Manipulating or shifting annual grapevine growing cycle to offset limitations imposed by global warming is a must today, and delayed winter pruning is a tool to achieve it. However, no information is available about its physiological background, especially in relation to modifications in canopy phenology, demography and seasonal carbon budget. Mechanistic hypothesis underlying this work was that very late winter pruning (LWP) can achieve significant postponement of phenological stages so that ripening might occur in a cooler period and, concurrently, ripening potential can be improved due to higher efficiency and prolonged longevity of the canopy. Variability in the dynamics of the annual cycle was created in mature potted cv. Sangiovese grapevines subjected to either standard winter pruning (SWP) or late and very late winter pruning (LWP, VLWP) performed when apical shoots on the unpruned canes were at the stage of 2 and 7 unfolded leaves. Vegetative growth, phenology and canopy net CO2 exchange (NCER) were followed throughout the season. Despite LWP and VLWP induced a bud-burst delay of 17 and 31 days vs. SWP, the delay was fully offset at harvest for LWP and was reduced to 6 days in VLWP. LWP showed notably higher canopy efficiency as shorter time needed to reach maximum NCER/leaf area (22 days vs. 34 in SWP), highest maximum NCER/leaf area (+37% as compared to SWP) and higher NCER/leaf area rates from veraison to end of season. As a result, seasonal cumulated carbon in LWP was 17% higher than SWP. A negative functional relationship was also established between amount of leaf area removed at winter pruning and yield per vine and berry number per cluster. Although retarded winter pruning was not able to postpone late-season phenological stages under the warm conditions of this study, it showed a remarkable potential to limit yield while improving grape quality, thereby fostering the hypothesis that it could be used to replace time-consuming and costly cluster thinning. This preliminary study indicates that proper winter pruning date should be timed so as not to exceed the stage of two unfolded leaves.

Ground-based proximal sensing of vineyard features is gaining interest due to its ability to serve in even quite small plots with the advantage of being conducted concurrently with normal vineyard practices (i.e., spraying, pruning or soil tilling) with no dependence upon weather conditions, external services or law-imposed limitations. The purpose of the present work was to test performance of the new terrestrial multi-sensor MECS-VINE® in terms of reliability and degree of correlation with several canopy growth and yield parameters in the grapevine. MECS-VINE®, once conveniently positioned in front of the tractor, can provide simultaneous assessment of growth features and microclimate of specific canopy sections of the two adjacent row sides. MECS-VINE® integrates a series of microclimate sensors (air relative humidity, air and surface temperature) with two (left and right) matrix-based optical RGB imaging sensors and a related algorithm, termed Canoyct). MECS-VINE® was run five times along the season in a mature cv. Barbera vineyard and a Canopy Index (CI, pure number varying from 0 to 1000), calculated through its built-in algorithm, validated vs. canopy structure parameters (i.e., leaf layer number, fractions of canopy gaps and interior leaves) derived from point quadrat analysis. Results showed that CI was highly correlated vs. any canopy parameter at any date, although the closest relationships were found for CI vs. fraction of canopy gaps (R2 = 0.97) and leaf layer number (R2 = 0.97) for data pooled over 24 test vines. While correlations against canopy light interception and total lateral leaf area were still unsatisfactory, a good correlation was found vs. cluster and berry weight (R2 = 0.76 and 0.71, respectively) suggesting a good potential also for yield estimates. Besides the quite satisfactory calibration provided, main improvements of MECS-VINE® usage versus other current equipment are: (i) MECS-VINE® delivers a segmented evaluation of the canopy up to 15 different sectors, therefore allowing to differentiate canopy structure and density at specific and crucial canopy segments (i.e., basal part where clusters are located) and (ii) the sensor is optimized to work at any time of the day with any weather condition without the need of any supplemental lighting system.

Background and Aims: The postponement of spur pruning after budburst has recently been proposed as a simple and inexpensive way to delay sugaring, maintain acidity and contain yield in spur-pruned trellised grapes. Yet, no long-term data are available for the widely adopted cane pruning system. Methods and Results: Mature field grown Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot Noir vines were subjected for three consecutive years to the following treatments: standard winter pruning (WP), double pruning (DP), where shortening and positioning of the selected cane is postponed, and late pruning (LP), where all pruning operations are postponed. Postponed pruning was performed when shoot growth from node 10 of the unpruned canes had reached an average stage of more than three unfolded leaves. Phenological and ripening dynamics, yield components and must composition were determined. Double pruning did not affect phenology and overall vine performance compared to that of WP. Conversely, LP significantly delayed ripening over 2 trial years; LP also slightly increased whole-vine and single-cane phenological variability, whereas yield per vine was reduced by 35% as compared to that of WP because of lower shoot fruitfulness. Conclusions: If repeated over several seasons, late WP applied to a cane-pruned system when the distal part of the cane has already burst an average of three leaves can become effective at delaying phenology and extending maturity into a cooler season. Significance of the Study: We have validated a simple technique suitable for preserving balanced must composition required for a range of sparkling wine styles.

No abstract

No abstract