DOCSLIB.ORG

Canopy Management: Identifying the Problems and Practical Solutions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Canopy Management: Identifying the Problems and Practical Solutions Keynote paper Canopy management: identifying the problems and practical solutions Richard E. Smart and Steve M. Smith Scientist, Viticulture and Technician, Viticulture MAFTech Ruakura Agriculture Centre Private Bag, Hamilton, New Zealand Abstract This paper discusses the implications for yield and qual- The effects of improper canopy management ity of excessively dense canopies. Simple techniques are Shade depresses fruit bud initiation as is shown by recent presented to identify problem canopies including measure- reviews (Kliewer 1982; Shaulis 1982) so that training sys- ments of canopy surface area, visual assessment of cano- tems which reduce within-canopy shade lead to increased pies, point quadrat measurements, leaf area measurement yield. Bunch rot incidence is also increased by dense cano- and measurements at winter pruning. Results are presented pies (Rotem and Palti 1969) and perhaps many of the to show how problem canopies can be overcome, with effects noted of pruning level, rootstock and fertilisation emphasis on shoot devigouration by pruning level and may be indirect effects through canopy microclimate. Shade training system. The economic advantages of some new effects on fruit composition are increasingly being training systems are presented. acknowledged, and a recent review (Smart 1985a) indicates that shade causes inferior fruit composition. For example, Introduction shade causes increased pH and K and malic acid concen- Canopy management consists of deliberate decisions by tration, and reduced sugar, anthocyanin, phenol and fruit the viticulturist to achieve some desirable canopy configu- flavour concentrations. Light quality as well as light quan- ration, be it in terms of surface area, volume, leaf area per tity effects have recently been implicated as affecting grape- shoot, fruit exposure, shoot orientation or even vine phys- vine physiology, especially fruit ripening (Smart 1987b; iological status. Important to consider are the economic Smart 1987c). costs and benefits of "canopy management". Management Improper canopy management can cause increased includes concepts of problem identification and then their production costs also. For example, vines with long, heavy solution. I have observed (Smart 1987a) that many canopy canes can be more expensive to hand prune, and dense components are "under-managed"— for example shoot canopies can cause inefficiencies of spray application. Fur- orientation in Australian and Californian vineyards, where ther, modern canopy design aims to enhance mechanisa- shoot position is determined by the natural forces of gravity tion, especially for summer trimming and winter pruning and wind rather than the viticulturists intervention. along with fruit harvesting. Operations such as leaf pluck- Canopy management is being increasingly recognised as ing in the fruit zone are facilitated by orderly arrangement an important tool for manipulating wine grape yield and of shoots in the canopy. quality (Smart 1985a). This is not to suggest that canopy The appropriate management of dense shaded canopies management is the only factor to be considered in improv- is a major problem facing modern viticulture. In fact the ing wine quality. Planting with a high-health, genetically problem now is of higher incidence than ever before, due superior clone of the appropriate cultivar grafted to an to advances in virus elimination, fertilisation, irrigation, appropriate rootstock and matched to a suitable climate plant protection and weed control. In the past, inadequate is of paramount importance. Soil conditions are cultural methods caused devigouration and canopies were acknowledged also of being of considerable significance, often less dense. These problems are exacerbated in many particularly in interaction with the climate and manage- New World viticultural regions due to choice of excessively ment systems in regulation of water and mineral status. deep or fertile soils for vineyards. Such is commonly the Also important are timeliness of harvest, fruit protection case in New Zealand. and of course appropriate vinification and conservation. This paper will indicate the viticultural and oenological Identifying problem canopies implications of improper canopy management, how Canopy surface area determination problem canopies can be identified, and some practical and Canopy surface area can be determined by sketching the economic techniques of canopy management. The concept canopy end-section to scale and calculating the exposed of vineyard quality assurance will be introduced whereby surface area. Surfaces facing downwards are not included, using simple assessments the viticulturist is able to moni- though this ruling is recognised as somewhat arbitrary tor progress in canopy management. (Smart 1985a). Similarly, there is a small effect of row orientation which is ignored. Fig. 1 lists five sample canopy Proceedings Second international Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenology Symposium, Auckland, New Zealand. January 1988. gib Canopy management identifying problems ono solutions cross-sections and canopy surface area calculations for row scorecard has been modified over several years, and the spacings 1-3.6 m, and for divided and undivided canopies. MKIV version has eight characters each worth 10 points Dimensions for the first four trellises are given by Smart to be assessed, just before harvest. These are: canopy gaps, (1985a). These are: Bordeaux traditional, row spacing 1 m; leaf size, leaf colour, canopy density, fruit exposure, shoot Intermediate row spacing 2 m; Traditional (New Zealand), length, lateral growth, and growing shoot tip presence. row spacing 3m; and "U" or "Lyre" trellis with row spacing Table 1 shows the MKIV scorecard, with each parameter 3 m. The fifth design is the Ruakura Twin Two Tier (RT2T), assessed out of 10 points, for a total of 80. High scoring 3.6 m row spacing. It is a horizontally and vertically canopies have adequate canopy gaps, slightly small leaves, divided trellis under evaluation at Rukuhia Horticultural dull but green healthy leaves, low leaf layer number, high Research Station, New Zealand (Smart 1987a). fruit exposure, intermediate shoot length, limited or zero lateral growth and no growing shoot tips. This scorecard is being used to evaluate experimental and commercial vine- yards, and is proving a useful tool to determine manage- ment strategies. Row spacing •1m Canopy SA•I9,000 m2/ha Point quadrat assessment x/h•088 This technique uses a long (ca. 1 m) thin (ca. 3 mm) straight, sharpened metal rod inserted through the canopy to record "contact" with canopy components (fruit and leaves— shoots can generally be ignored). For vertical cano- Row spacing • 2m pies, the rod is inserted horizontally in the fruit zone. For I Canopy SA •18,000 m2/ha x/h .1 00 non-vertical canopies, the rod is inserted at an angle (say 45-600) towards the fruit zone. By recording contacts as the rod progresses, and with a sample of say 100 insertions per canopy, the following can be readily calculated: Row spacing ■ 3m Canopy SA • I2,330 m 2/ha Percent gaps—number of insertions with no contact/100. x/hal.56 Leaf layer number (LLN)— total number of leaf con- tacts for all insertions/100. Row spacing • 3 m Percent interior fruit—number of contacts with fruit not Canopy SA 223,330 m 2/ha at the canopy exterior divided by total number of fruit x/h• 0.5 contacts. Percent interior leaves— number of contacts with leaves not at the canopy exterior divided by total number of I RT2T" leaf contacts. Row spacing • 3.6m Canopy SA • 21,110 m 2/ha These measurements and calculations can be readily x/h • 100 made, and provided sampling is adequate can accurately describe canopies. Fig. 2 shows the results of assessing five experimental Fig. 1. Vineyard cross sections drawn to scale, and calculated canopy sur- Cabernet Franc canopies at Rukuhia. The higher LLN of face area and ratio x/h (see text). standard vines was associated with lower canopy gaps, and The small canopy surface area of traditional, undivided higher proportions of interior leaves and clusters. The con- canopies is apparent, a primary cause of canopy shading. verse was true for RT2T vines with the low mean LLN of Sunlight interception will be proportional to this value. 0.73. Note that the proportion of interior fruit is about Canopy surface area is increased by decreasing row spac- twice that of interior leaves, due to the fact that leaves are ing, or by canopy division as for the "U" and "RT2T". The able to adjust their position to optimise illumination and ratio of distance between canopies (x) to their height (h) clusters cannot (Smart et al., 1982). is important. Smart (1985b) has suggested that when this Leaf area assessment value is less than 1.0 then shading at the base of canopy walls may be excessive. For this reason, the value of canopy Shoot leaf area can be readily calculated by comparing surface area for the RT2T (21, 110 m 2/ha) is at about the the fresh weight of a known number of discs of known maximum value possible. area (cut with a cork borer) to the fresh weight of leaves. Leaf area can also be measured with electronic meters and Visual assessment of canopies by correlations with length measurements. It is instructive Canopy gaps, canopy density and fruit exposure can be to separate main and lateral leaves, and also to record shoot readily visually estimated. This leads to the concept of a length. Sufficient shoots need be sampled to obtain a "vineyard scorecard" first developed in South Australia in meaningful average. Leaf area per. vine can be calculated 1981 (Smart et al., 1985). With sufficient instruction and by multiplying with the average shoot number per vine. experience, scorers can give similar answers. Estimates of The ratio of leaf area to canopy surface area (LA/SA) can canopy density can be incorporated with other visual esti- be then determined. Ideal values of this figure should be mates of physiological significance to make an assessment 1.2 or lower (Smart 1984); note that for tall thin canopies of the potential winegrape quality from the vineyard.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Canopy Microclimate Modification for the Cultivar Shiraz II. Effects on Must and Wine Composition
    Vitis 24, 119-128 (1985) Roseworthy Agricultural College, Roseworth y, South Australia South Australian Department of Agriculture, Adelaide, South Austraha Canopy microclimate modification for the cultivar Shiraz II. Effects on must and wine composition by R. E. SMART!), J. B. ROBINSON, G. R. DUE and c. J. BRIEN Veränderungen des Mikroklimas der Laubwand bei der Rebsorte Shiraz II. Beeinflussung der Most- und Weinzusammensetzung Z u sam menfa ss u n g : Bei der Rebsorte Shiraz wurde das Ausmaß der Beschattung innerha lb der Laubwand künstlich durch vier Behandlungsformen sowie natürlicherweise durch e ine n Wachstumsgradienten variiert. Beschattung bewirkte in den Traubenmosten eine Erniedri­ gung de r Zuckergehalte und eine Erhöhung der Malat- und K-Konzentrationen sowie der pH-Werte. Die Weine dieser Moste wiesen ebenfalls höhere pH- und K-Werte sowie einen venin­ gerten Anteil ionisierter Anthocyane auf. Statistische Berechnungen ergaben positive Korrelatio­ nen zwischen hohen pH- und K-Werten in Most und Wein einerseits u11d der Beschattung der Laubwand andererseits; die Farbintensität sowie die Konzentrationen der gesamten und ionisier­ ten Anthocyane und der Phenole waren mit der Beschattung negativ korreliert. Zur Beschreibung der Lichtverhältnisse in der Laubwand wurde ei11 Bonitierungsschema, das sich auf acht Merkmale stützt, verwendet; die hiermit gewonne nen Ergebnisse korrelierten mit Zucker, pH- und K-Werten des Mostes sowie mit pH, Säure, K, Farbintensität, gesamten und ionj­ sierten Anthocyanen und Phenolen des Weines. Starkwüchsige Reben lieferten ähnliche Werte der Most- und Weinzusammensetzung wie solche mit künstlicher Beschattung. K e y wo r d s : climate, light, growth, must quality, wine quality, malic acid, potassium, aci­ dity, anthocyanjn.
    [Show full text]
  • Bacterial Leaf Scorch of Chitalpa”
    Extension Plant Pathology “Bacterial Leaf Scorch of Chitalpa” The Heat of Summer brings on Symptoms of Bacterial Leaf Scorch Symptoms on Chitalpa. Figure 1: Flowers on healthy chitalpa trees. (Photo N. Goldberg NMSU- PDC) Chitalpa trees (a hybrid between catalpa and desert willow) are susceptible to a xylem-limited bacterium called Xylella fastidiosa (Fig 1). The bacterium invades the plant and plugs up the water conducting vessels, known as the xylem vessels, making it difficult for the plant to get enough water to the leaves. The result on the plant is symptoms of water and nutrient stress - chlorosis and leaf scorch. Other symptoms include leaf spotting, small leaves, thin canopy, branch dieback, and eventually, tree death (Fig 2, 3, 4, 5). This disease was first discovered in New Mexico in 2006. It was also confirmed in grapes the same year. In grapes, the disease is known as Pierce’s Disease. In 2010, the disease was also confirmed in catalpa and peach. The disease is transmitted from one plant to another through xylem-feeding insects, most notably sharpshooters. While New Mexico has some native sharpshooters, the most efficient vectors for Xylella, the glassy-winged sharpshooter and the smoke-tree Figure 2: Leaf scorch and spotting symptoms on chitalpa leaves. (Photos: sharpshooter (Fig. 6), are not know to occur. N. Goldberg NMSU-PDC) Figure 3: Dieback symptoms on chitalpa. (Photo N. Goldberg NMSU-PDC) Research at New Mexico State University has shown that the bacterium is nearly identical in chitalpa, grape and catalpa. This indicates transmission, probably by native sharpshooters, between these hosts.
    [Show full text]
  • Grape Growing
    GRAPE GROWING The Winegrower or Viticulturist The Winegrower’s Craft into wine. Today, one person may fill both • In summer, the winegrower does leaf roles, or frequently a winery will employ a thinning, removing excess foliage to • Decades ago, winegrowers learned their person for each role. expose the flower sets, and green craft from previous generations, and they pruning, taking off extra bunches, to rarely tasted with other winemakers or control the vine’s yields and to ensure explored beyond their village. The Winegrower’s Tasks quality fruit is produced. Winegrowers continue treatments, eliminate weeds and • In winter, the winegrower begins pruning • Today’s winegrowers have advanced trim vines to expose fruit for maximum and this starts the vegetative cycle of the degrees in enology and agricultural ripening. Winegrowers control birds with vine. He or she will take vine cuttings for sciences, and they use knowledge of soil netting and automated cannons. chemistry, geology, climate conditions and indoor grafting onto rootstocks which are plant heredity to grow grapes that best planted as new vines in the spring, a year • In fall, as grapes ripen, sugar levels express their vineyards. later. The winegrower turns the soil to and color increases as acidity drops. aerate the base of the vines. The winegrower checks sugar levels • Many of today’s winegrowers are continuously to determine when to begin influenced by different wines from around • In spring, the winegrower removes the picking, a critical decision for the wine. the world and have worked a stagé (an mounds of earth piled against the base In many areas, the risk of rain, hail or apprenticeship of a few months or a of the vines to protect against frost.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Canopy Area on Ripening and Wine Quality (2017) Rosemont Vineyards and Winery Submitted by Justin Rose
    The Effect of Canopy Area on Ripening and Wine Quality (2017) Rosemont Vineyards and Winery Submitted by Justin Rose Summary This study examines the impact of canopy height and ripening on wine quality in Merlot. Three sets of five rows of Merlot were hedged to different heights in mid-June: 52 inches (High canopy), 44 Inches (Medium canopy, normal height), and 36 inches (Short canopy). All other vineyard treatments were identical. Not much additional shoot growth occurred after hedging. Grapes were harvested on August 25 and processed into separate T Bins. All other treatments were identical. Juice Brix was slightly higher for the short canopy compared to the higher canopy. This may have been due to a seeming resistance to rain dilution seen in the short canopy vine compared to the medium and higher canopy vines. The ethanol, TA, color, and tannin increased with decrease in canopy height, and pH decreased with canopy height. Overall, descriptive analysis had difficulty distinguishing the wines consistently. The short canopy treatment tended to have slightly more Bitterness and Overall Aromatic Intensity. The short canopy wine also exhibited some slight reduction relative to the other two wines, which may have influenced results. Fruit Intensity and Astringency tended to vary between wines between tastings. In general, the high canopy wine tended to be the most preferred. Future studies should examine how bud fruitfulness and yield are impacted by multiple vintages of heavy hedging, pick fruit at different times depending on which treatment is deemed “optimally” ripe, and hedging shoots when they reach their designated height to try to force lateral growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Leaf Removal Applied to a Sprawling Canopy to Regulate Fruit Ripening in Cabernet Sauvignon
    plants Article Leaf Removal Applied to a Sprawling Canopy to Regulate Fruit Ripening in Cabernet Sauvignon Patrick O’Brien 1, Cassandra Collins 1,2 and Roberta De Bei 1,* 1 Waite Research Institute, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia; [email protected] (P.O.); [email protected] (C.C.) 2 ARC Industrial Transformation Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production, Waite Research Institute, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Under the effects of climate change, it is becoming increasingly common to observe excessively fast grape sugar accumulation while phenolic and flavour development are lagging behind. The aim of this research was to quantify the impacts of three different leaf removal techniques on the canopy architecture and ripening of Cabernet Sauvignon trained in a sprawl trellis system. Treatments were performed at veraison (~14 ◦Brix) and included (i) control; (ii) leaf plucking in the bunch zone; (iii) leaf plucking the top two-thirds of shoots, apical to the bunches; and (iv) shoot trimming. On the date of harvest, no significant difference in total soluble solids was observed between treatments. Other results including the effect of the treatments on fruit acidity, anthocyanins, phenolics, and tannins were somewhat inconclusive. While various other studies have shown the potential of leaf removal to achieve slower grape sugar accumulation without affecting the concentration of anthocyanins, phenolics, and tannins, the results of this study do not indicate a decrease in the rate of grape sugar accumulation as a result of the investigated defoliation techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • ISPM 27 Diagnostic Protocols for Regulated Pests DP 25: Xylella
    This diagnostic protocol was adopted by the Standards Committee on behalf of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in August 2018. The annex is a prescriptive part of ISPM 27. ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests DP 25: Xylella fastidiosa Adopted 2018; published 2018 CONTENTS 1. Pest Information ...............................................................................................................................3 2. Taxonomic Information ....................................................................................................................3 3. Detection ...........................................................................................................................................4 3.1 Symptoms ..........................................................................................................................4 3.1.1 Pierce’s disease of grapevines ...........................................................................................4 3.1.2 Citrus variegated chlorosis ................................................................................................5 3.1.3 Coffee leaf scorch .............................................................................................................5 3.1.4 Olive leaf scorching and quick decline .............................................................................5 3.1.5 Almond leaf scorch disease ...............................................................................................6 3.1.6 Bacterial leaf scorch of shade
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Irrigation and Canopy Management Strategies for Vitis Vinifera Cv
    INTEGRATED IRRIGATION AND CANOPY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR VITIS VINIFERA CV. SHIRAZ. A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy at The University of Adelaide By RACHEL MARGARET ASHLEY September 2004 i This work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference has been made in the text. I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being available for loan or photocopying. ____________________ Rachel Margaret Ashley 15 September 2004 ii Dedicated to the memory of Eve Cottral. iii SUMMARY Modern canopy management practices and irrigation strategies have improved the economic and environmental sustainability of Australia’s wine industry, in terms of increased production and improved wine quality for minimal production cost and environmental impact. This study tested the hypothesis that partial rootzone drying (PRD) integrated with low input, minimal pruning practices can improve sustainability of winegrape production in warm-climate, irrigated vineyards. The bi-factorial experiment investigated three conventional pruning practices; hand spur pruning (SPUR), mechanical hedging (MECH) and minimal pruning (MIN) integrated with standard drip (SD) and PRD irrigation strategies. The sustainability of winegrape production of field-grown cv. Shiraz grapevines was determined by examining yield, fruit composition, wine composition and quality, vine physiology and susceptibility of bunches to Botrytis bunch rot. Winegrape production was strongly influenced by pruning level and the resultant bunch number per vine.
    [Show full text]
  • Uc Davis Viticulture and Enology Trellis System
    UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY TRELLIS SYSTEM EVALUATION FOR MECHANIZATION S. KAAN KURTURAL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SPECIALIST UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Outline • Our estimate at current mechanization levels • Labor operations costs associated with mechanizing cultural practices • What can we currently? • Mechanization experiment • Where are we heading? UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY What is driving mechanization in vineyards? • Mechanization • Timeliness of cultural practices • Willing labor force • Cost of labor ($15/h) • Quality of life/socioeconomic factors • Proximity to population centers • Land availability and cost • Foreign competition UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Estimated percentage of acres for grape commodities for mechanical cultural practices Wine Raisin Table Dormant season Pre-prune 65 5 30 Box-hedge 12 None* None Canopy Mgt Leaf removal 45 None 10 Shoot thinning 7 None None Hedging 100 100 100 Shoot 2 None None positioning Cluster removal 7 None None Harvesting 91 35 None UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Labor operations cost for California Sprawl for Cabernet Sauvignon (2012) UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Mechanical cultural practices and trellis type adaptability California VSP Quadrilateral Single high Head- sprawl wire trained Pre-pruning +++ ++++ ++ ++++ - Final pruning ++ ++ + ++++ - Shoot ++ ++ + ++++ - thinning Leaf removal ++ ++++ ++ ++++ ++ Berry/cluster ++ ++ + ++++ - thinning Trunk ++ + ++ ++++ - suckering Harvest +++ ++++ ++ ++++ - UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Cultural practices that
    [Show full text]
  • Training Systems for Grape Vines Systems for Vines with a Trailing (Procumbent) Growth Habit
    Training Systems for Grape Vines Systems for Vines with a Trailing (procumbent) Growth Habit Head (long cane) Training Systems: 4 and 6-cane Kniffen: • Advantages: – Ease of pruning to long canes. – Vertical distribution of fruit. – More compatible with tolerating winter injury than cordon systems. • Disadvantages: – Requires annual tying of canes. Zabadal – Difficult to maintain quality on lower wires (shading). – Not compatible with systematic leaf removal & shoot positioning. Umbrella Kniffen: Advantages: – Easily to learn system. – Fruit high, distributed and well exposed. – Simple trellis construction. Disadvantages: – Requires of annual tying of canes. Zabadal – Less adaptable to shoot positioning. Keuka High Renewal: • Advantages: – Very compatible with frequent replacement of vine parts in response to frequent winter injury. • Disadvantages: – Requires of annual tying of canes. – Difficult for inexperienced pruners. – Not adaptable to systematic leaf removal & shoot Zabadal positioning. Cordon Systems: Single Curtain Bi-lateral Cordon (High Trellis): • Advantages: – Adaptable to mechanical pruning, unskilled manual pruning, and mechanical shoot positioning. – Fruit are high for good sun exposure. – Requires little annual tying. • Disadvantages: Dami, et. al – Tends to reduce vine vigor, especially if shoots are positioned. Prepared by Dr. Paul Domoto, Dept. of Horticulture (July 2010) IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY University Extension – Difficult to establish cordons where there is frequent winter injury. – Old cordons hard to remove from wires. – Old cordons may become a reservoir for diseases. Geneva Double Curtain: • Advantages: – Method to handle high vigor vines. • Disadvantages: – Requires additional labor to shoot position. Dami, et. al Systems for Upright and Semi-upright Growth Habits Head (long cane) Systems: Goyut: • Advantages: – Fruit can be situated relatively low to ground where it may benefit from radiant heat.
    [Show full text]
  • Canopy Management: a Valuable Tool for Vineyard Sustainability
    Canopy Management: A Valuable Tool For Vineyard Sustainability Andy Allen Viticulture and Enology Program Arkansas Tech University–Ozark Campus Recommended sustainable winegrowing practices • Canopy management – purpose is to create more open canopy with improved microclimate in fruiting zone – Balanced pruning – Shoot thinning – Shoot positioning – Leaf removal – Hedging – Crop load adjustment Benefits of canopy management Improving the canopy microclimate to permit more light and air penetration into fruiting zone: •Reduces disease pressure •Improves spray penetration •Allows more efficient photosynthesis •Improves fruit composition •Improves color •Reduces levels of methoxypyrazines •Improves development of flavor and aroma compounds •Improves sugar and acid composition Effects of canopy management practices and fungicide applications on Botrytis bunch rot and yield of Chenin blanc grapevines in California in 1985. Control Shoot Leaf removal Hedging thinning Incidence (% diseased clusters) Sprayed 46.8 47.0 16.9 44.1 Nonsprayed 55.0 42.9 23.9 47.4 Mean 50.9 44.9 20.4* 45.7 Severity (% rot per cluster) Sprayed 9.3 11.3 1.69 8.05 Nonsprayed 15.3 10.2 2.85 9.08 Mean 12.3 10.7 2.27** 8.56* Yield (tons per acre) Sprayed 8.19 4.84 7.59 6.54 Nonsprayed 5.39 5.17 7.31 6.32 Mean 6.79 5.00* 7.45 6.43 From: Gubler, et al. 1987. Control of Botrytis bunch rot of grape with canopy management. Plant Disease 71:599-601. Effect of one- and two-sided leaf removal on composition of Cynthiana juice and wine in three seasons in Arkansas. Soluble Tartaric
    [Show full text]
  • Pruning, Training, and Grape Canopy Management
    Pruning,Pruning, Training,Training, andand GrapeGrape CanopyCanopy ManagementManagement Dr. Gail Nonnecke Department of Horticulture Iowa State University Presented at the Iowa Grape Growers Conference January 26, 2002 Revised for the web by Dr. Paul Domoto Pruning,Pruning, TrainingTraining andand GrapeGrape CanopyCanopy ManagementManagement Contents: • Pruning and Training: Single-Curtain Training Systems • Canopy Management: Shoot positioning Shoot topping TheThe GrapevineGrapevine isis aa truetrue vinevine that requires some form of support to keep it off the ground. In the wild, tendrils along the canes attach to other vegetation and allow the vine to grow up off the ground. In our intensive cultural systems, there is no natural support for the Single Curtain Vineyard vines. Therefore, we have to erect various trellis systems to train and support the vines, and facilitate other management practices. PruningPruning andand TrainingTraining ofof GrapevinesGrapevines • The culture of grapes dates back to early civilization: - Archaeological evidence that grapes were consumed by early humans dates back to the early Bronze Age (3,500 B.C.). - The oldest pictorial record of grape growing exists in Egyptian mosaics that date back to 2440 B.C. • Though time, man learned to train grapevines for both production and aesthetic value. circa 1500 GrapevineGrapevine FruitingFruiting CharacteristicCharacteristic Dormant bud on Grape clusters on Dormant buds on 1-yr-old a 1-yr-old cane current season canes canes (last year’s canes) give rise to new (current season) canes on which the grape clusters are produced. • Because of this character, pruning mature grapevines consists of replacing all the fruiting wood each year. • This can amount to removing 80% or more of the 2-yr-old canes and replacing them An emerging !-yr-old cane with 1-yr-old canes.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the PVCC Viticulture & Enology Brochure
    Viticulture & Enology CONTENTS PVCC Viticulture & Enology Program ... 2 Viticulture Certificate Program ............. 3 Enology Certificate Program ..................7 Tasting Room Management Certificate Program ...................................................10 Non-Certificate Classes ........................14 Registration Information .......................15 PVCC VITICULTURE & ENOLOGY PROGRAM PVCC Workforce Virginia Wine... Services... Over 60 different grape varieties are cultivated in Virginia for wine production. The only one of its kind in Virginia, PVCC In addition to popular grape varieties like offers certificate programs in viticulture Chardonnay, Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet (grape-growing), enology (wine making), Franc, Viognier, and Merlot, many lesser tasting room management and winery known varieties like Verdejo, Nebbiolo, and cellar worker. Classes are noncredit and Vermentino are thriving in Virginia. most classes are held on Saturdays. Led by Virginia wine industry professionals, these • Virginia has seven American viticultural programs combine in-class instruction areas with hands-on learning in local vineyards • Virginia has 27 wine trails and wineries. Students range from current • According to the Virginia Tourism owners and operators looking to sharpen Corporation, more than 2.2 million tourists their skills to novices looking to get involved visited Virginia wineries in 2015. in Virginia’s growing wine industry. • Virginia is the fifth largest wine grape producer in the U.S. See the class schedule and register
    [Show full text]