Abstract
Canopy development, photosynthetic performance and yield characteristics of Riesling grapevines managed by either conventional spur pruning or minimal pruning were compared over a growing season. Leaf area development 4-5 weeks after budburst was 4-5-fold greater on the minimal pruned vines due to the 6-7-fold greater number of buds that burst to produce shoots. By time of flowering (8 weeks after budburst) there was less than a 2-fold difference between the pruning treatments in leaf area per vine. At time of harvest the leaf area of spur pruned vines on a Y-shaped trellis exceeded that of minimal pruned vines. Average photosynthetic rates of leaves on shoots on minimal pruned vines were 40% higher than on spur pruned vines at 4 weeks after budburst, but average rates were similar the following week and thereafter. Calculated instantaneous photosynthetic rates for entire vines were 3-6-fold higher for the minimal pruned vines at 4-5 weeks after budburst. However, by time of flowering, vines in both treatments had similar photosynthetic rates. At harvest, spur pruned vines showed somewhat greater instantaneous carbon gain than minimal pruned vines. Carbon gain per vine per day estimated from hourly measurements of irradiance over the canopy showed a similar trend to the instantaneous rates. Leaf conductances did not differ with pruning treatment. Calculated instantaneous water loss per vine was 2-5-fold higher for minimal pruned vines 4-5 weeks after budburst, but from flowering onwards spur pruned vines were likely to use more water than minimal pruned vines. Minimal pruned vines yielded twice the quantity of fruit of spur pruned vines, but only one-quarter the dry weight of new canes. Total carbon invested in fruit, new canes and leaves, however, was similar in both pruning treatments, accounting for 60-70% of the estimated carbon gain by the vines.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruning produced 4-5-fold greater leaf area 4-5 weeks after budburst.
- Treatment
- minimal prunede0
- Outcome
- Leaf area developmente0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 4-5-folde0
- Qualifier
- 4-5 weeks after budburste0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf area development 4-5 weeks after budburst was 4-5-fold greater on the minimal pruned vines”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruning produced 6-7-fold more buds bursting into shoots.
- Treatment
- minimal prunede1
- Outcome
- number of buds that burst to produce shootse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6-7-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6-7-fold greater number of buds that burst to produce shoots”
t0“Grapevines”
e1“Leaf area development 4-5 weeks after budburst was 4-5-fold greater on the minimal pruned vines”
Claim · model-written summary
At flowering the leaf area difference between pruning treatments was less than twofold.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“By time of flowering (8 weeks after budburst) there was less than a 2-fold difference between the pruning treatments in leaf area per vine”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, spur pruned vines on a Y-shaped trellis had greater leaf area.
- Treatment
- spur prunede0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Qualifier
- At time of harveste0
- Comparator
- minimal pruned vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At time of harvest the leaf area of spur pruned vines on a Y-shaped trellis exceeded that of minimal pruned vines”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruned leaves had 40% higher photosynthetic rates four weeks after budburst.
- Treatment
- minimal prunede0
- Outcome
- photosynthetic ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 40%e0
- Comparator
- spur pruned vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average photosynthetic rates of leaves on shoots on minimal pruned vines were 40% higher than on spur pruned vines at 4 weeks after budburst”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf photosynthetic rates were similar between pruning treatments from the following week onward.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average rates were similar the following week and thereafter”
t0“Grapevines”
e1“Leaf area development 4-5 weeks after budburst was 4-5-fold greater on the minimal pruned vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-vine instantaneous photosynthesis was 3-6-fold higher under minimal pruning at 4-5 weeks after budburst.
- Treatment
- minimal prunede0
- Outcome
- instantaneous photosynthetic rates for entire vinese0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3-6-folde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calculated instantaneous photosynthetic rates for entire vines were 3-6-fold higher for the minimal pruned vines at 4-5 weeks after budburst”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-vine photosynthetic rates were similar at flowering.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“by time of flowering, vines in both treatments had similar photosynthetic rates”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Spur pruned vines had somewhat greater instantaneous carbon gain at harvest.
- Treatment
- spur prunede0
- Outcome
- instantaneous carbon gaine0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- minimal pruned vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At harvest, spur pruned vines showed somewhat greater instantaneous carbon gain than minimal pruned vines”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Estimated daily carbon gain followed the instantaneous rate trend.
- Outcome
- Carbon gain per vine per daye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon gain per vine per day estimated from hourly measurements of irradiance over the canopy showed a similar trend to the instantaneous rates”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf conductance did not differ by pruning treatment.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf conductances did not differ with pruning treatment”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruning caused 2-5-fold higher calculated instantaneous water loss early after budburst.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Calculated instantaneous water loss per vine was 2-5-fold higher for minimal pruned vines 4-5 weeks after budburst”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
From flowering, spur pruned vines likely used more water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“from flowering onwards spur pruned vines were likely to use more water than minimal pruned vines”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruning doubled fruit yield.
- Treatment
- Minimal prunede0
- Outcome
- quantity of fruite0
- Direction
- twicee0
- Value
- twicee0
- Comparator
- spur pruned vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Minimal pruned vines yielded twice the quantity of fruit of spur pruned vines”
t0“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal pruning produced one-quarter the new-cane dry weight of spur pruning.
- Treatment
- Minimal prunede1
- Outcome
- dry weight of new canese0
- Direction
- one-quartere0
- Value
- one-quartere0
- Comparator
- spur pruned vinese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only one-quarter the dry weight of new canes”
t0“Grapevines”
e1“Minimal pruned vines yielded twice the quantity of fruit of spur pruned vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Total carbon invested in fruit, canes, and leaves was similar across pruning treatments.
- Treatment
- pruning treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Total carbon invested in fruit, new canes and leavese0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- 60-70%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total carbon invested in fruit, new canes and leaves, however, was similar in both pruning treatments, accounting for 60-70% of the estimated carbon gain by the vines”
t0“Grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · molecular: metabolites · VitisResults differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →pruning · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.