Effect of kaolin foliar application on grape cultivar Assyrtiko (Vitis vinifera L.) under vineyard conditions

Botrytis bunch rot occurrence is one of the most important limitations for the wine industry in humid environments. A positive correlation between grapevine growth and susceptibility to fungal pathogens has been found. In theory 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). However, a reduction in bunch rot incidence can be achieved in some circumstances without major vine growth reduction. The present study was aimed to test the general hypothesis that bunch rot susceptibility is affected by vine vigor, but other factors associated with grapevine vegetative expression could be even more relevant.

Among the different management techniques in Viticulture, which have
been developed with the purpose of optimizing the interception of sunlight, the photosynthetic capacity of
the plant and the microclimate of the clusters, especially in varieties that show excess vigor, the management of defoliation presents great importance. The defoliation consists of the removal of leaves that cover or that are in direct contact with the curls, which can cause physical damages in the berries, and aims to balance the relation between part area and number of fruits, providing the aeration and insolation in the interior of the vineyard, as well as reduce the incidence of rot in order to achieve greater efficiency in phytosanitary treatments and quality musts.

Fossil fuel combustion continues to drive increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, consequently elevating the global annual mean temperature and specifically increasing the growing season temperatures in many of the world’s most important wine growing regions (IPCC 2014; Jones et al 2005). Grapes are sensitive to changes in growing season temperatures, and past models have shown a direct link between warming temperatures and earlier harvest dates (Cook and Wolkovich 2016). Globally, there have been shifts of 1-2 weeks for wine growing regions (Wolkovich et al 2017 and references within). The phenological shifts resulting from growing season temperature increases are documented internationally, and models predicting phenology using temperature are becoming more precise (Parker et al 2011).

According to the algorithm “A step back towards the future 4.1C”, (Cargnello,1986a, 1987d, 1988a.b, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995, 1999a.e, 2000b, 2007c, 2008a, 2009d, 2013; and according to the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, 2003 2015, 2017), the historical, applied philosophy and productive analysis connected to the innovations and to the “Certification of the Universal Holistic MetaEthical Sustainability 4.1C” “indexed new global production model 4.1C” has always been fundamental, especially for the “Prosecco Territory” and for the “Prosecco Wine” to design and implement their synergistic future “Sustainable and Certificable 4.1CC” according to the principles of the “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” by the GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc, Cargnello et Carbonneau, 2007, 2018), and of the Conegliano Campus 5.1C. (Cargnello, lc). Nowadays, people think that Prosecco is a wine from the Veneto Region (from Conegliano and Valdobbiadene in particular), while it comes from Friuli‐Venezia Giulia Region (in North Eastern Italy, such as Veneto) more precisely from “Prosecco” in the Municipality of Trieste (TS‐Italy), as documented in 1382 and in 1548, when Pier Andrea Mattioli, described “that ancient wine, which is born in Prosecco”, as a wine with the following characteristics “thin, clear, shiny, golden, odorous and pleasant to taste». In 1888 at the “Wine Fair” of Trieste there were the “Sparkling wine Prosecco” by Giovanni Balanc, by Giuseppe Klampferer and that one by Marino Luxa. In the 19th century, many expressed their appreciation for the “Prosecco” of Trieste. In order to implement intra and extra territorial and cross‐border relations, as well as, the “Certification of: Products, Companies, Territory, Bio‐MétaÉthique District 4.1C” of Prosecco, a series of activities and researches were conducted in 8 companies: 5 in the “Territory of Prosecco” (TS) in which the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc) have been successfully applied. In particolar: 1‐ new and original “Sustainable 4.1C global production model” developed also to prevent the problems caused by wild boar, roe deer, and birds while safeguarding their “psychophysical wellness”, as well as the “psychophysical wellness 4.1C” of the macro and micro flora and fauna, of the biodiversity, of the landscape, etc. (Cargnello, lc), 1.2‐ chemical weed control and “Non MetaEthics 4.1C” processing with the total grass growing of the ground without or with mowing, better if it is manual to protect grass, air and soil, 2‐ recovery of “Historic”: land, vineyards, vines, biodiversity, landscapes, productions, products, … , 3‐ production of the famous “Prosekar, also rosé, of Prosecco” and “Prosecco di Prosecco”, according to “A step back towards the future 4.1C” 4‐ to offer a deserved psychophysical well‐being to the “Prosecco Territory” and entrepreneurs. 

Protecting table grape vineyards with white hail‐nets is a common practice in Southern Italy. Hail‐nets result in shading effects of 10‐20 %, depending on their density