DOCSLIB.ORG

Rootstock Effects on Wine Grapes

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rootstock Effects on Wine Grapes Rootstock effects on wine grapes John H. Foott o Cornelius S. Ough 0 James A. Wolpert Chardonnayand Cabernet Sauvi- gnon varieties were grafted onto phylloxera-resistant rootstocks in a vineyard not yet infested with the insect in the south central coastal region. Rootstocks influenced growth and yield, as well as compo- sition and quality of juice and wine, but a major consideration would be phylloxera resistance. For more than 100 years, California grape growers have been using rootstocks for resistance to grape phylloxera, an aphidlike insect that forms galls on vine roots. Nu- merous rootstock evaluations over the last 35 years by University of California viticul- turists at Davis have resulted in the identi- fication of AxR#l (Aramon x rupestris Ganzin 1) as a useful rootstock for the north- ern coastal valley vineyards. None of these studies, however, was conducted in the south central coastal region-San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. About 20,000 acres of new vineyards for wine grape production have been planted in the last 20 years in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. Nearly all of the Rootstock 1202C (left) shows excellent compatibility with Chardonnay scions. It was a vigorous, plantings have been own-rooted, that is, not high-yielding stock. Union of rootstock 110R with Chardonnay (right) is conspicuous because of on phylloxera-resistant rootstocks. Al- scion overgrowth. Wine sensory scores showed relatively little difference among rootstocks. though phylloxera was not present at the time of the plantings, it is a potentially seri- ous problem as vineyards age and as the vertical trellis and pruned to four canes per pressed. Sulfur dioxide (35 to50 milligrams probability increases for a chance introduc- vine. The vineyard, on a Ballard clay loam per liter [mg/L]) was added to each lot be- tion of the pest. soil, was cultivated between rows, and a fore addition of yeast, Saccharomyces cerevis- We therefore established six rootstock herbicide strip down the vine row was iue strain Montrachet (UCD Enology No. evaluation experiments, three in San Luis maintained by preemergence herbicides. 522). The Chardonnay was settled over- Obispo County and three in Santa Barbara. Irrigation was by permanent-set overhead night, racked, and fermented at 60°F. The This report presents results from two of the sprinklers. Yield and pruning weights from Cabernet Sauvignon was fermented at 70°F trials, one with Chardonnay scions and the each vine, and juice and wine composition with caps punched down twice daily. The other with Cabernet Sauvignon, both in the and wine sensory analysis for quality were "Brix reading was taken as necessary to fol- Vina de Santa Ynez Vineyard, just west of obtained from four replications of five ex- low the fermentation. When the wines were Santa Ynez in Santa Barbara County. perimental vine units each for 4 years for dry, they were taken to the cellar for clarifi- Cabernet Sauvignon and 3 years for Char- cation and cold stabilization. All samples Methods donnay. were held in glass. Small amounts of sulfur Rootstocks were grafted and grown by After harvesting, grapes were trans- dioxide were added at the time of filtration. the UC Department of Viticulture and Enol- ported to Davis and crushed the next day. Storage was at 52°F. ogy at Davis. The eight rootstocks and own- Chardonnay was pressed immediately in a For the first 3 years (1984-86),samples of rooted vines were established in 1976, with basket press (equivalent to winery free-run the field replicates were fermented sepa- replanting in 1978, at a density of 605 vines juice). Cabernet Sauvignon was fermented rately, and analyses of the juice and wines per acre. Vines were trained to a two-wire on the skins to about 5"Brix then lightly were averaged. In 1987, field samples were CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE. JULY-AUGUST 1989 27 crushed separately and juice samples ana- TABLE 1. Rootstock effect on cane pruning weight and fruit yield, Cabernet Sauvignon, 1984-87 lyzed, then combined and fermented in Aver- treatment lots. Rootstock 1984 1985 1986 1987 age* The juice samples were taken after the lots ...... ............... Pruning weight (/b/vine) ......... ........................................ were pressed and analyzed for "Brix, total 1202c 6.1 7.2 6.7 5.8 6.5 a acidity, and pH. The wine samples were 5A 4.2 4.7 4.9 4.3 4.5 b analyzed after cold stabilization for total St. George 3.4 5.1 4.8 4.1 4.4 bc acidity, pH, ethanol, potassium, total phe- SO4 3.9 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.2 bc Own 3.0 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.1 bc nols, and color. 3309C 4.0 4.1 4.5 3.3 4.0 bc The sensory analysis was done using the AxR#1 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.9 bc 20-point scoring system of M. A. Amerine 110R 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.0 3.2 bc and E. B. Roessler, of UC Davis, which al- Harmony 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9 3.0 c lows wines to be rated for appearance, ........ ........ Fruit yield @/vine) ....... .............. aroma, flavor, balance, and other quality AxR#1 16.6 19.0 13.7 13.8 15.8a SO4 13.6 15.6 15.0 13.4 14.4 ab parameters. The tastings were presented in 1202c 12.3 19.1 14.0 10.8 14.1 ab blocks of nine per day. Each taster received Own 11.8 18.4 12.4 11.5 13.5 ab nine different rootstock treatments at a sit- 5A 13.9 14.0 14.3 11.8 13.5ab ting, and each made eight replications to 3309C 13.0 11.3 15.3 10.7 12.6ab 110R 14.0 17.1 12.0 7.0 12.5b ensure that significant variations would be St. George 11.6 14.9 11.8 11.4 12.4b detected. We performed statistical analysis Harmony 11.7 9.4 9.6 5.5 9.1 c of each year's sensory scores. Seven to ten tasters participated each year. *Averages followed by the same letter are not significantly different by Duncan's Multiple Range Test, p=0.05 Results TABLE 2. Cabernet Sauvignon juice and wine analysis, data averaged, 1984-87 Cabernet Sauvignon. Growth was de- termined by pruning weight measurements Juice analysis Wine analysis fromeachvineover a4-year period (table 1). Total Total Potas- Total Color 0.0.' Scion growth was significantly greater on Rootstock "Brix acidity pH acidity pH Ethanol sium phenol 420nm 520nm 1202C than on all the other rootstocks each 9 H, Td 9 H, Jd %v/v mg/L mg/L year. It was followed by 5A, which was IOOml lOOrnl Harmony 23 6 071 366 071 379 133 1596 1754 3 24 5 19 significantly greater than the others for the St. George 22 9 074 362 071 380 129 1663 1591 2 87 4 57 4-year average only. The six remaining AxR#I 22 3 073 352 072 361 127 1316 1486 2 66 4 93 5A 23 3 080 356 073 370 132 1543 1541 2 90 4 85 rootstocks showed very small differences, Own 23 1 073 361 070 373 132 1584 1560 2 66 4 41 although Harmony was consistently low SO4 23 4 075 361 071 378 135 1599 1604 2 76 4 62 each year. 1202c 23 2 076 358 072 373 132 1608 1511 2 71 4 49 IIOR 22 9 076 357 073 367 129 1440 1594 2 88 5 01 Yield comparisons resulted in a different 3309C 23 2 078 358 073 371 13 1 1544 1568 2 71 4 54 grouping, with AxR#l, S04, 1202C, own- NOTE: All juice analyses performed as described by M.A. Amerine and C. S. Ough, MethodsofAnalysfs of Musts and Wines, J rootstocks, 5A, and 3309C all in the top Wileyand Sons, NewYork, 1980. group over the 4-year period (table 1). * O.D. =optical density. Harmony was the lowest producing stock. The juices varied considerably from year TABLE 3. Cabernet Sauvignon sensory evaluations, average sensory scores, 1984-87 to year, but treatment differences (table 2) were quite small. AxR#l had the lowest Score' soluble solids at an average 22.3"Brix, and Rootstock 1984 1985 1986 1987 Harmony the highest at 23.6"Brix. In total Harmony 13.63 a 13.56ab 14.07 ab 13.75 ab acidity, 5A was highest and Harmony low- St. George 13.58 a 13.50 b 13.71 cde 13.62 ab est, witha range of 0.71 to 0.80 gram tartaric AxR#1 13.55ab 13.83 a 14.00 abc 13.57 ab acid per 100 milliliters of juice (H,Ta/100 5A 13.53 ab 13.77 ab 13.59 def 13.20 c Own 13.40 ab 13.58 ab 13.80 bcd 13.68 ab ml). The pH reflected the "Brix and acidity SO4 13.40 ab 13.60 ab 12.91 g 13.48 bc measurements; Harmony had the highest 1202c 13.30 abc 13.75 ab 13.46 ef 13.71 ab pH and AxR#l the lowest. These differ- 110R 13.18bc 13.79 ab 14.21 a 13.84 a ences may be partially due to differences in 33090 12.93 c 13.69 ab 13.38 f 13.70 ab cropping level, vigor, or both. LSD .05 0.38 0.29 0.29 0.32 The total acidity of the wine showed a NOTE: Sensory analysis was by the 20-point scoring system of M.
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]
  • Determining the Classification of Vine Varieties Has Become Difficult to Understand Because of the Large Whereas Article 31
    31 . 12 . 81 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 381 / 1 I (Acts whose publication is obligatory) COMMISSION REGULATION ( EEC) No 3800/81 of 16 December 1981 determining the classification of vine varieties THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Whereas Commission Regulation ( EEC) No 2005/ 70 ( 4), as last amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 591 /80 ( 5), sets out the classification of vine varieties ; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, Whereas the classification of vine varieties should be substantially altered for a large number of administrative units, on the basis of experience and of studies concerning suitability for cultivation; . Having regard to Council Regulation ( EEC) No 337/79 of 5 February 1979 on the common organization of the Whereas the provisions of Regulation ( EEC) market in wine C1), as last amended by Regulation No 2005/70 have been amended several times since its ( EEC) No 3577/81 ( 2), and in particular Article 31 ( 4) thereof, adoption ; whereas the wording of the said Regulation has become difficult to understand because of the large number of amendments ; whereas account must be taken of the consolidation of Regulations ( EEC) No Whereas Article 31 of Regulation ( EEC) No 337/79 816/70 ( 6) and ( EEC) No 1388/70 ( 7) in Regulations provides for the classification of vine varieties approved ( EEC) No 337/79 and ( EEC) No 347/79 ; whereas, in for cultivation in the Community ; whereas those vine view of this situation, Regulation ( EEC) No 2005/70 varieties
    [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]
  • Grape Varieties for Indiana
    Commercial • HO-221-W Grape Varieties for Indiana COMMERCIAL HORTICULTURE • DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE PURDUE UNIVERSITY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE • WEST LAFAYETTE, IN Bruce Bordelon Selection of the proper variety is a major factor for fungal diseases than that of Concord (Table 1). Catawba successful grape production in Indiana. Properly match- also experiences foliar injury where ozone pollution ing the variety to the climate of the vineyard site is occurs. This grape is used primarily in white or pink necessary for consistent production of high quality dessert wines, but it is also used for juice production and grapes. Grape varieties fall into one of three groups: fresh market sales. This grape was widely grown in the American, French-American hybrids, and European. Cincinnati area during the mid-1800’s. Within each group are types suited for juice and wine or for fresh consumption. American and French-American Niagara is a floral, strongly labrusca flavored white grape hybrid varieties are suitable for production in Indiana. used for juice, wine, and fresh consumption. It ranks The European, or vinifera varieties, generally lack the below Concord in cold hardiness and ripens somewhat necessary cold hardiness to be successfully grown in earlier. On favorable sites, yields can equal or surpass Indiana except on the very best sites. those of Concord. Acidity is lower than for most other American varieties. The first section of this publication discusses American, French-American hybrids, and European varieties of wine Other American Varieties grapes. The second section discusses seeded and seedless table grape varieties. Included are tables on the best adapted varieties for Indiana and their relative Delaware is an early-ripening red variety with small berries, small clusters, and a mild American flavor.
    [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]
  • RAPD Assessment of California Phylloxera Diversity. Molecular Ecology 4:459464.)
    California grape phylloxera more variable than expected Jeffrey Granett 0 Andrew Walker P John De Benedictis GenineFong o Hong Lin P Ed Weber Many strains of grape phylloxera phylloxera’s biology, its life cycle and now have been identified in Cali- how grape species and rootstocks re- fornia vineyards. This variability sist its feeding. may be the result of multiple intro- This paper reviews our recent dis- ductions of this pest or of evolu- coveries that the DNA and feeding f tion of new strains on susceptible behavior of different collections of -G* or weakly resistant rootstocks. California phylloxera are relatively di- 8 1 verse. The discovery of diversity in 0 Thus own-rooted vines, weakly re- -J sistant rootstocks and those with biological populations is not novel, but the amount we found in California Grape phylloxera on rootstock. The minute V. vinifera parentage should not aphidlike insects feed on the root, causing a was unexpected. Because phylloxera be used in phylloxerated areas. In gall to form. The expanding and cracking gall were supposedly introduced into Cali- limits the root’s ability to take up water and addition, because of the observed fornia a relatively short time ago, and nutrients and allows rot organisms to invade. variability, quarantines are inef- they only reproduce asexually on the fective in preventing the occur- roots, we expected a relatively low are rarely damaged by its feeding. rence of biotype B phylloxera, as level of diversity. Other Vitis species, from parts of the it appears to evolve independently The variability in phylloxera’s abil- world where phylloxera are not na- in different areas.
    [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]
  • Phylloxera Strategiesis for Management in Oregon's Vineyards Information
    EC 1463 • November 1995 $2.50 DATE. OF OUTPhylloxera StrategiesIS for management in Oregon's vineyards information: PUBLICATIONcurrent most THIS For http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY EXTENSION SERVICE Contents Chapter 1. Phylloxera: What is it? 1 Chapter 2. Reducing the risk of phylloxera infestation 3 Chapter 3. Sampling vines to confirm the presence of phylloxera 4 Chapter 4. How to monitor the rate of spread of phylloxera in your vineyard 5 Chapter 5. Managing a phylloxera-infested vineyard DATE. 7 Chapter 6. Replanting options for establishing phylloxera-resistant vineyards 9 Chapter 7. Phylloxera-resistant rootstocks for grapevines 12 Chapter 8. Buying winegrape plants OF 19 Chapter 9. Tips for producing phylloxera-resistant grafted vines 20 OUT IS Authors This publication was prepared by a phylloxera task force at Oregon State University. Members are Bemadine Strik, Extensioninformation: berry crops specialist; M. Carmo Candolfi-Vasconcelos, Extension viticulture specialist; Glenn Fisher, Extension entomologist; Edward Hellman, Extension agent, North Willamette Research and Extension Center; Barney Watson, Extension enologist: Steven Price, postdoctoral research associate, viticulture; Anne Connelly, master's program student, horticulture; and Paula Stonerod, research aide, horticulture.PUBLICATION current most THIS For http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog Chapter 1 Phylloxera: What is It? B. Strik, A. Connelly, and G. Fisher History green, or light brown; on weakened distances. In Oregon, above-ground roots they are brown or orange. Mature nymphs have been detected on trunk The grape phylloxera, Daktulosphaira adults become brown or purplish- wraps in July and August. vitifoliae (Fitch), is an aphidlike insect brown, no matter on what kind of root that feeds on grape roots.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Phosphorus Availability, Scion, and Rootstock on Grapevine Shoot Growth, Leaf Area, and Petiole Phosphorus Concentration R
    The Influence of Phosphorus Availability, Scion, and Rootstock on Grapevine Shoot Growth, Leaf Area, and Petiole Phosphorus Concentration R. STANLEY GRANT ~* and M. A. MATTHEWS 2 Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) and Chenin blanc (Cb) scions on Freedom, AxR#1, St. George, and 110R rootstocks were grown under conditions of sufficient (+P) and deficient (-P) soil phosphorous availability. Shoot length, shoot dry weight, leaf area, and petiole P concentration were lower for -P compared to +P vines. Cb vines had larger leaves and more leaf area than CS vines and the leaf area of Cb vines was less inhibited by exposure to -P than was CS vines. Vines on Freedom had longer shoots, greater shoot biomass, and greater leaf area than vines on other rootstocks regardless of P availability. Under +P vines on St. George produced less shoot dry weight than vines on Freedom, but more than vines on 110R. However, the shoot dry weight and leaf area of vines on St. George was greatly inhibited by -P and vines on St. George appeared to not use P efficiently for growth under these conditions. Vines on 110R produced the least amount of shoot growth and leaf area among the rootstocks under +P, but were also the least inhibited by -P conditions. The shoot dry weight and leaf area of vines on AxR#1 was intermediate between vines on Freedom and vines on St. George and 110R, and were inhibited by -P slightly less than St. George. Freedom and 110R are more suitable for low P soils than St. George and AxR#1.
    [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]