Classification of reproductive performance of ten winegrape varieties

Background and Aims:  Flowering and fruitset are principal determinants of grapevine yield. Poor fruitset is said to limit the yield of many varieties in most regions in Australia; however, there is a lack of knowledge of the reproductive performance of most varieties under Australian conditions. Methods and Results:  The reproductive performance of Vitis vinifera winegrape varieties – Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay, Merlot, Nebbiolo, Pinot Noir, Sangiovese, Sauvignon Blanc, Shiraz, Tempranillo, and Zinfandel – was studied in four consecutive growing seasons (commencing in 2004/05) across a range of climatic regions from cool (Adelaide Hills) to warm (Adelaide Plains). Measures of reproductive performance included flower number per inflorescence, fruitset (%), berry number per bunch, coulure index (CI), and millerandage index (MI). Principal component analysis and agglomerative hierarchical classification were used to group the varieties into three classes of reproductive performance. Conclusions:  Certain varieties have a reputation of having ‘poor fruitset’ that has been inferred from relatively low berry number per bunch; however, for some of these varieties, it is ‘low flower number per inflorescence’ rather than ‘poor fruitset’ that is the cause of low berry number. Significance of the Study:  An improved understanding of the reproductive performance of winegrape varieties has been achieved.

[1]  A. Ebadi,et al.  Effect of low temperature near flowering time on ovule development and pollen tube growth in the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.), cvs Chardonnay and Shiraz , 1995 .

[2]  B. Coombe,et al.  Fruit set in grape vines: the mechanism of the CCC effect. , 1970 .

[3]  S. Chaillou,et al.  Grapevine culture in trenches: root growth and dry matter partitioning , 2001 .

[4]  G. Dunn,et al.  A functional association in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon between the extent of primary branching and the number of flowers formed per inflorescence , 2007 .

[5]  B. Coombe,et al.  The Effect of Removing Leaves, Flowers and Shoot Tips on Fruit-Set in Vitis Vinifera L. , 1962 .

[6]  Kgm Skene,et al.  A Comparison of the Effects of Cycocel and Tipping on Fruit Set in Vitis Vinifera L , 1969 .

[7]  A. Palliotti,et al.  Effect of Shading on Vine Morphology and Productivity and Leaf Gas Exchange Characteristics in Grapevines in the Field , 1995, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[8]  N. Maier,et al.  Effect of Molybdenum Foliar Sprays on Yield, Berry Size, Seed Formation, and Petiolar Nutrient Composition of “Merlot” Grapevines , 2005 .

[9]  Peter R. Dry,et al.  Response of fruitset and other yield components to shoot topping and 2-chlorethyltrimethyl-ammonium chloride application , 2009 .

[10]  M. Trought,et al.  Delayed winter spur‐pruning in New Zealand can alter yield components of Merlot grapevines , 2007 .

[11]  P Christensen,et al.  Timing of Zinc Foliar Sprays. I. Effects of Application Intervals Preceding and during the Bloom and Fruit-Set Stages. II. Effects of Day VS. Night Application , 1980, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[12]  B. Coombe Fruit Set and Development in Seeded Grape Varieties as Affected by Defoliation, Topping, Girdling, and Other Treatments , 1959, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[13]  D. Jackson,et al.  Effects of Chlormequat, Girdling, and Tipping on Berry Set inVitis viniferaL , 1988, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[14]  P. May,et al.  From bud to berry, with special reference to inflorescence and bunch morphology in Vitis vinifera L. , 2000 .

[15]  G. Dunn,et al.  Do temperature conditions at budburst affect flower number in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon , 2000 .

[16]  M. Sedgley,et al.  Sexual reproduction of tree crops. , 1989 .