• This study systematically reveals that compared with open-field grown (OFG) '87–1′ grapevines, facility grown (FG) ones have higher total biomass growth rate (except at end bloom stage), higher fruit biomass proportion at all growth stages, and distinct macronutrient (FG: Ca> K > N > P >Mg; OFG: Ca> K > N >Mg> P ) and micronutrient (FG: Zn>Fe>Mn>Cu> B >Mo; OFG: Fe>Zn>Cu>Mn> B >Mo) uptake orders, along with different peak stages of N, K, Ca and Zn uptake. • The research finds that Fe and Zn concentrations exceed 0.1 mg·g⁻¹ in specific growth stages or tissues of '87–1′ grapevines, which breaks the traditional boundary of micronutrient concentration. • The research clarifies the difference in nutrient uptake proportion order of nutrient organs between FG (shoots>leaves) and OFG (leaves>shoots), providing key theoretical support for differentiated nutrient management to optimize grape yield and quality. Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) relies on the precise mineral nutrient uptake and partitioning to ensure fruit quality and yield. However, systematic research on nutrient dynamics under different cultivation modes remains insufficient. This study investigated seasonal mineral nutrient uptake and partitioning patterns in '87–1′ grapevines grown in facility (FG) and open field grown '87–1′ (OFG) grapevines. Over consecutive growing seasons, three vines at germination stage (GS), initial flowering stage (IFS), end bloom stage (EBS), seed development stage (SDS), veraison stage (VS), maturation stage (MS), and defoliation stage (DS)were excavated. Each vine was separated into different organs, which were then dried and weighed to determine biomass. Subsequently, the samples were ground and analyzed for the contents of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), and molybdenum (Mo). The results showed that the total biomass growth rates of FG were 2.3%-67.5% higher than those of OFG at all growth stages except EBS. For macronutrient uptake, the order in FG was Ca> K > N > P >Mg, while the micronutrient uptake order was Zn>Fe>Mn>Cu> B >Mo. In contrast, OFG had a macronutrient uptake order of Ca> K > N >Mg> P , and a micronutrient uptake order of Fe>Zn>Cu>Mn> B >Mo. Both FG and OFG exhibited the highest N uptake proportion from GS to IFS, accounting for 21.8% and 27.9% respectively. For FG, the uptake proportion of K was the highest (28.8%) from EBS to SDS, while those of Ca (46.7%) and Zn (54.1%) peaked from VS to MS. For OFG, K (37.4%) and Ca (34.9%) uptake proportions were the highest from VS to MS, and Zn uptake proportion reached its peak (47.6%) from MS to DS. In terms of nutrient uptake proportion in nutrient organs (NO), the order was shoots>leaves for FG, whereas it was leaves>shoots for OFG. The concentrations of Fe and Zn exceeded 0.1 mg·g -1 in specific growth stages or tissues, exceeding typical thresholds of traditional micronutrients. These findings systematically clarify nutrient dynamics differences in ‘87–1′ grapevines under FG and OFG, providing theoretical support for differentiated nutrient management to optimize yield and fruit quality.
Wang et al. (Sun,) studied this question.