Vineyard nutrient needs vary with rootstocks and soils
Michael M. Anderson
James A. Wolpert
Authors AffiliationsJ.J. Lambert is Assistant Research Soil Scientist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, UC Davis; M.M. Anderson is Staff Research Associate, Department of Viticulture and Enology, UC Davis; J.A. Wolpert is Cooperative Extension Specialist, Department of Viticulture and Enology, UC Davis.
Hilgardia 62(4):202-207. DOI:10.3733/ca.v062n04p202. October 2008.
Sustainable vineyard fertilization can lead to cost savings while protecting the environment. However, appropriate fertilization conditions depend on the rootstocks, which differ in their uptake of macro- and micronutrients, as well as on the vineyard soils' physical and chemical characteristics, which affect the soil nutrient reservoir. We studied identical sets of 14 rootstocks on three different soils. Rootstocks had a significant impact on petiole levels of nitrogen and potassium throughout the growing season. Pruning weight and fruit yield also varied considerably by rootstock and site. However, rootstock performance was not consistent among sites, nor was the seasonal pattern of change in nitrogen and potassium consistent among sites. The observed differences emphasize the impact of soil texture and nutrient availability on plant growth. Further studies will help guide the development of site-specific sustainable fertilization regimens.
Anamosa PR. Characterization of Soil Beneath the Field Evaluation of Winegrape Rootstock Research Trials. 1998. Master's thesis, UC Davis, 64 p.
Bavaresco L, Fregoni M, Fraschini P. Investigation on some physiological parameters involved in chlorosis occurrence in grafted grapevines. J Plant Nutr. 1992. 15:1791-807. doi:10.1080/01904169209364440 https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/01904169209364440
Brancadoro LL, Valenti AR, Scienza A. Potassium content of grapevine during the vegetative period: The role of the rootstock. J Plant Nutr. 1994. 17:2165-75. doi:10.1080/01904169409364872 https://doi.org/doi:10.1080/01904169409364872
Carbonneau A. The early selection of grapevine rootstocks for resistance to drought conditions. Am J Enol Vitic. 1985. 36:195-8.
Champagnol F (ed.). Elements de Physiologie de la Vigne et de Viticulture Generale. Champagnol F. 1984. France: Saint-Gely-du-Fesc. 351 p.
Christensen LP. Nutrient level comparisons of leaf petioles and blades in twenty-six grape cultivars over three years (1979 through 1981). Am J Enol Vitic. 1984. 35:124-33.
Christensen LP. Rootstock selection. In: Christensen LP, Dokoozlian NK, Walker MA, Wolpert JA (eds.). 2003. ANR Pub 3419. Oakland, CA: Wine Grape Varieties in California. p 12–5
Dontsova K, Norton LD. Effects of exchangeable Ca. Mg ratio on soil clay flocculation, infiltration and erosion. In: Stott DE, Mohtar RH, Steinhardt GC (eds.). 2001. Sustaining the Global Farm. Selected papers from 10th Int Soil Conserv Org Meeting, May 23–8, 1999; Purdue Univ. p 580–7.
Etourneaud F, Loue A. Petiolar diagnosis of grapevine in relation to the interpretation of soil analysis for potassium and magnesium. 1986. 3e Symposium international sur la Physiologie de la Vigne; 1986; Bordeaux, p 240–6.
Granett J, Walker MA, Kocsis L, Omer AD. Biology and management of grape phylloxera. Ann Rev Entomol. 2001. 46:387-412. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.387 https://doi.org/doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.387
Keller M, Kummer M, Carmo-Vasconcelos M. Reproductive growth of grapevines in response to nitrogen supply and rootstock. Austr J Grape Wine Res. 2001. 7:12-8. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2001.tb00188.x https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2001.tb00188.x
Klute A (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 1986. Madison, WI: Am Soc Agron. 1, 188 p.
Koblet W, Keller M, Candolfi-Vasconcellos MC. Effects of training system, canopy management practices, crop load and rootstock on grapevine photosynthesis. Acta Hort. 1996. 427:133-40.
Loue A, Boulay H. Effet des cepages et des portegreffes sur les diagnostics de nutrition minerale de la vigne 6th Int Plant Nutr Colloquium. 1984. France: Martin-Prevel, Montpellier. p 357–64
Mpelasoka BS, Schnachtman DP, Treeby MT, Thomas MR. A review of potassium nutrition in grapevines with special emphasis on berry accumulation. Austr J Grape Wine Res. 2003. 9:154-68. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2003.tb00265.x https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2003.tb00265.x
Nicholas P. Soil, Irrigation and Nutrition. 2004. Grape Production Series, No. 2. South Australia Research and Development Institute, Adelaide, 202 p.
Pongracz DP. Rootstocks for Grape-vines. 1983. Cape Town, South Africa: David Philip Pub. 150 p.
Scienza A, Failla O, Romano F. Investigations on the variety-specific uptake of minerals by grapevines (Untersuchungen zur sortenspezifischen Mineralstoffaufnahme bei Reben). Vitis. 1986. 25:160-8.
Soil Survey Division Staff. U.S. Soil Survey Manual. 1986. Washington, DC.: Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. 503 p.
Sparks DL (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. 1994. Madison, WI: Am Soc Agron. 1,358 p.
Virgona JM, Smith JP, Holzapfel B. Scions influence apparent transpiration efficiency of Vitis vinifera (cv Shiraz) rather than rootstocks. Austr J Grape Wine Res. 2003. 9:183-5. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2003.tb00268.x https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2003.tb00268.x
Walker RR, Blackmore DH, Clingeleffer PR, Correll RL. Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv Sultana). 1. Yield and vigour inter-relationships. Austr J Grape Wine Res. 2002. 8:3-14. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00206.x https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00206.x
Walker RR, Read PE, Blackmore DH. Rootstock and salinity effects on rates of berry maturation, ion accumulation and color development in Shiraz grapes. Austral J Grape Wine Res. 2000. 6:227-39. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2000.tb00183.x https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2000.tb00183.x
Wolpert JA, Smart DR, Anderson M. Lower petiole potassium concentration at bloom in rootstocks with Vitis berlandieri genetic backgrounds. Am J Enol Vitic. 2005. 56:163-9.
Also in this issue:Tip Length Models for Major Commercial California Conifers
Wine grapes go green: The Sustainable Viticulture Story
Research fuels sustainable viticulture revolution
Nest boxes can attract wildlife to vineyards
Agro-environmental partnerships facilitate sustainable wine-grape production and assessment
Sidebar: Interest in organic winegrowing is increasing
Innovative outreach increases adoption of sustainable winegrowing practices in Lodi region
Decision support tool seeks to aid stream-flow recovery and enhance water security
Sidebar: Collaborative conservation helps achieve regional water-quantity goals
Leafroll disease is spreading rapidly in a Napa Valley vineyard
Botryosphaeria-related dieback and control investigated in noncoastal California grapevines
Sidebar: Vine surgery tested as management strategy for
Vineyard managers and researchers seek sustainable solutions for mealybugs, a changing pest complex
Sidebar: Pomace management reduces spread of vine mealybugs
Sidebar: Studies needed of vectors spreading leafroll disease in California vineyards
Liquid baits control Argentine ants sustainably in coastal vineyards
Vineyard floor management affects soil, plant nutrition, and grape yield and quality
Self-reseeding annual legumes evaluated as cover crops for untilled vineyards
Soil-landscape model helps predict potassium supply in vineyards