terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Second pruning as a strategy to delay maturation in cv. ‘Touriga nacional’ in the Portuguese Douro region

Second pruning as a strategy to delay maturation in cv. ‘Touriga nacional’ in the Portuguese Douro region

Abstract

The advance in maturation of wine grapes is an important climate change risk related effect that could affect warm regions like Portuguese Douro Wine Region. Indeed, the climate analysis over the past years registered a decrease in the precipitation, significant higher average temperatures, and a more frequent occurrence of extreme weather events, including heat waves. In these conditions the length from anthesis until maturation is shortened and the uncoupling of technical and phenolic maturity results in berries with higher sugar concentration (and lower acidity), but lower anthocyanins, tannins, and total phenolic concentration, which produce unbalanced wines.
In this work, an innovative strategy of crop forcing, based on forcing vine regrowth after a second pruning of green shoots, was tested, aimed at delaying ripening until the temperature becomes lower and, therefore, preventing acidity loss and increasing anthocyanin-to-sugar ratio. The experiments were conducted in 2019 and 2020 in a commercial vineyard of ‘Touriga Nacional’ located in the Douro Region. Crop forcing was conducted 15 (CF1) to 30 (CF2) days after fruit set. Vines pruned with conventional methods were used as control (CF0). Results confirmed that fruit ripening was shifted from the hot season (August/September), until a cooler period (October through early-November). At harvest, grapevine berries from CF1 and CF2 presented lower pH and higher acidity, than control, with no significant differences in colour intensity and phenolic levels composition. Sugar content was lower in CF2-treated vines in both seasons. However, in CF-treated vines the number and size of clusters were significantly lower (up to 88% reduction) than in control plants. A metabolomics analysis of mature berries from CF-treated vines and control is underway. Crop forcing was indeed effective in producing a more balance berry composition but severely reduced grapevine yield,

 

DOI:

Publication date: May 31, 2022

Issue: Terclim 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Inês L. Cabral1, António Teixeira3, Joana Valente2, Fernando Alves2, Frank S. Rogerson2, Susana M.P. Carvalho1, Hernâni Gerós3 and Jorge Queiroz1

1GreenUPorto – Sustainable Agrifood Production Research Centre / Inov4Agro, DGAOT, Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto, Vairão, Portugal
2Symington Family Estates, Vila Nova de Gaia, Portugal
3Centre of Biological Engineering (CEB), Department of Biological Engineering, Centre of Molecular and Environmental Biology, Department of Biology University of Minho, Braga, Portugal

Contact the author

Keywords

berry composition, climate change, fruit ripening, grapevine, yield

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terclim 2022

Citation

Related articles…

Volatile organic compounds: a role in elicitor-induced resistance of grapevine against pathogens?

As Vitis vinifera varieties are susceptible to fungal diseases, numerous chemical treatments are generally required to ensure the quantity and quality of the harvest. However, in the context of sustainable viticulture, there are increasing societal request, political incitation, and winegrowers’ awareness to reduce the use of pesticides.

OENOLOGICAL STRATEGIES FOR THE REMOVAL OF PINKING IN WHITE WINE

The pinking of in white wine is the turning of color from yellow to salmon hue. White wines obtained from certain grape varieties (e.g. Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Riesling, Trebbiano di Lugana) showed to be susceptible to pinking [1] that has been evaluated by an assay providing the addition of hydrogen peroxide. Even if its appearance does not seem to affect the sensory properties [2], strategies are necessary for its removal. Nowadays, the treatment with polyvinylpolipirroline (PVPP) was reported to significantly decrease the pink color [3].

Oenological potential of indigenous greek grape varieties and their clones

Vine clone selection aims at the survival of clones with particularly desireable attributes for the production of high quality wines. The purpose of this research was to study the enological potential of the clones of Greek indigenous grape varieties over two vintages, 2018 and 2019.
METHODS: Two clones of the white grape varieties Moschofilero (E26 and E27), Assyrtiko (E11 and 16), Roditis (25E16 and 02E1E21) and two clones of the red grape varieties Xinomavro (19 and E2E30) and Agiorgitiko (03E40 and 41E47) were vinified under the same protocol for the white wines and common for the red wines in 2018 and 2019. The resulting products were studied for several enological parameters such as alcohol content, volatile acidity, pH, total phenolics, anthocyanins and tannins for the red wines, as well as browning tests for the white wines. The aroma profile of these ten samples was investigated through sensory analysis with intensity rating of individual attributes on a five-point scale by a trained panel.

Partitioning of seasonal above‐ground biomass of four vineyard-grown varieties: development of a modelling framework to infer temperature-rate response functions

Aims: Forecasting the biomass allocation among source and sinks organs is crucial to better understand how grapevines control the distribution of acquired resources and has a great meaning in term of making decisions about agricultural practices in vineyards. Modelling plant growth and development is one of prediction approaches that play this role when it concerns growth rates in response to variation in environmental conditions

Vine environment interaction as a method for land viticultural evaluation. An experience in Friuli Venezia Giulia (N-E of Italy)

For a long time environment was known as one of the most important factors to characterize the quality of wines but at the same time it appears very difficult to distinguish inside the “terroir” the role of the single factor. These remarks partially explain why methods for viticultural evaluation are often quite different (Amerine et al., 1944; Antoniazzi et al., 1986; Asselin et al., 1987; Astruc et al., 1980; Bonfils, 1977; Boselli, 1991; Colugnati, 1990; Costantinescu, 1967; Costantini et al., 1987; Dutt et al., 1981; Falcetti et al., 1992; Fregoni et al., 1992; Hidalgo, 1980; Intrieri et al., 1988; Laville, 1990; Morlat et al., 1991; Scienza et al., 1990; Shubert et al., 1987; Turri et al., 1991).