Phenological and productive aspects of grape varieties subjected to two pruning seasons in Vale do Rio do Peixe, SCAbstract:
Pruning of grape varieties for processing typically occurs in winter. However, due to challenges in availability and labor costs, there is interest in shifting this practice to autumn—a period with lower demand for vineyard activities. This study aimed to assess the direct influence of autumn pruning on the phenological and productive performance of Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce, and Bordô varieties in the Vale do Rio do Peixe region, SC. Experiments were conducted during the 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 harvests in fully productive commercial vineyards located in Videira-SC. Pruning occurred in May (autumn) and August (winter). Autumn pruning took place when approximately 5% of the leaves had fallen, and the rest had turned yellow. Winter pruning occurred during the bud swelling stage. Weekly phenological monitoring, as well as measurement of the plants’ productive characteristics and the physical-chemical composition of the grapes, were conducted. Autumn pruning enhanced the productivity, average bunch weight, and uniformity of maturation for Niagara Rosada but accelerated the bud break for this variety in Vale do Rio do Peixe, SC, Brazil. In Bordô, autumn pruning did not affect productivity, but it advanced bud break. Conducting autumn pruning for four consecutive years decreased the productivity of Isabel Precoce.
Index terms
Vitis labrusca; early pruning; phenology; quality
Resumo:
A poda de frutificação de variedades de uva para processamento é normalmente realizada no inverno; mas, por dificuldade de disponibilidade e custo de mão de obra, torna-se interessante deslocar essa prática para o outono, período com menor demanda de atividades nos vinhedos. Assim, o trabalho teve como objetivo avaliar a influência direta da poda de outono no desempenho fenológico e produtivo das variedades Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce e Bordô, na região do Vale do Rio do Peixe-SC.Os experimentos foram realizados nas safras de 2015, 2016, 2017 e 2018, em vinhedos comerciais,em plena produção, localizados no município de Videira-SC. As podas foramrealizadas em maio (outono) e agosto (inverno), sendo que a poda de outono foi realizada quando as plantas apresentavam cerca de 5% das folhas caídas, e o restante, amarelecidas; e apoda de inverno, quando as plantas se encontravam em estádio de inchamento de gemas.Foi efetuado o acompanhamento fenológico semanal das plantas, bem como foram mensurados caracteres produtivos das plantas e de composição físico-química das uvas. Apoda de outono aumentou a produtividade, o peso médio dos cachos e a uniformidade de maturação da Niagara Rosada, mas antecipou a brotação desta variedade no Vale do Rio do Peixe-SC, Brasil. Na Bordô, a poda de outono não interferiu na produtividade, mas antecipou a brotação.A poda de outono, realizada por quatro anos consecutivos, diminuiu a produtividade da Isabel Precoce.
Termos para indexação
Vitis labrusca; poda precoce; fenologia; qualidade
Introduction
The Southern Brazil region is known for producing Vitis labrusca and hybrid grapes, with a focus on the Isabel, Niágara, and Bordô varieties, which have potential for winemaking, fresh consumption, and juice production (BRIGHENTI et al., 2018). However, these traditional regions face a shortage of specialized labor for certain vine cultivation practices.
Dry pruning or winter pruning, a labor-intensive activity crucial for proper production, is often affected by the scarcity of skilled labor.
Producers typically rely on family labor for this task, leading to its premature or belated execution, sometimes causing producers to abandon vineyards or switch to alternative crops (TESSER; PAULETTI, 2020). Dry pruning, conducted during the plant’s low physiological activity period, usually spans from August to September and can extend until the onset of bud break (FALGINELLA et al., 2022). Its primary goal is to balance plant production, ensuring maximum quality, regularizing and improving fruiting, and controlling excess vegetation or plant overproduction, which can compromise quality and accelerate vine decay. Effective dry pruning facilitates production control, offering uniformity, regularity, quality, and greater consistency. Successful implementation requires an understanding of the phenological phases’ duration for the specific variety (WÜRZ et al., 2017; MACIEL et al., 2018).
Despite limited literature on the subject, alternatives exist to either advance or extend the dry pruning period, along with methods to stagger family labor across various producing regions. Tesser and Pauletti (2020) propose options such as early or autumn pruning, which can optimize labor distribution during the cycle, reducing the need for external labor. Their research indicates that the Isabel and Cabernet Sauvignon varieties exhibit delayed bud break when pruned in April and May in Serra Gaúcha. In the Campanha Gaúcha region, early pruning in May increases dormancy, synchronizing bud break with plants pruned in July. July pruning accelerates bud break, posing a risk of damage from spring frosts, while August pruning yields greater plant productivity (MACIEL et al., 2018). Souza and Bender (2022) found that in the Alto Vale do Rio do Peixe region, pruning in autumn advanced bud break by 2 to 6 days but did not affect the productivity of SCS Paulina and Concord Clone 30 varieties. However, it reduced the production of the Isabel Precoce variety.
In Southern Brazil, Isabel precoce, Bordo and Niagara varieties presented early phenological stages, with sprouting dates of 07-Sep, 10-Sep and 19-Sep, respectively (MIRANDA et al., 2020; CHIAROTTI et al., 2014; ANZANELLO et al., 2012). Thus, there is a need to broaden the understanding of pruning’s direct influence under varied growing conditions, as well as to comprehend and address factors influencing vine productivity.
This study aims to evaluate the phenological and productive performance of grape varieties for processing pruned in autumn in the Vale do Rio do Peixe region, SC.
Material and Methods
The study was conducted during the harvests from 2015 to 2018 in fully productive commercial vineyards located in the municipality of Videira-SC (27º02’27.59’’, 51º08’04.73’’, 830 m altitude). The region’s climate, classified as humid mesothermal with a mild summer (Cfb) according to Köppen, is described in Table 1, including monthly averages of precipitation, maximum and minimum temperatures, and accumulated hours of cold equal to or below 7.2°C from April to September. Further details on monthly accumulated precipitation, temperature averages, and cold hours are presented in Table 2 (EPAGRI/CIRAM).
Accumulated precipitation, maximum, minimum, and average temperatures, chill hours, and accumulated chill hours during April to September, in the 2014 to 2017 harvests, in the Vale do Rio do Peixe Region, SC.
Averages of minimum, maximum, and mean temperatures, accumulated precipitation, days with rain, and total precipitation during the grape ripening period (December to February) in the harvests from 2014 to 2017 in the Vale do Rio do Peixe Region, SC.
The study utilized the Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce, and Bordô varieties grafted on VR 043-43 and cultivated in an epsilon (Y) system (Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce) and trellis (Bordô), with a spacing of 2.0 x 3.0m between plants and between rows, respectively.
The experimental design was completely randomized, assessing 12 plants per variety, with four replications consisting of three plants each, following a trifactorial scheme (3x2x4) involving varieties (Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce, and Bordô), pruning season (autumn and winter pruning) and harvest year (2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018).
Autumn pruning occurred in May, while winter pruning took place throughout August.
Pruning dates were determined based on the phenological characteristics of the plants in each harvest. Autumn pruning involved removing branches when around 5% of the leaves had fallen, and the remainder had turned yellow. Winter pruning was conducted during the bud swelling stage, employing mixed pruning (spurs and poles) with consistent type and intensity in both seasons.
Weekly phenological monitoring, from pruning to harvest, focused on key dates such as bud break, identified when 50% of the buds reached the leaf-out stage or “green tip,” corresponding to phase 11 of the BBCH scale (LORENZ et al., 1995). Productivity was measured per plant and extrapolated to hectares.
The physicochemical composition of the grapes was assessed at harvest through manual harvesting, with stable parameters of soluble solids content and titratable acidity.
Five bunches from each replication were sampled and transported to the laboratory for grape must extraction. Soluble solids content, pH, and total acidity were analyzed using a benchtop digital refractometer with automatic temperature compensation (QUIMIS®), a pH Meter AD1030®, and titration with a standardized 0.1N NaOH solution, targeting pH 8.2 as the titration endpoint, respectively.
Data underwent analysis of variance (ANOVA), and in the presence of treatment effects, mean comparisons were conducted using the Tukey test at a 5% probability of error.
Results and Discussion
The productivity and quality variables of the Niágara Rosada grape variety are detailed in Table 3. Both production per plant and estimated productivity showed similar values, as productivity calculations consider individual plant production. In the 2015 harvest, no difference in pruning seasons was observed, while in the 2016 and 2017 harvests, plants pruned in autumn exhibited greater production and consequently higher productivity. Conversely, in the 2018 harvest, the highest values were observed for plants pruned in winter. The results suggest positive outcomes for productivity with autumn pruning; however, in the fourth year of evaluation, the pattern changed, with greater results in winter pruning. This may indicate that consecutive years of autumn pruning could harm plant production, emphasizing the need to intersperse crops or plants.
The productivity of plants pruned in autumn was similar in the 2017 and 2018 harvests, while for winter pruning, productivity was lower in the 2017 harvest. The reduced productivity in 2017 may reflect weather conditions in 2016, marked by a severe frost in September followed by hail. In grapevines, inflorescence formation for a harvest occurs in latent buds during late spring and early summer of the preceding harvest (MARTÍNEZ-MORENO et al., 2019). In 2018, production rebounded, indicating plant recovery, particularly those subjected to winter pruning.
No difference was observed in the number of bunches per plant between pruning seasons.
Regarding bunch mass, a difference between pruning seasons was noted only in the 2016 harvest, with greater mass from bunches of plants pruned in autumn (Table 4).
Across harvests, the lowest bunch mass occurred in 2018 for plants pruned in autumn and in 2016 and 2018 for winter pruning. For the number of bunches produced per plant, no differences were observed between pruning seasons. In the 2017 harvest, however, the number of bunches differed from other harvests, with only 36.22 bunches/plant, compared to values ranging from 81.44 in 2015 to 92.47 in 2018. The lower number of bunches in the 2017 harvest aligns with the discussed productivity results, reflecting the adverse weather conditions in 2016. Studies comparing autumn and winter pruning suggest that it is feasible to anticipate pruning to stagger the harvest, as the number of bunches (total and average) does not differ between seasons (MACIEL et al., 2017) or is greater with autumn pruning (NEIS et al., 2010).
In the Isabel Precoce variety, the number of bunches was higher in plants pruned in winter, except for the 2017 harvest, in which there was no difference between pruning seasons (Table 5). Among the harvests, in the autumn pruning, the highest number of bunches occurred in 2017, differing from the 2015 harvest. In the winter pruning, there was no difference between the harvests.
Regarding bunch mass, the results were higher in 2015 and 2016 for autumn pruning compared to winter pruning. In the 2017 and 2018 harvests, there were no differences in pruning season. Within harvests, autumn pruning resulted in a greater mass of bunches in the 2015 harvest, while with winter pruning, a greater mass of bunches was obtained in the 2018 harvest, which did not differ from the 2015 harvest. The season in which pruning is carried out affects the mass of the bunches, which is consistent with the results of Maciel et al., (2020).
Production per plant and estimated productivity were higher during the winter pruning period in the 2015 and 2018 harvests, with no significant differences occurring in the other harvests. When analyzing the harvests, it was observed that the results were superior in 2015 for both variables, in the two pruning seasons, differing from the other harvests. It is worth noting that the 2016 harvest was unfavorable in relation to the climate, also affecting the 2017 harvest.
However, a recovery in productivity was observed in 2018 for winter pruning, which did not occur for autumn pruning. These results may indicate a weakening of the plants when pruned in autumn in consecutive harvests.
Similar results were verified by Souza and Bender (2022), with the Isabel Precoce variety pruned consecutively in the autumn.
For the Isabel and Cabernet Sauvignon varieties, autumn pruning, carried out in April and May, did not harm plant production, unlike pruning carried out in June and July, which resulted in a decrease in production (TESSER; PAULETTI, 2020).
In the Bordô variety (Table 6), there was no difference in production per plant and productivity between pruning seasons. In the 2016 harvest, there was lower production per plant than in the other harvests, which did not differ from each other. Regarding the number of bunches, autumn pruning resulted in a lower value in the 2016 harvest.
The 2015 and 2018 harvests did not differ significantly from each other; however, they were higher than 2016 and 2017 in plants pruned in the autumn period. As for winter pruning, no differences were found between the crops evaluated. According to Maciel et al., (2018), in studies with the Tannat variety in Campanha Gaúcha, plants pruned in May obtained lower results for the variable number of bunches when compared to other treatments. For bunch mass, there was a difference only in the 2015 harvest, with a higher value in the winter season. As for harvests, there were no significant differences for autumn pruning, and for winter pruning, 2015 differed from 2016 and 2018 due to the greater mass presented by the bunches.
Vines pruned in autumn generally sprouted earlier than those pruned in winter, regardless of the variety (Table 7). The time interval between the bud break of plants pruned in the two seasons varied from three to ten days in Niagara Rosada and from four to eight days in Bordô. However, for the Isabel Precoce variety, the bud break of plants pruned in autumn occurred earlier in the 2015 and 2017 harvests, while in the 2016 and 2018 harvests, it occurred after the plants pruned in winter.
Pruning dates, bud break, harvest, and difference in days of bud break of the Niágara Rosada, Isabel Precoce, and Bordô varieties in the 2015 to 2018 harvests.
The difference in days between the start of bud break among crops can be attributed to climatic variations (Table 1), given the significant fluctuation in the total number of chilling hours accumulated in the evaluated crops. The observed anticipation of bud break in plants pruned in autumn can pose a risk to production in years with a likelihood of late frosts. Among the varieties, only Isabel Precoce did not exhibit consistent performance across all harvests, indicating greater variability in response to early pruning in consecutive harvests. Souza and Bender (2022) evaluated Isabel Precoce with autumn pruning in consecutive harvests, not observing differing budding performance between harvests; however, they noted that early pruning resulted in reduced productivity.
Tesser and Pauletti (2020) assessed the Isabel grape in Serra Gaúcha, finding that plants pruned in advance in April and those subjected to late pruning in September exhibited the most delayed bud break, compared to pruning carried out from May to August.
According to Netzer et al., (2019), pruning acts as a budding catalyst once buds have transitioned from endodormancy to the ecodormancy phase, and the optimal timing for this practice depends on the variety and environmental conditions. The timing of vine pruning influences phenological events, and earlier budding can result in damage and economic losses related to late frost events (STAFNE, 2016; PETRIE et al., 2017; PONI et al., 2022). When pruning is done in advance, in autumn or early winter, the roots remain dormant along with the aerial part, and even after cutting, the plant will not sprout due to lower soil temperatures.
In the Niágara Rosada variety, pH differed between pruning seasons only in the 2015 harvest, being higher in plants pruned in winter (Table 8).
When comparing harvests, the lowest pH values occurred in 2016, in both pruning seasons. Titratable acidity varied between pruning seasons, except for the 2018 harvest, where there was no significant difference.
In the 2015 harvest, acidity was higher with autumn pruning, in 2016 and 2017 the performance was opposite, with higher values in winter pruning. Analyzing the harvest within each pruning season, it was found that the 2017 harvest stood out with the highest value in autumn pruning and the 2018 harvest with the lowest result. For winter pruning, the 2016 and 2017 harvests presented higher values, differing from 2015 and 2018. The soluble solids content showed no interaction between pruning season and harvest, nor did it differ for both(Table 9). Moran et al., (2017) evaluated the Syrah grape produced in Australia pruned at different times in consecutive harvests, observing that the soluble solids content was higher in plants pruned later in the first two harvests, remaining unchanged in subsequent harvests.
For the Sangiovese variety in central Italy, Frioni et al., (2016) found that plants pruned later had less soluble solids and more acidity, while pH was not affected by pruning treatments.
The results described by the authors associated with those obtained in the present work are in line with what was explained by Shiraishi et al., (2010), Borghezan (2017), and Dai et al., (2011) that the sugar composition in grapes is mainly determined by the genotype; however, its concentration varies with the development of the berry, environment, and plant management.
In the Isabel Precoce variety, titratable acidity was similar in grapes from plants pruned in autumn and winter in the 2015 and 2017 harvests (Table 10).
On the other hand, in the 2016 harvest, the titratable acidity was higher in the winter pruning and in the 2018 harvest, it was higher in the autumn pruning. Within harvests, titratable acidity was higher in 2017 for both pruning seasons. The lowest values were obtained in the 2015 and 2018 harvests. For the pH variable (Table 11), the factors were evaluated individually, being higher in winter pruning, and differing between all harvests.
As well as for pH, soluble solids and treatment factors were analyzed individually, showing a significant difference between pruning seasons, with a higher value in autumn. The higher soluble solids content can be explained by the lower productivity achieved, modifying the source-drain relationship.
Souza and Bender (2022) found a significant difference in soluble solids for Isabel Precoce regarding the harvests evaluated, not having observed significance for pruning seasons. Petrie et al., (2017) in evaluations with Syrah and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes, observed that plants pruned later had a higher sugar concentration. For vintages, significant differences occurred only between 2016 and 2017. Differences in grape composition between vintages can be explained by climatic variations from one year to another. Jones and Davis (2000) and Greer and Weedon (2013) explain that grape varieties can be influenced in different proportions by climate.
The physicochemical variables of the Bordô variety were assessed for the singular impact of each treatment factor, as no interactions were observed (Table 12).
The pH was elevated in autumn pruning and exhibited variances across all harvests.
Soluble solids and titratable acidity did not display variations based on pruning season.
The soluble solids content of the 2016 harvest differed from that of the other harvests.
Titratable acidity was higher in 2016 and 2017, contrasting with the levels observed in 2015 and 2018.
Conclusion
Autumn pruning enhanced the productivity, average bunch weight, and uniformity of maturation for Niagara Rosada but accelerated the bud break for this variety in Vale do Rio do Peixe, SC, Brazil.
In Bordô, autumn pruning did not affect productivity, but it advanced bud break.
Conducting autumn pruning for four consecutive years decreased the productivity of Isabel Precoce.
References
-
ANZANELLO, R.; SOUZA, P.V.D.D.; COELHO, P.F. Fenologia, exigência térmica e produtividade de videiras' Niagara Branca', 'Niagara Rosada' e 'Concord' submetidas a duas safras por ciclo vegetativo. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, Jaboticabal, v.34, p.366-376, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452012000200008
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452012000200008 -
BORGHEZAN, M. Formação e maturação da uva e os efeitos sobre os vinhos: revisão. Ciência e Tecnica Vitivinicola, Dois Portos, v.32, p.126- 41, 2017.
» https://doi.org/10.1051/ctv/20173202126 -
BRIGHENTI, A.F.; ALLEBRANDT, R.; MUNHOZ, B.; MATOS, D.P.; REGINA, M.A.; SILVA, A.L. Qualification of “Bordô” grape clones in Vale do Rio do Peixe, in the state of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, Brasília, DF, v.53, n.7, p.800-8, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2018000700003
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2018000700003 -
CHIAROTTI, F.; MORGOTI, G.; FOWLER, J. G.; CUQUEL, F. L.; BIASI, L.A. Caracterização fenológica, exigência térmica e maturação da uva ‘Bordô’em Bocaiuva do Sul, PR. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias, Recife, v.9, n.3, p.338-42, 2014. https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v9i3a3455
» https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v9i3a3455 -
DAI, Z.W.; OLLAT, N.; GOMÈS, E.; DECROOCQ, S.; TANDONNET, J.P.; BORDENAVE, L.; PIERI, P.; HILBERT, G.; KAPPEL, C.; VAN LEEUWEN, C.; VIVIN, P.; DELROT, S. Ecophysiological, genetic, and molecular causes of variation in grape berry weight and composition: a review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Davis, v.62, p.413-25, 2011. https://doi.org/ 10.5344/ajev.2011.10116
» https://doi.org/ 10.5344/ajev.2011.10116 -
FALGINELLA, L.; GAIOTTI, F.; BELFIORE, N.; MIAN, G.; LOVAT, L.; TOMASI, D. Effect of early cane pruning on yield components, grape composition, carbohydrates storage and phenology in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Merlot. OENO One, Villenave d'Ornon, v.56, n.3, p.19-28, 2022. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.3.5466
» https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.3.5466 -
FRIONI, T.; TOMBESI, S.; SILVESTRONI, O.; LANARI, V.; BELLINCONTRO, A.; SABBATINI, P.; GATTI, M.; PONI, S.; PALLIOTTI, A. Post-budburst spur pruning reduces yield and delays fruit sugar accumulation in Sangiovese in central Italy. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Davis, v.67, p.419-25, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2016.1512
» https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2016.1512 -
GREER, D.H.; WEEDON, M.M. The impact of high temperatures on vitis vinifera cv. semillon grapevine performance and berry ripening. Frontiers in Plant Science, Lausanne, v.4, p.1–10, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00491
» https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00491 -
JONES, G. V., DAVIS, R.E. Climate influences on grapevine phenology, grape composition, and wine production and quality for Bordeaux, France. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Davis, v.51, p.249-61, 2000. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2000.51.3.249
» https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2000.51.3.249 -
LORENZ, D. H.; EICHHORN, K. W.; BLEIHOLDER, H.; KLOSE, R.; MEIER, U.; WEBER, E. Phenological growth stages of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera) Codes and descriptions according to the extended BBCH scale. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Milano, v. 1, p. 100-110, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1995.tb00085.x
» https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1995.tb00085.x - MACIEL, S.M.; LAMELA, C.S.P.; SILVEIRA, C.S.; MALGARIM, M. Poda seca em diferentes épocas e seu efeito em ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ da região Campanha. Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologia Postcosecha, Vol.18, n.1, p.39-46, 2017.
- MACIEL, S.M.; SANTOS, A.C.M.M dos; MANZKE, E.M.; KONH, R.A.G.; MALGARIM, M. Fenologia e caracterização do mosto de Tannat submetida a diferentes épocas de poda seca. Revista Brasileira de Viticultura e Enologia, Bento Gonçalves, n.10, p.38-45, 2018.
-
MACIEL, S.M., SANTOS, A.C.M.M dos, LEITE, L. P., MOREIRA, F. C., RODRIGUES, V., KOHN, R. A. G., MALGARIM, M. B. Impactos da época de poda seca na fenologia e na qualidade de 'Merlot'. Brazilian Journal of Development, São José dos Pinhais, v.6, p.101965-72, 2020. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n12-624
» https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n12-624 -
MARTÍNEZ-MORENO, A.; SANZ, F. YEVES, A.; GIL-MUÑOZ, R.; MARTÍNEZ, V.; ITRIGLIOLO, D.S.; BUESA, I. Forcing bud growth by double-pruning as a technique to improve grape composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo in a semi-arid Mediterranean climate. Scientia Horticulturae, New York, v.256, p.1-9, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108614
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108614 -
MIRANDA, J.; DETONI, A.M.; LIMA, C.S. M.; FORLIN, D.; COTTICA, S. M. Características microclimáticas no comportamento agronômico e qualitativo de uvas ‘Isabel precoce’em diferentes sistemas de condução em Santa Tereza do Oeste-PR. Brazilian Journal of Development, São José dos Pinhais, v.6, n.7, p.53165-96, 2020. https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n7-821
» https://doi.org/10.34117/bjdv6n7-821 -
MORAN, M.A.; SADRAS, V.O.; PETRIE, P.R. Late pruning and carry-over effects on phenology, yield components and berry traits in Shiraz. Australian Journal Grape Wine, Glen Osmond, v.23, p.390-8, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12298
» https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12298 -
NEIS, S.; REIS, E.F. dos; SANTOS, S.C. Produção e qualidade da videira cv. Niágara Rosada em diferentes épocas de poda no sudoeste goiano. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, Jaboticabal, v.32, n.4, p.1146-53, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452010000400024
» https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452010000400024 -
NETZER, Y.; MUNITZ, S.; SHTEIN, I.; SCHWARTZ, A. Structural memory in grapevines: Early season water availability affects late season drought stress severity. European Journal of Agronomy, Amsterdam, v.105, p.96–103, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.02.008
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.02.008 -
PETRIE, P.R.; BROOKE, S.J.; MORAN, M.A.; SANDRAS, V.O. Pruning after budburst to delay and spread grape maturity. Australian Journal Grape Wine, Glen Osmond, v.23, p. 378-9, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12303
» https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12303 -
PONI, S.; SABBATINI, P.; PALLIOTTI, A. Facing spring frost damage in grapevine: recent developments and the role of delayed winter pruning – a review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, Davis, v.73, p.211-26, 2022. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2022.22011
» https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2022.22011 -
SHIRAISHI, M.; FUJISHIMA, H.; CHIJIWA, H. Evaluation of table grape genetic resources for sugar, organic acid, and amino acid composition of berries. Euphytica, Dorrecht, v.174, p.1–13, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-0084-4
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-009-0084-4 -
SOUZA, A.L.K. de; BENDER, A. Efeitos da poda outonal em variedades de uvas para processamento no estado de Santa Catarina. Agropecuária Catarinense, Florianópolis, v.35, n.1, p.73-8, 2022. https://doi.org/10.52945/rac.v35i1.1190
» https://doi.org/10.52945/rac.v35i1.1190 - STAFNE, E.T. A history of bunch grape research in Mississippi. Journal of The American Pomological Society, University Park, v.70, p.158-164, 2016.
- TESSER, P.A.; PAULETTI, G.F. Épocas de poda seca e sua influência na brotação, produção e qualidade das uvas Cabernet Sauvignon e Isabel. Revista Brasileira de Viticultura e Enologia, Bento Gonçalves, n.12, p.10-8, 2020.
-
WÜRZ, D.A.; BEM, B.P. de; ALLEBRANDT, R.; CANOSSA, A.T.; REINEHR, J.; KRETZSCHMAR, A.A.; RUFATO, L. Panorama da comercialização de suco de uva no Brasil. Revista Agronomia Brasileira, Jaboticabal, v.1, p.1-3, 2017. https://doi.org/ doi: 10.29372/rab201708
» https://doi.org/ doi: 10.29372/rab201708
Edited by
-
Fernando Higino de Lima e Silva
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
04 Nov 2024 -
Date of issue
2024
History
-
Published
14 Oct 2024 -
Received
27 Feb 2024 -
Accepted
18 July 2024
