AJEV AJEV Best Papers - Free Access
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 47:3:297-300 (1996)
Copyright © 1996 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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dami, I.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Hamman, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Dami, I.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Hamman, R. A., JR.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Dami, I.-E.
Right arrow Articles by Hamman, R. A.

Field Response of Vitis vinifera Cultivars to Methanol

Imed-Eddine Dami 1, Cecil Stushnoff 1, and Richard A. Hamman JR. 2

1 Department of Horticulture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
2 Viticulture Laboratory, Colorado State University Orchard Mesa Research Center, 3168, B.5 Road, Grand Junction, CO 81503.

The response of Vitis vinifera cultivars to methanol was investigated at the Orchard Mesa Research Center in Grand Junction, Colorado. Sublethal methanol doses, based on visual observations, were 90% for leaves and 100% for trunks. The accumulation of total soluble solids (TSS) in berries was also monitored weekly until harvest. There was no significant difference between the treated and control vines during the period of study, with the exception of Muscat blanc, which showed a slightly higher TSS content in methanol-sprayed vines than in controls. This difference, however, disappeared during ripening. There was no significant effect of methanol on photosynthesis, transpiration, nor stomatal resistance. At harvest, data on yields estimated by cluster weight, berry weight and berry size indicated no differences between the two treatments. Methanol did not alter cold hardiness of dormant buds, measured by differential thermal analysis. It was concluded that in this study methanol had little or no physiological, nor practical effect on grapes.

Key words: cold hardiness, photosynthesis, total soluble solids, yield components

Submitted on September 14, 1995







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.