Fertility of Vinifera Grapes in NC SERA 2008 Meeting

Fertility of Vinifera Grapes in NCSERA 2008 Meeting

David H. Hardy and John Havlin

NCDA&CS and NC State

NC Wine Industry is Growing

• 1985- 4 wineries• 1986- NC Grape Council created• 1999-15 wineries• 2002- 25 wineries• Today- over 70 wineries

NCDA Grape Recommendations

• Soil testing– Muscadine grapes

• Plant tissue– Vinifera grapes at full bloom

• Where did they come from???

P Grape Recommendation

020406080

100120140

0 10 20 30 40 50

Mehlich 3 P-I

P 2O

5 lb/

ac

K Grape Recommendation

020406080

100120140160180

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Mehlich 3 K-I

K2O

lb/a

c

Present Liming & Fertilization

Objectives1. Evaluate nutrient status in common

red and white vinifera varieties

2. Establish critical nutrient concentration ranges in both leaf and petiole samples

3. Correlate plant nutrient status with soil test information

• Effect of topography

• Leaf-cluster position

• Mature leaf at veraison

Additional Considerations

1

15

13

14

16102

97

4

12

11 368

1 Black Wolf12 Round Peak13 Shelton16 Surry CC

3 Creek Side6 Grove8 Iron Gate

2 Buck Shoals2 Buck Shoals 8 Laurel Gray8 Laurel Gray 9 Raffaldini9 Raffaldini1414 South CreekSouth Creek1515 South Mountain South Mountain

44 Flint Hill Flint Hill

7 Hanover Park7 Hanover Park10 RagApple10 RagApple

11 RayLen11 RayLen

Cabernet Sauvignon 15Cabernet Sauvignon 15Chardonnay 14Chardonnay 14Merlot 11Merlot 11Cabernet Franc 11Cabernet Franc 11Syrah 10Syrah 10Viognier 7Viognier 7Chamborcin 6Chamborcin 6Sangiovese 5Sangiovese 5Sauvignon Blanc 3Sauvignon Blanc 3Chardonell 2Chardonell 2Chancellor 1Chancellor 1

6 cores

per

variety

4 – 8”

0 – 4”

8 – 24”

Sampling away from fertilizer or lime application

Cecil fine sandy loam

Fine, kaolinitic, thermic

Typic Kandhapludults

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81

Sample Site

CEC

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Sample Site

CEC

2006

2007

• Upper 4 inch depth• Little variability

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81

Sample Site

Soil

pH2006

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Sample Sites

Soil

pH2007

• Upper 4 inch depth• Little variability• Good lime practices

NC Vineyard Soils

050

100150200250300350400450

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81

Sample Site

Soil

P

2006

0

50

100

150

200

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Sample Sites

Soil

P2007

Mehlich STP ppm

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81

Sample Sites

Soil

K

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Sample Sites

Soil

K

2006

2007

Mehlich 3 K ppm

• FB and veraison- all sites• 4 intensive sites- every 2 wk

Laurel Grey- 2007- select varieties

Petiole N Concentration

Petiole N- % @ FB• 0 – 0.39 D• 0.4 – 0.79 L• 0.8 – 1.0 S• 1.01 – 1.25 H• 1.26 – 1.5 E

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24

N- %

Cab Sav Merlot SyrahCab Franc Chardnay Viognier

FB

Laurel Grey- 2007- select varieties

Petiole P Concentration

00.20.40.60.8

11.2

May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24

P- %

Cab Sav Merlot SyrahCab Franc Chardnay Viognier

Petiole P- % @ FB• 0 – 0.09 D• 0.1 – 0.14 L• 0.15 – 0.6 S• 0.61 – 1.0 H• 1.01 – 2.0 E

FB

Laurel Grey- 2007- select varieties

Petiole K Concentration

01234567

May 3 May 30 Jun 15 July 6 Aug 2 Aug 24

K- %

Cab Sav Merlot SyrahCab Franc Chardnay Viognier

Petiole K- % @ FB• 0 – 0.99 D• 1.0 – 1.49 L• 1.5 – 3.5 S• 3.51 – 4.5 H• 4.51 – 5.5 E

FB

Selected Tissue LevelsPetiole P 0 - 0.10 0.11 - 0.20 0.21 - 0.30 0.31 - 0.40 > 0.40

# Sample Sites2006 3 17 15 14 402007 2 13 18 11 40

% Sample Sites2006 3.4 19.1 16.9 15.7 44.92007 2.4 15.5 21.4 13.1 47.6

Petiole K 0 - 1.0 1.1-1.50 1.6-2.0 2.1-2.5 > 2.50# Sample Sites

2006 0 6 3 12 682007 12 9 12 16 35

% Sample Sites2006 0.0 6.7 3.4 13.5 76.42007 14.3 10.7 14.3 19.0 41.7

P = 0.15 – 0.6 SufficientK= 1.5 – 3.5 Sufficient

0.000.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.50

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Petio

le K

(FB)

, %

Soil K, ppm

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

N P K Ca Mg S

Nutrient

Nut

rient

Con

tent

,% Top Bottom

Nutrient Content Relative to Cluster Position

Topographic Effects on Nutrient Content

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

N P K Ca Mg S

Nutrient

Nut

rient

Con

tent

, %

Hilltop Valley

2008

1. Maintain primary objectives – *** increase # mountain sites

2. Quantify sampling error

3. Draft diagnostic nutrient ranges (???)

4. Assess nutrient response