Abstract
Double pruning of grapevines was evaluated as a cultural management practice for reducing infections by Eutypa lata in spur-pruned vineyards. Double pruning involves two pruning passes through the vineyard. Vines are first prepruned by nonselectively trimming canes to a uniform height, generally 30 to 45 cm above spur positions, then pruned to traditional two-bud spurs in late winter when Eutypa infections are less likely to occur. In large vineyards, double pruning may allow for more final pruning in late winter, potentially reducing the number of infected spurs if Eutypa infections on prepruning wounds do not develop beyond the point where final pruning will occur. To evaluate double pruning, Chardonnay and Merlot grapevines were prepruned monthly from October to February with final pruning in March for three seasons. Eutypa lata spores were inoculated onto wounds at the time of prepruning in two seasons. Examination of inoculated canes after final pruning showed mean lengths of vascular discoloration below prepruning wounds of 0.29 to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay and 0.14 to 3.07 cm in Merlot, with maximum length of discoloration of 14 cm and 12 cm, respectively. Isolations for E. lata were made at various locations along the length of the discolored vascular tissue. Eutypa lata was not recovered from isolations made more than 4 cm below the point of inoculation, indicating that infections of prepruning wounds should all be eliminated during final pruning, as long as prepruning occurs 30 to 45 cm above the final pruning cuts. No impacts on viticultural performance were observed, including yield, pruning weight, and time of budbreak. By allowing for more final pruning to occur in March, double pruning should greatly reduce the number of Eutypa infections that occur each year.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Chardonnay canes showed 0.29 to 4.67 cm mean vascular discoloration below prepruning wounds.
Verbatim
e0“mean lengths of vascular discoloration below prepruning wounds of 0.29 to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay”
e1“Eutypa lata spores were inoculated onto wounds at the time of prepruning in two seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
Merlot canes showed 0.14 to 3.07 cm mean vascular discoloration below prepruning wounds.
Verbatim
e0“0.14 to 3.07 cm in Merlot”
e1“Eutypa lata spores were inoculated onto wounds at the time of prepruning in two seasons.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum discoloration was 14 cm in Chardonnay.
Verbatim
e0“maximum length of discoloration of 14 cm and 12 cm, respectively”
e1“0.29 to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay and 0.14 to 3.07 cm in Merlot”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum discoloration was 12 cm in Merlot.
Verbatim
e0“maximum length of discoloration of 14 cm and 12 cm, respectively”
e1“0.29 to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay and 0.14 to 3.07 cm in Merlot”
Claim · model-written summary
Eutypa lata was not recovered more than 4 cm below inoculation.
- Interactor
- Eutypa lataEutypa latae0pathogen
- Outcome
- Eutypa lata was not recoverede0
- Value
- more than 4 cme0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“Eutypa lata was not recovered from isolations made more than 4 cm below the point of inoculation”
Claim · model-written summary
Double pruning showed no impact on yield, pruning weight, or budbreak time.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“No impacts on viticultural performance were observed, including yield, pruning weight, and time of budbreak.”
t1“Double Pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded final pruning should eliminate infections from prepruning wounds when cuts are spaced 30 to 45 cm apart.
- Outcome
- infections of prepruning wounds should all be eliminated during final pruninge0
- Qualifier
- 30 to 45 cm above the final pruning cutse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“infections of prepruning wounds should all be eliminated during final pruning, as long as prepruning occurs 30 to 45 cm above the final pruning cuts”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors expect double pruning to greatly reduce annual Eutypa infections.
EutypaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“double pruning should greatly reduce the number of Eutypa infections that occur each year”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 71 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.