Advertisement

Proceedings: Plant Sciences

, Volume 89, Issue 2, pp 105–108 | Cite as

Seasonal variation in mineral composition of Thompson Seedless and Perlette grapevines

  • A S Bindra
  • A S Rehalia
  • S S Brar
Article
  • 16 Downloads

Abstract

Comparison of mineral nutrients composition in petioles of Perlette (a prolific bearer) and Thompson Seedless (a shy bearer) vines revealed that the former accumulated more nitrogen and less phosphorus besides differing in their capacity for absorbing micro nutrient elements like zinc and copper. Peak content of nitrogen occurred after harvest in both the cultivars particularly Thompson Seedless resulting in excessive vegetative growth causing damage to vines. Phosphorus showed a peak in August for Thompson Seedless and September for Perlette. Potassium showed peaks in April and September in Thompson Seedless, and April, August and November in Perlette. The pattern of iron, zinc, manganese and copper accumulation differed in vines growing in monsoon region and those growing in temperate and sub-temperate region.

Keywords

Mineral composition Thompson Seedless Perlette grapevine seasonal variation mineral composition grapevine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bindra A S 1975 Flower bud mortality in different cultivars of grapes;J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 12 364–367Google Scholar
  2. Bindra A S 1977 Flower bud drop in Thompson Seedless grapes. Effect of graded doses of N, P and K fertilisers;J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ. 14 137–139Google Scholar
  3. Bindra A S, Brar R S and Chadha K L 1978 Effect of different nutrients sprays on coulure sp. fruit quality and nutrient status of Thompson Seedless grapevines;Indian J. Hortic. (submitted)Google Scholar
  4. Bindra A S and Chauhan J S 1974 Flower bud killing in Anab-e-Shahi grapes;Indian J. Hortic. 33 33–36Google Scholar
  5. Cahoon 1970 Survey of foliar content of American and French hybrid grapes in 14 research demonstration vineyards in Southern Ohio;Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Cent. Res. Bull. 44 24–27Google Scholar
  6. Cook J A 1966 Grape nutrition; inFruit Nutrition ed. N F Childer (New Brunswick: Horticultural Publications) pp 777–812Google Scholar
  7. Cummings G A 1977 Variation in concentration of certain elements in muscadino grapes in relation to season, leaf position and age;J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 102 339–342Google Scholar
  8. Khanduja S D and Balasubrahmanyam 1974 Nutrient element status of Anab-e-Shahi and Thompson Seedless vineyards of Peninsular India;Indian J Hortic. 31 125–130Google Scholar
  9. Sanghvi K U and Bindra A S 1976 A note on the effect of different doses of N, P and K on the flower bud killing of grapes Cv. Himrod;Punjab Hortic. J. 16 134–135Google Scholar
  10. Shaulis N and Kimball K 1956 The association of nutrient composition of concord grape petioles with deficiency symptoms, growth and yield;Proc. Am. Soc. Hortic, Sci. 68 141–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • A S Bindra
    • 1
  • A S Rehalia
    • 1
  • S S Brar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticulturePunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhiana

Personalised recommendations