Spur pruning leads to distinctly different phenolic profiles of base sparkling wines than cane pruning

Joanna E. Jones, Fiona Kerslake, R. Dambergs, D. Close
{"title":"Spur pruning leads to distinctly different phenolic profiles of base sparkling wines than cane pruning","authors":"Joanna E. Jones, Fiona Kerslake, R. Dambergs, D. Close","doi":"10.5073/VITIS.2018.57.103-109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Winter pruning is the principal method for regulating yield in viticulture. The aim of this work was to investigate the effectiveness of cane and spur pruning on yield, and on grape and wine composition. Cane and spur pruning were investigated in Vitis vinifera L. 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay' vertically-shoot-positioned vines over three seasons. Effects on vine carbohydrates, yield components, leaf area, grape and base wine composition were determined. The canopies of spur pruned vines established more rapidly than cane pruned vines in the 2009/10 season, for both 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. The canopies were denser under spur pruning than cane pruning. Pruning treatment had no effect on total yield for either cultivar in any of the three seasons. Total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity were unaffected by pruning treatment, except in 2012 where TSS and pH were higher for spur pruned 'Chardonnay' vines. Apart from spur pruned 'Pinot noir' vine wood being higher in starch in the winter of 2011, overwintering starch and soluble sugar concentrations were not different between pruning treatments for 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. Although not different in yield or basic fruit composition, fruit from spur pruned vines resulted in distinctly different phenolic profiles of base wines, with cane pruning appearing to negatively impact on the low molecular weight phenolics in the wine. The results presented here provide confidence that quality is not lessened, in fact could be improved, by shifting from the industry norm of cane to spur pruning for sparkling wine production in cool climates.","PeriodicalId":23613,"journal":{"name":"Vitis: Journal of Grapevine Research","volume":"358 1","pages":"103-109"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vitis: Journal of Grapevine Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5073/VITIS.2018.57.103-109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Winter pruning is the principal method for regulating yield in viticulture. The aim of this work was to investigate the effectiveness of cane and spur pruning on yield, and on grape and wine composition. Cane and spur pruning were investigated in Vitis vinifera L. 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay' vertically-shoot-positioned vines over three seasons. Effects on vine carbohydrates, yield components, leaf area, grape and base wine composition were determined. The canopies of spur pruned vines established more rapidly than cane pruned vines in the 2009/10 season, for both 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. The canopies were denser under spur pruning than cane pruning. Pruning treatment had no effect on total yield for either cultivar in any of the three seasons. Total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity were unaffected by pruning treatment, except in 2012 where TSS and pH were higher for spur pruned 'Chardonnay' vines. Apart from spur pruned 'Pinot noir' vine wood being higher in starch in the winter of 2011, overwintering starch and soluble sugar concentrations were not different between pruning treatments for 'Pinot noir' and 'Chardonnay'. Although not different in yield or basic fruit composition, fruit from spur pruned vines resulted in distinctly different phenolic profiles of base wines, with cane pruning appearing to negatively impact on the low molecular weight phenolics in the wine. The results presented here provide confidence that quality is not lessened, in fact could be improved, by shifting from the industry norm of cane to spur pruning for sparkling wine production in cool climates.
马刺修剪导致明显不同的酚profile的基础起泡酒比甘蔗修剪
冬季修剪是葡萄栽培中调节产量的主要方法。本研究的目的是研究甘蔗和马刺修剪对产量以及葡萄和葡萄酒成分的影响。对葡萄(Vitis vinifera L.)的甘蔗和鞭毛修剪进行了研究。“黑皮诺”(Pinot noir)和“霞多丽”(Chardonnay)在三个季节里垂直种植葡萄藤。测定了对葡萄碳水化合物、产量成分、叶面积、葡萄和底酒成分的影响。在2009/10年度,无论是“黑皮诺”还是“霞多丽”,刺状修剪的葡萄冠层比甘蔗修剪的葡萄冠层建立得更快。短枝修剪比甘蔗修剪树冠密度大。在三个季节中,修剪处理对两个品种的总产量均无影响。总可溶性固结物(TSS)和可滴定酸度不受修剪处理的影响,除了2012年,“霞多丽”(Chardonnay)的TSS和pH值更高。2011年冬季,除了“黑比诺”短枝枝的淀粉含量较高外,“黑比诺”和“霞多丽”的越冬淀粉和可溶性糖浓度在修剪处理之间没有差异。虽然在产量和基本果实组成上没有差异,但修剪后的果实对基础酒的酚类物质分布有明显的影响,而修剪后的藤对酒中的低分子量酚类物质有负面影响。这里提出的结果提供了信心,质量没有降低,实际上可以提高,从甘蔗的行业规范转变为刺激修剪起泡酒生产在凉爽的气候。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信