AGL2007-62328 funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Spain, and FEDER fundsVelázquez Martí, B.; Fernández González, E.; López Cortés, I.; Callejón-Ferre, A. (2013). Prediction and evaluation of biomass obtained from citrus trees pruning. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment. 11(3&4):1485-1494. http://hdl.handle.net/10251/62958S14851494113&