Abstract
A field experiment was carried out over three consecutive seasons on Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay destined for sparkling base wine Cava. Four different irrigation treatments were applied: (i) control (C), fully irrigated, in which irrigation was scheduled according to a water balance approach; (ii) RDIm, irrigated during stage II (from berry set to the onset of veraison) when Ψstem was less than −1.0 MPa and as C during other phenological stages; (iii) RDIs, irrigated during stage II when Ψstem was less than −1.2 MPa and as C during other phenological stages; and (iv) DI, irrigated when Ψstem was less than -1.2 MPa from flowering to harvest. Differences in yield and base wine composition were observed among years. Over the three years, reducing the quantity of water applied by 20% below that of C in the RDIm treatment was associated with an average reduction in grape yield of 19%. The reductions in grape yield observed in the RDIs and DI treatments were even greater at 35 and 48%, respectively. Water stress negatively affected aroma quality, titratable acidity, and malic acid and increased polyphenol concentration, which is unfavorable for oxidation issues. Therefore, C was the best irrigation strategy to maximize quality variables for sparkling base wines. However, to facilitate crop management by controlling excessive vegetative growth, it could be interesting to use the RDIm strategy at the cost of slightly reducing some sensory attributes such as floral and tree fruit aromas and wine structure. The adoption of RDIs or DI strategies are not recommended due to their negative effect on acidity and desirable aromas in sparkling base wines.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Yield and base wine composition differed among years.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay
Vitis viniferae1 - Outcome
- yield and base wine compositione0
- Comparator
- yearse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences in yield and base wine composition were observed among years.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
RDIm used 20% less water than C and was associated with 19% lower grape yield.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- RDIm treatmente0
- Outcome
- grape yielde0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Qualifier
- 20% below that of Ce0
- Comparator
- Ce0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reducing the quantity of water applied by 20% below that of C in the RDIm treatment was associated with an average reduction in grape yield of 19%”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
RDIs reduced grape yield by 35%.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- RDIse0
- Outcome
- grape yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 35e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reductions in grape yield observed in the RDIs and DI treatments were even greater at 35 and 48%, respectively.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
DI reduced grape yield by 48%.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- DIe0
- Outcome
- grape yielde0
- Direction
- reductionse0
- Value
- 48%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reductions in grape yield observed in the RDIs and DI treatments were even greater at 35 and 48%, respectively.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress worsened aroma quality, titratable acidity and malic acid.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Water stresse0
- Outcome
- aroma quality, titratable acidity, and malic acide0
- Direction
- negatively affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress negatively affected aroma quality, titratable acidity, and malic acid”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress increased polyphenol concentration, which was unfavorable for oxidation.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Water stresse0
- Outcome
- polyphenol concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- unfavorable for oxidation issuese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress negatively affected aroma quality, titratable acidity, and malic acid and increased polyphenol concentration, which is unfavorable for oxidation issues.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors favored C irrigation to maximize sparkling wine quality.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Outcome
- C was the best irrigation strategy to maximize quality variables for sparkling base winese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Therefore, C was the best irrigation strategy to maximize quality variables for sparkling base wines.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggested RDIm for excess vegetative growth control despite modest sensory losses.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Outcome
- use the RDIm strategye0
- Qualifier
- at the cost of slightly reducing some sensory attributes such as floral and tree fruit aromas and wine structuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it could be interesting to use the RDIm strategy at the cost of slightly reducing some sensory attributes such as floral and tree fruit aromas and wine structure”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advised against RDIs and DI because they harmed acidity and desirable aromas.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera cv. ChardonnayVitis viniferae1
- Outcome
- RDIs or DI strategies are not recommendede0
- Qualifier
- negative effect on acidity and desirable aromase0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The adoption of RDIs or DI strategies are not recommended due to their negative effect on acidity and desirable aromas in sparkling base wines.”
e1“Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →drought · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.