Viticulture Data Journal :
Research Article
|
Corresponding author: Justin Scheiner (jscheiner@tamu.edu)
Academic editor: Maritina Stavrakaki
Received: 10 Apr 2020 | Accepted: 26 May 2020 | Published: 29 May 2020
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC0 Public Domain Dedication.
Citation: Scheiner J, Anciso J, Westover F (2020) Impact of training system on ‘Blanc Du Bois’ vegetative growth, yield components and fruit composition. Viticulture Data Journal 2: e53118. https://doi.org/10.3897/vdj.2.e53118
|
|
‘Blanc Du Bois’ (Vitis spp.) is the most widely grown Pierce’s disease tolerant white grapevine cultivar in Texas. As an interspecific hybrid, its growth habit is seimi-drooping, and 'Blanc Du Bois' is characterized as vigorous. This study evaluated the impact of training system (Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, Mid-Wire Cane with VSP and Smart-Dyson, High-Wire Quadralateral, and Watson) on 'Blanc Du Bois' growth, yield components, and fruit composition at two locations in Texas. The first site was located in the Rio Grande Valley where the mean extreme minimum winter temperature is -1.1 to 1.7° C (USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 10a). As a result of climate and site conditions, vine size, determined by dormant pruning weight, was very large averaging from 3.71 to 5.56 kg per vine across training systems over a three-year period. At this site, the horizontally divided systems, High-Wire Quadrilateral and Watson were the highest yielding averaging 10.66 and 7.49 kg per vine, respectively, as a result of more shoots per vine, and higher fruitfulness. The Mid-Wire Cordon and Mid-Wire Cane Pruned Training Systems had lower yields in two out of three years, but fruit maturity indices soluble solids and pH reflected more advanced maturity at harvest. At the second site, located in the Central Gulf Coast of Texas (USDA Cold Hardiness Zone 8b), vines were less vigorous with pruning weights averaging 1.66 to 1.83 kg per vine across training systems over three years. Consistent differences in yield components, vine size, and fruit composition were not observed, and all the three training systems under study had acceptable growth and fruiting characteristics. The results of this research suggest that 'Blanc Du Bois’ vigor potential and growth habit makes it well-suited for horizontally divided canopy training systems, particularly on vigorous sites.
'Blanc Du Bois', training system, Watson Training System, High-Wire Quadrilateral, horizontally divided training system
'Blanc Du Bois' is a Pierce’s disease (PD) tolerant, interspecific hybrid wine grape cultivar released from the University of Florida in 1987 (
This study was carried out in two 'Blanc Du Bois' vineyards located in the Rio Grande Valley (26.1, -97.9) and Central Gulf Coast (29.7, -96.8) of Texas from 2011 to 2014. The soils were, as classified by the USDA, Carbengle Series, thermic Udic Calciustolls (https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/C/CARBENGLE.html), and Raymondville Series, hyperthermic Vertic Calciustolls (https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/R/RAYMONDVILLE.html), at the Rio Grande Valley and Central Gulf Coast sites, respectively. At the Rio Grande Valley site, 'Blanc Du Bois' vines were grafted on ‘Dog Ridge’ rootstock and were planted in 2009. Rows were oriented north-south with 3.66 m between rows and 1.83 m between vines. Four training systems were evaluated as follows: Mid-Wire Bilateral Cordon with VSP (MWC), consisting of a fruiting wire at 1.02 m in height with three sets of catch wires spaced at 25 cm intervals above the cordon wire, Mid-Wire Bilateral Cane (CANE) pruned to four canes positioned on two parallel fruiting wires at 1.02 m in height and 25 cm apart with three sets of catch wires spaced at 25 cm intervals above the fruiting wire, the Watson Training System (WAT) consisting of bilateral cordons positioned at 1.68 m in height and two sets of parallel wires spaced at 15 cm intervals above the fruiting wire and spaced at 0.6 m and 1.22 m apart on a 120° v-cross arm (
At the Central Gulf Coast site, vines were ungrafted and were planted in 2009. Rows were oriented north-south with 3.04 m between rows and 1.83 m between vines. Three training systems were evaluated: Mid-Wire Bilateral Cordon (MWC) with VSP, consisting of a fruiting wire at 1.02 m in height with three sets of catch wires spaced at 25 cm intervals above the cordon wire, Mid-Wire Bilateral Cane (CANE) pruned to four bilateral canes positioned on a fruiting wire at 1.02 m in height with three sets of catch wires spaced at 25 cm intervals above the cordon wire, and Smart-Dyson Training System (SD) consisting of a cordon wire at 1.02 m in height with three sets of catch wires spaced at 25 cm intervals above the cordon wire and a rake wire at 51 cm in height to facilitate positionig shoots downward.
The experimental design at each site was a randomized complete block with six replications. The experimental plots consisted of two interior rows and each replicate consisted of three consecutive vines. Vineyard management was performed according to standard practices for 'Blanc Du Bois' in the Gulf Coast Region. Vines were pruned to a bud density of 15 count buds per meter of canopy for all training systems. Canopy management consisted of shoot positioning based on vine phenology, and no shoot, leaf, or cluster thinning was performed.
Pruning Weight
Winter pruning was conducted in the first to second week in February in the Rio Grande Valley and the fourth week of February to first week of March in the Central Gulf Coast site which corresponded to approximately one to two weeks prior to bud break. Cut-off canes were collected from each vine and weighed using a Pelouze model 7710 digital hanging scale (Rubbermaid, Atlanta, GA) and mean cane weight was determined as total cane pruning weight divided by the number of canes. Canes that were less than 25 cm in length were not measured.
Yield Components
Harvest was carried out between 115 and 125 days after bud break at both sites which corresponded to the last two weeks of June to the first two weeks of July at the Rio Grande Valley and Central Gulf Coast sites, respectively. Yield was determined on individual vine basis using a Rubbermaid model H-480 platform scale (Rubbermaid, Atlanta, GA) and mean cluster weight was calculated as vine yield divided by the total number of clusters per vine. A 100-berry sample was collected at random from each replicate, and a Mettler ME 204 balance (Mettler Toledo Inc., Columbus, OH) was utilized to determine mean berry weight. The berry samples were then frozen at -23°C until chemical analysis was performed.
Berry Analysis for Soluble Solids, Total Acidity, and pH.
Berry samples were removed from the -23ºC freezer, placed in a 250-mL beaker and heated to 65ºC for one hour in a water bath to redissolve tartrates, pressed through cheesecloth with a pestle, and the juice was collected for analyses. Soluble solids contents (ºBrix) were measured using a digital refractometer (model 300017; SPER Scientific, Scottsdale, AZ) with temperature correction. Total acidity (TA) and pH were measured with an automatic titrater (Titrino model 798, Metrohm, Riverview, FL). TA was measured with a 5.0-mL aliquot of juice by titration against 0.1 N NaOH to pH 8.2.
Statistical Analysis.
Data were subjected to the Proc GLM procedure using SAS® statistical software (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina) and means were separated using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test at the 5% significance level. Data from each site and each year were analyzed separately, and data from each site were analyzed over years.
The two vineyard sites utilized in this study represented significant differences in vigor potential as evidenced by dormant pruning weights (Tables
Impact of training system on yield components and vine size of 'Blanc Du Bois' in the Rio Grande Valley.
Treatment |
Clusters/vine |
Yield/vine (kg) |
Cluster weight (g) |
Canes/vine |
Mean cane weight (g) |
Pruning weight (kg) |
Clusters/shoot |
Ravaz index |
2012 |
||||||||
CANEa |
4.54cc |
0.52c |
144.4 |
20.22b |
341.7a |
6.49b |
0.25b |
0.09 |
MWC |
6.17c |
0.66c |
120.2 |
19.81b |
341.1a |
6.52b |
0.31b |
0.11 |
WAT |
18.13b |
2.02b |
120.4 |
23.27b |
372.1a |
8.47a |
0.79a |
0.26 |
QUAD |
34.71a |
4.17a |
118.7 |
31.48a |
179.6b |
5.65b |
1.11a |
0.78 |
Significanceb |
*** |
*** |
ns |
*** |
** |
* |
*** |
ns |
2013 |
||||||||
CANE |
9.86c |
1.60c |
161.2bc |
27.33b |
141.3b |
4.70b |
0.35b |
0.33c |
MWC |
6.74c |
2.56c |
157.3c |
35.86a |
221.1a |
5.88a |
0.19b |
0.41c |
WAT |
32.07b |
6.07b |
190.5ab |
36.39a |
164.6b |
4.86b |
0.93a |
1.32b |
QUAD |
48.31a |
10.00a |
201.2a |
39.50a |
55.9c |
3.07c |
1.46a |
3.20a |
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
*** |
2014 |
||||||||
CANE |
110.1b |
9.25b |
110.1 |
28.92b |
140.5a |
4.28a |
4.03 |
1.94b |
MWC |
125.7b |
11.60b |
125.2 |
35.02ab |
131.0a |
4.69a |
3.77 |
2.49b |
WAT |
125.2b |
14.40ab |
125.2 |
36.52ab |
111.6ab |
4.00a |
3.61 |
3.32a |
QUAD |
192.2a |
17.80a |
178.4 |
40.29a |
61.0b |
2.39b |
4.76 |
6.29a |
Significance |
** |
** |
ns |
* |
* |
*** |
ns |
** |
Multi-year Mean |
||||||||
CANE |
41.48b |
3.79b |
135.4 |
26.02b |
222.97a |
5.38ab |
1.54b |
0.79 |
MWC |
47.99ab |
4.94b |
130.3 |
30.43b |
200.16a |
5.49a |
1.42b |
0.97 |
WAT |
58.46ab |
7.49ab |
166.2 |
32.09ab |
205.43a |
5.56a |
1.77ab |
1.70 |
QUAD |
94.01a |
10.66a |
143.4 |
37.35a |
106.46b |
3.71b |
2.44a |
3.42 |
Significance |
*** |
*** |
ns |
*** |
*** |
*** |
** |
*** |
Year x Treatment |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
** |
aCANE, MWC, WAT, and QUAD are Mid-Wire Cane pruned with VSP, Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, Watson, and High-Wire Qudralateral training systems, respectively.
bns, *, **, and *** indicate not significant, and statistically significant at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level of probability, respectively.
cMeans followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level (Tukey’s HSD).
Impact of training system on yield components and vine size of 'Blanc Du Bois' in the Central Gulf Coast.
Treatment |
Clusters/vine |
Yield/vine (kg) |
Average cluster weight (g) |
Cane/vine |
Pruning weight (kg) |
Mean cane weight (g) |
Clusters/cane |
Ravaz index |
||
2011 |
||||||||||
CANEa |
88.00aa |
8.56a |
101.08b |
27.83 |
1.78 |
66.27 |
3.25a |
4.96a |
||
MWC |
25.89b |
3.11b |
121.04a |
27.14 |
1.64 |
65.73 |
0.90b |
1.70b |
||
SD |
29.56b |
3.48b |
118.44a |
27.83 |
1.87 |
57.72 |
1.01b |
2.16b |
||
Significanceb |
*** |
*** |
* |
ns |
ns |
ns |
* |
*** |
||
2013 |
||||||||||
CANE |
22.94a |
2.55 |
143.33b |
27.61b |
1.54 |
57.35 |
0.83a |
1.67 |
||
MWC |
15.17b |
3.32 |
176.86a |
27.11b |
1.79 |
67.80 |
0.57b |
1.89 |
||
SD |
23.06a |
3.15 |
135.20b |
31.50a |
1.81 |
57.73 |
0.73ab |
1.73 |
||
Significance |
** |
ns |
* |
* |
ns |
ns |
** |
ns |
||
2014 |
||||||||||
CANE |
20.83a |
2.71 |
167.99b |
-d |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
MWC |
13.28c |
3.33 |
215.71a |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
SD |
16.50b |
2.91 |
178.91b |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
Significance |
** |
ns |
* |
- |
- |
- |
- |
- |
||
Multi-year Mean |
||||||||||
CANE |
43.93 |
3.50 |
137.46b |
27.72 |
1.66 |
61.80 |
2.05a |
3.56 |
||
MWC |
17.38 |
5.58 |
171.20a |
28.12 |
1.83 |
66.76 |
0.73b |
1.57 |
||
SD |
23.04 |
4.12 |
144.88b |
30.28 |
1.73 |
57.73 |
0.87b |
1.95 |
||
Significance |
*** |
*** |
** |
ns |
ns |
ns |
*** |
*** |
||
Year x Treatment |
*** |
*** |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
ns |
*** |
aCANE, MWC, and SD are Mid-Wire Cane pruned with VSP, Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, and Smart-Dyson training systems, respectively.
bns, *, **, and *** indicate not significant, and statistically significant at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level of probability, respectively.
cMeans followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level (Tukey’s HSD).
dData not available.
The high vigor at the Rio Grande Valley site was also evident by the high cane weights observed and the low number of canes per vine in the CANE treatment. This resulted from long internodes on the fruiting canes that were retained each season. On average, cane density, expressed as the number of canes removed at pruning per meter of canopy, ranged from 11.03 to 15.8, or an average of 5.04 canes were removed from each fruiting cane (4 fruiting canes per vine). This led to lower yields than the divided canopy systems, and lower bud fruitfulness was also observed in both of the mid-wire training systems. The number of clusters per shoot averaged 1.42 and 1.54 for the CANE and MWC treatments, respectively, compared to 1.77 and 2.44 for the WAT and QUAD treatments, respectively. The lower position of the fruiting zone with respect to the canopy, combined with the high vigor and semi-procumbent growth habit of 'Blanc Du Bois' likely led to shading of the lower bud positions in the mid-wire training systems. Shading of shoots and buds has been widely reported to reduce bud fruitfulness (
The ratio of yield to pruning weight (Ravaz Index) at the Rio Grande site indicated that all training systems were undercropped based on general recommendations for V. vinifera (
From 2012 to 2014, yields generally increased each year at the Rio Grande Valley site as a result of higher cluster numbers. This may be attributed to more fruiting shoots and higher bud fruitfulness as both were observed over time, but fruitful non-count shoots may have also contributed. While the fruitfulness of non-count shoots has not been reported in Blanc Du Bois, the high number of clusters in 2014 relative to the number of canes suggests that the vines produced fruitful, non-count shoots that remained small and were therefore, not counted as canes at pruning. Only canes that were greater than 25 cm in length were counted and weighed. High fruitfulness of non-count shoots has been widely in other hybrid grape cultivars and this may also be a characteristic of Blanc Du Bois (
Overall, the QUAD training system maintained the most favorable vine growth characteristics over the course of the study based on lower dormant pruning and mean cane weights, higher clusters/shoot and a higher Ravaz Index. However, in 2014, QUAD had lower soluble solids than MWC and lower pH than MWC and CANE indicating that the fruit was less mature at harvest (Table
Impact of training system on juice chemistry for Blanc Du Bois in the Rio Grande Valley in 2014.
Treatment |
TSS (°Brix) |
TA |
pH |
MWC |
19.17ac |
7.54 |
4.11a |
CANE |
17.58b |
7.10 |
4.14a |
QUAD |
16.67b |
7.58 |
3.97b |
WAT |
17.60b |
7.53 |
4.02b |
Significanceb |
* |
ns |
* |
aCANE, MWC, WAT, and QUAD are Mid-Wire Cane pruned with VSP, Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, Watson, and High-Wire Qudralateral training systems, respectively.
bns, *, **, and *** indicate not significant, and statistically significant at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level of probability, respectively.
cMeans followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level (Tukey’s HSD).
The juice TA for all training systems at the Rio Grande Valley site were within an acceptable range for white wines, but pH values were high suggesting that potassium may have played a role (
Impact of training system on juice chemistry for Blanc Du Bois in the Central Gulf Coast.
Treatment |
TSS (°Brix) |
TA |
pH |
2013 |
|||
MWCa |
20.82 |
5.58cc |
4.02a |
CANE |
20.45 |
6.40b |
3.91b |
SD |
21.58 |
7.30a |
4.07a |
Significanceb |
ns |
** |
* |
2014 |
|||
MWC |
18.20 |
7.93 |
3.84 |
CANE |
18.08 |
7.90 |
3.83 |
SD |
18.15 |
7.69 |
3.86 |
Significance |
ns |
ns |
ns |
Multi-year Mean |
|||
CANE |
19.26 |
7.14 |
3.87b |
MWC |
19.50 |
6.75 |
3.92ab |
SD |
19.87 |
7.49 |
3.96a |
Significance |
ns |
** |
* |
Year x Treatment |
ns |
*** |
ns |
aCANE, MWC, and SD are Mid-Wire Cane pruned with VSP, Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, and Smart-Dyson training systems, respectively.
bns, *, **, and *** indicate not significant, and statistically significant at the 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 level of probability, respectively.
cMeans followed by different letters are significantly different at the 95% level (Tukey’s HSD).
The vines at the Central Gulf Coast site were less vigorous and had higher crop load values than those at the Rio Grande Valley site (Table
The CANE treatment had a greater number of clusters/cane than MWC and SD treatments and it is not possible to completely rule out the influence of canopy microclimate on bud fruitfulness, although the data collected to characterize vine size do not indicate differences in vine vigor or shoot density. More likely, the CANE treatment had more fruitful shoots as a result of their location along the cane versus the shoots arising from more basal locations on the spurs of the MWC and SD treatments. Differences in bud fruitfulness, based on cane position, has been reported for multiple grape cultivars (
Overall, the three training systems evaluated at the Central Gulf Coast site all produced commercially acceptable yields, pruning weights, and juice chemistry. However, on more vigorous sites, SD could be advantageous due to its capacity to carry a greater number of shoots. In 2013, the SD training system had four more canes than MWC and CANE, but had a much lower shoot density, when expressed as canes per meter of canopy (SD = 8.6, MWC = 15.1, CANE = 14.8). Therefore, the potential of the SD training system to accommodate twice as many shoots, and maintain the same shoot density as a single canopy training system, was not realized.
This research evaluated the impact of divided and undivided training systems on 'Blanc Du Bois' vine performance. On a site with high vigor potential, the horizontally divided canopy training systems Watson and High-Wire Quadrilateral outperformed Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP and Mid-Wire Cane-pruned with VSP, with respect to pruning weight and vine yield. On the second site, where vigor potential was lower, all of the training systems under study (Mid-Wire Cordon with VSP, Mid-Wire Cane with VSP, and Smart-Dyson) had acceptable pruning weights, yield, and juice composition, although the vertically divided canopy system, Smart-Dyson, may be superior on sites with higher vigor potential resulting from soil or climate.
Texas A&M University