Double-Pruning Grapevines as a Management Tool to Delay Berry Ripening and Control Yield

• Alberto Palliotti ^[5] ; Tommaso Frioni ^[5] ; Sergio Tombesi ^[1] ; Paolo Sabbatini ^[2] ; Juan Guillermo Cruz Castillo ^[3] ; Vania Lanari ^[4] ; Oriana Silvestroni ^[4] ; Matteo Gatti ^[1] ; Stefano Poni ^[1]
  1. [1] Catholic University of the Sacred Heart

     Catholic University of the Sacred Heart

     Milán, Italia

     
  2. [2] Michigan State University

     Michigan State University

     City of East Lansing, Estados Unidos

     
  3. [3] Universidad Autónoma Chapingo

     Universidad Autónoma Chapingo

     México

     
  4. [4] Marche Polytechnic University

     Marche Polytechnic University

     Ancona, Italia

     
  5. [5] Università di Perugia

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, ISSN 0002-9254, Vol. 68, Nº 4, 2017, págs. 412-421
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Sangiovese vines mechanically spur-pruned during dormancy in February were manually finished either immediately or post budburst to test the potential of a ‘double-pruning’ approach to delay fruit sugar accumulation and limit yield. The treatments were applied in 2014, 2015, and 2016 at BBCH-0 as standard hand-finishing on dormant buds (SHF), and as late (LHF) and very late (VLHF) hand-finishing at BBCH-14 and BBCH-19, i.e., when the two apical shoots on the mechanically-shortened canes were ~10 and 20 cm long, respectively. While yield per vine was drastically reduced in the VLHF treatment (−43% versus SHF) due to high incidence of unsprouted (blind) nodes, lower shoot fruitfulness, and berries per cluster, yield reduction in LHF was −22% versus SHF due only to the incidence of unsprouted nodes. While the fruit ripening profile was not significantly modified in VLHF compared to SHF, in data pooled over three seasons, LHF delayed basic fruit composition at harvest, producing fruit with less total soluble solids, lower pH, and greater acidity, but more phenolics than SHF. Overall, LHF proved to be effective at reducing yield per vine to a level that did not require expensive cluster thinning. By reducing berry sugar accumulation, it has the potential to produce wines with lower alcohol and higher phenol content. Noteworthy too is its potential to delay harvest date or increase crop hanging time under specific vineyard conditions.