A container model trial was set up on sandy soil with 5 replications to study the nutrient regime of 16 wine grape varieties in a 10 year program starting in 1982 at Kecskemet-Miklostelep in the Institute for Viticulture and Oenology.  Leaf, fruit and wood analysis data and production parameters (fruit and wood weight, frost tolerance) were evaluated every year under identical cultural conditions. Interactions between years, varieties and nutrient elements (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, B, Fe, Mn) were discussed.  Trials so far have proved the decisive role of variety characters fixed genetically on nutrient uptake and nutrient utilization at given nutrient supply

André, J.

Hajdu, E.

English

JKI Open Journal Systems (Julius Kühn-Institut)

62 Section 1 The role of variety as genetic potential in nutrient utilization J. ANDRE and E. HAmu Research Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, H-6000 Kees kernet, Hungary S u m m a r y : A container model trial was set up on sandy soll with 5 replications to study the nutrient regime of 16 wine grape varieties in a 10 year program starting in 1982 at Kecskemet· Mikl6stelep in the Institute for Viticulture and Oenology. Leaf, fruit and wood analysis data and production parameters (fruit and wood weight, frost tolerance) were evaluated every year under identical culturaJ conditions. lnteractions between years, varieties and nutrient elements (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Zn, B, Fe, Mn) were discussed. Trials so far have proved the decisive role of variety characters ftxed genetically on nutrient uptake and nutrient utilization at given nutrient supply. K e y wo r d s: variety ofvine, nutrition, mineral, leaf, fruit, wood, yield, must quaJity, shoot yield, cold resistance. Introduction A very impm1am step in breeding is the study of values and production characteristics in a given variety or clone. This study also includes the establishment ofthe nutrient regime in varieties and clones recommended for production under different conditions (soil, climate, cultivation methods, etc.}. Forthis purpese model container trials were installed in our Institute to test the nutrient regime of 16 wine grape varieties. The trial was planned for 1 0 years. Observation data of 6 years are presented. In the test program, the nutrient requirement and urilization ability of different wine grape varieties were determined in sandy soil at different levels of stock nutrient supply. In the test we wanted to detennine: (i} the etfect of different nutriem doses on the nutrient regime of the varieties, on growth, on quality and quamity of clusrer yield, on wood ripening and on winter tolerance ofbu~s, (ii} the role ofvatiety as genetical potential in the rate and quantity ofnutrient uptake, (iii) the etfect of fenilizer doses as recommended for a variety in a given production area considering aspects of environmental protection. Material and methods The trial started in Kecskemet-Mik16stelep in 1982 on a Ievel site. Methods developed by. several Hungarian and foreign authors were followed (PoL YAK 1968, 197 3; PAPP 1971; FüRI et al. · 1974; FüRI and KozMA 1975; EDELBAUER 1976; MtREAt:X et al. 1979; SzöKE and Foru 1980; ARUTJUNJAN 1981 ). The closed Containers were placed, one close to the other, in a 80 cm deep trench, in an unheated plastic tent. The containers were plastic barrels, 80 cm high with 50 cm diameter. The bottarn ofthe barrelwas filled with sifted river bailast 15 cm thick (40 kg/barrel) to receive possible stagnate warer. The gravel was covered by a plastic net in two layers. The barrelwas filled with soil enriched with nutrients (144 kg sand/ban·el) and slightly pressed. The nutrients used as stock supply were homogenized with the soil prior to filling in. ~o maintenance fenilization was given. In the trials the nutrient uptake of 16 varieties was studied at two soilnuuient Ievels. The water supply was regulated 10 complete the winter precipitation and remove the surplus water accumulated at the bottom. The superfluous war er was pumped out through a plastic tube placed into the barrel. Genetic resources, evaluation and screening 63 The own-rooted vines planted in the barreis were rooted in hoses filled with perlite. High cordon training was used with 3 short spurs of 2 buds. Stocks were covered with straw to protect them from winter fi·osts and the plastic tent was also covered by a plastic film at the end of the grov:ing period (AxoR! 1986). The order ofthe 16 varieties in trial and sand analysis data are presented in Table 1. Since the beginning ofthe trial the following values have been measured continuously: Foliage mass T opped green weight Cluster yield, duster number, mean duster yield Sugar content and acidity ofbenies Water quantity accumulated at the bottom ofthe barrel Weight ofpruned woods Frost tolerance ofwood in heat chambers. Every quantitative measurement was completed with an analysis of the sample. Changes in the nutrient uptake were followed by leaf analysis 4 times in the growing period. Yield and wood analysis were performed from the 3rd year. Table 1: Trial characteristics S TUOIED VARIETIES: K- 9 Medina Chardonnay Ezerfürtü Zweigelt Steinschiller Zatagyöngye Sztyepnyak F. K adark a Rheinriesling RF-4 8 Jubileum 75 Blaufränkisch Tf. Zengö M 7 Kunteany SOlL TYPE: calcareous sandy soil of slight humus content of 0 -1P m depth. SOlL ANALYSIS RESULTS TRIAL SOll NUTRIEN T LEVELS LOW HIGH pH 8,1 (KC.L) KA 25 CaC03 .,. 4-5 H •J. 0,44-0,50 Total salt 0 AL P,t 05 ppm 86 100 200 AL K1 0 ppm 70 150 300 Mg KCI ppm 25 80 150 64 Section 1 Results The roJe of variety as genetical potential in the nutrient uptake The measurement and analysis data accumulated in the 6 years (1982-1987) can be evaluated from several points of view. In this case the roJe of variety was studied as genetical potential in n~trient uptake. An increase ofthe nutrient supply caused considerable differences in the uptake, in the mean ofthe 16 varieties (Table 2). Differences varied in varieties, plant parts and nutrient elements as weil. Within one variety, however, even extreme differences did not surpass 76% between the two treatments (low and high). The low nutrient Ievel served as reference. lf, however, the analysis data ofthe plant parts (leaf. fruit, wood). ofthe 16 varieties were compared within identical treatments ofthe varieties, almest 300% difference was found. Table 2 shows that the variety plays a decisive roJe in the nutrient uptake of the plant. Considering any ofthe 3 plant parts (leaf, fruit, wood), it is clear that doubling the nutrient supply resulted in a 20-50% mean surplus uptake (maximum 76 %), compared to the Iow nutrient Ievel. At identical nutrient supply, uptake differences varied between 50-70% in the average, with 300% maximum among varieties. The difference can be caused by the different nutrient requirement and different nutrient utilization ability ofthe varieties fixed in the genotype. Fig. 1 shows in detail the analysis values ofmagnesium. Considering the nutrient elements, it can be said that uptake differences among varieties (fixed genetically) were twice as high (in certain elements even more) as obtained by doubling the nuuient supply. Table 2: Treatmentsand highest nutrient differences among varieties HIGHEST NU TRIENT CONTENT 01 FFERENCES NUTRIENTS AMONG TREATMENlS WITHIN AMONG VARIETIES THE SAME VARJETY LOW I HIGH EXTREME V A L U E 5 .! .,. NUTRIENT EFFECT VARIETY EFFECT 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. N 1 1 40 13 20 97 25 20 63 20 p [l§] 50 50 62 91 30 117 54 50 K 37 25 36 53 43 49 51 30 60 Ca -32 -2 4 -2 5 93 68 57 79 122 69 Mg 50 35 36 123 54 64 104 38 29 Zn 25 -36 36 48 80 63 41 67 110 8 38 210 1 7 69 57 33 71 l2sal 45 Fe 49 50 46 50 109 110 53 103 138 Mn 1 4 -2 0 -2 9 72 56 73 84 44 61 Legend: 1. Leaf analysis 2. Fruit analysis 3. Wood anatysis Genetic resources, evaluation and screening Mg OJ • .l.Uf !.10 ·38 ·22 +13 •3 +7 0 •18 •11 •14 •25 ~ +8 20 •42 !..3.5. - -,.._ - -- - -0,5 0,.4 0,3 0,2 0,1 FRUIT 0,10 o;oa 0,06 0,04 0,02 ..woo.o.. 0,20 0,15 0,10 0,05 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I !. I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I I. I. I. ·1 .e .14 .4 .20 4 6 7 .23 35 7 14 25 9 +14 - -. - -+ . + . .. --I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I. J. I J Ii !. l : I. I. I. I. I, I, & ~ s 5 9 s o r 10 ill 11 12 6 !1i J3 s + - - .. - - + '!..__ .:!..__. + . t__ + I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . l I I I L I l l I l !. t I I I .JJ 1. J l I I J I. I 1.1.: 1-w <.!) ::r: a: t.n ~ ~ w f5 X: z 1:"--::::~ ...J :;; <( z 1- !3 ...J z > X: -I X: z a: :E :o z z a: V) ~ z 0 LrJ :::l ~ <( :;::) LrJ u f5 a.. "<( <( ;:;: ·o z 0 LL. <.!) V) LrJ w 0 CO w z ..:r LL. <.!) ö a: a: iLi z <( > -I <( -I :::l <Tl ~ w E ...1 1- z X: [i] I äl <( z 1:"--I w N :t <( ~ :::l ::r: LL. :::1 -I w I X: ~ u LrJ N V) N X: LI.." a:: a: """' ltl N ~ Fig. 1: Average resu1ts of magnesium analysis over 6 years (1982-1987). 65 VARIETV The role of variety in the nutrient uptake during the growing period At identical nutrient supply and bud loading, there were significant differences among varieties in the rate of nutrient uptake during the growing period (Fig. 2). The difference among varieties was also expressed in the nutrient elements. In the figure, P, K, Mg uptake rares ofvarieties with extreme values are shown. When changing the nutriem supply, the difference in uptake among varieties was modified but not eliminated. There was a change in the uptake curve ofvarieties in the different years as weil, probably explained by different climatic factors (precipitation, temperature, light). These yearly differences are imponant in a vatiety at idemical nutrient supply with given nutrient elements. In the mean of several years the same variety indicates an uptake t;,rend characteristic ofthe variety at identical nutrient supply. It can be concluded that at idemical nutrient supply and bud loading the nutriem uptake rate of a variety is regulated by its genetical propenies. The rate can be modified by year effects but genetype effects can not be eliminated. Differences in the nutriem uptake and supply of varieties during the growing period and in cenain elements affect the whole life ofthe plant and its production value. Data obtained so far do not yet allow the detennination ofthese effects precisely. 66 Section 1 SOllOS per cent p "/o 0,6 0,5 0,4 JUBILEl.JM 75 0,3 ....... ~­.... ~ .......... -0,1 -...... ....... 0,1 ~------~~--~~--~ K •fo 1.6 1,4 MEOINA 1,2 ~ 10 ............ I .......__.. 2,01 ~------~,--~,---jr--Tj--~ 0,6 OS 0.4 Mg.,. 0,3 0,2""'----;:...;.;...;;;;;;;;;;~:::D"".:.....,.----t VI. VII. VIB. IX. --low nutr. Ievel - high nutr. leve I p•f. ~SZTYEPNYAX .... / '-KOfo ~ r' ....._-. F. KADARKA M~ ..... 'e--. SZTYEPNYAK LEAF SAMPLING VI. VII. VIII. IX. DATE Fig. 2: The effect of variety on nutrient uptake during the growing period based on leaf analysis. The considerable differences among varieties in the tested parameters despite identical nutrient supply and production condirions can be explained by the different nutrient content -which is specific for the variety · within the growing period. The role of variety in green, fruit and wood weight, in sugar content and acidity andin frost tolerance of buds Results show clearly the importance of varieties in the nutrient uptake at identical nutrient supply. Thrs observation is only affinned by the remarkable vatiety effect on the studied plant.parts (Table 3). While at the double nutrient supply the highest difference produced 3.5 fold surplus (which is very high). the difference due to different genetical ptoperties was much more high, 11 fold. There is no variety with the same difference at every elements in identical treatments. That is, in the 9 elementsresred rhe nutrient supply can be supetior or inferior to the average. So, ifwe take LIEBto's rule strict, the notion of general nunient supply and the variety classing following the rule may seem rather artificial. Genetic resources, evaluation and screening DIFF. 0/o •14 ~ •55 •5 -77-26-28 -41 -48•JQ -1.4 •76 ·30 •77 .116 +247 11EI..Q. g 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 -I I I I I I I I I I L c:n I X I. tl l. > <( z z <( 0 z 0 a:: c ~ w ~ u ---low nutrient Ievel -- high nutrient Ievei I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I il I I I I I !J I I I I I I I :.t I I I I I l I J, I, I I. I. I. IL: ~ a:: <.!) :I: w w z tn <J ...J > X l' !!l :::l ...J <.!) <( <( :::i X 1- 1- J: z >- > X 1/) ~ z a:: ...J :o z z a:: :::l LLI u '<( w ::l :<( > ll. <( CE ·o LL. <.!) 1/) <.!) I.Ll w a:: w 0 z CSJ ...J LL. <.!) a:: z <( ...J <( ~ c--. w w w > z w ::l z := ...J 1- X IIl ~ N 1- <( ~ ::l ::c IL. ::l w lLJ N 1/) N X LL: a:: a: ..., IIl N ~ Fig. 3: Mean yield overyears 1984-1987 as g/variety (5 vines). 67 VARIETY Fig. 3 represents the duster yield in the 16 varieties at two nutrient Ievels. lfvanety reactions to nutrient supply changes are evaluated according to the results obtained in production parameters (see Table 3) and we try to draw conclusions as to the different nutrient requirements and utilization ofvarieties, we receive quite different results from those ofanalysis evaluations. The mean nutrient uptake surplus in a variety proved by analysis does not necessarily coincide with a general increase in the majority of production parameters. lt can be stated that in the case of \-ine the nutrient requirement, nuuient uptake and utilization can only be spoken of as related to a concrete variety or element. Thus, it is very important to know exactly the production value and within it, the nutrient regime ofa variety. Literature ANDRf, J.; 1986: A szölö tapanyaghaztartasanak vizsgalata homok es lösztalajon, modellkiserletoen I. Szölötermesztes es Boraszat 8 (3), 22-26. ARliTJC~JA~. Sz. Sz.; 1981: Szoderzsanie azota, foszfora i kalija v. organah vinograda v. szvjazi sz mineralnüm pitaniem lozü. Bio!. Zh. Arm. Erevan 34 (8), 861-866. EDELBAüER, A.; 1976: 4e Colloque International sur Je Contröle de !'Alimentation des Plantes Cultivees, Gent, 293-301. FüRI, J.; K.-HO~A, J.; KoZMA, F.; 1974: A szölö öntözesenek es vizhaztartasanak vizsgalata. Jubileumi Tudomanyos Napok. Budapest. SZBKI Közlemenyei, 201-220. 68 Section 1 Table 3: The highest differences measured (%) for the studied characters among treatments and varieties AMONG TREATMENTS AMONG VARIETIES MEASURED Wl THIN THE SAME AT LOW I AT HIGH PARAMETERS VARIETY NU TRIENT LEVEL NUTRIENT EFFECT VARIETY EFFECT GREEN WEIGHTg 230 913 518 W~OD WEIGHT g 1 2 7 182 187 F'RUIT WEIGHT g 1000 [3]]1] CLUSTER NUMBER 262 660 425 MEAN CLUSTER 1 86 664 429 WEIGHT g MUST SUGAR tvtrr -1 0 128 118 MUST ACIDITV 0/oo -16 187 187 FROST TOLERANQ 240 650 420 .,. ; KozMA, F.; 1975: A szölöevapotranszspiraci6ja. ldöjaras. OMSZ. Kiadvanya 79 (2), 112-120. KOZMA, P.; PoL YAK, D.; 1968: Tenyeszedenyek a szöleszeti kutatasban. Ken. es Szöl. Föiskola Közlemenyei 32 (1), 123-135. -- --; -- --; 1973: A szölö asvanyi anyagellatonsaga, produktivitasa es a levelanalizis adarai köz ötti össefl.igges. A Ken. Egy. Közlemenye 37 (5), 89-103. MEREAtJX, S.; ROLLI!', H.; RenE~. P.; 1979: Effets de la secheresse sur la vigne. 1. Etudes sur Cabemet Sauvignon. Ann. Agron. 30,553-575. PAPP,J.; 1971: A malna tapanyagigenyenek vizsgalata. A Ken. Egy. Közlemenyei35 (3), 177-187. SzöKE, L.; Füru, J.; 1980: Tenyeszedenyes m6dszer a szölö asvanyi taplalkozasanak ranulmanyozasara. Szölötermesztes 3 (2), 1-4. 

The role of variety as genetic potential in nutrient utilization

https://ojs.openagrar.de/index.php/VITIS/article/download/5473/5233

The role of variety as genetic potential in nutrient utilization

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

JKI Open Journal Systems (Julius Kühn-Institut)