terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 DO MICROPLASTICS IN VINEYARD SOIL AFFECT THE BIOAVAILABILITY OF VINE NUTRITION?

DO MICROPLASTICS IN VINEYARD SOIL AFFECT THE BIOAVAILABILITY OF VINE NUTRITION?

Abstract

Microplastics can alter physicochemical and biogeochemical processes in the soil, but whether these changes have further effects on soil fertility, and if so, whether these effects vary depending on the type of soil in the vineyard and the type of plastic used in the vineyard. Knowing what types of plastics are currently used in vineyards in Slovenian viticultural regions as strings to tie vines to the stake, the aim of our study was to assess the effects of microplastic particles from polypropylene (PP) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) on the availability of macro (potassium (K), Potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and phosphate (P)) and micronutrients (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn) and zinc (Zn)) in two vineyard soils contrasting in pH and mineralogy. For this purpose, a short-term soil incubation experiment (120 days) was carried out in which the soil samples were enriched with micro-PP and micro-PVC particles. After the incubation period, macro- and micronutrient availability were measured. The results show that micro-PP particles have a stronger influence on the availability of macronutrients in the soil. Phosphate availability decreased by up to 30%, potassium availability by 20% and magnesium by 10%. However, the macronutrient most affected was nitrate, as the availability of this element decreased by more than 90% with the presence of micro-PVC particles in the soil. These results were observed in both soil types (calcareous and acidic soils). On the other hand, the presence of micro-PP particles in the soil had a greater effect on the availability of micronutrients, but not to the same extent as micro-PVC – the availability of iron was reduced by 10% and that of Cu by 10%. If we assume PVC and PP contamination of vineyard soils, we can assume that nutrients should be supplied by spraying vines with soluble fretilizers in higher concentrations, as this is the most common method to specifically minimise micronu- trient deficiencies in vineyards. On the other hand, Cu, which is present in fungicidal sprays and may be present in toxic concentrations in vineyard soils, was the least affected micronutrient and could also be active in the presence of microplastic particles. Although research on the effects of microplastics on nutrient cycling in soils is still in its infancy, microplastics directly affect some soil properties that may also have indirect effects on soil nutrient cycling, e.g. cycling of C, N, P and other elements.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Article

Authors

Erika Jez1, Elisa Pellegrini2, Maria De Nobili3, Marco Contin4

1. University of Nova Gorica, Vipavska cesta 13, 5000 Nova Gorica, Slovenia
2. – 4. Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences. University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 206, 33100 Udine, Italy

Contact the author*

Keywords

Soil, microplastics, makronutrients, micronutrients, availability

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

EFFECTS OF LEAF REMOVAL AT DIFFERENT BUNCHES PHENOLOGICAL STAGES ON FREE AND GLYCOCONJUGATE AROMAS OF SKINS AND PULPS OF TWO ITALIAN RED GRAPES

Canopy-management practices are applied in viticulture to improve berries composition and quality, having a great impact on primary and secondary grape metabolism. Among these techniques, cluster zone leaf removal (defoliation) is widely used to manage air circulation, temperature and light radiation of grape bunches and close environment. Since volatiles are quantitatively and qualitatively influenced by the degree of fruit ripeness, the level of solar exposure, and the thermal environment in which grapes ripen, leaf removal has been shown to affect volatile composition of grape berries [1].

WINE FERMENTATION METABOLITES PRODUCED BY TWO TORULASPORA DELBRUECKII STRAINS ISOLATED FROM OKANAGAN VALLEY, BC, CANADA VINEYARDS

Wine aroma is influenced by various factors, from agricultural practices in the vineyard to the enological choices made by winemakers throughout the vinification process. Spontaneous fermentations have a characteristically deeper complexity of aromas when compared to fermentations that have been inoculated with Saccharomyces (S.) cerevisiae because of the diversity of microflora naturally present on grape skins. Non-Saccharomyces yeast are being extensively studied for their ability to positively contribute to wine aroma and flavour. These yeasts are known to liberate more bound volatile compounds present in grape must than S. cerevisiae through the enzymatic action of β-glucosidases and β-lyases1.

A NEW STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE CHARACTERIZATION OF POLYPHENOLS IN FINING PRECIPITATE

Polyphenols are secondary metabolite widely distributed in plant kingdom such as in fruits, in grapes and in wine. During the winemaking process, polyphenols are extract from the skin and seed of the berries. Fining is an important winemaking step just before bottling which has an impact on wine stabilization and clarification. Most the time, fining agent are animal or vegetal protein while some of them can be synthetic polymer like PVPP or natural origin like bentonite.

IMPACT OF ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC FACTORS ON BIOADHESION PROPERTIES OF BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS

Brettanomyces bruxellensis is an ubiquitous yeast associated with different fermentation media such as beer and kombucha, where its presence is beneficial to bring an aromatic typicity. However, it is a main spoilage yeast in wines, in which it produces volatile phenols responsible for organoleptic deviations causing significant economic losses (Chatonnet et al., 1992). Cellar and winery equipment’s are considered as the first source of contamination, during fermentation and wine ageing process (Connel et al., 2002). Indeed, it is possible to find B. bruxellensis in the air, on walls and floors of the cellars, on small materials, vats and barrels.

VOLATILE AND GLYCOSYLATED MARKERS OF SMOKE IMPACT: EVOLUTION IN BOTTLED WINE

Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors. The impact on wine aroma is mainly attributed to volatile phenols, while in-mouth hydrolysis of glycosylated forms may be responsible for long-lasting “ashy” aftertastes (1).