GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Sustainable yield management through fruitfulness and bunch architecture manipulation

Sustainable yield management through fruitfulness and bunch architecture manipulation

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study ‐ Vineyards are highly variable and this variation is largely driven by environmental conditions and seasonal variation. For example, warm temperatures and sunny days during bud initiation generally result in high yields in the next season while cold periods during flowering and fruitset can reduce yield. As such, this variation in yield and potentially quality is difficult to predict and therefore manage. Early and more accurate assessments of fruitfulness and bunch architecture may improve these predictions. Vineyard management can be used to manage this variation and limit negative impacts on production. This study summarises research that; (1) investigated different methods for the assessment of bud fertility and bunch architecture and (2) assessed the impact of different management techniques on fruitfulness, bunch architecture and resultant yield.

Material and methods – Vineyard management trials were carried out in South‐eastern Australia during the last 4 years and were performed on Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon, Semillon, Riesling, Grenache, Tempranillo, Merlot and Sauvignon Blanc. Management strategies investigated include; winter pruning, shoot thinning, shoot leaf removal, and bunch thinning. Bud dissection and image analysis was used to assess bud fertility and the size of inflorescence primordia. Image analysis during the growing season and at harvest was used to assess bunch architecture and bunch volume. Bunch weight and yield were determined at harvest to assess yield performance and validate early predictions.

Results – Bud dissection using image analysis was an effective method for early prediction of fruitfulness and bunch weight (R2=0.79). Similarly, assessing bunch volume at veraison correlated with bunch weight 2 at harvest (R =0.78). Assessment methods used in these studies have the potential to be used commercially for yield prediction and management. Management strategies applied in different experimental trials varied in their impact on both bud fertility and bunch architecture (in the current and future seasons). Not surprisingly, timing, extent of application as well as variety had an impact on the final outcome. Understanding how different vineyard management approaches can manipulate components of yield can help producers to manage their vineyards to desired yield and quality outcomes. 

DOI:

Publication date: June 22, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Cassandra COLLINS (1), Xiaoyi Wang (1), Marco ZITO (1,2), Jingyun OUYANG (1), Annette JAMES(1), Roberta DE BEI (1), Catherine KIDMAN (1,3), Peter DRY(1)

(1) The University of Adelaide, School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Research Institute, PMB 1 Glen Osmond, 5064, South Australia. Australia
(2) Istituto di Scienze della Vita, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza dei Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127 Pisa, Italy
(3) Wynns Coonawarra Estate, PO Box 319 Coonawarra, South Australia 5263, Australia

Contact the author

Keywords

bunch architecture, canopy management, bud fertility, fruitset, yield management

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Co-design and evaluation of spatially explicit strategies of adaptation to climate change in a Mediterranean watershed

Climate change challenges differently wine growing systems, depending on their biophysical, sociological and economic features. Therefore, there is a need to locally design and evaluate adaptation strategies combining several technical options, and considering the local opportunities and constraints (e.g. water access, wine typicity). The case study took place in a typical and heterogeneous Mediterranean vineyard of 1,500 ha in the South of France. We developed a participatory modeling approach to (1) conceptualize local climate change issues and design spatially explicit adaptation strategies with stakeholders, (2) numerically evaluate their effects on phenology, yield and irrigation needs under the high-emissions climate change scenario RCP 8.5, and (3) collectively discuss simulation results. We organized five sets of workshops, with in-between modeling phases. A process-based model was developed that allowed to evaluate the effects of six technical options (late varieties, irrigation, water saving by reducing canopy size, adjusting cover cropping, reducing density, and shading) with various distributions in the watershed, as well as vineyard relocation. Overall, we co-designed three adaptation strategies. Delay harvest strategy with late varieties showed little effects on decreasing air temperature during ripening. Water constraint limitation strategy would compensate for production losses if disruptive adaptations (e.g. reduced density) were adopted, and more land got access to irrigation. Relocation strategy would foster high premium wine production in the constrained mountainous areas where grapevine is less impacted by climate change. This research shows that a spatial distribution of technical changes gives room for adaptation to climate change, and that the collaboration with local stakeholders is a key to the identification of relevant adaptation. Further research should explore the potential of adaptation strategies based on soil quality improvement and on water stress tolerant varieties.

The modification of cultural practices in grapevine cv. Syrah, does it modify the characteristics of the musts?

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.

Teasing apart terroir: the influence of management style on native yeast communities within Oregon wineries and vineyards

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.

Effect of partial net shading on the temperature and radiation in the grapevine canopy, consequences on the grape quality of cv. Gros Manseng in PDO Pacherenc-du-vic-Bilh

As elsewhere, southwestern France vineyards face more recurrent summer heat waves these last years. Among the possibilities of adaptation to this climate changing parameter, the use of net shading is a technique that allow for limiting canopy exposure to radiations. In this trial, we tested net shading installed on one face of the canopy, on a north-south row-oriented plot of cv. Gros Manseng trained on VSP system in the PDO Pacherenc-du-Vic-Bilh. The purpose was to characterize the effects on the ambient canopy temperatures and radiations during the season and to observe the consequences on the composition of grapes and wines. Two sorts of net were used with two levels of obstruction (50% and 75%) of the photosynthesis active radiation (PAR). They have been installed on the west side of the canopy and compared to a netless control. Temperature and PAR sensors registered hourly data during the season. On specific summer day (hot and sunny) manual measurements took also place on bunches (temperature) and in different spots of the canopy (PAR). The results showed that, on clear days, the radiation is lowered by the shade nets respecting the supplier criteria. The effects on the ambient canopy temperature were inconstant on this plot when we observed the data from the global period of shading between fruit set and harvest. However, during hot days (>30°C), the temperature in the canopy was reduced during afternoon and the temperature of the bunch surface was reduced as well comparing to the control. A decrease of the maturity parameters of the berries, sugar and acidity, was also observed. Concerning the wine aromatic potential, no differences clearly appeared.

Climate and the evolving mix of grape varieties in Australia’s wine regions

The purpose of this study is to examine the changing mix of winegrape varieties in Australia so as to address the question: In the light of key climate indicators and predictions of further climate change, how appropriate are the grape varieties currently planted in Australia’s wine regions? To achieve this, regions are classified into zones according to each region’s climate variables, particularly average growing season temperature (GST), leaving aside within-region variations in climates. Five different climatic classifications are reported. Using projections of GSTs for the mid- and late 21st century, the extent to which each region is projected to move from its current zone classification to a warmer one is reported. Also shown is the changing proportion of each of 21 key varieties grown in a GST zone considered to be optimal for premium winegrape production. Together these indicators strengthen earlier suggestions that the mix of varieties may be currently less than ideal in many Australian wine regions, and would become even less so in coming decades if that mix was not altered in the anticipation of climate change. That is, grape varieties in many (especially the warmest) regions will have to keep changing, or wineries will have to seek fruit from higher latitudes or elevations if they wish to retain their current mix of varieties and wine styles.