Vegetative parameters in some grapevine cultivars – Comparative study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59463/q82krc20Keywords:
cluster, comparative analysis, grapevine genotypes, morphological parameters, multivariate analysisAbstract
Fifteen grapevine genotypes, grown in five distinct locations, were comparatively analyzed based on vegetative parameters. The genotypes were grouped, five at a time, into three categories, red wine genotypes (RG), white wine genotypes (WG) and fresh consumption genotypes (FCG). The percentage of fertile shoots (FS, %) and the number of inflorescences per plant (IN, no) were determined. The Anova test confirmed the reliability of the experimental data (p<0.05). For the FS parameter, the average value recorded was =74.94±2.07% (RG group), =78.70±1.23% (WG group) and =76.60±2.43% (FCG group). For the FS parameter (%) the RG5 genotype presented statistically significant differences (p<0.001) compared to the calculated mean value. In the case of the other genotypes, differences were recorded, but without statistical significance. In the case of the IP parameter, the calculated mean values were =20.38±1.33 (RG group), =19.46±1.62 (WG group) and =24.55±4.72 (FCG group). For the IP parameter, the differences between the genotypes studied and the average calculated for each group did not present statistical significance (p>0.05). The comparative analysis between the three genotype groups (RG, WG, FCG) showed differences without statistical significance (p>0.05), both for the FS parameter and for the IP parameter. The presence of variance was proven by the principal components (PC1, PC2), and the genotypes were associated based on similarity and were ranked in relation to the values of the indices considered.
References
Arrobas, M., Ferreira, I.Q., Freitas, S., Verdinal, J., Rodrigues, M.Â. (2014). Guidelines for fertilizer use in vineyards based on nutrient content of grapevine parts. Scientia Horticulturae, 172: 191-198.
Collins, C., Wang, X., Lesefko, S., De Bei, R., Fuentes, S. (2020), Effects of canopy management practices on grapevine bud fruitfulness. OENO One, 54(2): 313–325.
Fichtl, L., Hofmann, M., Kahlen, K., Voss-Fels, K.P., Cast, C.S., Ollat, N., Vivin, P., Loose, S., Nsibi, M., Schmid, J., Strack, T., Schultz, H.R., Smith, J., Friedel, M. (2023), Towards grapevine root architectural models to adapt viticulture to drought. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14: 1162506.
Guilpart, N., Metay, A., Gary, C. (2014), Grapevine bud fertility and number of berries per bunch are determined by water and nitrogen stress around flowering in the previous year. European Journal of Agronomy, 54: 9-20.
Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G., Pinedo, X., Villena, W., Araya-Alman, M., Pszczólkowski, P. (2023), Research note: spur pruning leaving one bud is an interesting viticultural strategy to control bud acrotony in Bolivian vineyards. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 44(1): 25-30.
Hammer, Ø., Harper, D.A.T., Ryan, P.D. (2001), PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1): 1-9.
Kar, S., Clark, R.W., Ivey, I.T., DeShields, J.B., Cusimango, J., Levin, A.D. (2024), Post-frost pruning does not impact vine yield and berry composition in young grapevines. Horticulturae, 10(5): 505.
Köse, B., Svyantek, A., Kadium, V.R., Brooke, M., Auwarter, C., Hatterman-Valenti, H. (2024), Death and dying: Grapevine survival, cold hardiness, and BLUPs and winter BLUEs in North Dakota vineyards. Life, 14(2): 178.
Lebon, E., Pellegrino, A., Tardieu, F., Lecoeur, J. (2004), Shoot development in grapevine (Vitis vinifera) is affected by the modular branching pattern of the stem and intra- and inter-shoot trophic competition. Annals of Botany, 93(3): 263-74.
Lisek, J. (2025), Primary Assessment of grapevine cultivars’ bud fertility with diverse ancestry following spring frost under Central Poland environmental conditions. Agriculture, 15(1): 108.
Monteiro, A.I., Malheiro, A.C., Bacelar, E.A. (2021), Morphology, physiology and analysis techniques of grapevine bud fruitfulness: A review. Agriculture, 11(2): 127.
Monteiro, A.I., Ferreira, H., Ferreira-Cardoso, J.V., Malheiro, A.C., Bacelar, E.A. (2022), Assessment of bud fruitfulness of three grapevine varieties grown in northwest Portugal. OENO One, 56(3): 385-395.
Nicolosi, E., Ferlito, F., Allegra, M., Cicala, A., Trovato, F., La Malfa, S. (2016). Influences of aspect and tillage on two winegrape cultivars on Mount Etna. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 44(2): 83-102.
Persico, M.J., Smith, D.E., Centinari, M. (2021), Delaying budbreak to reduce freeze damage: Seasonal vine performance and wine composition in two Vitis vinifera cultivars. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 72: 346-357.
Sala, F., Blidariu, C. (2012), Macro-and Micronutrient Content in Grapevine Cordons under the Influence of Organic and Mineral Fertilization. Bulletin of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Horticulture, 69(1): 317-324.
Torregrosa, L., Carbonneau, A., Kelner, J.J. (2021), The shoot system architecture of Vitis vinifera ssp. sativa. Scientia Horticulturae, 288: 110404.
Wohlfahrt, Y., Collins, C., Stoll, M. (2019), Grapevine bud fertility under conditions of elevated carbon dioxide. OENO One, 53(2): 277-288.
Ye, Q., Wang, H., Li, H. (2022), Lateral shoots removal has little effect on berry growth of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) ‘Riesling’ in cool climate. Scientific Reports, 12: 15980.
