Table 2

Impact of shoot-thinning time on growth and yield components of Pinot noir, 2001–2002.

Yield (kg/vine)Clusters/vineCluster wt (g)Berries/clusterBerry wt (g)
Treatment2001200220012002200120022001200220012002
Control3.1aa3.4a43a33ab73.1106.9ab61ab811.20f1.32a
09–122.8abc3.3ab33c31bc86.5108.6ab75a861.22d1.27d
152.7abc3.6a35bc35a77.6101.3b61ab831.27b1.22e
19–213.0ab3.5a37b33ab80.8108.2ab65ab861.24c1.27d
25–272.5cb3.4ab35bc30bc71.8112.2a57b881.28a1.29c
29–312.6bc3.0b35bc28c74.6108.2ab62ab831.22d1.30b
Significant Fc*ns*******ns**ns********
Trendc,dns**qns**l,qnsns*lns****l,q****l,q
Control vs thinningc**ns****nsnsnsnsns********
ShootsPeriderm (# canes/category)
Wt of cane
<3 mature4–9 mature>10 matureprunings
Per vinePer m rowinternodesinternodesinternodes(kg/vine)
Treatment20012002200120022001200220012002200120022002e
aMeans followed by different letters are significantly different, p ≤ 0.05, Duncan’s multiple range test.
bBoldfaced data are significantly different from the control according to Dunnett’s t test.
c*, **, ***, ****, and ns indicate significance at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001, and not significant, respectively.
dq, l: quadratic and linear trends, respectively.
eVines were pruned by the grower in error following the 2001 season.
Control26aa22a18.6a15.6a6.3a2.7a11.6a7.2a8.1ab11.9a0.58a
09–1221cb19b14.9c13.9b2.9cd2.1b9.4b6.1ab8.6a11.2ab0.57ab
1521c19b14.7c13.5b2.6d2.0b9.0b6.5a9.0a10.4b0.56ab
19–2123b19b16.2b13.6b4.7b2.1b9.6b5.3bc8.5a11.7a0.55ab
25–2721c18b15.1c13.0b3.7c2.2b9.6b5.0c7.9ab11.1ab0.53ab
29–3120c18b14.6c13.2b3.5c2.9a9.6b5.2bc7.3b10.4b0.48b
Significant Fc**********************************
Trendc,d**q*l**q*l**l,q***l,**qns**l**lns*l
Control vs thinningc*****************************ns*ns