The grape is one of the ancient fruit crop of India, which

THE ASIAN JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE Volume 7 Issue 2 December, 2012 468-472 Research Paper Article history : Received : 10.07.2012 Revised : 17.10.2012 Accepted : 17.11.2012 Pruning studies in some white wine grape varieties for yield and yield contributing parameters under Western Maharashtra conditions S.U. CHALAK, S.S. KULKARNI 1, A.V. KISHRSAGAR 1 AND C.A. NIMBALKAR 2 Members of the Research Forum Associated Authors: 1 Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, AHMEDNAGAR (M.S.) INDIA 2 Department of Statistics, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, AHMEDNAGAR (M.S.) INDIA Author for correspondence : S.U. CHALAK Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, AHMEDNAGAR (M.S.) INDIA Email : sunilchalak@ gmail.com ABSTRACT : In present investigation, effect of five different pruning treatments (4,6,8,10 and 12 buds/cane) was studied on four white wine grape cultivars (Viognier, Ugni Blanc, Sauvignon Blanc and Chenin Blanc). The growth and yield contributing parameters viz., bud sprouting percentage, cane fruitfulness and bunch weight were found maximum in severely pruned treatments i.e. 4-6 buds/cane. Veraison and maturity was found early in the same treatment. However, for higher number of bunches and yield, each variety responded differently in different pruning treatments. The variety Viognier recorded highest yield (6.87 kg/ vine; 15.26 MT/ha) in 8 buds/cane pruning treatment, Ugni Blanc in 4 buds/cane (5.05 kg/vine; 11.23 MT/ha), Sauvignon Blanc in 4 buds/cane (5.16 kg/vine) and Chenin Blanc in 12 buds/cane pruning treatment (16.90 kg/ vine; 37.54 MT/ha). KEY WORDS : Pruning, Wine grape, Yield HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE : Chalak, S.U., Kulkarni, S.S., Kishrsagar, A.V. and Nimbalkar, C.A. (2012). Pruning studies in some white wine grape varieties for yield and yield contributing parameters under Western Maharashtra conditions, Asian J. Hort., 7(2) : 468-472. The grape is one of the ancient fruit crop of India, which is cultivated on an area of 1,11,000 ha. with production of 12.35 lakh MT and productivity of 11.10 MT/ha. (NHB, 2011). Approximately, 78 per cent of the total production, irrespective of the variety, is consumed as fresh in India (Chadda 2008). Arrival of more than 70 per cent of the total production in short span of time, i.e. March April, lack of cold storage facilities and single type of market i.e. fresh fruit trade, creates gult in market, this leads to fall in prices. Hence, there is an urgent need to diversify grape uses, such as wine and juice which can solve the market problems. Thus the development of suitable wine technology is a potential area for future research. RESEARCH METHODS The research work was conducted during year 2007-08 at All India Co-ordinated research Project on Grapes, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri on five year old, own rooted wine grape varieties planted with 3.0 x 1.5M spacing. The experiment was laid out in split plot design with four main plot treatments i.e. varieties {Viognier ( ), Ugni Blanc ( ), Sauvignon Blanc ( ), Chenin Blanc ( )} and five subplot treatments i.e. pruning levels {(4 (S 1 ), 6(S 2 ), 8(S 3 ), 10(S 4 ) and 12 (S 5 ) buds/cane)} with three replications. Pruning was done in October 2007. Twenty five canes were maintained on each vine and observations were recorded on two vines of each replication. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION The data for main and subplots are presented Table 1 and subsequently for interactions. The results are presented below under suitable headings. Bud sprouting (%): significant differences in main plots, sub plots and on HIND AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING INSTITUTE

S.U. CHALAK, S.S. KULKARNI, A.V. KISHRSAGAR AND C.A. NIMBALKAR interaction effect. Among main plot treatments bud sprouting was observed to be maximum in the variety Chenin Blanc (46.70%) which was significantly superior over the rest of varieties. Within sub plot treatments it as maximum (45.96%) in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment which was significantly superior over rest of the pruning treatments (Table 1). The total bud load/ vine was more in lower intensity pruning treatments. The competition for the food being supplied through roots would have been more in treatment, comprising more number of buds on the cane. This might have lead to less sprouting in these treatments (10 and 12 buds/cane). Lower sprouting with higher bud load was also observed by Bautista (1987) and Schalkwyk and Archer (2008) in wine grapes and Singhrot et al. (1977) in Thompson seedless (Table 2). Cane fruitfulness: treatments were recorded on main plots, sub plots and on interaction. Within main plot treatments maximum cane fruitfulness (94.15%) was recorded in the variety Chenin Blanc which was significantly superior over the rest of the varieties. In respect of sub plot treatments, it was maximum (88.10 %) in 4 buds/cane pruning treatments (Table 1). In respect of interaction effect, it was observed that, cane fruitfulness was maximum (96.33 %) in the variety Chenin Blanc in 12 buds/ cane treatment. However, it was minimum (68.00 %) in variety Sauvignon Blanc in 12 buds/ cane treatment (Table 3). Effect of pruning treatments on bud fruitfulness varied with variety. It was might be due to response of particular variety to particular pruning treatment. These results are in accordance with Morris et al. (1985), Bauitsta (1987), Clingeleffer (1989) with respect to wine grapes and Bhonsale (1972), Sanehez and Dokkozlin (2005) in table grapes. Average number of bunches/ vine: The data presented in Table 1 revealed that, there were significant differences with respect to main plots and interaction. However, effect on sub plots was non significant. Within main plot treatments, the maximum number of bunches/ vine (96.49) were recorded in the variety Chenin Blanc which was significantly superior over the rest of varieties (Table 1). Average number of bunches/ vine were observed to significant in the same variety at different pruning treatments. The variety Viognier recorded maximum bunches (65.00) in 8 Table 1 : Effect of various treatments on yield and yield contributing characters Treatments Pruning weight (g) Bud sprouting (%) Cane fruitfulness (%) No. of bunches /vine Av. bunch weight (g) Yield/ vine (kg) Yield/ ha. (MT) Days to veraison Days to maturity 481.42 40.28 86.07 54.19 103.87 5.64 12.54 100.93 154.60 917.85 40.75 76.77 29.90 122.54 3.68 8.18 103.67 151.73 814.47 24.11 81.60 45.23 88.09 4.02 8.94 100.00 142.93 753.41 46.70 94.15 96.49 128.50 12.26 27.24 102.67 149.27 SE ± 30.51 0.52 2.15 4.32 1.18 0.46 1.03 0.47 0.48 C.D. 105.61 1.81 7.45 14.97 4.11 1.59 3.55 1.61 1.65 S 1 919.98 45.96 88.10 54.24 116.26 6.36 14.12 100.25 145.75 S 2 836.52 43.61 85.69 55.89 113.97 6.35 14.10 100.92 147.42 S 3 712.96 37.41 85.44 55.31 112.79 6.27 13.94 102.33 150.33 S 4 651.60 33.08 81.00 57.82 106.36 6.43 14.28 102.50 151.33 S 5 587.88 29.76 83.00 59.00 104.36 6.61 14.69 103.08 153.33 SE ± 26.94 0.63 1.63 3.34 1.09 0.39 0.86 0.34 0.38 C.D.(P=0.05) 77.61 1.83 4.69 NS 3.16 NS NS 0.98 1.10 Interaction NS Sig. Sig. Sig. NS Sig. Sig. Sig Sig. NS=Non-significant Sig. = Significant Table 2 : Interaction effect of treatments on bud sprouting (%) 47.50 45.89 41.06 37.06 29.91 48.00 48.23 39.75 37.23 30.56 33.83 28.55 23.83 16.30 18.30 54.50 51.75 45.00 42.00 40.27 S.E. ± 2.01 C.D. (P=0.05) 4.46 1.26 3.65 Asian J. Hort., 7(2) Dec., 2012 : 468-472 469

PRUNING STUDIES IN SOME WHITE WINE GRAPE VARIETIES FOR YIELD & YIELD CONTRIBUTING PARAMETERS Table 3 : Interaction effect of treatments on cane fruitfulness (%) 86.67 90.00 83.33 83.33 87.00 84.00 75.00 74.33 69.85 80.67 91.67 84.76 89.41 74.17 68.00 90.07 93.00 94.67 96.67 96.33 S.E. ± 5.89 C.D. (P=0.05) 13.02 3.25 9.39 Table 4 : Interaction effect of treatments on average number of bunches/vine 50.54 60.82 65.00 56.25 38.33 39.92 31.50 20.92 26.08 31.08 54.02 57.00 52.83 35.73 26.58 72.50 74.25 82.50 113.21 140.00 S.E. ± 12.18 C.D. (P=0.05) 26.82 6.79 19.58 Table 5 : Interaction effect of treatments on yield/vine (kg) 5.46 6.49 6.87 5.69 3.70 5.05 4.08 2.59 3.07 3.63 5.16 4.91 4.85 2.99 2.21 9.75 9.91 10.79 13.96 16.90 S.E. ± 1.36 C.D. (P=0.05) 2.99 0.77 2.23 buds/ cane pruning treatment. The maximum bunches (39.92) were recorded in the variety Ugni Blanc in 4 buds/ cane pruning treatment. In respect to the variety Sauvignon Blanc maximum bunches (57.0) were recorded in 6 buds/ cane pruning treatment. The variety Chenin Blanc recorded maximum bunches (140.00) in 12 buds/ cane pruning treatment At the same pruning treatment and in different varieties, it was observed that all five pruning treatments recorded maximum bunches in the variety Chenin Blanc (Table 4). In low intensity pruning treatments, comparatively more number of buds were retained on each cane than in high intensity pruning treatment. This leads to produce more number of sprouted buds in light pruning treatments than in severe pruning treatments. This increased total number of sprouted buds in light pruning treatments and ultimately reflected into more number of bunches. These results are in accordance with Clingeleffer (1989), Avenant (1998), Lopes et al. (2000), Savic and Petranovic (2004), Schalkwyk and Archar (2008) and Main and Morris (2008). Average bunch weight: treatments were recorded on main plots and sub plots. However, effect on interaction was non-significant. Among main plot treatments, maximum bunch weight (128.50 g) was recorded in the variety Chenin Blanc which was significantly superior over the rest of varieties. In respect of sub plot treatments it was maximum (116.26 g) in 4 buds/ cane pruning treatment which was at par with 6 buds/ cane treatment (113.97 g) (Table 1). The number of bunches were more in low pruning intensity treatments (10 and 12 buds/cane). The lower number of bunches might have received comparative more available food than the more number of bunches. This might have lead to increase the size and weight of berry and ultimately the size and weight of bunch. These results are in line with Clingeleffer (1989), Avenant, (1998) and Miller and Howell (1998) in wine grapes and Thatai et al. (1987) Joon and Singh (1983) and Singhrot et al. (1977) in table grapes. Yield : significant differences in main plots and for interaction effect. However, non significant differences were recorded in sub Asian J. Hort., 7(2) Dec., 2012 : 468-472 470

S.U. CHALAK, S.S. KULKARNI, A.V. KISHRSAGAR AND C.A. NIMBALKAR plot treatments. Within main plot treatments recorded that the maximum yield (12.26 kg/vine; 27.24 MT/ ha) in the variety Chenin Blanc which was significantly superior over the rest of varieties under study. The yield was observed to be significant for the same variety and different pruning treatments. The variety Viognier recorded maximum yield (6.87 kg/vine; 15.26 MT/ha) in 8 buds/ cane pruning treatment. In respect of variety Ugni Blanc, it was maximum (5.05 kg / vine; 11.23 MT/ ha) in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment. The maximum yield (5.16 kg/vine; 11.46 MT/ha) was recorded in the variety Sauvignon Blanc in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment. The variety Chenin Blanc recorded maximum yield (16.90 kg/ vine, 37.54 MT/ ha) in 12 buds/cane pruning treatment (Table 5 and Table 6 ). Response of each variety to different pruning treatments was different. The varieties comparatively having low vigour (Viognier, Ugni Blanc and Sauvignon Blanc) recorded their higher yields in heavily pruned treatment (4 and 6 buds/cane). This was might be due to more number of bunches and higher bunch weight. However the variety Chenin Blanc responded positively to the number of buds retained on a cane. This variety recorded higher number of bunches in light pruning intensity (10 and 12 buds/cane) treatments, which ultimately leads to higher yields through the average weight of bunch was less. These results are in accordance with Clingeleffer (1989), Avenant (1998) and Milter and Howell (1998) in wine grapes and Thatai et al. (1987), Joon and Singh (1983) and Singhrot et al. (1977) in table grapes. Days to veraison: treatments were recorded with respect to main plots, sub plots and interaction. Within main pot treatments early veraison was recorded in the variety Sauvignon Blanc (100 Days after Pruning i.e., DAP) which was at par with variety Viognier (100.93 DAP).Among the sub plots it was earlier (100.25 DAP) in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment which was at par with 6 buds/cane (100.92 DAP) (Table 1). Interaction effect recorded early veraison (97.00 DAP) in the variety Viognier in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment. However, it was late (105.33 DAP) in the variety Ugni Blanc in 12 buds/ cane pruning treatment (Table 7). Days to maturity: significant differences in main plots, sub plots and interaction. Table 6 : Interaction effect of treatments on yield/ha (MT) 12.14 14.42 15.26 12.65 8.23 11.23 9.06 5.75 6.82 8.06 11.46 10.91 10.77 6.63 4.92 21.66 22.03 23.98 31.01 37.54 S.E. ± 3.03 C.D. (P=0.05) 6.64 1.72 4.95 Table 7 : Interaction effect of treatments on days after pruning to veraison 97.00 100.33 102.67 101.33 103.33 104.00 102.33 103.33 103.33 105.33 98.67 99.00 101.00 102.33 99.00 101.33 102.00 102.33 103.00 104.67 S.E. ± 0.34 C.D. (P=0.05) 0.98 0.46 1.61 Table 8 : Interaction effect of treatments on days after pruning to maturity 152.00 152.33 154.00 156.33 158.33 148.00 149.33 153.00 153.00 155.33 138.67 142.67 144.33 143.67 145.33 144.33 145.33 150.00 152.33 154.33 S.E. ± 1.36 C.D. (P=0.05) 3.00 0.76 2.21 Asian J. Hort., 7(2) Dec., 2012 : 468-472 471

PRUNING STUDIES IN SOME WHITE WINE GRAPE VARIETIES FOR YIELD & YIELD CONTRIBUTING PARAMETERS Within main plot treatments early maturity (142.93 DAP) was recorded in the variety Sauvignon Blanc which was significantly superior over the rest of varieties. In respect to sub plot treatments it was early (145.75 DAP) in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment. With respect to interaction effect it was observed that, early maturity (138.67 DAP) was recorded in the variety Sauvignon Blanc in 4 buds/cane pruning treatment. However, it was late (158.33 DAP) in the variety Viognier in 12 buds/ cane pruning treatment (Table 8). The higher intensity of pruning i.e. 4 buds/cane had minimum canopy as compared to other treatments. This might have led to more exposure of bunches to sunlight and resulted in to early veraison and maturity. These results are in line with Lider (1973), Sims et al. (1990) and Bates (2008). REFERENCES Avenant, J.H. (1998). The effect of pruning levels on the performance of Festival Seedless. Deciduous Fruit Grower, 48 (5) : 7-13. Bates, T. (2008). Pruning level affects growth and yield of New York concord on two training system. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 59 (3) : 276-286. Bautista, D.A. (1987). Bud break and fruitfulness of three grape cultivars under tropical condition. Acta Hort., 199 : 76-77. Bhonsale, V.A. (1972). Pruning studies in grape (Vitis vinifera L.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, M.S. (INDIA). Chadha, K.L. (2008). Indian viticultural scenario. Acta Hort., 785 : 59-68. Clingeleffer, A.R. (1989). Effect of varying node number per bearey on yield and juice composition of Cabernet Sauvignon grape vines. Australian J. Exp. Agric., 29 : 701-705. Indian Horticultural Data Base (2011). National Horticultural Board, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, pp. 68-72. Joon, M.S. and Singh, I.S. (1983). Effect of intensity of pruning on ripening, yield and quality of Delight grapes. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 12 (1-2) : 44-47. Lider, L.A., Kabimatis, A.N. and Kliewer, W.M. (1973). Effect of pruning severity and root stock on growth and yield of two grafted, cane-pruned wine grape cultivars. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 98 (1) : 8-12. Lopes, C., Meliciab, J. Aleixo, A., Laureano, O. and Castro, R. (2000). Effect of mechanical headge pruning on growth, yield and quality of Cabernet Sauvignon grape vines. Acta Hort., 526 : 261-268. Main, G.L. and Morris, J.R. (2008). Impact of pruning methods on yield components and juice and wine composition of Cynthiana grapes. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 59 (2) : 179-187. Miller, D.P. and Howell, G.S. (1998). Influence of vine capacity and crop load on canopy development, morphology and dry matter partitioning in cancord grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 49 (2) : 183-190. Morris, J.R., Sims, C.A. and Cawthon, D.L. (1985). Yield and quality of Naigara grapes as affected by pruning severity, Nodes per bearing unit, training system and shoot positioning. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 110 (2) : 186-191. Sanchez, L.A. and Dokkozlin, N.K. (2005). Bud microclimate and fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 56 (4) : 319-329. Savic, S. and Petranovic, N. (2004). Impact of pruning and bud loading on Grenache grape and wine quality in Podgorica vine district. Acta Hort., 652 : 217-221. Sims, C.A., Johnson, R.P. and Bates, R.P. (1990). Effect of mechanical pruning on the yield and quality of Muscadine grapes. Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 41 (4) : 273-276. Singhrot, R.S., Singh, J.P. and Gupta, O.P. (1977). Effect of pruning levels on productiveness of Thompson seedless cultivar of grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 6 (1-2) : 37-40. Thatai, S.K., Chohan, G.S. and Kumar, H. (1987). Effect of pruning intensity on yield and fruit quality in perlette grapes trained on head system. Indian J. Hort., 44 (1 & 2 ) : 66-71. WEBLIOGRAPHY Schalkwyk, D.V. and Archer, E. (2008). The effect of alternative pruning methods on viticultural oenological performance (Part 1): Cabernet Sauvignon in Stellenbosch area. Wynbore a technical guide for wine producers. http://www. wynboer.co.za/recentarticles/2008 07-pruning php3. *********** Asian J. Hort., 7(2) Dec., 2012 : 468-472 472