The Effects of Different Crop Loads on Yield, Quality, and Sugar Fractions in Early Sweet (Vitis vinifera L) Table Grape

Year 2023, Volume: 6 Issue: 6, 671 - 675, 01.11.2023

Harun Çoban

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1367223

Abstract

The quality of the grapes taken from the vines varies depending on many factors. Grape quality is one of the critical determining factors in the crop load left on the vine. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of three different crop load levels (36 (T1), 75 (T2), and 105 (T3) bud vine-1) on yield, quality, and sugar fractions of Early Sweet (Vitis vinifera L.) table grape variety grown in Alaşehir district of Manisa/Türkiye. As two years average, the heaviest clusters, berry weight, and soluble solid content (733.0g, 4.41g, 18.05%) were determined in T1 crop load level while the lowest weight clusters and berry weight (580.7g, 388g, 17.42%) were obtained from T3 crop load level. The opposite of these findings was observed in titratable acidity values. In the research; the highest amount of table grapes per vine was obtained at T2 treatment in both years. The mean total glucose values for both years varied between 45.70% (T1), 45% (T2), and 37.90% (T3), respectively. Fructose content ranged between 41.50% (T1) and 41% (T3), and sorbitol content was 2.17% (T1), 2.05% (T2), and 2.17% (T3). Galactose content was negligible in all crop load treatments and ranged between 0.54% and 0.56%. The result is also T2 treatment (75 bud vine-1) can be recommended to ‘Early Sweet’ grape growers as the most effective treatment that provides the highest amount of marketable grapes in terms of yield-quality balance.

Keywords

Early sweet grape, Crop load, Grape quality, Sugar fraction

Supporting Institution

Çalışma kurumumuzun imkanlarıyla proje dahilinde yapılmamıştır.

References

• Abd El-Ghany AA. 2006. Effect of bearing unit length on fertility and fruit quality of Flame Seedless and Ruby seedless grapevines. Bull Fac Agr, 57: 477-492.
• Anonymous. 2002. Table grapes standard-101. URL: https://www.google.com/search?q=table+grape +stan dardı&oq=sofralık&aqs=chrome. sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed date: 01 July 2023).
• Anonymous. 2022. FAO statistical database. URL: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed date: 19 October 2023).
• Ashraf R, Farag A. 2022. Effect of bud load and fruiting unit length of the autumn crisp grape variety on growth, yield, and fruit quality. Alex J Agr Sci, 67(3): 182-192.
• Benavente M, Callejas R, Reginato G, Peppi C. 2014. Effect of crop load and cluster thınnıng accordıng to ıts shape on cluster weıght and yıeld on 'Thompson seedless grapes. Acta Hort, 1058: 145-150.
• Coelho EM, Padilha CVS, Miskinis GA, de Sa AGB, Pereira GE, Azavedo LC, Lima MS. 2018. Simultaneous analysis of sugars and organic acids in wine and grape juices by HPLC: Method validation and characterization of products from northeast Brazil. J Food Comp Anal, 66: 160-167.
• Dardeniz A, Kısmalı İ. 2005. Investigations on the determination of winter buds' fertility and optimum pruning levels in some table grape varieties. J Fac Agri, 42(2): 1-10.
• Davies C. 1996. Sugar accumulation in grape berries. Cloning of two putative vacuolar invertase cDNAs and their expression in grapevine tissues. Plant Phy, 111: 275-283.
• Fawzi MIF, Shahin MFM, Kandil EA. 2010. Effect of bud load on bud behavior, yield, cluster characteristics and some biochemical contents of the cane of Crimson seedless grapevines. J Amer Sci, 6(12): 187-194.
• Gaser ASA, Abd El-Wahab MA, Abd El- Wadoud MZ. 2017. Effect of bud load and fruiting unit length on bud behavior growth and productivity of Red Globe grapevines. Egy J Appl Sci, 32(4): 101-120.
• Gehan HS, Salwa AB, Ola AA. 2020. Effect of cane length and number on bud behavior, growth and productivity in red globe and black monukka cultivars. J Hort Sci Orn Plant, 12(3): 182-192.
• Gil M, Esteruelas M, González E, Kontoudakis N, Jiménez, J, Fort F, Canals JM, Hermosín-Gutérrez I, Zamora F. 2013. Effect of two different treatments for reducing grape yield in Vitis vinifera cv Syrah on wine composition and quality: berry thinning versus cluster thinning. J Agri Food Chem, 61(20): 4968-4978.
• Harikanth PM, Jagadeesha DN, Deepika C. 2015. Studies on severity of pruning on vegetative and fruiting attributes of grapes cv. Red Globe for aiming winter crop. Bioved, 26(1): 25-30.
• Kök D, Bal E, Celik S. 2013. Influences of various canopy management techniques on wine grape quality of V. vinifera L. cv. Kalecik Karası. Bulg J Agri Sci, 19(6): 1247-1252.
• Kumar AR, Parthiban S, Subbiah A, Sangeetha V. 2017. Effect of pruning severity and season for yield in grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) variety Muscat Hamburg, Int J Curr Mic App Sci, 6(3): 1814-1826.
• Melgarejo P, Salazar DM, Artes F. 2000. Organic acids and sugars composition of harvested pomegranate fruits. Eur Food Res Tech, 211: 185-190.
• Pehlivan CE, Uzun IH. 2015. Effects of cluster thinning on yield and quality characteristics in Shiraz grape cultivar. YYU J Agri Sci, 25(2):119-126.
• Petrisor C, Chirecanu C. 2019. Organic acids and sugars profile of some grape cultivars affected by grapevine yellows symptoms. Rom Biot Lett, 24: 1027-1033.
• Popović T, Matijašević S, Raičević D, Mijović S. 2020. Influence of vine loads with fertile buds on grape yield and quality of variety Žižak in Podgorica vineyard area. Agri Forest, 66(3): 241-250.
• Popović T, Raičević D, Pajovıć-Šćepanovıć R. Matıjaševıć S. 2023. The influence of different vine loads with fertile buds on the agrobiological, economical and technological characteristics of the cardinal variety in the agro-ecological conditions of podgorica. Agri Forest, 69(8): 93-103.
• Sabır A, Kafkas E, Tangolar S. 2010. Distribution of major sugars, acids, and total phenols in the juice of five grapevine cultivars at different stages of berry development. Spn Agri Res, 8: 425-433.
• Senthilkumar S, Vijayakumar RM., Soorianathasundaram K, Devi DD. 2015. Effect of pruning severity on vegetative, physiological, yield and quality attributes in grape (Vitis vinifera L.): a Review. Curr Agri Res, 3(1): 42-54.
• Somkuwar RG, Ramteke SD. 2010. Yield and quality in relation to different crop loads on TasA-Ganesh table grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). J Pl Sci, 5(2): 216-221.
• Söyler K, Altındişli A, İşci B. 2020. The effects of different crop loads and summer pruning application on grape yield and quality parameters of the ‘Mevlana’ cultivar (Vitis vinifera L.). Erwerbs-Obstbau, 62(Suppl 1): 125-130.
• Uzun I, Bayır A. 2008. Viticulture in Turkey. Bull UASVM Hort, 65(1): 334-337.
• Winkler A, Cook J, Kliewer W, Lider L. 1974. General viticulture. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, US, pp: 710.
• Zhang D, Zhang, Y, Lin, K, Wang B, Shi, X, Cheng W. 2021. Comparison of sugars, organic acids and aroma components of five table grapes in Xinjiang. IOP Conf Ser Ert Env Sci, 792: 012029.
• Zhu-Mie X, Zhen-Wen Z, Yu-Feng C, Hua L. 2010. The effect of vineyard cover crop on main monomeric phenols of grape berry and wine in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Agri Sci China, 9(3): 440-448.