Abstract
Background and Aims In recent years, increasing summer temperature, coupled with reduced and erratic rainfall during the growing season, has induced accelerated fruit ripening in several regions, resulting in an undesirable increase in wine alcohol concentration. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of canopy and water management on grape sugar and flavonoid accumulation, with the goal of reducing wine alcohol concentration while conserving or enhancing the concentration of phenolic substances. Methods and Results In 2011 and 2012, two irrigation treatments (I – irrigated and DI – deficit irrigated) and two canopy heights (HC – high canopy and SC – short canopy) were applied in a Merlot vineyard. No interactions between treatments were observed, and thus independent results were obtained; DI berries had significantly higher sugar concentration (+5%) than that of I in both years and higher wine alcohol concentration only in 2012. Short canopy berries had lower sugar concentration (−4%) and lower wine alcohol (−8%) (only in 2011) than that of HC. Anthocyanins and tannins in berry and wine were increased by water deficit and not affected by severe trimming. Conclusions Deficit irrigation did not reduce berry sugar concentration and wine alcohol concentration but did enhance desirable wine attributes. Berry sugar concentration and alcohol concentration in wine were reduced by SC in one of the two seasons. Water deficit and severe trimming showed independent effects on berry composition. Significance of the Study Severe canopy reduction at early stages of ripening can reduce sugars without affecting the accumulation of anthocyanins in Merlot. Conversely, DI applied before veraison, despite promoting anthocyanins accumulation, may also increase berry sugar concentration at harvest.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation raised berry sugar concentration by 5% in both years versus irrigation.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. Merlot
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- DIe0
- Outcome
- sugar concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- +5%e0
- Qualifier
- in both yearse0
- Comparator
- Ie0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“DI berries had significantly higher sugar concentration (+5%) than that of I in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation increased wine alcohol concentration only in 2012.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- DIe1
- Outcome
- wine alcohol concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- only in 2012e0
- Comparator
- Ie1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“higher wine alcohol concentration only in 2012”
e1“two irrigation treatments (I – irrigated and DI – deficit irrigated)”
Claim · model-written summary
Short canopy lowered berry sugar concentration by 4% relative to high canopy.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- short canopye1
- Outcome
- sugar concentratione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- −4%e0
- Comparator
- high canopye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“Short canopy berries had lower sugar concentration (−4%)”
e1“HC – high canopy and SC – short canopy”
Claim · model-written summary
Short canopy lowered wine alcohol by 8% only in 2011.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- short canopye1
- Outcome
- wine alcohole0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- −8%e0
- Qualifier
- only in 2011e0
- Comparator
- HCe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“lower wine alcohol (−8%) (only in 2011) than that of HC”
e1“SC – short canopy”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit increased berry and wine anthocyanins and tannins.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- Anthocyanins and tannins in berry and winee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- irrigatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“Anthocyanins and tannins in berry and wine were increased by water deficit”
e1“I – irrigated and DI – deficit irrigated”
Claim · model-written summary
Severe trimming did not affect berry and wine anthocyanins and tannins.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- severe trimminge0
- Outcome
- Anthocyanins and tannins in berry and winee0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Comparator
- high canopye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“Anthocyanins and tannins in berry and wine were increased by water deficit and not affected by severe trimming”
e1“HC – high canopy and SC – short canopy”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit and severe trimming had independent effects on berry composition.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. MerlotVitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- independent effects on berry compositione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. Merlot”
e0“Water deficit and severe trimming showed independent effects on berry composition”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.