Effect of Pruning Severity and Bud Number Per Cane on Yield and Quality of Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Rotabi

Document Type : Research Article

Author

• Mohammad Javad Karami

Assistant Professor of Fars Agriculture and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Shiraz, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhs.2022.74612.1125

Abstract

Introduction
 The Rotabi grape cultivar holds significant importance in the Bavanat region of Fars province. There are two distinct methods of pruning employed for this cultivar: Cane pruning and Spur pruning. These methods vary primarily in the length of one-year-old wood that is preserved after pruning. Cane pruning involves retaining long fruiting canes, typically those with more than 3 buds per cane. Conversely, Spur pruning utilizes shorter canes, usually those with 1-2 buds. The common method of training Rotabi vines in Shiraz vineyards is in the form of bush training. This method of vine training is compatible with spur pruning, in which the canes are usually pruned into 2 to 3 buds. For this reason, there is not enough information about the response of this cultivar to cane pruning. This study was conducted in order to determine the correct method of pruning Rotabi vines based on scientific principles appropriate to its genetic characteristics.
 
Materials and Methods
 This study was performed on 17-year-old vines of Rotabi cultivar in one of the vineyards of Shiraz of Fars province (Iran). In this study, the response of this cultivar to two levels of pruning severity (light pruning with formula 40 + 20 and severe with formula 20 + 20) and three levels of the number of the buds per cane (3, 6, and 9 buds) during three years in Shiraz region of Fars province (Iran) was evaluated. A factorial experiment based on randomized complete block design was used with three blocks. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics such as yield, average weight of cluster, average number of clusters/vine, titratable acidity (TA), pH of fruit juice, TSS%, bud fruitfulness, the average weight and the number of berries/bunch was recorded.
 
Results and Discussion
 Results showed that effects of pruning severity on yield, the number of bunch/vine, bunch weight, pH, bud fruitfulness and berry weight was significant (p≤0.01). Effect of cane length on yield, the number of bunch/vine, bunch weight, bud fruitfulness and the number of berry/bunch was significant (p≤0.01). but on berry weight, TA, pH and TSS% of fruit juice was not significant. Interactions between pruning severity with buds per bearing unit on yield, the number of bunch/vine, berry weight and the number of berry/bunch (p≤0.01) and on TA (p≤0.05) was significant. The highest fruit production per hectare (yield) and the number of bunches per vine were obtained in vines subjected to light pruning. However, in vines that underwent severe pruning, bud fruitfulness and berry weight were greater than in lightly pruned vines. The most substantial yield was achieved with 6-bud and 9-bud canes. Yet, the highest number of bunches was observed in vines with 3-bud and 6-bud canes. Bud fruitfulness reached its peak in the 6-bud cane category, while it was at its lowest in the 3-bud cane group. The number of berries was the same in the 3-bud and 9-bud cane treatments, and it exceeded the number of berries in the 6-bud cane group. Notably, due to the interaction between pruning severity levels and the number of buds per cane, the highest yield was recorded in light pruned vines that underwent cane pruning, specifically in the groups of light pruning with 6-bud canes and light pruning with 9-bud canes. The highest number of berries was observed in light pruning with 9 buds. As a result of this study, it was found that by increasing the number of buds/cane or in other words by increasing the cane length to 6 and 9 buds in this cultivar, the fruit yield/vine increased, and but fruitfullness decreased. Increased yield in light pruning can be due to the increase in the number of bunches/vine due to the increase in the number of buds in this type of pruning. Therefore, to increase the yield of this cultivar, cane pruning + 9 buds/cane should be applied. This type of pruning is not compatible with conventional pruning methods (spur pruning) in the cultivation area of this cultivar. Therefore, it is necessary to develop training systems compatible with cane pruning (such as four-arm kniffin system) in these areas.
 
Conclusion
While severe pruning led to higher bud fruitfulness, it resulted in lower fruit production per vine (yield) compared to lightly pruned vines. One possible explanation for this difference is that light pruning retained more buds compared to severe pruning. As a consequence, light pruning produced more bunches, ultimately yielding a greater quantity of fruit compared to the severe pruning method. The highest yield (31.3 t/ha) and the highest number of bunches/vine (103) was observed in light pruned vines. Also, the highest yield was obtained in 6-bud and 9-bud canes (31.4 and 31.3 t/ha) respectively. Yield increased with increasing cane length to 6 or 9 buds. Therefore, in order to achieve more yields in this cultivar, cane pruning of at least 6 buds should be applied. But in the end, for better management of vines and the possibility of using standard vine training systems compatible with cane pruning, preferably cane pruning with 9-bud/vine is recommended.

Keywords

• Balanced pruning
• Grapevine training
• Bud fruitfulness
• Light pruning

20.1001.1.20084730.1402.37.3.4.2

Main Subjects

• Pomology

References

1.  

   1. Ahmad, W., Junaid, M., Nafees, M., Farooq, M., & Saleem, B.A. (2004). Effects of pruning severity on growth behavior of spur and bunch morphology of grapes (Vitis vinifera) cv. Perlette. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 160-161.
   2. Ahmad, M.F. (2008). Influence of pruning severity on yield and quality of Himrod grape under Kashmir conditions. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 65(1), 16-19.
   3. Ahmadi, K., Ebadzade, H.R., AbdeShah, H., Kazemian, A., & Rafiei, M. (2018). Agricultural Statistics 2016-2017. Volume III, Horticultural Products. Ministry of Jihad Agriculture (Iran), Deputy of Planning and Economy, Technology and Information and Communication Center, 235 pages.
   4. Ahmedullah, M., & Himelric, D.C. (1989). Grape management. p. 383-471. In Galleta, G. J., and Himelric, D.C. (eds.). Small Fruit Crop Management. Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs . New Jersey. U.S.A.
   5. Andreini, L., Viti, R., & Scalabrelli, G. (2009). Study on the morphological evolution of bud break in Vitis vinifera Vitis, 48, 153-158.
   6. (1983). Descriptors for Grape. International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Executive Secretariat, via dell Terme, Dicaraculia, Rome, Italy.
   7. (2006). Annual report 2005-06, National Research Center for Grapes, Pune. 19-20.
   8. Archer, E., & van Schalkwyk, D. (2007). The effect of alternative pruning methods on the viticultural and oenological performance of some wine grape varieties. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 28(2), 107-139.
   9. Avenant, J.H. (1998). The effect of pruning levels on the performance of Festival Seedless. Deciduous Fruit Grower, 48(5), 7-13.
   10. Baeza, P., Ruiz, C., Cuevas. E., Sotes V., & Lissarrague, J.R. (2005), Ecophysiological and agronomic response of Tempranillo grapevines to four training system. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 56(2), 129-138. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2005.56.2.129
   11. Bordelon Bruce, P., Skinkis Patricia, A., & Howard, P.H. (2008). Impact of training system on vine performance and Fruit Composition of Traminette. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59(1), 39-46.
   12. Botelho, RV., Pires, E.J.P., & Terra, M.M. (2009). Fertilidade de gemas em videiras: fisiologia e fatores envolvidos. Ambiência, 2, 129-144.
   13. Brighenti, A.F., Cipriani, R., Malinovski, L.I., Vanderlinde, G., Allebrandt, R., Feldberg, N.P., & Silva, A.L. (2017). Ecophysiology of three Italian cultivars subjected to two pruning methods in Santa Catarina, Acta Horticulturae, 1157, 381-388. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1157.53
   14. Chalak, S.U. (2008). Effect of different levels of pruning on various wine grape varieties for yield and quality. M.Sc., Thesis submitted to MPKV, Rahuri..
   15. Dry, P.R. (2004). What is vine balance. Abstract and oral presentation. 12th Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference, 24-29 July, Melbourne, Victoria. pp. 19.
   16. Evans, R.G. (2000). The art of protecting grapevines from low temperature injury. Proceedings of ASEV 50^th Anniversary Annual Meeting, Seattle WA. June 19-23, pages 60-72.
   17. Feza Ahmad, M. (2008). Influence of pruning severity on yield and quality of Himrod grape under Kashmir conditions. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 65(1), 16-19.
   18. Creasy, G.L., & Greasy, L.L. (2018). Grape. 2nd edition. CAB International. USA, 380 p.
   19. Havinal, M.H. (2007). Screening of wine grape varieties for growth, yield and fruit quality parameters. M.Sc., Thesis submitted to MPKV, Rahuri .
   20. Janick, J. (1994). Horticultural review, volume 16. New concepts in pruning of grapevines. John Wiley and Sons, Inc: USA.
   21. Karami, F., Karami, M.J., Ahmadi, H., & Rostami A. (2007). Effect of pruning severity and cane length on yield and quality of non-irrigated Rasheh and Khoshnav grape cvs. Page 639 in Proceedings of the 5^th Iranian Horticultural Sciences Congress. 3-6 september. Shiraz-Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)
   22. Karami, M.J. (2010). Effect of pruning severity and bud number per bearing unit on yield and yield component of rainfed grape cv. Shirazi. Seed and Plant, 26(2), 57-67. (In Persian with English abstract)
   23. Karami, M.J. (2011). Effect of pruning severity and cane length on yield and quality of grape cv. Siah –e - Samarghandi. Seed and Plant, 26(4), 445-456. (In Persian with English abstract)
   24. Karami, M.J. (2013a). Characteristics of white grape cultivar of Fars province, Iran. Seed and Plant, 28-1(3), 353-381. (In Persian with English abstract)
   25. Karami, M.J. (2013b). Late budbreak grape cultivars selection to avoid from spring frost damage. Smal Fruit Journal, 2(4), 73-88. (In Persian with English abstract)
   26. Keller, M. (2015). The science of grapevine: anatomy and physiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. UK.
   27. kohale, V.S., kulkarni, S.S., Ranpise, S.A., & Garad, B.V. (2013). Effect of pruning on fruiting of Sharad Seedless grapes. Bioinfolet, 10(1B), 300-302. http://dx.doi.org/10.12944/CARJ.3.1.06
   28. Kumar, A.R., Parthiban, S., Subbiah, A., & Sangeeta, V. (2017). Effect of severity of pruning on yield and quality characters of grapes (Vitis vinifera ): A Review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6(4), 818-835.
   29. Landolt, J. (2011). Effects of pruning level and canopy management practices on berry maturation rate and harvest parameters of Syrah wine grapes. Master thesis, Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
   30. Leão, P.C.S., & Silva, E.E.G. (2003). Brotação e fertilidade de gemas em uvas sem sementes no Vale do São Francisco. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 25, 375-378.
   31. Loubser, F.H. (2008). Chenin blanc table wine in South Africa. Cape Wine Master Dissertation, 86p.
   32. Meneguzzi, A., Marcon Filho, J.L., Brighenti, A.F., Andre Wurz, D., Rufato, L., & da Silv, A.L. (2020). Fertility of buds and pruning recommendation of different grapevine varieties grown in altitude regions of Santa Catarina State, Brazil. Revista Ceres, 67, 30–34.
   33. Moeinrad, H. (2007). Buds fruitfulness position on canes of soltanni, Askari and Shahroodi (Vitis vinifera L.) grape cultivars. Page 631 in Proceedings of the 5^th Iranian Horticultural Sciences Congress. 3-6 september. Shiraz-Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)
   34. O’Daniel, S.B., Archbold, D.D., & Kurtural, S.K. (2012). Effects of balanced pruning severity on traminette (Vitis) in a warm climate. American Society for Enology and Viticulture, 63(2), 284-290.
   35. Palanichamy, V., Jindal, P.C., & Singh, R. (2004). Studies on severity of pruning in grapes (Vitis vinifera) var. Pusa Navrang–A teinturier hybrid. Agricultural Science Digest, 24(2), 145–147.
   36. Pirayesh-Baigbaghi, A., Fatahi, H., & Karbalaei-Khiavy, H. (2007). Effects of pruning severity (as buds number) and cane thickness on yield and quality of Meshkinshahr Kishmishi grape cultivar. Page 633 in Proceedings of the 5^th Iranian Horticultural Sciences Congress. 3-6 september. Shiraz-Iran. (In Persian with English abstract)
   37. Popescu, C. (2012). Influence of bud load for two Romanian table grape cultivars in the climatic conditions of Stefanesti vineyard. Scientific Papers-Series B, Horticulture, 56, 151-154. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.2017332
   38. Power, R., Schlosser, J., & Reynolds, A.G. (2000). Magnitude of influence between canopy manipulation and enological practices upon Chardonnay musque monoterpenes and wine sensory attributes. Presented at: 25^th Annual meeting, American Society for Enology and Viticulture, Estern Section, Ithaca, NY, July 19-20.
   39. Senthilkumar, S, Vijayakumar, R.M, Soorianathasundaram, K., & Devi D.D. (2015). Effect of pruning severity on vegetative, physiological, yield & quality attributes in grape (Vitis Vinifera) - A Review Current Agriculture Research Journal, 3(1), 42-54.
   40. Somkuwar, R.G., & Ramteke, S.D. (2006). Yield and quality in relation to different crop loads on Tas-A-Ganesh table grapes (Vitis vinifera). Journal of Plant Sciences, 1(2), 176-181. https://doi.org/10.3923/jps.2006.176.181
   41. Somkuwar, R.G., & Ramteke, S.D. (2007). Effect of bunch retention, quality and yield in Sharad Seedless. Annual Report 2006-07, National Research Center for Grapes, Pune. 20.
   42. Sorokowsky, D., Schlosser, J., & Reynolds, A.G. (2000). Relative impact of thinning time and enological treatments on Chardonnay musque monoterpenes and wine sensory attributes. Presented at: 25^th Meeting, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture., Estern Section, Ithaca, NY, July 19-20.
   43. Striegler, R.k., Morris, J.R., Main, G.L., Lake, C.B., & Graves, S.R. (2000). Threlfall, R.T. and Blevins, J.M. Effect of pruning method on yield and quality of ‘Sunbelt’ grapes grown in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Horticultural Science, 35(3), 439.
   44. Taiz, L., & Zeiger, E. (2009). Fisiologia Vegetal. 4ª ed. Porto Alegre, Artmed. 848p.
   45. Terence, B. (2008). Pruning level affects growth and yield of New York Concord on two training systems. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59(3), 276-286. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2008.59.3.276
   46. Tassie, E., & Freeman, B.M. (2001). Pruning. In: ‘Viticulture Volume 2, Practices’. (Eds BG Coombe and PR Dry) Winetitles, Adelaide, pp. 66-84.
   47. Velu, V. (2001). Studies on bud load and certain crop thinning practices on vigour, yield and quality of grapes(Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Muscat.Sc.,(Hort.) Thesis submitted to Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
   48. Zoecklein, B.W., Wolf, T.K., Pélanne, L., Miller, M.K., & Birkenmaier, S. (2008). Effect of vertical shoot- positioned, smart-Dyson, and Geneva double- Curtain training systems on Viognier grape and wine composition. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59(1), 11-21.