Table 1.
Some study indicators in the conducted research.
Table 2.
Characteristics of the orchard sprayer used in this research.
Fig 1.
A: Ultrasonic sensor B: Variable rate valve C: Flowmeter (YF-S201C Water flow sensor) D: Installing a variable rate valve and flowmeter on the sprayer E: ON and OFF solenoid valve (electric solenoid valve 12v 24V 220V) F: Installing the electronic board on the sprayer G: Anemometer and thermometer H: Hygrometer.
Fig 2.
A: Image of the tree by a digital camera B: Determining the leaf area C: Calculating the canopy volume.
Fig 3.
A: Papers sensitive to water and tartrazine dye B: Whatman filter paper and Petri dish C: Biochrom Libra S22 UV-Vis optical spectrometer.
Table 3.
Energy equivalent of inputs and output in orange production.
Table 4.
Equations used in the estimation of input and output energy in orange production.
Table 5.
Energy indices in cropping system of orange production.
Fig 4.
Life Cycle Assessment framework.
Fig 5.
The system boundary of orange production.
Fig 6.
Distribution of 15 midpoints based on IMPACT 2002+ method.
Table 6.
The total amount of pesticides consumption per hectare, sitting on trees, ground and air release in different modes of spraying.
Table 7.
The results of the ANOVA test for the total amount of pesticides consumption in different modes of spraying.
Fig 7.
Contribution of inputs in the orange production process under two scenarios of using fixed rate and variable rate sprayer.
Fig 8.
The results of the environmental impact Assessment in 15 intermediate impacts categories for using a fixed rate sprayer.
Table 8.
Share of different inputs and output energy in fixed and VRT ratio sprayer.
Table 9.
Energy indices in orange production.
Fig 9.
The results of environmental impact assessment in 4 final impacts categories for using fixed rate sprayer in.
Fig 10.
The results of the evaluation of environmental impacts in 15 intermediate impacts categories for using a variable rate sprayer.
Fig 11.
The results of environmental impact Assessment in 4 final impacts categories for using a variable rate sprayer.
Fig 12.
Comparison results of environmental impact assessment in 15 intermediate impact categories in two scenarios of using fixed and variable rate sprayers.
Table 10.
The results of environmental impact assessment in 15 intermediate impact categories in two scenarios of using fixed rate and variable rate sprayers in the production of one ton of oranges.
Fig 13.
Comparison results of environmental impact assessment in 4 categories of final impact in two scenarios of using fixed rate and variable rate sprayers.