GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Utility of leaf removal timing and irrigation amounts on grape berry flavonoids under climate change

Utility of leaf removal timing and irrigation amounts on grape berry flavonoids under climate change

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – The dormant and growing season temperatures in California USA have been increasing with more clear sky days. A consequence increasing temperatures and clear sky days is water deficit conditions. Viticulturists must determine appropriate balances of canopy management and irrigation budgeting to produce suitable yields without compromising berry chemistry. In response, a study designed to test the interactive effects of leaf removal timing and applied water amounts on Cabernet Sauvignon/110R in Napa Valley, CA.

Material and methods – We performed a field experiment with 7‐year‐old Cabernet Sauvignon grafted on 110R (Vitis berlandieri × Vitis rupestris) rootstock. A factorial design with leaf removal timing (pre‐ bloom and post‐fruit set, compared to an untreated control) and applied water amounts (1.0, 0.5 and 0.25 of crop evapotranspiration replacement (ETc)) was used. We measured plant water status, leaf gas exchange, primary and secondary metabolites in response to treatments.

Results – Stem water potential was lower in the 0.25 ETc regardless of leaf removal treatments. A 40% reduction in net carbon assimilation was evident in the 0.25 ETc treatments, as well. Likewise stomatal conductance was lower with 0.25 ETc. Leaf removal timing did not affect leaf gas exchanges. There was no effect of leaf removal on components of yield, including the number of berries set. The 0.25 ETc treatment reduced berry mass and yield, but 0.5 and 1.0 ETc treatments were not different from each other. Stem water potential integrals were well related to speed of total soluble solids accumulation. There was a significant interaction of leaf removal and irrigation on pruning weight and Ravaz Index. Reducing the irrigation resulted in a significant increase of anthocyanin concentration; however, there was no increase in its biosynthesis. The ratio of 3’4’5‐OH to 3’4’‐OH anthocyanins was greater with 0.25 and 0.50 ETc compared to 1.0 ETc. Leaf removal affected flavonol content, specifically kaempferol‐3‐o‐ glucoside concentration well as its content a per berry basis which was greater with leaf removal regardless of its timing. Berry skin proanthocyanidins in either concentration or content, or mean degree of polymerization were not affected by treatments applied. Clear skies and longer periods with minimal precipitation paired with reduction in irrigation had a stronger influence on berry chemistry than leaf removal application. Our results indicated that cluster microclimate without leaf removal was already optimized within the confines of this study. Although not as impactful, there still appears to be potential for understanding leaf removal influence on berry physiology and its effect on vine balance in premium regions.

DOI:

Publication date: June 19, 2020

Issue: GIESCO 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Johann MARTíNEZ‐LUSCHER (1) , Constance Cunty (2), Luca BRILLANTE (3), Runze Yu (1), Gregory Gambetta (2), S. Kaan KURTURAL (1)

(1) Univeristy of California Davis 1 Shields Ave. Davis, CA 95616 USA
(2) UMR EGFV ISVV, 210 Chemin de Leysotte – CS 50008 33882 Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France
(3) California State University Fresno 2360 E. Barstow Ave. Fresno, CA 93704 USA

Contact the author

Keywords

anthocyanins, flavonol, carbon assimilation, canopy management, proanthocyanidins

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Influence of weather and climatic conditions on the viticultural production in Croatia

The research includes an analysis of the impact of weather conditions on phenological development of the vine and grape quality, through monitoring of four experimental cultivars (Chardonnay, Graševina, Merlot and Plavac mali) over two production years. In each experimental vineyard, which were evenly distributed throughout the regions of Slavonia and The Croatian Danube, Croatian Uplands,

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Is wine terroir a valid concept under a changing climate?

The OIV[i] defines terroir as a concept referring to an area in which collective knowledge of the interactions between the physical and biological environment (soil, topography, climate, landscape characteristics and biodiversity features) and vitivinicultural practices develops, providing distinctive wine characteristics. Those are perceptible in the taste of wine, which drives consumer preference and, therefore, wine’s value in the marketplace. Geographical indications (GI) are recognized regulatory constructs formalizing and protecting the nexus between wine taste and the terroir generating it. Despite considering updates, GIs do not consider the nexus as a dynamic one and do not anticipate change, namely of climate. Being climate a fundamental feature of terroir, it strongly impacts wine characteristics, such as taste. According to IPCC[ii], many widespread, rapid and unprecedented changes of climate occurred, some being irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years. Climatic shifts and atmospheric-driven extreme events have been widely reported worldwide. Recent climatic trends are projected to strengthen in upcoming decades, whereas extremes are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, forcing wines away from GI definitions. Geographical shifts of viticultural suitability are projected, often moving into regions and countries different from current ones. Some authors propose adaptation in viticulture, winemaking and product innovation. We show evidence of climate changing wine characteristics in the Douro valley, home of 270-year-old Port GI. We discuss herein resist or adapt stances for when climate changes the nexus between terroir and wine characteristics. Using the MED-GOLD[iii] dashboard, a tool allowing for easy visual navigation of past and future climates, we demonstrate how policymakers can identify future moments, throughout the 21st century under different emission scenarios, when GI specifications will likely need updates (e.g., boundaries, varieties) to reduce climate-change impacts.

Delaying irrigation initiation linearly reduces yield with little impact on maturity in Pinot noir

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

Rapid damage assessment and grapevine recovery after fire

There is increasing scientific consensus that climate changeis the underlying cause of the prolonged dry and hot conditions that have increased the risk of extreme fire weather in many countries around the world. In December 2019, a bushfire event occurred in the Adelaide Hills, South Australia where 25,000 hectares were burnt and in vineyards and surrounding areas various degrees of scorching and infrastructure damage occurred. The ability to coordinate and plan recovery after a fire event relies on robust and timely data. The current practice for measuring the scale and distribution of fire damage is to walk or drive the vineyard and score individual vines based on visual observation. The process is time consuming, subjective, or semi-quantitative at best. After the December 2019 fires, it took many months to access properties and estimate the area of vineyard damaged. This study compares the rapid assessment and mapping of fire damage using high-resolution satellite imagery with more traditional ground based measures. Satellite imagery tracking vineyard recovery in the season following the bushfire is being correlated to field assessments of vineyard productivity such as canopy health and development, fertility and carbohydrate storage. Canopy health in the seasons following the fires correlated to the severity of the initial fire damage. Severely damaged vines had reduced canopy growth, were infertile or had very low fertility as well as lower carbohydrate levels in buds and canes during dormancy, which reduced productivity in the seasons following the bushfire event. In contrast, vines that received minor damage were able to recover within 1-2 years. Tools that rapidly and affordably capture the extent and severity of damage over large vineyard area will allow producers, government and industry bodies to manage decisions in relation to fire recovery planning, coordination and delivery, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their response.