By M. Carmo Vasconcelos
PhD. and Steve Castagnoli
Achieving consistent yields of high quality grapes in cool climates
is challenging. Yields tend to fluctuate from year to year, and
optimum maturity may not be reached every season. A short growing
season, cool weather, and unfavorable precipitation patterns are
factors that may affect the yield and quality of the vintage.
The success of winegrape production in cool climates can often
be improved through proper canopy management. Canopy management
provides a set of tools that allows grapegrowers to improve the
canopy structure and microclimate.
The purpose of the study detailed below was to determine how different
canopy management practices and combinations of these practices
affect yield, fruit composition, vegetative growth, and carbohydrate
reserves in the permanent vine structure.
Ultimately, the goal was to provide growers with tools to optimize
winegrape production using these practices.
One aspect of canopy structure that should not be underestimated
is age distribution of the leaf population. Grapevine leaves are
net importers of carbohydrates until they reach 50% to 80% of their
final size [18,36]. The photosynthetic rate increases until leaves
attain full size (approximately 40 days after unfolding) and decreases
steadily thereafter [22,23]. The most efficient leaves in the canopy,
therefore, are those that are recently expanded (youngest full-grown
leaves). The age of the vine canopy can be manipulated with selective
leaf removal and shoot tipping at appropriate growth stages.
Removing shoot tips promotes lateral shoot growth at the nodes
closer to the excised tip [13,37]. Lateral shoots developed during
the period of active shoot growth will provide additional photo-assimilating
surface during fruit ripening.
Lateral shoots become net exporters of carbohydrates as soon as
they have two fully expanded leaves . They provide assimilates
to support their own growth and export the surplus to the main shoot,
contributing to fruit ripening . The most efficient leaves during
ripening are located at the top of the canopy and those arising
from lateral shoots .
Whether to retain, hedge, or remove lateral shoots in grapevine
canopies has been a matter of controversy in many winegrape production
areas in both the Old World and New World.
Lateral shoots are undesirable in vigorous vineyards because they
lead to crowded canopies, with excessive shading and humidity and
poor air circulation resulting in an imbalance favoring vegetative
growth over fruit production and increased disease incidence [9,11,
In moderate vigor vineyards, lateral leaves improve fruit quality
and are the most important contributors to both sugar accumulation
in the fruit during ripening and to starch accumulation in the parent
Materials and Methods
Experimental design: The experiment
was carried out on 180 own-rooted, 17-year-old Pinot Noir grapevines
during two consecutive seasons. Vines were spaced 1.83 m x 2.74
m and were cane-pruned to four buds/m2
(11 buds/m vine-row) in the first season. They were balance-pruned
to 28 buds/kg of one-year-old pruning wood in the second season.
The following treatments were applied in factorial combinations:
Shoot tipping: removal of three to
four apical leaves at full bloom, or no shoot tipping.
Lateral shoot length:
1. No laterals (laterals removed weekly as they arose, starting
at full bloom);
2. short laterals (laterals cut back to four leaves at full bloom,
and subsequent lateral growth removed weekly);
3. long laterals (laterals allowed to grow undisturbed).
Leaf removal in the cluster zone four weeks
after bloom or no leaf removal: This treatment consisted
of removing leaves and lateral shoots opposite the clusters in addition
to one leaf immediately above and below the cluster. Each treatment-combination
was replicated five times with three vines per plot in a completely
Fruit set: Prior to bloom, one
inflorescence per vine was enclosed in a mesh bag to retain all
shed flowers. The bags were removed at the end of July, four weeks
after full bloom, and all abscised flowers and fruitlets counted.
At harvest, these clusters were picked separately, frozen at 20†C,
and the number of berries was later counted. The number of flowers
was calculated as the sum of shed flowers and berries. Percent fruit
set was calculated as the quotient of the number of berries at harvest
and the total number of flowers per inflorescence.
Yield and yield components: The crop was harvested October
1, 1995, and October 17, 1996. The number of clusters per vine was
recorded. One hundred berries from each plot were chosen randomly
to determine mean berry weight. Cluster weight was obtained by dividing
total yield by the number of clusters. The number of berries per
cluster was calculated by dividing cluster weight by the mean berry
Fruit composition: A sample
of 25 clusters per experimental unit was crushed for determination
of soluble solids, pH, and titratable acidity.
Skin anthocyanin content was determined on a 100-berry sample from
each experimental unit as described by Candolfi-Vasconcelos and
Koblet . An extinction coefficient of E 1% = 380 was used in
the calculations .
Canopy development and vine vigor: Trunk volume (V) was
estimated during pruning in February 1996 and 1997. For this purpose,
the trunks were divided into a varying (n) number of sections that
were approximately cylindrical in shape and the following formula
The weight of one-year-old prunings, including woody laterals, was
recorded in 1996 and 1997. Cane weight was obtained by dividing pruning
weight by the number of canes.
Three shoots per replicate were collected September 9, 1996, for growth
analysis. The number of main and lateral leaves were counted. Shoot
length and diameter, and primary and lateral leaf area were measured.
The Ravaz Index  was calculated by dividing total yield per vine
by the pruning weight recorded during the winter following each season.
carbohydrate reserves: During pruning, wood samples from
the trunk were collected and carbohydrates were extracted and analyzed
using the method described by Candolfi-Vasconcelos and Koblet .
Statistical analysis: The Statview
statistical package was used for statistical analysis of data. Results
were subjected to correlation analysis and to a four-way analysis
of variance (shoot tipping X lateral length X leaf removal X season).
The Waller-Duncan k-ratio test was used to compare means. Interactions
between factors were rare, and the contribution of interactions to
the total variance was very small relative to the main effects. For
this reason, we chose to present only the means of the main effects.
For completeness, all significant interactions found are reported
in the text. The effect of cluster zone leaf removal was omitted from
the tables when there was no significant response (Tables I, IV, and
Results and Discussion
Yield and yield components: Shoot
tipping at bloom improved fruit set by 25% (Table I). Additionally,
fruit set benefited from lateral shoot removal with a trend toward
higher percent fruit set in response to complete removal of lateral
shoots. The positive effect of tipping on fruit set has been established
in previous studies [4,8,17,34].
Actively growing shoot tips compete with the developing inflorescences
for assimilates. During bloom, the leaves in the mid- and upper-shoot
section export carbohydrates to the shoot tip [12,18,26]. After hedging,
the direction of translocation is reversed; instead of moving up to
the shoot tip, assimilates are diverted downward  and made available
to the developing inflorescences. This is thought to improve fruit
During early stages of development, lateral shoots depend on assimilates
provided by the main shoot for growth, competing with other vegetative
and reproductive sinks . Elimination of all competing vegetative
growing tips, either on the main or lateral shoots, increases the
pool of available carbohydrates for floral development, which may
result in improved fruit set.
Leaf removal in the cluster zone had no measurable effect on fruit
set or any other yield component (data not shown). We chose to apply
this treatment four weeks after full bloom based on prior research.
Leaf removal in the cluster zone in the early stages of berry development
can reduce fruit yield, because flower and fruitlet abscission may
During bloom, shoots of V. vinifera have an average of 16 to 19 unfolded
leaves . Under non-stressing conditions at this stage of development,
retranslocation of assimilates from the reserves stored in the permanent
structure has ceased . The basal leaves are fully expanded and
are net exporters of carbohydrates [12,18].
Removal of basal leaves at full bloom equates to the elimination of
a significant proportion of the primary source of photoassimilates.
Four weeks after full bloom, the main shoot has 25 to 27 unfolded
leaves (M.C. Vasconcelos, unpublished data, 1997). Elimination of
basal leaves at this stage does not affect fruit set [3,4].
The final number of berries per cluster, cluster weight, and yield
per shoot were increased by shoot tip removal, but not by other treatment
factors (Table I). These increases largely reflect those observed
in fruit set with similar trends in response to lateral shoot removal.
There was no treatment effect on berry weight or bud fertility (clusters/shoot),
but there was a significant effect of season (Table I). Removal of
mature leaves during the two-week period following bloom reduces bud
fertility in the following season . Carbohydrate shortage during
this period is critical for fruit production in both the current and
The growing season affected yield per vine (Table I) mainly due to
the number of buds left per vine after pruning, but also through increased
bud fertility and heavier clusters (Table I). Shoot tip removal considerably
reduced cane and pruning weights after the first season of implementation
of the treatments (discussed below), affecting the number of buds
left after balance pruning.
There was a significant interaction between the shoot tipping treatment
and the season (p = 0.0017). Yields per vine were 2.7 and 3 kg/vine
for the non-tipped and tipped vines in the first season, respectively.
These differences were not significant. In the second season, however,
non-tipped vines had more shoots and clusters per vine which resulted
in higher yields (5.7 and 4.1 kg per vine for non-tipped and tipped
Across all treatments, total yield per vine was closely related to
number of shoots per vine (r = 0.743, p < 0.0001), number of clusters
per shoot (r = 0.673, p <0.0001), and berries per cluster (r =
0.457, p < 0.0001).
Percent fruit set was inversely related to the number of flowers per
inflorescence (Fig. 1). This compensation mechanism is an interesting
phenomenon. It seems to indicate that even after the number of clusters
and flowers are determined, fruit set provides an additional opportunity
to regulate the crop by adjusting it to available resources.
Fruit composition: Juice-soluble
solids concentration was reduced by shoot tipping (Table II). Brix
increased, however, with increasing lateral shootlength. These two
responses can be explained if the corresponding leaf age distribution
and photosynthetic activity of different aged leaves are considered.
|Photosynthetic activity is
higher in recently formed leaves, with the peak of photosynthesis
occurring when leaves attain full size, followed by a gradual decrease
with increasing leaf age [1,21,22,33].
Young leaves were present on non-tipped vines and those with lateral
shoots. Thus, non-tipped vines or those with lateral shoots should
have higher overall canopy photosynthesis, resulting in a larger pool
of photoassimilates available for accumulation of sugars in the fruit.
Furthermore, it has been shown that the presence of fully expanded
young leaves is advantageous for sugar accumulation in the fruit .
Removing four basal leaves four weeks after bloom reduced juice soluble
solids at harvest (Table II). It has to be noted that under western
Oregon climatic conditions, vegetative growth stops relatively early
compared to that of winegrape growing regions in central Europe that
receive precipitation during the summer months.
In eastern Switzerland, where leaf growth does not stop until veraison,
there was no significant decrease in juice soluble solids on vines
where all the leaves on the primary shoot had been removed . In
that study, lateral shoots were able to reconstruct an adequate assimilating
surface and compensate for the absence of main leaves.
In this experiment, basal leaf removal was not compensated for by
increased lateral shoot growth. There was no interaction between leaf
removal and lateral shoot length treatments for leaf area (Table III).
Lower juice soluble solids in response to removal of basal leaves
can be explained by reduction of the leaf tofruit ratio from 15 to
10 cm2/g fruit (Table III).
Growers should guard against excessive fruit exposure due to leaf
removal, and they should evaluate this practice for each vineyard
using historical data on canopy exposure and previous wine quality
. If foliage or fruit already receive adequate exposure, leaf
removal may cause a reduction in berry weight and soluble solids,
probably because too much leaf area has been removed .
There were no significant differences in titratable acidity among
treatments, but juice pH responded similarly to juice-soluble solids,
indicating that younger canopies hasten fruit ripening
(Table II). In contrast with our results, it is generally accepted
that increased cluster exposure to sunlight decreases juice acid content
Skin anthocyanin content was not affected by increased exposure resulting
from leaf removal in the cluster zone (Table II).
Reports on the effect of sun exposure on anthocyanin content are inconsistent.
Increasing sun exposure of berries did not change anthocyanin content
in Pinot Noir , but increased the color of Cabernet Franc 
and Cabernet Sauvignon .
The presence of more lateral leaves improved skin anthocyanin content
both per berry and per amount of fruit (Table II).
Canopies composed only of lateral leaves generate fruit with higher
soluble solids and anthocyanin content as compared to non-defoliated
controls . Lateral leaves, being the youngest leaves in the canopy,
may play a major role in metabolic processes occurring during fruit
Canopy development and vine vigor: Average leaf size
(main and lateral leaves) increased with shoot tip removal but did
not respond to other treatments (Table III). It has been shown that
one of the compensation mechanisms for defoliation is the increase
in size of the remaining leaves . However, we did not observe this
compensation in response to basal leaf removal and lateral shoot shortening.
Removal of shoot tips decreased total leaf area by 47%, primarily
because of reduced main leaf area (Table III). Complete removal of
lateral shoots decreased total leaf area by 43% and 45% as compared
to treatments with trimmed laterals and long laterals, respectively
Vines with laterals cut back to four leaves had 20% less lateral leaf
area than vines with untrimmed lateral shoots, but there was no significant
difference in total leaf area between these treatments. Total leaf
area per vine was not significantly reduced by leaf removal in the
cluster zone (Table III).
Shoot tip removal increased the proportion of leaf area arising from
lateral shoots but leaf removal in the cluster zone did not change
this ratio (Table III).
|Shoot diameter during mid-ripening
did not respond to shoot tip removal, even though the hedged shoots
were 76% shorter (data not shown).
Trunk volume measured in the winter during dormancy was not affected
by any treatments (Table IV) but it decreased after the second season.
This could not be accounted for with changes in water content (data
not shown). The decrease in trunk volume may be the result of increased
yields in response to balance pruning in the winter prior to the second
The fruit is the primary sink for assimilates during the six weeks
after veraison . After that, the roots become the most powerful
sink . During ripening and under non-stressing conditions, leaf
photosynthesis is the only source of carbohydrates for fruit development
However, carbon reserves in the trunk and roots
can complement current photosynthesis to support fruit maturation
in cases of photosynthate shortage . The larger crop load during
the second season may have limited replenishment of carbohydrate
reserves in the trunk (Table V) and caused the smaller trunk volumes.
Pruning weights were not affected by lateral shoot length (Table
IV) or leaf removal (data not shown) but they decreased greatly
with shoot tipping (Table IV). Pruning weights and average cane
weight were less following the second season, possibly in response
to balance pruning (Table IV).
There was a significant interaction between the shoot tipping treatment
and the season: shoot tipping decreased cane weights from 73 g to
42 g after the first season and from 49 g to 43 g after the second
season. Vines in balance should have canes between 30 g and 40 g,
40 g being preferred in cool climates (R.E. Smart, personal communication,
1995). Vines without lateral shoots had the lowest cane weights
The Ravaz Index represents the ratio of reproductive to vegetative
growth. Balanced vines should remain between 5 and 7 . Shoot
tipping increased the Ravaz index from 4 to 6 (Table IV). Trimming
or eliminating lateral shoots also increased the Ravaz index (Table
IV). Leaf removal did not change this ratio and did not affect cane
or pruning weight (data not shown).
The Ravaz Index increased more than two-fold from the first to the
second season (Table IV). This is probably a response to balance
pruning prior to the second season. This supports the general belief
that appropriate pruning levels, matching vine capacity with cropping
level, are extremely important in achieving a balance between vegetative
and reproductive growth.
Carbohydrate reserves in the wood: Concentration and total amount
of starch in the trunk during dormancy were not significantly affected
by any canopy management treatments (Table V). There was a trend,
however, toward increased concentration and total amount of starch
in response to shoot tipping, lateral shoot length (Table V), and
leaf removal (data not shown).
Sugar concentration and total amount per trunk decreased with shoot
tipping (Table V). The total amount and concentration of non-structural
carbohydrates were not significantly affected by shoot tipping (Table
V) or leaf removal (data not shown). Total carbohydrate reserves
stored in the trunk increased, however, with lateral shoot length,
in agreement with prior research by Candolfi-Vasconcelos .
Starch content in the permanent vine frame was related to juice
soluble solids during the preceding season (year 1: r = 0.326, p
= 0.011; year 2: r = 0.411, p = 0.001), suggesting that sugar accumulation
in the fruit and starch accumulation in the reserve organs occur
simultaneously. This is in agreement with results reported previously
Canopy management techniques used in this experiment were targeted
at changing leaf age distribution of the vine canopy at critical times
during the growing season. They should be implemented only with full
understanding of their impact on carbohydrate translocation patterns
and leaf photosynthetic response to aging.
Canopy management practices can be used to maximize the amount of
carbohydrates partitioned to inflorescences during bloom to improve
fruit set or to reduce partitioning to reduce fruit set.
Results obtained in this study indicate that eliminating immature
leaves during bloom increases fruit set and promoting vegetative growth
during bloom reduces fruit set. Therefore, by manipulating the number
of competing sinks for carbohydrates during early stages of berry
development, it is possible to increase fruit set in poor set varieties
or decrease cluster compactness in varieties prone to bunch rot.
Canopy management can be used to maximize carbohydrate partitioning
to fruit during ripening; this can be achieved by actively promoting
the availability of young, fully expanded leaves during fruit ripening.
Retaining lateral shoots hastened fruit ripening, improved fruit color,
and increased the level of carbohydrate reserves in the trunk. This
is a valuable technique that can be used to improve fruit composition
and vine survival in short-season winegrape regions.
Removal of leaves in the cluster zone at four weeks post-bloom did
not affect yield or yield components, but it decreased juice-soluble
solids and did not improve skin anthocyanins. Our experiment was conducted
in a moderate vigor vineyard, and removal of three to four leaves
in the cluster zone seemed to be excessive. This cultural practice
should be reserved for vigorous vineyards with crowded canopies.
Edited text from American Journal of Enology &
Viticulture, Vol. 51, No. 4, January/February 2001.
The 2001 Best Paper Award for viticulture was awarded by the American
Society for Enology & Viticulture to the authors.
M. Carmo Vasconcelos, Associate
Professor, and Steve Castagnoli, Faculty Senior Research Assistant,
Department of Horticulture, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Corresponding author [Fax: 541-737-3479; E-mail]
The research described in this text was done in the southern Willamette
Valley, Alpine, OR, 1996/97.
1. Alleweldt, G., R. Eibach, and E. Ruehl. Investigations
on gas exchange in grapevine. I. Influence of temperature, leaf age
and daytime on net photosynthesis and transpiration. Vitis 21:
2. Bledsoe, A. M., W. M. Kliewer, and J. J. Marois. Effects
of timing and severity of leaf removal on yield and fruit composition
of Sauvignon Blanc grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 39: 49-54
3. Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M.C. Compensation and stress recovering
related to leaf removal in Vitis vinifera. Doctoral thesis No.
9340, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (1990).
4. Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M. C., and W. Koblet. Yield, fruit
quality, bud fertility and starch reserves of the wood as a function
of leaf removal in Vitis vinifera. Evidence of compensation and stress
recovering. Vitis 29: 199-221 (1990).
5. Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M.C., M.P. Candolfi, and W. Koblet.
Retranslocation of carbon reserves from the woody storage tissues
into the fruit as a response to defoliation stress during the ripening
period in Vitis vinifera. Planta 192: 567-573 (1994).
6. Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M.C., W. Koblet, et al. Influence
of defoliation, rootstock, training system and leaf position on gas
exchange of Pinot Noir grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 45: 173-180
7. Carbonneau, A. Trellising and canopy management for
cool climate viticulture. In: Proc. First Intl. Symposium Cool
Climate Viticulture (D.A. Heatherbell, P.B. Lombard, F.W. Bodyfelt,
and S.F. Price (Eds.) pp 158-174. Eugene, OR. Oregon State University
Experiment Station Technical Publication No. 7628 (1984).
8. Coombe, B.G. The effect of removing leaves, flowers
and shoot tips on fruit-set in Vitis vinifera L. J. Hortic.
Sci. 37:1-15 (1962).
9. English, J.T., C.S.Thomas, J.J. Marois, and W.D. Gubler. Microclimates
of grapevine canopies associated with leaf removal and control of
Botrytis bunch rot. Phytopathology 79: 395-401 (1989).
10. Georgessi, F., and F. di Lee. Effetto della luce solare
sulla colorazione dei grappoli e sulla variazione di alcuni parametri
qualitativi della produzione in una cv. ad uva rossa (Cabernet Franc).
Riv. Vitic. Enol. 38: 401-406 (1985).
11. Gubler, W.D., J.J. Marois, et al. Control of Botrytis
bunch rot of grape with canopy management. Plant Disease 71:599-601
12. Hale, C.R., and R.J. Weaver. The effect of developmental
stage on direction of translocation of photosynthate in Vitis vinifera.
Hilgardia 33: 89-141 (1962).
13. Huglin, P. Biologie et écologie de la vigne.
372pp. Éditions Payot, Lausanne (1986).
14. Jackson, D.I., and P.B. Lombard. Environmental and
management practices affecting grape composition and wine quality
A review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 44: 409-429 (1993).
15. Kliewer, W.M., and L.A. Lider. Influence of cluster
exposure to the sun on the composition of Thompson Seedless fruit.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 19: 175-184 (1968).
16. Kliewer, M., and A. Bledsoe. Influence of hedging and
leaf removal on canopy microclimate, grape composition, and wine quality
under California conditions. Acta Hortic. 206: 157-168 (1987).
17. Koblet, W. Berry set of grape vines related to shoot
treatments and climatic factors. Wein-Wiss. 7-8: 293-379 (1966).
18. Koblet, W. Translocation of photosynthate in vine shoots
and influence of leaf area on quantity and quality of the grapes.
Wein-Wiss. 24: 277-319 (1969).
19. Koblet, W., and P. Perret. Kohlehydratwanderung in
Geiztrieben von Reben. Wein-Wiss. 26: 202-211 (1971).
20. Koblet, W., and P. Perret. Translocation of photosynthate
in grapevines. Vinifera Wine Growers J. 6: 211-218 (1979).
21. Kriedemann, P.E. Photosynthesis in vine leaves as a
function of light intensity, temperature and leaf age. Vitis
7: 213-220 (1968).
22. Kriedemann, P.E., W.M. Kliewer, and J.M. Harris. Leaf
age and photosynthesis in Vitis vinifera L. Vitis 9: 97-104
23. Kurooka, H., S. Fukunaga, et al. Effect of carbon dioxide
enrichment on vine growth and berry quality of Kyoho grapes.
J. Japan. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 59: 463-470 (1990).
24. Pratt, C., and B.G. Coombe. Shoot growth and anthesis
in Vitis. Vitis 17: 125-133 (1978).
25. Price, S.F., P.J. Breen, et al. Cluster sun exposure
and quercetin in Pinot Noir grapes and wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
46: 187-194 (1995).
26. Quinlan, J.Q., and R.J. Weaver. Modification of the
pattern of the photosynthate movement within and between shoots of
Vitis vinifera L. Plant Physiol. 46: 527-530 (1970).
27. Ravaz, L. Sur la brunissure de la vigne. C. R.
Acad. Sci. 136: 1276-1278 (1903).
28. Reynolds, A.G., R.M. Pool, and L.R. Mattick. Influence
of cluster exposure on fruit composition and wine quality of Seyval
Blanc grapes. Vitis 25: 85-95 (1986).
29. Singleton, V.L. Wine phenols. In: Wine Analysis.
H.F. Linskens and J.F. Jackson (Eds.). pp 171-218. Springer Verlag,
30. Smart, R.E. Principles of grapevine microclimate manipulation
with implications for yield and quality. A review. Am. J. Enol.
Vitic. 36: 230-239 (1985).
31. Smart, R.E. The Effect of Manipulating Grapevine Vigor
and Canopy Microclimate on Yield, Grape Composition and Wine Quality.
Doctor of Science thesis, University of Stellenbosch (1994).
32. Smith, S., I.C. Codrington, et al. Viticultural and
oenological implications of leaf removal for New Zealand vineyards.
In: Proceedings of the Second International Cool Climate Viticulture
and Oenology Symposium. R.E. Smart, R.J. Thornton, S.B. Rodriguez,
and J.E. Young (Eds.). pp 127-133. New Zealand Society for Viticulture
and Oenology, Auckland (1988).
33. Stoev, K., S. Doloreva, and Y. Zeymalov. On the photosynthetic
activity of vine leaves in different metameric position. Hort.
and Vitic. Sciences 3: 501-513 (1966).
34. Vergnes, A. Observations sur des effets de la taille
tardive et de lécimage sur la coulure chez la vigne.
Progr. Agric. Vitic. 12: 255-257 (1980).
35. Yang, Y.S., and Y. Hori. Studies on retranslocation
of accumulated assimilates in Delaware grapevines. I.
Retranslocation of 14C-assimilates in the following spring after 14C
feeding in summer and autumn. Tohoku J. Agricult. Res. 30: 43-56
36. Yang, Y.S., and Y. Hori. Studies on retranslocation
of accumulated assimilates in Delaware grapevines. III.
Early growth of new shoots as dependent on accumulated and current
year assimilates. Tohoku J. Agricult. Res. 31: 120-129 (1980).
37. Wolf T.K., R.M. Pool, and L.R. Mattick. Responses of
young Chardonnay grapevines Vitis vinifera to shoot tipping, ethephon,
and basal leaf removal. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 37: 263-268 (1986).
Acknowledgements: The authors thank the Oregon Wine Advisory Board
for financial support of this project and colleagues Bernadine Strik
and Les Fuchigami for critical review of the manuscript.