Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Catalyst Content
    • Current Issue
    • Papers in Press
    • Archive
    • Collections
    • Free Sample Issue
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access and Subscription Publishing
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
  • Other Publications
    • AJEV

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Catalyst
  • Other Publications
    • AJEV
  • Log in
  • Follow Catalyst on Twitter
  • Follow Catalyst on Linkedin
Catalyst

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Catalyst Content
    • Current Issue
    • Papers in Press
    • Archive
    • Collections
    • Free Sample Issue
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access and Subscription Publishing
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

Evaluation of Grapevine Rootstocks on Slightly Acidic and Strongly Alkaline Texas Hill Country Soils

Jim Kamas, Andrew Labay, Justin J. Scheiner
Catalyst: Discovery into Practice November 2020 4: 39-52; published ahead of print March 17, 2020 ; DOI: 10.5344/catalyst.2020.19006
Jim Kamas
1Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, 259 Business Court, Fredericksburg, TX 78624;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
Andrew Labay
2Department of Agricultural Sciences, Palo Alto College, 1400 W. Villaret Blvd., San Antonio, TX; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin J. Scheiner
3 Department of Horticultural Sciences, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, HSFB, 2134 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: jscheiner@tamu.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Summary

Goals: Rootstock selection is usually dictated by vineyard site conditions such as pest and disease pressures, soil, and climate. This work evaluated the effect of rootstock on Sangiovese vine size, nutritional status, and fruit composition at two sites in the Texas Hill Country, one with a slightly acidic (pH 6.58 ± 0.05) loamy fine sand soil, and the other with a moderately to strongly alkaline (pH 8.48 ± 0.06) clay loam soil. Eleven rootstocks representing common rootstocks in Texas (Paulsen 1103, Kober 5BB, Teleki 5C), nematode resistant rootstocks (UCD GRN-1, UCD GRN-2, UCD GRN-3, UCD GRN-4, and UCD GRN-5), and rootstocks with possible tolerance to cotton root rot (Phymatotricopsis omnivora) (Ramsey, Dog Ridge, Florilush) were studied over a five-year period.

Key Findings:

  • At the Real County test site, in an alkaline clay loam soil, the rootstocks Dog Ridge and Teleki 5C maintained the most favorable nutrient status, resulting in higher vine vigor and dormant cane pruning weights with pruning weights averaging 0.52 kg/vine and 0.37 kg/vine, respectively, versus 0.09 kg/vine for own-rooted Sangiovese.

  • The rootstocks Florilush, UCD GRN-1, UCD GRN-5, and own-rooted Sangiovese performed poorly at the Real County test site as a result of nutritional deficiency.

  • At the Gillespie County site, in a slightly acidic loamy fine sand soil, all rootstocks performed acceptably with respect to vine size, nutrition, and fruit composition, although average dormant pruning weights over five years ranged across rootstocks from 0.52 to 0.87 kg/vine.

  • Petiole potassium and magnesium were inversely correlated across rootstocks, with the strongest relationship (r2 = 0.58) observed in late summer at the Gillespie County site.

  • Own-rooted Sangiovese maintained the lowest petiole K and highest petiole Mg concentrations over the study, as well as the lowest juice K and pH at the Gillespie County site.

  • Juice K and pH were positively correlated (r2 = 0.57 and 0.76) across rootstocks in two out of three years of study at the Gillespie County site.

Impact and Significance: This study demonstrated the importance of rootstock selection on a moderately to strongly alkaline soil versus a slightly acidic soil. Out of the 11 rootstocks tested, only Dog Ridge and Teleki 5C produced an acceptably sized (0.25 and 0.16 kg/m canopy) mature vine (fourth leaf), likely as a result of nutrition. All rootstocks under study resulted in petiole iron concentrations below recommended values, but the severity of shoot tip chlorosis, which is associated with Fe deficiency, was highly rootstock dependent. The rootstocks with the lowest pruning weights and vigor ratings at the Real County site (own-rooted Sangiovese, Florilush, UCD GRN-1, and UCD GRN-5) generally expressed the most shoot tip chlorosis. Addressing this apparent nutritional deficiency with targeted fertilizer applications may have improved vine performance, but this research suggests that proper rootstock selection is a more viable option.

The effect of rootstock was less apparent on slightly acidic loamy fine sand soil. All rootstocks and own-rooted Sangiovese conferred acceptable pruning weights, nutritional status, and fruit composition. Basic juice chemistry did vary by rootstock, with own-rooted Sangiovese having the lowest juice K and pH, but the risks of growing own-rooted Vitis vinifera likely outweigh this potential benefit on sites where climate, soil conditions, pests, or disease may be limiting.

  • rootstock
  • rootstock effect
  • rootstock resistance
  • Sangiovese
  • vine nutrient status
  • Received November 2019.
  • Revision received February 2020.
  • Accepted March 2020.
  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. All rights reserved.
View Full Text

Sign in for ASEV members

ASEV Members, please sign in at ASEV to access the journal online.

Sign in for Institutional and Non-member Subscribers

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 2 day for US$10.00

Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.

PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 4 Issue 2

Issue Cover
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View full PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Catalyst.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Evaluation of Grapevine Rootstocks on Slightly Acidic and Strongly Alkaline Texas Hill Country Soils
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Catalyst
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Catalyst web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
You have accessRestricted access
Evaluation of Grapevine Rootstocks on Slightly Acidic and Strongly Alkaline Texas Hill Country Soils
Jim Kamas, Andrew Labay, Justin J. Scheiner
Catalyst: Discovery into Practice  November 2020  4: 39-52;  published ahead of print March 17, 2020 ; DOI: 10.5344/catalyst.2020.19006

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
You have accessRestricted access
Evaluation of Grapevine Rootstocks on Slightly Acidic and Strongly Alkaline Texas Hill Country Soils
Jim Kamas, Andrew Labay, Justin J. Scheiner
Catalyst: Discovery into Practice  November 2020  4: 39-52;  published ahead of print March 17, 2020 ; DOI: 10.5344/catalyst.2020.19006
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Summary
    • Overview
    • Major Observations and Interpretations
    • Broader Impact
    • Experimental Design
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References and Endnotes
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More from this TOC section

  • Productivity and Fruit Composition of Dry-On-Vine Raisin Grapes Pruned to 15- or 20-Node Canes on an Overhead Trellis
  • A Mead Aroma Wheel and Lexicon
Show more Report

Similar Articles

Catalyst Content

  • Current Issue
  • Papers in Press
  • Archive
  • Collections
  • Free Sample Issue

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access and Subscription Publishing
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions
  • Advertisers

Other

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Help
  • AJEV
  • ASEV
asev.org

© 2021 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 2469-7974.

Powered by HighWire