Abstract
Magnesium (Mg) deficiency is common in vineyards in the Hawke’s Bay, Marlborough and, particularly, Gisborne regions of New Zealand. This is thought to be due to high amounts of exchangeable potassium (K) and calcium (Ca) relative to Mg in the soil. Attempts to correct this deficiency using fertiliser have not been successful. This study investigated the fate of applied Mg fertiliser in a sandy Hawke’s Bay soil and also compared fertiliser application by trunk injection and foliar sprays as techniques to increase leaf Mg concentrations. Brix and titratable acidity (TA) were also measured to determine whether Mg applications affected berry quality. Soil data showed that most of the Mg applied to this sandy soil remained in the top 30 cm of the soil 18 months after kieserite application. This may explain why the fertiliser application was not effective at increasing leaf Mg concentration – minimal water was applied to the grape vines (to reduce vigour) so much of the water (and hence nutrient) uptake may have been from deep in the profile, which remained unaffected by the added Mg fertiliser. Chardonnay on rootstock 3309 had a higher leaf Mg concentration than chardonnay grown in immediately adjacent rows on rootstock SO4. Foliar sprays increased leaf Mg concentration, although a large number of sprays would be needed if the deficiency was severe. The small increase in leaf Mg, achieved through foliar spraying, had no effect on berry quality. Trunk injection of Mg sulphate did not increase leaf Mg concentration. Additional Keywords: chardonnay, SO4, 3309, kieserite, foliar spray, trunk injection, brix, titratable acidity
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
Most applied magnesium remained in the upper 30 cm of sandy soil after 18 months.
Verbatim
e0“most of the Mg applied to this sandy soil remained in the top 30 cm of the soil 18 months after kieserite application.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil magnesium fertilizer did not effectively raise grape leaf magnesium concentration.
- Taxon
- grapest0
- Treatment
- fertiliser applicatione0
- Outcome
- leaf Mg concentratione0
- Direction
- not effective at increasinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the fertiliser application was not effective at increasing leaf Mg concentration”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Chardonnay on rootstock 3309 had a higher leaf magnesium concentration than adjacent Chardonnay on SO4.
Verbatim
e0“Chardonnay on rootstock 3309 had a higher leaf Mg concentration than chardonnay grown in immediately adjacent rows on rootstock SO4.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar sprays increased grape leaf magnesium concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar sprays increased leaf Mg concentration”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged that severe deficiency would require many foliar sprays.
Verbatim
e0“a large number of sprays would be needed if the deficiency was severe.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
The modest leaf magnesium increase from foliar spraying had no effect on grape berry quality.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The small increase in leaf Mg, achieved through foliar spraying, had no effect on berry quality.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk injection of magnesium sulphate did not raise grape leaf magnesium concentration.
- Taxon
- grapest0
- Treatment
- Trunk injection of Mg sulphatee0
- Outcome
- leaf Mg concentratione0
- Direction
- did not increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Trunk injection of Mg sulphate did not increase leaf Mg concentration.”
t0“grapes”
The same questions in other papers
sulfate · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
magnesium atom · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →application · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →application · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.