ven101c_vine_training_systems_lecture_7 -...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Trellis & Vine Training Systems California Viticulture Practices David R. Smart • University of California • Dept. of Viticulture & Enology 1. 1. Construction is similar to that of a suspension bridge. 2. Supports the weight of the fruit, vegetation and wind shear. 3. Longer rows require stronger end assemblies. • 2142 RMI North • [email protected] • 530-754-7143/754-7144 530-754-7143/754- Trellis Training Systems 4. Determines shape/location of permanent vine structures (trunk, cordons arms) cordons, arms). 5. Trellis supports the pruning system and type or location of fruit bearing units. 6. Defines the volume of space available for the canopy. Trellis Training Systems 7. Determines the proportion of total leaf area and fruit exposed to sunlight. 8. Determines the shoot growth orientation. 9. Defines the location of the fruiting zone relative to foliage and the ground. Trellis Training Systems • Means of balancing potential site vigor with vine capacity • Means of getting highest crop load /quality compromise possible. Head Training Systems 1900 – 1960’s 1 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Year One Scion Rootstock Lodi is an old viticultural area. Some vineyards have vines 80-100 80years old like this years old, like this head head pruned Zinfandel Vertical Single Curtain Systems 1960’s – 1980’s California Sprawl Foliage wires 24” 12” 20” 12” Cor don on wire 54” 42” 42” 54” 12” Cordon wire Foliage wire Year Two 1960’s - 1980’s 1990’s 2 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Year Three Vertical 2- & 3-Wire Trellis 23‘California Sprawl’ • • Yield potential depends on site, site, pruning formula and spacing Wide row width, lower per acre vine density California Sprawl (1950’s – 1980’s) 3 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Vertical Shoot Positioned Trellis (VSP) Year One • 1980’s – present Higher yield potential than standard systems systems Intensely managed canopy, mechanization per acre • • Reduced row width, higher vine density Year Two Year Four Year Three 4 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt The Concept of Concep Vertically Shoot Positioned Systems Allows betweenAllows between-row spacing to be reduced, maximaximizing linear feet of fruit bearing surface per acre. – 10% increase in yield per acre for every foot that between-row spacing is reduced that between spacing is reduced • Improved canopy microclimate. – Increased sunlight interception, penetration – Improved fruit zone microclimate • Well suited for low vigor and cool climates and perhaps vertically divided canopies. • Structurally well suited for mechanization. Tons per acre Average yield per acre 1982-2004 6 Napa 5 Sprawl dominant C hardonnay C abernet Sauvignon 4 3 VSP dominant 2 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Years Leaf layer number in the fruit zone Row Spacing vs. Fruit Bearing Area Fruit bearing area per acre (linear feet) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 4 6 8 10 12 5 NP 4 Positioned Non-positioned Equivalent yield = 4 tons/ac P 3 2000 1.5 lbs/foot row length 2 1980 2.4 lbs/foot row length 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Row spacing (feet) Leaf area density (m 2 m -3 ) Cabernet Sauvignon Cabernet Sauvignon Oakville, California August 2000 89 F 89o F Fruit 99oF 87 F 88 F 92 F 92oF 98oF 103oF o o o 83oF 85 F 91 F 92oF o Fruit Fruit o 82 F 89 F VSP Sprawl 5 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Flexibility The reality of Vertically Shoot Positioned Systems • In many regions total yields per acre have not improved as a result of narrow row spacing facilitated by VSP. • Vineyard development and infrastructure costs have increased dramatically increased dramatically. • Fruit exposure to sunlight is often excessive in warm climates with this system (Region III or warmer) resultresulting in yield losses, fruit sunburn and other fruit composcomposition problems. • It is not particularly flexible although adoption of vertical divided systems could help. Divided Canopies (Curtains) Concept of Canopy Division • Canopy division doubles the amount of fruit bearing surface per unit row length. • Decreases canopy congestion by reducing leaf area per unit canopy volume unit canopy volume. – Improved canopy microclimate – Improved yield in most cases – Improved fruit quality, decreased sunburn – Improved production efficiency – Fruit spread over larger canopy volume Vertically Divided Trellis Verticall Systems 6 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt 7 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Lyre Trellis Horizontally Horizontally Divided Trellis Trellis Systems Higher yield potential than standard system • Idea iis tto iincrease ffruit lload per s o ncrease ruit oad per vine and therefore decrease vegetative growth Cabernet Sauvignon Oakville System Spurs/ vine Pruning Shoots/ Yield per wt/vine vine acre (tons) (lbs) Pruning wt/ft canopy length (lbs) Single Divided 18 36 95 156 7.2 10.1 (+40%) 9.8 5.8 0.75 0.54 (-28%) Dokoozlian et al.- 1992 Cabernet Sauvignon Oakville, California August 2000 89 F 89o F Fruit 99oF 87 F 88 F 92 F 92oF 98oF 103oF o o o 83oF 85 F 91 F 92oF o Fruit Fruit o 82 F 89 F VSP Sprawl 8 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Wye Trellis Also Higher yield potential than standard systems: • Supports increased bud load • Improved bud fruitfulness 9 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt Table Grape Trellis Systems 10 SLIDES\Trellis\Trellis2.ppt 11 ...
View Full Document

  • Spring '09
  • DavidSmart
  • fruit bearing, training systems, Higher yield potential, Trellis Training Systems, Cabernet Sauvignon Oakville

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online