Abstract
Background and Aims: Traditionally, the start of cane pruning is delayed until after leaf fall, when carbohydrate accumulation and cane maturity are complete. However, by starting immediately after harvest, the period for pruning may be increased by at least 4 weeks, reducing peak labour demands. Trials were conducted to investigate the consequences of various pruning times on vine phenology and yield. Methods and Results: Vines were pruned using 2- or 4-canes at one of four times during the winter from shortly after harvest to just before bud break in the spring. Pruning shortly after harvest caused no significant adverse effects on vine phenology or productivity. Pruning just before bud break delayed vine development. Stored total carbohydrate concentrations in the trunk were unaffected by pruning time or cane number retained after pruning. Conclusions: Carbohydrates accumulated in the trunks of grapevines to adequate levels by harvest and any post-harvest photosynthesis and/or cane maturation that may be occurring at this time had little effect on subsequent vine growth and development. Pruning shortly before bud break delayed bud break and may be an advantage where vines are at risk to spring frosts. Significance of Study: In cool climates where leaves senesce shortly after harvest, pruning immediately after harvest will have no adverse effects on subsequent vine phenology or yield, but will extend the period available to prune the vines, reducing the peak labour demand in the vineyard. Pruning late, slightly delays bud break potentially providing greater tolerance to late spring frosts.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning shortly after harvest had no significant adverse effect on vine phenology or productivity.
- Treatment
- Pruning shortly after harveste0
- Outcome
- vine phenology or productivitye0
- Direction
- no significant adverse effectse0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pruning shortly after harvest caused no significant adverse effects on vine phenology or productivity.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning just before bud break delayed vine development.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pruning just before bud break delayed vine development.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk stored total carbohydrate concentrations were unaffected by pruning time or retained cane number.
- Treatment
- pruning time or cane number retained after pruninge0
- Outcome
- Stored total carbohydrate concentrations in the trunke0
- Direction
- unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stored total carbohydrate concentrations in the trunk were unaffected by pruning time or cane number retained after pruning.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk carbohydrates had accumulated to adequate levels by harvest.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbohydrates accumulated in the trunks of grapevines to adequate levels by harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-harvest photosynthesis or cane maturation had little effect on subsequent vine growth and development.
- Outcome
- subsequent vine growth and developmente0
- Qualifier
- post-harvest photosynthesis and/or cane maturatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“any post-harvest photosynthesis and/or cane maturation that may be occurring at this time had little effect on subsequent vine growth and development”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning shortly before bud break delayed bud break.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pruning shortly before bud break delayed bud break”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning immediately after harvest is recommended to extend the pruning period and reduce peak labour demand in cool climates.
- Outcome
- pruning immediately after harveste0
- Qualifier
- In cool climates where leaves senesce shortly after harveste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In cool climates where leaves senesce shortly after harvest, pruning immediately after harvest will have no adverse effects on subsequent vine phenology or yield, but will extend the period available to prune the vines, reducing the peak labour demand in the vineyard.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Late pruning may provide greater tolerance to late spring frosts.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pruning late, slightly delays bud break potentially providing greater tolerance to late spring frosts.”
t0“grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →pruning · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.