Terroir 2020 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Partitioning of seasonal above‐ground biomass of four vineyard-grown varieties: development of a modelling framework to infer temperature-rate response functions

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

Abstract

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. This study was aimed to model the dynamics of current year’s above‐ground biomass in grapevine. Furthermore, the development of a relatively simple growth modelling framework aimed at the derivation of cardinal air temperatures for growth in grapevine.

Methods and Results: Trials were carried out over three growing seasons in field conditions with four grapevine cultivars. To compare the differences of growth-allocation models among cultivars, the non-linear extra-sums-of-squares method was used. Using measurements of mean daily air temperature and dry mass increments a beta-function model was fitted to the data and used to estimate cardinal air temperatures. Shoot growth and biomass allocation differed significantly among cultivars. The application of the non-linear extra-sums-of-squares procedure demonstrated to be a feasible way of growth models statistical comparison among cultivars. The results of this study highlight parameters most involved in the phenotypic variability of shoot growth. Variations among cultivars result from environmental and genetic factors. The temperature response functions obtained, confirm the initial working hypothesis that because the varieties may have either different temperature optima or different thresholds that a unifying model cannot be achieved.

Conclusions: 

These results suggest that some caution should be taken when incorporating shoot development and biomass partitioning coefficients in a growth model. Use of common coefficients estimates for all cultivars for dynamic modelling approaches, in fact, may result in a poor representation of the data early or late during the course of the season.

Significance and Impact of the Study: The described approach can be used to account for complex variation in seasonal growth patterns and provides insight into how well a cultivar may be matched to a particular site.

DOI:

Publication date: March 17, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2020

Type: Video

Authors

Franco Meggio* and Andrea Pitacco

Department of Agronomy Food Natural Resources Animals and Environment, University of Padova, Viale dell’Università 16 35020 – Legnaro (PD), Italy

Contact the author

Keywords

Above-ground grapevine biomass, growth model, biomass partitioning coefficients 

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2020

Citation

Related articles…

Using Landsat LST data to predict vineyard productivity anomalies: A case study in the Euganean Hills wine region, Italy

In the current scenario of climatic variability, even though the vine (Vitis vinifera) is a species generally considered very fertile, the process of bud differentiation is particularly influenced by the weather trend not only of the current year but also of the previous one.

Evolution of oak barrels C-glucosidic ellagitannins in model wine solution

Oak wood has a significant impact on the chemical composition of wine, leading to transformations that influence its organoleptic properties, such as its aroma, structure, astringency, bitterness and color. Among the main extractible non-volatile polyphenol compounds released from oak wood, the ellagitannins are found [1].

Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Influence of cell-cell contact on yeast interactions and exo-metabolome

Alcoholic fermentation is the main step for winemaking, mainly performed by the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. But other wine yeasts called non-Saccharomyces may contribute to alcoholic fermentation and modulate the wine aroma complexity. The recurrent problem with the use of these non-Saccharomyces yeasts is their trend to die off prematurely during alcoholic fermentation, leading to a lack of their interesting aromatic properties searched in the desired wine. This phenomenon appears to be mainly due to interactions with S. cerevisiae. These interactions are often negatives but remain unclear because of the species and strain specific response. Among the non-Saccharomyces yeasts, Lachancea thermotolerans is a wine yeast naturally found in grape must and well known as a great L-lactic acid producer and an aromatic molecules enhancer, but its behavior during alcoholic fermentation can be completely different in co-fermentation with S. cerevisiae in function of strain used.

Sustainable viticulture’ the “semi‐minimal” pruned “hedge” system for grape vines long term experience on cv. Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.)

In previous experiments carried out in Bologna on Sangiovese grapevines raised with the Australian “Minimal Pruning” system, it has been shown that this system left an excessive burden of buds on the vine.