Table 3

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

Yield (kg/vine)Clusters/vineCluster wt (g)Berries/clusterBerry wt (g)
Treatment2001200220012002200120022001200220012002
Control3.3aa3.1a46a58a70.0cde51.9c61bcd44c1.16a1.17bc
Double prune2.7bcb2.0b43ab44b63.8de46.2c56d42c1.13b1.07d
09–122.9abc2.9a36b40bc79.8b71.2a68b59a1.18a1.19ab
153.0abc2.4b40ab34d77.6bc69.2a66bc61a1.16a1.14c
19–213.2ab3.1a37b40bc89.7a75.4a75a60a1.19a1.23a
25–272.6c2.3b40ab38c62.1e60.0b59cd51b1.05d1.20ab
29–312.9abc2.1b40ab39bc71.7bcd52.1c66bc44c1.09c1.18bc
Significant Fc***********************************
Thin linearc,dns***lnsnsns****l,***qns****l,**q***l,****qns
Control vs thinningcns****ns*******ns******ns
ShootsPeriderm (# canes per category)
Wt of cane
<3 mature4–9 mature>10 matureprunings
Per vinePer m rowinternodesinternodesinternodes(kg/vine)
Treatment200220012001200220012002200120022001200220012002
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.
dl, q: linear and quadratic trends, respectively.
Control30aa36a21.7a26a5.6a7.5a14.5a14.9a10.313.6a0.30bc0.43a
Double prune27bb29b19.1b21b5.2a6.0b11.6b11.6b9.911.5bc0.30bc0.34bc
09–1223c25c16.7c17.7c3.4b3.4c8.9c8.6c11.212.8ab0.38a0.39ab
1524c20e17.3c14.3e3.6b2.5d9.9bc6.5d10.710.9c0.35ab0.30c
19–2123c22d16.6c15.8d3.6b3.4c9.7c7.0cd10.011.6bc0.35ab0.43a
25–2724c22d17.4c15.9d3.3b3.7c10.8bc8.1cd10.310.5c0.30bc0.28c
29–3123c22d16.8c16.0d3.2b3.9c10.0bc8.1cd10.210.4c0.26c0.30c
Significant Fc********************************ns**********
Trendc,dns****qns****qns**lns**qns***l**q**l
Control vs thinningc**********ns*********ns****ns****