Comparison of methods for determining budburst date in grapevine

Abstract

Methods for determining budburst date in grapevine are poorly documented. Budburst date defined from cumulative shoots burst (or arising) and cumulative buds burst (expressed as % of total) were compared using different cultivars, pruning systems and irrigation treatments and assessed at the plant, bearer and individual bud level. The study was conducted at three sites within an Australian vineyard over two years on mechanical pruned Chardonnay and Cabernet-Sauvignon; mechanical, spur and minimally pruned Shiraz; and control, regulated and prolonged deficit irrigated Cabernet-Sauvignon. Budburst defined as ‘50 % of total shoots burst’ was more reliable than ‘50 % of buds burst’ for determining budburst date when final % budburst was low, as observed under lighter (mechanical or minimal) pruning for Shiraz. Differences in final % budburst between pruning systems and deficit irrigation treatments were related mainly to the distribution (%) of bearers according to size (based on node or bud numbers) and their specific budburst percentage at each node position. The timing of budburst based on ‘50 % of total shoots burst’ was dependent on a unique set of parameters for each cultivar, regardless of pruning treatments and irrigation levels. The new knowledge gained in this study about the impact of pruning system and irrigation treatment on % budburst and timing may be useful for adapting phenological models to Australian vineyards.

A sensorless, Big Data based approach for phenology and meteorological drought forecasting in vineyards

“…The prediction of the occurrence of budburst, flowering and veraison stages was conducted as per the binary event classification paradigm 57 , which is an original approach when compared to the more traditional modelling followed in previous studies 74 – 77 . In terms of the sensitivity of the budburst stage to the ten examined variables, our results confirm that cumulated GDD, as well as linked variables including cumulated radiation and ET p , are good drivers of the budburst date, as also shown in previous studies 8 , 75 , 78 .…”

Response of Sunmuscat (Vitis vinifera L.) to Varying Cane Numbers When Managed on a Shaw Swing-Arm Trellis for Dried Grape Production

“…Except for the very basal nodes, the very uniform budburst along the cane indicates that acrotony, the stimulation of budburst near the pruning cut and suppression along the cane [34], was not a factor for Sunmuscat pruned with long canes (mean: 19 nodes, Table 1) which were attached to wires well below the cordon. Tis may be attributed to the fact that pruning cuts were possibly not made on the longer canes [35], that the more distal nodes were not fully lignifed and low in carbohydrate [20], or that apical dominance of higher shoots had an impact as shown for arched cane Sultana vines [36]. Te uniformity of budburst and absence of acrotony contrast to that reported for Sultana [20,36].…”