influence of canopy management on reproductive performance ... · performance of grapevine cv....
TRANSCRIPT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFOR MORE INFORMATION
The ARC Training Centre for Innovative Wine
Production is funded by the Australian Government
(IC170100008) with additional support from Wine
Australia and industry partners.
Xiaoyi Wang
Cassandra Collins
W: www.arcwinecentre.org.au
Influence of Canopy Management on Reproductive
Performance of Grapevine cv. Semillon and Shiraz
in a Hot Climate
Xiaoyi Wang1,2, Roberta De Bei2, Stephen Lesefko3, Sigfredo Fuentes4, Cassandra Collins1,2
1ARC Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production; 2School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide,
Adelaide, Australia; 3Department of General and Organic Viticulture, Hochschule Geisenheim University, Geisenheim,
Germany; 4School of Agriculture and Food, Faculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne, Australia
Background & Aims
Table 1. Canopy management treatments on grapevines
Design & Methods
Results
Shoot thinning induced the highest Botrytis incidence.
A significant correlation was found between BC2 and
bunch Botrytis incidence (%).
Measurements
Canopy microclimate
Canopy architecture parameters by VitiCanopy App (De Bei et al. 2016):
Leaf area index (LAI) and Canopy porosity
Light interception at canopy level and bud level by a light ceptometer
Reproductive performance
Yield components: yield per meter of cordon, bunch number per meter of
cordon, bunch weight, berry number per bunch and berry weight
Bunch architecture: length, width and compactness (OIV 2009)
Bunch compactness (BC) indices:
BC1: Total number of berries per bunch / Main rachis length (Basile 2015)
BC2: Total number of berries per bunch/ Bunch volume
Bunch volume = 1/3 π * (width/2)2 * length
Bud fruitfulness determination by bud dissection analysis:
Number and size of Inflorescence Primordia (IP) in primary bud for first four
nodes, occurrence of primary bud necrosis (PBN)
Conclusions
References:Basile, B., Caccavello, G., Giaccone, M., & Forlani, M. (2015). Effects of early shading and defoliation on bunch compactness, yield components, and berry composition of Aglianico
grapevines under warm climate conditions. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, ajev-2014.
Coombe, B. G.; 1995: Growth stages of the grapevine: adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1, 104-110.
De Bei, R., Fuentes, S., Gilliham, M., Tyerman, S., Edwards, E., Bianchini, N., Smith, J. and Collins, C., 2016. VitiCanopy: A free computer App to estimate canopy vigor and porosity for
grapevine. Sensors, 16(4), p.585.
Dry, P. R.; 2000: Canopy management for fruitfulness. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 6, 109-115.
Kliewer, W. M., & Smart, R. E. (1989). Canopy manipulation for optimizing vine microclimate, crop yield and composition of grapes.OIV (2009). descriptor list for grape varieties and Vitis
species. OIV Publications, Paris.
Shavrukov, Y. N., Dry, I. B., & Thomas, M. R. (2004). Inflorescence and bunch architecture development in Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10(2), 116-
124.
Skinkis, Patty, and Amanda J. Vance. Understanding vine balance: An important concept in vineyard management. Oregon State University, Extension Service, 2013.
Tello, J., Aguirrezábal, R., Hernaiz, S., Larreina, B., Montemayor, M. I., Vaquero, E., & Ibáñez, J. (2015). Multicultivar and multivariate study of the natural variation for grapevine bunch
compactness. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 21(2), 277-289.
Zabadal, T. J., & Dittmer, T. W. (1998). Vine Management Systems Affect Yield, Fruit Quality, Cluster Compactness, and Fruit Rot of ‘Chardonnay‘ Grape. HortScience, 33(5), 806-809.
Grapevine reproduction is an intricate process that extends over two growing
seasons. The conditions of the season not only influence reproductive growth
of the current year, but also affect bud fruitfulness and hence potential yield for
the following year.
Canopy management practices are widely adopted in vineyards to maintain a
balance between vegetative growth and reproductive performance with the
objective to improve yield and/or berry quality (Smart 1985).
Grapevine reproductive performance response varies with different
management practices as source-sink relationship and microclimate can be
manipulated at different levels.
This study aimed to investigate reproductive responses of Semillon and Shiraz
vines where different canopy management practices were applied, including
bunch thinning, shoot thinning, leaf removal and lighter pruning.
Canopy management
treatmentDescription of treatment Variety
Control (C) No manipulation was conducted on canopy Semillon; Shiraz
Bunch thinning (BT)50% of total number of bunches were removed just after veraison (E-L stage 35)
(Coombe 1995)Semillon; Shiraz
Shoot thinning (ST) 50% of total number of shoots were removed at E-L stage 15-17 (Coombe 1995) Semillon; Shiraz
Leaf removal (LR) 30% of leaves were removed in the middle third of the canopy at veraison Semillon; Shiraz
Leaf removal at bunch
zone (LR-B)
4-5 leaves per shoot were removed on east side of the canopy in the fruit zone at
veraisonShiraz
Lighter pruning (double
nodes, DN)
Double amount of buds were left on the vine at winter pruning by leaving two, two
node spurs at each spur positionSemillon
Figure 1. Shoot thinning Figure 3. Leaf removal at bunch zoneFigure 2. Leaf removal at the middle third of canopy
Figure 6. Bunch
architecture
measurement
Leaf area index & Canopy porosity
Canopy microclimate
Shoot thinning created a more open canopy.
Light interception by canopy
Light interception at bud zone
Treatments:
C, control; BT, bunch thinning; DN, double nodes; LR, leaf removal;
ST, shoot thinning.
Reproductive performance
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
BT C DN LR ST
Yield per meter of cordon (kg)
a
a
a a
b
0
100
200
300
400
500
BT C DN LR ST
Bunch weight (g)
abc
cb
a
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
BT C DN LR ST
Bunch number per meter of cordon
c
b
a
b
c
Treatments: C, control; BT, cluster thinning; DN, double nodes; LR, leaf removal; ST, shoot thinning.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
BT C DN LR ST
Total berry number per bunch
ab b b b
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
BT C DN LR ST
Berry weight (g)
cca
b b
Shoot thinning and bunch thinning showed compensation effects in yield components.
Bunch compactness and Botrytis rot incidence
Incidence of Semillon Botrytis bunch rot for different canopy management treatments
Treatments ControlBunch
thinningDoublenodes
Leafremoval
Shootthinning
Bunch Botrytis incidence
13.04 % 8.33 % 13.43 % 10.29 % 15.63 %
Figure 8. Correlation of bunch Botrytis incidence with BC2.
* significant at p ≤ 0.05.
R² = 0.6353
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.0 10.0 20.0
BC
2
Botrytis incidence (%)
Bud fruitfulness
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
C BT DN LR ST
Inflorescence primordia area (mm2)
Season 2016-17 Season 2017-18
ab a b a b ca a a
b
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
C BT DN LR ST
Inflorescence primordia number
Season 2016-17 Season 2017-18
a a a ab
Node 1 & 2 had higher incidence of primary bud necrosis.
Shoot thinning increased IP number and size.
IP number is correlated with light interception at bud zone.
IP area measurement in
a healthy primary budPBN: Primary bud dead PBN: Primary and secondary
bud both dead
Canopy management practices can change canopy architecture and
light interception.
Leaf removal increased light interception of canopy and at bud zone.
Shoot thinning led to a more open canopy and highest light interception.
Canopy management needs to be considered carefully to reach a
balance between vegetative growth and reproductive performance.
Canopy management practices can be useful to manipulate different
reproductive parameters.
Figure 4. Canopy architecture
before (A) and after (B) shoot
thinning
A B
Figure 5. Light
ceptometer
ControlBunch
thinning
Double nodes
(Lighter
pruning)
Leaf
removal
Shoot
thinning
Bunch number ↓ ↑ - ↓
Bunch weight ↑ ↓ - ↑
Berry number - - - ↑
Berry weight ↑ - - ↑
Bunch
compactness↑ - - ↑
Ripening ↑ ↓ ↓ ↑
Bud fruitfulness - - - ↑
Botrytis
incidence- - - ↑