Stability of Ampelometric Characteristics of Vitis vinifera L. cv. 'Syrah' and 'Sauvignon blanc' Leaves: Impact of Within-vineyard Variability and Pruning Method/Bud Load

Historically, grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) leaf characterisation has been a driving force in the identification of cultivars. In this study, ampelometric (foliometric) analysis was done on leaf samples collected from hand-pruned, mechanically pruned and minimally pruned ‘Sauvignon blanc’ and ‘Syrah’ vines to estimate the impact of within-vineyard variability and a change in bud load on the stability of leaf properties. The results showed that within-vineyard variability of ampelometric characteristics was high within a cultivar, irrespective of bud load. In terms of the O.I.V. coding system, zero to four class differences were observed between minimum and maximum values of each characteristic. The value of variability of each characteristic was different between the three levels of bud load and the two cultivars. With respect to bud load, the number of shoots per vine had a significant effect on the characteristics of the leaf laminae. Single leaf area and lengths of veins changed significantly for both cultivars, irrespective of treatment, while angle between veins proved to be a stable characteristic. A large number of biometric data can be recorded on a single leaf; the data measured on several leaves, however, are not necessarily unique for a specific cultivar. The leaf characteristics analysed in this study can be divided into two groups according to the response to a change in bud load, i.e. stable (angles between the veins, depths of sinuses) and variable (length of the veins, length of the petiole, single leaf area). The variable characteristics are not recommended to be used in cultivar identification, unless the pruning method/bud load is known.

Neumann versus Leontief. Két modell – két gazdaságkép (Neumann vs Leontief. Two models, two approaches to the economy)

A szerző a tisztán elméleti célokra kifejlesztett Neumann-modellt és a gyakorlati alkalmazások céljára kifejlesztett Leontief-modellt veti össze. A Neumann-modell és a Leontief-modell éves termelési periódust feltételező, zárt, stacionárius változatának hasonló matematikai struktúrája azt a feltételezést sugallja, hogy az utóbbi a Neumann-modell sajátos eseteként értelmezhető. Az egyes modellek közgazdasági tartalmát és feltevéseit részletesen kibontva és egymással összevetve a szerző megmutatja, hogy a fenti következtetés félrevezető, két merőben különböző modellről van szó, nem lehet az egyikből a másikat levezetni. Az ikertermelés és technológiai választék lehetősége a Neumann-modell elengedhetetlen feltevése, az éves termelési periódus feltevése pedig kizárja folyam jellegű kibocsátások explicit figyelembevételét. Mindezek feltevések ugyanakkor idegenek a Leontief-modelltől. A két modell valójában egy általánosabb állomány–folyam jellegű zárt, stacionárius modell sajátos esete, méghozzá azok folyamváltozókra redukált alakja. _____ The paper compares the basic assumptions and methodology of the Von Neumann model, developed for purely abstract theoretical purposes, and those of the Leontief model, designed originally for practical applications. Study of the similar mathematical structures of the Von Neumann model and the closed, stationary Leontief model, with a unit length of production period, often leads to the false conclusion that the latter is just a simplified version of the former. It is argued that the economic assumptions of the two models are quite different, which makes such an assertion unfounded. Technical choice and joint production are indispensable features of the Von Neumann model, and the assumption of unitary length of production period excludes the possibility of taking service flows explicitly into account. All these features are completely alien to the Leontief model, however. It is shown that the two models are in fact special cases of a more general stock-flow stationary model, reduced to forms containing only flow variables.