Effects of grapevine canopy leaning on grape composition and wine quality of ‘Bobal’
Abstract
Exploring new field strategies for adapting winegrowing regions to the adverse effects of climate change becomes imperative. This study focuses on the effects of canopy architecture through the trellis systems leaning of North–South oriented vineyard’s rows vertical shoot positioned (VSP) system by 30° towards either the East (ESP) or the West (WSP) as a possible adaptation technique. The trial was conducted over two seasons in a Vitis vinifera L. cv. Bobal vineyard located in Requena (Valencia), eastern Spain, under a temperate-warm climate. The canopy leaning was considered to affect the radiation load and its timing with potential effects on vine physiology and grape metabolism and, consequently, on grape and wine quality. Leaning treatments affected vegetative growth, likely due to slight differences in vine water status. In comparison to VSP and ESP, WSP intercepts more light in the morning, when the photosynthetic capacity of the vines is at its highest. However, this results in a more negative vine water potential, which in turn leads to a reduction in vigour with no impact on yield. Musts from the WSP showed a tendency to increase total acidity compared to VSP, while ESP tended to decrease it. This was likely due to the reduction in temperature within the cluster microclimate in WSP in comparison to the ESP and VSP treatments. In addition, musts from the WSP treatment showed higher colour intensity, anthocyanins and polyphenols, potentially attributable to its more negative potentials, likely due to its more negative potentials, which may have prompted the synthesis of phenolic compounds. Consequently, wines from the WSP treatment displayed higher total acidity and lower pH, as well as higher colour intensity, anthocyanins, and polyphenolic content. In addition, WSP wines had higher concentrations of esters and higher alcohols. The improvements in grape and wine composition are likely due to an increased cluster radiation interception in the morning and reduced heating in the afternoon when VPD is higher. Our findings demonstrate that canopy management by leaning VSP vines towards the West can be a useful technique for adapting grape and wine composition to climate change and provide insights into its physiological basis.
Introduction
Winegrowing in regions with a Mediterranean-like climate exhibits particular sensitivity to projected climate change (IPCC, 2022) mainly due to its impact on grape and wine composition, rather than on vine performance (Sadras et al., 2017). Global warming results in advancements in vine phenology and potential increases in soil water deficit (Fraga et al., 2012). Vine water stress disrupts physiology, leading to alterations in grape development and composition (Previtali et al., 2022). Elevated temperatures can decouple sugar accumulation in berries from phenolic maturity, resulting in grapes being harvested at higher sugar levels to attain complete phenolic maturity (Sadras and Moran, 2012). Consequently, this leads to higher alcohol content in wines (Van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine, 2017). Furthermore, higher temperatures decrease organic acid content while significantly altering aromas and aroma precursors (Duchêne and Schneider, 2005; Neethling et al., 2012). In this context, it becomes imperative to implement adaptation strategies that mitigate the climate change effects on vine performance, berry composition, and ultimately, wine quality (Bernardo et al., 2018; Buesa et al., 2019; Poni et al., 2018; Sadras et al., 2013).
In recent years, researchers and grape growers have been exploring field strategies for adapting to the adverse effects of climate change on grape quality (Suter et al., 2021; Van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine, 2017). Potential adaptation strategies may include early harvesting, although this may not be viable as it would not allow grapes to achieve the desired phenolic maturity (Sadras et al., 2017), relocation of vineyards to cooler locations, either at higher altitudes or latitudes (Jones et al., 2005), and modification of the genetic material employed, such as grapevine varieties, clones, and rootstocks (Medrano et al., 2015). Other strategies involve modifications in field management techniques, including irrigation, delaying vine phenology, modulating light interception, adjustments to grapevine architecture, canopy management, etc. (Buesa et al., 2020; Buesa et al., 2021a; Caravia et al., 2016; Previtali et al., 2022; Tessarin et al., 2022; Torres et al., 2020; Xyrafis et al., 2023).
This study focuses on the effects of canopy management through leaning 30° the traditional vertical shoot positioned (VSP) system towards either the East (ESP) or the West (WSP). The VSP system is the most commonly used trellis system in winegrapes as it allows for mechanical harvesting and effective management of vegetation to achieve a greater number of shoots with reduced vigour, thereby enhancing yield and resulting in wines with superior sensory characteristics (Palliotti et al., 2014). VSP vines are typically planted in North-to-South rows, facilitating uniform light distribution in the fruiting zone on both sides of the canopy, which significantly influences berry composition (Hunter et al., 2017; Spayd et al., 2002). Under this vineyard arrangement, the radiation load on grapevines varies throughout the day, with either greater or lower light interception occurring in the early morning and afternoon, respectively, and reduced radiation interception at midday when the sun directly impacts the narrow top of the canopy (Buesa et al., 2021b). Moreover, alternative training systems such as the open Lyre or the Y-shape (Carbonneau et al., 2004; Palliotti, 2012), which aim to increase sunlight, are suitable for improving yield and grape and wine quality (Carbonneau et al., 2006). Particularly under warm climates, canopy shading of the clusters can benefit the microclimate conditions for grape ripening and also vine physiology (Xyrafis et al., 2023). In this sense, leaning the VSP canopy allows modulating the radiation interception patterns throughout the day and therefore, both vine and grape physiology. This type of canopy management was first proposed by Ing. Raúl del Monte and later adapted by Pr. Alain Carbonneau to make it adjustable: ‘Espalier modulé’ or ‘Modulated VSP’ (Carbonneau, 2009). Nevertheless, the impact of leaning the VSP canopies on grape and wine composition remains understudied (Buesa et al., 2020; Friedel et al., 2016).
Leaning canopies are particularly interesting regarding solar radiation load, the timing of canopy interception, and their effects on vine water status and cluster microclimate conditions (Carbonneau, 2009; Baeza et al., 2010). It is well known that the intensity of light received by berries influences their secondary metabolism, potentially leading to increased accumulation of polyphenolic compounds (Caravia et al., 2016). Nevertheless, other effects on plant metabolism remain largely unknown and may vary among different grapevine cultivars (Fernandes de Oliveira and Nieddu, 2016). Berries that experience high exposure to solar radiation and low temperatures (15 °C) generally exhibit higher sugar, anthocyanin, and polyphenolic compound content while displaying lower total acidity, malate content, and must pH compared to berries with less exposure or in shaded areas (Bergqvist et al., 2001; Fernandes de Oliveira and Nieddu, 2016). However, under warmer climates, solar radiation can have both positive and negative effects on colour formation and the content of polyphenolic compounds due to the interactive effect of solar radiation and berry overheating (Lovisolo et al., 2010; Mori et al., 2007; Tessarin et al., 2022; Torres et al., 2020; Wolf et al., 2003). Furthermore, excessive degradation of organic acids and aromatic precursors due to excessive solar radiation can negatively impact sensory attributes, thereby affecting wine quality (Moreno et al., 2015a; Sadras et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the available information concerning the relationship between trellis inclination and the synthesis of aromatic compounds is very limited (Vilanova et al., 2019). Leaning the canopy will modify the daily radiation in the vineyard, thus affecting vine water relations and cluster microclimate conditions. Hence, leaning canopies to the west (WSP) will intercept more radiation during the morning when the vapour pressure deficit (VPD) is lower and less radiation in the afternoon when the VPD is higher. The opposite is true for the ESP. How the vine regulates its water status will determine the canopy temperature. Thus, water relations and microclimate temperature will ultimately alter the concentration of various compounds in the musts and consequently the composition of the wines produced from these grapes. These compounds include C6 compounds, higher alcohols, ethyl esters and acetates, volatile fatty acids, and α-terpineol.
The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of different canopy architectures by leaning trellis systems in North–South hedgerow vineyards on berry quality and wine composition. Our main hypothesis was that, compared to the VSP system, leaning canopies will modify the diurnal radiation interception patterns, subsequently affecting cluster microclimate conditions and plant physiology, and improving grape and wine composition. Specifically, 1) ESP vines will increase vine water status during the morning, thereby enhancing vine performance and delaying grape ripening, and 2) WSP vines will increase radiation interception by the canopy during the morning when leaves are photosynthetically more active while reducing it in the afternoon when VPD is usually higher, and protecting clusters from over sun exposure.
To this end, the effects of VSP, ESP, and WSP on grapevine water relations, yield components, vine vigour and grape and wine composition were evaluated in a ‘Bobal’ vineyard under Mediterranean climate conditions during two seasons. This cultivar is, after ‘Tempranillo’, the second largest red grape cultivar grown in Spain, accounting for 12 % of the total (54.165 has) (Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, 2020). This cultivar is considered to be drought tolerant and prone to high yields, it has compact medium-to-large sized bunches with large irregular berries and a deep black-coloured skin with high resveratrol content (Salón et al., 2005; Navarro et al., 2008). It is a cultivar suitable for producing rosé wines, which are known for their pink colour, fresh acidity, and fruity flavours, although their red wines can also age well due to its tannic structure and acidity (García-Carpintero et al., 2010).
Materials and methods
1. Location and vineyard characteristics
The trial was carried out from 2016 to 2017 in a commercial vineyard (Vitis vinifera L.) located in Requena, Valencia, Spain (39º30´18.10´´N, 1º13´54.30´´W; elevation 746 m a.s.l.). The trial was conducted in Bobal cultivar grafted onto 110 Richter planted in 2002 at a spacing of 2.5 x 1.5 m (2666 vines ha-1). Canopy was trained to a bilateral cordon system with 12 buds per vine in a trellis system oriented North–South. Canopy management practices included manual shoot thinning before the onset of flowering. The vineyard was deficit-irrigated through 3.2 L.h-1 drippers spaced every 1.25 m. Sustained deficit irrigation was applied at 33 % of the crop evapotranspiration (ETc), based on crop coefficient values quantified for ‘Tempranillo’ (López-Urrea et al., 2012). Total irrigation accounted for 94.9 and 62.4 mm in 2016 and 2017, respectively. Fertigation was performed on all treatments by applying 30-20-60-16 kg.ha-1 of N, P2O5, K2O, and MgO, respectively.
The soil in the vineyard was a Typic Calciorthid according to the Soil Taxonomy, with a clay-loam to light clay texture according to the USDA, highly calcareous (37 %) and with low fertility (0.66 % in organic matter and 0.04 % in nitrogen). Soil depth was higher than 2 m with 200 mm.m-1 of available water capacity. The climate in this area was classified as semi-arid hot-summer Mediterranean, corresponding to a temperate warm viticultural climate, with cool and moderately dry nights according to the classification system for grape-growing regions proposed by Tonietto and Carbonneau (Tonietto and Carbonneau, 2004). The 2016 and 2017 seasons were meteorologically similar (Supplementary Table 1). Mean temperature and accumulated evapotranspiration (ETo) during the growing seasons, from April to September, were 20 and 20.4 °C and 921 and 920 mm, respectively. Rainfall in this period was 166 in 2016 and 119 mm in 2017.
2. Experimental design
The experiment consisted of three treatments, (i) Vertical Shoot Positioned (VSP); (ii) East Shoot Positioned (ESP), canopy leaned 30° towards East; (iii) West Shoot Positioned (WSP), canopy leaned 30° towards West. The canopy leaning systems were established at the beginning of the experiment by adding leaned posts, which support the catching wires and the canopy, to the existing vertical trellis system (Supplementary Figure 1). The system allows the mechanisation of the vineyard and automatic collection as the inclined posts are mobile.
The experimental design was a complete block layout with four replicates. Each experimental unit (EU), a combination of blocks per treatment, consisted of five rows with 7–9 vines each (35–45 vines). The vines in the middle of the three central rows were used for measurement and sampling, while the rest acted as buffers.
3. Field determinations
During the growing season, midday stem (measurements were carried out between 11:30 and 12:30 solar time) was determined fortnightly on bag-covered leaves from 4 representative vines per EU, 16 vines per treatment, using a pressure chamber (Model 600, PMS Instruments Inc., Albany, OR, USA) (Choné et al., 2001).
The daily temporal evolution of the surface temperature was monitored on the days of the year (DOY) 215 and 228 (August 3 and 16, 2017, respectively). Temperature measurements were performed using a thermal infrared radiometer (Apogee MI-210, Utah, USA) at 5 to 6 moments of the day: 9:30, 11:30, 14:00, 16:30, and 18:30 local time. The canopy temperature (Tc) was measured on both sides in 8 plants per treatment. The monitored area comprised the middle zone of the canopy. Additionally, all measurements were corrected from the atmospheric and emissivity effect following the procedure recommended by Sánchez et al. (2008).
After veraison, once shoot growth had practically ceased, total leaf area (LA) was estimated from the allometric relations between shoot length and leaf area per shoot measured with LI-3100 Area Meter (LI-COR Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). This relationship was established in 2016 using 10 shoots of contrasting lengths, separating the main and lateral shoots (y = 22.74x, r2 = 0.99*** and y = 14.42x, r2 = 0.95***, respectively). Thereafter, LA was calculated by measuring the shoot length on 3 vines per EU, 12 vines per treatment (Tregoat et al., 2001).
At harvest, grape yield, number of clusters, and average cluster mass were determined in every experimental vine of each EU. In winter, pruning fresh mass was weighed from samples from 4 vines per EU.
4. Grape composition determinations
Berry fresh mass was determined from two subsamples of 200 berries per EU collected from all experimental vines. Must composition was determined from 50 berries of these subsamples by hand-pressing berries. Must total soluble solids (TSS) was determined by refractometry (PR-101, Series Palette, Atago, Tokyo, Japan) and pH and titratable total acidity (TTA) by automatic titration (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland) with NaOH, expressed in tartaric acid equivalents. In parallel, the other 50 berries per subsample were used for determining the grape's phenolic content (see section 2.6.).
5. Laboratory scale vinifications
Grapes from each EU were separately vinified at the experimental winery of the Polytechnic University of Valencia. Thus, in each season, 12 wines were performed. Grapes were harvested in boxes (10 kg), manually destemmed, crushed, and placed in jars (2 kg). Then, 100 mg.L-1 of potassium bisulphite (E-224, Agrovin, Alcazar de San Juan, Spain) and 200 mg.L-1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Enartis Ferm Red Fruit (Sepsa-Enartis, La Rioja, Spain) were added. During the maceration process, the caps were punched down until homogenisation one time every day. Alcoholic fermentation (AF) was monitored by classical analytical techniques (density and temperature). Once the AF was finished (10 days), the lactic bacteria Viniferm Œ104 Oenococcus oeni (Agrovin, Alcazar de San Juan, Spain) were inoculated to start the malolactic fermentation (MLF). Once the MLF finished (15 days), each wine was bottled in a glass bottle and 50 mg.L-1 of SO2 was added. Finally, wines were analysed (60 days from the end of MLF).
6. Must and wine oenological parameters
The oenological basic parameters of musts and wines, such as density, ethanol, pH, TTA, and volatile acidity were determined according to the Official Methods of the European Commission (Council Regulation, 1990). The concentration of total anthocyanins was determined according to the Puissant–León method (Blouin, 1992). The total polyphenols index (TPI) and total tannins were determined according to Slinkard and Singleton (Slinkard and Singleton, 1977). Flavonoid and non-flavonoid compounds were determined by Kramling and Singleton (Kramling and Singleton, 1969). The concentration of catechins was determined following the Pompei and Peri method (Pompei and Peri, 1971) and condensed tannins according to Ribéreau-Gayon and Stonestreet (Ribéreau-Gayon and Stonestreet, 1966). The content of anthocyanins combined with tannins was calculated using the Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVPP) Index which was measured according to Vivas et al. (Vivas et al., 1994). The Gelatin Index (tannins astringency) (Glories, 1984) and DMACH (tannin degree polymerisation) were also calculated (Vivas and Glories, 1995). The content of proanthocyanins combined with polysaccharides was determined by the Ethanol Index according to Glories (Glories, 1978).
7. Analysis of wine aroma compounds
Volatile compounds were analysed by the procedure proposed by Ortega et al. (2001) with slight modifications. A volume of 2.7 mL of the samples was transferred to a 10 mL screw-capped centrifuge tube that contained 4.05 g of ammonium sulphate and the following compounds were added; 6.3 mL of Milli-Q water and 20 μL of a standard internal solution consisting of 2-butanol, 4-methyl-2-pentanol and 2-octanol from Sigma Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany) at 140 μg m.L-1 each, in absolute ethanol from LiChrosolv-Merck (Darmstadt, Germany), and 0.25 mL of dichloromethane. The tube was shaken mechanically for 120 min and was later centrifuged at 2,900 g for 15 min. The dichloromethane phase was recovered with a 0.5 mL syringe, transferred to the autosampler and analysed. The chromatographic analysis was carried out in an HP-6890, equipped with a ZB-Wax plus column (60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm) from Phenomenex. The column temperature, initially set at 40 °C and maintained at this temperature for 5 min, was then raised to 102 °C at a rate of 4 °C.min-1 to 112 °C at a rate of 2 °C.min-1, to 125 °C at a rate of 3 °C.min-1 and this temperature was maintained for 5 min and then raised to 160 °C at a rate of 3 °C.min-1; to 200 °C at a rate of 6 °C min-1 and was then kept at this temperature for 30 min. The carrier gas was helium, which was fluxed at a rate of 3 mL.min-1. The injection was done in split mode 1:20 (injection volume 2 μL) with a flame ionisation detector (FID). In addition, Kovats retention indices (KI) were calculated for the GC peaks corresponding to identifying substance by the interpolation of the retention time of normal alkane (C8–C20) by Fluka Buchs (Schwiez, Switzerland), analysed under the same chromatographic condition. The calculated KI were compared with those reported in the literature for the same stationary phase.
8. Statistical analysis
The statistical analysis used to examine the dataset was a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). When the ANOVA revealed significant differences (p < 0.05), a post hoc mean separation was performed using either the Duncan test (for normally distributed data) or the Kruskal–Wallis procedure from the “Statgraphics Centurion XVI” software package (version 16.0.07) (Statgraphics Technologies, The Plains, VA, USA).
Results and discussion
1. Effect of the leaning canopy on vine physiology and yield components
In general, the vineyard water status became more negative until mid-season, when sustained deficit irrigation and rainfall led to an increase (Figure 1). In both seasons, the most negative stem values reached - 1.5 to - 1.3 MPa, indicating severe water stress (Poni et al., 2018). It should be noted that ESP showed, on most dates, less negative values than WSP (Figure 1). In addition, on some dates, the WSP showed higher vine water stress than the VSP. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the stem reflects the water status at midday, and that this varies in response to the trellis leaning throughout the day (Santesteban et al., 2019; Buesa et al., 2020). Therefore, it is to be expected that the WSP will recover its water status in the afternoon compared to the VSP and, above all, to the ESP.
Regarding vegetative growth, both pruning mass and total leaf area per vine (LA) were significantly affected by the treatments (Table 1). The ESP tended to increase the pruning mass compared to WSP, with VSP showing intermediate values between the two. However, differences among treatments were statistically significant only in 2016. A similar pattern showed LA due to the highest leaf area of main and secondary shoots. WSP treatment showed in both seasons significantly lower leaf area in secondary shoots (Table 1). The differences found among treatments in vegetative growth were in good agreement with its water status evolution (Figure 1). Nevertheless, Buesa and co-workers (Buesa et al., 2020), reported that leaning trellises towards the West increased LA by 13 % and yield by 12 % compared to traditional VSP. In the present trial, however, there were no overall significant effects of the trellis leaning on yield components (Table 1). The only exception was in 2017 when the number of clusters per vine was significantly decreased by 14 % in the ESP compared to the other treatments. However, neither cluster mass nor berry mass was affected, despite the slight differences in vine water status (Figure 1).
Parameter | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | (p-value) |
Pruning mass (kg/vine) | VSP | 0.40ab | 0.58a | * |
ESP | 0.44b | 0.61a | ||
WSP | 0.33a | 0.53a | ||
Total leaf area (m2/vine) | VSP | 3.0a | 4.9a | ** |
ESP | 3.6b | 4.9a | ||
WSP | 2.7a | 4.3a | ||
Main shoots leaf area (m2/vine) | VSP | 2.5a | 3.5a | ** |
ESP | 3.0b | 3.6a | ||
WSP | 2.3a | 3.4a | ||
Secondary shoots leaf area (m2/vine) | VSP | 0.47ab | 1.17b | ** |
ESP | 0.61b | 1.21b | ||
WSP | 0.40a | 0.89a | ||
Clusters/vine | VSP | 10.8a | 8.7b | ns |
ESP | 10.7a | 7.4a | ||
WSP | 10.3a | 8.6b | ||
Cluster mass (g) | VSP | 404a | 384a | ns |
ESP | 409a | 410a | ||
WSP | 389a | 404a | ||
Berry weight (g) | VSP | 2.33a | 3.71a | ns |
ESP | 2.40a | 3.56a | ||
WSP | 2.41a | 3.44a | ||
Yield (kg/vine) | VSP | 4.3a | 3.5a | ns |
ESP | 4.3a | 3.1a | ||
WSP | 4.0a | 3.5a |
2. Effect of the leaning canopy on the physicochemical properties of musts
Differences in the basic physicochemical parameters of ‘Bobal’ grapes among treatments were found (Table 2). For instance, in 2017, the TSS of musts at harvest showed a significant increase in VSP compared to the other treatments. Moreover, in both vintages, the TTA tended to be the highest in WSP, with the grapes harvested in ESP decreasing TTA. However, no significant differences were found in pH among treatments (Table 2).
Parameter | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | p-value |
Total Soluble Solids (ºBrix) | VSP | 20.66a | 21.27b | * |
ESP | 20.68a | 19.45a | ||
WSP | 20.98a | 19.80a | ||
pH | VSP | 3.35a | 3.41a | ns |
ESP | 3.39a | 3.45a | ||
WSP | 3.34a | 3.39a | ||
Titratable Total Acidity (g/L) | VSP | 5.66a | 6.57b | * |
ESP | 5.49a | 6.16a | ||
WSP | 6.08b | 6.64b |
Regarding grape colour intensity and phenolic characteristics, in both seasons, musts from WSP vines showed significantly the highest colour intensity (Table 3). This fact could be related to the trend observed for anthocyanins with higher values in WSP and lower values in ESP compared to VSP. Significant differences were also observed for TPI, the content of polyphenols and tannins. In general, higher values were observed in WSP and lower values in ESP, regarding control (VSP). These results agree with previous authors who reported that, across training systems, increasing cluster sun exposure was related to higher anthocyanin and polyphenol concentrations in grapes (Wolf et al., 2003). In this sense, the WSP had a less dense canopy due to a significant reduction in secondary shoot growth (Table 1). Moreover, WSP clusters are also more protected from exposure to direct sunlight during the afternoon than ESP and VSP. Consequently, ESP clusters may increase the microclimate temperature during the warmest and driest hours of the day to the extent of diminishing berry colour and phenolics (Bergqvist et al., 2001; Oliveira and Nieddu, 2016). Furthermore, mild water stress can also have a positive effect by increasing the synthesis of berry anthocyanin and polyphenols (Castellarin et al., 2007; Bucchetti et al., 2011; Berhe, 2022; Martínez-Vidaurre et al., 2024). This highlights the relevance that other potential factors may have on the water status of the vines such as soil type, rootstock used, crop load, soil management and irrigation strategies, etc., which may influence the effects on grape composition of canopy management practices (Ashley, 2004; Uriarte et al., 2016).
Parameter | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | p-value |
Colour | VSP | 29.20a | 24.38a | * |
Intensity | ESP | 27.72a | 24.61a | |
pH 1 | WSP | 34.17b | 29.78b | |
Colour | VSP | 9.17a | 8.15a | *** |
Intensity | ESP | 8.80a | 8.21a | |
pH 3.2 | WSP | 12.20b | 9.84b | |
Anthocyanins | VSP | 886.54ab | 759.52ab | * |
pH1 | ESP | 821.88a | 741.68a | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 938.73b | 848.23b | |
Anthocyanins | VSP | 321.57ab | 284.57a | *** |
pH 3.2 | ESP | 299.56a | 282.57a | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 384.24b | 354.24b | |
Anthocyanins | VSP | 61.63a | 73.59a | ns |
Extractability | ESP | 63.67a | 73.40a | |
(%) | WSP | 58.44a | 69.39a | |
TPI pH 1 | VSP | 48.56a | 43.72a | *** |
ESP | 45.66a | 44.77a | ||
WSP | 54.14b | 51.15b | ||
TPI pH 3.2 | VSP | 30.56ab | 26.61a | *** |
ESP | 27.25a | 25.54a | ||
WSP | 37.12b | 31.07b | ||
Polyphenols | VSP | 3221.34ab | 3013.34b | *** |
pH 1 | ESP | 2898.90a | 2578.90a | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 3515.78b | 3195.78b | |
Polyphenols | VSP | 1831.08a | 1630.92ab | *** |
pH 3.2 | ESP | 1757.50a | 1393.94a | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 2161.91b | 2017.93b | |
Tannins | VSP | 841.05a | 791.05a | *** |
pH 1 | ESP | 793.61a | 729.86a | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 1070.82b | 889.57b | |
Tannins | VSP | 781.50a | 682.13a | *** |
pH 3.2 | ESP | 768.02a | 718.02b | |
(mg/L) | WSP | 982.09b | 844.59c | |
% Seed ripening | VSP | 57.91a | 56.19a | ns |
ESP | 56.06a | 55.51a | ||
WSP | 58.60a | 51.50a |
3. Effect of the leaning canopy on the physicochemical properties and phenolic composition of wines
In wines, a general trend was observed regarding canopy leaning according to the basic oenological parameters of wines. Thus, lower pH and higher TTA were observed in WSP, showing significant differences among treatments in 2016 (Table 4). Nevertheless, no differences in volatile acidity were found among treatments in any vintage. In 2017, the alcoholic strength was significantly higher in VSP wines compared to ESP and WSP.
Parameter | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | (p-value) |
Alcoholic weight (g) Strength (% vol.) | VSP | 11.54a | 12.52b | *** |
ESP | 11.19a | 11.68a | ||
WSP | 11.28a | 11.66a | ||
pH | VSP | 3.42ab | 3.82a | * |
ESP | 3.46b | 3.83a | ||
WSP | 3.39a | 3.79a | ||
TTA (g/L) | VSP | 6.57b | 4.67a | *** |
ESP | 6.16a | 4.54a | ||
WSP | 6.65b | 4.72a | ||
Volatile acidity (g/L) | VSP | 0.30a | 0.36a | ns |
ESP | 0.32a | 0.39a | ||
WSP | 0.31a | 0.36a |
Regarding phenolic parameters and colour characteristics, a similar trend was observed in musts, accordingly higher colour intensity and anthocyanins were obtained in the case of WSP with significant differences in both vintages (Table 5). Moreover, a significantly higher content in TPI, total phenols, total flavonoids, total tannins, and catechins was observed for WSP compared to both VSP and ESP in both vintages. These results can be related to a greater amount of radiation in the morning when the photosynthetic capacity of the vines is higher, and to the fact that the bunches are protected from the afternoon sun when the air temperature is higher in the WSP system (Buesa et al., 2020; Intrigliolo et al., 2017). Indeed, when vines lean towards the West, an early interception of light in the morning increases the rate of foliar photosynthesis (Intrigliolo et al., 2017) that can lead to a greater accumulation of polyphenols in grapes (Vitrac et al., 2000). Moreover, the more severe vine water stress experienced by WSP (Figure 1), can accelerate grape ripening and polyphenols biosynthesis (Castellarin et al., 2007; Intrigliolo and Lakso, 2011; Lovisolo et al., 2010). On the contrary, the ESP showed no increase in the phenolic parameters of wines compared to VSP, with the exception in 2017 of total phenols, total flavonoids, and catechins (Table 5). This may be explained by the slight increases observed in vine water status in ESP (Figure 1) and its effects on the phenolic compounds in this cultivar (Salón et al., 2005). However, no decreases in the phenolic parameters compared to VSP were found. Therefore, increasing solar radiation exposure of the cluster may have had counteracting effects, positively influencing flavanol synthesis (Friedel et al., 2016; Wolf et al., 2003) while provoking a depletion by overheating. Differences in canopy temperature throughout the day among treatments showed that WSP reduced canopy temperature by 3–4 degrees compared to VSP and WSP (Supplementary Figure 2). These differences in canopy temperature cannot be directly translated to differences in grape temperature, but they show that these are temperatures that could lead to the degradation of phenolic compounds (Mori et al., 2007). In this regard, Torres and co-authors reported that higher light interception affected flavonoid accumulation, both because of its synthesis but also its degradation (Torres et al., 2020).
Parameter | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | (p-value) |
Colorant intensity | VSP | 10.73a | 9.53a | *** |
ESP | 9.70a | 9.37a | ||
WSP | 13.03b | 10.96b | ||
Hue (%) | VSP | 52.76a | 78.17a | ns |
ESP | 53.54a | 76.49a | ||
WSP | 51.76a | 78.39a | ||
Anthocyanins (mg/L) | VSP | 289.62a | 279.46a | *** |
ESP | 299.18a | 297.83a | ||
WSP | 342.65b | 321.11b | ||
TPI | VSP | 34.29a | 30.43a | *** |
ESP | 36.11a | 30.15a | ||
WSP | 42.57b | 33.73b | ||
Total Phenols (mg/L) | VSP | 2752.29a | 2515.88a | *** |
ESP | 2777.08a | 2801.98b | ||
WSP | 3006.24b | 3238.23c | ||
Total NO Flavonoids (mg/L) | VSP | 578.71a | 496.75a | ns |
ESP | 587.53a | 494.62a | ||
WSP | 584.98a | 508.14a | ||
Total Flavonoids (mg/L) | VSP | 2173.58a | 2019.13a | *** |
ESP | 2189.54a | 2447.06b | ||
WSP | 2421.26b | 2730.09c | ||
Total Tannins (mg/L) | VSP | 1622.89a | 1651.12a | *** |
ESP | 1576.82a | 1676.07a | ||
WSP | 1739.25b | 1837.96b | ||
Condensed Tannins (mg/L) | VSP | 1322.82a | 1182.27a | *** |
ESP | 1401.26a | 1288.56ab | ||
WSP | 1651.83b | 1343.85b | ||
Catechins (mg/L) | VSP | 158.20a | 91.61a | *** |
ESP | 180.20b | 110.56b | ||
WSP | 204.82c | 153.22c | ||
PVPP Index (%) | VSP | 67.90a | 65.44a | *** |
ESP | 69.09a | 64.59a | ||
WSP | 74.33b | 67.40a | ||
DMACH Index (%) | VSP | 27.45b | 34.63b | *** |
ESP | 31.24c | 34.15b | ||
WSP | 23.72a | 31.59a | ||
Ethanol Index (%) | VSP | 77.46a | 74.18a | *** |
ESP | 77.23a | 78.51a | ||
WSP | 79.98a | 79.06a | ||
Gelatine Index (%) | VSP | 24.18a | 35.35a | ns |
ESP | 23.91a | 35.26a | ||
WSP | 29.99a | 37.95a |
The PVPP Index increased in both vintages for WSP, showing significant differences from VSP and ESP only in 2017 (Table 5). A higher combination of anthocyanins and flavanols in WSP treatment can influence positively the wine colour stability (Escribano-Bailón et al., 2001). In this sense, the DMACH Index was significantly lower in WSP treatment compared to VSP and ESP, which may be caused either by precipitation of some of the proanthocyanidin molecules or by increasing their degree of polymerisation (Zanchi et al., 2007). Wines showed no differences in the Gelatine Index, which is commonly used to evaluate astringency. Regarding the formation of polysaccharides–tannin–protein complexes, assessed through the Ethanol Index, a higher value was found in WSP wines (no significant differences within each vintage), indicating a higher content of tannins dissolved but in turn higher formation complexes likely due to the higher content of polyphenols observed (Table 5).
4. Effect of the leaning canopy on the aromatic composition of wines
A total of thirty-eight volatile compounds were quantified to determine the effect of the leaning canopy on the aromatic composition of wines (Table 6). The total concentration of each compound is shown individually and grouped in five representative families according to their chemical structure (aldehydes, esters, alcohols, acids, and lactones).
Compound/FAMILIES | Treatment | 2016 | 2017 | p-value |
Acetaldehyde | VSP | 0.403a | 0.427b | *** |
ESP | 0.352a | 0.354a | ||
WSP | 0.346a | 0.332a | ||
Benzaldehyde | VSP | 0.370a | 0.456a | ns |
ESP | 0.428a | 0.498a | ||
WSP | 0.429a | 0.531a | ||
Diacetal | VSP | 0.033a | 0.023a | * |
ESP | 0.041a | 0.050a | ||
WSP | 0.049a | 0.058a | ||
ALDEHYDES | VSP | 0.806a | 0.966a | ns |
ESP | 0.821a | 0.902a | ||
WSP | 0.823a | 0.921a | ||
Methyl acetate | VSP | 1.514b | 0.401a | ns |
ESP | 0.815a | 0.376a | ||
WSP | 1.096a | 0.485a | ||
Ethyl acetate | VSP | 0.146a | 0.390b | * |
ESP | 0.083a | 0.291a | ||
WSP | 0.141a | 0.392b | ||
Isobuthyl acetate | VSP | 0.893a | 1.018a | * |
ESP | 1.105a | 1.291b | ||
WSP | 1.505b | 1.536b | ||
Ethyl isovalerate | VSP | 0.453a | 0.296a | ns |
ESP | 0.417a | 0.467b | ||
WSP | 0.445a | 0.396ab | ||
Ethyl hexanoate | VSP | 0.421a | 0.192a | *** |
ESP | 0.434ab | 0.208a | ||
WSP | 0.465b | 0.316b | ||
Hexyl acetate | VSP | 0.390a | 0.516a | * |
ESP | 0.365a | 0.683b | ||
WSP | 0.576b | 0.857c | ||
Ethyl lactate | VSP | 3.215a | 1.880a | ** |
ESP | 4.622b | 3.389b | ||
WSP | 8.534c | 7.918c | ||
Ethyl octanoate | VSP | 1.020a | 0.481a | ns |
ESP | 0.854a | 0.657b | ||
WSP | 1.293a | 0.455a | ||
Ethyl decanoate | VSP | 0.989a | 0.853a | ns |
ESP | 0.967a | 0.770a | ||
WSP | 0.839a | 0.801a | ||
Diethyl succinate | VSP | 0.913ab | 1.342b | *** |
ESP | 0.831a | 1.273a | ||
WSP | 0.942b | 1.402b | ||
Diethyl glutarate | VSP | 0.550a | 0.556a | ns |
ESP | 0.558a | 0.520a | ||
WSP | 0.626b | 0.514a | ||
2-phenyl ethyl acetate | VSP | 0.069a | 0.025a | *** |
ESP | 0.064a | 0.026a | ||
WSP | 0.092b | 0.107b | ||
ESTERS | VSP | 10.571a | 7.951a | *** |
ESP | 11.115a | 9.949b | ||
WSP | 16.554b | 15.180c | ||
1-propanol | VSP | 0.530a | 0.422a | ns |
ESP | 0.517a | 0.453a | ||
WSP | 0.569a | 0.422a | ||
1-butanol | VSP | 0.669a | 0.542c | ** |
ESP | 0.807ab | 0.343a | ||
WSP | 0.965b | 0.487b | ||
Isoamylic alcohol | VSP | 245.27a | 240.179b | ** |
ESP | 241.92a | 178.901a | ||
WSP | 254.38a | 219.075b | ||
Cis 3-hexenol | VSP | 0.782b | 0.122b | * |
ESP | 0.448a | 0.100a | ||
WSP | 0.419a | 0.179b | ||
1-heptanol | VSP | 0.060a | 0.067a | ns |
ESP | 0.050a | 0.040a | ||
WSP | 0.071a | 0.081b | ||
2.3 butanediol | VSP | 5.491a | 3.644a | *** |
ESP | 5.291a | 7.046b | ||
WSP | 7.006b | 8.878c | ||
Benzyl alcohol | VSP | 0.560a | 0.419b | ns |
ESP | 0.559a | 0.401b | ||
WSP | 0.626a | 0.284a | ||
2-phenylethanol | VSP | 58.463a | 43.603b | * |
ESP | 61.182a | 39.438ab | ||
WSP | 58.103a | 34.853a | ||
HIGHER ALCOHOLS | VSP | 311.825a | 288.999b | ** |
ESP | 306.822a | 226.722a | ||
WSP | 322.138b | 264.259b | ||
Isobutyric acid | VSP | 0.345a | 0.249b | ** |
ESP | 0.345a | 0.173a | ||
WSP | 0.358a | 0.319c | ||
Decanoic acid | VSP | 0.171a | 0.298b | *** |
ESP | 0.185a | 0.139a | ||
WSP | 0.170a | 0.273b | ||
Butyric acid | VSP | 1.130a | 1.349a | ns |
ESP | 1.341b | 1.402ab | ||
WSP | 1.352b | 1.639b | ||
Isopentanoic acid | VSP | 0.362a | 0.244a | ns |
ESP | 0.342a | 0.360b | ||
WSP | 0.355a | 0.321ab | ||
Hexanoic acid | VSP | 0.265a | 0.315a | ns |
ESP | 0.301b | 0.356ab | ||
WSP | 0.315b | 0.419b | ||
Octanoic acid | VSP | 2.100ab | 1.089b | *** |
ESP | 2.276b | 0.671a | ||
WSP | 1.913a | 0.590a | ||
FATTY ACIDS | VSP | 4.372a | 3.543b | ns |
ESP | 4.791a | 3.101a | ||
WSP | 4.464a | 3.561b | ||
γ-butirolactone | VSP | 0.934a | 0.624a | ns |
ESP | 1.028a | 0.493a | ||
WSP | 1.065a | 0.486a | ||
β-damascenone | VSP | 1.150b | 0.319c | ** |
ESP | 0.819a | 0.260b | ||
WSP | 1.012ab | 0.183a | ||
α-ionone | VSP | 0.554a | 0.226a | ** |
ESP | 0.623a | 0.458c | ||
WSP | 0.601a | 0.331b | ||
Pantolactone | VSP | 0.153a | 0.273a | * |
ESP | 0.141a | 0.233a | ||
WSP | 0.214b | 0.409b | ||
Decalactone | VSP | 0.136a | 0.205a | ns |
ESP | 0.144a | 0.229b | ||
WSP | 0.165b | 0.213a | ||
LACTONES | VSP | 2.927ab | 1.647a | ns |
ESP | 2.755a | 1.673a | ||
WSP | 3.056b | 1.623a |
Regarding aldehydes, the different treatments did not influence their overall concentration. In 2017, VSP wines did show a higher concentration of acetaldehyde (Table 6). This compound can provide pleasant or unpleasant notes to wines depending on their concentration. Thus, low concentrations provide positive notes such as sweet fruits, but high concentrations can lead to undesirable aromas such as baked apple, walnuts, butter or glaze (Zea et al., 2015). Concerning esters, in both vintages, WSP wines consistently showed significantly higher concentrations than VSP and ESP. Particularly, isobutyl acetate, ethyl isovalerate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl lactate, hexyl acetate, diethyl succinate, and 2- phenyl-ethyl acetate obtained significant differences (Table 6). These compounds are related to fruity aromas and pleasant notes, being a high incidence in the aromatic profile of wines (Ferreira et al., 2000). Therefore, WSP wines could lead to aromatically fresher wines with a more marked youthful character. This can be explained by the increased sunlight exposure of the clusters in WSP due to the lower secondary shoots development (Belancic et al., 1997; Zhang et al., 2017).
The concentration of higher alcohols in WSP was significantly higher than in VSP in 2016 and significantly higher than ESP in both seasons (Table 6). This pattern showed differences mainly between WSP and ESP treatments and could indicate that the canopy leaning towards the West is most suitable to improve the level of higher alcohol in wines. In Tempranillo wines, Talaverano et al. (2017) reported higher levels of total alcohol in response to more negative vine water potentials, as is the case of WSP in comparison to VSP and ESP (Figure 1).
In relation to fatty acids (aromatic precursors of fruity esters), a different tendency was found depending on the vintage. In 2016, a higher content of butyric acid and hexanoic acid was found in ESP and WSP compared to the control (Table 6). Octanoic acid tended to be reduced in WSP for both vintages. Nevertheless, in 2017, isobutyric acid, butyric acid and hexanoic acid reached significantly higher levels in WSP than in control wines (VSP). Regarding lactones, as occurred in higher alcohols and fatty acids, a different pattern was observed between vintages showing significant overall differences between WSP and ESP only in 2016. Pantolactone was the only compound that consistently increased in both seasons by WSP compared to VSP and ESP (Table 6).
In general, the content of esters and higher alcohols seems to be favoured by WSP, producing a higher aromatic intensity of wines, as reported by other authors in response to the effect of the increase in vegetation height (Moreno et al., 2015b). These results could be related to the fact that WSP grapes, compared to VSP and ESP ones, intercepted a greater amount of radiation early in the morning and from the lower in the afternoon, when the air temperature and VPD are higher (Supplementary Figure 2). This may be due to, on the one hand, the increase in sunlight exposure of the clusters (Belancic et al., 1997; Zhang et al., 2017) and, on the other hand, a reduction in the degradation of aromatic precursors by heat (Marais et al., 2001), both processes leading to a higher aromatic concentration in wines.
5. Integrating the effects of canopy leaning on physiology, agronomic and oenological responses
Canopy architecture significantly affected vine water status, and thus vegetative vigour, mainly due to the increase and reduction in leaf area of secondary shoots of ESP and WSP, respectively, with respect to the VSP control (Table 1). This, together with the different radiation loads intercepted by the canopy due to its leaning, likely increased the irradiance and temperature of the clusters throughout the morning and afternoon in WSP and ESP, respectively. This generated microclimate conditions that in turn increased and reduced phenolic and aromatic compounds in WSP and VSP, respectively, with respect to the VSP. Note the importance of the timing of radiation interception, as it is in the afternoon, when VPD is higher, that the greatest interception seems to be negative for acidity and phenolic compounds and aromatic composition (ESP), whereas the opposite is true in the morning (WSP). Nevertheless, our two seasons results also highlight the complex relationships between meteorological conditions and field management practices as other authors reported in other cultivars (Buesa et al., 2021a; Talaverano et al., 2017; Vilanova et al., 2019). For instance, the smaller differences in the total leaf area of the vines among treatments in 2017, when canopies were additionally denser compared to 2016, seem to dampen the effects of canopy leaning on cluster microclimate and thus on grape and wine composition. Consequently, canopy leaning should be adjusted to the specific environmental conditions of the vintage, as the angle of leaning and the timing can be modulated according to the grape ripening process. As an example, in the face of heat waves during grape ripening, leaning the trellis to the West might minimize the detrimental effects on grape composition.
Conclusions
Leaning canopy treatments affected canopy radiation load, causing significant differences in vine water status, and resulting in differences in vegetative growth. Thus, the WSP treatment increased vine water stress (stem) resulting in a 15 % lower both pruning mass and total leaf area compared to the VSP and ESP treatments. However, no significant differences were observed in the yield components. Musts from the WSP showed a tendency to increase TTA compared to VSP, while ESP tended to reduce it. This is attributable to the temperature reduction in the cluster microclimate in the WSP compared to ESP and VSP. Furthermore, grapes from WSP treatment also exhibited heightened colour intensity, anthocyanins and TPI, likely due to its more negative potentials inducing the synthesis of phenolic compounds. Consequently, wines from the WSP treatment displayed lower pH and higher TTA, as well as higher colour intensity, anthocyanins, and polyphenolic composition than the other treatments. Aromatic analysis revealed that WSP wines had higher concentrations of esters and higher alcohols than the other treatments, which could be related to fruity aromas and a higher aromatic intensity of wines. These findings demonstrate that canopy leaning towards the West can be a useful technique for adapting must composition and wine quality to climate change through increasing radiation interception in the morning and decreasing cluster heating in the afternoon. These results encourage further research into the potential of canopy management practices to regulate radiation load and its timing under different cultivars and environmental conditions. It also provides insights into the physiological basis of its effects on vine water status and cluster microclimate.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation through the Spanish Research Agency (MCIN/AEI) and the European Union Next GenerationEU/PTR [grant numbers PID2021-123305OB-C31]. R. Ferrer-Gallego acknowledges the funding of MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and the European Union NextGenerationEU/PRTR [RYC2021-031638-I] and [CNS2023-144458]. The authors express their gratitude to Felipe Sanz, Antonio Yeves, Diego Pérez, Giulio Caccavello, Maria Clara Merli and Javier Castel for their help in the fieldwork. Thanks are also due to ‘Cajamar’ and ‘Lucio Gil de Fagoaga’ for facilitating the experimental field.
References
- Ashley, R. M. (2004). Integrated irrigation and canopy management strategies for Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz [Doctoral dissertation, School of Agriculture and Wine]. University of Adelaide. https://hdl.handle.net/2440/37821
- Baeza, P., Sánchez-De-Miguel, P., & Lissarrague, J. R. (2010). Radiation balance in vineyards. In A. D. Marshall (Ed.), Advances in vineyard management (pp. 21–29). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9283-0_2
- Belancic, A., Agosin, E., Ibacache, A., Bordeu, E., Baumes, R., Razungles, A., & Bayonove, C. (1997). Influence of sun exposure on the aromatic composition of Chilean Muscat grape cultivars Moscatel de Alejandría and Moscatel rosada. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 48(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1997.48.2.181
- Bergqvist, J., Dokoozlian, N., & Ebisuda, N. (2001). Sunlight exposure and temperature effects on berry growth and composition of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache in the central San Joaquin Valley of California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 52(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2001.52.1.1
- Berhe, D. T. (2022). Post-Veraison Water Stress and Pruning Level on Merlot Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): Effects on Berry Development and Composition. International Journal of Agronomy, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/7307078
- Bernardo, S., Dinis, L.-T., Machado, N., & Moutinho-Pereira, J. (2018). Grapevine abiotic stress assessment and search for sustainable adaptation strategies in Mediterranean-like climates. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 38(6), 66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0544-0
- Blouin, J. (1992). Techniques d’analyses des moûts et des vins. Dujardin-Salleron.
- Bucchetti, B., Matthews, M. A., Falginella, L., Peterlunger, E., & Castellarin, S. D. (2011). Effect of water deficit on Merlot grape tannins and anthocyanins across four seasons. Scientia Horticulturae, 128(3), 297–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.02.003
- Buesa, I., Ballester, C., Mirás-Avalos, J. M., & Intrigliolo, D. S. (2020). Effects of leaning grapevine canopy to the West on water use efficiency and yield under Mediterranean conditions. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 295(August), 108166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108166
- Buesa, I., Caccavello, G., Basile, B., Merli, M. C., Poni, S., Chirivella, C., & Intrigliolo, D. S. (2019). Delaying berry ripening of bobal and tempranillo grapevines by late leaf removal in a semi-arid and temperate-warm climate under different water regimes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 25(1), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12368
- Buesa, I., Yeves, A., Sanz, F., Chirivella, C., & Intrigliolo, D. S. (2021a). Effect of delaying winter pruning of Bobal and Tempranillo grapevines on vine performance, grape and wine composition. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 27(1), 94–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12467
- Buesa, I., Intrigliolo, D. S., Castel, J. R., & Vilanova, M. (2021b). Influence of water regime on grape aromatic composition of Muscat of Alexandria in a semiarid climate. Scientia Horticulturae, 290, 110525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110525
- Caravia, L., Collins, C., Petrie, P. R., & Tyerman, S. D. (2016). Application of shade treatments during Shiraz berry ripening to reduce the impact of high temperature. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22(3), 422–437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12248
- Carbonneau, A., Ojeda, H., Samson, A., Pacos, J., Jolivot, A., & Hmida, M. (2006). Chaîne méthodologique d’analyse de la qualité: exemple du bilan vitivinicole des essais de conduite de la Syrah en terroir sec à l’Unité Expérimentale de Pech Rouge. Le Progrès Agricole et Viticole, 123(15–16), 291–301.
- Carbonneau, A., Del Monte, R., Lopez, F., & Ojeda, H. (2004). The foldable lyre: Ecophysiological interest for the management of light absorption and water; technological interest for mechanical harvesting. Journal International Des Sciences de La Vigne et Du Vin, 38(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2004.38.1.931
- Carbonneau, A. (2009). Evolution of canopy management: From history to scientific modeling. Recent Advances in Grapevine Canopy Management, 2006, 27–42. https://iv.ucdavis.edu/files/82248.pdf
- Castellarin, S. D., Matthews, M. A., Di Gaspero, G., & Gambetta, G. A. (2007). Water deficits accelerate ripening and induce changes in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Planta, 227(1), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0598-8
- Choné, X., Van Leeuwen, C., Dubourdieu, D., & Gaudillère, J. P. (2001). Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany, 87(4), 477–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1361
- Council Regulation, EEC. (1990). Community methods for the analysis of wines. Official Journal of the European Communities, No 2676/90. http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/1990/2676/oj
- Duchêne, E., & Schneider, C. (2005). Grapevine and climatic changes: A glance at the situation in Alsace. Agronomie, 25(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2004057
- Escribano-Bailón, T., Álvarez-García, M., Rivas-Gonzalo, J. G., Heredia, F. J., & Santos-Buelga, C. (2001). Color and stability of pigments derived from the acetaldehyde-mediated condensation between malvidin 3-O-glucoside and (+)-catechin. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 49(3), 1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf001081l
- Fernandes de Oliveira, A., & Nieddu, G. (2016). Accumulation and partitioning of anthocyanins in two red grape cultivars under natural and reduced UV solar radiation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12174
- Ferreira, V., López, R., & Cacho, J. F. (2000). Quantitative determination of the odorants of young red wines from different grape varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 80(11), 1659–1667. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11%3C1659::AID-JSFA693%3E3.0.CO;2-6
- Fraga, H., Malheiro, A. C., Moutinho-Pereira, J., & Santos, J. A. (2012). An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food and Energy Security, 1(2), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.14
- Friedel, M., Frotscher, J., Nitsch, M., Hofmann, M., Bogs, J., Stoll, M., & Dietrich, H. (2016). Light promotes expression of monoterpene and flavonol metabolic genes and enhances flavour of winegrape berries (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling). Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22(3), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12229
- García-Carpintero, E.G., Sánchez-Palomo, E. and González Viñas, M.A. (2010). Influence of co-winemaking technique in sensory characteristics of new Spanish red wines. Food Quality and Preference 21(7): 705-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.013
- Glories, Y. (1978). Recherches sur la matière colorante des vins rouges [Doctoral dissertation, Université de Bordeaux].
- Glories, Y. (1984). La couleur des vins rouges. 2e partie : mesure, origine et interprétation. OENO One, 18(4), 253–271. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.1984.18.4.1744
- Hunter, J. J., Volschenk, C. G., & Booyse, M. (2017). Vineyard row orientation and grape ripeness level effects on vegetative and reproductive growth characteristics of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz/101-14 Mgt. European Journal of Agronomy, 84, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.12.004
- Intrigliolo, D. S., & Lakso, A. N. (2011). Effects of light interception and canopy orientation on grapevine water status and canopy gas exchange. Acta Horticulturae, 889, 99–104. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.889.9
- Intrigliolo, D. S., Abd El-Mageed, T. A., Abdelfatah, M. A., Lakso, A. N., & Medrano, H. (2017). Improving vine performance by modifying daily light interception patterns in vertically shoot positioned grapevines. Acta Horticulturae, 1157, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1157.32
- IPCC. (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/
- Jones, G. V, White, M. A., Cooper, O. R., & Storchmann, K. (2005). Climate change and global wine quality. Climatic Change, 73(3), 319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-4704-2
- Kramling, T. E., & Singleton, V. L. (1969). An Estimate of the Nonflavonoid Phenols in Wines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 20(2), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1969.20.2.86
- López-Urrea, R., Montoro, A., Mañas, F., López-Fuster, P., & Fereres, E. (2012). Evapotranspiration and crop coefficients from lysimeter measurements of mature “Tempranillo” wine grapes. Agricultural Water Management, 112, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.05.009
- Lovisolo, C., Perrone, I., Carra, A., Ferrandino, A., Flexas, J., Medrano, H., & Schubert, A. (2010). Drought-induced changes in development and function of grapevine (Vitis spp.) organs and in their hydraulic and non-hydraulic interactions at the whole-plant level: A physiological and molecular update. Functional Plant Biology, 37(2), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP09191
- Marais, J., Calitz, F., & Haasbroek, P. D. (2001). Relationship Between Microclimatic Data, Aroma Component Concentrations and Wine Quality Parameters in the Prediction of Sauvignon blanc Wine Quality. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 22(1), 22–26.
- Martínez-Vidaurre, J. M., Pérez-Álvarez, E. P., García-Escudero, E., Ramos, M. C., & Peregrina, F. (2024). Differences in Soil Water Holding Capacity and Available Soil Water along Growing Cycle Can Explain Differences in Vigour, Yield, and Quality of Must and Wine in the DOCa Rioja. Horticulturae, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10040320
- Medrano, H., Tomás, M., Martorell, S., Escalona, J.-M., Pou, A., Fuentes, S., Flexas, J., & Bota, J. (2015). Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(2), 499–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0280-z
- Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. (2020). Encuestas de viñedo. https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/estadistica/temas/estadisticas-agrarias/agricultura/encuestas-de-vinedo/
- Moreno, D., Vilanova, M., Uriarte, D., Gamero, E., Frutos, S., Talaverano, M., Henar, M., & Valdés, M. (2015a). Incidencia de la elevación de la altura de vegetación sobre la calidad de vinos CV Doña Blanca en Extremadura. Enología, 52–55.
- Moreno, D., Vilanova, M., Uriarte, D., Gamero, E., Frutos, S., Talaverano, M., Henar, M., & Valdés, M. (2015b). Incidencia de la elevación de la altura devegetación sobre la calidad de vinos CV Doña Blanca. Enología, 52–55.
- Mori, K., Goto-Yamamoto, N., Kitayama, M., & Hashizume, K. (2007). Loss of anthocyanins in red-wine grape under high temperature. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(8), 1935–1945. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm055
- Navarro, S., León, M., Roca-Pérez, L., Boluda, R., García-Ferriz, L., Pérez-Bermúdez, P. and Gavidia, I. (2008). Characterisation of Bobal and Crujidera grape cultivars, in comparison with Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon: Evolution of leaf macronutrients and berry composition during grape ripening. Food Chemistry, 108(1), 182-190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.10.060
- Neethling, E., Barbeau, G., Bonnefoy, C., & Quénol, H. (2012). Change in climate and berry composition for grapevine varieties cultivated in the Loire Valley. Climate Research, 53(2), 89–101. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01094
- Oliveira, F. de, & Nieddu, G. (2016). Accumulation and partitioning of anthocyanins in two red grape cultivars under natural and reduced UV solar radiation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22(1), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12174
- Ortega, C., López, R., Cacho, J., & Ferreira, V. (2001). Fast analysis of important wine volatile compounds. Journal of Chromatography A, 923(1–2), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9673(01)00972-4
- Palliotti, A., Tombesi, S., Silvestroni, O., Lanari, V., Gatti, M., & Poni, S. (2014). Changes in vineyard establishment and canopy management urged by earlier climate-related grape ripening: A review. Scientia Horticulturae, 178, 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.07.039
- Palliotti, A. (2012). A new closing Y-shaped training system for grapevines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 18(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00171.x
- Pompei, C., & Peri, C. (1971). Determination of catechins in wines. Vitis, 9, 69, 312–316.
- Poni, S., Gatti, M., Palliotti, A., Dai, Z., Duchêne, E., Truong, T.-T., Ferrara, G., Matarrese, A. M. S., Gallotta, A., Bellincontro, A., Mencarelli, F., & Tombesi, S. (2018). Grapevine quality: A multiple choice issue. Scientia Horticulturae, 234, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.035
- Previtali, P., Giorgini, F., Mullen, R. S., Dookozlian, N. K., Wilkinson, K. L., & Ford, C. M. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis of vineyard techniques used to delay ripening. Horticulture Research, 9. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac118
- Ribéreau-Gayon, P., & Stonestreet, E. (1966). Le dosage des tannins du vin rouge et la détermination de leur structure. Chimie Analitique, 48, 188–196.
- Sadras, V. O., & Moran, M. A. (2012). Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in berries of Shiraz and Cabernet Franc. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 18(2), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00180.x
- Sadras, V. O., Moran, M. A., & Petrie, P. R. (2017). Resilience of grapevine yield in response to warming. OENO One, 51(4), 381–386. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.4.1913
- Sadras, V. O., Petrie, P. R., & Moran, M. A. (2013). Effects of elevated temperature in grapevine. II juice pH, titratable acidity and wine sensory attributes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 19(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12001
- Salón, J. L., Chirivella, C., & Castel, J. R. (2005). Response of cv. Bobal to Timing of Deficit Irrigation in Requena, Spain: Water Relations, Yield, and Wine Quality. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 56(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2005.56.1.1
- Sánchez, J.M., Kustas, W.P., Caselles, V. and Anderson, M.C. (2008). Modelling surface energy fluxes over maize using a two-source patch model and radiometric soil and canopy temperature observations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 112(3), 1130-1143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.07.018
- Santesteban, L.G., Miranda, C., Marín, D., Sesma, B., Intrigliolo, D.S., Mirás-Avalos, J.M., Escalona, J.M., Montoro, A., de Herralde, F., Baeza, P., Romero, P., Yuste, J., Uriarte, D., Martínez-Gascueña, J., Cancela, J.J., Pinillos, V., Loidi, M., Urrestarazu, J. and Royo, J.B. (2019). Discrimination ability of leaf and stem water potential at different times of the day through a meta-analysis in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Agricultural Water Management, 221, 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.04.020
- Slinkard, K. ., & Singleton, V. (1977). Total phenol analysis: Automation and comparison with manual methods. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 28, 49–55.
- Spayd, S. E., Tarara, J. M., Mee, D. L., & Ferguson, J. C. (2002). Separation of Sunlight and Temperature Effects on the Composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot Berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 53(3), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2002.53.3.171
- Suter, B., Destrac Irvine, A., Gowdy, M., Dai, Z., & van Leeuwen, C. (2021). Adapting Wine Grape Ripening to Global Change Requires a Multi-Trait Approach. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.624867
- Talaverano, I., Valdés, E., Moreno, D., Gamero, E., Mancha, L., & Vilanova, M. (2017). The combined effect of water status and crop level on Tempranillo wine volatiles. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97(5), 1533–1542. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.7898
- Tessarin, P., Ricci, A., Baraldi, G., Lombini, A., Parpinello, G. P., & Rombolà, A. D. (2022). Beneficial effects of bunch-zone late defoliations and shoot positioning on berry composition and colour components of wines undergoing aging in an organically-managed and rainfed Sangiovese vineyard. OENO One, 56(4), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.4.5377
- Tonietto, J., & Carbonneau, A. (2004). A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 124(1–2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.06.001
- Torres, N., Martínez-Lüscher, J., Porte, E., & Kurtural, S. K. (2020). Optimal Ranges and Thresholds of Grape Berry Solar Radiation for Flavonoid Biosynthesis in Warm Climates. Frontiers in Plant Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00931
- Tregoat, O., Ollat, N., Grenier, G., & Van Leeuwen, C. (2001). Survey of the accuracy and rapidity of several methods for vine leaf area assessment. Journal International Des Sciences de La Vigne et Du Vin, 35(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2001.35.1.993
- Uriarte, D., Intrigliolo, D. S., Mancha, L. A., Valdés, E., Gamero, E., & Prieto, M. H. (2016). Combined effects of irrigation regimes and crop load on ‘Tempranillo’ grape composition. Agricultural Water Management, 165, 97–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.11.016
- Van Leeuwen, C., & Destrac-Irvine, A. (2017). Modified grape composition under climate change conditions requires adaptations in the vineyard. OENO One, 51(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2016.0.0.1647
- Vilanova, M., Fandiño, M., Frutos-Puerto, S., & Cancela, J. J. (2019). Assessment of fertigation effects on the chemical composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Albariño. Food Chemistry, 278, 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.11.105
- Vitrac, X., Larronde, F., Krisa, S., Decendit, A., Deffieux, G., & Mérillon, J. M. (2000). Sugar sensing and Ca2+–calmodulin requirement in Vitis vinifera cells producing anthocyanins. Phytochemistry, 53(6), 659–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(99)00620-2
- Vivas, N., & Glories, Y. (1995). Ranking of red wines matured in barrels: A tentative classification of racking techniques. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 10, 241–243.
- Vivas, N., Glories, Y., Lagune, L., Cédric, S., & Augustin, M. (1994). Estimation du degré de polymérisation des procyanidines du raisin et du vin par la méthode au ρ-dimethylaminocinnamaldéhyde. OENO One, 28(4), 319–336. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.1994.28.4.1138
- Wolf, T. K., Dry, P. R., Iland, P. G., Botting, D., Dick, J., Kennedy, U., & Ristic, R. (2003). Response of Shiraz grapevines to five different training systems in the Barossa Valley, Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 9(2), 82–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2003.tb00257.x
- Xyrafis, E. G., Gambetta, G. A., & Biniari, K. (2023). A comparative study on training systems and vine density in Santorini Island: Physiological, microclimate, yield and quality attributes. OENO One, 57(3), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2023.57.3.7470
- Zanchi, D., Vernhet, A., Poncet-Legrand, C., Cartalade, D., Tribet, C., Schweins, R., & Cabane, B. (2007). Colloidal Dispersions of Tannins in Water−Ethanol Solutions. Langmuir, 23(20), 9949–9959. https://doi.org/10.1021/la700694b
- Zea, L., Serratosa, M. P., Mérida, J., & Moyano, L. (2015). Acetaldehyde as a key compound for the authenticity of Sherry wines: A study covering 5 decades. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(6), 681–693. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12159
- Zhang, E., Chai, F., Zhang, H., Li, S., Liang, Z., & Fan, P. (2017). Effects of sunlight exclusion on the profiles of monoterpene biosynthesis and accumulation in grape exocarp and mesocarp. Food Chemistry, 237, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.05.127
Attachments
Supplementary data
Download