Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Fertility of Vinifera Grapes in NC SERA 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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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
