A.N. Lakso, M. Santiago, S. Zhu and A.D. Stroock

 Cornell University

• Water is one of the most critical limitations to growth, productivity, fruit or nut quality and profitability in fruit crops.  Monitoring dynamic plant responses to soil water, weather, rainfall and irrigation is the key to optimal water management.
• We have developed and tested an electronic, large-range, continuous-reading water potential sensor for embedding in the trunks of woody plants to monitor vine water status, specifically stem water potentials.
• The sensor chip has the same principle as the common soil tensiometer, but with a much smaller volume and 50-200 times greater range. The sensor chip is integrated with associated data handling, logging and wireless transmission for online monitoring.
• The microtensiometer has been field tested in apple, grape and almond with high correlations to stem potentials by the standard manual pressure chamber method.  The ability to monitor plant stress with the microtensiometer will be a valuable tool for precision irrigation programs, research, and modeling.

For More Information:

Website:

• The FloraPulse company , founded by ANL, ADS and MS, is commercializing the microtensiometer. Examples of real-time data on vine water status in CA are shown.

Publications:

American Fruit Grower, 2019, Real time water data delivers big opportunity for growers. July 2019 Issue.

What are light sensors? What can they do? What can’t they do?

Grape growers around the country are facing increased pressures to reduce spending while increasing profits, reduce inputs while increasing productivity, and reduce labor reliance while increasing harvest quality. With changing environments, evolving pathogens, and more restricted control options, effective disease management is of ever increasing and growing concern. Digital agriculture, the use of new and advanced technologies, integrated into one system, to enable farmers and other stakeholders within the agriculture value chain to improve food production, offers a path forward for grape growers to achieve their business and environmental sustainability goals in tandem. The use of agricultural light sensors in precision vineyard management has the potential to increase vineyard productivity and sustainability while reducing unnecessary spending by helping growers prescriptively distribute resources to areas most in need. This talk focused on the five most common types of agricultural light sensors and their various applications, considerations, and general uses in vineyard IPM.

Important Takeaways

• Sensors measure light that reflects off of plants. Healthy and unhealthy plants reflect light differently. How the light reflects tells us information about plant health.
• Sensors can measure more light than we can see. Different sensors measure different light. Depending on the sensor we pick, and how the light reflects, we can learn different things about plant health.
• There is no such thing as a magic sensor. Decide what information is important to you, then look for a sensor that can get you that.
• Much like fungicides, knowing how sensors work or don’t work is crucial to using them effectively.
• Many sensors offered as a product-service package- encourage stakeholders to consider service aspects when deciding what to buy. Customer service good? Data has intuitive interpretation? Cost-effective for your operation?
• Major commercial development still needed for hyperspectral sensors before ready for real-time, in-field use.

Andrew Landers¹, Tomas Palleja Cabre ², Jordi Llorens ³

¹ Cornell University, Geneva, NY 14456, USA. andrew.landers@cornell.edu
² Department of Computer Science and Industrial Engineering, University of Lleida, Jaume II, 69, 25001 Lleida, Spain
³ Department of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, Research Group in AgroICT and Precision Agriculture, University of Lleida – Agrotecnio Center, Rovira Roure, 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain

The application of pesticides has been of concern for many years, particularly methods of reducing drift and improving deposition. There are many interrelated factors which affect spray application depending upon the target, the efficacy of the spray, the attitude of the operator, the standard of management, the weather etc.

In modern vineyards there are numerous row widths, varieties, plant spacing and variations in canopy shape and style. Canopy characteristics (height, width and density) also change as the growing season progresses.

Good disease and insect control is dependent upon the correct amount of pesticide being applied at the correct time. Incorrect application may result in pest resistance, poor pest or disease control, increase costs for the grower, and an increased risk of chemical contamination in the environment. Adjusting airflow and liquid flow to match the growing canopy as the season progresses is the key.

Landers (2016) describes real-time adjustment of the operating parameters (air flow, pressure, active nozzles, etc.) according to the target density as an important goal for canopy spraying systems. Keeping the spray cloud within the canopy is the goal resulting in reduced spray drift and increased deposition.

Fruit sprayers comprise two systems. The first system is the liquid spray and the second and, equally important for vine crop applications, is the airflow. The liquid flow is based upon nozzles and pressure, the airflow is based upon a fan to provide air for canopy penetration.

Liquid flow and canopy structure

There are two main aspects to consider when applying liquids, the volume of product and the volume of water.  Many growers typically apply X L/ha pre-bloom and then Y L/ha post-bloom with the intention of getting good leaf coverage. Unfortunately poor spray coverage is a major factor contributing to poor insect and disease control. Better coverage leads to better control and a thorough application of an effective material is required. Uneven coverage increases the amount of pesticides that must be applied in order to provide adequate control on poorly covered areas and can increase the number of sprays required if it allows insects or a disease to become established. Applying the correct amount of spray at the correct time to the correct target is good advice. Canopy size and shape will affect application volume and there are as many dangers in not applying enough spray as there are in applying too much.

Automation

Llorens et al (2013) and Llorens and Landers (2014) developed a method of liquid control, adapting the Lechler Vario-Select  (Lechler GmbH,Metzingen,Germany) nozzle system from horizontal boom sprayers and applying it to the vertical boom found on tower fruit sprayers. The Lechler Vario-Select comprises a cluster of nozzles, each nozzle being operated individually or in a combination thereof, allowing a wide range of outputs to be obtained. The Lechler system used compressed air to open and close the nozzles. This method allows the use of variable rate technology (VRT), a basic requirement in the precision farming concept.

Previous research, at Cornell University, lead to the development of an adjustable louvre to control the air leaving the sprayer, discussed earlier. When drift is reduced by adjusted air volume or speed, deposition within the canopy or on the fruit increases. Currently the sprayer operator manually adjusts the louvre via an adjustable stroke length actuator that moves the louvre, thus matching airflow to canopy size. Unfortunately in heavy canopies it is a challenge to see how far the spray cloud is passing through the canopy.

Llorens et al (2013) developed a system which measured the distance from the ultrasonic sensor to the edge of the vine canopy. The low-cost system calculated canopy volume based upon the distance and time of the ultrasonic system and the centerline (trellis posts) of the canopy. The assumption being made that the rows of vines were in a straight-line and the tractor was being driven in a straight-line, neither being commonly found.  The ultrasonic system detailed in previous work (Palleja & Landers, 2015) was used in the field trials. The canopy sprayer was a Berthoud S600 axial fan sprayer. It incorporates a set of 4 ultrasonic sensors (XL-MaxSonar MB7092) mounted on a 3 m long mast (Figure 1). The sensors are distributed along the mast according to the height of the vines. A microcontroller board was used to estimate the canopy density as a function of the ultrasonic echoes. It was tested as the growing season progressed and the data obtained was highly correlated with the season but it was not compared to actual canopy density. The sensor system was further modified to monitor canopy density and volume resulting in the ability to adjust the airflow actuator and the liquid flow from the nozzles based upon canopy density.

Point Quadrat Analysis (PQA) was used to compare the ultrasonic data with a scientifically accepted method to estimate canopy density, check if the data is correlated, and validate the ultrasonic system. Point Quadrat Analysis (PQA) is an acceptable yet simple field method to measure key parameters of the canopy characteristics. In PQA, a probe is passed through the canopy and any contact with biomass such as leaves or fruit are identified and recorded (Smart, 1985; Smart & Robinson, 1991). The canopy is sampled at specific heights, which is usually at the fruit zone, at consistent intervals along the row. Enhanced Point Quadrat Analysis (EPQA) was a further development of the PQA method by Meyers & Vanden Heuvel, (2008) and is a more descriptive system as it adds metrics which allow cluster exposure mapping and leaf exposure mapping to measure sunlight distribution.

Two plastic frames were built to perform PQA in the two vineyards (0.5×2 m, Figure 2). The frames have 4 horizontal bars, matching the ultrasonic sensors’ height. Each horizontal bar has 6 marks spaced 10 cm apart, indicating the position where the operator introduces the probe to count the number of leaf layers.

The experiments were conducted in fields belonging to Cornell University during the growing seasons of 2015 and 2016. Vineyards of V. vinifera cv. Vignoles  and cv. Cabernet Franc grapevines were used. The field trial consists of using the ultrasonic system to scan both sides of a row at 4.6 km/h as well as perform PQA. The PQA frame has 24 different positions and it is moved along the row at 4 random locations, making a total 96 samples per row per week. The average 96 PQA samples, named |PQA|, is compared with the average of the 4 sensors’ wc (the average of the full sum of ultrasonic sound returns, Pallejà & Landers, 2016) along the row, named |wc|. wc values are expressed in volts.

The ultrasonic system shows strong correlation to the acceptable, traditional method of Point Quadrat Analysis (PQA). This work shows that the ultrasonic canopy density method needs to be calibrated for each variety and plant type, in order to be used as a reference for adjustment of the sprayer’s parameters in real time, with the aim of improving deposition and reducing drift.

The ultrasonic system allows the rapid determination of canopy density, providing information to allow the variable application of pesticides in real-time. The ultrasonic system will also provide horticultural researchers with a fast method of comparing canopy density and growth stage for their field trials.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this project was provided by NY Apple Research and Development Program, The Canandaigua Wine Company Endowment, Kaplan Endowment, Lacroute Endowment, and Saltonstall Endowment.

References

Landers A J. (2016). Effective Vineyard Spraying 2nd ed. 2016. Keuka Park, Effective Spraying.

Llorens, J., Landers, A. and Larzelere, W. (2013). Digital measurement and actuators for improving spray applications in tree and vine crops. Proc. 9^th European Conference on Precision Agriculture. July 7-11 2013. Lleida, Catalonia, Spain

Llorens , J and Landers A.J. (2014) Variable rate spraying: digital canopy measurement for air and liquid electronic control. In: Aspects of Applied Biology 114. International advances in pesticide  application. Pp 1-8

Meyers J M, Vanden Heuvel J E.  (2008). Enhancing the Precision and Spatial Acuity of Point Quadrat Analyses via Calibrated Exposure Mapping. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 59:425- 431

Palleja T. and Landers A J. (2015). Real Time Canopy Density Estimation Using Ultrasonic Envelope Signals in the Orchard and Vineyard. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, pp. 108-117.

Palleja, T. and Landers, A.J. (2016). Orchard and vineyard real time spraying adjustments using ultrasonic echoes. In: Aspects of Applied Biology 132. International advances in pesticide  application. Pp 405-410.

Smart  R E, Robinson M. (1991). Sunlight into Wine: A Handbook for Winegrape Canopy Management. Winetitles, Adelaide.

Smart R E. (1985). Principles of grapevine canopy microclimate manipulation with implications for yield and quality. A review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 36:230-239

Richard Hoff

Director of Viticulture, Mercer Ranches; Prosser, WA

Mechanically managing vineyards over 5+ years, in the manner laid out below, has shown that it is possible to meet all quality and yield parameters that were previously achieved using hand labor.

• Mechanical spur pruning down to 1-2 buds per spur is achievable using Pellenc’s TRP Pruner
• Mechanical shoot thinning and desuckering can be achieved using current technologies
• Mechanical fruit thinning (and deleafing) can be accomplished using suck-and-cut style deleafers between bloom and bb-size berries
• Mechanical harvesting can deliver mostly whole berry and debris-free fruit to the winery

The future will see operations like these being automated and carried out in a variable-rate fashion. Further, mechanical wire lifting is already possible, but still leaves much to be desired with current technologies.

Key takeaways from mechanically managing vineyards are:

• Set high expectations no differently than if the operation was being done by hand
• Establish and maintain precise measurements and standards for your equipment
• It is necessary to be ready to frequently change strategies based on phenology and logistics
• Thinking in longer segments of linear feet will help you measure yield parameters in a way that smooths out the additional variability that mechanization brings to the vineyard

Justine Vanden Heuvel

Associate Professor, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University

What is Vine Balance?  

Vine balance is the ratio between vine size (vegetative growth) and vine yield (fruit growth).  It can also be described as the ratio of carbon supply to carbon demand.  Vine organs that produce carbon through photosynthesis or reallocation from storage are called “sources” while organs that import carbon are called “sinks”.

The concept of vine balance was first developed in the early 1900’s but further refined by Professor Nelson Shaulis at Cornell University in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Shaulis developed balanced pruning formulas that adjusted node number based on pruning weight from the previous season.

Metrics for Vine Balance

Many metrics are used to express the balance of vegetative to reproductive growth, including:

• Ravaz index (yield divided by the pruning weight of the same season)
• Growth-Yield relationship (yield divided by the pruning weight of the previous dormant season)
• Leaf area to fruit ratio
• Pruning weight per vine or linear length of row
• Individual cane weight

Key Concepts

• Source-sink balance impacts allocation of dry weight among vine organs.
• Photosynthesis and utilization of carbohydrates are tightly linked. When sink activity is decreased, carbohydrates accumulate in leaves and photosynthesis is inhibited.  Increased sink demand can enhance photosynthetic activity.
• When fewer leaves are present on a shoot, the shoot tip becomes an even stronger sink for carbon than the cluster. When carbon is limited, the vine reprioritizes it’s sinks to ensure vegetative growth.
• In cool climates, increased yield does not necessarily reduce vegetative growth of the vine if there is no stress (ex. Drought, disease, etc.). In warm climates where water is limited, vegetative growth is usually diminished when yield is increased.
• Vine balance has a significant impact on fruit composition, but the relationships are not well understood. The impact of vine balance on fruit composition deserves more research to further fine tune wine composition.

For More Information:

Publications:

Howell, G.S., 2001.  Sustainable grape productivity and the growth-yield relationship: A review.  Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52: 165-174.

Kliewer, W.M. and N.K. Dokoozlian, 2005.  Leaf area/crop weight ratios of grapevines: Influence on fruit composition and wine quality.  Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56: 170-181.

Lakso, A.N. 2013. Untangling the concepts of vine size, capacity, crop level, vigor, and vine balance.  Appellation Cornell Issue 13.

Andrew G. Reynolds

Brock University, St. Catharines, ON

Brief Biography

(see Nelson J. Shaulis Papers, 1941-1986. Collection Number: 22-2-3140, Cornell University Library:

https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMA03140.html#d0e300)

Nelson Shaulis (1914-2000) was Professor of Viticulture, New York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Geneva from 1944-1978 and was thereafter Professor Emeritus. Nelson Shaulis graduated with a BS in horticulture and an MS in agronomy from Pennsylvania State University. He received his PhD. from Cornell in 1941. He served as a soil conservationist with the USDA Soil Conservation Service from 1938 to 1944, while he was also an instructor and assistant professor of pomology at Penn State.

In 1944, he was appointed assistant professor of pomology at Cornell, and became professor of pomology and viticulture from 1948 to 1967. He retired as professor of viticulture in 1978. His major contributions to the grape industry included a training system for grapes called the Geneva Double Curtain (GDC), which he initiated at the Experiment Station in 1960 and with growers in 1964. He also helped to develop the mechanical grape harvester and mechanical pruning. Shaulis was named a fellow of the American Society of Horticultural Science in 1972 and in 1997 was the recipient of the Merit Award given by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture (ASEV), the highest award of the society. He also received Merit Awards from the Society of Wine Educators, the American Wine Society, the New York State Wine and Grape Foundation, and the National Grape Cooperative.

I tell my students that Dr Shaulis was the “father of canopy management research”; his paper on Geneva Double Curtain training (Shaulis et al. 1966) has become a frequently-cited classic. He was the first to stress the importance of canopy microclimate for node fruitfulness, yield, & fruit composition. He inspired many later experts in the field, particularly Richard Smart and Alain Carbonneau, who both took the concept of canopy division to Australasia and Europe, respectively.

A thumbnail career description.

First encounters. I first encountered Dr Shaulis in 1978 and engaged in a conversation about his 1949 paper on methyl anthranilate in Concord and its development during the veraison to harvest period (Robinson et al. 1949). His comment was “I have certainly done a lot more since then…”, and indeed he had, and an early example was work published on balanced pruning vs. MA (Shaulis and Robinson 1953).

Figure 1. Methyl anthranilate in Concord in response to three pruning severities over a 3-yr period (Shaulis and Robinson 1953).

Balanced pruning.  Dr Shaulis began research into balanced pruning in the 1940s. This work was largely based on that of Newton Partridge (Michigan State) and Lee Schrader (Univ. of Maryland) during the 1920’s. Partridge in particular noted that Concord vines varied greatly in trunk diameter and weight of cane prunings (vine size). He pruned small vines severely and large vines lightly, and eventually vineyards such as these became more consistent in vine size. He also “Arbitrarily derived” a balanced pruning formula for Concord, which worked out to be 30+8 (30 nodes for the first lb. of prunings and 8 nodes for each lb. thereafter).

Shaulis developed specific pruning formulae for Concord, Fredonia, and Catawba vines based on weight of cane prunings and the principles of Partridge. These formulae specify that small vines are severely pruned and large vines lightly pruned. It assumes: 1. Even small vines need leaf area for dry matter, so a minimum node number is retained regardless of vine size; 2. A maximum node number is retained, due to the restrictions of trellis area and shoot crowding; 3. Formulae are adjusted slightly for varieties based on cluster size, fruitfulness, etc.

Figure 2.  The vine size vs. yield relationship in Concord vines (Partridge 1925).  Note that the yield becomes asymptotic at ca. 3 lbs. of cane prunings per vine, likely due to shade-induced reductions in fruitfulness.

Shaulis and colleagues published several papers on balanced pruning and its interaction with other factors such as vine spacing (Shaulis and Oberle 1948, Tomkins and Shaulis 1955, Kimball and Shaulis 1958). Initial work with Fredonia concluded a 40+10 pruning formula to be ideal, although there were no pruning levels tested above this (Shaulis and Oberle 1948). However, there did appear to be an asymptotic relationship between node number and yield in Catawba (Fig. 3b), and the nodes vs. yield relationship in Concord could likewise be fitted to a polynomial function (Fig. 3c).

Figure 3.  Node number/lb. pruning weight vs. yield. (a) Fredonia (Shaulis and Oberle 1948); (b) Catawba (Tomkins and Shaulis 1955); (c) Concord (Kimball and Shaulis 1958).

The concept of balance has become popular in the past 30 years with the frequent use of the “Ravaz Index” (yield: vine size ratio). However, in needs to be pointed out the Ravaz himself did not use this ratio extensively and did not call it the “Ravaz Index”.  Moreover, although Nelson Shaulis frequently used the term “balance” to describe a well-managed vineyard, he did not make use of the Ravaz Index in any of his papers.  It was in fact Bravdo et al. (1984, 1985) who first published data to link this metric to fruit composition and wine quality. Their conclusions seemed to indicate that Carignane could achieve Ravaz Indices of up to 16 without compromise to wine quality, whereas Cabernet Sauvignon was more sensitive, showing wine score decreases at Ravaz Indices > 10.

Mechanical pruning and harvesting.  Work in the 1960’s and 1970’s led to greater mechanization, particularly in Concord vineyards.  Mechanical pruning (Pollock et al. 1977) and mechanical harvesting (Shepardson et al. 1962) have now become ubiquitous throughout vineyards globally.

Canopy division.  Shaulis is perhaps best known for the development of the divided canopy system, the Geneva Double Curtain (GDC) (Shaulis et al. 1966).  He is perhaps better known for the interest that the GDC evoked, and, the fundamental vine physiology questions that were answered.  The GDC system did not originate exclusively in the 1960’s, but in fact had its origins in the Modified Munson System, presumably developed by Texas viticulturist TV Munson around the turn of the 20^th century.  The original version contained two wires on either side of a central cordon ≈6 ft (2 m) in height, to position shoots to either side.  Later derivations of the system utilized a double cordon system, and the shoot positioning produced the equivalent to a divided canopy.  However, the training system was not widely used, and the shoot positioning wires were awkward and cumbersome, particularly during pruning.

Shaulis and colleagues recognized that once vine size increased to > 0.4 lbs/ft of row (0.5 kg/m row) that shade likely reduced fruitfulness and yield no longer increased as a function of node number per vine. By dividing the canopy, 1. Exposed shoots had enhanced fruitfulness, therefore GDC had increased productivity; 2. GDC had more exterior shoots and more exposed basal leaves; 3. Shoot positioning decreased shaded basal leaves to ≈ 9% from ≈ 42%; 4. Fruit maturity was a function of greater shoot maturity; 5. Exterior shoots produced fruit with higher Brix.

Richard Smart was one of Shaulis’ two graduate students in his career and did his PhD research on GDC-trained Concord in the early-mid 1970’s.  Two papers from this research (Smart et al. 1982a, 1982b) showed the importance of GDC and particularly shoot positioning for canopy light microclimate.  Alain Carbonneau worked with Shaulis in the late 1970’s and from his experience he developed the Lyre system, which has achieved popularity in France and elsewhere (Carbonneau 1977). Smart et al. (1985a,b) likewise experimented with GDC on Shiraz vines in Australia.  Moreover, Shaulis worked with Peter May in Australia in the late 1960’s to show that GDC and shoot positioning could increase fruitfulness in Thompson Seedless (Sultana) such that it could be pruned to long spurs without reduction in yield (Shaulis and May 1971).

Table 1. Effects of the GDC system on fruit composition of Shiraz (Smart et al. 1985b). Underlined means are significantly different from the control (P < 0.05).

Table 2.  Effects of the Lyre system on fruit composition of Merlot (Carbonneau 1977). Underlined means are significantly different from the control (P < 0.05).

Concluding Remarks.

Nelson Shaulis had a career devoted to the study of the grapevine.  He inspired scientific curiosity in numerous individuals, myself included, and as a consequence those of us who are viticulturists understand the physiology of the grapevine much more than our fathers and grandfathers.  It seems appropriate to conclude with a few quotes attributed to Nelson: Taste extensively, but ingest minimally (scolding me for excessive wine consumption, ca. 1985); Drink it: it’s not for your pleasure, it’s for your education! (to Alain Carbonneau, encountering his first glass of Catawba wine, 1977); “I enjoyed your talk, Nelson” (me, addressing Nelson)… I didn’t give the talk for enjoyment, I gave it for edification (UC Davis 100^th Anniversary Symposium, 1980); It’s not how many leaves are removed, it’s how many leaves remain afterwards (addressing a Martinborough, New Zealand grower who was overly enthusiastic with his fruit zone leaf removal, 1988); What is your (research) idea for today? (to Alain Carbonneau, 1977); I wish I had learned less about growing grapevines and more about how grapevines grow.

For More Information:

Website:

• https://rmc.library.cornell.edu/EAD/htmldocs/RMA03140.html#d0e300

Nelson Shaulis Publications

Refereed Publications

Alderfer RB, Shaulis NJ. 1943. Some effects of cover crops in peach orchards on runoff and erosion. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 42:21-29.

Shaulis NJ. 1946. Tree and soil response to cultural treatments of peach orchards in south central Pennsylvania. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 48:1-26.

Shaulis NJ, Oberle GD. 1948. Some effects of pruning severity and training on Fredonia and Concord grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 51:263-270.

Shaulis NJ, Alderfer RB. 1949. Soil structure relations to runoff and erosion in a peach orchard. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 53:40-48.

Shaulis NJ. 1950. A progress report on the use of fortified oil emulsions in weeding grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 56:203-209.

Shaulis NJ, Robinson WB. 1953. The effect of season, pruning severity, and trellising on some chemical characteristics of Concord and Fredonia grape juice. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 62:214-220.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K, Tomkins JP. 1953. The effect of trellis height and training systems on the growth and yield of Concord grapes under a controlled pruning severity. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 62:221-227.

Edgerton LJ, Shaulis NJ. 1953. The effect of time of pruning on cold hardiness of Concord grape canes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 62:209-213.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K. 1955. Effect of plant spacing on growth and yield of concord grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 66:192-193.

Tomkins JP, Shaulis NJ. 1955. The Catawba grape in New York. I. Some fruiting characteristics of the cane and shoot. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 66:209-213.

Tomkins JP, Shaulis NJ. 1955. The Catawba grape in New York. II. Some effects of severity of pruning on the production of fruit and wood. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 66:214-219.

Taschenberg EF, Shaulis NJ. 1955. Effects of DDT-Bordeaux sprays and fertilizer programs on the growth and yield of Concord grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 66:201-208.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K. 1955. Effect of plant spacing on growth and yield of Concord grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 66:192-200.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K. 1956. The association of nutrient composition of Concord grape petioles with deficiency symptoms, growth and yield. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 68:141-156.

Shaulis NJ. 1956. The sampling of small fruits for composition and nutritional studies. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 68:576-586.

Kimball K, Shaulis NJ. 1958. Pruning effects on the growth, yield and maturity of Concord grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 71:167-176.

Robinson WB, Shaulis NJ, Smith GC, Tallman DF. 1959. Changes in the malic and tartaric acid contents of Concord grapes. Food Research 24(2):176-180.

Nitsch JP, Pratt C, Nitsch C, Shaulis NJ. 1960. Natural growth substances in Concord and Concord seedless grapes in relation to berry development. Am. J. Botany 47:566-576.

Pratt C, Shaulis NJ. 1961. Gibberellin-induced parthenocarpy in grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 77:322-330.

Shepardson ES, Studer HE, Shaulis NJ, Moyer JC. 1962. Mechanical grape harvesting: Research progress and developments at Cornell. Agric Engin 43(2):66-71.

Shaulis NJ, Amberg H, Crowe DE. 1966. Response of Concord grapes to light, exposure and Geneva Double Curtain training. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 89:268-280.

Shaulis NJ, Steel RGD. 1969. The interaction of resistant rootstock to the nitrogen, weed control, pruning and thinning effects on the productivity of Concord grapevines. J Am Soc Hort Sci 94:422-429.

May P, Shaulis NJ, Antcliff AJ. 1969. The effect of controlled defoliation in the Sultana vine. Am J Enol Vitic 20:237-250.

Shaulis NJ, May P. 1971. Response of Sultana vines to training on a divided canopy and to shoot crowding. Am J Enol Vitic 22:215-222.

Mattick LR, Shaulis NJ, Moyer JC. 1972. The effect of potassium fertilization on the acid content of Concord grape juice. Am J Enol Vitic 23:26-30.

Shaulis NJ, Kender WJ, Pratt C, Sinclair WA. 1972. Evidence for injury by ozone in New York vineyards. HortScience 7:570-572.

Kender WJ, Taschenberg EF, Shaulis NJ. 1973. Benomyl protection of grapevines from air pollution injury. HortScience 8:396-398.

Kender WJ, Shaulis NJ. 1976. Vineyard management practices influencing oxidant injury in ‘Concord’ grapevines. J Am Soc Hort Sci 101:129-132.

Shaulis NJ, Einset J. 1976. Grape. Hortus III, pp.522-523.

Pollock JG, Shepardson ES, Shaulis NJ, Crowe DE. 1977. Mechanical pruning of American hybrid grapevines. Trans Am Soc Agric Engin 20:817-821.

Cahoon G.A, Shaulis NJ, Barnard J. 1977.  Effect of daminozide on ‘Concord’ grapes,   J Am Soc Hort Sci 102:218-222.

Howell GS, Shaulis NJ. 1980. Factors influencing within vine variation in the cold resistance of cane and primary bud tissues. Am J Enol Vitic 31:158-161.

Smart RE, Shaulis NJ, Lemon ER.  1982. The effect of Concord vineyard microclimate on yield: I. The effects of pruning, training and shoot positioning on radiation microclimate. Am J Enol Vitic 33:99-107.

Smart RE, Shaulis NJ, Lemon ER. 1982. The effect of Concord vineyard microclimate on yield: II. The interrelations between microclimate and yield expression. Am J Enol Vitic 33:109-115.

Other Publications

International Conference Proceedings

Shaulis NJ. 1966. Light intensity and temperature requirements for Concord grape growth and fruit maturity. Proc XVII Int Hort Congr, pp. 589.

Shaulis NJ, Smart RE. 1974. Grapevine canopies: Management, microclimate and yield responses. Proc XIX Int Hort Congr, Warsaw, Poland, September 1974, pp. 255-265.

Shaulis NJ, Pollock JG. 1979. Management of grapevines, including Geneva Double Curtain trained grapevines for a more mechanized viticulture. 6^th Kongress über Mechanisierung im Gartenbau, September 1979, Kecskemét, Hungary.

Shaulis NJ. 1980. Responses of grapevines and grapes to spacing of and within canopies. Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings, University of California, Davis, pp. 353-361.

Shaulis NJ. 1984. Characteristics of the grapevines environment in relation with their estimation and their improvement (Caracteristiques des milieux de la vigne par rapport a leur evaluation et a leur amelioration). Bull de l’OIV 57:283-290.

State Conference Proceedings or Other Regional Publications

Shaulis NJ, Merkle FG. 1939. Orchard soil management. Some effects of different practices on the soil. Penn State College Bull (373):1-26.

Shaulis NJ. 1941. Soil and Plant Response to Modified Sods and Mulches in a Young Peach Orchard. Thesis (PhD)–Cornell University, June, 1941.

Shaulis NJ. 1942. Fundamentals of orchard soils. Proc 83rd Ann Mtg, Penn State Hort Ass, pp. 1-8.

Shaulis NJ. 1947. Heavy pruning and Fredonia yields. Farm Res XIII (1), pp. 4.

Shaulis NJ, Carleton EA. 1947. Higher grape yields from cross-slope plantings. Farm Res (99).

Shaulis NJ. 1948. Balanced pruning aids grapes. Farm Res XIV(3).

Shaulis NJ. 1948. Balanced pruning of grapes really pays dividends. Nitrogen News and Views, Coke Oven Ammonia Research Bureau, Inc. III (4).

Robinson WB, Shaulis NJ, Pederson CS. 1949. Ripening studies of grapes grown in 1948 for juice manufacture. Fruit Prod J Am Food Manuf 29(2):36-37, 54, 62.

Shaulis NJ. 1949. Some recent studies in pruning and training grapes. Hortic News, pp. 2222-2230.

Shaulis NJ. 1950. Weed killers in the vineyard. Farm Res reprint no.167 (April 1950).

Shaulis NJ. 1951. Observations in Concord vineyards of Washington State. Proc 96th Annual Meeting. NY State Hort Assoc.

Shaulis NJ, Dugan DR. 1951. Chemical weed control in the vineyard. Cornell Extension Bull (816).

Pederson CS, Robinson WB, Shaulis NJ. 1953. Opalescent juice from white grapes. Farm Res XIX (1), pp. 2.

Shaulis NJ. 1953. Forty years work with grafting grapes. The Chautauqua Co Farm Home Bureau News, Jamestown NY 36(11), pp. 2.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K, Tomkins JP. 1953. Training and trellising Concord grapes for high yields. Farm Res (April), pp. 11.

Shaulis NJ. 1953. Expert discusses ABC’s of grape pruning. New York Times, 29 November, pp. X36.

Shaulis NJ. 1954. Potash deficiency in the vineyard. Farm Res (April), pp.4.

Shaulis NJ, Kimball K. 1954. Profitable spacing for Concord grape vines. Farm Res (October), pp. 11.

Shaulis NJ. 1955. Shaulis suggests ways to lift grape quality. The Grape Belt and Chautauqua Farmer LXI (21) pp. 1,10.

Shaulis NJ. 1956. Looking ahead with grape growers. Proc NY State Hort Soc.

Shaulis NJ. 1958. 1957 observations in California vineyards. Proc NY State Hort Soc.

Shaulis NJ. 1958. Weed control in New York vineyards. Farm Res XXIV (1) (reprint no. 259)

Shaulis NJ. 1959. Gibberellin trials for New York grapes. Farm Res (March).

Shaulis NJ. 1959. Response of Concord grapes to grape pomace, Farm Res (September), pp. 14.

Shaulis NJ, Jordan TD. 1959. Chemical control of weeds in New York vineyards, NYS College of Agriculture, Cornell Extension Bulletin no.1026.

Shaulis NJ. 1959. Your vines will tell you. Am Fruit Grower 79(9), pp. 9, 21.

Shaulis NJ, Shepardson ES, Moyer JC. 1960. Grape harvesting at Cornell: I. Proc NY State Hort Soc, pp. 250-254.

Shaulis NJ, Crowe DE. 1960. New York trials in weed control over the whole vineyard floor. Proc 14th Ann Mtg Northeastern Weed Control Conf, pp. 66-70.

Shaulis NJ. 1961. Associations between symptoms of potassium deficiency, plant analysis, growth and yield of Concord grapes. Am Inst Biol Sci, Publication no.8, pp. 44-57 (probably AIBS Bulletin).

Shaulis NJ. 1961. Pruning pointers: Grapevines should be cut back now to increase the fruit yield,   New York Times, 26 February, pp. X37.

Shaulis NJ. 1962. Observations in European vineyards. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc, pp. 233-235.

Shepardson ES, Miller WF, Moyer JC, Shaulis NJ. 1963. Grape harvester research at Cornell. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc.

Shaulis NJ, Shepardson ES, Moyer JC. 1964. Grape harvesting research at Cornell. VI. Pruning, training and trellising Concord grapes for mechanical harvesting in New York. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc, pp. 234-241.

Shaulis NJ, Dethier BE. 1964. Minimizing the hazard of cold in New York vineyards. Cornell Extension Bulletin 1127.

Shaulis NJ, Pratt C. 1965. Grapes – their growth and development. Farm Res, Reprint no. 401 (Jan/Mar).

Shaulis NJ. 1965. The Geneva Double Curtain – A training system for New York’s vigorous grapes. Farm Res (April/June), pp. 2-3.

Lider LA, Shaulis NJ. 1965. Resistant rootstocks for New York vineyards. NYSAES Research Circular, Series no. 2. (revised 1974)

Shaulis NJ. 1966. Resistant rootstocks for wine grapes. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc, pp. 177-178.

Shaulis NJ, Shepardson ES, Jordan TD. 1967. The Geneva Double Curtain for vigorous grapevines. NYSAES Bulletin no. 811.

Shaulis NJ, Einset J, Boyd Pack A. 1968. Growing cold-tender grape varieties in New York. NYSAES Bulletin no. 821.

Shaulis NJ, Shepardson ES, Moyer JC. 1968. Mechanical harvesting of grape varieties grown in New York State. Technical Seminar on Implications of Mechanization for Fruit and Vegetable Harvesting, Chicago IL, 8-10 December 1968.

Shaulis NJ. 1969. Viticulture and mechanical harvesting of grape varieties grown in New York State. Fruit and Vegetable Harvest Mechanization, Technical Implications. RMC Report no.16, pp. 583-587. Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Shaulis NJ, Dethier B. 1970. New York site selection for wine grapes. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 115:288-294.

Robinson WB, Einset J, Shaulis NJ. 1970. The relation of variety and grape composition to wine quality. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 115:283-287.

Shaulis NJ, Steel RGD. 1970. Cultural and rootstock effects on Concord grape productivity. NY Food & Life Science 3(3), pp. 7-9.

Shaulis NJ. 1971. Vine hardiness a part of the problem of hardiness to cold in N.Y. vineyards. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 116:158-167.

Shaulis NJ. 1971. Vineyard sites – Importance and identification in New York. Proc NY Wine Industry Technical Advisory Panel, Dept Food Science & Technology, NY State Agricultural Experiment Station Cornell University, Geneva NY, 19 August 1971.

Shaulis NJ, Jordan TD, Tomkins JP. 1972. Cultural practices for New York vineyards. Cornell Extension Bull no. 805.

Kender WJ, Shaulis NJ. 1973. Air pollution injury in New York vineyards. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc, pp. 70-73.

Shaulis NJ, Pollock J, Crowe DE, Shepardson ES. 1973. Mechanical pruning of grapevines progress 1968-1972. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc, pp. 61-69.

Mattick LR, Moyer JC, Shaulis NJ. 1973. Acidity in Concord grape juice. NY Food and Life Science 6(1):8-9.

Lider LA, Shaulis NJ. 1974. Resistant rootstocks for New York vineyards. NY Food and Life Sci Bull (45):1-3.

Shaulis NJ, Shepardson ES, Moyer JC. 1975. Yield losses in the mechanical harvesting of grapes in New York. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 120:96-104.

Shaulis NJ, Pool RM. 1976. Establishing grapevines in the home garden. New York Times, Garden Section, Sunday Supplement.

Shaulis NJ. 1976. A Guide for Grape Growers. New York Times, 21 March, pp. 96.

Shaulis NJ. 1977. Factors affecting sugar accumulation in New York grapes in 1976. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 122:225-230.

Shaulis NJ, Crowe DE, Rogers RA. 1977. The relation of the phytotoxicity of glyphosate to its injury-free use in vineyards: I. Glyphosate studies as a basis for injury-free use. Northeastern Weed Sci Soc 32:246-253.

Shaulis NJ, Crowe DE. 1977. Weed control in New York vineyards. Weeds Today 8(2):25.

Shaulis NJ, Zabadal T, Jordan TD. 1978. Vineyard decisions which can reduce the impact of weather. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 123:162-165 (Section I).

Pool RM, Shaulis NJ, Tyler E. 1979. What happened to the Delawares in 1978? Proc 30th Ann Finger Lakes Grape Growers’ Convention, pp. 54-66.

Shaulis NJ. 1979. Reflections on NY viticulture. Eastern Grape Grower & Winery News 5(1):18-20.

Musselman RC, Shaulis NJ, Kender WJ. 1980. Damage to grapevines by fossil-fuel wastes and pollutants. Search: Agriculture no. 3.

Shaulis NJ. 1981. Cold damaged grapevines and their management. 32nd Annual Finger Lakes Grape Growers’ Convention (Proceedings unpublished; see Vineyard Notes 1981).

Oberly G, Shaulis NJ, Tyler E. 1982. Boron and grapevines: The 1979-1981 efforts in Finger Lakes vineyards. 33rd Annual Finger Lakes Grape Growers’ Convention (Proceedings unpublished; see Vineyard Notes, #82-8, 21 May 1982).

Shaulis NJ. 1983. Relevance of some of the Japanese viticulture to New York viticulture. Proc Ann Mtg NY State Hort Soc 28:46-47.

Shaulis NJ. 1991. Some of the viticultural limitations and grape use limitations encountered in mechanization of control of grape crop size. 121st Ann Report Secretary State Hort Soc of Michigan, pp. 117-125.