Abstract
The dependence of wine sensory properties on vine water status in Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon was tested. Cabernet Sauvignon vines in the Napa Valley were subjected to three drip irrigation treatments: minimal irrigation (no irrigation added unless the midday leaf water potential dropped below –1.6 MPa), standard irrigation (32 L water/vine/week), and double irrigation (64 L water/vine/week). The minimal irrigation treatment produced midday leaf water potentials that were significantly lower than the other treatments throughout the season. Mean grape yields varied from 15.0 to 21.7 t/ha. Descriptive analysis conducted on the resulting wines demonstrated significant differences in several sensory attributes as per analysis of variance of the ratings. Analysis of variance and principal component analysis showed that the wines made from the minimal irrigation treatment were significantly higher in red/blackberry aroma, jam/cooked berry aroma, dried fruit/raisin aroma, and fruit by mouth than the wines from the irrigated treatments. The standard irrigation treatment wines were rated significantly higher than the minimal irrigation treatment wines in vegetal aroma, bell pepper aroma, black pepper aroma, and astringency. We conclude that vine water deficits lead to wines with more fruity and less vegetal aromas and flavours than vines with high vine water status.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Minimal irrigation produced significantly lower midday leaf water potential than other irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferae1 - Material
- Cabernet Sauvignone1
- Treatment
- minimal irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- midday leaf water potentialse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- throughout the seasone0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The minimal irrigation treatment produced midday leaf water potentials that were significantly lower than the other treatments throughout the season.”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean grape yields ranged from 15.0 to 21.7 t/ha.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Outcome
- grape yieldse0
- Direction
- variede0
- Value
- 15.0 to 21.7 t/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mean grape yields varied from 15.0 to 21.7 t/ha.”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
Claim · model-written summary
Wines from minimal irrigation had significantly higher red/blackberry, jam/cooked berry, and dried fruit/raisin aromas than wines from irrigated treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- minimal irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- red/blackberry aroma, jam/cooked berry aroma, dried fruit/raisin aromae0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- irrigated treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the wines made from the minimal irrigation treatment were significantly higher in red/blackberry aroma, jam/cooked berry aroma, dried fruit/raisin aroma, and fruit by mouth than the wines from the irrigated treatments”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
Claim · model-written summary
Wines from minimal irrigation had significantly higher fruit by mouth than wines from irrigated treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- minimal irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- fruit by mouthe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- irrigated treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the wines made from the minimal irrigation treatment were significantly higher in red/blackberry aroma, jam/cooked berry aroma, dried fruit/raisin aroma, and fruit by mouth than the wines from the irrigated treatments”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
Claim · model-written summary
Standard irrigation wines had significantly higher vegetal, bell pepper, and black pepper aromas than minimal irrigation wines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- standard irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- vegetal aroma, bell pepper aroma, black pepper aromae0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- minimal irrigation treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The standard irrigation treatment wines were rated significantly higher than the minimal irrigation treatment wines in vegetal aroma, bell pepper aroma, black pepper aroma, and astringency.”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
Claim · model-written summary
Standard irrigation wines had significantly higher astringency than minimal irrigation wines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- standard irrigation treatmente0
- Outcome
- astringencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- minimal irrigation treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The standard irrigation treatment wines were rated significantly higher than the minimal irrigation treatment wines in vegetal aroma, bell pepper aroma, black pepper aroma, and astringency.”
e1“Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cabernet Sauvignon”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 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.