PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Andrew G. Reynolds
AU  - Douglas A. Wardle
AU  - Andrew P. Naylor
TI  - Impact of Training System and Vine Spacing on Vine Performance and Berry Composition of Chancellor
AID  - 10.5344/ajev.1995.46.1.88
DP  - 1995 Jan 01
TA  - American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
PG  - 88--97
VI  - 46
IP  - 1
4099  - http://www.ajevonline.org/content/46/1/88.short
4100  - http://www.ajevonline.org/content/46/1/88.full
SO  - Am J Enol Vitic.1995 Jan 01; 46
AB  - Own-rooted Chancellor vines were trained to five training treatments [Geneva Double Curtain (GDC); Hudson River Umbrella (HRU); 6-arm Kniffin (6AK); midwire cordon (MWC); Y-trellis (YT)] and three vine spacings (1.4, 1.8, and 2.4 m). Weight of cane prunings (vine size) per m canopy length was nearly optimal in the GDC and YT systems, but was excessive in the other three training treatments. Increased vine spacing decreased vine size on a per meter of row basis. Yields of divided canopies (GDC and YT) averaged 42% higher than non-divided systems, but cluster weights and berries per cluster tended to be lower in the divided canopies. The GDC system produced fruit with lowest °Brix, but also with lowest titratable acidity (TA) and pH, and highest anthocyanin content. Vine spacing had a limited influence on yield and fruit composition, but interacted with training system on some components. HRU training led to lower cluster exposure, but with higher leaf and cluster temperatures, lower leaf diffusive resistance, higher transpiration rate, and lower midday leaf water potentials than GDC training.