Abstract
Aims: Recent trials on Sangiovese vines have shown that hand defoliation of shoot basal leaves at pre-bloom is effective in reducing fruit set and yield, leading to better grape composition and quality. The present work was performed to assess whether similar outcomes could be obtained by a more economically viable mechanical approach, which appears to be extremely attractive in cultivars such as Sangiovese, marked by high or very high yield potential and heavy, fairly compact clusters quite sensitive to rot. Methods and results: The trial was designed to compare pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C) on Sangiovese vertical shoot positioned and spur pruned cordon de Royat trained vines. In the HD treatment, the first six basal leaves of each shoot were removed (70 % of leaf area), whereas in the MD treatment 33 % of the leaf area was removed from the basal part of the shoots. HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g), but improved total soluble solids (HD = 23.0 °Brix; MD = 22.5 °Brix; C = 20.8 °Brix) and total anthocyanins (HD = 837 mg/kg of grapes; MD = 744 mg/kg of grapes; C = 647 mg/kg of grapes). Leaf photosynthesis, measured in 2007, increased only temporarily after HD and MD as compared to control. Conclusions: The pre-bloom HD of shoot basal leaves confirmed its positive effect on crop yield control and grape composition, leading to better grape quality. The pre-bloom MD of the basal part of the shoots maintained most of the advantages associated with HD, although only half of the leaf area removed by hand was removed by the machine. Significance and impact of the study: Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation can replace hand defoliation and partially replace the time-consuming and costly manual cluster thinning technique, which is often used in high yield cultivars such as Sangiovese.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 15
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) reduced fruit set to 29.8 percent, against 35.5 percent in the non-defoliated control, in Sangiovese vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- fruit sete1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 29.8%e1
- Qualifier
- C = 35.5 %e1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) reduced fruit set to 24.2 percent, against 35.5 percent in the non-defoliated control, in Sangiovese vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- fruit sete1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 24.2%e1
- Qualifier
- C = 35.5 %e1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) reduced yield per shoot to 546 g, against 764 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- yield per shoote1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 546 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 764 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) reduced yield per shoot to 516 g, against 764 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- yield per shoote1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 516 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 764 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) reduced cluster weight to 292 g, against 382 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- cluster weighte1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 292 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 382 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) reduced cluster weight to 272 g, against 382 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- cluster weighte1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 272 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 382 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) reduced berry weight to 2.17 g, against 2.45 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- berry weighte1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 2.17 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 2.45 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) reduced berry weight to 2.31 g, against 2.45 g in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- berry weighte1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 2.31 ge1
- Qualifier
- C = 2.45 ge1
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e1“HD and MD compared to C reduced fruit set (HD = 29.8%; MD = 24.2%; C = 35.5 %), yield per shoot (HD = 546 g; MD = 516 g; C = 764 g), cluster weight (HD = 292 g; MD = 272 g; C = 382 g) and berry weight (HD = 2.17 g; MD = 2.31 g; C = 2.45 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) improved total soluble solids to 23.0 °Brix, against 20.8 °Brix in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- total soluble solidse2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 23.0 °Brixe2
- Qualifier
- C = 20.8 °Brixe2
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e2“but improved total soluble solids (HD = 23.0 °Brix; MD = 22.5 °Brix; C = 20.8 °Brix) and total anthocyanins (HD = 837 mg/kg of grapes; MD = 744 mg/kg of grapes; C = 647 mg/kg of grapes)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) improved total soluble solids to 22.5 °Brix, against 20.8 °Brix in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- total soluble solidse2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 22.5 °Brixe2
- Qualifier
- C = 20.8 °Brixe2
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e2“but improved total soluble solids (HD = 23.0 °Brix; MD = 22.5 °Brix; C = 20.8 °Brix) and total anthocyanins (HD = 837 mg/kg of grapes; MD = 744 mg/kg of grapes; C = 647 mg/kg of grapes)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) improved total anthocyanins to 837 mg/kg of grapes, against 647 mg/kg of grapes in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- total anthocyaninse2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 837 mg/kg of grapese2
- Qualifier
- C = 647 mg/kg of grapese2
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e2“but improved total soluble solids (HD = 23.0 °Brix; MD = 22.5 °Brix; C = 20.8 °Brix) and total anthocyanins (HD = 837 mg/kg of grapes; MD = 744 mg/kg of grapes; C = 647 mg/kg of grapes)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) improved total anthocyanins to 744 mg/kg of grapes, against 647 mg/kg of grapes in the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- total anthocyaninse2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 744 mg/kg of grapese2
- Qualifier
- C = 647 mg/kg of grapese2
- Comparator
- no defoliation (C)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e2“but improved total soluble solids (HD = 23.0 °Brix; MD = 22.5 °Brix; C = 20.8 °Brix) and total anthocyanins (HD = 837 mg/kg of grapes; MD = 744 mg/kg of grapes; C = 647 mg/kg of grapes)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand defoliation (HD) increased leaf photosynthesis, but only temporarily, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- hand defoliation (HD)e0
- Outcome
- Leaf photosynthesise3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- only temporarilye3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e3“Leaf photosynthesis, measured in 2007, increased only temporarily after HD and MD as compared to control”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD) increased leaf photosynthesis, but only temporarily, compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD)e0
- Outcome
- Leaf photosynthesise3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Qualifier
- only temporarilye3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e0“pre-bloom mechanical defoliation (MD), hand defoliation (HD) and no defoliation (C)”
e3“Leaf photosynthesis, measured in 2007, increased only temporarily after HD and MD as compared to control”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation can replace hand defoliation in Sangiovese vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Pre-bloom mechanical defoliatione4
- Outcome
- replace hand defoliatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e4“Pre-bloom mechanical defoliation can replace hand defoliation and partially replace the time-consuming and costly manual cluster thinning technique”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →pruning · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- positive
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.