EFFECTS OF CULTURAL PRACTICES ON WINEGRAPE COMPOSITION S. KAAN KURTURAL COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SPECIALIST
Desirle Aspects Uniformly ripe fruit Sound fruit An undnce of flvor With correct composition Reches pek t idel time Avoiding inclement wether Winery logistics
Generl responses to elevted light nd temperture Berry growth Berry composition: Sugr Orgnic cids ph Anthocynins Phenolics Methoxypyrzines Monoterpenes Light + + + / - + + - + Temperture + / - + - + + / - + / - - -
86 95 o F - Mny metolic processes slowed or hlted - Anthocynins 1. genetic repression 2. degrdtion 95-105 o F - Inhiition of cron ssimiltion nd skin tissue formtion 77 o F Optiml dy temperture Temperture Thresholds of Vitis
Berry ntomy Flesh (pulp) Juice Hydroxycinnmtes Seed Skin Tnnins (itter tste) Flvn-3-ols Color pigments Tnnins (stringent, tctile senstions) Flvn-3-ols Flvonols
Berry development UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY
Why study tnnin composition, rther thn content? Red wine mouthfeel drivers?
Cstellrin nd Mtthews, 2007 UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Where do they come from?
Anthocynins Berry: ttrctnt to nimls (i.e. seed dispersl) nd photoprotection Wine: visul perception, stility nd ge-ility of wine mtrix, nd ntioxidtive properties
Flvonols Photo-protection highly responsive to visile light nd U-V prticulrly UVB less cler regrding temperture studies show concentrtion not relily prlleled with erry skin mss Cofctor of co-pigmenttion in wine mtrix
Flvnols Monomeric Polymeric (condensed tnnins) Berry most undnt flvonoid clss ut elusive to EF deterrent towrds nimls Wine itterness nd stringency (seed vs. skin) criticl for wine mtrix stility nd ge-ility
Rdition Effects on Whole Cnopy Net Cnopy Pn ( m mol CO2/vine/s) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6% reflected 100% incident LLN#1 10 % trnsmitted LLN#2 0 0 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 PPFD (mmol/m 2 /s) Kurturl et l. 2003; Dmi et l. 2005; Kurturl et l. 2005; 2006 LLN#3 1% trnsmitted 0.1% trnsmitted
Irrigtion regimes Sustined Deficit Irrigtion (SDI) 80% ET c from loom to hrvest Regulted Deficit Irrigtion (RDI) 80% ET c from loom to fruit set, 50% ET c from fruit set to verison, 80% ET c from verison to hrvest Moving forwrd Clculting ET c
Irrigtion scheduling Et c =K c x ET o K c = crop coefficient Clculted y weekly shde estimtes Remotely sensed nd extrpolted from energy lnce models ET o = reference crop evpotrnspirtion ET c = cultivr specific evpotrnspirtion Strongly ffected y drought
Reference (ET) UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY K c x ET o = ET c ET o = reference evpotrnspirtion *Bsed on whet
Why use crop coefficient (K c )? * K c sed on cnopy development; chnges s seson progresses, only irrigting effective rooting zone *If no grpe K c used, overirrigting to full field cpcity the entire seson
How cn we relte this informtion to tctile nd tste senstion? Increse Tnnin Moleculr Size increse stringency/ chlky Sun et l, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61: 939-946 Vidl et l, J Sci Food Agric. 2003, 83: 564 573 Increse %ECG increse drying nd chlkiness Vidl et l, J Sci Food Agric. 2003, 83: 564 573 Increse %EGC lower corseness Vidl et l, J Sci Food Agric. 2003, 83: 564 573 Increse Color Incorportion less stringent Vidl et l, Anlytic Chimic Act. 2004, 513: 57-65
Light exposure nd pplied wter mounts Lef removl Pre-loom lef removl - reduced fruit set (yield control) - increse in skin mss - improved phenolic composition Post-fruit set lef removl - no reduction in fruit set - improved phenolic composition - erry sunurn n issue in wrm climte - overexposure to sunlight reduces phenolic composition - increse in totl solule solids Applied wter Deficit irrigtion - reduced erry size - reduction in vegettive growth - increse in nthocynin concentrtion - ccelerted ripening
Plnt Mteril nd Reserch Site Merlot (01)/Freedom Plnted in 1998 Locted in Merced County 80 cre reserch site 7 x 11 spcing (N-S) Whitney nd Rocklin Sndy-Lom soil Drip irrigted Hed trined nd cne pruned to sixcnes
Cnopy Architecture North Vlley Cne-Pruned UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY
UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Lef Removl Tretments Mechnicl Lef Plucker - Clemens EL-50 Conducted on Est side of cnopy Opened 50cm window in the fruiting zone Tkes two men, 14 minutes per row Tretments Control - No lef removl Pre-Bloom - Single ppliction prior to loom (EL-17) Post-Fruit Set - Single ppliction following fruit-set (EL-29)
Irrigtion Tretments Irrigtion hours - clculted sed on weekly CIMIS Et o UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Sustined Deficit Irrigtion (SDI) - control tretment - received 80% of Et c from loom to hrvest - dynmic grpe coefficient fctor (K c ) included - lef Y mintined t -1.2 Mp Regulted Deficit Irrigtion (RDI) - received 80% of Et c from loom to set nd from verison to hrvest - received 50% of Et c from set to verison - dynmic grpe coefficient fctor (K c ) included - lef Y mintined t -1.4 Mp
Results UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY
Celsius UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Dily Amient Temperture Mxim Numer of Dys 2013 2014 > 32 o C 61 71 > 37 o C 10 11 40 35 30 25 2013 2014 20 15 1 15 29 43 57 71 85 99 113 127 141 155 Dys After Budrek
Irrigtion Tretment Difference: 0.34 ML/h Sesonl Wter Reltions 2013 UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY 35 Budrek - fruit-set Fruit-set - verison Verison - hrvest 100 30 25 80 mm/week 20 15 60 40 L/vine/week 10 20 5 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 Dys After Budrek Green H 2 O SDI Et c (mm/week) RDI Et c (mm/week) SDI irrigtion pplied (L/vine/week) RDI irrigtion pplied (L/vine/week)
Sesonl Wter Reltions 2014 UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY 35 30 Budrek - fruit-set Fruit-set - verison Verison - hrvest 120 25 100 mm/week 20 15 80 60 L/vine/week 10 40 5 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 0 Irrigtion Tretment Difference: 0.48 ML/h Dys After Budrek Green H 2 O SDI Et c (mm/week) RDI Et c (mm/week) SDI irrigtion pplied (L/vine/week) RDI irrigtion pplied (L/vine/week)
Mid-dy lef wter potentil UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY
Lef Lyer Numer UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Lef Lyer Numer 5 4 3 2 2013 c c 5 4 3 2 2014 Control c Pre- Bloom 1 1 0 3-My 7-Jul 9-Aug 0 30-April 20-June 1-August
m 2 /m UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY Control Functionl Lef Are/m 8 7 6 5 4 Pre- Bloom 3 2 1 0 2013 2014 Mechnicl Severity pprox. 20% reduction
% PAR Trnsmittnce Light Trnsmittnce UC DAVIS VITICULTURE AND ENOLOGY 60 2013 60 2014 Control 50 50 Pre- Bloom 40 30 20 10 40 30 20 10 c 0 3-My 7-Jul 9-Aug 0 30-April 20-June 1-August
Vegettive Compenstion Response criticl fctor in determining lsting effects of improved microclimte nd yield sttus response dependent on severity, timing, nd frequency of LR Pre-Bloom recovery response oserved ut incomplete mechnicl lower effect on incipient nd lterl shoot tips positive effects of defolition long lived Post-fruit set in 2013 vines re-filled soon fter defolition in 2014 recovery occurred ut remined more open due to cne pulling s oserved in previous studies
Yield components Lef removl Berry mss (g) Berry skin mss (mg) 2013 Yield (kg/m) Control 1.36 55.0 6.64 Pre-loom 1.27 51.7 6.34 Post-fruit set 1.28 45.0 6.78 Pr>F 0.0216 0.002 0.4996 ET c frction SDI 1.34 51.3 6.86 RDI 1.26 47.8 6.31 Pr>F 0.0068 0.5103 0.0748 LR ET c frction 0.9004 0.9074 0.8684 Lef removl 2014 Control 1.09 45.3 6.17 Pre-loom 1.07 42.9 6.10 Post-fruit set 1.11 39.5 4.46 Pr>F 0.5314 0.031 0.0016 ET c frction SDI 1.14 42.7 6.08 RDI 1.04 42.3 5.27 Pr>F 0.0021 0.6963 0.0003 LR ET c frction 0.4878 0.5892 0.0053
Chemicl Composition
Fruit Composition TSS (%) Juice ph TA (g/l) Lef removl 2013 Control 24.6 3.57 5.26 Pre-loom 24.7 3.59 4.78 Post-fruit set 24.0 3.58 5.06 Pr>F 0.0171 ns ns Deficit irrigtion SDI 24.2 3.59 5.04 RDI 24.7 3.57 5.02 Pr>F 0.0206 ns ns Lef removl 2014 Control 24.3 3.60 4.83 Pre-loom 24.1 3.62 4.66 Post-fruit set 24.2 3.64 4.69 Pr>F ns ns ns Deficit irrigtion SDI 23.9 3.63 4.83 RDI 24.5 3.61 4.62
Mechnicl lef removl effects on flvonoid composition (Merlot/Freedom) in mg/kg quercetin myricetin Totl skin nthocynin 2013 Astringency No lef removl 180 16.4 2066.4 14.1 Pre-loom 335 23.7 2763.9 13.9 Post-fruit set 262 22.9 2381.5 15.9 Pr>F 0.0003 0.0133 0.0055 0.0172 2014 No lef removl 325 17.9 1554.1 20.2 Pre-loom 390 22.0 2135.3 17.9 Post-fruit set 432.1 22.3 2044.9 18.6 Pr>F 0.0132 0.0395 0.0014 0.0454
Effect of pplied wter mounts on nthocynin composition in presence of lef removl Applied wter mount Less stle (%) More stle (%) Yer 1 Sustined deficit irrigtion 22.9 77.1 Regulted deficit irrigtion 20.5 79.5 Pr>F 0.0011 0.0483 Yer 2 Sustined deficit irrigtion 15.9 84.1 Regulted deficit irrigtion 12.1 87.9 Pr>F 0.0012 0.0011
Effect of light exposure on skin nd seed tnnin concentrtion 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 2013 2014 Control Pre loom Post fruit set
Effects of light exposure nd pplied wter on skin tnnin conversion yield 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2013 2014 Control Pre loom Post fruit set
Effects of light exposure nd pplied wter on skin tnnin on corseness 51 49 47 45 43 41 39 37 35 2013 2014 Control Pre loom Post fruit set
Summry Pre-Bloom Lef Removl llowed incresed light filtrtion erlier in seson cnopy open throughout seson to 20% mient PAR promoted skin tissue formtion (cclimtion is key) mximum phenolic concentrtion without loss of yield Less skin tnnin, ut more stle nd less corse Post-Set Lef Removl often performed poorly, seemingly etter in 2014 ut loss of yield sudden increse in light nd temperture detrimentl to phenolic iosynthesis More tnnin concentrtion Suject to oxidtion Corser skin tnnin depressed skin tissue formtion
Summry Applied wter no effect on mjority of prmeters, direct nd positive compositionl shift towrds tri-oh nthocynins with RDI, yield my e reduced Applied wter No effect on tnnin content or composition Aility to pply less to reduce costs llows growers to reduce costs
Acknowledgements The Americn Vineyrd Foundtion L memers: Michel Cook, Cliff Yu, Geoffrey Dervishin, Clint Nelson, Andrew Beee, Andy Mendez, Nilgun Gorgec, Tiffny Gunduz, nd Yritz Aguirre