DOCSLIB.ORG

Effect of Rootstock on Vegetative Growth, Yield, and Fruit Composition of Norton Grapevines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Effect of Rootstock on Vegetative Growth, Yield, and Fruit Composition of Norton Grapevines Effect of Rootstock on Vegetative Growth, Yield, and Fruit Composition of Norton Grapevines A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Graduate School At the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science By JACKIE LEIGH HARRIS Dr. Michele Warmund, Thesis Supervisor December 2013 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the Thesis entitled EFFECT OF ROOTSTOCK ON VEGETATIVE GROWTH, YIELD, AND FRUIT COMPOSITION OF NORTON GRAPEVINES Presented by Jackie Leigh Harris A candidate for the degree of Master of Science And hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. Michele Warmund David Trinklein Stephen Pallardy ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Michele Warmund, for her willingness to take me on as a graduate student and guide me through the writing process. Her insight and knowledge was extremely helpful these past couple of years. I would also like to that my other committee members, Dr. David Trinklein and Dr. Steven Pallardy for their valuable insight. Additionally, I would like to thank all the past and present faculty, staff, and students of the Grape and Wine Institute at the University of Missouri. In particular, Dr. Keith Striegler, Elijah Bergmeier, Dr. Anthony Peccoux, Dr. Misha Kwasniewski, and Dr. Ingolf Gruen for their guidance and encouragement. Also, I would like to thank my family for all their support throughout my studies. The assistance of all these individuals made the completion of my master’s a reality. Last but not least, I would like to thank the funding sources that contributed to my research. These include the Missouri Wine and Grape Board and the University of Missouri Cooperative Extension as well as Missouri Grape Growers Association and the American Society for Enology and Viticulture – Eastern Section in the form of scholarships. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................ ii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ vi List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... viii Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 3 2.1: Development and use of rootstocks in viticulture ....................................................... 3 2.2: Biotic factors influencing grapevine growth.................................................................. 5 2.2.1: Phylloxera .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.2.2: Nematodes ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.3: Bacteria ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.4: Fungi ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2.3: Abiotic factors affecting grapevine growth .................................................................... 8 2.3.1: Temperature ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.3.2: Soil characteristics .......................................................................................................... 9 2.3.3: Water relations ............................................................................................................. 11 2.4: Rootstock characteristics ................................................................................................... 15 2.4.1: V. aestivalis Michx......................................................................................................... 17 2.4.2: V. riparia Michx. ............................................................................................................ 17 2.4.3: V. rupestris Scheele. ..................................................................................................... 18 2.4.4: V. berlandieri Planch. .................................................................................................. 18 iii 2.4.5: V. riparia x V. rupestris ................................................................................................ 18 2.4.6: V. riparia x V. berlandieri ........................................................................................... 19 2.4.7: V. rupestris x V. berlandieri ....................................................................................... 19 2.4.8: V. riparia x V. acerifolia .............................................................................................. 20 2.4.9: V. riparia x (V. cordifolia x V. rupestris) ................................................................ 20 2.5: Rootstock – Scion interactions ......................................................................................... 20 2.5.1: Root system architecture .......................................................................................... 21 2.5.2: Nutrient uptake ............................................................................................................. 22 2.6: Yield ............................................................................................................................................ 27 2.7: Factors influencing fruit composition ........................................................................... 28 2.7.1: Sugars ............................................................................................................................... 29 2.7.2: Acids .................................................................................................................................. 31 2.7.3: pH ....................................................................................................................................... 32 2.7.4: Polyphenols .................................................................................................................... 34 2.7.5: Minerals ........................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3: Materials and Methods ................................................................................................ 38 Chapter 4: Results ................................................................................................................................ 42 4.1: Vegetative growth ................................................................................................................. 44 4.2: Petiole nutrient content ...................................................................................................... 45 4.3: Fruiting characteristics ....................................................................................................... 50 4.4: Ravaz Index .............................................................................................................................. 52 4.5: Fruit composition .................................................................................................................. 53 4.6: Juice mineral content ........................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 5: Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 64 iv Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................... 69 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 71 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Characteristics of grapevine rootstocks reported in previous studies. ........ 16 Table 2. Vegetative characteristics of Norton grapevines on selected rootstocks and own-rooted vines grown in Phelps County, Missouri in 2010 and 2011. ....................................................................................................................................... 45 Table 3. Macronutrient content in petioles of Norton grapevines on selected rootstocks and own-rooted vines grown in Phelps County, Missouri in 2010 and 2011. .................................................................................................................. 46 Table 4. Macronutrient content of P and K in petioles of Norton grapevines on selected rootstocks and own-rooted vines grown in Phelps County, Missouri in 2010 and 2011. .......................................................................................... 48 Table 5. Micronutrient content in petioles of Norton grapevines on selected rootstocks and own-rooted vines grown in Phelps County, Missouri in 2010 and 2011. .................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using and Breeding Drought Tolerant Grape Rootstocks
    Using and Breeding Drought Tolerant Grape Rootstocks Andy Walker [email protected] Acknowledgements • California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission / California Grape Rootstock Research Foundation • CDFA NT, FT, GV Improvement Advisory Board • California Table Grape Commission • American Vineyard Foundation • E&J Gallo Winery • Louis P. Martini Endowed Chair in Viticulture Thanks! Summaira Riaz, Nina Romero Kevin Fort – Post-doc Claire Heinitz, Jake Uretzky, Inez Hugalde, Cassie Bullock – PhD students Andrew McElrone, USDA-ARS Rootstock Origin • First developed to address grape phylloxera in the late 1800s • French scientists came to the US to collect Vitis species resistant to phylloxera • Took back cuttings of many, but only V. riparia and V. rupestris rooted well from dormant cuttings • Later added V. berlandieri for lime tolerance V. riparia Missouri River V. rupestris Jack Fork River, MO V. berlandieri Fredericksburg, TX V. monticola V. candicans “Isn’t there a cactus gene out there that might help?” Breeding Rootstocks to Tolerate Drought • The ability to continue growth when exposed to water stress • The ability to maintain crop yield with less water • Adaptation vs. resistance • Root architecture – shallow to deep rooting angles • Root density – two tiered to even distributions • Fine root recovery after drought • Structural roots – which persist? • Hydraulic lift • Water uptake and permeability of structural roots • In collaboration with Andrew McElrone Grape roots • Many perennial root systems mimic top growth – grape roots
    [Show full text]
  • Transmission of Xylella Fastidiosa Through Pecan Rootstock
    PLANT PATHOLOGY HORTSCIENCE 41(6):1455–1456. 2006. and Oct. 2005. The data from each year were combined, and statistical significance evalu- Transmission of Xylella fastidiosa ated by the chi-square test. through Pecan Rootstock Results and Discussion 1 The overall graft success rates were low R. S. Sanderlin and R. A. Melanson (54.5% for grafts on uninfected rootstocks Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Pecan Research-Extension and 40% on infected rootstocks), probably Station, PO Box 5519, Shreveport, LA 71135 because the trees had been confined to small pots for several years and were in poor Additional index words. Carya illinoinensis, graft transmission, pecan bacterial leaf scorch nutritional condition. Abstract. Xylella fastidiosa Wells et al., the pathogen that causes pecan [Carya illinoinensis In 2004, infected rootstocks came from (Wangenh.) C. Koch] bacterial leaf scorch disease, was demonstrated to be highly six seed sources and uninfected rootstocks transmissible through graft unions from infected rootstock into new growth developing came from five of the same six seed sources from scions. Infected rootstocks were obtained by inoculation of pecan seedlings in pots (Table 1). Eleven of the 12 successful grafts with in vitro cultures of the pathogen. If rootstock infection occurs in nature, trans- on infected rootstocks developed PBLS mission of the pathogen into tissue growing from scions could serve as a significant source symptoms in either 2004 or 2005, and 10 of of introduction of the disease into pecan orchards. Because symptom development in these tested positive for X. fastidiosa infec- infected trees typically begins in midsummer and grafting takes place in the early spring, tion in at least one of the serological assays it would be difficult to identify infected rootstock before grafting.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Breeding Efforts in Salt‐And Drought-Tolerant Rootstocks –
    12/12/2017 Current Breeding Efforts in Salt‐and Drought-Tolerant Rootstocks – Andy Walker ([email protected]) California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission / California Grape Rootstock Research Foundation CDFA NT, FT, GV Improvement Advisory Board California Table Grape Commission American Vineyard Foundation E&J Gallo Winery Louise Rossi Endowed Chair in Viticulture Rootstock Breeding Objectives • Develop better forms of drought and salinity tolerance • Combine these tolerances with broad nematode resistance and high levels of phylloxera resistance • Develop better fanleaf degeneration tolerant rootstocks • Develop rootstocks with “Red Leaf” virus tolerance 1 12/12/2017 V. riparia Missouri River V. rupestris Jack Fork River, MO 2 12/12/2017 V. berlandieri Fredericksburg, TX Which rootstock to choose? • riparia based – shallow roots, water sensitive, low vigor, early maturity: – 5C, 101-14, 16161C (3309C) • rupestris based – broadly distributed roots, relatively drought tolerant, moderate to high vigor, midseason maturity: – St. George, 1103P, AXR#1 (3309C) 3 12/12/2017 Which rootstock to choose? • berlandieri based – deeper roots, drought tolerant, higher vigor, delayed maturity: – 110R, 140Ru (420A, 5BB) • champinii based – deeper roots, drought tolerant, salt tolerance, but variable in hybrids – Dog Ridge, Ramsey (Salt Creek) – Freedom, Harmony, GRNs • Site trumps all… soil depth, rainfall, soil texture, water table V. monticola V. candicans 4 12/12/2017 CP‐SSR LN33 1613-59 V. riparia x V. rupestris Couderc 1613 14 markers 22 haplotypes Harmony Freedom V. berlandieri x V. riparia Couderc 1616 Ramsey Vitis rupestris cv Witchita refuge V. berlandieri x V. rupestris 157-11 (Couderc) 3306 (Couderc) V. berlandieri x V. vinifera 3309 (Couderc) Vitis riparia cv.
    [Show full text]
  • Propagating Grapevines
    EHT-116 4/19 Propagating Grapevines Justin Scheiner and Andrew King Department of Horticultural Sciences, The Texas A&M University System Plant propagation is the process of creating new Dormant Hardwood Cuttings plants. Asexual propagation is the development Dormant canes are one-year-old wood that con- of a new plant from a piece of another plant. The tain buds. These canes are the tissue of choice for result is a plant that is genetically identical to propagating grapes. Most of the wood removed the mother or stock plant. Sexual propagation is during dormant winter pruning can be used to the development of a new plant from a seed with generate new vines (Fig. 1). Dormant canes con- genetic material from two plants. This process tain fully developed buds with rudimentary shoots results in offspring that are genetically different comprised of leaf and cluster primordia and stored from the mother plant and from one another. energy. The carbohydrates contained in the wood This difference is due to genetic recombination will fuel the growth of roots and shoots until the during meiosis. Although grapes can be readily new grapevine has enough functioning leaves to grown from seed, all commercial grape cultivars support itself. are propagated asexually. This is the only way to maintain the exact characteristics of a specific grape cultivar. The mother plant’s characteristics must be maintained to use the cultivar name for marketing purposes, such as on a wine label. Some of the grape cultivars grown today were developed hundreds of years ago and have been preserved through asexual propagation.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating Resistance to Grape Phylloxera in Vitis Species with an in Vitro Dual Culture Assay WLADYSLAWA GRZEGORCZYK ~ and M
    Evaluating Resistance to Grape Phylloxera in Vitis Species with an in vitro Dual Culture Assay WLADYSLAWA GRZEGORCZYK ~ and M. ANDREW WALKER 2. Forty-one accessions of 12 Vitis L. and Muscadinia Small species were evaluated for resistance to grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) using an in vitro dual culture system. The performance of the species tested in this study was consistent with previously published studies with whole plants and helps confirm the utility of in vitro dual culture for the study of grape/phylloxera interactions. This in vitro system provides rapid results (8 wk) and the ability to observe the phylloxera/grape interaction without interference from other factors. This system also provides an evaluation that overemphasizes susceptibility, thus providing more confidence in the resistance responses of a given species or accession. Among the unusual responses were the susceptibility of V. riparia Michx. DVIT 1411; susceptibility within V. berlandieri Planch.; relatively wide ranging responses in V. rupestris Scheele; and the lack of feeding on the roots of V. califomica Benth., in contrast to the severe foliar feeding damage that occurred on this species. Vitis califomica #11 and V. girdiana Munson DVIT 1379 were unusual because phylloxera on them had the shortest generation times. Such accessions might be used to examine how grape hosts influence phylloxera behavior. Very strong resistance was found within V. aestivalisMichx. DVIT 7109 and 7110; I/. berlandieric9031; V. cinereaEngelm; I/. riparia (excluding DVIT 1411 ); V. rupestris DVIT 1418 and 1419; and M. rotundifolia Small. These species and accessions seem to possess enough resistance to enable their use in breeding with minimal concern about phylloxera susceptibility.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Analysis of Vitaceae Based on Plastid Sequence Data
    PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF VITACEAE BASED ON PLASTID SEQUENCE DATA by PAUL NAUDE Dissertation submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree MAGISTER SCIENTAE in BOTANY in the FACULTY OF SCIENCE at the UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG SUPERVISOR: DR. M. VAN DER BANK December 2005 I declare that this dissertation has been composed by myself and the work contained within, unless otherwise stated, is my own Paul Naude (December 2005) TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Abstract iii Index of Figures iv Index of Tables vii Author Abbreviations viii Acknowledgements ix CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Vitaceae 1 1.2 Genera of Vitaceae 6 1.2.1 Vitis 6 1.2.2 Cayratia 7 1.2.3 Cissus 8 1.2.4 Cyphostemma 9 1.2.5 Clematocissus 9 1.2.6 Ampelopsis 10 1.2.7 Ampelocissus 11 1.2.8 Parthenocissus 11 1.2.9 Rhoicissus 12 1.2.10 Tetrastigma 13 1.3 The genus Leea 13 1.4 Previous taxonomic studies on Vitaceae 14 1.5 Main objectives 18 CHAPTER 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS 21 2.1 DNA extraction and purification 21 2.2 Primer trail 21 2.3 PCR amplification 21 2.4 Cycle sequencing 22 2.5 Sequence alignment 22 2.6 Sequencing analysis 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 RESULTS 32 3.1 Results from primer trail 32 3.2 Statistical results 32 3.3 Plastid region results 34 3.3.1 rpL 16 34 3.3.2 accD-psa1 34 3.3.3 rbcL 34 3.3.4 trnL-F 34 3.3.5 Combined data 34 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 42 4.1 Molecular evolution 42 4.2 Morphological characters 42 4.3 Previous taxonomic studies 45 4.4 Conclusions 46 CHAPTER 5 REFERENCES 48 APPENDIX STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DATA 59 ii ABSTRACT Five plastid regions as source for phylogenetic information were used to investigate the relationships among ten genera of Vitaceae.
    [Show full text]
  • Differences in Grape Phylloxera-Related Grapevine Root
    PLANT PATHOLOGY HORTSCIENCE 34(6):1108–1111. 1999. ing vineyards may result in reduced phyllox- era numbers and phylloxera-related damage. The purpose of this work was to determine Differences in Grape Phylloxera- whether differences in phylloxera populations or phylloxera-related damage could be attrib- related Grapevine Root Damage in uted to organic or conventional management Organically and Conventionally regimes. Materials and Methods Managed Vineyards in California Two types of long-term vineyard manage- ment regimes were compared, organic and D.W. Lotter, J. Granett, and A.D. Omer conventional. Organically managed vineyards Department of Entomology, University of California, One Shields Avenue, (OMV) chosen for study were certified by the Davis, CA 95616-8584 California Certified Organic Farmers program (Santa Cruz) and were characterized by the Additional index words. Vitis vinifera, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae, organic farming, sustain- use of cover crops and composts and no syn- able agriculture, soil suppressiveness, Trichoderma thetic fertilizers or pesticides. Vineyards that had been organically certified for at least 5 Abstract. Secondary infection of roots by fungal pathogens is a primary cause of vine years and were infested with phylloxera were damage in phylloxera-infested grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.). In summer and fall surveys selected for this study. The time threshold of 5 in 1997 and 1998, grapevine root samples were taken from organically (OMVs) and years of organic management was chosen based conventionally managed vineyards (CMVs), all of which were phylloxera-infested. In both on experiences of organic farmers, consult- years, root samples from OMVs showed significantly less root necrosis caused by fungal ants, and researchers indicating that the full pathogens than did samples from CMVs, averaging 9% in OMVs vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Rootstocks As a Management Strategy for Adverse Vineyard Conditions
    FACT SHEET 14 MODULE 14 Rootstocks as a management strategy for adverse vineyard conditions AUTHOR: Catherine Cox - Phylloxera and Grape Industry Board of South Australia These updates are supported by the Australian Government through the Irrigation Industries Workshop Programme - Wine Industry Project in partnership with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. waterandvine.gwrdc.com.au Rootstocks as a management strategy for adverse vineyard conditions Introduction 2 Understanding different rootstock This Fact Sheet consolidates current knowledge around the key characteristics rootstocks used in Australian Viticulture in terms of tolerance to V. riparia x V. rupestris drought, salinity and lime. These rootstocks offer low-moderate vigour to the scion, and in The aim of this module is to briefly summarise the pros and cons certain situations hasten ripening. They do not tolerate drought of each rootstock and showcase the existing industry resources conditions. These characteristics make them particularly suited that can be used to aid in the selection of rootstocks in the key to cool climate viticulture. These rootstocks perform best on growing regions within the Murray Darling Basin. soils that dry out slowly and have moderate-high water holding For more information and training contact your local Innovator’s capacities. They impart low vigour to the scion and hence are Network member or go to http://waterandvine.gwrdc.com.au. suitable to high fertility sites and growing conditions. V. berlandieri x V. riparia 1 Introduction to rootstocks These rootstocks offer moderate-high vigour to the scion Grapevine rootstocks are derived from American Vitis species that depending on the soil type.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for the Production and Handling of High Quality Grapevine Planting Material
    Grapevine Propagation; Principles and Methods for the Production and Handling of High Quality Grapevine Planting Material Helen Waite1*, David Gramaje2 and Lucie Morton3 1National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia 2Department of Crop Protection, Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (IAS), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Alameda del Obispo s/n, P.O. Box 4084, 14080 Córdoba, Spain. 3Viticulturist, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. *Corresponding author [email protected] 1 Contents Draft Guidelines for the Production and Handling of High Quality Grapevine Planting Material .......... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Part 1: Quality Criteria for Vitis vinifera and Rootstock Cuttings Entering the Propagation Chain ........ 4 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 4 Intrinsic characteristics of Good Quality Vitis vinifera and rootstock cuttings ................................... 5 Quality cuttings: .............................................................................................................................. 5 Visible Characteristics of good Quality Vitis vinifera and Rootstock Cuttings .................................... 6 Quality dormant cuttings are: ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vitis Riparia
    OPTIMISATION OF SUSTAINABILITY OF GRAPEVINE VARIETIES BY SELECTING ROOTSTOCK VARIETIES UNDER DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND CREATING NEW ROOTSTOCK VARIETIES Joachim Schmid, Frank Manty, Ernst Rühl Geisenheim University Institut for Grapevine Breeding Joachim Schmid Entrance to UNESCO world heritage site Rüdesheim Joachim Schmid 16.01.2015Titel der 2 Präsentation Joachim Schmid • Rootstock breeding and the use of rootstocks is the result and the answer to the introduction of phylloxera • All present rootstocks are hybrids of wild Vitis species with specific characteristics Titel der Präsentation Joachim Schmid 16.01.2015 4 VITIS RIPARIA Advantages Phylloxera tolerant very high frost resistance (<‐40°C) early bud break, early ripening good rooting ability Disadvantages susceptible to drought Low lime tolerance Joachim Schmid 5 VITIS BERLANDIERI Advantages Phylloxera tolerant high lime tolerance salt tolerant medium to good drought tolerance Disadvantages poor rooting ability late ripening Joachim Schmid 6 VITIS RUPESTRIS Advantages Phylloxera tolerant good rooting ability average lime tolerance good drought tolerance – but susceptible on shallow soils Disadvantages low vigour (in the motherblock) early bud break Joachim Schmid 7 VITIS CINEREA Advantages Phylloxera resistant good drought tolerance Disadvantages poor rooting ability low lime tolerance late bud break Joachim Schmid 8 ROOTSTOCK BREEDERS IN HUNGARY, AUSRTRIA AND GERMANY Sigmund TELEKI (1854‐1910) & Franz KOBER (1864‐1943) Vitis berlandieri x Vitis riparia • Teleki 8
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Rootstocks and Irrigation Levels on Grape Quality of Vitis Vinifera L
    African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 9(25), pp. 3801-3807, 21 June, 2010 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB ISSN 1684–5315 © 2010 Academic Journals Full Length Research Paper Effects of rootstocks and irrigation levels on grape quality of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz M. Ozden1*, H. Vardin2, M. Simsek3 and M. Karaaslan2 1Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, 63040 Sanliurfa, Turkey. 2Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, 63040 Sanliurfa, Turkey. 3Department of Farm Structures and Irrigation, Faculty of Agriculture, Harran University, 63040 Sanliurfa, Turkey. Accepted 31 May, 2010 The influence of two rootstocks (SO4 and 1103P) on grape quality and berry chemical composition was studied in a factorial experiment, in field grown grapevines of cv. Shiraz (Vitis vinifera L.), subjected to five irrigation levels [0% (T1), 25% (T2), 50% (T3), 75% (T4) and 100% (T5) of irrigation depth (IW, mm): Class A pan evaporimeter (CPE)]. Spectrophotometric analyses of total anthocyanins (TA), total phenolics (TP) and total antioxidant activity (AA) in grape extracts were performed. Also, total soluble solids (TSS), total acidity, pH, total sugar content, ash, juice yield and color index of red grapes (CIRG) of berry samples were determined. TA, TP, AA, TSS, total sugar content, ash, and CIRG values decreased together with increasing irrigation levels. On the contrary, T4 and T5 irrigation treatments increased total acidity, pH and juice yield of samples compared to the effects of T1, T2 and T3 irrigation treatments for both rootstocks. Moreover, T1 or T2 treatments caused an increase in TA, TP, AA, TSS, total sugar content, ash, and CIRG index values of grape samples in comparison to that of vines irrigated with T3, T4 and T5 levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Rootstocks on Blade Nutritional Content of Two Minority Grapevine Varieties Cultivated Under Hyper-Arid Conditions in Northern Chile
    agronomy Article Effects of Rootstocks on Blade Nutritional Content of Two Minority Grapevine Varieties Cultivated under Hyper-Arid Conditions in Northern Chile Nicolás Verdugo-Vásquez 1 , Gastón Gutiérrez-Gamboa 2 , Emilio Villalobos-Soublett 1 and Andrés Zurita-Silva 1,* 1 Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias INIA, Centro de Investigación Intihuasi, Colina San Joaquín s/n, 1700000 La Serena, Chile; [email protected] (N.V.-V.); [email protected] (E.V.-S.) 2 Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad de Talca, 2 Norte 685, Casilla 747, 346000 Talca, Chile; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In the 90s, as in other countries, transformation of Chilean viticulture brought about the introduction and spread of European grapevine varieties which has resulted in a massive loss of minor local and autochthonous grapevine varieties traditionally grown in several wine growing regions. Fortunately, in recent years, autochthonous and minority varieties have been revalued due to their high tolerance to pests and diseases and because of their adaptation to thermal and water stress triggered by global warming. In this study, we assessed the nutritional status of two autochthonous grapevines grafted onto four different rootstocks under the hyper-arid climatic conditions of Northern Citation: Verdugo-Vásquez, N.; Chile over three consecutive seasons. The results showed that R32 rootstock induced high N, P, Ca, Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G.; Mg and Mn levels in blades compared to Harmony rootstock. R32 rootstock and to a lesser extent, Villalobos-Soublett, E.; Zurita-Silva, 1103 Paulsen and 140 Ruggeri rootstocks kept balanced levels of nutrients in blades collected from A. Effects of Rootstocks on Blade Nutritional Content of Two Minority Moscatel Amarilla and Moscatel Negra grapevine varieties.
    [Show full text]