does an economist consider an Orange Grove "land"?

Question

why or why not?

Answer 1

Yes, land includes whatever is on it, below it or even above it (sky).

Answer 2

To a land economist it is land with improved value.

If you are thinking about hte 4 factors of production, it is clearly land rather than labour or entrepreneurial skill. But I would and I think reasonably argue that the growing trees and the fences and the drainage system are all "capital" rather than "land" and that "land" is really only the land in its unimporved natural state.

Land normally matters for values and as a cost in cities, where the location is marketable even if nothing is on it but brambles and broken sewers.