AJEV
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 40:4:259-264 (1989)
Copyright © 1989 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kliewer, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Benz, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kliewer, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Benz, M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Kliewer, W. M.
Right arrow Articles by Benz, M.

Influence of Shoot Orientation on Growth and Yield Development in Cabernet Sauvignon

W. Mark Kliewer 1, Pat Bowen 1, and M. Benz 1

1 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616-5270.

Beginning shortly after budbreak, 28 shoots from 14 mature field grown Cabernet Sauvignon vines at Davis, California, were trained to grow upward, horizontally, and downward. The plastochron index (PI) and leaf initiation rate (LIR) of each shoot were determined at four-day intervals until they reached a PI of 19. Cane pruning weight and time of budbreak were related to shoot growth rate and were thus used as covariates for testing the effects of growth direction. Downward-trained shoots generally exhibited reduced vigor as demonstrated by lower LIR and shoot extension rate, smaller primary leaves, fewer lateral leaves, and a lower cane dry weight density than did upward or horizontal shoots. The period from budbreak to bloom for downward-trained shoots averaged 2.3 days less than that for upward-trained shoots. At veraison, °Brix of fruits from upward-trained shoots was significantly higher than that for downward shoots. Percent fruitset did not differ between upward and downward shoots but was lower for horizontal shoots. The number of berries per shoot, however, did not differ among growth direction treatments.

Key words: Cabernet Sauvignon, shoot positioning

Submitted on March 10, 1989




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
B. W. Zoecklein, T. K. Wolf, L. Pelanne, M. K. Miller, and S. S. Birkenmaier
Effect of Vertical Shoot-Positioned, Smart-Dyson, and Geneva Double-Curtain Training Systems on Viognier Grape and Wine Composition
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., March 1, 2008; 59(1): 11 - 21.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN BOT (LOND)Home page
E. LEBON, A. PELLEGRINO, F. TARDIEU, and J. LECOEUR
Shoot Development in Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) is Affected by the Modular Branching Pattern of the Stem and Intra- and Inter-shoot Trophic Competition
Ann. Bot., March 1, 2004; 93(3): 263 - 274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1989 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.