Abstract
Traditional pollination of date palms is a time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Hence, the objectives of this study were 1) to develop a rapid, efficient, and low-cost pollination method that results in an acceptable level of fruit set (FS) with smaller amount of pollen grains, and labor costs using a platform-mounted robotic (drone) supplemented with water-suspended pollen grains, and 2) to investigate the effect of this method on date palm FS percentage, pollination efficiency (PE), fruit retention, total yield, and fruit quality. Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS) with water-suspended pollen grains (3 g/L). The results revealed that DS had a significantly lower FS percentage than the HP and HS methods in the Lulu and Khesab cultivars, but the difference was not statistically significant in Barhi cultivar. Fruit PE was unaffected by any of the pollination methods in Barhi and Lulu cultivars, but in the Khesab cultivar, DS pollination had lower PE (0.81) than HS (0.94) and HP (0.99) methods. DS had significantly lower levels of fruit retention and bunch weight than other methods. DS significantly improved fruit physical quality at harvest in all cultivars compared with HP and HS methods. Nevertheless, fruit color, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS) %, acidity, pH, and vitamin C level were unaffected by any of the pollination methods. Although the DS method produced lower FS percentage and bunch weight, the obtained FS percentages were within the commercially acceptable range for all cultivars. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first field study to indicate the possibility of pollinating date palm using drones with water-suspended pollen grain. To validate the commercial application, more research is needed to justify the optimum time and duration of application, which may vary according to cultivar and region.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drone pollination gave a significantly lower fruit set percentage than hand and spray pollination in Lulu and Khesab.
- Taxon
- Date palm
Phoenix dactyliferae0 - Material
- Lulu and Khesab cultivarse1
- Treatment
- DSe1
- Outcome
- FS percentagee1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- HP and HS methodse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e1“The results revealed that DS had a significantly lower FS percentage than the HP and HS methods in the Lulu and Khesab cultivars, but the difference was not statistically significant in Barhi cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Drone pollination did not significantly change fruit set percentage in Barhi.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Material
- Barhi cultivare1
- Treatment
- DSe1
- Outcome
- FS percentagee1
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede1
- Comparator
- HP and HS methodse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e1“The results revealed that DS had a significantly lower FS percentage than the HP and HS methods in the Lulu and Khesab cultivars, but the difference was not statistically significant in Barhi cultivar”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit pollination efficiency was unaffected by pollination method in Barhi and Lulu.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Material
- Barhi and Lulu cultivarse2
- Treatment
- pollination methodse2
- Outcome
- Fruit PEe2
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e2“Fruit PE was unaffected by any of the pollination methods in Barhi and Lulu cultivars, but in the Khesab cultivar, DS pollination had lower PE (0.81) than HS (0.94) and HP (0.99) methods”
Claim · model-written summary
In Khesab, drone pollination had lower pollination efficiency (0.81) than spray pollination (0.94) and hand pollination (0.99).
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Material
- Khesab cultivare2
- Treatment
- DS pollinatione2
- Outcome
- PEe2
- Direction
- lowere2
- Value
- 0.81e2
- Qualifier
- HS (0.94) and HP (0.99)e2
- Comparator
- HSe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e2“Fruit PE was unaffected by any of the pollination methods in Barhi and Lulu cultivars, but in the Khesab cultivar, DS pollination had lower PE (0.81) than HS (0.94) and HP (0.99) methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Drone pollination significantly lowered fruit retention and bunch weight compared with other methods.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Treatment
- DSe3
- Outcome
- fruit retention and bunch weighte3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Comparator
- other methodse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e3“DS had significantly lower levels of fruit retention and bunch weight than other methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Drone pollination significantly improved fruit physical quality at harvest in all cultivars.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Material
- all cultivarse4
- Treatment
- DSe4
- Outcome
- fruit physical quality at harveste4
- Direction
- improvede4
- Comparator
- HP and HS methodse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e4“DS significantly improved fruit physical quality at harvest in all cultivars compared with HP and HS methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination methods did not change fruit color, firmness or total soluble solids.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Treatment
- pollination methodse5
- Outcome
- fruit color, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS) %e5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e5“fruit color, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS) %, acidity, pH, and vitamin C level were unaffected by any of the pollination methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Pollination methods did not change acidity, pH or vitamin C level of date palm fruit.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Treatment
- pollination methodse5
- Outcome
- acidity, pH, and vitamin C levele5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e5“fruit color, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS) %, acidity, pH, and vitamin C level were unaffected by any of the pollination methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Drone-pollinated date palm fruit set stayed within the commercially acceptable range for all cultivars.
- Taxon
- Date palmPhoenix dactyliferae0
- Outcome
- FS percentagese6
- Qualifier
- within the commercially acceptable range for all cultivarse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Date palm cultivars Barhi, Lulu, and Khesab were pollinated using traditional hand pollination (HP), spray pollination (HS), and drone pollination (DS)”
e6“Although the DS method produced lower FS percentage and bunch weight, the obtained FS percentages were within the commercially acceptable range for all cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
pollination · quality: sugar starch · Phoenix dactylifera (date palm)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.