grapevine nutrition & vineyard nutrient...
Post on 29-Jul-2020
2 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Grapevine Nutrition & Vineyard Nutrient
Management
Lailiang Cheng
Department of Horticulture
Cornell University
To effectively manage vine nutrition,
we need to know:
• Vine nutrient demand
• Vine nutrient supply
– Nutrient reserves
– Soil nutrient availability
• Vine nutrient status
Seasonal patterns of vine N demand(Concord, based on Hanson, 1995)
Days after bloom
-40-20020406080100
N demand (lb/acre)
0
20
40
60
80
Total N in new growth N in shoots N in Fruit
Vine N demand
• Two periods of high demand
– 2 wks before bloom to end of shoot growth;
– Veraison to harvest.
• Cropload
– 2.5 ~ 3 lb. N/ton fruit;
– 5 lb. N in shoots and leaves/ton fruit.
• Variety difference
– Labrusca (70lb) > hybrids (50) > vinifera (35)
N supply from reserves
• Reserve N provides 15 to 30% of the
total vine N demand.
• Reserve N is a main source for vine
growth from budbreak to bloom.
Soil N supply
• Soil texture
– Sandy or gravel soils have low N supply
• Organic matter: 1% = 10 to 20lb. N/A
• Soil pH.
• Soil moisture
– Mineralization is limited in dry years.
• Weed competition.
Vine N status
• Near veraison petiole samples
– 0.8 to 1.2%
• Bloom petiole samples
– 1.5 to 2%
• Vine shoot growth, vine size, and trellis
fill.
Seasonal patterns of petiole N of Concord(Shaulis, 1956)
Days after bloom
020406080100
Petiole N (%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
N fertilization for labrusca
• Rate: 30 to 80 lb/acre
• Timing
– 1/2 applied to soil between budbreak
and bloom
– 1/2 applied shortly after bloom
N fertilization for vinifera
• Rate: 0 to 50 lb./acre
• Timing and method
– 2/3 applied to soil between budbreak to
bloom;
– 1/3 applied to foliage just before and during
veraison.
• For sandy soils: split applications.
Yeast available nitrogen in NY musts(Henick-Kling et al., 1997)
A total 120 samples were analyzed:
Average: 181 mg/L
Lowest: 51 mg/L
Highest: 346mg/L
Leaf N and Juice YAN without any N application
Year
2004 2005
Le
af
N (
%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Year
2004 2005
YA
N (
pp
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350a
b
ab
Juice YAN in response to soil N application
Soil N rate (lbs/acre)
0 25 50
YA
N (
ppm
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Soil N rate (lbs/acre)
0 25 50
YA
N (
ppm
)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350a a a
ab b
2004 2005
Juice YAN in response to foliar N application
Foliar N (times)
0 3 5
YA
N (
pp
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Foliar N (times)
0 3 5
YA
N (
pp
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ab
b
a
bc
2004 2005
Summary on YAN
• Background juice YAN was lower in a dry
year than in a wet year.
• Foliar N application was more effective in a
dry year than in a wet year.
• It appears that 25 lb soil N plus 3 foliar urea
sprays was a good combination.
Phosphorous deficiency
Pinot noir on Long Island grown on
low pH soil with low petiole P.
From: Bob Pool, NYAES.
Concord petiole AI and P concentration
In relation to soil pH.
From Terry Bates
K concentration in ‘Concord’ berries
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
N P K Ca Mg
% D
ry W
eigh
t of
Fru
it
Seasonal patterns of vine K demand(From Larry William)
Days after bloom
020406080100120140
K demand (lb/acre)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Total K in new growth K in shoots K in Fruit
Vine K demand
• Fruit is a major sink of K.
• Cropload
– 5 lb. K/ton fruit;
– 2.5 lb. K in stems and leaves/ton fruit.
• Variety difference
– Labrusca (75lb) > hybrids (50) > vinifera (35)
Soil K supply
• Soil parent materials
– NY soils generally have low K level (<200lb).
• Soil texture
– Sandy or gravel soils have low K supply power
• Organic matter
– Low organic matter leads to low K supply
• Soil moisture
– Drought or weed sharply reduces K supply.
• Mg/K competition:High Mg often leads to low K.
K-Mg competition in ‘Concord’ (From Terry Bates)
y = 2.5514e-0.9041x
R2 = 0.8308
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Petiole Mg (%)
Pet
iole
K (
%)
• Potassium deficiency is most likely to occur
in a dry year in a vineyard with heavy
cropload, poor weed management, and after
application of dolomitic limestone.
Soil and petiole K standards
• Soil: 300 to 400 lbs/A.
• Fall petiole samples: 1.3 to 2.0%
• To support a high cropload in a dry year,
petiole K needs to be maintained at the
upper end of this range.
Soil K fertilization
• Maintenance Rate: 50 to 120 lb K2O/A
• Correcting deficiency: 150 to 300 lb/A
• Timing: fall/spring application
Ca and Mg
• Soil: Ca Mg
Labrusca 1500 ~ 2500 lb 150 ~ 300lb
Vinifera 2500 ~ 4000 lb 300 ~400 lb
• Fall petiole: Ca: 1.2 to 2%; Mg: 0.35 to 0.5%
• Low Ca and Mg availability typically associated
with low soil pH.
Soil calcium and magnesium in relation to pH(A survey of the vineyards in the Finger Lakes)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Ma
gn
esiu
m
pH
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
Ca
pH
pH and Liming
• Optimum pH
– Labrusca: 5.5
– hybrids: 6.0
– vinifera: 6.5
• Maintenance rate
– 1 ~ 2 tons dolomitic lime per year.
Correcting Mg deficiency
• In addition to liming, Mg can also be
provided by Sulpomag (22% K2O and
11% Mg) and Epsom salts (10% Mg).
• Foliar application of Epsom salts at 15
lb/100 gal at 1 to 2 wk intervals.
• Monitor petiole K/Mg ratio (4:1).
Boron
• Important for fruit set and fruit growth.
• A narrow range between deficiency and
toxicity (25 to 50ppm).
• Soil moisture affects B availability.
• Soil application at 1 to 2lb B/acre at
budbreak.
• Foliar spray at 1 lb Solubor/100 gal at 6
to 10 inch shoot growth and 14 days later.
Poor Fruit Set
Boron Toxicity
Zn
• Important for shoot and fruit growth
• Optimum range 30 to 60 ppm
• Foliar spray of Zn-chelate or other Zn
products at 1 lb Zn/ acre 2 wk before
bloom.
Soil aluminum in relation to pH(From Terry Bates)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
3 4 5 6 7 8Soil pH
Soil
Alu
min
um
(p
pm
)
References
Bates, T. http://lenewa.netsync.net/public/bates/NutrientRec.htm
Chen, L. S. and L. Cheng. 2003. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. 128: 754-760.
Chen, L. S., B. R. Smith and L. Cheng. 2004. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. 129:
738-744.
Cheng, L., G. Xia and T. Bates. 2004. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. 129: 660-666.
Hanson, E. J. and G. S. Howell 1995. HortScience 30(3): 504-507.
Pool, Bob. www.nysaes.cornell.edu/hort/faculty/pool/GrapePagesIndex.html
Xia, G. and L. Cheng. 2004. J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci. 129: 653-659.
top related