Abstract
Extreme subfreezing temperatures occurred in January 2009 throughout the grapegrowing regions east of the Rocky Mountains. In Ohio, temperature lows ranged between −22 and −31°C, which were considered critical for grapevine productivity and survival. A statewide survey was conducted to assess bud injury in more than 30 cultivars grown at research and commercial vineyards. A pruning study was also conducted at the research vineyard located in Wooster, Ohio, where Vitis vinifera Pinot gris sustained ~90% bud injury after exposure to −26°C. The objectives of the pruning study were to evaluate various pruning strategies and to identify the best pruning practice for a rapid vine recovery. Pruning consisted of four treatments with increasing buds retained per vine. Winter injury assessment showed the greatest bud injury in the sensitive cultivars of Vitis vinifera and the least injury in new hybrid and American cultivars. Cordons, trunks, and whole vines also sustained winter injury, but there were no differences among the pruning treatments. Yield increased and cane pruning weights decreased with decreasing pruning severity resulting in unbalanced grapevines from all treatments except the 5-node hedging treatment. Furthermore, there was no negative carry-over effect of pruning type on bud fruitfulness in the subsequent year. It was concluded that even though pruning had no physiological impact on vine recovery following extensive winter injury, 5-node hedging is recommended for practical and economic reasons.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Sensitive Vitis vinifera cultivars had the greatest bud injury, while new hybrid and American cultivars had the least.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera
Vitis viniferae0 - Material
- sensitive cultivarse0
- Outcome
- greatest bud injurye0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Comparator
- new hybrid and American cultivarse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Winter injury assessment showed the greatest bud injury in the sensitive cultivars of Vitis vinifera and the least injury in new hybrid and American cultivars.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cordons, trunks, and whole vines sustained winter injury.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cordons, trunks, and whole vines also sustained winter injury”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning treatments did not differ in winter injury of cordons, trunks, and whole vines.
Verbatim
e0“Cordons, trunks, and whole vines also sustained winter injury, but there were no differences among the pruning treatments.”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increased as pruning severity decreased.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Yield increased and cane pruning weights decreased with decreasing pruning severity”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane pruning weights decreased as pruning severity decreased.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Yield increased and cane pruning weights decreased with decreasing pruning severity”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
All pruning treatments except 5-node hedging resulted in unbalanced grapevines.
VitisNot reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulting in unbalanced grapevines from all treatments except the 5-node hedging treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning type had no negative carry-over effect on bud fruitfulness in the following year.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Treatment
- pruning typee0
- Outcome
- bud fruitfulnesse0
- Direction
- no negative carry-over effecte0
- Qualifier
- subsequent yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“there was no negative carry-over effect of pruning type on bud fruitfulness in the subsequent year”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning did not affect physiological vine recovery after extensive winter injury.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- vine recoverye0
- Direction
- no physiological impacte0
- Qualifier
- following extensive winter injurye0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“pruning had no physiological impact on vine recovery following extensive winter injury”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend 5-node hedging for practical and economic reasons.
Verbatim
e0“5-node hedging is recommended for practical and economic reasons”
t0“Grape Cultivars”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 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.