Abstract
In viticulture, leaf removal (LR) in the cluster area is an effective practice against fungal diseases. Pre-flowering LR often has additional consequences compared to post-flowering LR, such as yield limitation, higher fruit maturity index and higher anthocyanin concentration in the must at harvest, with positive effects on wine composition. The phenotypic mechanisms behind the accumulation of thiol precursors in grapes remain incompletely understood, as do the ways in which they can be improved by agronomic practices. A six-year field trial on the Swiss white grape variety Vitis vinifera Petite Arvine evaluated the effects of 1) timing of LR (i.e., 'separated flower buds' or 'flowering' stages) and 2) compensating for leaf area removed in the bunch area by increasing canopy height (i.e., 100 or 150 cm canopy height) on grape and wine composition, in particular varietal thiols and thiol precursors. Pre-flowering LR reduced harvest yield by decreasing the number of berries per cluster. Unpredictable climatic conditions prior to flowering, such as cold temperatures and low light levels, significantly influenced fruit set and amplified the negative effects of pre-flowering LR, increasing the risk of excessive yield loss. Adjusting the timing of LR from the 'separated flower buds' stage to the 'flowering' stage provided a means to manage yield loss effectively. Compared to pre-flowering LR, LR applied at the flowering stage decreased acidity and yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrations, increased the concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harvest, and slightly enhanced the overall quality of the white wine. Meanwhile increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area increased the leaf-to-fruit ratio, and slightly improved both grape ripeness at harvest (higher TSS, lower tartaric acid) and wine sensory profile (higher colour intensity, floral, volume and overall impression). The combination of LR at flowering and increased canopy height (Flow-150) appeared to be a good compromise, mitigating yield loss and slightly improving wine composition in terms of Cys-3MH accumulation in the must. Further research is needed to better understand and optimise the physiological mechanisms underlying the formation of aroma precursors in the fruit.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-flowering leaf removal reduced harvest yield.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pre-flowering LR reduced harvest yield by decreasing the number of berries per cluster.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Pre-flowering leaf removal decreased berries per cluster.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Pre-flowering LR reduced harvest yield by decreasing the number of berries per cluster.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Cold and low light before flowering significantly influenced fruit set and amplified yield losses from early leaf removal.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Unpredictable climatic conditions prior to flowering, such as cold temperatures and low light levels, significantly influenced fruit set and amplified the negative effects of pre-flowering LR, increasing the risk of excessive yield loss.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Cold and low light amplified yield loss from pre-flowering leaf removal.
- Treatment
- cold temperatures and low light levelse0
- Outcome
- risk of excessive yield losse0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Unpredictable climatic conditions prior to flowering, such as cold temperatures and low light levels, significantly influenced fruit set and amplified the negative effects of pre-flowering LR, increasing the risk of excessive yield loss.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Moving leaf removal to flowering helped manage yield loss.
- Treatment
- 'flowering' stagee0
- Outcome
- yield losse0
- Direction
- managee0
- Comparator
- 'separated flower buds' stagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Adjusting the timing of LR from the 'separated flower buds' stage to the 'flowering' stage provided a means to manage yield loss effectively.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage leaf removal decreased acidity.
- Treatment
- LR applied at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- aciditye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- pre-flowering LRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to pre-flowering LR, LR applied at the flowering stage decreased acidity and yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrations, increased the concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harvest, and slightly enhanced the overall quality of the white wine.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage leaf removal decreased yeast assimilable nitrogen.
- Treatment
- LR applied at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrationse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- pre-flowering LRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to pre-flowering LR, LR applied at the flowering stage decreased acidity and yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrations, increased the concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harvest, and slightly enhanced the overall quality of the white wine.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage leaf removal increased must Cys-3MH.
- Treatment
- LR applied at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harveste0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- pre-flowering LRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to pre-flowering LR, LR applied at the flowering stage decreased acidity and yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrations, increased the concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harvest, and slightly enhanced the overall quality of the white wine.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Flowering-stage leaf removal slightly enhanced white-wine quality.
- Treatment
- LR applied at the flowering stagee0
- Outcome
- overall quality of the white winee0
- Direction
- enhancede0
- Comparator
- pre-flowering LRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to pre-flowering LR, LR applied at the flowering stage decreased acidity and yeast assimilable nitrogen concentrations, increased the concentration of the aroma precursor Cys-3MH in the must at harvest, and slightly enhanced the overall quality of the white wine.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height increased the leaf-to-fruit ratio.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area increased the leaf-to-fruit ratio”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height improved grape ripeness at harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area increased the leaf-to-fruit ratio, and slightly improved both grape ripeness at harvest (higher TSS, lower tartaric acid) and wine sensory profile (higher colour intensity, floral, volume and overall impression).”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height raised TSS.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grape ripeness at harvest (higher TSS, lower tartaric acid)”
e1“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height lowered tartaric acid.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grape ripeness at harvest (higher TSS, lower tartaric acid)”
e1“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height improved wine colour, floral character and volume.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wine sensory profile (higher colour intensity, floral, volume and overall impression)”
e1“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing trimming height improved overall wine impression.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wine sensory profile (higher colour intensity, floral, volume and overall impression)”
e1“increasing trimming height to compensate for leaf removal in the cluster area”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The flowering-stage removal plus taller canopy combination appeared to mitigate yield loss.
- Outcome
- combination of LR at flowering and increased canopy height (Flow-150)e0
- Qualifier
- mitigating yield losse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combination of LR at flowering and increased canopy height (Flow-150) appeared to be a good compromise, mitigating yield loss and slightly improving wine composition in terms of Cys-3MH accumulation in the must.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The flowering-stage removal plus taller canopy combination appeared to improve must Cys-3MH composition.
- Outcome
- combination of LR at flowering and increased canopy height (Flow-150)e0
- Qualifier
- improving wine composition in terms of Cys-3MH accumulation in the muste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combination of LR at flowering and increased canopy height (Flow-150) appeared to be a good compromise, mitigating yield loss and slightly improving wine composition in terms of Cys-3MH accumulation in the must.”
t0“grapevine”
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 →pruning · molecular: metabolites · VitisResults differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →stage · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
stage · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →stage · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →pruning · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →stage · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →8 of 11 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.