Effects of retained node numbers on berry maturity and yield components of cane-pruned Sauvignon blanc

Abstract

Cane pruning is used in most New Zealand Sauvignon blanc vineyards to manage yield, vine balance (relationship between vegetative growth and fruit growth) and fruit primary and secondary metabolites. The source–sink ratio (TLA/FM—total leaf area to fruit mass or ELA/FM—exposed leaf area to fruit mass), the fruit mass to pruning mass (FM/PM), the fruit mass to cane mass (FM/CM) and fruit composition provide an assessment of the vine performance and balance. The interpretation of these metrics (i.e., TLA/FM, ELA/FM, FM/PM, FM/CM) requires their comparison with known optimal ranges specific to cultivars, locations and growing conditions. More often, such context- and cultivar-specific optimal ranges do not exist, thus warranting research to investigate them. To understand the influence of retained node numbers on the vegetative and fruit development of Sauvignon blanc, grapevines were pruned across three vineyard sites (two in Marlborough—Site 1 and 2, and one in Waipara—Site 3) over two growing seasons, retaining 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 nodes on one to four canes (each cane carrying ten nodes, with 50-node vines carrying on average 12.5 nodes on each of the four canes). The accumulation of soluble solids (TSS) generally increased at lower node numbers and vine yields, reflecting an increase in ELA/FM, with 50-node vines having the least TSS concentration at harvest. The average berry mass, titrable acidity (TA) and pH were unaffected by node numbers over the two seasons. A low source–sink ratio induced by high node numbers not only reduced the vine capacity to ripen the current crop but also reduced the following season’s bunch number per shoot (from 1.8 to 1.6 bunches per shoot; p < 0.05), average bunch mass (from 82.0 ± 6 g to 67.7 ± 3 g; p < 0.01) and bunch mass per shoot (from 153.5 ± 15 g to 106.7 ± 9 g; p < 0.05). When compared to 50-node vines, 10-node vines had a two-fold increase in the average cane mass (from 30.1 ± 3.9 g to 69.2 ± 8.7 g; p < 0.001) and average old cane mass (from 82.4 ± 6.9 g to 163.8 ± 21 g; p < 0.001). The ELA/FM and TLA/FM required for optimal TSS accumulation were 0.75 m2 kg-1 and 2.0 m2 kg-1, respectively, across all sites. A source–sink ratio above these values resulted in high average cane mass and average old cane mass (an indication of excess vigour), while lower values indicated reduced vigour and slowed TSS accumulation. This research provides useful optimal ranges to compare and interpret vine balance metrics measured at those sites.

Keywords

• Balance
• cane pruning
• carbohydrate
• crop load
• grapevine
• growth