terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Yield formation and grape composition: more than meets the eye 

Yield formation and grape composition: more than meets the eye 

Abstract

Fruit quality in grapes is not well defined but is often depicted as correlating inversely with crop yield. Both fruit yield and composition, however, are made from distinct components that interact in complex ways. Reproductive growth of grapevines extends over two growing seasons. Inflorescences initiated in buds during the previous year differentiate flowers and set and develop berries during the harvest year. Compensation mechanisms ensure that changing one yield component typically results in a less than proportional change in yield. For example, reducing the number of berries per vine may increase berry size. Nevertheless, warm temperatures and ample water during budbreak or bloom will increase both the number and size of berries, and increase or decrease berry sugar while decreasing acidity. Moreover, the time of fruit set and the number of seeds, rather than yield, may drive the time of ripening onset. By that time, berry size is effectively predetermined and can no longer be manipulated by cultural practices. Ripening starts with berry softening and is followed by sugar accumulation, acid breakdown and, finally, anthocyanin accumulation in dark-skinned grapes. Like yield components, these processes can be modified by altering the size and density of the canopy, which changes the fruit-zone microclimate. Unlike vegetative and reproductive growth, fruit composition is much more responsive to temperature than to water supply. This presentation will give an overview of yield formation and grape ripening, and discuss some key environmental and viticultural factors that lead to differences in harvest yield and fruit composition.

DOI:

Publication date: June 13, 2024

Issue: Open GPB 2024

Type: Article

Authors

Markus Keller1*
1 Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA 99350, USA

Contact the author*

Keywords

grapevine, yield components, water stress, temperature, Vitis

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Open GPB | Open GPB 2024

Citation

Related articles…

Exploring the impact of NPR3 gene silencing on the interaction between grapevine and mycorrhizal fungi through genome editing

One of the main plant defence mechanisms is the Systemic Acquired Resistance (SAR) mediated by Salicylic Acid (SA). This is a heightened and broad-spectrum immune response initiated by the exposure to pathogens, inducing resistance not only in the infected site, but also throughout the entire plant. It was demonstrated that plant immune system can be regulated by two classes of SA receptors: NONEXPRESSOR OF PR GENES 1 (NPR1) and NPR1-LIKE PROTEIN 3 and 4 (NPR3/NPR4). While NPR1 is required for SA-induction followed by the expression of pathogenesis-related (PR) protein and resistance against pathogens, NPR3/NPR4 serve as transcriptional co-repressors of SA-responsive genes.

D-wines: use of LC-MS metabolomic space to discriminate italian mono-varietal red wines

Studying wine metabolome through multiple targeted methods is complicated and limitative; since grapes, yeasts, bacteria, oxygen, enological techniques and wine aging collaborate to deliver one of the richest metabolomic fingerprint.

Geopedological and climatic zoning of northern Malaga vineyards region: Fuente de Piedra, Humilladero and Mollina (southern Spain)

The vineyards placed in the municipal areas of Fuente de Piedra, Humilladero and Mollina constitute a wine-growing important area of the “Zona Norte” of the province of Málaga.

Genetic causes of SO2 consumption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

SO2 is used during winemaking for its anti-oxidative and anti-microbial properties. A high SO2 concentration in the wine has negative impacts by hiding wine aromas and delaying malolactic fermentation.

Can grapevine tolerance to bunch rot be directly induced by groundcover management?

Botrytis bunch rot occurrence is the most important limitation for the wine industry in humid environments. The effect of grapevine vegetative growth on bunch rot expression results from direct effects (cluster architecture, nitrogen status among others) and indirect ones (via microclimate). Previous studies of our group showed strong differences in bunch rot incidence between floor management treatments: cover crop (CC) vs weed-free strips under the trellis with herbicide (H). We observed that in some circumstances this reduction in bunch rot incidence occurred without major vine growth differences among treatments. The aim of the present study was to test the general hypothesis that other factors unrelated to grapevine vegetative expression could be more relevant to grapevine susceptibility to bunch rot.