Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Print on Demand
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
      • Proprietary Rights Notice for AJEV Online
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
  • Log in
  • Follow ajev on Twitter
  • Follow ajev on Linkedin
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Print on Demand
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
Article

Bud Microclimate and Fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L.

Luis A. Sánchez, Nick K. Dokoozlian
Am J Enol Vitic.  2005  56: 319-329  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2005.56.4.319
Luis A. Sánchez
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: luis.sanchez@ejgallo.com
Nick K. Dokoozlian
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1

    Schematic representation of the three shoot light exposure treatments used in Thompson Seedless vines. B: buffer vines; E: experimental vines.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 2

    Schematic representation of the four shoot light exposure treatments used in Flame Seedless, Chardonnay, and Cabernet Sau-vignon vines. B: buffer vines; E: experimental vines.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 3

    Potential fruitfulness expressed as integrated fruitfulness index (IFI) by cultivar, shoot light exposure level, and node position (treatment means). IFI is the sum of average maximum diameters of all inflorescence primordia (mm) when dissected during dormancy. Standard error bars at 95% confidence.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 4

    Potential fruitfulness of Thompson Seedless expressed as mean inflorescence primordia per node. Values are averages for each node across shoot light exposure treatments. QSI: quantum scalar irradiance.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 5

    Contribution of secondary buds to potential fruitfulness per node by cultivar, shoot light exposure level, and node position (treatment means). Standard error bars at 95% confidence.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 6

    Integrated fruitfulness (as integrated fruitfulness index) response curves to midday quantum scalar irradiance (QSI) for all cultivars. Symbols are averages by light level and node position. Only node positions 5 to 15 are considered in Thompson Seedless. Above-canopy QSI levels were ~2,000 μmol m−2 s−1. Regressions (p < 0.0001 for all): Chardonnay [y = (134.1x)/(93.8+x)+0.0911x]; Cabernet Sauvignon [y = 165.54-(8618.98)/((1+0.44x)1/0.89)]; Flame Seedless [y = (50.94x)/(21.7+x)+0.054x]; Thompson Seedless [y = 58.8-(48.81)/((1+0.0001x)1/0.021)].

  • Figure 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 7

    Potential fruitfulness expressed as percent bud fruitfulness by cultivar, shoot light exposure level, and node position (treatment means). Standard error bars at 95% confidence.

  • Figure 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 8

    Potential fruitfulness (as integrated fruitfulness index) response curves of Flame Seedless to midday quantum scalar irradiance (QSI). Open circles represent data from individual buds (mean of eight dates for each bud). Closed circles are averages by node and light exposure treatment as reference (from Figure 6). Correlation coefficient and linear regression parameters are for data represented by open circles. Measured above-canopy QSI levels were ~2,000 μmol m−2 s−1.

  • Figure 9
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 9

    (A) Potential fruitfulness (as integrated fruitfulness index) responses of individual Chardonnay buds to diurnal quantum scalar irradiance (QSI). Each linear regression plot represents eight buds from a single vine and each vine one of the four shoot light exposure treatments. Diurnal QSI was recorded with photodiodes attached next to buds (in nodes 2 or 3) and aligned with their axes. (B) Potential fruitfulness responses of Chardonnay vines to diurnal QSI. Each point represents the fruitfulness and diurnal QSI mean of all buds on each of the six vines in Figure (9a). Corresponding vine number is indicated inside each open circle.

  • Figure 10
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 10

    Potential fruitfulness (as integrated fruitfulness index) in relation to internode diameter. Values are averages by light exposure treatment. Data are from internode 3 in Flame Seedless, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Chardonnay, and internodes 5 to 15 in Thompson Seedless.

  • Figure 11
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 11

    Effect of light and temperature on bud fruitfulness of Thomp-son Seedless and Flame Seedless under growth chamber conditions (16-hr daylight, 25°C, 60% relative humidity). Mean separations by cultivar using Tukey’s method (p > 0.05). QSI: quantum scalar irradiance.

  • Figure 12
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 12

    Photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) intercepted by individual fruitful and unfruitful buds of Thompson Seedless vines growing under controlled conditions (14-hr days, 25°C, and 60% relative humidity). Values were averaged by light exposure treatment. PAR was measured when leaves were fully expanded. Mean separations by light exposure level using Tukey’s method (p > 0.05). Buds with one or more inflorescence primordia were considered as fruitful.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1

    Vine spacing and trellis configuration of cultivars used in the study.

    Spacing (m)Vine headFoliage wireCross arm
    Cultivar(vine x row)height (m)height (m)alength (m)
    aFour foliage wires were evenly spaced on cross arms and served as support for the experimental shoots and the overhead canes used as natural shade in the low and medium-low shoot light exposure treatments.
    Thompson Seedless2.4 x 3.61.501.801.0
    Flame Seedless2.4 x 3.61.051.521.0
    Cabernet Sauvignon1.8 x 3.01.371.620.6
    Chardonnay1.8 x 3.01.371.620.6
  • Table 2

    Effect of shoot light exposure level on potential (P) and observed (O) bud fruitfulness.a

    Thompson SeedlessbFlame SeedlessCabernet SauvignonChardonnay
    ExposureP***cO***O/PP***O**O/PP**OnsO/PP**OnsO/P
    aInflorescence primordia per node for P and inflorescences per node for O.
    bMeans for nodes 5 to 15 in Thompson Seedless and nodes 1 to 3 in the other cultivars.
    cLight exposure treatment effects: *, **, ***, and ns indicate significance at p > 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, and not significant, respectively.
    High1.791.590.892.611.970.763.561.400.393.222.030.63
    Medium-high1.421.270.891.441.420.983.201.620.513.031.840.61
    Medium-low1.141.120.982.141.40.652.542.000.79
    Low0.770.831.070.950.780.821.891.320.702.401.710.71
  • Table 3

    Effect of shoot light exposure level on relative inflorescence dry weight per node.

    ThompsonFlameCabernet
    ExposureSeedless***a,bSeedless**Sauvignon*Chardonnay*
    aMeans for nodes 5 to 15 in Thompson Seedless and nodes 1 to 3 in the other cultivars. Highest mean weight within cultivar considered as 100%, weights taken ~3 weeks after budbreak.
    bLight exposure treatment effects: *, **, and *** indicate significance at p > 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001, respectively.
    cStandard error at 95% confidence in parenthesis.
    High100 (4.7)c99.2 (5.4)100 (7.0)100 (8.5)
    Medium-high71.0 (3.5)100 (8.0)92.6 (5.4)74.7 (10.2)
    Medium-low70.7 (9.2)77.2 (3.7)39.9 (7.6)
    Low34.3 (3.3)47.0 (7.6)69.1 (8.8)59.4 (7.3)
  • Table 4

    Correlation coefficients of percent fruitfulness or integrated fruitfulness index with observed fruitfulness under four light levels.

    HighMedium-highMedium-lowLow
    Measure of potential fruitfulness%FFaIFIb%FFIFI%FFIFI%FFIFI
    a%FF: percent fruitfulness (% buds with one or more cluster primordia).
    bIFI: integrated fruitfulness index (sum of diameters of all primordia in mm).
    Thompson Seedless0.870.760.960.980.800.80
    Flame Seedless0.870.840.970.910.910.840.920.91
    Cabernet Sauvignon0.800.800.990.891.000.960.930.99
    Chardonnay0.880.960.980.870.950.750.900.82
    Means0.860.840.980.910.950.850.890.88
PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 56 Issue 4

  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
View full PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on AJEV.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Bud Microclimate and Fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from AJEV
(Your Name) thought you would like to read this article from the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
You have accessRestricted access
Bud Microclimate and Fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L.
Luis A. Sánchez, Nick K. Dokoozlian
Am J Enol Vitic.  2005  56: 319-329  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2005.56.4.319
Luis A. Sánchez
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: luis.sanchez@ejgallo.com
Nick K. Dokoozlian
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
You have accessRestricted access
Bud Microclimate and Fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L.
Luis A. Sánchez, Nick K. Dokoozlian
Am J Enol Vitic.  2005  56: 319-329  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2005.56.4.319
Luis A. Sánchez
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: luis.sanchez@ejgallo.com
Nick K. Dokoozlian
1Formerly Graduate student and 2Extension viticulturist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; present address: E. & J. Gallo Winery, P.O. Box 1130, Modesto, CA 95353.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More from this TOC section

  • Sparkling Wines Produced from Alternative Varieties: Sensory Attributes and Evolution of Phenolics during Winemaking and Aging
  • Leaf Blade versus Petiole Analysis for Nutritional Diagnosis of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo
  • Mechanical Canopy and Crop-Load Management of Pinot gris in a Warm Climate
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

AJEV Content

  • Current Volume
  • Archive
  • Best Papers
  • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
  • Print on Demand

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access Publishing
  • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions

Other

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASEV
asev.org

© 2025 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 0002-9254.

Powered by HighWire