terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Uncovering the effectiveness of vineyard techniques used to delay ripening through meta-analysis

Uncovering the effectiveness of vineyard techniques used to delay ripening through meta-analysis

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – One of the most concerning trends associated with increasing heat and water stress is advanced ripening of grapes, which leads to harvesting fruit at higher sugar concentrations but lacking optimal phenolic (i.e. color and mouthfeel) and aromatic maturity. Mitigation techniques for this phenomenon have been studied for many years and practices to delay sugar accumulation have been identified, including antitranspirants, delayed pruning and late-source-limitation techniques. Evaluation of the efficacy of these vineyard practices has occurred across a wide range of environments, vintages, varieties and growing conditions. To assess the broader efficacy of these three vineyard practices, which are easy-to-implement and cost-effective, a meta-analytic approach was adopted using data retrieved from 43 original studies.

Material and methods – A systematic review of published studies on techniques to delay ripening was conducted searching several databases (Web of Science, Pub Med and Google Scholar). This initial database was further screened, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied, keeping only studies that met the prerequisites for meta-analysis. Effect size values were calculated as the difference between total soluble solids (TSS) in the control and treated groups to numerically express advanced ripening (negative effect size), delayed ripening (positive effect size) as well as the intensity of the delay. Standard errors were calculated for effect size values and used as a proxy for study accuracy. Forest plots were employed to calculate the average effect of each treatment and associated confidence intervals. Meta-regression models were built to identify relationships between effect size values and important viticultural parameters, including environmental and growing conditions.

Results – Data curation returned 242 effect size values for three practices proposed to delay ripening: antitranspirants (n = 102), delayed pruning (n = 45) and late source limitation (n = 56). Average effects for all treatments were significant, confirming the stability of treatment effects for the vineyard practices investigated. Factors impacting the effectiveness of the treatments were identified through meta-regression. For antitranspirants, the intensity of the delay was dependent on the active compound utilized as well as the timing of spraying. Late pruning was more effective when applied at later stages of apical bud development, and the ability to delay ripening adopting this approach was dependent on vine yield. Similarly, yield was an important parameter impacting the efficacy of late source limitation practices, which also resulted in larger delays when grapes were harvested at higher sugar concentrations. This study shows the usefulness of meta-analysis to demonstrate broader applicability of specific studies through a comprehensive, quantitative and fully data-driven analysis.

DOI:

Publication date: July 6, 2023

Issue: GiESCO 2023

Type: Article

Authors

Pietro PREVITALI1, 2, Filippo GIORGINI3, Randall MULLEN4, Nick DOKOOZLIAN2, 5, Kerry WILKINSON1, 2, Christopher FORD1, 2

1The University of Adelaide, Department of Wine Science, PMB1 Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia
2Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production, PMB1 Glen Osmond, SA, 5064, Australia
3Department of Economy, Management and Statistics, University of Milano-Bicocca, I-20125 Milano, Italy
4E. & J. Gallo Winery, Research and Development Statistics, 600 Yosemite Boulevard, Modesto, CA 93534
5E. & J. Gallo Winery, Winegrowing Research, 600 Yosemite Boulevard, Modesto, CA93534

Contact the author*

Keywords

antitranspirants, delayed ripening, late pruning, meta-analysis, source limitation, sugar accumulation

Tags

GiESCO | GIESCO 2023 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Severe infestations of Daktulosphaeria vitifoliae on the hybrid rootstock 1103 Paulsen in Apulia Region (Italy)

In the last four years, despite repeated fertilization and irrigation applications from the farmer, a progressive vegetative decline and yield decrease have been observed in a large (5 ha) 10-year-old table grapes vineyard of the cv. Autumn Pearl grafted on 1103 Paulsen and located nearby the Ionian Sea in Taranto province (Apulia, Italy).

Biological control of root phylloxera by Metarhizium brunneum–student projects at the Winecampus Neustadt

The potential use of Metarhizium brunneum to control root phylloxera was tested on potted vines in the green house in studentical projects at the Winecampus Neustadt. In 2023 Metarhizium was applied by inoculated barley and by suspension variant in single pot experiments on 5 BB rootstock vines artificially infested by root phylloxera.

Hot water treatment combined with Trichoderma inoculation protects planting material in the nursery against grapevine trunk disease

Grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs), caused by a group of fungal pathogens including Phaeomoniella chlamydospora, Phaeoacremonium minimum, and Diplodia seriata, pose a serious threat to grapevine cultivation worldwide.

Assessment of the first spring wandering of asexual grapevine phylloxera hibernating on rootstock roots in vineyards–pilot monitoring in Austria

Grapevine phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch), controlled by grafting, has re-emerged due to climate change, with shorter hibernation phases, earlier hatching and migrating of hibernales towards the leaves of the vines, and increased reproduction cycles within one season.

Update of the PHYLLI international database for grape phylloxera: aims and challenges

The International Phylloxera Genotype Database “PHYLLI” which is supported by the 2014 ISHS Phylloxera group describes Grape Phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) genotypes, which are genotyped by seven SSR markers (Dvit6, DVSSR4, DV4, DV8, Phy_III_36, Phy_III_55, Phy_III_30). The samples are standardised by single founder lineages, that are equally biotyped.