Understanding Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium in Grapes R. Paul Schreiner USDA - ARS - HCRL Corvallis, OR
Research Profile Schreiner Lab Root Physiology in Grapes Defining & Characterizing AMF Diversity / Function in Vineyards Impact of Management Practices on Roots, AMF & Vine Performance Managing Interactions between Roots, AMF & Other Soil Biota Optimizing Nutrient Inputs based on Physiology & Fruit Quality
A Tale of Two Projects Manipulating N, P, & K in Sand Culture Whole Vine Nutrient Uptake & Partitioning
Impact of N, P, & K Supply on Pinot noir Growth, Yield, and Berry Quality R. Paul Schreiner & Jungmin Lee USDA - ARS Michael Qian & Xiaofen Du Oregon State University
Project Objectives: Better understand how nutrients influence growth, physiology, and berry quality attributes in Pinot noir Develop optimal tissue test levels of N, P & K for wine grapes based on both vine performance and fruit quality Identify best tissue (leaf vs petiole) and time to collect samples for diagnosing nutrient status
Pot in Pot Sand Culture Vineyard - OSU Farm 2003 RCBD - 4 blocks - 5 vines/rep June 2005 3 rd leaf
Accounting for Indirect Effects of Nutrients (particularly N) Cluster Shading - controlled by pulling leaves in fruit zone to achieve similar cluster solar exposure in all treatments Vine Water Status - controlled by daily soil moisture monitoring (TDR) and adjustment of water inputs for each treatment
Why go to all this Trouble? Control vine access to nutrients Fertilizer rate trials are influenced by inherent soil fertility Hillside vineyards: Spatial variation of soil fertility & depth often overrides treatment effects.
Treatments (began in 2006, 4 th leaf) Control (1/2 strength Hoagland s) 50% of Control (All nutrients reduced) 3 reduced N levels: (50%, 20%, 10% of Control) 3 reduced P levels: (50%, 20%, 10% of Control) 3 reduced K levels: (50%, 20%, 10% of Control)
Effects on Vine Growth & Nutrients
September 7, 2007 Pinot noir in Sand Culture, 2-lowest N rates 100% N 20% N 10% N 100% N ~ Véraison 2007
October 15, 2008 - Harvest 100% N 50% N 10% N 100% N 20% N
140 Shoot Length at Bloom 2006-2008 Pinot noir in Sand N.S. 120 100 N.S. Shoot Length (cm) 80 60 40 * * * 20 0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
450 Pruning Weights 2006-2008 Pinot noir in Sand 400 350 Cane Weight (g) 300 250 200 150 * * * * * * * 100 50 0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
Analysis of Mineral Nutrients Sample Prep. Grinding Combustion (C/N) ICP - OES
Leaf Nitrogen at Bloom 2006-2008 Pinot noir in Sand 3.0 Leaf N (% dry mass) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 * * * * * * * * * 0.5 0.0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
0.8 Leaf Phosphorus at Bloom 2006-2008 Pinot noir in Sand 0.7 * * 0.6 Leaf P (% dry mass) 0.5 0.4 0.3 * * N.S. * * * * 0.2 * * * * * * 0.1 0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
1.8 1.6 Petiole Potassium at Bloom 2006-2008 Pinot noir in Sand N.S. 1.4 Petiole K (% dry mass) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 * * * * * * * * * 0.4 0.2 0.0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
20 Photosynthesis at bloom 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand 18 16 N.S. A (μmol CO 2 fixed/m 2 s) 14 12 10 8 6 4 No data bloom 2006 * * 2 0 A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K A B C D E F G H I J K 2006 2007 2008
Summary: Vine Growth, Nutrients & Physiology Low N reduced N status, Low P reduced P status, Low K reduced K status. Low N reduced prune weights in all years, but only reduced shoot length at bloom in 2008. Low N reduced photosynthesis and quantum efficiency only in 2008. Low P or Low K did not affect growth or photosynthesis. No treatment altered soil moisture or Ψ leaf.
Effects on Yield & Fruit Quality Focus on N and only Lowest P or K Treatments (2007 & 2008)
Yield 2007 & 2008 - Pinot noir in Sand 3.0 N.S. 2.5 Yield (tons/acre) 2.0 1.5 1.0 * * * 0.5 0.0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
1.6 1.4 Average Berry Weights 2007 & 2008 - Pinot noir in Sand N.S. 1.2 Mean Berry Weight (g) 1.0 0.8 0.6 * * * 0.4 0.2 0.0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
350 Juice YAN 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand 300 250 Juice YAN (mg N / L) 200 150 100 * * * * * 50 0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
Effects on Berry Secondary Metabolites
120 Total Anthocyanins 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand Berry Anthocyanin by Spec. (mg / 100 g) 100 80 60 40 20 N.S. * * 0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
4000 Total of All C-6 Aroma Compounds (free & bound) 3500 N.S. N.S. 3000 C-6 Aromas (μg / kg) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
120 Total All Terpene Alcohols 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand 100 * * Total Monoterpenes (μg / kg) 80 60 40 20 N.S. 0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
Summary: Berry Quality Low P reduced Juice P in 2007 & 2008 (big year effect). Low K did not reduce Juice K (big year effect). Low N reduced YAN in 2007 & 2008 (big year effect). Low N reduced yield and berry size in 2008. Low N increased anthocyanins & terpene alcohols in 2008, variable effect on isoprenoids. Are N effects simply due to berry size?
Accounting for Berry Size in Analysis Significance of nutrient treatment on 2008 Fruit with & without berry weight as Covariate Variable Standard ANOVA ANCOVA (Berry Wt.) Total Anthocyanins <0.001 0.003 Total Terpenes <0.001 0.004 Total Norisoprenoids 0.034 0.136 Yield <0.001 0.145
Best Predictors of Yield & Quality 2008 Dependent Variable Best Predictors Yield Berry YAN Juice P Juice K Total Monoterpenes Berry weight Pruning weight Leaf N (bloom) SPAD (veraison) Petiole P (bloom) Petiole P (veraison) Photosynthesis (bloom) Pruning weight Leaf P (bloom) Leaf N (bloom) r (linear) 0.8806 0.8046 0.9165 0.8989 0.9308 0.8768 0.6165 0.5822 0.8633-0.8622
Conclusions We do not fully understand how nutrients affect vine performance and fruit quality. Nutrients interact (ex: low N supply increased P status, but decreased K status). N plays bigger role in fruit quality than P or K due to it s influence on canopy & berry growth (N effects on berries are both direct & indirect). Positive effects of low N supply on berry secondary metabolites were not apparent until photosynthetic function, yield, or YAN were below acceptable levels.
Nutrient uptake and use in young Pinot noir grapevines. Oct 26, 2006 Dijon clone 115 on 3309C roots R. Paul Schreiner USDA-ARS, Corvallis, OR Jungmin Lee USDA-ARS, Parma ID
Calculating Demand & Uptake of Vines Canopy Demand = Change in total content of each mineral in green canes + petioles + leaves + fruit between selected sampling times. Vine Uptake = Change in total content of each mineral in all tissues between selected sampling times. Content = concentration of mineral X dry mass.
Seasonal Dynamics of Mineral Uptake in Whole Pinot noir Vines in a red-hill soil 2001-2003 R. Paul Schreiner USDA-ARS-HCRL Corvallis, OR & John Baham Crop & Soil Science OSU, Corvallis, OR HortScience 2006
Sampling Canopy Tissues 22 year-old Pinot noir 2002
Root Sampling 22 year-old Pinot noir Fine Roots Estimated from 6 random Post-holes representing 2.5% soil volume per vine. All Woody Roots were followed from the vine base. 2002
Pot in Pot System - Complete control of the root environment Easy access to all roots Micro-nutrient uptake possible
Goals for Whole Vine Project 2 (4 year old vines) Quantify nutrient requirements for young Pinot noir vines grown in the Willamette Valley. Determine when nutrients are taken up from soil. Better understand nutrient cycling within the vine. Does post-veraison irrigation frequency increase N uptake or partitioning to berries (or increase berry YAN)?
The beauty of the pot in pot system
Effects on Vine Growth & Nutrient Uptake Biggest driver of growth and nutrient uptake was phenology (sample date). Year only affected dry wt, & N content of vines. Irrigation treatment only altered dry wt and P content of vines.
Whole Vine Dry Mass 2007 (4 year old vines) 2000 1800 1600 Cluster g Leaf g Petiole g Shoot g Veraison Harvest Leaf fall Pruning Wdy Cn g 1400 SC Wd g RS Wd g Dry Mass (g) 1200 1000 800 Wdy Rt g 1 4 mm Rt g Budbreak Bloom 600 400 200 0
13 12 Whole Vine N Content at LB 2007 (4 year old vines) Veraison Harvest Bloom Pruning 11 10 Budbreak Leaf fall 9 Vine Nitrogen (g) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 cluster N g Leaf N g Pet N g Sht N g Wdy Cn N g SC Wd N g RS Wd N g WdyRt N g FinRt N g 0
2 Whole Vine P Content at LB 2007 (4 year old vines) Veraison Harvest 1.8 Leaf fall Pruning 1.6 Bloom 1.4 Vine Phosphorus (g) 1.2 1 0.8 Budbreak cluster P g Leaf P g Pet P g 0.6 Sht P g Wdy Cn P g 0.4 SC Wd P g RS Wd P g 0.2 WdyRt P g FinRt P g 0
Whole Vine K Content at LB 2008 (4 year old vines) 14 Cluster K g Harvest 12 Leaf K g Petiole K g Veraison Shoot K g Vine Potassium (g) 10 8 6 Wdy Cn K g Sc Wd K g RS Wd K g Wdy Rt K g Fin Rt K g Budbreak Bloom Leaf fall Pruning 4 2 0
Nutrient Timing of Nutrient Uptake 4 year-old Pinot noir 2007 & 2008 Average Values Budbreak - Bloom Bloom Veraison Veraison - Harvest Post Harvest N 58 % 25 % 1 % 16 % P 35 % 42 % 19 % 4 % K 21 % 66 % 13 % 0 Ca 14 % 52 % 34 % 0 Mg 16 % 60 % 24 % 0 S 40 % 51 % 9 % 0 Mn 29 % 54 % 17 % 0 B 45 % 45 % 10 % 0 Zn 16 % 57 % 27 % 0 Cu 26 % 43 % 31 % 0
120 100 Relative Accumulation Rates for Dry Matter, N, P, & K in Pinot noir 2007 Δ Dry Mass 80 Veraison - Harvest N, P, K Uptake Rates 60 40 20 Post Harvest 0 20 Budbreak - Bloom Bloom - Veraison 3/1/2007 4/1/2007 5/1/2007 6/1/2007 7/1/2007 8/1/2007 9/1/2007 10/1/2007 11/1/2007 12/1/2007
120 100 80 Relative Accumulation Rates for Dry Matter, N, P, & K in Pinot noir 2007 Veraison - Harvest Δ Dry Mass Δ N Δ P Δ K N, P, K Uptake Rates 60 40 Post Harvest 20 0 20 Budbreak - Bloom Bloom - Veraison 3/1/2007 4/1/2007 5/1/2007 6/1/2007 7/1/2007 8/1/2007 9/1/2007 10/1/2007 11/1/2007 12/1/2007
Young Versus Old Vines Demand & Uptake (pounds/acre) Nutrient Canopy Demand Uptake from Soil 4-yr-old 22-yr-old 4-yr-old 22-yr-old N 14 30 12 14 P 2.1 3.1 3.0 2.1 K 21 33 25 28 Ca 21 22 27 21 Mg 3.5 8.9 4.1 8.3
Similarities of Young & Old vines Nutrient uptake from soil for Young vines was as good or better than Old vines (except Mg). Timing of peak uptake from soil was generally the same (N earlier than other nutrients, Not tied to dry matter). Timing of peak nutrient movement to fruit clusters was very similar. Use of N reserves was greater than any other nutrient in both Young (30-43%) and Old (48-55%) vines. In both studies, N uptake occurred during dormancy (between leaf fall and pruning) in one of two years. In both studies, only N & P were consistently pulled back from leaves prior to senescence.
Interesting Differences between Young & Old vines Canopy demand for N, P, K & Mg was greater in Old vines. Young vines acquired more P from soil, yet did not share it with the canopy (P reserves in roots & trunk had largest relative gain in young vines). Old vines supplied more N & P to canopy from reserves, but did not recharge nutrient stores until after fruit harvest. Young vines began recharging nutrient stores after bloom OR root demand outcompeted canopy demand at this time of root dry matter increase.
Schreiner Lab Personnel 2000-2010 Keiko Mihara Rebecca Sweet Joyce Spain Thomas McGeary John Carter Timothy Nam Matthew Scott Jennifer Christie Stephanie Lair
14 Whole Vine N Contents 2007 & 2008 (4 year old Pinot noir) Cluster Leaf Petiole Shoot Woody cane SC wood RS wood Woody root Fine root 12 10 Vine Nitrogen (g) 8 6 4 2 0
Nitrogen Dynamics in 22 year-old Pinot noir vines over 2 Years 45 40 35 BB BL fine root N g sm woody rt N g lg woody rt N g trunk N g woody cane N g green cane N g petiole N g leaf N g fruit N g VR HA LF PR BB BL VR HA LF N Content (g) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Terpene Alcohols as a Function of Berry Size 120.0 Total Monoterpenes (μg / kg) 100.0 80.0 60.0 2007 2008 R² = 0.2773 40.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 Berry Weight
Terpene Alcohols as a Function of Leaf N at Bloom Total Monoterpenes (μg / kg) 120 100 80 60 2007 2008 R² = 0.7434 40 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Leaf N (% dry mass)
June 20, 2008 Pinot noir in Sand Culture, 2-lowest N rates 10% N 20% N 100% N ~ 1.5 weeks before Bloom 2008
20.0 β-damascenone 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand 18.0 N.S. N.S. 16.0 β - Damascenone (μg / kg) 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
25 Vitispirane 2007 & 2008 Pinot noir in Sand 20 N.S. * Vitispirane (μg / kg) 15 10 5 0 A C D E H K A C D E H K 2007 2008
Best Predictors of Yield & Quality 2008 Dependent Variable Best Predictors r (linear) Total Anthocyanins Total Monoterpenes Total Norisoprenoids Total hexanol Pruning weight Leaf P (bloom) Leaf N (bloom) Total Monoterpenes Leaf P (bloom) β - Damascenone Juice NH 4 Vitaspirane 0.9430-0.8258 0.8633-0.8622 0.8046 0.7069 0.7258-0.6946
Whole Vine Dry Mass 2008 (4 year old vines) 2200 Dry Mass (g) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 Cluster g Leaf g Petiole g Shoot g Wdy Cn g SC Wd g RS Wd g Wdy Rt g 1 4 mm Rt g 600 400 200 0
Main Effects - Dry Mass & Nutrient Content Significance Level Variable Year Treatment Phenology Dry mass <0.001 0.020 <0.001 N content 0.018 0.452 <0.001 P content 0.135 0.039 <0.001 K content 0.123 0.191 <0.001 Ca content 0.124 0.705 <0.001 Mg content 0.286 0.997 <0.001 S content 0.076 0.634 <0.001 Mn content 0.872 0.089 <0.001 B content 0.289 0.782 <0.001 Zn content 0.413 0.334 <0.001 Cu content 0.125 0.239 <0.001
BL
A Tale of Two Grinders