Abstract
Viticulture is widely practiced in dry regions, where the grapevine is greatly exposed to water stress. Optimizing plant water use efficiency (WUE) without affecting crop yield, grape and wine quality is crucial to limiting use of water for irrigation and to significantly improving viticulture sustainability. This study examines the use in vineyards of particle film technology (engineered kaolin) and compares it to a film-forming antitranspirant (pinolene), traditionally used to limit leaf water loss, and to an untreated control. The trial was carried out under field conditions over three growing seasons, during which moderate to very severe plant water stress (down to -1.9 MPa) was measured through stem water potential. Leaf stomatal conductance (gs) and photosynthesis rate (An) were measured during the seasons and used to compute intrinsic WUE (WUEi, defined as An/gs ratio). Leaf temperature was also recorded and compared between treatments. Bunch quantity, bunch and berry weight, sugar accumulation, anthocyanin and flavonoid contents were measured. Finally, microvinifications were performed and resultant wines subjected to sensory evaluation.Results showed that the use of kaolin increased grapevine intrinsic WUE (+18% on average as compared to unsprayed vines) without affecting berry and bunch weight and quantity, or sugar level. Anthocyanin content increased (+35%) in kaolin treatment, and the wine was judged more attractive (p-value <0.05) and slightly more appreciated (p-value < 0.1) than control. Pinolene did not increase WUEi, limiting An more than gs; grapes with this treatment contained lower sugar and anthocyanin content than control, and the obtained wine was the least appreciated. This study demonstrates that particle film technology can improve vine WUEi and wine quality at the same time, while traditional antitranspirants were not as effective for these purposes. This positive effect can be used in interaction with other already-demonstrated uses of particle film technology, such as pest control and sunburn reduction, in order to achieve more sustainable vineyard management.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Kaolin increased grapevine intrinsic water use efficiency by 18% on average against unsprayed vines.
- Treatment
- kaoline0
- Outcome
- grapevine intrinsic WUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- +18%e0
- Comparator
- unsprayed vinese0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of kaolin increased grapevine intrinsic WUE (+18% on average as compared to unsprayed vines)”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Kaolin did not affect berry and bunch weight and quantity or sugar level.
- Treatment
- kaoline0
- Outcome
- berry and bunch weight and quantity, or sugar levele0
- Direction
- without affectinge0
- Comparator
- unsprayed vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of kaolin increased grapevine intrinsic WUE (+18% on average as compared to unsprayed vines) without affecting berry and bunch weight and quantity, or sugar level”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Kaolin increased anthocyanin content by 35%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Anthocyanin content increased (+35%) in kaolin treatment”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Wine from kaolin treated grapevines was judged more attractive than control.
- Treatment
- kaolin treatmente1
- Outcome
- wine was judged more attractivee0
- Direction
- more attractivee0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the wine was judged more attractive (p-value <0.05) and slightly more appreciated (p-value < 0.1) than control”
e1“kaolin treatment”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Wine from kaolin treated grapevines was slightly more appreciated than control.
- Treatment
- kaolin treatmente1
- Outcome
- wine was judged more attractive (p-value <0.05) and slightly more appreciatede0
- Direction
- more appreciatede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the wine was judged more attractive (p-value <0.05) and slightly more appreciated (p-value < 0.1) than control”
e1“kaolin treatment”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pinolene did not increase intrinsic water use efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pinolene did not increase WUEi”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pinolene limited photosynthesis more than stomatal conductance.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pinolene did not increase WUEi, limiting An more than gs”
e1“Leaf stomatal conductance (gs) and photosynthesis rate (An)”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pinolene treated grapes had lower sugar and anthocyanin content than control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapes with this treatment contained lower sugar and anthocyanin content than control”
e1“Pinolene did not increase WUEi”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Wine from pinolene treated grapes was least appreciated.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the obtained wine was the least appreciated”
e1“Pinolene did not increase WUEi”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude particle film technology can improve vine water use efficiency and wine quality together.
- Outcome
- improve vine WUEi and wine quality at the same timee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“particle film technology can improve vine WUEi and wine quality at the same time”
t0“Grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
kaolin · yield · VitisResults differ
4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →kaolin · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →kaolin · pest · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
kaolin · physiology: water · VitisResults agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.