IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Influence of the vineyard’s surrounding vegetation on the phenolic potential of Vitis vinifera L. cv Tempranillo grapes

Influence of the vineyard’s surrounding vegetation on the phenolic potential of Vitis vinifera L. cv Tempranillo grapes

Abstract

Wine industry has to develop new strategies to reduce the negative impact of global climate change in wine quality while trying to mitigate its own contribution to this climate change. The term “ecosystem services”, whose use has been recently increasing, refers to the benefits that human beings can obtain from the interactions between the different living beings that coexist in an environment or system. The management of biodiversity in the vineyard has a positive impact on this crop. It has recently been reported that practices such as plant cover can reduce the occurrence of pests, increase pollination of the vine, improve plant performance1 and affect the phenolic content of grapes.2 The phenolic potential of the grape is directly related to wine organoleptic properties, among which color and astringency outstand. It also conditions the winemaking process and the ability of a wine to undergo ageing. More recently, the role that the vegetation around the vineyard can play in supplying ecosystem services beneficial to grape production and quality is beginning to be considered. Given the absence of previous studies, this present work aims at studying the influence that this vineyard’s surrounding vegetation can exert on the phenolic potential of red Vitis vinifera L. cv Tempranillo grapes, grown in two vineyards surrounded by uncultivated and naturalized lands belonging to two different “Denominaciones de Origen” (DO Toro and DO Ribera de Duero). In both vineyards, grapes were harvested at the same date from different sampling points selected according to the distance to vegetation. Differences in the grape maturity status that might be due to their location in the vineyard were assessed by the determination of harvest parameters (pH of the must, titrable acidity and sugar content-°Brix). Furthermore, differences in the phenolic potential that might be influenced by the distance from the vegetation around the vineyard were studied. To be precise, total polyphenol index (TPI), color intensity (CI) and hue were evaluated by UV-vis spectrometry and the detailed flavonol, flavanol and anthocyanin compositions of grape skins and the flavanol composition of grape seeds were analyzed by means of HPLC-DAD-MSn.3
Regarding harvest parameters, a clear relationship between distance to the surrounding vegetation and technological maturity could be observed for DO Toro grapes, whereas it was less remarkable for DO Ribera de Duero grapes. TPI did not seem to be affected by the location of the grapevine, whereas CI were greater in the samples collected in the vines nearer to the surrounding vegetation. Regarding flavonoid compositions, different behaviors were observed for the different types of compounds. The results of this study highlight that the vegetation around the vineyard can influence the phenolic composition of grapes, so this factor should not be neglected when choosing a vineyard to produce quality grapes and wines.

References

[1] Abad, J. et al. (2021). OENO One 2021, 1, 295-312.
[2] Escribano-Bailón, M.T. et al. (2005). Advances in oenological sciences and techniques. Libro de resúmenes de la octava Conferencia de los grupos de investigación en enología, GIENOL’05, p 25-27.
[3] Alcalde-Eon, C. et al. (2019). Food Research International, 126, 108650.

DOI:

Publication date: June 24, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

García-Estévez Ignacio1, Alcalde-Eon Cristina1, Cristobal-Bolanos Lucía1 and Escribano-Bailón M.Teresa1

1Grupo de Investigación en Polifenoles – University of Salamanca

Contact the author

Keywords

surrounding vegetation, anthocyanins, flavanols, flavonols, phenolic compounds

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

The concept of terroir: what place for microbiota?

Microbes play key roles on crop nutrient availability via biogeochemical cycles, rhizosphere interactions with roots as well as on plant growth and health. Recent advances in technologies, such as High Throughput Sequencing Techniques, allowed to gain deeper insight on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities associated with soil, rhizosphere and plant phyllosphere. Over the past 10 years, numerous scientific studies have been carried out on the microbial component of the vineyard. Whether the soil or grape compartments have been taken into account, many studies agree on the evidence of regional delineations of microbial communities, that may contribute to regional wine characteristics and typicity. Some authors proposed the term “microbial terroir” including “yeast terroir” for grapes to describe the connection between microbial biogeography and regional wine characteristics. Many factors are involved in terroir including climate, soil, cultivar and human practices as well as their interactions. Studies considering “microbial terroir” greatly contributed to improve our knowledge on factors that shape the vineyard microbial structure and diversity. However, the potential impact of “microbial terroir” on wine composition has yet not received strong scientific evidence and many questions remain to be addressed, related to the functional characterization of the microbial community and its impact on plant physiology and grape composition, the origins and interannual stability of vineyard microbiota, as well as their impact on wine sensorial attributes. The presentation will give an overview on the role of microbiota as a terroir component and will highlight future perspectives and challenges on this key subject for the wine industry.

Drought effect on aromatic and phenolic potential of seven recovered grapevine varieties in Castilla-La Mancha region (Spain)

The effects of climate change are seriously affecting the quality of wine grapes. High temperatures and drought cause imbalances in the chemical composition of grapes. The result is overripe grapes with low acidity and high sugar content, which produce wines with excessive alcohol content, lacking in freshness and not very aromatic. As a consequence, the search of varieties with capacity of produce quality grapes in adverse climate conditions is a good alternative to preserve the sustainability of vineyards. In this work, quality parameters of seven Vitis vinifera L. cultivars (five whites and two reds) recently recovered from extinction and grown under two different hydric regimes (rainfed and irrigated) were analyzed during the 2020 vintage. At harvest time, weight of 100 berries, must physicochemical parameters (brix degree, total acidity, malic acid, pH), and carbon and oxygen isotope ratios (δ13C, δ18O) were determined. Subsequently, varietal aroma potential index (IPAv) and total polyphenol index (TPI) were analyzed. Quality parameters, IPAv and TPI, showed significant differences between varieties and water regimes. Both red varieties, Moribel and Tinto Fragoso, stood out for their high aromatic and phenolic potential, which was higher under rainfed regime. Regarding to white varieties, Montonera del Casar and Jarrosuelto stood out in terms of varietal aroma potential. Montonera del Casar high acidity in its musts and Jarrosuelto showed the highest berry weights.

Estimating bulk stomatal conductance of grapevine canopies

In response to changes in their environment, grapevines regulate transpiration using various physiological mechanisms that alter conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Expressed as bulk stomatal conductance at the canopy scale, it varies diurnally in response to changes in vapor pressure deficit and net radiation, and over the season to changes in soil water deficits and hydraulic conductivity of both soil and plant. It is necessary to characterize the response of conductance to these variables to better model how vine transpiration also responds to these variables. Furthermore, to be relevant for vineyard-scale modeling, conductance is best characterized using data collected in a vineyard setting. Applying a crop canopy energy flux model developed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, bulk stomatal conductance was estimated using measurements of individual vine sap flow, temperature and humidity within the vine canopy, and estimates of net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy. These measurements were taken on several vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France, using equipment that did not interfere with ongoing vineyard operations. An inverted Penman-Monteith equation was then used to calculate bulk stomatal conductance on 15-minute intervals from July to mid-September 2020. Time-series plots show significant diurnal variation and seasonal decreases in conductance, with overall values similar to those in the literature. Global sensitivity analysis using non-parametric regression found transpiration flux and vapor pressure deficit to be the most important input variables to the calculation of bulk stomatal conductance, with absorbed net radiation and bulk boundary layer conductance being much less important. Conversely, bulk stomatal conductance was one of the most important inputs when calculating vine transpiration, further emphasizing the need for characterizing its response to environmental changes for use in vineyard water use modeling.

Climate change impacts: a multi-stress issue

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

The use of rootstock as a lever in the face of climate change and dieback of vineyard

As viticulture faces challenges such as climate change or vineyard dieback, the choice of the variety and rootstock becomes more and more crucial. To study rootstock levers in the Bordeaux region, a parcel of Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) was planted with four rootstocks in 2014. Twenty repetitions of each of the following four rootstocks were set up: 101-14 MGt, Nemadex AB, 420A MGt and Gravesac. The number of bunches, yields and pruning weights of the vine shoots were measured individually on 240 vines from 2017 to 2021. Since 2020, nitrogen status assessed by assimilable nitrogen level, hydric status assessed by δ13C and berry maturity were measured on 80 samples taken from 20 repetitions of the four rootstocks. A lower yield was measured for CS grafted onto Nemadex AB due to the lower number of bunches and the lower weight of berries. The differences between the other three rootstocks are small, but CS grafted onto 420A MGt was the most productive. The CS grafted onto Nemadex AB had the lowest pruning weight while 101-14 MGt had the highest. In 2020, δ13C showed a more moderate water stress with 101-14 MGt and 420A MGt than with Nemadex AB. Surprisingly, the Gravesac was under more stress than the 101-14 MGt. The nitrogen status in the berries was better for Nemadex AB but this was perhaps due to the significantly lower weight of the berries.Rootstock 101-14 MGt attained the highest accumulation of sugars in the berries while 420A MGt allows to preserve higher acidity. The parcel is still young which may explain some of the results. These measures must therefore be continued over the next several years to fully assess the effects of these rootstocks on the development of the vines and the quality of the production under new climatic conditions.