Rootstocks on yield and on nutrient uptake and extraction in ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine

ABSTRACT

‘BRS Vitória’ is the leading seedless table grape cultivar in tropical regions of Brazil, but there is a lack of information regarding suitable rootstocks for subtropical cultivation. This study aimed to evaluate the productive performance and nutrient cycling of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines grafted onto rootstocks ‘IAC 572’, ‘IAC 766’, and ‘1103P’ under subtropical climate conditions. Crop yield, nutrient content, and weight of shoots and bunches were assessed over two growing seasons, along with nutrient removal via pruning and harvest and nutrient utilization efficiency. The ‘IAC 572’ rootstock promoted greater shoot biomass accumulation and crop yield compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’. Both nutrient content and nutrient accumulation were also higher in grapevines grafted onto the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock. Nevertheless, the amount of nutrients transported to the bunch was comparatively lower than in ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’. Given its superior productivity, nutrient accumulation capacity, and nutrient utilization efficiency, the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock is more suitable for ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines in subtropical regions.

Key words
subtropical viticulture; hybrid grapes; seedless grapes; table grapes; grafting

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of rootstocks in viticulture is to confer tolerance or resistance to pathogens that affect the plant’s root system (Granett et al. 2001, Smith et al. 2016) and to make it possible to grow vines in adverse soil conditions (Fisarakis et al. 2005, Prinsi et al. 2021). However, nowadays, this technique has become even more important, because, in addition to being an effective tool for overcoming biotic and abiotic stress restrictions, rootstocks can directly affect various characteristics of the vines and fruit composition, such as productivity, plant vigor, length of the phenological cycle, soluble solids, and bioactive compounds (Jin et al. 2016, Cheng et al. 2017, Silva et al. 2018, Callili et al. 2023). Given these factors, the judicious selection of rootstocks is paramount to vineyard success. The influence of rootstocks is modulated by edaphoclimatic conditions and the specific interaction with the scion cultivar (Vrsic et al. 2015, Clingeleffer et al. 2019, Tecchio et al. 2020). Therefore, regionalized research is essential to provide viticulturists with the necessary information to select optimal rootstock-scion combinations tailored to specific growing conditions.

In terms of nutrient accumulation and export, the influence of rootstocks has been studied in various wine grape cultivars (Schreiner et al. 2006, Csikász-Krizsics and Diófási 2008, Sato et al. 2016, Gautier et al. 2020, Nikolaou et al. 2022) and table grape cultivars such as ‘Itália’ (Albuquerque and Dechen 2000), ‘Flame Seedless’, ‘Thompson Seedless’, ‘Superior Seedless’, ‘Red Globe’ (Ibacache and Sierra 2009), ‘Vênus’ (Tecchio et al. 2019), and ‘Niagara Rosada’ (Tecchio et al. 2011, Tecchio et al. 2014). The demonstrated influence of rootstocks on the nutritional status of grapevines suggests their potential to enhance fertilizer use efficiency. As Keller et al. (2001) noted, the judicious selection of rootstocks with superior nutrient absorption capabilities can lead to a reduction in fertilizer applications. Given the escalating costs of fertilizers and their environmental footprint, the strategic choice of rootstocks emerges as a critical factor in ensuring sustainable grape production.

Despite the commercial significance of ‘BRS Vitória’ in Brazilian viticulture, the impact of rootstocks on grape production, nutrient removal, and accumulation in subtropical environments remains unexplored. As a leading seedless table grape cultivar in terms of production, consumption, and export (Maia et al. 2018), ‘BRS Vitória’ has gained prominence due to its resistance to downy mildew (Plasmopara viticola), high productivity, low production costs, elevated soluble solids content, and distinctive raspberry flavor (Maia et al. 2012, Souza et al. 2018). Given the lack of research on effects of rootstock selection on ‘BRS Vitória’ in subtropical environments, this study aimed to investigate the influence of rootstocks on nutrient accumulation, extraction, yield, and vigor of this prominent grapevine cultivar.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Treatments and experimental design

The grape cultivar ‘BRS Vitória’, a hybrid originated by crossing ‘CNPUV 681-29’ with ‘BRS Linda’ (Maia et al. 2012), was evaluated by grafting onto three rootstocks: ‘IAC 572 Jales’ (V. caribaea × (V. riparia × V. rupestris 101-14)), ‘IAC 766 Campinas’ (Riparia do Traviú × V. caribaea), and ‘Paulsen 1103’ (V. berlandieri × V. rupestris). A completely randomized block design was employed with seven repetitions, with the experimental units consisting of three plants.

Experimental site and growing conditions

The experiment was conducted in São Manuel, São Paulo state, Brazil (22°46’’S, 48°34’’W; 773 m altitude), on a sandy Oxisol soil during two consecutive harvests, 2021 and 2022. Prior to each production cycle, the soil was chemically analyzed at depths of 0–20 and 20–40 cm via the approach outlined by Raij et al. (2001) (Table 1).

Table 1
Results of soil chemical analysis conducted at the beginning of the production cycles (2021 and 2022) and at two depths (0 to 20 and 20 to 40 cm)*.

Chemical attributes	2021			2022
	0 to 20 cm	20 to 40 cm		0 to 20 cm	20 to 40 cm
pH (CaCl2)	5.9 ± 0.3	5.7 ± 0.6		6.0 ± 0.2	5.5 ± 0.2
Organic matter (g/dm3)	6.9 ± 1.3	4.8 ± 1.0		6.2 ± 1.2	4.5 ± 0.5
P (mg/dm3)1	82 ± 3	49 ± 3		85 ± 3	85 ± 3
K (mmolc/dm3)1	3.2 ± 1.8	2.9 ± 1.9		1.6 ± 0.4	2.3 ± 0.5
Ca (mmolc/dm3)1	23 ± 3	12 ± 3		23 ± 4	13 ± 2
Mg (mmolc/dm3)1	7 ± 3	5 ± 3		6 ± 1	4 ± 1
CEC (mmolc/dm3)	41.8 ± 1.7	31.9 ± 1.2		39.6 ± 4.9	32.2 ± 2.8
V (%)	74 ± 6	62 ± 10		75 ± 4	62. ± 5
S (mg/dm3)2	4 ± 0.6	4 ± 0.9		4 ± 0.3	4 ± 0.4
B (mg/dm3)3	0.16 ± 0.05	0.16 ± 0.07		0.21 ± 0.02	0.29 ± 0.05
Cu (mg/dm3)4	0.9 ± 0.1	0.8 ± 0.1		1.0 ± 0.1	0.9 ± 0.1
Fe (mg/dm3)4	16 ± 7	17 ± 9		13 ± 1	18 ± 4
Mn (mg/dm3)4	12.6 ± 1.2	15.3 ± 2.9		6.2 ± 0.9	9.8 ± 2.0
Zn (mg/dm3)4	2.6 ± 0.7	1.2 ± 0.1		2.9 ± 0.4	1.4 ± 0.3

• ^*
  The values are expressed as the means ± standard deviations (n = 8);
• ¹
  extracted with ion-exchange resin;
• CEC: cation exchange capacity; V: base saturation;
• ²
  extracted with Ca(H₂PO₄)2 0,01 mol.L^-1;
• ³
  extracted with hot water;
• ⁴
  extracted with diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA).

According to the Köppen climate classification, the region experiences a humid subtropical climate (Cfa). During the grapevine production cycles (July to December), average minimum temperatures were 15.9°C in 2021 and 16.1°C in 2022, while average maximum temperatures reached 27.7°C in both years. Accumulated rainfall during this period totaled 593 mm in 2021 and 543 mm in 2022, exhibiting a seasonal concentration in the summer months. The prevailing weather conditions throughout the experimental period are depicted in Fig. 1.

Figure 1
Meteorological data (temperature and monthly precipitation) from the experimental area in 2021 and 2022. São Manoel, SP, Brazil.

Rootstock cuttings were planted in August 2018, followed by scion grafting in July 2019. The vineyard was established with a spacing of 3 × 2 m (1,667 plants per hectare), utilizing a ‘Y’ training system supported by a metal structure with treated eucalyptus posts. An irrigation system employing micro-sprinklers was implemented. To mitigate hail and bird damage, the vineyard was covered with a polyethylene screen providing 18% shading

Production pruning was conducted on August 5, 2021, and July 14, 2022, with one to two buds retained per spur. Following pruning, 2.5% hydrogen cyanamide was applied. Grape harvest timing was determined based on soluble solids content and titratable acidity. All vineyard management practices, including the use of plant growth regulators, shoot thinning, leaf removal, shoot tipping, cluster thinning, and pest and disease control, were conducted according to the guidelines established by Maia et al. (2012, 2016) for the cultivation of ‘BRS Vitória’ in subtropical regions.

Fertilization practices in the experimental area adhered to the recommendations outlined in Technical Bulletin 100 of the IAC (Tecchio et al. 2022). Prior to the growing season in May, each plant received 3 L of organic compost (N: 1.2%, total organic C: 19.4%), 300 g of 4-14-8 fertilizer, and 300 g of heat-treated rock phosphate (P₂O₅: 17%). During production pruning, 100 g of KCl and 10 g of borax were applied per plant. Additionally, 150 g of 20-5-20 fertilizer was applied per plant at the onset of sprouting (10 cm shoot length) and again during the pea phase of berry development. The annual application rates for N, K₂O, and P₂O₅ totaled 150, 180, and 333 kg.ha^-1, respectively. All fertilizers were applied as a topdressing in bands positioned 40 cm from the planting row.

Variables analysed

To estimate yield for each scion-rootstock combination, bunches were weighed. Productivity (ton.ha^-1) was calculated based on a planting density of 1,667 plants.ha^-1. All plant material removed during pruning was weighed and sampled for chemical analysis. Samples of shoots and bunches were dried in a forced-air oven at 65°C for seven days to determine the percentage of dry matter, following the methodology described by Tecchio et al. (2019). Biomass accumulation was then estimated by multiplying the percentage of dry matter of the sample by the total fresh mass.

To determine nutrient concentrations, samples of shoots and bunches were ground and analyzed for macro and micronutrients following the methodology described by Malavolta et al. (1997). Nutrient absorption by shoots and bunches was calculated by multiplying the nutrient content by the total dry matter mass of the shoots and bunches collected from each experimental plot. In turn, the total nutrient removal by the plant was determined by summing the nutrient removal by shoots and bunches. Additionally, the proportion of nutrients accumulated in the bunches relative to the total nutrient content accumulated by the plant was calculated.

To assess fertilizer’s use efficiency, two indices were calculated following the methods described by Fixen et al. (2015) and Jones (2021). The first index, partial factor productivity (PFP), represents the ratio of fruit mass produced per unit of nutrient applied and is calculated using Eq. 1:

$PFP=Y/F$ (1)

where: Y: fruit production under fertilization (kg.ha^-1.year^-1); F: dose of N, P or K applied in the treatment (kg.ha^-1.year^-1 of N, P₂O₅ or K₂O).

The second index, partial nutrient balance (PNB), represents the proportion of nutrients removed in the harvest relative to the nutrients applied through fertilizers for each scion-rootstock, estimated by Eq. 2:

$PNB=U_h/F$ (2)

where: U_h: nutrient removal (pruned shoots + harvested fruit); F: dose of N or K applied in the treatment (kg.ha^-1.year^-1 of N, P₂O₅ or K₂O).

Statistical analyses

A two-way analysis of variance was employed to assess the effects of rootstocks and production cycles, including their interaction, on the data. Tukey’s HSD test at the 5% significance level was used for multiple comparisons of means using Sisvar 5.6 statistical software. In order to analyze the effect of rootstocks on the absorption of all nutrients in a combined way, canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) was applied (Hair et al. 2018). A discriminant analysis was conducted to investigate the influence of rootstock genotypes (IAC 572, IAC 766, and 1103P) on shoot nutrient composition. Rootstock groups served as the dependent variable, while various shoot nutrient metrics measurements constituted the independent variables. Canonical discriminant functions (CDFs) were derived from these variables, and subsequent scoring of each rootstock observation allowed for their representation in the canonical space. The two CDFs were visualized as axes, and the centroid of each group (IAC 572, IAC 766, and 1103P) was determined by calculating the average scores of its corresponding observations. The separation between groups, as indicated by the models, is proportional to the distance between their centroids, quantified using Mahalanobis distance. A larger Mahalanobis distance signifies greater separation and distinct characteristics between the groups. Multivariate statistical analyses were conducted using Statistica v.10 software (StatSoft, 2011).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

For most variables tested, there was no significant interaction (p > 0.05) between rootstocks and seasons. Therefore, effects of rootstocks and seasons were analyzed independently without considering the interaction between them.

Crop yield and biomass accumulation

Rootstocks significantly influenced (p < 0.05) both crop yield and mass of shoots and bunches. Grapevines grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ consistently outperformed those on ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P,’ yielding an average of 49.7, 38.6, and 31.4 ton.ha^-1, respectively. Furthermore, ‘IAC 572’ exhibited superior biomass accumulation in vines compared to the other rootstocks. While significant differences in bunch dry mass were observed between ‘IAC 572’ and ‘1103P’ (7,837 kg.ha^-1 vs. 5,996 kg.ha^-1), no significant differences were found between ‘IAC 572’ and ‘IAC 766’ (Table 2).

Table 2
Fruit yield and dry matter mass (DM) of shoot and bunches of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine grafted onto different rootstocks over two harvest seasons*.

Treatments		Fruit yield		DM Shoot	DM Bunches
Rootstocks		ton·ha-1		—————————— kg·ha-1 ——————————
IAC 572		49.7 a		3,146 a	7,837 a
IAC 766		38.6 b		2,060 b	6,780 ab
1103P		31.4 b		1,401 b	5,996 b
p-value		< 0.01		< 0.01	0.02
CV rootstocks		22.4		29.95	22.55
Seasons
2021		30.9 b		1,867 b	4,938 b
2022		48.9 a		2,538 a	8,803 a
p-value		< 0.01		< 0.01	< 0.01
CV seasons		12.0		15.7	13.1
Mean		39.9		2,203	6,871

• ^*
  Different letters within a column for each factor (rootstocks and seasons) indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05);
• CV (%): coefficient of variation.

These results corroborate previous findings indicating that a greater vegetative development induced by the rootstock may lead to higher vine productivity (Sato et al. 2016, Tecchio et al. 2019). Consequently, rootstock vigor is a critical factor to consider. As observed in the present study, other authors have reported that ‘IAC 572’ and ‘IAC 766’ are more vigorous and better adapted to subtropical and tropical climates compared to ‘1103P’ (Tecchio et al. 2018, Viana et al. 2018). However, excessive vigor induced by a rootstock can compromise grape quality (Mota et al. 2009, Sánchez et al. 2023), requiring management practices to balance vegetative growth and production, especially in vigorous cultivars.

Other studies have evaluated the influence of these rootstocks on the yield response of table grape cultivars under different climatic conditions, such as the seeded cultivar ‘Niagara Rosada’ (Bruna and Back 2015, Callili et al. 2022) and the seedless cultivars ‘Crimson Seedless’, ‘Superior Seedless’ (Feldberg et al. 2007), and ‘BRS Isis’ (Leão et al. 2020b, Sánchez et al. 2023). A wide variation in results was observed across these studies, emphasizing that the effects of rootstocks are influenced by their compatibility with the scion cultivar and are variable depending on climatic conditions, soil type, and cultural practices. In a study conducted under semi-arid tropical conditions, Leão et al. (2020a) did not observe significant differences in the yield of the ‘BRS Vitória’ cultivar when evaluating the rootstocks ‘IAC 572’, ‘IAC 766’, and ‘1103P’. This result contrasts with the findings of our study, conducted under subtropical climate conditions.

As expected, the second production cycle exhibited a significant increase in yield compared to the first (48.9 versus 30.9 tons per hectare), attributed to the enhanced vegetative growth of the vines, as indicated by the higher mass of shoots and bunches (Table 2). These findings are consistent with previous reports by Maia et al. (2012), who documented yields exceeding 30 tons per hectare for ‘BRS Vitória’. Leão et al. (2020a) reported an average annual yield of 48 tons per hectare under tropical conditions with two harvests per year, aligning with our results. These findings collectively support the suitability of ‘BRS Vitória’ for subtropical climate conditions.

Furthermore, it is important to note that, under subtropical climate conditions, ‘BRS Vitória’ has demonstrated significantly higher productivity compared to ‘Niagara Rosada’ (Tecchio et al. 2014, Callili et al. 2022), the most widely cultivated table grape cultivar in the state of São Paulo (Mello and Machado 2022). Consequently, expanding the cultivation of ‘BRS Vitória’ in subtropical regions presents an excellent opportunity for Brazilian subtropical viticulture, particularly when grafted onto the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock

Nutrient content in shoots and bunches

There was a significant variation in nutrient concentrations among shoots and clusters due to the different rootstocks (Table 3). In general, grapevines grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ and ‘IAC 766’ exhibited higher concentrations of N, K, and Ca than those grafted onto ‘1103P’.

Table 3
Nutrient content in shoot and bunches of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine grafted onto two rootstocks over two harvest seasons*.

Treatments	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	S		B	Cu	Fe	Mn	Zn
	—————————— g·kg-1 ——————————							———————— mg·kg-1 ———————
Nutrient content in shoot
Rootstocks
IAC 572	8.4 ab	1.1 a	5.9	5.1 a	1.2	0.7 a		9.1	7.8	38.1 b	69.9 b	28.0
IAC 766	8.9 a	1.0 b	5.5	4.8 a	1.2	0.7 a		9.4	7.9	42.4 b	108.6 a	30.2
1103P	8.0 b	1.0 ab	5.6	4.1 b	1.2	0.6 b		9.2	7.8	59.8 a	122.9 a	38.0
p-value	< 0.05	0.03	0.23	< 0.01	0.66	< 0.01		0.87	0.98	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.16
CV rootstocks	10.4	11.7	9.4	8.7	14.9	7.0		13.2	20.9	22.7	16.8	41.9
Seasons
2021	9.1 a	1.0	5.4 b	4.4 b	1.1 b	0.8 a		6.6 b	9.5 a	63.4 a	86.8 b	31.0
2022	7.8 b	1.0	5.9 a	4.9 a	1.3 a	0.5 b		11.9 a	6.2 b	30.1 b	114.1 a	33.1
p-value	< 0.01	0.78	< 0.05	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01		< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.51
CV seasons	10.6	11.1	10.3	9.6	9.4	8.5		9.8	23.3	24.4	18.2	31.7
Mean	8.4	1.0	5.6	4.7	1.2	0.7		9.2	7.8	46.7	100.5	32.1
Nutrient content in bunches
Rootstocks
IAC 572	4.7	0.8	14.4 a	0.6 a	0.3	0.5		14.8 ab	2.6 a	13.8 a	6.6 b	3.0
IAC 766	4.0	0.9	13.3 ab	0.5 a	0.3	0.5		18.0 a	2.0 b	9.5 c	8.0 b	3.0
1103P	3.8	0.8	12.3 b	0.3 b	0.3	0.5		13.0 b	2.7 a	11.6 b	10.6 a	2.7
p-value	0.07	0.68	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.08	0.10		< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.40
CV rootstocks	23.7	21.9	9.0	23.2	12.4	9.7		21.5	19.4	17.3	25.6	23.4
Seasons
2021	3.8 b	0.8	14.3 a	0.4 b	0.3	0.7 a		14.1 b	1.8 b	4.3 b	5.7 b	3.1
2022	4.5 a	0.8	12.4 b	0.6 a	0.3	0.3 b		16.4 a	3.1 a	19.0 a	11.1 a	2.7
p-value	< 0.05	0.88	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.08	< 0.01		< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.08
CV seasons	20.0	12.9	7.6	26.4	10.3	9.0		10.2	16.0	32.6	21.2	24.8
Mean	4.1	0.8	13.3	0.5	0.3	0.5		15.3	2.5	11.6	8.4	2.9

• ^*
  Different letters within a column for each factor (rootstocks and seasons) indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05);
• CV (%): coefficient of variation.

The higher productivity observed in vines grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ may be intrinsically linked to the higher nutrient content in bunches or shoots, particularly the macronutrients K, N, and Ca. It is important to highlight that in viticulture each nutrient has a specific function. Potassium is essential for yield, berry size, soluble solids content, organic acids, pH, and bioactive compounds (Hudina and Stampar 2002, Amiri and Fallahi 2007, Walker and Blackmore 2012). The positive correlation between N content and vine vigor, as reported by Verdenal et al. (2021), is evident in our results. Furthermore, the low Ca levels in vines grafted onto ‘1103P’ likely contributed to the observed decrease in vigor and productivity (Tables 2 and 3), reinforcing the well-established role of calcium in plant growth and development (Duan et al. 2022).

The choice of rootstock significantly influenced (p > 0.05) the amount of nutrients removed from the vineyard through pruning and bunch harvest. Vines grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ showed higher nutrient export rates than those grafted onto ‘1103P’. The order of nutrient export, regardless rootstock, was consistent: K > N > Ca > P > Mg > S > Mn > Fe > B > Zn > Cu (Table 4). Nutrient removal through pruning and harvesting varied significantly between production cycles. The second year (2022) showed a marked increase in nutrient export, coinciding with higher biomass accumulation in shoots and increased crop yield (Table 2). These findings align with previous studies by Tecchio et al. (2011, 2014) on ‘Niagara Rosada’, which showed N as the primary nutrient exported by the pruned shoots and K as the primary nutrient exported by the harvest. Sato et al. (2016) similarly reported K as the most abundant nutrient exported harvest of ‘Isabel Precoce’ bunches. Tecchio et al. (2019), in a study with the seedless cultivar ‘Venus’, observed that the order of total nutrient removal was K > N > Ca > P > Mg > S > Mn > Fe > Zn > B > Cu, which is very similar to the order found in this study.

Table 4
Nutrients exported (pruned shoots + harvested bunches) by the ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine grafted onto two rootstocks over two harvest seasons*.

Treatments	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	S		B	Cu	Fe	Mn	Zn
	—————————— kg·ha-1 ——————————							———————— g·ha-1 ———————
Rootstocks
IAC 572	64.3 a	10.6 a	131.4 a	21.9 a	7.1 a	6.5 a		147.8 a	46.7 a	238.6 a	287.9	113.8 a
IAC 766	45.3 b	8.10 a	98.4 b	14.2 b	5.2 b	4.5 b		145.5 a	30.2 b	164.0 b	287.5	81.9 ab
1103P	34.5 b	6.4 b	79.8 b	8.1 c	3.8 c	3.8 b		95.7 b	28.2 b	154.7 b	245.5	69.1 b
p-value	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01		< 0.05	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.25	< 0.05
CV rootstocks	29.5	33.3	26.7	26.0	23.9	24.8		32.5	24.1	14.8	26.7	43.0
Seasons
2021	36.1 b	6.3 b	81.2 b	10.6 b	3.9 b	5.0		82.5 b	27.0 b	127.1 b	175.1 b	69.7 b
2022	60.0 a	10.4 a	125.2 a	18.9 a	6.8 a	4.8		176.8 a	43.1 a	244.5 a	372.2 a	106.8 a
p-value	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.16		< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
CV seasons	18.4	13.6	11.4	13.4	10.0	10.1		15.5	18.1	25.6	15.4	28.9
Mean	48.0	8.4	103.2	14.7	5.4	4.9		129.7	35.0	185.8	273.6	88.3

• ^*
  Different letters within a column for each factor (rootstocks and seasons) indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05);
• CV (%): coefficient of variation.

These observations for ‘BRS Vitória’ have practical implications for fertilization strategies. In addition to replenishing natural losses of N and K in the soil-plant system, fertilization must consider the nutrient extraction associated with rootstock selection. The use of ‘IAC 572’ and, to a lesser extent, ‘IAC 766’ rootstocks results in higher nutrient demands by the plants.

Rootstocks also influenced the rate of nutrient remobilization to the clusters from the accumulated nutrients in the vines (Table 5). With the ‘1103P’ rootstock, the fraction of nutrients contained in the bunches relative to the total absorbed by the plants was higher compared to the other rootstocks. The fact that plants grafted onto ‘1103P’ accumulated less than half the biomass compared to those grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ but produced nearly 80% of the yield of ‘IAC 572’ contributed to a higher rate of nutrient remobilization with ‘1103P’.

Table 5
Accumulation of nutrients by bunches in relation to the total content of nutrients accumulated by the ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine grafted onto two rootstocks over two harvest seasons*.

Treatments	N	P	K	Ca	Mg	S	B	Cu	Fe	Mn	Zn
	———————————————————————— % ——————————————————————
Rootstocks
IAC 572	57 b	64 b	85 b	24	43 b	64 c	80 b	45 b	43	18 b	21
IAC 766	58 b	73 a	88 a	27	48 ab	68 b	85 a	47 b	39	18 b	25
1103P	66 a	76 a	90 a	26	54 a	76 a	85 a	58 a	44	26 a	24
p-value	< 0.05	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.77	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.05	< 0.01	0.06	< 0.01	0.46
CV rootstocks	11.6	6.8	3.0	30.8	14.3	6.7	5.4	11.2	14.6	20.8	31.5
Seasons
2021	54 b	69 b	87	21 b	47	70	85 a	37 b	16 b	16 b	24
2022	66 a	73 a	87	31 a	50	69	82 b	63 a	68 a	26 a	23
p-value	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.95	< 0.01	0.08	0.47	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.81
CV seasons	11.1	6.3	2.7	27.7	9.6	6.7	3.9	15.6	16.9	20.8	36.6
Mean	60	71	87	26	48	69	83	50	42	21	23

• ^*
  Different letters within a column for each factor (rootstocks and seasons) indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05);
• CV (%): coefficient of variation.

A multivariate analysis using CDA was conducted to assess the nutrient content in the shoots of various scion and rootstock combinations. The CDA effectively differentiated these combinations, clustering the results into three distinct groups as illustrated in Fig. 2. The significance of the Mahalanobis distance, a metric quantifying the separation between the formed groups, further corroborates the findings of the CDA analysis (Table 6).

Figure 2
Discriminant analysis plot of canonical discriminant functions (CDF 1 and CDF 2) considering the mean nutrient content in the two production cycles as explanatory variables. Values in parentheses estimate the percentage of the total variation explained by each discriminant function. Black dots indicate mean values of the canonical scores for scion and rootstock combination (centroids).

Table 6
Tests of significance of squared Mahalanobis distances for groups and unstandardized class means for canonical variables (centroids, CDF 1 and CDF 2) based on nutrient content in the shoots os videiras enxertadas sobre ‘IAC 572’, ‘IAC 766’, and ‘1103P’.

Group	Nutrient content in the shoots
	IAC 572	IAC 766	1103P		CDF 1	CDF 2
	————— p-value* —————				—— centroids ——
IAC 572	--	0.013	< 0.001		-2.39	0.80
IAC 766	0.013	--	0.008		-0.13	-1.48
1103P	< 0.001	0.008	--		2.52	0.68

• ^*
  p-value associated to F test for Mahalanobis distance between groups.
• Bold figures highlight significant differences between groups (p < 0.05).

Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of samples according to their rootstock variety along the CDF1 axis. Plants grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ tended to cluster on the left side of the axis, while those on ‘1103P’ were predominantly located on the right. ‘IAC 766’ samples were positioned in an intermediate zone. This clear separation among the three rootstocks is further supported by their respective mean values (centroids): positive for ‘1103P’, near zero for ‘IAC 766’, and negative for ‘IAC 572’ (Table 6). Notably, CDF1 values exhibit an inverse correlation with nutrient concentrations in the grapevine branches, suggesting that the IAC series rootstocks accumulated higher levels of nutrients compared to ‘1103P’. The CDA thus validated the significant influence of rootstocks on the nutritional status (Table 3) of the plants, as reflected in their productive performance (Table 2).

The nutrient utilization efficiency (NUE) of NPK fertilizers applied to ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines varied significantly among rootstocks. As assessed by the PFP index, ‘IAC 572’ demonstrated higher fruit production per unit of applied N, P, and K compared to ‘1103P,’ which exhibited lower NUE. The NUE of ‘IAC 766’ fell between these two extremes. As noted by Dobermann (2007), PFP is a valuable metric for growers as it integrates both fertilizer nutrient utilization efficiency and soil nutrient mobilization. The selection of ‘IAC 572’ as a rootstock can enhance the sustainability of viticulture by increasing crop yield per unit of fertilizer, thereby mitigating the economic impact of fertilizer costs. In this study, ‘IAC 572’ exhibited a 58% higher PFP for NPK, as measured by PFP, compared to ‘1103P’ (Table 7).

Table 7
Partial factor productivity and partial nutrient balance for N, P, and K applied per cycle in the fertilization of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine as a function of the rootstocks. These values represent averages over two production cycles*.

Treatments	Partial factor productivity				Partial nutrient balance
Rootstocks	N	P2O5	K2O		N	P2O5	K2O
	kg of fruits havested.kg fertilizer applied-1				kg of nutrients removed.kg fertilizer applied-1
IAC 572	331 a	276 a	149 a		0.43 a	0.14 a	0.48 a
IAC 766	258 b	215 b	116 b		0.30 b	0.10 ab	0.36 b
1103P	210 b	175 b	94 b		0.23 b	0.08 b	0.29 b
p-value	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01		< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01
CV rootstocks	16.7	16.7	16.7		20.9	23.6	18.9
Mean	266	222	120		0.32	0.11	0.37

• ^*
  Different letters within a column for each factor (rootstocks and seasons) indicate a significant difference according to Tukey’s test (p < 0.05);
• CV (%): coefficient of variation.

The PNB for ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines, calculated for N, P, and K based on different rootstocks, consistently remained below 0.5 (Table 7). A PNB value exceeding 1 indicates unsustainable production practices, as soil nutrient reserves are being depleted. Conversely, very low PNB values may suggest excessive fertilizer inputs, leading to environmental concerns and economic losses. In this study, the PNB for P remained consistently low (~0.1) across all rootstocks, suggesting potential over-fertilization given the area’s high P availability (> 80 mg.dm^-3). For K, the PNB ranged from 0.36 to 0.48, with ‘IAC 572’ exhibiting a 60% higher PNB compared to ‘1103P’. This suggests that using ‘IAC 572’ requires more careful monitoring and replenishment of soil K to maintain optimal production. The experimental area experienced a decline in soil K availability between the first and second harvests (Table 1).

It is important to note that, in conjunction with soil analysis, these findings can contribute to optimizing mineral fertilization for ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines and highlight the need for site-specific research. Moreover, these results directly support more environmentally and economically sustainable management practices, as fertilization is a major cost component in grape production and significantly impacts yield and quality. Thus, understanding the nutrient requirements of grapevines is essential for appropriate nutrient replenishment through fertilization.

CONCLUSION

Rootstocks significantly influenced the yield and biomass accumulation of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines. The ‘IAC 572’ rootstock provided greater vigor and, consequently, higher productivity compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’.

The absorption, accumulation, and internal movement of nutrients in ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines varied according to the rootstock used.

Nutrient removal from the vineyard through pruning and harvesting was greater in plants grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ than in those grafted onto ‘1103P’. Plants grafted onto ‘IAC 766’ showed an intermediate level of nutrient export.

The order of nutrient export, regardless the rootstock used, was K > N > Ca > P > Mg > S > Mn > Fe > B > Zn > Cu.

‘BRS Vitória’ grafted onto ‘IAC 572’ showed greater efficiency in the use of N, P, and K fertilizers compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’.

Considering the importance of using rootstocks that promote high productivity and have a high capacity for nutrient absorption and extraction, the results suggested that, in combination with the ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine under subtropical climate conditions, the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock was most suitable.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Not applicable.

• How to cite: Callili, D., Tecchio, M. A., Sánchez, C. A. P. C., Campos, O. P., Teixeira, L. A. J., Campos, L. S., Bonfim, F. P. G. and Leonel, S. (2025). Rootstocks on yield and on nutrient uptake and extraction in ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine. Bragantia, 84, e20240213. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20240213
• FUNDING
  Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
  Grant No.: 2020/12152-3
  Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  Grant Nos.: 140830/2020-0, 307377/2021-0, 406355/2018-5

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All dataset were generated and analyzed in the current study.

REFERENCES

• Albuquerque, T. C. S. D. and Dechen, A. R. (2000). Absorção de macronutrientes por porta-enxertos e cultivares de videira em hidroponia. Scientia Agricola, 57, 135-139. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162000000100022
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162000000100022
• Amiri, M. E. and Fallahi, E. (2007). Influence of mineral nutrients on growth, yield, berry quality, and petiole mineral nutrient concentrations of table grape. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 30, 463-470. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160601172031
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/01904160601172031
• Bruna, E. D. and Back, Á. J. (2015). Comportamento da cultivar Niágara Rosada enxertada sobre diferentes porta-enxertos no sul de Santa Catarina, Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 37, 924-933. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-2945-245/14
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-2945-245/14
• Callili, D., Sánchez, C. A. P. C., Campos, O. P., Carneiro, D. C. D. S., Scudeletti, A. C. B. and Tecchio, M. A. (2023). Phenology, thermal demand, and maturation development of the ‘BRS Vitória’ grape cultivated on different rootstocks in subtropical conditions. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 45, e-999. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452023999
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452023999
• Callili, D., Silva, M. J. R., Sánchez, C. A. P. C., Basílio, L. S. P., Macedo, B. M. P., Teixeira, L. A. J., Lima, G. P. P. and Tecchio, M. A. (2022). Rootstocks and potassium fertilization on yield performance and quality of ‘Niagara Rosada’ grapevine under subtropical conditions. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 16, 293-300. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.22.16.02.3447
  » https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.22.16.02.3447
• Cheng, J., Wei, L., Mei, J. and Wu, J. (2017). Effect of rootstock on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties in berries of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. ‘Red Alexandria’. Scientia Horticulturae, 217, 137-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.037
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.037
• Clingeleffer, P., Morales, N., Davis, H. and Smith, H. (2019). The significance of scion × rootstock interactions. Oeno One, 53, 335-346. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.2.2438
  » https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.2.2438
• Csikász-Krizsics, A. and Diófási, L. (2008). Effects of rootstock-scion combinations on macroelements availability of the vines. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9, 495-504.
• Dobermann, A. (2007). Nutrient use efficiency-measurement and management. In A. Krauss, K. Isherwood and P. Heffer (Eds.). Fertilizer best management practices: general principles, strategy for their adoption and voluntary initiatives versus regulations (p. 1-28). Paris: International Fertilizer Industry Association.
• Duan, S., Zhang, C., Song, S., Ma, C., Zhang, C., Xu, W., Bondada, B., Wang, L. and Wang, S. (2022). Understanding calcium functionality by examining growth characteristics and structural aspects in calcium-deficient grapevine. Scientic Reports, 12, 3233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06867-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-06867-4
• Feldberg, N. P., Regina, M. D. A. and Dias, M. S. C. (2007). Desempenho agronômico das videiras ‘Crimson Seedless’ e ‘ Superior Seedless’ no norte de Minas Gerais. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 42, 777-783. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2007000600003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2007000600003
• Fisarakis, I., Nikolaou, N., Tsikalas, P., Therios, I. and Stavrakas, D. (2005). Effect of salinity and rootstock on concentration of potassium, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and nitrate–nitrogen in Thompson seedless grapevine. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 27, 2117-2134. https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-200034662
  » https://doi.org/10.1081/PLN-200034662
• Fixen, P., Brenturp, F.. Bruulsema T. W., Garcia, F., Norton, R. and Zingore, S. (2015). Nutrient/fertilizer use efficiency: measurement, current situation and trends. In P. Drechsel, P. Heffer, H. Magen, R. Mikkelsen and D. Wichelns. (Eds.), Managing water and fertilizer for sustainable agricultural intensification (p. 8-38). Paris: International Fertilizer Industry Association.
• Gautier, A., Cookson, S. J., Lagalle, L., Ollat, N. and Marguerit, E. (2020). Influence of the three main genetic backgrounds of grapevine rootstocks on petiolar nutrient concentrations of the scion, with a focus on phosphorus. Oeno One, 54, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.1.2458
  » https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.1.2458
• Granett, J., Walker, A. M., Kocsis, L. and Omer, A. D. (2001). Biology and management of grape Phylloxera. Annual Review of Entomology, 46, 387-412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.387
  » https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.46.1.387
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. and Anderson, R. E. (2018). Multivariate data Aaalysis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson.
• Hudina, M. and Stampar, F. (2002). Effect of phosphorus and potassium foliar fertilization on fruit quality of pears. Acta Horticulturae, 594, 487-493. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.594.63
  » https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.594.63
• Ibacache, A. G. and Sierra, C. B. (2009). Influence of rootstocks on nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content in petioles of four table grape varieties. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 69, 503-508. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392009000400004
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392009000400004
• Jin, Z. X., Sun, T. Y., Sun, H., Yue, Q. Y. and Yao, Y. X. (2016). Modifications of ‘Summer Black’ grape berry quality as affected by the different rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae, 210, 130-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.07.023
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.07.023
• Jones, J. D. (2021). Nutrient use efficiency: A metric to inform 4R nutrient stewardship. Crops & Soils, 54, 42-48. https://doi.org/10.1002/crso.20102
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/crso.20102
• Keller, M., Kummer, M. and Vasconcelos, M. C. (2001). Soil nitrogen utilisation for rogwth and gas exchange by grapevines in response to nitrogen supply and rootstock. Australian Journal of Grape Wine Research, 7, 2-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2001.tb00187.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2001.tb00187.x
• Leão, P. C. S., Nascimento, J. H. B., Moraes, D. S. and Souza, E. R. (2020a). Rootstocks for the new seedless table grape ‘BRS Vitória’ under tropical semi-arid conditions of São Francisco Valley. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 44, e025119. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202044025119
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202044025119
• Leão, P. C. S., Nascimento, J. H. B., Moraes, D. S. and Souza, E. R. (2020b). Yield components of the new seedless table grape ‘BRS Ísis’ as affected by the rootstock under semi-arid tropical conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 263, 109114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109114
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109114
• Maia, J. D. G., Ritschel, P. S. and Lazzarotto, J. J. (2018). A viticultura de mesa no Brasil: produção para o mercado nacional e internacional. Territoires du Vin, 9, 1-9.
• Maia, J. D. G., Ritschel, P. S., Camargo, U. A., Souza, R. T., Fajardo, T. V. M., Naves, R. L. and Girardi, C. L. (2012). ‘BRS Vitória’: nova cultivar de uva de mesa sem sementes com sabor especial e tolerante ao míldio. Bento Gongalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho. Comunicado Técnico, 126.
• Maia, J. D. G., Ritschel, P. S., Souza, R. T. and Garrido, L. R. (2016). ‘BRS Vitória’ - uva para mesa, sem sementes, de sabor especial e tolerante ao míldio: recomendações agronômicas para a região de Campinas, São Paulo. Bento Gongalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho. Comunicado Técnico, 129.
• Malavolta, E., Vitti, G. C. and Oliveira, S. A. (1997). Avaliação do estado nutricional das plantas: princípios e aplicações. 2ª ed. Piracicaba: Potafos.
• Mello, L. M. R. and Machado, C. A. E. (2022). Vitivinicultura brasileira: panorama 2021. Bento Gonçalves: Embrapa Uva e Vinho. Comunicado Técnico, 226.
• Mota, R. V., Souza, C. R., Favero, A. C., Silva, C. P. C., Carmo, E. L., Fonseca, A. R. and Regina, M. A. (2009). Produtividade e composicao fisico-quimica de bagas de cultivares de uva em distintos porta-enxertos. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 44, 576-582. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2009000600005
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2009000600005
• Nikolaou, K. E., Chatzistathis, T., Theocharis, S., Argiriou, A., Koundouras, S. and Zioziou, E. (2022). Effects of chromium toxicity on physiological performance and nutrient uptake in two grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) growing on own roots or grafted onto different rootstocks. Horticulturae, 8, 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060493
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060493
• Prinsi, B., Simeoni, F., Galbiati, M., Meggio, F., Tonelli, C., Scienza, A. and Espen, L. (2021). Grapevine rootstocks differently affect physiological and molecular responses of the scion under water deficit condition. Agronomy, 11, 289. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020289
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020289
• Raij, B. V., Andrade, J. C., Cantarella, H. and Quaggio, J. A. (2001). Análise química para avaliação de fertilidade de solos tropicais. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico.
• Sánchez, C. A. P. C., Tecchio, M. A., Callili, D., Silva, M. J. R., Basílio, L. S. P., Leonel, S., Alonso, J. C. and Lima, G. P. P. (2023). Productivity and physicochemical properties of the BRS Isis grape on various rootstocks under subtropical climatic conditions. Agriculture, 13, 2113. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112113
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13112113
• Sato, A. J., Botelho, R. V., Broetto, D., Marchi, T. and Oliari, I. C. R. (2016). Immobilization and nutrient uptake in ‘Early Isabella’ grapevines grafted on different rootstocks in organic management. Semina: Ciencias Agrarárias, 37, 1201-1208. https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n3p1201
  » https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2016v37n3p1201
• Schreiner, R. P., Scagel, C. F. and Baham, J. (2006). Nutrient uptake and distribution in a mature ‘Pinot noir’ vineyard. HortScience, 41, 336-345. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.41.2.336
  » https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.41.2.336
• Silva, M. J. R, Paiva, A. P. M., Pimentel, A., Sanchez, C. A. P. C., Callili, D., Moura, M. F., Leonel, S. and Tecchio, M. A. (2018). Yield performance of new juice grape varieties grafted onto different rootstocks under tropical conditions. Scientia Horticulturae, 241, 194-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.06.085
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.06.085
• Smith, B. P., Morales, N. B., Thomas, M. R., Smith, H. M. and Clingeleffer, P. R. (2016). Grapevine rootstocks resistant to the root‐knot nematode Meloidogyne javanica. Australian Journal of Grape Wine Research, 23, 125-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12242
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12242
• Souza, R. T., Naves, R. L., Conceição, M. A. F., Costa, S. M. and Savini, T. C. (2018). Frequency of fungicide application for controlling downy mildew in seedless grape plant ‘BRS Vitória’. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 40, e-443. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452018443
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452018443
• StatSoft (2011). Statistica. Version 10. Tulsa: StatSoft.
• Tecchio, M. A., Hernandes, J. L., Paioli-Pires, E. J., Terra, M. M. and Moura, M. F. (2018). Cultivo da videira para mesa, vinho e suco. In R. Pio (Ed.). Cultivo de fruteiras clima temperado em regiões subtropicais e tropicais (p. 512-584). 2ª ed. Lavras: Editora UFLA.
• Tecchio, M. A., Moura, M. F., Teixeira, L. A. J., Paioli-Pires, E. J. and Leonel, S. (2014). Influence of rootstocks and pruning times on yield and on nutrient content and extraction in ‘Niagara Rosada’ grapevine. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 49, 340-348. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2014000500003
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2014000500003
• Tecchio, M. A., Silva, M. J. R., Callili, D., Coser, G. M. A. G., Alves, D. A. S., Neto, F. J. D. and Moura, M. F. (2019). Nutrient uptake in ‘Venus’ grape vine grafted onto different rootstocks during two growing seasons. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 13, 1594-1599.
• Tecchio, M. A., Silva, M. J. R., Callili, D., Hernandes, J. and Moura, M. F. (2020). Yield of white and red grapes, in terms of quality, from hybrids and Vitis labrusca grafted on different rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae, 259, 108846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108846
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108846
• Tecchio, M. A., Teixeira, L. A. J., Terra, M. M., Moura, M. F. and Paioli-Pires, E. J. (2011). Extração de nutrientes pela videira ‘Niagara Rosada’ enxertada em diferentes porta-enxertos. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 33, 736-742. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452011000500103
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452011000500103
• Tecchio, M. A., Teixeira, L. A. J., Terra, M. M., Paioli-Pires, E. J. and Hernandes, J. L. (2022). Uvas comuns para mesa e vinho (Vits lambusca). In H. Cantarella, J. A. Quaggio, D. Mattos Jr., R. M. Boaretto and B. van Raij (Eds.). Recomendações de adubação e calagem para o Estado de São Paulo (p. 303-308). 2ª ed. Campinas: Instituto Agronômico. Boletim 100.
• Verdenal, T., Dienes-Nagy, Á., Spangenberg, J. E., Zufferey, V., Spring, J. L., Viret, O., Marin-Carbonne, J. and Van Leeuwen, C. (2021). Understanding and managing nitrogen nutrition in grapevine: A review. Oeno One, 55, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2021.55.1.3866
  » https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2021.55.1.3866
• Viana, A. P., Rodrigues, D. L. and Santos, E. A. (2018). Porta enxerto, cultivares de mesa e de vinho. In S. Motoike and A. Borém (Eds.). Uva: do plantio à colheita (p. 49-60). Viçosa: UFV.
• Vrsic, S., Pulko, B. and Kocsis, L. (2015). Factors influencing grafting success and compatibility of grape rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae, 181, 168-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.10.058
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.10.058
• Walker, R. R. and Blackmore, D. H. (2012). Potassium concentration and pH inter-relationships in grape juice and wine of Chardonnay and Shiraz from a range of rootstocks in different environments. Australian Journal of Grape Wine Research, 18, 183-193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00189.x
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00189.x

Edited by

• Section Editor:
  Alberto Cargnelutti Filho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8608-9960

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  07 Feb 2025
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  16 Sept 2024
• Accepted
  10 Dec 2024