fertility of vinifera grapes in nc sera 2008 meeting fertility of vinifera grapes in nc sera 2008...
TRANSCRIPT
Fertility of Vinifera Grapes in NCSERA 2008 Meeting
Fertility of Vinifera Grapes in NCSERA 2008 Meeting
David H. Hardy and John Havlin
NCDA&CS and NC State
NC Wine Industry is Growing
• 1985- 4 wineries
• 1986- NC Grape Council created
• 1999-15 wineries
• 2002- 25 wineries
• Today- over 70 wineries
NCDA Grape Recommendations
• Soil testing– Muscadine grapes
• Plant tissue– Vinifera grapes at full bloom
• Where did they come from???
K Grape Recommendation
020406080
100120140160180
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Mehlich 3 K-I
K2O
lb
/ac
Objectives1. Evaluate nutrient status in common
red and white vinifera varieties
2. Establish critical nutrient concentration ranges in both leaf and petiole samples
3. Correlate plant nutrient status with soil test information
• Effect of topography
• Leaf-cluster position
• Mature leaf at veraison
• Effect of topography
• Leaf-cluster position
• Mature leaf at veraison
Additional ConsiderationsAdditional Considerations
1
15
13
14
16
10
29
74
12
11 36
8
1 Black Wolf12 Round Peak13 Shelton16 Surry CC
1 Black Wolf12 Round Peak13 Shelton16 Surry CC
3 Creek Side6 Grove8 Iron Gate
3 Creek Side6 Grove8 Iron Gate
2 Buck Shoals2 Buck Shoals 8 Laurel Gray8 Laurel Gray 9 Raffaldini9 Raffaldini1414 South CreekSouth Creek1515 South Mountain South Mountain
44 Flint Hill Flint Hill
7 Hanover Park7 Hanover Park10 RagApple10 RagApple
11 RayLen11 RayLen
Cabernet Sauvignon 15Cabernet Sauvignon 15
Chardonnay 14Chardonnay 14
Merlot 11Merlot 11
Cabernet Franc 11Cabernet Franc 11
Syrah 10Syrah 10
Viognier 7Viognier 7
Chamborcin 6Chamborcin 6
Sangiovese 5Sangiovese 5
Sauvignon Blanc 3Sauvignon Blanc 3
Chardonell 2Chardonell 2
Chancellor 1Chancellor 1
6 cores
per
variety
4 – 8”
0 – 4”
8 – 24”
Sampling away from fertilizer or lime application
Cecil fine sandy loam
Fine, kaolinitic, thermic
Typic Kandhapludults
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Sample Site
CE
C
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89
Sample Site
CE
C
2006
2007
• Upper 4 inch depth• Little variability
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Sample Site
So
il p
H2006
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89
Sample Sites
So
il p
H2007
• Upper 4 inch depth• Little variability• Good lime practices
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Sample Site
So
il P
2006
0
50
100
150
200
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89
Sample Sites
So
il P
2007
Mehlich STP ppm
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81
Sample Sites
So
il K
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89
Sample Sites
So
il K
2006
2007
Mehlich 3 K ppm
Laurel Grey- 2007- select varietiesLaurel Grey- 2007- select varieties
Petiole N Concentration
Petiole N- % @ FB• 0 – 0.39 D• 0.4 – 0.79 L• 0.8 – 1.0 S• 1.01 – 1.25 H• 1.26 – 1.5 E
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24
N-
%
Cab Sav Merlot Syrah
Cab Franc Chardnay Viognier
FB
Laurel Grey- 2007- select varietiesLaurel Grey- 2007- select varieties
Petiole P Concentration
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24
P-
%
Cab Sav Merlot Syrah
Cab Franc Chardnay Viognier
Petiole P- % @ FB• 0 – 0.09 D• 0.1 – 0.14 L• 0.15 – 0.6 S• 0.61 – 1.0 H• 1.01 – 2.0 E
FB
Laurel Grey- 2007- select varietiesLaurel Grey- 2007- select varieties
Petiole K Concentration
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24
K-
%
Cab Sav Merlot Syrah
Cab Franc Chardnay Viognier
Petiole K- % @ FB• 0 – 0.99 D• 1.0 – 1.49 L• 1.5 – 3.5 S• 3.51 – 4.5 H• 4.51 – 5.5 E
FB
Selected Tissue LevelsSelected Tissue Levels
Petiole P 0 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.40 > 0.40# Sample Sites
2006 3 17 15 14 402007 2 13 18 11 40
% Sample Sites
2006 3.4 19.1 16.9 15.7 44.92007 2.4 15.5 21.4 13.1 47.6
Petiole K 0 - 1.0 1.1-1.50 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 > 2.50# Sample Sites
2006 0 6 3 12 682007 12 9 12 16 35
% Sample Sites
2006 0.0 6.7 3.4 13.5 76.42007 14.3 10.7 14.3 19.0 41.7
P = 0.15 – 0.6 SufficientK= 1.5 – 3.5 Sufficient
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
N P K Ca Mg S
Nutrient
Nu
trie
nt C
on
ten
t,%
Top Bottom
Nutrient Content Relative to Cluster Position Nutrient Content Relative to Cluster Position
Topographic Effects on Nutrient Content Topographic Effects on Nutrient Content
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
N P K Ca Mg S
Nutrient
Nu
trie
nt
Co
nte
nt,
%
Hilltop Valley
20082008
1. Maintain primary objectives – *** increase # mountain sites
2. Quantify sampling error
3. Draft diagnostic nutrient ranges (???)
4. Assess nutrient response
1. Maintain primary objectives – *** increase # mountain sites
2. Quantify sampling error
3. Draft diagnostic nutrient ranges (???)
4. Assess nutrient response