Vineyard Nutrient Management
Dr. Terry Bates (10/31/01)
Adapted from:
http://lenewa.netsync.net/public/Bates/NutrientRec.htm
Vineyard fertility management is part of an overall vineyard management
program where nutrient supply (soil availability, soil pH), nutrient demand (vine
vigor, crop load), and nutrient uptake (root growth, rootstock) interact. In
addition to the gaseous elements of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, grapevines
require several essential mineral elements to grow and produce fruit (Table 1).
Although the mineral elements are needed in different quantities, each one
plays an essential role in completing the vine's life cycle. Most vineyard soils in
New York and Pennsylvania contain sufficient amounts of most of these
elements; however, they may not always be readily available. It is the grower's
objective:
1. to increase the availability of naturally occurring soil nutrients and
2. to supplement deficient nutrients when needed.
The intention of this paper on vineyard nutrient management is not to identify
each essential element and its role in vine function. Rather, the goal is to
characterize common conditions that cause low or imbalanced nutrient
availability, identify petiole values that indicate a nutrient disorder, and provide
recommendations for avoiding or correcting vineyard nutrient disorders.
Table 1. The 13 essential mineral nutrients required by grapevines and the
amounts required each season by 3-year-old Concord grapevines as
determined by destructive harvesting at the Cornell Vineyard Laboratory,
Fredonia, NY. Mature Concord vines would require significantly more of each
element. For example, Michigan research indicates that mature Concord
requires approximately 70 pounds nitrogen per acre.
Element
Symbol
Nitrogen
Potassium
Calcium
Phosphorus
Magnesium
Sulfur
Iron
Manganese
Copper
Zinc
Molybdenum
Chlorine
Boron
N
K
Ca
P
Mg
S
Fe
Mn
Cu
Zn
Mo
Cl
B
Pounds/Acre used
Concord
36.7
31.2
18.6
7.2
5.7
not measured
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.2
not measured
not measured
0.1
by
3-year-old
Nitrogen and Organic Matter: Eastern US trials investigating nitrogen fertilizer
and organic matter effects on the growth and production of American grape
varieties date back to the 1890’s. Holladay in Virginia; Partridge, Kenworthy and
Larson in Michigan; Holland in Ohio; Fleming in Pennsylvania; Childs in West
Virginia; Upshall in Ontario; as well as Gladwin, Shaulis, and Kimbal in New
York conducted similar nutrition field trials through the late 1960’s (for a review
see J. Cook, 1966). Although the results from these fertilizer trials were often
conflicting based on location, variety, soil characteristics, soil organic matter, or
production level, some general themes emerge regarding vine nitrogen
nutrition.
1) When low soil nitrogen is the limiting factor to vine growth and production by
inhibiting canopy fill (sunlight interception) and chlorophyll production
(photosynthetic capacity), the addition of nitrogen fertilizer improves vine growth
and production. This makes common sense but the same statement is not
necessarily true for other nutrients under certain soil conditions.
2) When nitrogen is not limiting, the addition of nitrogen fertilizer can be
detrimental to quality fruit production. Excessive nitrogen through either organic
or inorganic sources can produce vines that are overly vigorous, which leads to
internal canopy shading, reduction in fruit quality, and reduced bud fruitfulness.
In addition, excessive nitrogen leaching into water sources can be hazardous to
the environment.
3) The major nitrogen source for vine uptake comes from the natural
decomposition of organic matter in the soil and nitrogen fertilizers are
supplemental to this. Additional organic matter can improve soil physical
properties, increase water-holding capacity, and improve soil exchange capacity
through the production of humus. In many of the early nitrogen studies, organic
matter in the form of hay, grape pomace, or farm yard manure was equal to or
better than inorganic nitrogen fertilizers in improving the long term grapevine
nitrogen status.
Table 2. Mean vine size and yield of Catawba grapes as affected by nitrogen
and straw treatments from 1946-1951. Both nitrogen fertilization and addition of
straw to the vineyard floor were needed to achieve greater vine size and yield in
this vineyard plot. Reproduced from Shaulis (1956).
Annual Treatment
Actual N
straw
(lbs./acre)
0
32
64
32
64
pruning
weight
(tons/acre) (pounds/vine)
0
1.0
0
1.2
0
1.6
2.5
2.1
2.5
2.0
Yield
% soluble
solids
(pounds/vine) (obrix)
5.9
19.5
8.6
19.2
11.3
18.4
16.6
17.7
16.8
17.7
Determining the Need for Nitrogen Fertilization: Bloomtime petiole samples
from the most recently mature leaf in Concord are directly related to vine size,
percent trellis fill, and production. In 1956, Shaulis and Kimbal showed "that the
nitrogen content of the leaf blade is more than twice that of the petioles; that the
nitrogen percentage decreases as the season advances; that the basal leaves
contain less nitrogen than younger leaves; and that a wide difference in
potassium concentration does not affect the nitrogen percentage." Tissue
nitrogen concentration is high during the spring and quickly decreases during
the period of rapid vine and shoot growth (Figure 1). Shaulis and Kimbal
showed that bloomtime petiole samples for nitrogen were more closely
correlated with vine production than samples in July or August. However, the
rapid decline in tissue nitrogen through the bloom period makes designating
recommended tissue values problematic. Shaulis and Kimbal add, "With the
knowledge that the nitrogen analysis-vine growth relationship is not precise, one
is certain that, for late-June petiole samples, a nitrogen percentage less than
1.5 is almost always associated with low vine vigor; and that values over 2.0 are
almost always associated with high vine vigor."
Despite the relationship between bloom nitrogen samples and vine growth,
bloom tissue samples are not widely used in New York, for several reasons. 1)
Fall petiole samples are recommended for determining deficiency of other
nutrients, especially potassium. 2) Maintenance nitrogen applications are used
in many New York vineyards despite either quantitative (petiole values) or
qualitative (canopy fill) analysis. 3) Observations of vine growth, leaf color, and
trellis fill are arguably as accurate as bloomtime tissue samples given the rapid
flux of tissue nitrogen concentration during bloom.
Figure 1. The growing season pattern
of petiole nitrogen concentration in
Concord. Rapid vine growth during
the bloom period is matched by rapid
reduction in shoot tissue nitrogen
concentration. Although bloom petiole
samples are superior to fall petiole
samples in indicating Concord
nitrogen status, the rapid change
during bloom makes sampling
problematic.
SOIL pH AND NUTRIENT AVAILABILITY
One of the objectives in vineyard nutrient management is to improve mineral
nutrient availability of naturally occurring elements in the high-rainfall generallyacidic soils of the eastern US. Soil pH has a dramatic effect on the availability of
several essential nutrients for grape production. Low soil pH (pH 5.0 or lower),
which is characteristic of Lake Erie regional soils and some Finger Lakes soils,
affects nutrient availability and root growth. As the soil pH decreases from 5 to
3.5, aluminum solubility increases and it is the free and exchangeable aluminum
ions that affect nutrient availability and root growth (Figure 2A). High free
aluminum precipitates phosphorus out of the soil solution, making it unavailable
to the plant, and exchangeable aluminum displaces calcium and magnesium,
decreasing their availability. Aluminum toxicity can also affect root growth by
inhibiting cell division in the root apical meristem.
High pH soils, either natural limestone based soils or soils amended through the
application of lime, present a different set of nutritional circumstances for
grapevine roots. As the soil pH increases from 5 to 8, aluminum insolubility
removes it from the playing field which alleviates some of the phosphorus
problems and increases the availability of calcium and magnesium (Figure 3A
and B). However, iron also precipitates out of the soil solution limiting its
availability (Figure 2B).
Figure 2A and B. The effect of soil pH on the availability of aluminum (A) and
iron (B) in Lake Erie region vineyards. As the soil pH decreases aluminum and
iron availability increase, causing decreased availability of other essential
nutrients and restricting root growth.
Figure 3A and B. The effect of soil pH on magnesium (A) and calcium (B)
availability in Lake Erie region vineyards. The shaded area represents
recommended soil concentrations for Mg and Ca. Each point represents an
individual grower vineyard and may have been subject to any number of
fertilizer management practices. It is important to illustrate the effect of soil pH
on soil Mg, whether a naturally high lime soil or one amended with either calcitic
or dolomitic limestone.
Acid Soils and Phosphorus Deficiency. In the eastern US, grapevine
phosphorus deficiency is rare if not unknown in vineyards where the soil pH is
above 5.0 and soil aluminum is below 150-200 ppm. In labrusca fertilizer trials
in Michigan, phosphorus fertilizer improved the cover crop growth but did not
necessarily improve grapevine growth. In a 1945 Concord vineyard survey in
Ohio, Beattie and Forshey reported that the higher producing vineyards tended
to have July petiole values above 0.14% P. Shaulis and Kimbal (1956) reported
no response of Concord grapevines to phosphorus fertilizer despite fall petiole
values as low as 0.08-0.14%. These observations led to the notion that
phosphorus is of minor importance to labrusca production and that tissue
samples are not reliable in diagnosing phosphorus deficiency.
Recent research on the response of Concord to soil pH in Fredonia, N.Y.
showed a reduction in root and shoot growth as the soil pH dropped below 5.0.
High aluminum availability below pH 5.0 precipitated phosphorus making it
unavailable to the plant and restricted root growth. The reduction in vine size as
the soil pH dropped corresponded to a decrease in tissue phosphorus below
0.14% (Figure 4). However, it can also be argued that the root restriction in acid
soils itself inhibits adequate uptake of water and other essential nutrients
leading to a reduction in vine size well before measured phosphorus deficiency.
Nutrition research in California indicates that phosphorus deficiency in
grapevines may inhibit the movement of magnesium from roots to shoots
causing magnesium deficiency leaf symptoms. Therefore, grapevine
phosphorus deficiency may be more prevalent than once thought and may
show up as a reduction in vine size and an increase in magnesium deficiency.
Figure 4. The effect of soil pH on
tissue
aluminum,
iron,
and
phosphorus in young Concord. As
the soil pH drops below 5.0, tissue
Al and Fe increase while tissue P
and vine size decrease.
Other nutrient deficiencies and toxicities can be associated with 'acid injury' in
hybrid and vinifera varieties. In addition to phosphorus deficiency, magnesium
deficiency has been reported on acid soils especially where potassium fertilizer
has been applied. As with aluminum and iron, other micronutrient metals such
as manganese and copper can reach high levels in the soil and could potentially
cause toxicity symptoms in some grape varieties.
Applying Lime to Adjust Soil pH. Soil pH is very important in adjusting
nutrient availability and lime is a powerful tool in adjusting soil pH. However,
lime has low soil mobility which makes deep soil pH adjustment difficult in
established vineyards. The best time to apply lime and adjust soil pH is before
the vineyard is planted. In pre-plant application, lime can be incorporated deep
into the soil in order to adjust the pH as far into the potential rooting zone as
possible. After planting, deep incorporation of any soil amendment will come at
the expense of cutting perennial roots. The calcium of calcitic limestone and the
calcium and magnesium of dolomitic limestone have higher mobility in the soil.
Applying excessive amounts of limestone to established vineyards can increase
calcium and magnesium in the entire root zone while only adjusting the soil pH
in the upper soil layer. This can cause further nutrient imbalances with
potassium (see potassium section). Therefore, we recommend applying
limestone in existing vineyards at no more than 3 tons/acre in any single year.
Can a vineyard be productive without optimum soil pH? Since changing soil
pH deep in the soil profile in established vineyards is difficult, grape production
on soils with sub-optimum pH and nutrient availability is a reality. It is under
these situations that vineyard nutrient management is more intensive. Regular
soil and petiole testing, applying fertilizers other than just nitrogen, and foliar
nutrient sprays can make up for less than optimum nutrient availability. Adding
organic matter and controlling weed competition in the vineyard can help make
up for restricted root growth, improve soil moisture, and supply micronutrients to
the roots.
POTASSIUM
The most common nutrient disorder found in eastern US vineyards is potassium
deficiency. Consequently, much research has focused on understanding vine
potassium requirements, identifying the factors that lead to deficiency,
measuring deficiency symptoms, and alleviating the disorder in the vineyard.
Sampling: Soil vs. Tissue, Spring vs. Fall, Leaf vs. Petiole. Soil testing is a
tool for monitoring soil pH and estimating nutrient availability. For example, soil
tests are valuable in calculating the lime requirement for acid soils. Since
grapevine root systems can be spreading and/or relatively deep, tissue
sampling is an effective tool in determining the nutrient status of the vine. Soil
and tissue tests measure different aspects of vineyard nutrient status.
Therefore, the most powerful information for the grower is obtained when soil
and tissue samples are used in conjunction with, and not isolated from, each
other.
In regards to tissue sampling, bloomtime petiole samples have been shown to
be superior to fall samples in determining vine nitrogen status. However,
interpreting bloomtime nitrogen samples can be problematic (see nitrogen
section). Potassium presents a different situation in that values from soil
samples are often not correlated with values from tissue samples, and fall
samples can be used to diagnose potassium deficiency, eliminating the
problems of bloomtime sampling. Leaf tissue and petiole tissue have different
potassium concentration patterns during the season. Furthermore, leaf position
on a shoot will influence seasonal potassium concentration patterns (Figure 5).
Therefore, if tissue samples are going to be consistently and accurately
interpreted for the purpose of making fertilizer recommendations, a standard
tissue sample is needed so that standard nutrient concentration values can be
used for interpretation. For example, a standard recommended potassium
concentration for veraison petioles will not be applicable for a grower that
sampled leaves or petioles at bloom.
In California, a standard set of values have been established for bloomtime
petiole samples. In New York, the recommendation for tissue sampling is to
collect petioles, 60-70 days after bloom (near veraison), on the most recently
mature leaf. It appears this timing/tissue decision was based on practical
issues. Tissue potassium concentrations are more stable near veraison, there is
less vineyard activity and more time for tissue sampling near veraison, and
petioles are an easy standard sample to collect. Today, the most important
practical reason for the New York fall petiole recommendation is that there are
standard nutrient values established and available for vineyard nutrient
diagnosis.
Figure 5. Seasonal patterns in tissue potassium concentrations from sufficient
(+K) and deficient (-K) Concord. Patterns are different depending on tissue and
location on the shoot. The current standard for K is to collect petiole tissue 6070 days after bloom from the most recently mature leaf. Shaulis and Kimbal
reported visual potassium deficiency if fall petiole values were 0.5% or lower. In
high production Concord vineyards with a high K requirement, fall petiole values
closer to 2.0% are recommended.
Interpreting Potassium Deficiency. Several factors can contribute to
potassium deficiency in the vineyard. Often, a single factor may reduce tissue
potassium concentrations but it may take several factors in combination to
cause full deficiency symptoms, which can make interpreting and alleviating
potassium deficiency difficult.
Magnesium Competition. There is a negative, non-linear relationship between
potassium and magnesium fall-petiole concentrations (Figure 6). In general, as
one goes up the other goes down, and finding a balance between the two is the
key to preventing deficiency of either one. Natural soil pH and the adjustment of
soil pH with limestone has a large effect on the K/Mg balance (Figure 7). At low
soil pH, magnesium availability can be low (Figure 3A) and the addition of
potassium fertilizer to a low pH soil can help induce magnesium deficiency. In
high pH soils, either naturally high limestone soils or soils adjusted with lime,
magnesium availability can be high and will compete with potassium in root
uptake. It is important to note that soil pH itself has a big effect on magnesium
availability and not necessarily how the soil pH was achieved (Figure 3A). The
choice to adjust soil pH with dolomitic (high Mg) limestone instead of calcitic
limestone has an additional, but smaller, effect on magnesium availability.
Figure 6. The relationship between tissue
potassium and tissue magnesium in fall
petiole samples taken from Lake Erie
grower vineyards. In general, the tissue
concentration of one decreases as the
tissue concentration of the other
increases.
In mature vineyards where limestone treatments cannot be incorporated deeply,
the issue of soil pH adjustment and soil magnesium adjustment can be separate
issues because of their relative mobility in the soil (as discussed in the lime
section). From 1958 to 1968, a Concord nutrition study in Pennsylvania showed
that dolomitic limestone treatments only changed the soil pH in the upper 3
inches of soil where the limestone was incorporated, and very little soil pH
change was recorded below the 6 inch soil depth. However, dolomitic limestone
increased soil magnesium to a 12 inch depth, the deepest measurement taken.
Figure 7. The effect of soil pH on shoot tissue potassium and magnesium
concentrations of young (non-bearing) Concord. Magnesium availability
increases with soil pH and competes with vine potassium uptake.
The increase in magnesium decreased the concentration of petiole potassium
to the point of visual potassium deficiency and vine size reduction in some
years.
Root Restriction. In general, anything that restricts grapevine root growth
decreases the uptake of potassium and increases the risk of potassium
deficiency. Drought, overcropping, shallow-rooting, phylloxera, etc. restrict root
growth and nutrient uptake. In many of these cases, grapevines do not respond
to the addition of potassium fertilizer.
Drought. In addition to restricting root growth, drought is particularly damaging
because of the low mobility of potassium in dry soils. Conservative vineyard
water management (irrigation, mulch, reduced weed competition) can decrease
drought-induced potassium deficiency.
Crop. Grape berries have a relatively high potassium requirement, especially in
the post-veraison period. When the potassium supply from root uptake is
insufficient for fruit demand, potassium will remobilize from the vine to the fruit
and may cause leaf potassium deficiency symptoms.
In combination, the greatest potassium deficiency risk comes in a dry year in a
vineyard with a large crop load, poor weed management, and after an
application of dolomitic limestone. A potassium nutrition strategy that appears to
be successful in high production Concord vineyards is to maintain fall petiole
potassium values near 2%, a concentration well above the 0.5% deficiency
mark. The idea is to increase vine potassium to the point that it can withstand a
high crop load in a dry year.
MICRONUTRIENT METALS: ZINC, IRON, MANGANESE, AND
COPPER
Micronutrient metal availability also changes with soil pH (a redundant theme)
and often follows the pattern seen in Figure 2. In general, availability is high in
acid soils and low in alkaline soils. High availability at low soil pH can cause
direct toxicity symptoms on the vine or cause indirect deficiency of another
element. For example, high availability of zinc and iron will fix phosphorus and
decrease its availability for root uptake. In contrast, low availability of these
nutrients at high soil pH can cause deficiency. Zinc deficiency is common in
California vineyards with sandy, high pH soils. Iron deficiency is common in
Washington Concord vineyards where the soil is neutral to slightly alkaline. High
soil phosphorus and waterlogging both additionally limit iron availability under
these conditions and increase the potential for the disorder.
In general, toxicities of these elements can be avoided through soil pH
adjustment. Deficiencies can be eliminated through the use of foliar sprays,
stimulating root growth, and the addition of organic matter.
Iron nutrition is partially responsible for the different soil pH recommendations
between vinifera and labrusca. In theory, grape varieties native to acid soils
(labrusca) are not efficient in acquiring iron because of high iron availability in
low soil pH. Therefore, they are more susceptible to iron deficiency as iron
availability decreases at high soil pH. In contrast, varieties native to calcareous
soils (vinifera) are more iron efficient and are less susceptible to iron deficiency
at high soil pH. However, they are also less tolerant of acid soil conditions.
Therefore, a soil pH of 5.5 is recommended for labrusca and a soil pH of 6.5 is
recommended for vinifera in New York.
BORON
Boron has a narrow range between deficiency and toxicity and the conditions
that control boron availability are slightly different than the other nutrients. Boron
availability does change with soil pH, where boron is absorbed by clay particles
at higher soil pH. However, the movement of boron with water has a larger
effect on its availability. Boron is readily leached from soils under high rainfall
conditions and drought sharply decreases boron mobility and availability.
Boron deficiency has received recent attention in New York because of its
possible relationship to fruit set disorder. Low boron reduces pollen germination
and pollen tube growth, which reduces fruit set. Since foliar symptoms generally
do not show up until late spring or early summer, fruit set problems may occur
prior to foliar symptoms.
Boron can be applied as a foliar spray or to the vineyard floor. Care must be
taken to follow the recommended rates because excess rates can cause
toxicity. Boron toxicity symptoms are marginal or tip chlorosis and/or necrosis
(leaf burn), which illustrates the movement of boron with water in the xylem.
References
Christensen, L.P., A.N. Kasimatis and F.L. Jensen. 1978. Grapevine Nutrition
and Fertilization in the San Joaquin Valley. University of California. Berkeley,
CA.
Cook, J.A. 1966. Grape Nutrition, p. 777-812. In: Childers, N.F. (ed.) Nutrition of
Fruit Crops. Somerset Press, Inc., New Jersey.
Hanson, E. 1996. Fertilizing Fruit Crops. Michigan State University Extension
Bulletin E-852.
Jordan, T.D., R.M. Pool, T.J. Zabadal and J.P. Tomkins. 1980. Cultural
Practices for Commercial Vineyards. Bulletin 111. New York State College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University.
Marschner, H. 1986. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Academic Press
Limited. San Diego.
Shaulis, N. and K. Kimball. 1956. The association of nutrient composition of
concord grape petioles with deficiency symptoms, growth, and yield. Journal of
the American Society for Horticulture Science. 68(1956):141-156.
Shaulis, N. and R.D. Steel. 1969. The interaction of resistant rootstock to the
nitrogen, weed control, pruning, and thinning on the productivity of Concord
grapevines. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 91:122129.
Shaulis, N.J. 1956. The sampling of small fruits for composition and nutritional
studies. Journal of the American Society for Horticulture Science. 68(1956):576585.
Skinner, P.W. and M.A. Matthews. 1990. A novel interaction of magnesium
translocation with the supply of phosphorus to roots of grapevine (Vitis vinifera
L.). Plant, Cell and Environment. 13:821-826.
Taiz, L. and E. Zeiger. 1991. Plant Physiology. Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co.,
Inc. Redwood City, CA.
Winkler, A.J., J.A. Cook, W.M. Kliewer and L.A. Lider. 1974. General Viticulture.
University of California Press. Berkeley.