Search Results

You are looking at 71 - 80 of 99 items for :

  • "cluster weight" x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Free access

Matthew Clark, Peter Hemstad, and James Luby

cultivar has forked tendrils that are shorter in length than La Crescent tendrils. The trunk bark is moderately flaky with segments 5 mm × 5 cm in length. The average cluster weight for ‘Itasca’ is 145 g, compared with ‘La Crescent’ which is 87 g, or

Full access

without differences in other composition parameters. Minimally pruned vines without thinning had delayed ripening (about 7 days) regardless of cultivar. Minimally pruned vines had lower cluster weights and berry weights compared to hand pruning in both

Full access

reduced yield, but increased total soluble solids in juice. Yield compensation was achieved by increased cluster weight of 38% and 25% in response to cluster number reduction of 37% and 23% at Vineyards 1 and 2, respectively. Balanced pruning to 15

Free access

Bruce I. Reisch, R. Stephen Luce, and Anna Katharine Mansfield

‘Cayuga White’ averaged 1.9 and 1.2 kg/vine, respectively, and fruit yield averaged 11.5 kg/vine (≈17.2 t·ha −1 ) and 11.2 kg/vine, respectively, between 1995 and 2011. Cluster weights of ‘Aromella’ and ‘Cayuga White’ averaged 122 and 204 g, whereas

Free access

Bruce I. Reisch, R. Stephen Luce, and Anna Katharine Mansfield

/vine (≈8.1 t·ha −1 ). In the same period, ‘Chambourcin’ produced 9.1 kg/vine (≈13.6 t·ha −1 ) of fruit with a mean cane pruning weight of 1.3 kg/vine (Ravaz index = 7.0). Cluster weights for ‘Arandell’ and ‘Chambourcin’ were 68 and 181 g, respectively

Free access

Krista Shellie and D. Michael Glenn

cluster number per vine were measured at harvest and used to calculate average cluster weight. Ten clusters from vines with or without particle film in each plot (five clusters from each side of the canopy) were used to visually inspect for sun scald

Full access

S. Kaan Kurtural, Geoffrey Dervishian, and Robert L. Wample

between marketable and unmarketable fruit (fruit displaying >30% disease damage or insect herbivory). However, in both years, there was no unmarketable fruit. All treatments were harvested on the same day. Average cluster weight was calculated by dividing

Open access

Andrew L. Thomas, Jackie L. Harris, Elijah A. Bergmeier, and R. Keith Striegler

Thomas et al. (2017) ]. Mean berry size was calculated, and mean number of berries per cluster calculated by dividing mean cluster weight by mean berry weight. Pruning weight data were collected in Feb./Mar. 2013–16 to quantify vegetative growth during

Free access

Alison L. Reeve, Patricia A. Skinkis, Amanda J. Vance, Jungmin Lee, and Julie M. Tarara

by plot. Yield was expressed per unit row length. Average cluster weight was back-calculated. A seven-cluster sample was randomly selected per plot. In the laboratory, only five clusters and their rachises were weighed and berries counted for

Full access

Lindsay M. Jordan, Thomas Björkman, and Justine E. Vanden Heuvel

number of clusters per vine was counted and the cumulative cluster weight per vine was measured at harvest using a hanging scale (model SA3N340), and subsequent average cluster weight calculated from these values. Ravaz index values were calculated each