Abstract
The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated and changes in wine volatile composition and overall quality were defined. The experiment was carried out in 2002 with Sauvignon Blanc and Riesling varieties. Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot. At the end of fermentation analysis of standard chemical compounds, organic acids and aroma compounds were determined by means of HPLC and GC-MS. Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids and reduced titratable acidity and pH. In some cases increase in free volatile and potential volatile terpene levels was noticed. Results of study indicate that basal leaf removal had different influence on the wine chemical composition and quality that depends upon the variety tested. In Sauvignon Blanc wines basal leaves removal significantly reduced tartaric and malic acid content and increased the content of free and bound monoterpenes. In Riesling wines basal leaves removal had significant influence only on tartaric acid content while there was no marked difference in the sum of free and bound monoterpenes. Sensory evaluation showed that the quality of Sauvignon Blanc wines could be much improved while the quality of Riesling wines remained more or less the same.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids in grapevine must and wine.
- Treatment
- Basal leaf removale1
- Outcome
- soluble solidse1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e1“Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids and reduced titratable acidity and pH”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal leaf removal reduced titratable acidity and pH of grapevine must and wine.
- Treatment
- Basal leaf removale1
- Outcome
- titratable acidity and pHe1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e1“Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids and reduced titratable acidity and pH”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
In Sauvignon Blanc, basal leaf removal significantly reduced tartaric and malic acid content.
- Material
- Sauvignon Blance2
- Treatment
- basal leaves removale2
- Outcome
- tartaric and malic acid contente2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e2“In Sauvignon Blanc wines basal leaves removal significantly reduced tartaric and malic acid content and increased the content of free and bound monoterpenes”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
In Sauvignon Blanc, basal leaf removal increased free and bound monoterpene content.
- Material
- Sauvignon Blance2
- Treatment
- basal leaves removale2
- Outcome
- content of free and bound monoterpenese2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e2“In Sauvignon Blanc wines basal leaves removal significantly reduced tartaric and malic acid content and increased the content of free and bound monoterpenes”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
In Riesling, basal leaf removal significantly affected tartaric acid content; no other effect was significant.
- Material
- Riesling winese3
- Treatment
- basal leaves removale3
- Outcome
- tartaric acid contente3
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e3“In Riesling wines basal leaves removal had significant influence only on tartaric acid content while there was no marked difference in the sum of free and bound monoterpenes”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
In Riesling, basal leaf removal made no marked difference in the sum of free and bound monoterpenes.
- Material
- Riesling winese3
- Treatment
- basal leaves removale3
- Outcome
- sum of free and bound monoterpenese3
- Direction
- no marked differencee3
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e3“In Riesling wines basal leaves removal had significant influence only on tartaric acid content while there was no marked difference in the sum of free and bound monoterpenes”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal leaf removal could much improve the sensory quality of Sauvignon Blanc wines.
- Material
- Sauvignon Blance4
- Treatment
- Basal leaf removale1
- Outcome
- quality of Sauvignon Blanc winese4
- Direction
- improvede4
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e1“Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids and reduced titratable acidity and pH”
e4“Sensory evaluation showed that the quality of Sauvignon Blanc wines could be much improved while the quality of Riesling wines remained more or less the same”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
Claim · model-written summary
Basal leaf removal left the sensory quality of Riesling wines more or less unchanged.
- Material
- Riesling winese4
- Treatment
- Basal leaf removale1
- Outcome
- quality of Riesling winese4
- Direction
- remained more or less the samee4
- Comparator
- control, or no leaf removale5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The influence of partial leaf removal of grapevines on sugar, acids and pH must content was evaluated”
e1“Basal leaf removal increased soluble solids and reduced titratable acidity and pH”
e4“Sensory evaluation showed that the quality of Sauvignon Blanc wines could be much improved while the quality of Riesling wines remained more or less the same”
e5“Treatments were a) control, or no leaf removal, b) removal of 4 leaves per shoot and c) removal of 8 leaves per shoot”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · VitisResults differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.