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


     


Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 57:4:503-506 (2006)
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
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 Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
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 ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fidelibus, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Verdenal, P.-T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Fidelibus, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Verdenal, P.-T.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Fidelibus, M. W.
Right arrow Articles by Verdenal, P.-T.

Research Note

Yield Components and Fruit Composition of Six Chardonnay Grapevine Clones in the Central San Joaquin Valley, California

Matthew W. Fidelibus1,*, L. Peter Christensen1, Donald G. Katayama2 and Pierre-Thibaut Verdenal1

1 Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, and Kearney Agricultural Center, 9240 S. Riverbend, Parlier, CA 93648; and 2 E&J Gallo Winery, Modesto, CA 95353.

* Corresponding author [email: mwf{at}uckac.edu]

Chardonnay grapevine (Vitis vinifera) clones from Foundation Plant Services (FPS), University of California, Davis, were evaluated near Fresno, California. Chardonnay selections FPS 4, 6, 15, 18, 20, and 37 were planted in April 1997 as own-rooted cuttings, and fruit yield and quality were assessed annually between 2000 and 2003. Yield differences among clones were inconsistent, but vines of clone 4 generally had fewer and heavier clusters than vines of other clones, whereas vines of clones 6 and 15 generally had more and lighter clusters. Differences in cluster weight were mainly due to the number of berries per cluster. The fruits of clone 4 had higher soluble solids, lower pH, and similar or higher titratable acidity than the fruits of other clones. However, clone 4 had similar or worse sour rot incidence than the other clones, in contrast with clone 15, which usually had much less sour rot than the others. Results suggest that growers in the San Joaquin Valley, or in other warm-climate areas, might consider planting clone 15 instead of clone 4.

Key words: clonal selection, germplasm, sour rot




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
M. W. Fidelibus, L. P. Christensen, D. G. Katayama, P.-T. Verdenal, and K. Cathline
Fruit Characteristics of Six Merlot Grapevine Selections in the Central San Joaquin Valley, California
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., June 1, 2007; 58(2): 259 - 261.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.