Optimum Walnut Canopies: Spacing and

Managing Orchards for Both Early and Mature

Production
Bruce Lampinen

Q ~30% midday light interception ~45

~10% midday light interception
Potential for 3 MT/ha

~30% midday light interception ~45% midday light interception

Potential for 3 MT/ha Potential for 4.4 MT/ha

Quad County Walnut Institute

March 6, 2014

~70% midday light interception

~90% midday light interception
Potential for 7 MT/ha
Potential yield is limited by the percentage of the total incoming
light that a canopy can intercept

Low yield potential (~2 tons/acre)

High yield potential (>4 tons/acre)

What I will cover

1) How we quantify canopy light interception

2) How canopy light interception relates to yield
3) How tree spacing relates to canopy development and
yield potential
4) How pruning/non-pruning influences canopy
development and yield
 How we quantify canopy development

Tilt sensor

Adjustable from 8 to 32 feet

•Improvements with second generation Mule
– Adjustable from 10-32 feet (versus 18-26 feet for first generation)
– Soil surface temperature at much higher resolution
– High resolution GoPro camera
– New GPS that works much better in dense canopies
 How light interception relates to yield

Mid-summer, drive down rows with Mule

light bar

At harvest, pick up and weigh all nuts from

same area driven down with light bar
 4.5 tons/ac at 90% PAR int.

2.5 tons/ac at 50%

PAR int.

Best orchards can produce 0.05 tons/acre for each 1% of the PAR they intercept
(solid black line in figure)
(PAR = photosynthetically active radiation)
 The fastest growing orchards can increase in light interception by 10% per
year reaching about 90% cover by the 9th year

100
Midday PAR interception (%)

80

60

40

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Orchard age (years)

 100

80
Midday PAR interception (%)

60

40

46-65 trees/acre
66-85 trees/acre 25’ x 25’
20 86-105 trees/acre
106-125 trees/acre
126-146 trees/acre 15’ x 22’

0
0 10 20 30

Orchard age (years)

 All walnut data 2009-2012
Midday canopy light interception (%)
120
Midday canopy light interception does not necessarily
100 decrease with age

80

60

40

20

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Age (years)
 All walnut data 2009-2012
7
Yield (in-shell pounds/acre) Yield appears to peak at about 10-12 years of age
6
180 trees/acre
5 48 trees/acre

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Age (years)
 All walnut data > 8 years of age
Trees per 120
acre

Midday canopy light

100

interception (%)
80
60
40
20
0 Light interception continues to
-20 increase with increasing tree density
-40
7
Yield tends to peak at about 65-90 trees/acre
6
(pounds/acre)

5
Yield

4
3
2
1
0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Trees per acre
Tons per acre versus row spacing
Yield per unit light intercepted versus row spacing
Tons per acres versus in-tree row spacing
Optimum appears to be at about 22’-28’ traditional square
spacing and about 65-75 trees per acre. The highest yielding
orchard in trial was 24’ row spacing by 25’ tree spacing
Row spacing Tree spacing #trees/acre
20 20 109
21 21 99
22 22 90
23 23 82
24 24 76
25 25 70
26 26 64
27 27 60
28 28 56
29 29 52
30 30 48

*This is dependent on soil type, rootstock, scion, management style, etc.

How pruning/non-pruning influences
canopy development and yield
Howard pruning trial summary- results
after 7 years of treatment
• Pruned versus unpruned- no
significant differences in:
• Tree size
• Midday canopy light interception
• Cumulative yield
• Percent sunburn
• Quality- except more large nuts in
unpruned one year
 Cumulative yield (tons/acre)
16
a
Jan. 2010
a
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

2010

Unpruned Pruned
March 2007 March 2008 Feb 2009
lateral elongation
elongation
branching (neoformed
(neoformed
(preformed growth)
growth)
growth
only)

Unpruned Unpruned Unpruned

Chandler pruned versus unpruned trial

Chandler orchard planted at 15 x 22 ft.

Planted 2008
Nursery budded on Paradox rootstock
March 2009 first pruning
Treatments
– Heavily pruned
– Minimally pruned
– No heading/no pruning
Midday canopy light interception by treatment and year for Chandler
Cumulative yield by treatment and year for Chandler
Higher midday canopy light interception combined with lower
yield indicates lower water use efficiency for pruned
treatments in years 2-6.
Water needed to support canopy based on proportion
of 42 inches needed at 60% canopy cover
Age 2 3 4 5 6

3rd leaf yield

Unpruned 2.2 tons/ac
Minimal 2.0 tons/ac
Heavy 1.6 tons/ace

10 inches more water

needed in minimal
compared to unpruned
in 3rd leaf
 A tree that looks like this has
stalled out from overwatering, not
from lack of pruning

Based on canopy size,

10 inches more water
needed minimally
pruned in 3rd leaf
 Water use efficiency for pruned versus unpruned treatments
Years 2-6 summary
Water use
efficiency
expressed as
Total water pounds of
needed walnuts
based on Cumulative produced per Water use
canopy size yield inch of water efficiency
Treatment (years 2-6) (tons/acre) applied (% of unpruned)

Unpruned 134 6.51 97 100

Minimally pruned 156 5.93 76 78
Heavily pruned 142 5.20 73 75
Chandler pruning trial summary
• Heavy pruning resulted in smaller trees
and less yield in years 1-4
• After 6 years, cumulative yields are similar
for unpruned and minimally pruned but
significantly less for heavily pruned
• Water use efficiency higher in unpruned
• There were no benefits to either minimal
or heavy pruning in this trial
The Howard and Chandler pruned versus unpruned
trials do not support the common wisdom that you
need to prune walnuts to get them to grow and be
productive
Chandler pruning trial summary
• Heavy pruning resulted in smaller trees
and less yield in years 1-4
• After 6 years, cumulative yields are similar
for unpruned and minimally pruned but
significantly less for heavily pruned
• Water use efficiency higher in unpruned
• There were no benefits to either minimal
or heavy pruning in this trial
The Howard and Chandler pruned versus unpruned
trials do not support the common wisdom that you
need to prune walnuts to get them to grow and be
productive
Chandler pruning trial summary
• Heavy pruning resulted in smaller trees
and less yield in years 1-4
• After 6 years, cumulative yields are similar
for unpruned and minimally pruned but
significantly less for heavily pruned
• Water use efficiency higher in unpruned
• There were no benefits to either minimal
or heavy pruning in this trial
The Howard and Chandler pruned versus unpruned
trials do not support the common wisdom that you
need to prune walnuts to get them to grow and be
productive
Chandler pruning trial summary
• Heavy pruning resulted in smaller trees
and less yield in years 1-4
• After 6 years, cumulative yields are similar
for unpruned and minimally pruned but
significantly less for heavily pruned
• Water use efficiency higher in unpruned
• There were no benefits to either minimal
or heavy pruning in this trial
The Howard and Chandler pruned versus unpruned
trials do not support the common wisdom that you
need to prune walnuts to get them to grow and be
productive
Chandler pruning trial summary
• Heavy pruning resulted in smaller trees
and less yield in years 1-4
• After 6 years, cumulative yields are similar
for unpruned and minimally pruned but
significantly less for heavily pruned
• Water use efficiency higher in unpruned
• There were no benefits to either minimal
or heavy pruning in this trial
The Howard and Chandler pruned versus unpruned
trials do not support the common wisdom that you
need to prune walnuts to get them to grow and be
productive
Current pruned versus unpruned trials throughout California- designed to test
concept under a variety of conditions and management styles

3nd Leaf Howard in Butte County

3nd Leaf Chandler in Tulare County
3nd Leaf Forde in Yolo County

3nd Leaf Chandler in Lake County

3nd Leaf Chandler in Merced County 4nd Leaf Forde in Butte County
 Nickels Chandler pruning trial
01/15/12
Minimally pruned Unpruned
4-6 branches off of main trunk ~20 branches off of main trunk
1 broken branch = 16-25% of canopy 1 broken branch=5% of canopy
 More open structure

Shading related
dieback will occur
earlier December 2012
Heavily pruned Unheaded/unpruned
Minimally pruned Unheaded/unpruned
How hedging influences canopy
development and yield
Tulare growth and yield responses to mechanical hedging Solano County 2003

20% decrease in
PAR interception =
1 ton/acre loss
 High density

top
view

side
view

before hedging after hedging one year later 3 yr ave.

PAR int. 85% 70% 80% 83%
Yield potential 4.2 tons 3.2 tons/ac 4.0 tons/ac 3.8
3.6 tons/ac 2.4 tons/ac 2.9 tons/ac 3.0
 Moderately high density

top
view

side
view

before hedging after hedging one year later 3 yr ave.

PAR int. 80% 65% 75% 73%
Yield potential 4.0 tons/ac 2.7 tons/ac 3.7 tons/ac 3.5 tons/ac
3.4 tons/ac 2.5 tons/ac 2.8 tons/ac 2.9 tons/ac
 Lower density with no hedging

top
view

side
view

unpruned unpruned unpruned 3 yr ave.

PAR int. 75% 76% 77% 76%
Yield potential 3.75 tons/ac 3.8 tons/ac 3.85 tons/ac 3.8 tons/ac
 Lower density with
High density with
no hedging
hedging
~90% light interception (4.5 tons/acre potential)

Conventional spacing
 Summary of 3 scenarios
Scenario Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Average
70% 80% 85% 83%(int.)
High density 3.5 4.0 4.2 3.8 (potential)
2.4 2.9 3.6 3.0 (actual)
Unpruned, 75% 76% 77% 76%
slightly wider 3.75 3.80 3.85 3.8
spacing
Conventional 91% 92% 93% 91%
spacing 4.55 4.60 4.65 4.60
 4.5 tons/ac at 90% PAR int.

2.5 tons/ac at 50%

PAR int.

Best orchards can produce 0.05 tons/acre for each 1% of the PAR they intercept
(solid black line in figure)
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (22’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (24’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (24’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (24’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (24’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Conclusions
• Although you can potentially get higher yields in years 3-8
with higher density plantings, ultimately the highest yields
come from more traditional spacings (24’ to 28’ square
planting)
• Yield per unit light intercepted will likely be lower when
pruning or hedging takes place
• 7 year Howard pruning trial and 6 year Chandler pruning
trial have shown no benefits to pruning/training in early
years
• Pruning leads to decreased water use efficiency in years 2-6
• Each pruning cut tends to decrease yield and generate
more work for the following 1-4 years
• Mechanical hedging can result in decent but not high yields
and generally leads to increased quality problems
Hedgerow spacing
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
13 year old hedgerow Howard
planting (14’ x 21’)
Conventional spacing
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
12 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
13 year old Tulare
planting (25’ x 24’)
 13 year old 13 year old
14’ x 21’ Howard hedgerow 25’ x 24’ Tulare planting
PAR interception ~70% PAR interception ~90%
Yield ~ 3.0 tons/acre over last 5 Yield ~ 4.2 tons/acre over last
years 5 years
 Questions?

Thanks to the California Walnut Board and the

Federal SCRI program for funding this work