Abstract
Targeted pruning techniques may have the potential to shift phenological progression in grapevines. These approaches can be useful to escape late frost (after budburst) and to delay ripening, maintaining yield and berry quality under specific environmental scenarios and for targeted oenological aims. In this work we tested a series of pruning methods (late pruning and different forcing approaches to unlock the para-dormant buds) with the primary objective of delaying phenological onset while increasing must quality components in the Trento DOC basin (Italy) over three field seasons either in cv Chardonnay or cv Pinot noir. Delayed pruning shifted the onset of most of the phenological stages by 3 to 10 days with a general increase in must acidity at harvest over two seasons. Forcing techniques, and in particular forcing vine regrowth (i.e., removing primary productivity along with leaves and secondary shoots to force dormant bud growth), substantially reduced yield per vine (p < 0.001) but significantly (p < 0.001) enhanced total acidity and yeast available nitrogen when compared to winter pruning vines in both Chardonnay and Pinot noir. Different spring pruning for unlocking para-dormant buds aimed at double-cropping in 2022 did not yield a secondary harvest potentially due to lack of vigor in the vineyard (Pinot noir) and unfavorable environmental conditions that putatively anticipated bud pre-dormancy. However, reduced sugar levels in the primary productivity bunches of the treated vines were observed, suggesting that early source limitation (e.g., at fruit set) applied via reduced active photosynthetic leaf area may slow down technological ripening even if compensatory behaviors were observed in the treated plants through enhanced stomatal conductance. Our work provides evidence of the potential usefulness of different pruning approaches for manipulating phenological progression and berry ripening dynamics under climate change scenario in the Trento DOC area and suggests a lack of efficacy and specific drawbacks particularly in dry and hot years.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed pruning shifted onset of most phenological stages by 3 to 10 days.
- Treatment
- Delayed pruninge0
- Outcome
- onset of most of the phenological stagese0
- Direction
- shiftede0
- Value
- 3 to 10 dayse0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Delayed pruning shifted the onset of most of the phenological stages by 3 to 10 days”
t0“phenological progression in grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed pruning generally increased must acidity at harvest over two seasons.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with a general increase in must acidity at harvest over two seasons”
t0“phenological progression in grapevines”
e1“Delayed pruning shifted the onset of most of the phenological stages by 3 to 10 days”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing vine regrowth reduced yield per vine versus winter pruning in both cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Forcing techniques, and in particular forcing vine regrowth (i.e., removing primary productivity along with leaves and secondary shoots to force dormant bud growth), substantially reduced yield per vine (p < 0.001) but significantly (p < 0.001) enhanced total acidity and yeast available nitrogen when compared to winter pruning vines in both Chardonnay and Pinot noir”
t0“Chardonnay and Pinot Noir”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing vine regrowth enhanced total acidity versus winter pruning in both cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Forcing techniques, and in particular forcing vine regrowth (i.e., removing primary productivity along with leaves and secondary shoots to force dormant bud growth), substantially reduced yield per vine (p < 0.001) but significantly (p < 0.001) enhanced total acidity and yeast available nitrogen when compared to winter pruning vines in both Chardonnay and Pinot noir”
t0“Chardonnay and Pinot Noir”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing vine regrowth enhanced yeast available nitrogen versus winter pruning in both cultivars.
Verbatim
e0“Forcing techniques, and in particular forcing vine regrowth (i.e., removing primary productivity along with leaves and secondary shoots to force dormant bud growth), substantially reduced yield per vine (p < 0.001) but significantly (p < 0.001) enhanced total acidity and yeast available nitrogen when compared to winter pruning vines in both Chardonnay and Pinot noir”
t0“Chardonnay and Pinot Noir”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring pruning to unlock para-dormant buds did not produce a secondary harvest in 2022.
- Taxon
- Pinot noirt0
- Treatment
- spring pruning for unlocking para-dormant budse0
- Outcome
- secondary harveste0
- Direction
- did not yielde0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Different spring pruning for unlocking para-dormant buds aimed at double-cropping in 2022 did not yield a secondary harvest”
t0“vineyard (Pinot noir)”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated vines had reduced sugar levels in primary bunches.
- Organ / stage
- primary productivity bunchese0
- Treatment
- treated vinese0
- Outcome
- sugar levelse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced sugar levels in the primary productivity bunches of the treated vines were observed”
t0“phenological progression in grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated plants showed enhanced stomatal conductance.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compensatory behaviors were observed in the treated plants through enhanced stomatal conductance”
t0“phenological progression in grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggest limited efficacy and drawbacks of pruning approaches in dry and hot years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suggests a lack of efficacy and specific drawbacks particularly in dry and hot years”
t0“phenological progression in grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 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.