Recent Reserch: Vine Blnce nd Fruit Thinning Sustinble Ag Expo Monterey County Jim Wolpert Extension Viticulturist Deprtment of Viticulture nd Enology UC Dvis Acknowledgements Funding Americn Vineyrd Foundtion Viticulturl Consortium (USDA) Cliforni Competitive Grnt Progrm RVE Tem Members Mike Anderson, Json Benz, Jnet Myers Brief Outline Vine Blnce Principles (from literture) Fctors ffecting blnce Shoot number t pruning (dt) Rootstock contribution (dt) Conclusions Fruit thinning ( little more dt) Conclusions Question nd Answer Tke Awys PowerPoint slides (complete) Written hndout http://wineserver.ucdvis.edu/fculty Vine Blnce Working Definition: When grpevine growth is pproprite for the trellis nd spcing Andthe lef re nd mount of fruit re in proper proportion How mny of you hve red? Plnting density nd physiologicl blnce: Compring pproches to Europen viticulture in the 21st century. Intrieri, C. nd I. Fillipetti. 2. In: Proceedings of the ASEV 5th Anniversry Annul Meeting, pp 296-38, Americn Society for Enology nd Viticulture, Dvis, CA. Lef re/crop weight rtios of grpevines: Influence of fruit composition nd wine qulity. Kliewer, W. M. nd N. K. Dokoozlin. 2. In: Proceedings of the ASEV 5th Anniversry Annul Meeting, Americn Society for Enology nd Viticulture, Dvis, CA. Americn Journl for Enology nd Viticulture 56:17-181. 25 1
Vine Blnce Two mjor contributors Conditions of blnce re set t plnting in the vineyrd design (permnent) Soil Rootstock/scion Spcing row x vine Trellis Conditions of blnce re cted on by nnul prctices Pruning (shoot number) Nitrogen ppliction Irrigtion Cover crops Vine Blnce Contributions to vine vigor Given Soil (fertile vs less) Scion (high vigor vs low) Decisions Rootstock (high vigor vs low) Spcing (wide vs nrrow) In-row (more thn between-row) Trellis (divided vs undivided) Scenrio 1 Given Soil: Deep, fertile Scion: Syrh Decision Rootstock:? Vine spcing:? Trellis:? Two Scenrios Scenrio 2 Given Soil: Shllow, Infertile Scion: Pinot noir Decision Rootstock:? Vine spcing:? Trellis:? Spcing defined solely by R x V spcing is only beginning in the definition of cnopies nd within-cnopy spcing of leves. Nelson Shulis 198. Responses of grpevines nd grpes to spcing of nd within cnopies. Proceedings of the Centennil Symposium, 188-198, UC Dvis (emphsis dded) Decisions ffect vine blnce within given scenrios Dokoozlin nd Kliewer Amer J. Enol. Vitic. 1995 In too dense vine cnopies: High lef lyer number (by point qudrt) High LA (>1.5 m 2 /m row) Low PPFD (light) <2% of mbient (by light br) Low Red:Fr-red light rtio Low sunflecks in fruit zone Low evportive potentil How mny of these cn you mesure? Dokoozlin nd Kliewer Amer J. Enol. Vitic. 1995 In too dense vine cnopies: High lef lyer number (by point qudrt) High LA (>1.5 m 2 /m) Low PPFD (light) <2% of mbient (by light br) Low Red:Fr-red light rtio Low sunflecks in fruit zone Low evportive potentil Fortuntely: All re correlted with pruning wt! 2
Growth mesurement Pruning wt Expressed per vine is not helpful Expressed per meter (ft) is helpful Pruning wt metrics Smrt nd Robinson:.3.6 kg/m Dokoozlin & Kliewer: 1. kg/m for Cb Suv. Even more informtive thn pruning wt lone Shoot number Shoot wt Shoot number Recommended shoot density For cordon-trining, undivided 12-15 shoots/meter Cnnot chieve vine blnce by djusting shoot number out side this rnge. Sngiovese Study Shoot number ffects shoot length Sngiovese/339C (5 th lef) Atls Pek Vineyrds, Np Three tretments 12, 2 nd 28 shoots per vine Adjusted in spring Shoot length (m) 1.6 1. 1.2 1..8.6 b c..2. 12 SHOOT 2 SHOOT 28 SHOOT Longer shoots hve more lef re nd hve greter % of lef re s lterls Mnipulting shoot number per vine does not chnge lef re per vine, but chnges % primry vs lterl (J.K. Myers nd J.A. Wolpert, unpublished dt).35 5. Lef re (m 2 /shoot).3.25.2.15.1 1% 3% 23% Lef re (m 2 /vine).5. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1. 1% 3% 23%.5..5. 12 SHOOT 2 SHOOT 28 SHOOT Primry lef re Lterl lef re Primry lef re Lterl lef re 3
Pruning wt unffected by shoot number (J.K. Myers nd J.A. Wolpert, unpublished dt) Shoot number vs primry nd lterl lef re Pruning weight / vine (Kg) 1..9.8.7.6.5..3.2 Primry shoots/m Cnopy 6 12 Primry lef re/ shoot (m 2 ).57.38 Lterl lef re/ shoot (m 2 ).6.23 Cnopy lef re (m 2 /m) 7.2 7. Primry LA (m 2 /m) 3..6 Lterl LA (m 2 /m) 3.8 2.8.1. 12 SHOOT 2 SHOOT 28 SHOOT 2.28.1 9.2 6.7 2.5 Dokoozlin Thesis, 199 (Unpublished dt) Conclusions from Shoot Number work For vines of given vigor: Decresing shoot number redistributes LA from shorter shoots to longer shoots nd Increses % lterl LA (in the fruiting zone?) Decreses the LA to fruit wt rtio (m 2 /kg) Decreses the fruit yield/cne prunings rtio (kg fruit/kg prunings) Rootstocks: Effect of shoot length on primry nd totl lef re. Lef Are / Shoot (cm 2 ) 1993-199 Beringer Rootstock Tril Chrdonny Lef Are per Shoot 12 1 199 1995 8 1996 Primry Lef Are Totl Lef Are 6 2 5 1 15 2 25 3 35 Shoot Length (cm) 199 Primry Lef Are=27 + 18.1*Length R 2 =.96 Totl Lef Are=-39 + 28.1*Length +.2*Length 2 R 2 =.98 Note: % lterl lef re Totl Lef Are=-26 + 2.6*Length +.3*Length 2 R 2 =.97 increses s shoot length increses. 1995 Primry Lef Are=185 + 19.8*Length R 2 =.97 1996 Primry Lef Are=335 + 16.*Length R 2 =.9 Totl Lef Are=-571 + 33.8*Length -.1*Length 2 R 2 =.9 Okville Cbernet Suvignon Tretments Rootstocks: 339C, 5C, 11R nd O39-16 Pruning levels: 5, 7, 1 nd 12 buds per lb of growth Conditions Rnge of vine size from 1 to kg/vine (.5 kg/m to 2. kg/m) Shoot length (cm) 2 2 16 12 8 1 2 3 5 Initil Pruning Weight (kg / vine) Residul length (cm) 75 5 25-25 -5-75 6 8 1 12 1 Pruning Formul (buds / lb) Q: Is shoot length relted to vine size (wt of prunings)? A: No, it is relted to the number of growing points. Residul length (cm) 8 - -8 39-16 11R 5-C 339c Q: Are the rootstocks the sme in this response? A: No, with the sme number of growing points on vines of the sme size, 11R nd 339C will grow more, while 5C nd O39-16 will grow less
Lef Are per Vine (M 2 ) 16 12 8 1 2 3 Initil Pruning Weight (kg / vine) Residul re (M 2 ) 8 - -8 6 8 1 12 1 Pruning Formul (buds / lb) Residul re (M 2 ) 2 1-1 -2 39-16 11R 5-C 339c Q: Do lrge vines hve more lef re? A: Yes, but it more complicted thn tht (note the sctter round the line) Conclusions For Sustinbility Blnce is best chieved t vineyrd design We don t know s much bout this s we should Annul prctices cn be used to chieve blnce Requires inputs tht re costly Pruning is not one of the prctices to chieve blnce When growth is too gret shding will result When growth is too little shoot number (=clusters) will be reduced, ffecting yield per cre. Q: Is lef re ffected by pruning formul (buds/wt of prunings). A: No, it just shifts it from fewer longer shoots to more shorter shoots Fruit Thinning Experiment Common prctice: At 8% Verison, remove the finl 2% green clusters Presumption: Clusters behind in ripening, remin behind throughout ripening Tretment UT-8R UT-2G Timing 8% Verison 8% Verison Cluster Thinning tretment retined retined nd tgged Clusters reddest 8% greenest 2% 3 V- Fruit Thinning VG-2 C Conclusion: Clusters tht re the lst to undergo color chnge t verison do not remin less ripe t high mturity hrvest Popultion Frequency (%) 2 1 3 2 1 UT-8R UT-2G UT-GG Conclusions Lte mturity my chnge our thinning prctice Need confirmtion of the effect Fruit ripening vribility needs to be better understood 2 22 2 26 28 3 Brix 5
Questions? Thnks for your ttention. 6