IMPACT OF PRUNING STRATEGY, CLUSTER THINNING, AND SHOOT REMOVAL ON GROWTH, YIELD, AND FRUIT COMPOSITION OF LOW-VIGOR DE CHAUNAC VINES

1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREW G. REYNOLDS

To explore alternative means of crop control on vineyard attributes, 10-yr-old, low-vigor De Chaunac vines were subjected over a 3-yr period to eight crop regulation treatments, which involved combinations of pruning strategy (15 + 10 balanced pruning; 40 nodes per vine), cluster thinning, shoot thinning to one shoot per node, and removal of base shoots. Treatments involving cluster thinning maximized vine size, periderm development, yield components, °Brix, and anthocyanins. Yield per vine was not affected by any treatment. Cane periderm, yield components, and °Brix of cluster thinned, balance pruned vines exceeded those in cluster thinned vines pruned to 40 nodes. Shoot thinning of balance pruned vines did not improve cane periderm formation or yield components over un-thinned vines, but reduced °Brix. Combining cluster and shoot thinning with balanced pruning and base shoot removal proved to be superior to all treatments in every aspect of growth, yield, and fruit composition. Vines pruned to 40 nodes and subjected to base shoot removal and shoot thinning had improved yield components and °Brix over vines shoot thinned only, but were inferior to cluster thinned vines in terms of all vineyard parameters. Crop loads below 7 kg kg−1 cane prunings appear necessary to maintain vine size, yield, and acceptable fruit composition of low-vigor De Chaunac vines.Key words: Vitis, De Chaunac, pruning, cluster thinning, vine

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 593-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler G. Berkey ◽  
Anna Katharine Mansfield ◽  
Steven D. Lerch ◽  
James M. Meyers ◽  
Justine E. Vanden Heuvel

Crop load management treatments were applied to ‘Seyval Blanc’ grapevines (Vitis hybrid) as a 2 × 2 factorial design: no shoot thinning (ST)/no cluster thinning (CL) (i.e., control), ST combined with CL (ST + CL), ST only, and CL only. All treatments reduced yield and crop load (yield/pruning weight) in 2009 and had a smaller impact in 2010 due to the carryover effect of previous year treatments on crop potential. Soluble solids were improved by up to 3.2% by the ST + CL treatment in 2009, but were not impacted by treatments in the second year when the range of yield was smaller and the ripening conditions more favorable. Rank sum analysis for the 2009 vintage indicated that wines produced from the CL treatment were preferred by the sensory panel compared with the control wine, but there were no differences in consumer preference for wines produced in the 2010 season. Grower preferred price in 2009 (required to compensate the grower for labor costs and lost yield) increased from $556/t in the control to $824/t in the CL treatment, an increase which could be justified by the demonstrated consumer preference for the CL wine. Grower preferred price was $1022/t in the ST + CL treatment in 2009, a price increase that was not justified by a demonstrated consumer preference for the wine. In 2010, grower preferred price ranged from $541/t for the control to $610/t for the ST + CL treatment, an unjustified increase based on the lack of demonstrated consumer preference for the wines.


HortScience ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 600b-600
Author(s):  
R. Keith Striegler ◽  
Vidal Perez-Munoz

Crop control methods were evaluated for two seasons in a commercial Zinfandel vineyard. The vineyard was trellised using a vertical two wire system and cane pruned. Vines were third-leaf when the experiment began. Treatments included control, cluster thinning, and shoot thinning. Cluster thinning consisted of removal of all clusters except the oasal cluster, while shoot thinning consisted of removal of 50% of shoots on canes. Treatments were imposed two weeks postbloom. Yield was not significantly affected by crop control method. Cluster thinning tended to increase berry weight and cluster weight. Crop control method had little effect on fruit composition. Vine growth, as indicated by dormant pruning weight, was not influenced by treatment in 1990 but showed a significant increase during 1991 for cluster-thinned vines. These results indicate little negative effect of high crop level on young Zinfandel vines when intensive management is practiced. Treatments will be monitored until equalibrium treatment effects are observed.


2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kaan Kurtural ◽  
Imed E. Dami ◽  
Bradley H. Taylor

Response of yield components and fruit composition of `Chambourcin' (Vitis vinifera × V. rupestris) grapevines to three pruning levels of 15, 20, and 25 nodes retained for each pound of dormant prunings; and three cluster thinning levels of 1, 2, and 2+ clusters per shoot in 2002 and 1, 1.2, and 1.5 clusters per shoot in 2003 were measured at two vineyards in the lower midwestern United States. In both years of the study, there was very little interaction of pruning and cluster thinning. The proportion of non-count shoots increased within the canopy in response to increased pruning severity. Pruning weight means were lower in 2002 across all treatments compared to 2003. Pruning weights decreased with the increase in the number of clusters retained per vine. Pruning influenced yield only in 2003 when the proportion of count shoots decreased below 62% of the total, hence the relationship between number of shoots per vine and yield (R2 = 0.3452; P < 0.0003). In both years of the study, the increase in severity of cluster thinning resulted in yield reduction but an increase in the total soluble solids in juice. Yield compensation was achieved by an increase in cluster weight of 38%, and 25% in response to a reduction of 37%, and 23% in cluster numbers; which translated into a yield reduction of only 10% and 3%, at Vineyards 1 and 2, respectively. Balanced pruning to 15 to 20 nodes per 1 lb of prunings and cluster thinning to 1 to 1.2 clusters/shoot optimized yield (9.7 kg/vine, 13.4 t·ha-1) and fruit composition, and maintained vine size (≥0.3 kg·m-1 of row). These results provide valuable information for growers of `Chambourcin' grapevines in the lower midwestern U.S., as well as in other climates with long growing seasons.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin Scheiner ◽  
Juan Anciso ◽  
Fritz Westover

‘Blanc Du Bois’ (Vitis spp.) is the most widely grown Pierce’s disease tolerant white grapevine cultivar in Texas. As an interspecific hybrid, its growth habit is seimi-drooping, and 'Blanc Du Bois' is characterized as vigorous. This study evaluated the impact of training system (Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, Mid-Wire Cane with VSP and Smart-Dyson, High-Wire Quadralateral, and Watson) on 'Blanc Du Bois' growth, yield components, and fruit composition at two locations in Texas. The first site was located in the Rio Grande Valley where the mean extreme minimum winter temperature is -1.1 to 1.7° C (USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 10a). As a result of climate and site conditions, vine size, determined by dormant pruning weight, was very large averaging from 3.71 to 5.56 kg per vine across training systems over a three-year period. At this site, the horizontally divided systems, High-Wire Quadrilateral and Watson were the highest yielding averaging 10.66 and 7.49 kg per vine, respectively, as a result of more shoots per vine, and higher fruitfulness. The Mid-Wire Cordon and Mid-Wire Cane Pruned Training Systems had lower yields in two out of three years, but fruit maturity indices soluble solids and pH reflected more advanced maturity at harvest. At the second site, located in the Central Gulf Coast of Texas (USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 8b), vines were less vigorous with pruning weights averaging 1.66 to 1.83 kg per vine across training systems over three years. Consistent differences in yield components, vine size, and fruit composition were not observed, and all the three training systems under study had acceptable growth and fruiting characteristics. The results of this research suggest that 'Blanc Du Bois’ vigor potential and growth habit makes it well-suited for horizontally divided canopy training systems, particularly on vigorous sites.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document