G. Ferrara 1, A. Mazzeo 1, A.M.S. Matarrese 1, C. Pacucci 1, V. Gallo 2,3 1 Dipartimento di Scienze del Suolo, della Pianta e degli Alimenti - University of Bari Aldo Moro, via Amendola 165/A - 70126 Bari (Italy) 2 DICATECh, Politecnico di Bari, via Orabona 4 70125 Bari (Italy) 3 Innovative Solutions S.r.l. Spin Off company of Politecnico di Bari, zona H 150/B Noci (Bari, Italy)
INTRODUCTION In Italy, 41% of table grape area is cultivated with cultivar Italia with a yield of 574,000 tons (Puglia Region, 2010). Puglia, in Southeastern Italy, is the most important region for table grape production (32,450 ha) and Italia table grape (15,000 ha) is one of most important cultivars in the overall regional table grape production (ISMEA, 2012).
INTRODUCTION Berry size is the main quality factor affecting sales of table grapes in international markets. Berry thinning Crop load Plant growth regulators Trunk girdling
GIRDLING Removing a ring of bark from either the trunk or cane Restriction of movement of assimilates from aerial portion to roots Sap flow to buds, clusters. The interruption of the phloem is temporary. LARGER BERRY
Plant hormones Auxins, gibberellins cytokinins, ethylene, abscisic acid, jasmonic acid, etc. Plant growth regulators (PGRs) Natural origin Synthetic GIBBERELLIC ACID (GA 3 ) FORCHLORFENURON (CPPU)
GA 3 & table grape INCREASE OF RNA SYNTHESIS INCREASE OF PROETINS SYNTHESIS STIMULATION OF CELL ELONGATION AND DIVISION HIGHER SUGAR AND WATER INTAKE INTO THE CELLS Increase of weight and size of the berry
CPPU & table grape INCREASE OF RNA SYNTHESIS INCREASE OF PROETINS SYNTHESIS BERRY ENLARGMENT INTAKE OF ASSIMILATES FROM THE PHLOEM Increase of weight and size of the berry
GIRDLING GA 3 CPPU Morphological analyses Chemical analyses Metabolomic approach Yield Qualitative parameters
LOCATION: Commercial vineyard in Turi (Bari province) 2011 and 2012 CULTIVAR: ITALIA grafted onto 34 E.M Overhead trellis system Space: 2.4 m x 2.4 m Year of plantation: 2002 Vines/ha: 1740 TREATMENTS: T1: control T2: cane girdling T3: gibberellic acid, GA 3 (Berelex) T4: forchlorfenuron, CPPU (Sitofex) APPLICATION: motorized sprayer (volume 1000 L/ha)
PHENOLOGICAL PHASE AND TIME OF TREATMENT BERRY GROWTH T2: cane girdling T4: forchlorfenuron (Sitofex) T3: gibberellic acid (Berelex) Berry Ø: 11 12 mm Berry Ø: 10 11 mm
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Row 1 Row 2 Row 3 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T4 T2 T1 T4 T2 T1 T4 T2 T1 T1: control T2: cane girdling T3: gibberellic acid (Berelex) T4: forchlorfenuron (Sitofex) T1 T4 T3 T1 T4 T3 T1 T4 T3 60 berries/block (20 berries/vine) T2 T3 T4 T2 T3 T4 T2 T3 T4 180 berries/treatment
SAMPLING DATES 2011 7 July 1 August 5 September 3 October (harvest) 2012 17 July 30 July 20 August 4 September 2 October (harvest)
BERRIES ANALYSES morphological diameter (mm) length (mm) weight (g) chemical TSS ( Brix) ph TA (g/l tartaric acid) qualitative firmness (N) detachment force (N) colour metabolomic primary metabolites: sugars, organic acids, aminoacids
RESULTS 2011
Weight (g) Size (mm) Diameter Length 35 30 25 23.8 b 28.1 29.5 28.9 29.1 25.7 a 25.6 a 24.8 ab 20 15 10 5 0 13 12.6 a 12 12.0 ab Size parameters 11 10.8 b 11.1 ab 10
TSS ( Brix) 18 ph TA (g/l tartaric acid) 8 17 17.1 a 17.2 a 16.9 ab 7 6.8 a 16 15.7 b 6 5.8 b 6.1 b 6.2 b 15 5 14 4 5 4 3.87 3.74 3.61 3.75 Chemical parameters 3 2 1 0
Firmness (N) 4 BDF (N) 3 2.4 2.7 3.2 3.0 2 1 0 9 8 8.04 8.30 8.44 8.57 Quality parameters 7 6 5
Color > Lightness L* C* h Control 41.9 ± 2.0 ab 11.6 ± 1.7 106.4 ± 4.1 c Girdling 42.6 ± 2.3 a 11.2 ± 2.2 108.7 ± 5.9 bc GA 3 42.1 ± 1.9 ab 11.2 ± 1.7 111.9 ± 3.9 a CPPU 41.3 ± 2.0 b 10.7 ± 1.8 110.5 ± 4.4 ab
Yield/vine (kg) Cluster weight (g) 760 740 745.1 a 744.2 a 740.7 a 720 700 680 669.3 b 660 640 620 27 26.08 a 26.05 a 25.92 a 25 23 23.43 b 21 Zabadal e Budovc, 2006 Fidan et al., 1994 19 17 15
Metabolomics by NMR 2011 PCA applied to NMR data (generated from the regions of sugars and organic acids) Scores plot Loadings plot Black: control Blue: GA 3 Green: girdling Red: CPPU PC2 PC2 glucose Tartaric and malic acids PC1 fructose PC1 Girdling Higher FRUCTOSE content
Metabolomics by NMR 2011 PCA applied to NMR data (generated from the region of amino acids) Scores plot Loadings plot Black: control Blue: GA 3 Green: girdling Red: CPPU PC2 PC2 Arginine Proline Ethanol PC1 PC1
RESULTS 2012
Weight (g) Size (mm) Diameter Length 28 27 26 26.2 b 27.5 a 27.2 a 27.2 a 25 24.7 a 24.3 a 24.8 a 24 23.3 b 23 22 21 11 10.2 a 10.2 a 10 9.8 a Size parameters 9 8.8 b 8
TSS ( Brix) 18 17.8 17.8 ph TA (g/l tartaric acid) 8 17.4 17.3 17 16 7 6 6.6 6.1 6.3 6.0 15 5 14 4 4 3.26 a 3.28 a 3.20 b 3.28 a 3 Chemical parameters 2 1 0
Firmness (N) 4 BDF (N) 3.4 3.3 3.3 3 2.8 2 1 0 9 8 8.06 8.33 8.46 8.59 Quality parameters 7 6 5
Color > Lightness Same color of the skin L* C* h Control 42.4 ± 2.0 B 10.6 ± 1.6 109.9 ± 5.2 Girdling 43.1 ± 2.3 A 10.7 ± 1.7 108.8 ± 6.4 GA 3 41.9 ± 2.0 B 10.4 ± 1.9 110.1 ± 5.1 CPPU 42.2 ± 2.0 B 10.6 ± 1.6 110.2 ± 5.0
Yield/vine (kg) Cluster weight (g) 800 700 600 551.8 b 610.1 ab 603.3 ab 714.3 a 500 400 300 200 100 0 27 25.7 a 25 23 23.2 ab 22.9 ab 21 21.0 b Zabadal e Budovc, 2006 Fidan et al., 1994 19 17 15
Metabolomics by NMR 2012 PCA applied to NMR data (generated from the regions of sugars and organic acids) Scores plot Loadings plot Black: control Blue: GA 3 Green: girdling Red: CPPU PC2 PC2 Glucose and fructose PC1 Tartaric and malic acids PC1 Girdling GA 3 CPPU Higher sugars/organic acids
Metabolomics by NMR 2012 PCA applied to NMR data (generated from the regions of sugars of amino and organic acids) acids) Scores plot Loadings plot Black: control Blue: GA 3 Green: girdling Red: CPPU PC2 PC2 PC1 PC1 No significant effects on amino acids composition
2011 vs 2012 Berry size larger in 2011 with respect to 2012 Control berries smaller than treated ones No differences for chemical parameters with the exception of ph, lower in 2012 (3.26) with respect to 2011 (3.74) Berry firmness and detachment forces similar in the two years Samples collected during 2011 possess higher sugars to acids ratio with respect to samples in 2012 Samples collected during 2011 possess higher arginine content with respect to samples in 2012
CONCLUSIONS Girdling and PGRs significantly affected size of the berry and yield/vine Limited influence on chemical parameters PGRs affected the color of the berry skin On the basis of our results and literature, an unappropriated use of PGRs may lead to negative qualitative characteristics Season is a key factor