Abstract
Manipulating or shifting annual grapevine growing cycle to offset limitations imposed by global warming is a must today, and delayed winter pruning is a tool to achieve it. However, no information is available about its physiological background, especially in relation to modifications in canopy phenology, demography and seasonal carbon budget. Mechanistic hypothesis underlying this work was that very late winter pruning (LWP) can achieve significant postponement of phenological stages so that ripening might occur in a cooler period and, concurrently, ripening potential can be improved due to higher efficiency and prolonged longevity of the canopy. Variability in the dynamics of the annual cycle was created in mature potted cv. Sangiovese grapevines subjected to either standard winter pruning (SWP) or late and very late winter pruning (LWP, VLWP) performed when apical shoots on the unpruned canes were at the stage of 2 and 7 unfolded leaves. Vegetative growth, phenology and canopy net CO2 exchange (NCER) were followed throughout the season. Despite LWP and VLWP induced a bud-burst delay of 17 and 31 days vs. SWP, the delay was fully offset at harvest for LWP and was reduced to 6 days in VLWP. LWP showed notably higher canopy efficiency as shorter time needed to reach maximum NCER/leaf area (22 days vs. 34 in SWP), highest maximum NCER/leaf area (+37% as compared to SWP) and higher NCER/leaf area rates from veraison to end of season. As a result, seasonal cumulated carbon in LWP was 17% higher than SWP. A negative functional relationship was also established between amount of leaf area removed at winter pruning and yield per vine and berry number per cluster. Although retarded winter pruning was not able to postpone late-season phenological stages under the warm conditions of this study, it showed a remarkable potential to limit yield while improving grape quality, thereby fostering the hypothesis that it could be used to replace time-consuming and costly cluster thinning. This preliminary study indicates that proper winter pruning date should be timed so as not to exceed the stage of two unfolded leaves.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Late winter pruning delayed bud burst by 17 days versus standard pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Material
- cv. Sangioveset0
- Treatment
- LWPe0
- Outcome
- bud-burst delaye0
- Direction
- delaye0
- Value
- 17e0
- Comparator
- SWPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LWP and VLWP induced a bud-burst delay of 17 and 31 days vs. SWP”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Very late winter pruning delayed bud burst by 31 days versus standard pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- cv. Sangioveset0
- Treatment
- VLWPe0
- Outcome
- bud-burst delaye0
- Direction
- delaye0
- Value
- 31 dayse0
- Comparator
- SWPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LWP and VLWP induced a bud-burst delay of 17 and 31 days vs. SWP”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The phenological delay under late pruning had disappeared by harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- LWPe0
- Outcome
- the delay was fully offset at harveste0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the delay was fully offset at harvest for LWP”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The delay under very late pruning was reduced to six days at harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- VLWPe0
- Outcome
- was reducede0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6 dayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“was reduced to 6 days in VLWP”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Late pruning reached maximum NCER per leaf area in 22 days versus 34 days with standard pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- LWPe1
- Outcome
- time needed to reach maximum NCER/leaf areae0
- Direction
- shortere0
- Value
- 22 dayse0
- Qualifier
- 34e0
- Comparator
- SWPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shorter time needed to reach maximum NCER/leaf area (22 days vs. 34 in SWP)”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
e1“LWP showed notably higher canopy efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Late pruning produced a maximum NCER per leaf area 37% above standard pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- LWPe1
- Outcome
- maximum NCER/leaf areae0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- +37%e0
- Comparator
- SWPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highest maximum NCER/leaf area (+37% as compared to SWP)”
e1“LWP showed notably higher canopy efficiency”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Late pruning had higher NCER per leaf area from veraison to season end.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- LWPe1
- Outcome
- NCER/leaf area ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- from veraison to end of seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher NCER/leaf area rates from veraison to end of season”
e1“LWP showed notably higher canopy efficiency”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal accumulated carbon under late pruning exceeded standard pruning by 17%.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- LWPe0
- Outcome
- seasonal cumulated carbone0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- SWPe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seasonal cumulated carbon in LWP was 17% higher than SWP”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area removed at pruning was negatively related to yield per vine.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- amount of leaf area removed at winter pruninge0
- Outcome
- yield per vinee0
- Direction
- negativee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A negative functional relationship was also established between amount of leaf area removed at winter pruning and yield per vine and berry number per cluster”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area removed at pruning was negatively related to berry number per cluster.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- amount of leaf area removed at winter pruninge0
- Outcome
- berry number per clustere0
- Direction
- negativee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A negative functional relationship was also established between amount of leaf area removed at winter pruning and yield per vine and berry number per cluster”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed pruning showed potential to limit yield.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- limit yielde0
- Direction
- limite0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed a remarkable potential to limit yield while improving grape quality”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed pruning showed potential to improve grape quality.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- grape qualitye0
- Direction
- improvinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed a remarkable potential to limit yield while improving grape quality”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest delayed pruning could replace cluster thinning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- replace time-consuming and costly cluster thinninge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it could be used to replace time-consuming and costly cluster thinning”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend winter pruning no later than two unfolded leaves.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- proper winter pruning date should be timed so as not to exceed the stage of two unfolded leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“proper winter pruning date should be timed so as not to exceed the stage of two unfolded leaves”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese Grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →pruning · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 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.