Effect of Training System and Fruiting Unit Length on Bud Behaviour, Growth and Productivity of Flame Seedless Grapevines

Abstract

This investigation was conducted for two successive seasons (2006& 2007) to study the effect of training system and fruiting unit length on bud behaviour, growth and productivity of Flame Seedless grapevines. The chosen vines were ten-year-old, grown in a clay loamy soil and irrigated by the drip irrigation system. The vineyard was located at Meniet Samannoud, Dakahlia governorate. Vines were spaced at 2.5 X 3 meters apart, pruned during the second week of February with a load of (40-42 buds/vine) and trellised according to the telephone system. Seventy two uniform vines were chosen. Each four vines acted as a replicate and each three replicates were treated by one of the following treatments: Two training systems were evaluated; the first was cordon training system with three levels of spur length: two, three or four buds per spur, while the second was cane training system with three levels of cane length: six, eight or ten buds per cane.The results showed that cordon training system gave the best results as compared to cane training system. The spur pruning (2-3 buds/spur) resulted in the highest percentages of bud burst and fruitful buds and coefficient of bud fertility as compared to the cane pruning (6 buds/cane) which recorded the lowest values. In addition, the cordon training system with fruiting unit lengths of 2-3 buds/spur gave the best yield/vine and its components as well as the best physical properties of bunches, improved the physical and chemical characteristics of berries and ensured the best vegetative growth parameters, dynamics of wood ripening, weight of prunings/vine and size of old wood. Total chlorophyll of the leaves and total carbohydrates of the canes were also increased as compared to the cane training system with fruiting unit length of ten buds/cane which gave the lowest values of these parameters.The economical study indicated that cordon training system with spur pruning for Flame Seedless grapevines gave the highest net income as compared to cane training system with cane pruning.

Effect of Bud Load and Fruiting Unit Length of the Autumn Crisp Grape variety on Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality

“…They revealed that the percentage of bud burst was negatively correlated with the number of buds left after pruning. Moreover, Abbas et al (2008) and Abo-Elwafa (2018) showed that the percentage of bud burst increased with decreasing spur length.Coefficient of bud fertility…”

“…They found that bunch weight and dimensions were reduced by increasing bud load. Moreover, Abbas et al (2008) and Abo-Elwafa (2018) showed that bunch weight and dimensions increased with decreasing spur length.…”

“…The results in this respect are in harmony with Ali (2006), El-Helw (2006), Khamis et al (2008) and Mekawy and Abo-Elail (2021) who found that increased bud load limited individual shoot growth and reduced annual shoot growth increment which led to a weight loss of wood pruning and mature wood. Moreover, Abd El-Ghany (2006) and Abbas et al (2008), Khamis et al (2008) and Abo-Elwafa (2018) who displayedshowed that vegetative growth aspects were positively affected by increasing pruning severity.…”

“…These results coincided with those of Ali (2006), El-Helw (2006), Fawzi et al (2010) and Mekawy and Abo-Elail (2021) who found that increasing bud load decreased TSS and increased total titratable acidity. Moreover, Abd El-Ghany (2006), Abbas et al (2008) and Abo-Elwafa (2018) revealed that vines with long pruning caused a significant reduction in TSS% and TSS/acid ratio and an increase in total acidity content of the berry juice in comparison with short pruning.…”

“…Proper pruning always results in a maximum yield of highquality fruit (Gorden et al, 1998). The haphazard application of some pruning systems has been the main reason for the undesired and unreliable results (Abbas et al, 2008). Pruning the vines for optimum cropping according to the vigour is the most reliable method to maintain a balance between growth and production (Senthilkumar et al, 2015).…”