Abstract
Crop yield is widely recognised as an important factor in the production of quality wine grapes. The traditional belief that low-yielding vines are associated with higher quality wines is often used to place an upper limit on the yield in commercial vineyards. The practice of cluster thinning has been used in order to regulate yield, and to improve the chemical composition of the remaining berries through manipulation of the leaf to fruit ratio of the grapevine. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cluster thinning on the fruit quality of three Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) clones grown in Southern Tasmania. Grapevines were submitted to three cluster thinning treatments carried out at different times during the season; flowering, pea-size and veraison, as well as a treatment where only the wing of the cluster was removed (this was imposed at veraison) and an untreated control. Despite thinning well below commercial yield, and regardless of the timing of treatment there was no significant difference in pH, TA, or soluble solids, except for clone D5V12, where the total soluble solids (Brix) was significantly lower in the control compared with the three cluster thinning treatments. In conclusion, in good growing seasons cluster thinning can represent a significant yield penalty with no compensation in fruit quality.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning did not change pH, titratable acidity or soluble solids of Pinot Noir clones relative to an untreated control.
- Taxon
- Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.)
Vitis viniferae0 - Treatment
- thinninge1
- Outcome
- pH, TA, or soluble solidse1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
- Qualifier
- regardless of the timing of treatmente1
- Comparator
- untreated controle2
- Setting
- Southern Tasmaniae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) clones grown in Southern Tasmania”
e1“Despite thinning well below commercial yield, and regardless of the timing of treatment there was no significant difference in pH, TA, or soluble solids”
e2“and an untreated control”
Claim · model-written summary
Total soluble solids (Brix) of clone D5V12 was significantly lower in the control than in the cluster thinning treatments.
- Taxon
- Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.)Vitis viniferae0
- Material
- D5V12e3
- Treatment
- cluster thinning treatmentse3
- Outcome
- total soluble solids (Brix)e3
- Direction
- significantly lowere3
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) clones grown in Southern Tasmania”
e3“except for clone D5V12, where the total soluble solids (Brix) was significantly lower in the control compared with the three cluster thinning treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
In good growing seasons cluster thinning can represent a significant yield penalty.
- Taxon
- Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.)Vitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- cluster thinninge4
- Outcome
- yielde4
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede4
- Qualifier
- in good growing seasonse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) clones grown in Southern Tasmania”
e4“in good growing seasons cluster thinning can represent a significant yield penalty with no compensation in fruit quality”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning gave no compensation in fruit quality of Pinot Noir in good growing seasons.
- Taxon
- Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.)Vitis viniferae0
- Treatment
- cluster thinninge4
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Qualifier
- in good growing seasonse4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“three Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) clones grown in Southern Tasmania”
e4“in good growing seasons cluster thinning can represent a significant yield penalty with no compensation in fruit quality”
The same questions in other papers
cluster · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →cluster · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →pruning · quality: grain · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →pruning · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 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.