Sangiovese vines mechanically spur-pruned during dormancy in February were manually finished either immediately or post budburst to test the potential of a ‘double-pruning’ approach to delay fruit sugar accumulation and limit yield. The treatments were applied in 2014, 2015, and 2016 at BBCH-0 as standard hand-finishing on dormant buds (SHF), and as late (LHF) and very late (VLHF) hand-finishing at BBCH-14 and BBCH-19, i.e., when the two apical shoots on the mechanically-shortened canes were ~10 and 20 cm long, respectively. While yield per vine was drastically reduced in the VLHF treatment (-43% versus SHF) due to high incidence of unsprouted (blind) nodes, lower shoot fruitfulness, and berries per cluster, yield reduction in LHF was -22% versus SHF due only to the incidence of unsprouted nodes. While the fruit ripening profile was not significantly modified in VLHF compared to SHF, in data pooled over three seasons, LHF delayed basic fruit composition at harvest, producing fruit with less total soluble solids, lower pH, and greater acidity, but more phenolics than SHF. Overall, LHF proved to be effective at reducing yield per vine to a level that did not require expensive cluster thinning. By reducing berry sugar accumulation, it has the potential to produce wines with lower alcohol and higher phenol content. Noteworthy too is its potential to delay harvest date or increase crop hanging time under specific vineyard conditions.

Double-pruning grapevines as a management tool to delay berry ripening and control yield

Sabbatini P.;Silvestroni O.;
2017-01-01

Abstract

Sangiovese vines mechanically spur-pruned during dormancy in February were manually finished either immediately or post budburst to test the potential of a ‘double-pruning’ approach to delay fruit sugar accumulation and limit yield. The treatments were applied in 2014, 2015, and 2016 at BBCH-0 as standard hand-finishing on dormant buds (SHF), and as late (LHF) and very late (VLHF) hand-finishing at BBCH-14 and BBCH-19, i.e., when the two apical shoots on the mechanically-shortened canes were ~10 and 20 cm long, respectively. While yield per vine was drastically reduced in the VLHF treatment (-43% versus SHF) due to high incidence of unsprouted (blind) nodes, lower shoot fruitfulness, and berries per cluster, yield reduction in LHF was -22% versus SHF due only to the incidence of unsprouted nodes. While the fruit ripening profile was not significantly modified in VLHF compared to SHF, in data pooled over three seasons, LHF delayed basic fruit composition at harvest, producing fruit with less total soluble solids, lower pH, and greater acidity, but more phenolics than SHF. Overall, LHF proved to be effective at reducing yield per vine to a level that did not require expensive cluster thinning. By reducing berry sugar accumulation, it has the potential to produce wines with lower alcohol and higher phenol content. Noteworthy too is its potential to delay harvest date or increase crop hanging time under specific vineyard conditions.
2017
68
4
412
421
Grape composition; Leaf area; Node fertility; Reserve storage; Winter pruning
Palliotti A.; Frioni T.; Tombesi S.; Sabbatini P.; Cruz-Castillo J.G.; Lanari V.; Silvestroni O.; Gatti M.; Poni S.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
412.full.pdf

Accesso aperto

Dimensione 983.78 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
983.78 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1930712
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 46
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 41
social impact