Table 2

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

	Yield (kg/vine)		Clusters/vine		Cluster wt (g)		Berries/cluster		Berry wt (g)
Treatment	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002
Control	3.1a^a	3.4a	43a	33ab	73.1	106.9ab	61ab	81	1.20f	1.32a
09–12	2.8abc	3.3ab	33c	31bc	86.5	108.6ab	75a	86	1.22d	1.27d
15	2.7abc	3.6a	35bc	35a	77.6	101.3b	61ab	83	1.27b	1.22e
19–21	3.0ab	3.5a	37b	33ab	80.8	108.2ab	65ab	86	1.24c	1.27d
25–27	2.5c^b	3.4ab	35bc	30bc	71.8	112.2a	57b	88	1.28a	1.29c
29–31	2.6bc	3.0b	35bc	28c	74.6	108.2ab	62ab	83	1.22d	1.30b
Significant F^c	*	ns	****	***	ns	*	*	ns	****	****
Trend^c,d	ns	**q	ns	**l,q	ns	ns	*l	ns	****l,q	****l,q
Control vs thinning^c	**	ns	****	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	****	****

	Shoots				Periderm (# canes/category)
											Wt of cane
					<3 mature		4–9 mature		>10 mature		prunings
	Per vine		Per m row		internodes		internodes		internodes		(kg/vine)
Treatment	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002	2001	2002	2002^e
^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.
Control	26a^a	22a	18.6a	15.6a	6.3a	2.7a	11.6a	7.2a	8.1ab	11.9a	0.58a
09–12	21c^b	19b	14.9c	13.9b	2.9cd	2.1b	9.4b	6.1ab	8.6a	11.2ab	0.57ab
15	21c	19b	14.7c	13.5b	2.6d	2.0b	9.0b	6.5a	9.0a	10.4b	0.56ab
19–21	23b	19b	16.2b	13.6b	4.7b	2.1b	9.6b	5.3bc	8.5a	11.7a	0.55ab
25–27	21c	18b	15.1c	13.0b	3.7c	2.2b	9.6b	5.0c	7.9ab	11.1ab	0.53ab
29–31	20c	18b	14.6c	13.2b	3.5c	2.9a	9.6b	5.2bc	7.3b	10.4b	0.48b
Significant F^c	****	****	****	****	****	***	***	****	*	**	*
Trend^c,d	**q	*l	**q	*l	**l,q	*l,q	ns	**l	**l	ns	*l
Control vs thinning^c	****	****	****	****	****	**	****	***	ns	*	ns