Effect of Salinity and Rootstock on Concentration of Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus, and Nitrate–Nitrogen in Thompson Seedless Grapevine

Influence of Different Rootstocks on Growth, Photosynthesis, Biochemical Composition, and Nutrient Contents in ‘Fantasy Seedless’ Grapes

“…The results of this investigation for variation in the level of nutrient in 'Fantasy Seedless' grafted on different rootstocks might be due to the differences in the rooting pattern and the physiology of individual rootstock. The differences in level of nutrients in grafted grapes have also been reported by several workers (Bavaresco et al, 2003;Fisarakis et al, 2004;García et al, 2001;Robinson, 2005). The results also support the findings of Fardossi et al (1995), who reported the accumulation of potassium, calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus in different rootstock varieties, depended on variety and season.…”

“…However, the choice of proper rootstock is becoming increasingly difficult as a result of the availability of numerous new rootstocks (Loreti and Massai, 2006). Although information is limited about the biochemical interactions among the grapevine cultivars and the rootstocks, several studies have shown that rootstocks influence the level of nutrients in the scion cultivar after grafting (Bavaresco et al, 2003;Fisarakis et al, 2004;García et al, 2001;Nikolaou et al, 2000). Rootstocks not only have the ability for enduring these soil-based problems but can also act as a potential tool for manipulating vine growth and productivity.…”

Effect of Irrigation using Diluted Winery Wastewater on Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon in a Sandy Alluvial Soil in the Breede River Valley - Vegetative Growth, Yield and Wine Quality

“…Since leaf blade Ca 2+ of grapevines irrigated using winery wastewater diluted to 3 000 mg/L COD (T9) was still substantially higher (data not shown) than the minimum norm for Ca 2+ recommended by Conradie (1994) , with a reduction in Ca 2+ as K + application increased (Conradie & Saayman, 1989). In addition to the K + /Ca 2+ antagonism, it could also be that the leaf blade Ca 2+ levels in the present study decreased due to Na + /Ca 2+ antagonism (Prior et al, 1992;Garcia & Charbaji, 1993;Fisarakis et al, 2005).…”

Variation in Nutrient Absorption by Thompson Seedless Grape (<i>Vitis vinifera</i> L.) on Different Rootstocks as Influenced by Soil Chemical Characteristics

“…Own root were more efficient than the rootstocks between 3.5 -7.76 per cent ESP, while Dog Ridge beyond 11.5 ( Figure 5). Reduction in K absorption could be attributed to the antagonistic effect of Na on K (Fisarakis et al, 2005;Shikhamany and Sharma, 2008). Absorption of Fe reduced with increasing levels of ESP up to 7.27 per cent and increased beyond it (Table 3).…”

“…Absorption of a nutrient by a tree species depends not only on its availability, but also the relative contents of other nutrients (Emmert, 1959;Bergman et al, 1960), their ability to get adsorbed on to the root surface (Huffakar and Wallace, 1969;Wada and Weerasooriya, 1990), rootstock used (Smith and Wallace, 1956;Cook and Lider, 1964), affinity of the roots for nutrient ions (Asher and Ozanne, 1961;Downton, 1977) and nutrient interactions (Fageria, 2001;Wilkinson et al, 1999). Important chemical characteristics, which influence indirectly through their effects on nutrient availability and their interactions are, the organic carbon (Duxbury et al, 1989), pH (Sumner and Yamada, 2002), Electrical conductivity (Fisarakis et al, 2005), free calcium (Fageria, 2001) and exchangeable sodium percentage (Abrol et al, 1988). Rootstocks (Anna and Lajos, 2008;Antonio and Carlos, 2009;Marco et al, 2011) and the available nutrient status (Emmert, 1959;Bergman et al, 1960) were also shown to exert influence on the absorption of nutrients by grapevines.…”