Abstract
Canopy topping and leaf removal are management practices commonly used in New Zealand vineyards to increase light and pesticide penetration to the fruit zone, thus, reducing disease incidence. Previous research has suggested that an increase in photosynthesis occurs when leaves are removed, and this may compensate for the reduced leaf area. However, it is difficult to extrapolate single-leaf photosynthesis measurements to a whole-plant scale. Therefore the extent of the compensation is unknown. To evaluate the impact of leaf removal and canopy height on whole-vine photosynthesis, treatments were imposed during the lag phase of berry growth. Leaves were removed from the lower quarter of the canopy, or vines were topped to three quarters of the height of control plants, in a two-by-two-factorial design. Both topping and leaf removal caused a decrease in whole-vine photosynthesis immediately after the treatments were imposed. Leaf removal, but not topping height, reduced photosynthesis on a per unit leaf area basis. This suggests that the lower portion of the canopy contributes more than the upper portion of the canopy to whole-vine photosynthesis. When measurements were made again approximately two months later, tall vines without leaf removal had a higher photosynthesis rate than the other treatments. Fruit yield, sugar content, vine carbohydrate reserves and pruning weights followed trends similar to those observed for photosynthesis, suggesting that although some photosynthetic compensation occurred, the defoliation treatments had a negative effect on vine growth.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Topping and leaf removal both decreased whole-vine photosynthesis immediately after treatment
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- topping and leaf removale0
- Outcome
- whole-vine photosynthesise0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e0“Both topping and leaf removal caused a decrease in whole-vine photosynthesis immediately after the treatments were imposed”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf removal, but not topping height, reduced photosynthesis per unit leaf area
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Leaf removale1
- Outcome
- photosynthesis on a per unit leaf area basise1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- topping heighte1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e1“Leaf removal, but not topping height, reduced photosynthesis on a per unit leaf area basis”
Claim · model-written summary
Tall vines without leaf removal had higher photosynthesis rates than the other treatments about two months after treatment
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- tall vines without leaf removale2
- Outcome
- photosynthesis ratee2
- Direction
- highere2
- Qualifier
- approximately two months latere2
- Comparator
- other treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e2“When measurements were made again approximately two months later, tall vines without leaf removal had a higher photosynthesis rate than the other treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yield, sugar content and vine carbohydrate reserves followed photosynthesis trends
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- Fruit yield, sugar content, vine carbohydrate reservese3
- Qualifier
- trends similar to those observed for photosynthesise3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e3“Fruit yield, sugar content, vine carbohydrate reserves and pruning weights followed trends similar to those observed for photosynthesis”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning weights followed photosynthesis trends
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- pruning weightse3
- Qualifier
- trends similar to those observed for photosynthesise3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e3“Fruit yield, sugar content, vine carbohydrate reserves and pruning weights followed trends similar to those observed for photosynthesis”
Claim · model-written summary
Defoliation treatments had a negative effect on vine growth
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- defoliation treatmentse4
- Outcome
- vine growthe4
- Direction
- negative effecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e4“suggesting that although some photosynthetic compensation occurred, the defoliation treatments had a negative effect on vine growth”
Claim · model-written summary
Some photosynthetic compensation occurred after defoliation
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic compensatione4
- Qualifier
- somee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Sauvignon Blanc”
e4“suggesting that although some photosynthetic compensation occurred, the defoliation treatments had a negative effect on vine growth”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →pruning · physiology: photosynthesis · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.