Sweet, Reinforced and Fortified Wines (Grape Biochemistry, Technology and Vinification) ||...

Part 2 Vineyard Management, On-vineand Postharvest GrapeDehydration, Vinification

2 Management of the Vineyard

Osvaldo Failla,1 Laura Rustioni1 and Giancarlo Scalabrelli21Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy2Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

2.1 INTRODUCTION

There is general agreement among viticulturists, both technicians and growers, on theideal bunch characteristics for grapes that are grown to produce wines through dehydra-tion. Bunches should not have a dense structure; berries should not be large in size andshould have a thick skin. Fruit composition should be rich in sugar, acids and secondarymetabolites. Grapes must be healthy and free from symptoms of disease or pests, as well ashave low susceptibility to rot decay during ripening and postharvest treatments. To achievethis qualitative profile, proper vineyard management is essential and achieved by makingappropriate choices including consideration of genetic, environmental and cultural options.

2.2 GENETIC CHOICES

Genetic factors include the choice of cultivar, clone and rootstock. Even if the choice ofgrape cultivar should be the dominant factor in planning a vineyard suitable for dehydratedgrapes, this does not always happen in the viticulture and wine industry of today. Ideally,growers should select a cultivar within the existing assortment, taking into account the grape’smorphological and physiological traits, or by planning specific breeding programmes toobtain new cultivars for this specific enological purpose. The reality is, at least in the contextof the Old World enological industry, that regulation of wine production and the generalmarketing strategy take a conservative approach to the choice of grape variety. As a result,each production area, following its local tradition, grows very few cultivars for dehydration,even if they do not fully meet the requirements of the cultivar ideotype (Table 2.1).

There are two north-eastern Italian varieties that deserve a special mention in this respect:Picolit and Moscato rosa (Rosenmuskateller, Muscat rose). They both have female flowersand, in order to achieve successful fruit set, they need pollen from hermaphrodite varietiesplanted in the same vineyard. They generally produce loose bunches with large seededberries, frequently mixed with small seedless parthenocarpic berries.

Within a specific cultivar, a certain level of intra-varietal variability may be detectedand selected to obtain clonal lines characterized by phenotypes more suitable for producingdehydrated grapes. Bunch compactness, susceptibility to grey mould (Botrytis cinerea Pers.),

Sweet, Reinforced and Fortified Wines: Grape Biochemistry, Technology and Vinification, First Edition.Edited by Fabio Mencarelli and Pietro Tonutti.© 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

30 Sweet, Reinforced and Fortified Wines

Table 2.1 The main Italian varieties committed to the production of dehydration grapes, theircorresponding wines and the essential traits of the fruit.

Grapes Wines Bunch density Skin featureSensibilityto grey rot

Albana Albana di RomagnaPassito

From loose todense

Thin but hard Medium

Albarola Sciacchetra Cinque Terre Dense Thin HighAleatico Aleatico dell’Elba,

Aleatico di Puglia,Aleatico di Gradoli

From loose tomedium dense

Medium thin Medium

Ansonica Ansonica dell’Elba Medium loose Thick MediumBervedino Vin Santo di Vigoleno Medium dense Thick MediumBoschera Torchiato di Fregona Medium dense Thick and hard Medium highBosco Sciacchetra Cinque Terre From loose to

very looseThick Medium

Corvina Recioto and Amaronedella Valpolicella

Dense Thick and hard High

Erbaluce Erbaluce di CalusoPassito

Dense Medium thick High

Garganega Recioto di Gambellara,Recioto di Soave

Medium loose Thin but hard High

Gewurtztraminer Trentino Dense Thick and hard MediumGrechetto Orvieto Dolce Medium loose Thin but hard HighGreco Frascati Cannellino or

Frascati DolceDense Thin and soft Medium high

Lacrima Lacrima di Morro d’Alba Loose Thick and hard LowMalvasia di

Candiaaromatica

Malvasia Passito dei ColliPiacentini, Vin Santodei Colli Piacentini

From dense toloose

Thick Medium

Malvasia biancalunga

Vin Santo, Carmignano,Chianti ChiantiClassico,Montepulciano,Toscano

Dense Medium thick High

Malvasia delLazio

Frascati Cannellino orFrascati Dolce

Dense ormedium loose

Thick Medium

Malvasia diLipari syn.Greco diBianco

Malvasia di Lipari Medium loose Thin and soft Low

Marzemino Refrontolo Passito Medium dense Thin but hard Medium highMelara Vin Santo di Vigoleno Dense Thick Medium lowMontepulciano Controguerra Passito

rossoDense to medium

denseThick and hard Medium low

Moscato bianco Chambave MoscatoPassito, Moscadello diMontalcino, Moscatodi Loazzolo, Moscatodi Siracusa, Moscatodi Trani, PiemonteMoscato Passito

From dense tomedium loose

Thin High

Muscat ofAlexandria

Passito di Pantelleria From mediumdense to loose

Thick and hard High

Moscato diScanzo

Moscato di Scanzo Loose Medium thick Medium

Management of the Vineyard 31

Table 2.1 (Continued)

Grapes Wines Bunch density Skin featureSensibilityto grey rot

Moscato giallo Alto Adige Moscatogiallo passito, TrentinoMoscato giallo

Loose Thick and hard High

Moscato rosa Alto Adige Moscato rosapassito, TrentinoMoscato rosa or dellerose

Loose Thin Low

Muller Thurgau Trentino vendemmiatardiva

Medium dense Thin High

Nasco Nasco di Cagliari From mediumdense tomedium loose

Thin and soft Medium

Nebbiolo Sforzato Valtellina Medium dense Thin but hard Medium lowNosiola Vino Santo Dense Thin but hard MediumOrtrugo Vin Santo dei Colli

PiacentiniVery dense Thick and hard High

Passerina Controguerra Passitobianco

Medium dense Thick and hard Low

Picolit Picolit Loose or veryloose

Medium thick,hard

Low

Pinot grigio Malvoisie di Nus Very dense Medium thick,hard

High

Primitivo Primitivo di Manduria Medium dense Medium thick HighProsecco Torchiato di Fregona Loose or medium

looseThin but hard Medium low

Rondinella Recioto and Amaronedella Valpolicella

Medium dense Medium thick Low

Sagrantino Sagrantino di Montefalco Very dense Thick and hard LowSangiovese Vin Santo Occhio di

PerniceMedium dense Medium thick Low

Trebbiano diSoave syn.Verdicchio

Recioto di Soave Dense Medium thick Medium

Trebbianoromagnolo

Vin Santo dei ColliPiacentini, Vin Santo diVigoleno

Dense ormedium loose

Thin but hard Medium

Trebbianotoscano B.

Vin Santo: Toscano, delChianti, del ChiantiClassico, diCarmignano, diMontepulciano;Controguerra Passitobianco

From mediumdense tomedium loose

Medium thickand hard

Low

Verdiso Torchiato di Fregona Medium dense Thin and soft HighVerduzzo

friulanoVerduzzo Passito,

RamandoloMedium dense Thick and hard Low

Vermentino Sciacchetra Cinque Terre Medium dense Medium thick MediumVernaccia di

Oristano B.Vernaccia di Oristano Medium dense Thin Medium

Vernaccia Vernaccia diSerrapetrona

Dense Medium thick Low

Vespaiola Torcolato di Breganze Medium dense Thick and hard Medium high


Table 2.2 Example of clones of cv. Corvina classified according to their suitability to produce winefrom dehydrated grapes.

CloneLicenceyear

Yieldpotential

Qualitativepotential

Sensibilityto rot

Aptitude to producewine fromdehydrated grapes

RAUSCEDO 6 1969 Medium high Medium high Low HighISV-CV 7 1980 Medium high Medium high Medium low HighISV-CV 48 1980 Medium low High Low HighISV-CV 78 1980 Medium Medium high Medium LowISV-CV 146 1980 Medium high Medium Medium MediumISV-CV 13 1991 Medium Medium Low Low

richness and complexity in wine flavour, are the main traits to be considered when evaluatingthe suitability of a clonal line for dehydrated grape production. Examples of selected clonesto achieve these aims are shown in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.

Rootstocks, mainly selected from hybrids of American Vitis species, play an essential rolein plant protection against the lethal attacks of Phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch).They may differ in their ability to adapt the grapevines to soils characterized by differentlime levels, water shortage or salinity. In addition, rootstocks may modify vine vigour andyield potential and, to a lesser extent, ripening evolution. The possible effect of rootstockson bunch compactness seems to be an indirect effect of its vigour on the fruiting biology of

Table 2.3 Example of clones of cv. Nebbiolo from Valtellina area selected for their suitability toproduce wine from dehydrated grapes.

Clone Licence year Yielding traitsQualitativepotential

Sensibilityto rot

CH 12 2003 Medium vigorous andproductive clone withmedium loose bunches andmedium-sized berries withthick skins

High sugar levels,medium acidity,high anthocyanins

Very low

CH 21 2002 Medium vigorous andproductive clone with longand loose bunches andmedium-sized berriesintensively covered in flour


Medium

CH 34 2002 Medium vigorous andproductive clone with long,loose or medium bunchesand medium-sized berriesintensively covered in flour


Medium-low

NBL-MI-2 not yet released Vigorous and productive clonewith large wingedmedium-dense bunches andmedium-sized berries withthick skins


Lower than theaverage

NBL-MI-3 not yet released Medium vigorous andproductive clone withmedium-small bunches andsmall-sized berries with thickskins


Lower than theaverage


the grapevines. Similarly, the indirect effects of rootstocks on the fruit composition can beseen in vigour and ripening phenology, while mineral nutrition and particularly potassiumuptake are directly related to the rootstock and affect berry juice pH and acidity. Interestingdata on the effect of rootstocks on bunch and berry structure and the possible consequenceson Botrytis cinerea rot have been collected by Ferreira and Marais (1987). By comparinggrapes of Chenin Blanc grafted onto five different rootstocks; besides the expected rootstockeffect on vine vigour and yield, they were also able to show a significant effect on bunchcompactness, berry skin and pedicel strength. The two rootstocks lowest in vigour, 99 Richter(V. berlandieri x V. rupestris) and Jacquez (V. aestivalis x V. cinerea x V. vinifera), inducedthe least compact bunches, the firmest berry skins and the tightest berry–pedicel attachment.The bunch compactness proved to be correlated to the Botrytis rot.

One of the most consistent effects of rootstocks is related to potassium nutrition. Highlevels of potassium uptake may induce an extra synthesis of malic acid in the berry beforeveraison to maintain the cation–anion balance in the vacuole with an increase of juice pH dueto the change in malate-to-tartrate ratio (Failla et al., 1990; Ruhl, 1991; Corazzina et al., 1993;Failla et al., 1993; Brancadoro et al., 1995; Terrier and Romieu, 2001). Moreover, duringripening, a high potassium flux into the berry will increase the organic acid salification with afurther juice pH increase. For this reason, in potassium-rich soils, rootstocks that result in highpotassium uptake should be avoided for grapes to be dehydrated. Such rootstocks include,for example: the cultivars derived from the vigorous and root-knot nematode-resistantV. champinii, such as ‘Freedom’, ‘Ramsey’, ‘Salt Creek’ and ‘Harmony’; some rootstocksobtained from the drought-resistant and deep-rooting V. rupestris crossed with the tolerantto calcareous soils V. berlandieri, such as ‘140 Ruggeri’; as well as rootstocks V. riparia xV. berlandieri, such as ‘SO4’ (Garcia et al., 2001; Cousins, 2005; Kodur et al., 2010).

Therefore, in vineyards committed to producing grapes to be dehydrated, according to thepossible soil-limiting factors, the least vigorous rootstocks should be selected.

2.2.1 A case study: the Aleatico grape variety

Aleatico is a red wine grape variety mainly cultivated in warm areas of central and southernItaly, including the islands of Elba and Capraia, and also Corsica in France, where dessertwines are produced after partial postharvest berry dehydration.

The most famous wine, ‘Aleatico dell’Elba Passito’, comes from Elba island and hasrecently been awarded the Italian ‘Denominazione di Origine Controllata e Garantita’(DOCG) quality label. Cultivation in this territory is difficult; because of the slopes, mostlabour is done manually. Innovations need to be introduced in the vineyards in order to cutlabour costs and sell the wine profitably (Scalabrelli et al., 2004). Other dessert wine pro-ducing areas are located along the Tuscan coastline, followed by Marche, Lazio and Puglia.Although these regions have a higher incidence of flat landscapes, they share the commonfeature of soils of scarce fertility (Table 2.4).

The Aleatico grapevine has a medium-small cluster, medium-compact, with a singleshoulder. Berries are round, medium-sized, of blue-black colour and with a thick skin. Alarge intra-variety variability has been detected and several clonal lines have been selected(Table 2.5).

The most important aromatic substances contained in grapes are the terpenic compounds,with considerable levels in the free form and, above all, in the glycosidically bound form(Table 2.6). Compared to other aromatic varieties, Aleatico has a higher amount of freeterpenes than Brachetto d’Acqui and slightly lower than Malvasia Nera Aromatica and


Table 2.4 Main producing areas of ‘Aleatico’ wines in Italy.

Region DenominationVariety

percentageWine type, alcohol(% vol) degree

Grape yield(ton ha−1) Territory

Soilfertility

(a) DOPa denominationToscana Elba Aleatico

Passito100 19 of which 12

developed (dvp)7 Hilly with

slopePoor

Lazio Aleatico diGradoli

95 Fortified and fortifiedriserva: 17.5 ofwhich 15 dvp;Passito: 16 ofwhich 9 dvp

9 Hilly Poor

Puglia Aleatico diPuglia

85 18.5 of which16 dvp

8 Hilly orflat

Poor tomedium

(b) Varietal type of DOP denominationMarche Pergola 85 Passito: 15 of which

12 dvp9 Hilly Poor to

mediumPuglia Gioia del Colle 85 Aleatico sweet: 15 of

which 13 dvp;Sweet fortified:18.5 of which16 dvp

12 Hilly Poor tomedium

Puglia SaliceSalentino

85 Sweet: 15 ofwhich13 dvp;Sweet fortified:18.5 of which16 dvp


Puglia Terra d’Otranto 90 Aleatico: 15 of which13 dvp


Toscana Sovana, 85 Superior and riserva:12 of which9.5 dvp

9 Hilly orflat

Poor tomedium

Toscana Val di Cornia 100 Passito: 16 of which13 dvp

6 Flat Poor tomedium

Umbria RossoOrvietano

85 11.5 of which9.5 dvp

10 Hilly orflat

Poor tomedium

aDenominazione di Origine Protetta.

Moscato bianco (White Muscat, Muscat blanc). On the other hand, geraniol prevails inAleatico, while in the Muscat, the level of linalool (typical aroma of this grape) is muchhigher (Table 2.7). Among the other important aromatic components of Aleatico, are neroland citronellol (Boselli et al., 2009).

Aleatico grapes are rich in phenolic compounds (∼10 g L−1) and the non-flavonoidpolyphenolic compounds are highly represented (7.54 g L−1). Cinnamic and benzoic acidsare usually present in small concentrations and during fermentation the amount decreaseseven further because they are easily oxidized (Andrich et al., 2009). The high contributionof seeds in determining the total phenolic content of the berry is a varietal characteristic(Scalabrelli et al., 2004). This fact may give rise to some technological problems as thephenolic maturity at harvest, especially due to seeds, can be critical and the wine couldbecome too astringent and bitter, because of a higher extraction of catechin monomers.

The climate of the areas where Aleatico is grown, especially in the Tuscan coastal regionand islands, is usually characterized by high temperature and low rainfall which can inducewater stress in the vines.

Table

2.5

Mai

nfe

atur

esof

‘Ale

atic

o’re

leas

edcl

ones

inIta

lyan

dFr

ance

and

cand

idat

ecl

ones

sele

cted

inTu

scan

y.

Ori

gin

Clo

ne

Bud

fert

ility

Clu

ster

size

Clu

ster

tightn

ess

Ber

rysi

zeY

ield

Earl

ines

sof

ripen

ing

Tusc

any

(Ital

y)00

1-A

L-PA

-1M

ediu

mSm

all

Med

ium

Med

ium

Low

Med

ium

002

-VC

R43

8M

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-la

teLa

zio

(Ital

y)00

3-A

RSIA

L-CRA

489

(◦)

004

-AL-V

AL

1(◦

)Tu

scan

y(It

aly)

005

-CRA

VIC

BCSF

3M

ediu

mM

ediu

mLo

w-m

ediu

mM

ediu

mLo

wM

ediu

m00

6-A

L-FI.P

MM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mC

orsi

ca(F

ranc

e)78

5-E

NTA

V15

∗M

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-e

arly

802

-EN

TAV

57∗

Med

ium

-low

Med

ium

Med

ium

-hig

hM

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m85

9-E

NRA

V18

∗M

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-h

igh

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

-ear

ly86

0-E

NTA

V49

∗Lo

wM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-h

igh

Med

ium

Med

ium

Med

ium

861

-EN

TAV

53∗

Med

-low

Med

ium

Med

ium

-hig

hSm

all-m

ediu

mLo

w-m

ediu

mM

ediu

m-e

arly

892

-EN

TAV

26∗

Low

Med

ium

-low

Med

ium

-hig

hSm

all

Low

Med

ium

-ear

ly89

3-E

NTA

V37

∗M

ediu

mH

igh

Med

ium

-hig

hM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-h

igh

Med

ium

-ear

ly89

4-E

NTA

V59

∗M

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mSm

all-m

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

m-e

arly

Tusc

any

(Ital

y)A

le10

2∗(c

.c.)

Med

ium

-hig

hLo

wLo

w-m

ediu

mM

ediu

mM

ediu

mEa

rlyA

le11

9∗(c

.c.)

Med

ium

Low

Med

ium

Med

ium

Low

-med

ium

Early

(◦),

data

nota

vaila

ble;

c.c.

,can

dida

tecl

ones

;∗,d

ata

from

Scal

abre

llian

dD

’Ono

frio

(201

2).


Table 2.6 Content of free and bound terpenes extracted from ‘Aleatico’ grapes cultivated on ElbaIsland.

MoleculeFree terpenes

(�g L−1)Bound terpenes

(�g L−1)

trans-furanlinalool oxidecis-furanlinalool oxidelinaloolnerale�-terpineolgeranialtrans-pyran linalool oxidecis-pyran linalool oxidecitronellolnerolgeraniol2,6-dimethyl-3,7-octadien-2,6-diol2,6-dimethyl-7-octadien-2,6-diol2,6-dimethyl-1,7-octadien-3,6-diolOH-citronellol8-OH-diidrolinaloolOH-neroltrans-8-OH-linaloolOH-geraniol + cis-8-OH-linaloolGeranic acidp-ment-1-ene-7,8-diol

1.41.0

19.727.4

1.545.8

8.64.6

10.6179.5763.429.8�112.7

8.31.7–2.4

125.1572.7

–

50.612.6

354.3–47.4–33.0

4.134.9

951.71705.4

49.415.613.4

6.86.9

43.382.9

380.2535.713.6

Research recently conducted on Elba island and in several locations in the Tuscany andLazio regions, showed that Aleatico has a high thermal sum requirement (at least 1950–2100GDDs (growing degree-days)), which is usually reached at the beginning of September inthe studied environments. Higher sugar accumulations correspond to higher thermal sums,but are not linearly correlated to the aromatic content (Figure 2.1). The bound terpenoidspercentage showed that a curvilinear relationship with the temperature excursion occurredduring the month before harvest (Figure 2.2).

The districts of Gradoli and Elba island were characterized by particularly low rainfalland high maximum temperatures during the ripening period. This seems to have affected thearoma content. Besides the climatic parameters, the amount of fruit produced per plant isvery important for the aroma; therefore, even in cooler climates such as the Mt Amiata area,

Table 2.7 Content of geraniol and linalool in grapes of several varieties from different regions (datafrom Boselli et al., 2009).

Geraniol Linalool Total

Variety and origin �g kg−1 Percentage �g kg−1 Percentage �g kg−1

Aleatico (Elba) 772 97.47 20 2.53 792Brachetto (Acqui) 233 95.10 12 4.90 245Malvasia aromatica

(Piacenza)264 86.27 42 13.73 306

Moscato bianco (Asti) 67 14.47 396 85.53 463Moscato bianco

(Montalcino)86 14.65 501 85.35 587


200

22

24

26

28

30

1000 2000 3000 4000

Total terpenoids (μμg kg−−1)

Su

gar

co

nte

nt

(%)

5000 6000 7000

Figure 2.1 Relationship between grape total terpenes and sugar content at harvest of Aleatico grapescultivated in different locations. Based on data from Boselli et al. (2009).

it is possible to reach good terpenic levels by appropriately reducing the yield (Boselli et al.,2009).

Trials conducted on potted plants and in the vineyard suggest that the vines are ableto cope with limitation of water availability and that a moderate water deficit can inducea favourable response in grape quality for dessert wine (Scalabrelli et al., 2011; Tuccioet al., 2011). An increase of anthocyanins and sugar content was obtained in non-irrigatedvineyards (Figure 2.3). This information could be useful in setting up targeted postharvestdehydration strategies to produce dessert wines (Tuccio, 2011).

60200

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

250 300

Elba

Amiata Grosseto

Gradoli

ArezzoPisa

350 400 450 500 550

Sums of thermal excursion 30 GDD before harvest

% B

ou

nd

ter

pen

oid

s

Figure 2.2 Relationship between grape total terpenes and sums of active temperature (�10◦C) fromthe beginning of the cycle to harvest on cv. ‘Aleatico’ cultivated in different locations. Based on data fromBoselli et al. (2009).


−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

−

5

Berry weight (g)

10

15

20

Dif

fere

nce

(%

) fr

om

co

ntr

ol

Anthocyanin (g berry−1)

Soluble solids (%)

Titratable acidity (g L−1)

Figure 2.3 Berry characteristics of ‘Aleatico’ subjected to water stress compared to those from irrigatedplots. Based on data from Tuccio (2011).

2.3 VINEYARD DESIGN

Vineyard design includes vine spacing, density and the training system. Here again, thetraditional areas for production of grapes aimed at dehydration are characterized by a con-servative approach in relation to local vineyard design traditions, and at the same time bytrends toward vineyard design aimed at reducing hand labour and increasing mechanization,as well as improving canopy efficiency and yield potential. The move towards a mecha-nized vineyard system may have a negative effect on the qualitative traits of the grapes forthis specific enological process, in comparison to traditional training systems such as ‘bush’(Alberello in Italian, Gobelet in French) or ‘pergola’. These are two completely different vinearchitectures with respect to plant size, canopy displacement and pruning method. They havebeen traditionally adopted in regions that have low and high soil fertility, respectively. Bothsystems require high manual labour to be properly managed but offer several advantages withregard to the production of grapes to be dehydrated, and in particular the possibility to clearlyseparate and manage the bunches from the rest of the canopy. This partition is less easy toachieve with more highly mechanized training forms such as ‘espalier’ (i.e. vertical shootpositioning with trellising), and ‘curtain’ (i.e. high cordon with downward shoot positioning).

For physiological reasons as well as for grape vigour, which will be discussed later, thecanopy of the vineyard committed to the production of grapes to be dehydrated has to be thinand open. This means that it should be composed of few (2–4) spaced leaf layers, obtainedwith a moderate shoot density (shoot per length of row run). Moreover, bunches should growwithout any mechanical constraint such as contact with trellising, canes or other bunches.Adjacent rows should be spaced to avoid shading of the bunch zone by the canopy duringmost of the day and through the berry growth and ripening periods.

To meet these requirements, in general terms, the vineyard design should consider widervine spacing and a lower vine density compared to designs adopted in the same area byvineyards producing grapes for conventional processing. Because it is impossible to harvest


by machine, among the mechanized training forms (espaliers and curtains), the espalier formappears to have greater advantages with regard to effective canopy management and properquality grape manipulation.

2.4 VINEYARD AND CANOPY MANAGEMENT

While the general canopy architecture is defined by the training system, the proper fine canopystructure and its physiological performances are assured by the cultural practices includedin the canopy management process. Canopy management consists of several operationsconducted during the growth period to modify the shoot position and/or its length and leafarea. This improves the canopy microclimate and regulates shoot vigour and the fruit/leaf arearatio. Vines that do not have a good balance between growth and production require intensecanopy manipulation (summer pruning). All these cultural cares are extremely important forvineyards aiming to produces grapes to be dehydrated. In particular, within the canopy theyhave to ensure a correct light and thermal microclimate for berry formation and ripeningas well as reducing disease risk by improving air movement and spray penetration. Whenvineyards are designed to produce grapes for dehydration, excess of shoot vigour shouldbe avoided. Shoot vigour can be regulated by the correct choice of rootstock, plantingdensity and winter pruning, choosing the adequate node number per metre of row. Moreover,soil management and fertilization may contribute to achieving the best vine balance. Intemperate climates, green cover crops can be utilized to reduce vine vigour induced by thecompetition of grass for water and nutrition, which can have a positive influence on grapequality (Jackson and Lombard, 1993; Materazzi and Triolo, 2000). Although this techniquecan be adopted, there is a frequent need to regulate growth, leaf and cluster exposure toensure better ventilation and sunlight penetration into the canopy to avoid grape rot.

Shoot thinning is performed to eliminate excess twigs and increase the distance betweenthe shoots and clusters to improve the microclimate of clusters and leaves. Hedge and toppruning are adopted to reduce excess shoot growth and vigour, depending on the climate.In a vertical canopy, shoot positioning is practised and may be integrated with mechanicaltopping and hedging if required.

As grapes for dehydration are produced in both cool and warm climates, account shouldbe taken of available water content of the soil, which affects shoot growth and yield. Ingeneral, in cool and temperate climates, canopy management is oriented toward increasinglight exposure, while in hot climates, training systems and vineyard management shouldensure cluster protection from over-exposure to direct sunlight.

2.4.1 Vine balance and cluster thinning

It is generally accepted that grape quality is inversely related to yield, although this relation-ship cannot be widely generalized as it depends on the variety, the conditions and the vinebalance. Achieving the best ratio between yield and shoot growth is considered the key factorto maximize yield efficiency without reducing grape quality. Several indexes are commonlyused to monitor vine balance, and these include the leaf area-to-yield and yield-to-pruningweight, known as the Ravaz index. In each environmental condition and variety there isa certain range within which these ratios should fall in order to be adequate. For the leafarea-to-yield index, it is considered necessary to have at least 1 m2 of leaves for each kgof grape produced, even though in some conditions this surface area may be reduced to 0.8


(Stoll et al., 2009). The Ravaz index should range between 5 and 10, although several authorshave suggested lower or higher levels according to different situations (Smart and Robinson,1991; Kliewer and Dokoozlian, 2005).

Viticulturists are looking for the simplest and most rapid way to determine the vinebalance, so there are practical observations that may help to understand if the leaf area isadequate for the cluster’s weight. In general, the vine needs at least 1 metre of shoot lengthbearing 10 main leaves and a few laterals. The cane weight is also considered to be a goodindicator in relation to cluster weight. Cluster thinning is practised to reduce the total cropdue to the imbalance between predicted yield and leaf area. In other cases, cluster thinningis done because the wine’s denomination protocols do not allow a specific yield limit perhectare to be exceeded. Reduction of crop load does not always lead to an improvement ingrape quality. The effect mainly depends on vine health, soil fertility, the amount of exposedcanopy and its efficiency.

Cluster thinning is expensive and must be done by skilled workers. Usually, the numberof clusters per vine to be retained is established and the extra ones are cut off. The simplestway to operate is to leave only one cluster per shoot. The right time for cluster thinningis pre-veraison, just before the increase of berry sugar accumulation, a period in which theshoot growth has ceased, which ensures no shoot elongation compensation and a regularincrease in berry growth by cell enlargement.

2.4.2 Early leaf removal: a potentially useful practicefor grapes to be dehydrated

To obtain the best bunch structure, a fundamental role is played by the genetic characteristicsof the grapes. To improve the bunch structure and obtain a less compact bunch, someviticulture techniques can be considered. A fruit zone leaf removal is often done to improvelight exposure and air circulation around the clusters, with possible benefits in terms ofripening, pigmentation and prevention of moulds. Early basal leaf removal has recentlyattracted many researchers for its modulator effect on fruit set, cluster tightness, berry size,yield and quality. To manipulate the bunch structure, the functional relationship betweenphotosynthate availability around bloom time and the yield profile implies that defoliationshould be performed just before flowering with the aim of reducing fruit set and consequentlyprovoking looser clusters (Poni et al., 2006; Intrieri et al., 2008). However, the effects of leafremoval on yield are quite variable, depending upon timing, severity and weather conditions,which affect the photosynthesis of the remaining leaves, as well as the status of the vine’scarbohydrate reservoir, which may compensate for the lack of direct supply of photosynthatesto the flowering clusters during fruit set. The variability in the impact of leaf removal onyield and its components depends on the depressing effects on fruit set and berry growthin the current year. Hence, a positive or negative side effect on bud floral induction anddifferentiation for the next year’s crop (due to the improvement in canopy microclimate orcaused by a shortage of photosynthates, respectively) has to be taken into account (Poniet al., 2006). Nevertheless, for a general evaluation of this practice, it should be underlinedthat early leaf defoliation can replace the costly and time-consuming cluster thinning as atool for yield control (Poni et al., 2006).

Variable results have been obtained according to timing, intensity, vine vigour, climateconditions and variety. Pre-bloom basal leaf removal reduces fruit set and berry size witha beneficial effect on quality, especially when grapes are tight and berries tend to be too


large. The decrease of fruit set percentage is due to the source–sink relationship where thehigher competitive mobilization force of the apex subtracts photosynthate to the cluster. Alsoberry growth during the initial phase may be reduced. If the sink activity of the apex istoo strong, a soft topping may be necessary to equilibrate the shoot/cluster balance. Earlybasal leaf removal increases green berry exposure to direct sunlight, resulting in an increaseof phenolic substances (Dixon et al., 2002) whose function is to protect tissue againstlight stresses. In addition, carotenoids synthesis is also enhanced: they are converted intonorisoprenoids during ripening, increasing the fruit potential aroma compounds. A gain ofother aromatic substances like terpenoids has also been reported, even though these effectscannot be generalized, because they depend on the cluster microclimate. Excess of clusterexposure to direct sunlight and temperature regimes during ripening can result in a fasterdegradation or conversion in the free form, which can be lost during the fermentation process(Storchi et al., 2008). In several experiments, early defoliation increased anthocyanin content,as an effect of less dilution when a decrease of berry weight is observed, or by a real increasein accumulation, which is evident when expressing the amount per berry. In hot climates,high temperature due to direct sunlight exposure induced anthocyanin degradation. Hence,the best way to maintain the positive effect of early defoliation should be by protecting thecluster from over-exposure during ripening. It appears that lateral growth, which is relatedto variety habitus, vigour, topping and canopy direction, can contribute to obtaining a moresuitable microclimate.

Although the effect may be limited or non-existent on cluster tightness and berry size,basal leaf removal performed at full bloom, or just after fruit set, still induces a positiveeffect on the metabolic pattern due to microclimate modification (Scalabrelli et al., 2010).Meanwhile, the source–sink effect will depend on the amount of leaf area remaining on theshoots.

As most of the basal leaf removal trials reported in the literature are done by hand, whichhelps in understanding the phenomena, we should look at the results obtained in several trialswhere this operation was mechanized. A survey on this subject indicates that the evolutionof machine design and operation has increased mechanical efficiency. In some cases, theiruse achieves results that are very close to hand operations (Tardaguila et al., 2010; Filippettiet al., 2011). The viticulturist will decide which method to use according to the cost, sizeof the vineyard, manual labour requirement and convenience. Investigations into the use ofanti-transpirants (pinolene) to depress photosynthesis of basal leaves are in progress; thesehave a similar effect to defoliation on cluster tightness and berry size (Storchi et al., 2008;Intrieri et al., 2012).

2.4.3 Berry epicuticular waxes, ripening andcanopy management

An important problem found during berry dehydration is related to the possible growthof moulds. The berry surface is covered by a wax layer. The physicochemical charac-teristics of these surface layers play an important role in plant resistance to a variety ofbiotic and abiotic stresses, including those caused by fungal and bacterial pathogens, phy-tophagous insects, drought, frost, solar radiation, mechanical abrasion, anthropogenic influ-ences, uptake and efficiency of plant growth regulator, mineral nutrients and pesticide sprays(Rosenquist and Morrison, 1989; Jenks and Ashworth, 1999; Muller and Reiderer, 2005). Infruits, and especially in grapes, the research on wax properties is generally focused on their


anti-transpirant properties, particularly important in the postharvest manipulations both forstorage or drying processes (Mahmutoglu et al., 1996; Pangavhane et al., 1999; Di Matteoet al., 2000; Doymaz and Pala, 2002; Doymaz, 2006; Muganu et al., 2011), or for protectionagainst pathogens such as Botrytis cinerea (Rosenquist and Morrison, 1988, 1989; Percivalet al., 1993). Rosenquist and Morrison (1988) studied the formation, shape and modificationof the epicuticular waxes of Thompson Seedless grapes. They observed that a few days afteranthesis, the pistil epidermis starts to form small, individual, upright platelets, which rapidlyincrease in both size and number, reaching the highest density during the berry growth lagphase, to then be spread apart as the berry resumes rapid growth after veraison. In addition toan increase in size, the wax platelets also increased in complexity during berry development,starting as small, simple plates with blunt edges, and finishing as overlapped and lace-likeplates, terminating in sharply lobed edges.

Muganu et al. (2011) showed that extra-canopy bunches had berries with a wider surfacecovered by plate-like wax in comparison to intra-canopy bunches, even if surprisingly thelatter dehydrated more slowly than the exposed bunches. Percival et al. (1993), showedhow cluster exposure and berry contact can affect the cuticular covering formation andthe occurrence of bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea). In the contact of surfaces between berries,the wax platelets structure is lost, allowing easier access for the fungus. This is one of themain reasons why grape bunches involved in dehydration processes should not be compact.Moreover, a less compact cluster permits better air movement between the berries, creatinga less favourable environment for the development of moulds.

2.4.4 Bunch thermal and light microclimate for grapesto be dehydrated

The thermal condition of grape berries is a crucial driving variable for the biochemical andphysiological phenomena involved in berry formation and ripening. These phenomena arekey factors for qualitative profiling, both in terms of primary and secondary metabolites(Jackson and Lombard, 1993). Even if the physiological bases of the relationships betweentemperature and grape metabolism are far from being fully explained, many efforts havebeen devoted to defining the most appropriate fruit thermal status to achieve the best grapequality according to the desired wine style.

It has been demonstrated that in cool climates, enhancing cluster exposure to sun-light has positive effects on sugar accumulation, terpenoids, anthocyanins and on diseaseavoidance. The typical aroma of certain varieties may be increased in shaded clusters (i.e.metoxypyrazines) or decreased with over-exposure (Belancic and Agosin, 2007; Falcao et al.,2007; Scheiner et al., 2010). The summer pruning technique requirement may vary accordingto site and variety.

Canopy manipulation aims at reducing cluster shading but, on the other hand, over-exposure to direct sunlight and high summer temperatures may have negative effects on theanthocyanin content (Bergqvist et al., 2001; Spayd et al., 2002; Tarara et al., 2008).

The relationship between temperature and the grape ripening processes are generallycalculated taking into account the average day air temperature or the day/night averagetemperature regimes. On this base, sugar accumulation would increase linearly as thetemperature rises from 10◦C to 30–32◦C, and then quickly decline above 35◦C, while malatelevels would decline proportionally to the temperature (Coombe, 1987). More controversialare the experimental and reviewed data with regard to the thermal and light microclimate


effects on accumulation of secondary metabolites such as phenols (anthocyanins, flavonols,tannins, phenolic acids and stilbens), aroma compounds (terpenes, C13-norisoprenoids,methoxipyrazines) and precursors (carotenoids). In fact, the final metabolites accumulationis the consequence of the balance between synthesis and degradation processes which aredifferently affected by temperature and light. Growth represents a diluting versus concen-trating factor which has always to be considered for a proper data interpretation (Coombeand McCarthy, 2000; Roby and Matthews, 2003). Anthocyanins accumulation seems to bereduced as the grape temperature exceeds a threshold of between 30 and 35◦C, even if a lotof speculation still exists about the role of lower temperatures, in particular during the night(Dokoozlian and Kliewer, 1996; Bergqvist et al., 2001; Downey et al., 2004; Mori et al. 2005;Spayd et al., 2002). Mori et al. (2007) evidenced a possible major role of high temperature inanthocyanins oxidation compared to an inhibitory effect on their synthesis. Flavonols accu-mulation appears to be mainly and positively under the control of UV light intensity (Downeyet al., 2004; Spayd et al., 2002). Tannins are synthesized during the first growth steps afterfruit set and seem to be quite unaffected by the microclimate conditions, so the environmentalvariables probably only affect their chemical and physical evolution during maturation(Downey et al., 2004). Terpenes synthesis appears to be positively related to light availabilitybut their accumulation would be impaired by heat excess and earlier interruption of synthesis.Carotenoids synthesis has been proved to be stimulated by light intensity as well as by theirsuccessive oxidative conversion into C13-norisoprenoids. Methoxypyrazines seem to be moreinfluenced by ripening course and by light environment rather than temperature (Hashizumeand Samuta, 1999) especially during the pre-veraison period (Scheiner et al., 2010).

Therefore, canopy management may provoke differences in the berry composition. Severalresearch works have studied the effects of bunch exposure on grape anthocyanins accumu-lation. Leaf removal changes the bunch microclimate and, in general, as Spayd et al. (2002)demonstrated by exposing Merlot grapes to direct sunlight but maintaining temperature con-ditions comparable to shaded bunches, light may improve anthocyanin accumulation, whilehigh temperature can have a negative effect. It is not only the quantity of anthocyanins interms of total amount per unit of grapes weight that influences the style and quality of a wine,but also their composition. Some studies have also indicated that bunch exposure changesthe anthocyanin profile (Spayd et al., 2002; Downey et al., 2004; Ristic et al., 2007; Rustioniet al., 2011a) and extractability during winemaking (Rustioni et al., 2011b). Not only thepigments, but the berry composition in general is modified by the canopy management.Morrison and Noble (1990) found a Brix increase in leaf removal treatments, and a signifi-cant reduction in titratable acidity, malic acid, pH and potassium concentration. On the onehand leaf removal allows grapes to grow in better microclimatic conditions (limiting Botrytiscinerea infections), but on the other hand the loss of acidity can be a negative point.

2.4.5 Potential management of juice acidity

As the dehydration process causes an increase in the sugar content, a high acid contentis considered favourable to balance the wine flavour. To obtain a good sugar-to-acid ratio,management of the harvesting time plays a central role. In general, the acidic contentdecreases during ripening, and, together with mould infections, this is one of the mainreasons why grapes to be dehydrated are usually harvested early.

Juice acidity is also determined by the degree of salification, mainly by potassium ions, oftartaric and malic acids. The metabolism of the two acids both during their accumulation and


decline phase really differ in terms of pathway, timing, and possible environmental regulatoryeffects.

Tartrate synthesis is very active during the first steps of berry growth, while malatesynthesis is successive and lasts also during the berry growth lag phase. During ripening,malate is actively metabolized by respiratory process and at a lower extent by gluconeogenesispathways, while tartrate is just diluted in the vacuolar sap which increases in sugar and watercontent. The role of light on tartrate synthesis has been proposed as having both a direct andindirect effect (Terrier and Romieu, 2001). Tartrate is synthesized from ascorbate followingtwo alternative pathways. One, generally active in the grapevine cells, forms tartrate (plusglycolaldehyde) and a second one, active in the idioblast, special cells sited in the berry outerand inner hypodermids, forms at the same time oxalate and tartrate (DeBolt et al., 2004).The role of light intensity on the stimulation of ascorbate synthesis in fruits has been welldocumented. Recently, this relation has been proved also in grape berry, where a correlationbetween ascorbate and tartrate synthesis has been shown (Melino et al., 2011). Moreover, inthe idioblasts, oxalate and consequently also tartrate could be synthesized also in responseto high calcium influx to sequestrate it in the vacuole. Calcium movements within plants aredependent on the xylematic fluxes, which are driven by transpiration. The exposure of thebunches to direct solar radiation at fruit setting and during the first part of berry growth, byincreasing transpiration from the fruit could increase at the same time the calcium intake andpossibly the oxalate and tartrate synthesis in the berry (Volk et al. 2002).

2.4.6 Vineyard management in warm climates

In warm climates, vineyard plantation must be carefully designed according to the site ofcultivation by choosing the most resistant rootstocks to water stress. Vines are generallyplanted at closer distances than in cool climates to ensure the best soil colonization by theroot system. Training systems should have a canopy expansion to preserve water loss bytranspiration if irrigation is not available. Arid cultivation techniques to cope with waterscarcity are developed in warm climates, which consist of autumn soil ploughing to reducethe water loss by evaporation. When the soils are poor in organic matter, winter crop coverageis practised; crops are cut in late spring and incorporated into the soil to enhance the physicalsoil fertility.

Traditional untrellised training systems such as Alberello have been developed. Vines aretrained very close to the soil, spur pruned and have a low bud load. Under these conditions,the vine becomes more tolerant to water restriction, produces lower yields and metabolism ismore directed to metabolic concentration. This system, which can be found in southern Italyand Italian islands, requires a high amount of manual labour so viticulturists are interestedin trellises, to increase the height of the canopy from the soil and to establish poles and wiresto facilitate mechanization. There are many vineyards that have been transformed in thisway and also new vineyards have been established adopting espalier instead of Alberello.Observations made in Pantelleria showed that the clusters produced by this system gave betterquality grapes compared to Alberello, because they had less berry rot and a higher contentof terpenic aroma, like linalool, nerol, geraniol and �-terpineol. Quality was enhanced onespalier, which had the best microclimatic condition at the cluster level, and especially atlower temperatures (Di Lorenzo and Lo Vetere, 2006).

In dry conditions, where irrigation is not available, lateral shoots are removed to avoidexcessive transpiration and severe water stress. When irrigation is available regulated deficit


Table 2.8 Relationship between threshold of pre-dawn leaf water potential (PD �w) plant function andwine style (data from Deloire et al., 2003).

PD �w(MPa)

Vegetativegrowth Berry growth Photosynthesis

Berrybiochemicalchange Wine style

0 to −0.3 Normal Normal Normal Normal 1−0.3 to−0.5

Decreased Normal orslightlyreduced

Normal or slightlyreduced

Normal orenhanced

2−3−4

−0.6 to−0.9

Decreasedorinhibited

Decreased orinhibited



4−5

� −0.9 Inhibited Inhibited Partial or completeinhibition

Partial orcompleteinhibition

5−6

Wine style: 1, ‘diluted’ with high acidity; 2, ‘fruity’ and balanced; 3, ‘fruity’/‘tannic’; 4, ‘fruity’/‘tannic’, concentratedand well balanced; 5, ‘tannic’, concentrated and not always well balanced, high alcohol degree; 6, ‘tannic’, sour, notbalanced high alcohol degree.

irrigation (RDI) is practised. The best way to apply this method is to monitor water potential(leaf: base water potential; stem: midday water potential) in order to give a limited amount ofwater to induce moderate stress (MS), taking into account that pre-veraison MS has a highereffect on berry size and yield, and post-veraison MS mainly affects berry composition. Inred varieties an increase of sugar content and anthocyanins can be observed in concentrationand also by the enhanced expression of key genes involved in anthocyanin biosynthesis(Castellarin et al., 2007a, b; Bucchetti et al., 2011).

To maximize irrigation efficiency it is important to choose the volume of distributedwater and the frequency, according to the adopted systems. A literature survey about RDIstrategy indicates that the use of micro irrigation systems giving a percentage of the totalcrop evapotranspiration (30–50%) has to be modulated according to the phenological stage(Deloire et al., 2002, 2003; Scalabrelli et al., 2007; Romero et al., 2010) (Table 2.8).Monitoring the water status is important to avoid severe vine stress, the use of the Scholanderpressure chamber is recommended: the cost is reasonable and it is easy to use. Practicalobservation, such as shoot tip growth cessation (Smart and Robinson, 1991), the amplitudeof leaf petiole angle, visible leaf turgor, may help in understanding the initial phase of stressand in programming the suitable duration of water restriction, before irrigating again.

2.5 TIME OF HARVEST AND BERRY PHENOLIC MATURITY

Viticulturists have to make the important decision on when to harvest, according to theenological purpose of the grapes. Factors that influence this decision are the earliness ofripening, climatic conditions and technique of dehydration. When the harvested clustersrequire further manipulation such as being placed in boxes or hung up for transfer to dehy-dration warehouses, the skins can be damaged which can lead to infection by undesirablefungi and bacteria. The latter can lead to berry rot and to the loss of the cluster’s integrity. Inthis case, the choice of the harvest date is critical for the berry quality; this is why the ripeningstage must be carefully monitored in order to pick the clusters for dehydration before themaximum level of ripeness is reached.


The situation is different for grapes that are allowed to remain in the vineyard in orderto produce ‘late harvest’ wines (‘vendemmia tardiva’). These grapes are harvested afterover-ripening directly on the vine. Berry maturity is assessed by several methods: physical,chemical, by means of laboratory tests and even with non-destructive sensors. A sensorialanalysis assessing berry maturity and phenolic maturity in particular, has been proposed bythe Cooperative Wine Institute (Institut Cooperatif du Vin (ICV)), and recently revised byScalabrelli (2006) and Scalabrelli et al. (2010) proving to be useful for this purpose.

Good phenolic maturity is important for vinification. This is why particular interest isdevoted to stimulating grape dehydration before harvest directly in the vineyard. Accelerationof dehydration may be obtained by several methods, which include the raffle torsion, theraffle incision, the cane incision, the shoot cut and the cane cut; the principle behind thesetechniques is called in French ‘double maturation raisonnee’ (Cargnello, 1992).

One of these, the ‘cane cut’ method (in Italian ‘recisione del tralcio’) has been adopted inexperimental production of dessert white wine (Scalabrelli et al., 2008), and the red wines,Raboso Piave (Ziliotto et al., 2012) and Aleatico (Scalabrelli and D’Onofrio, 2012). Inthese cases the length of grape dehydration that occurs in the vineyard depends on weatherconditions (temperature, wind, air humidity); in general 15 days are sufficient to obtain theright over ripening for harvest. In warm and dry sites, it is advisable to monitor frequentlythe ripening stage to avoid excess dehydration. This method proves to have many advantageswhen the cane cut is performed before complete berry ripening and softening; it enhancesgrape health as bee and wasp damage is avoided because berry dehydration is very rapidand these insects can no longer perforate the skin. In addition, a lot of hand-work and timeare saved, as it is not necessary to carry out the repeated manual selection of rot-infectedand damaged berries during the postharvest dehydration process. Moreover, berry sugarsand acidity concentrate, and the phenolic maturity of the different parts of the berry and itsoverall maturity are enhanced. The typicity of wines obtained from Aleatico grapes usingthis method is under evaluation, to assess the possibility of introducing the technique incommercial production (Scalabrelli and D’Onofrio, 2012).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Review paper published within the framework of the project PRIN 2008, coordinator FabioMencarelli, supported by the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research.

REFERENCES

Andrich, G., A. Zinnai, F. Venturi, et al. 2009. L’evoluzione della frazione polifenolica durante le fasi diappassimento delle uve nella produzione dell’aleatico. Accademia Italiana della Vite e del Vino. GlobalPrint, Gorgonzola, Milan, pp. 9–30.

Belancic A. and E. Agosin. 2007. Methoxypyrazines in grapes and wines of Vitis vinifera cv. Carmenere.American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 58(4):462–469.

Bergqvist, J., N. Dokoozlian, and N. Ebisuda. 2001. Sunlight exposure and temperature effects on berrygrowth and composition of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central San Joaquin Valley ofCalifornia. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 52:1–7.

Boselli, M., R. Bandinelli, G. Scalabrelli, et al. 2009. Caratterizzazione bioagronomica e aromatica delvitigno Aleatico. Atti Accademia Italiana della Vite e Vino. Global Print, Gorgonzola, Milan, pp. 31–49.


Brancadoro, L., L. Valenti, and A. Reina. 1995. Rootstock effect on potassium content of grapevine. ActaHorticulturae, 383:115–124.

Bucchetti B., M.A. Matthews, L. Falginella, et al. 2011. Effect of water deficit on Merlot grape tannins andanthocyanins across four seasons. Scientia Horticulturae, 128:297–305.

Cargnello, G. 1992. Premieres recherches sur la ‘double maturation raisonnee’ du raisin au vignoble. QuaderniViticoltura Enologia Universita di Torino, pp. 101–114.

Castellarin, S.D., M.A. Matthews, G. Di Gaspero, et al. 2007a. Water deficits accelerate ripening and inducechanges in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Planta, 227:101–112.

Castellarin, S.D., A. Pfeiffer, P. Sivilotti, et al. 2007b. Transcriptional regulation of anthocyanin biosynthesisin ripening fruit of grapevine under seasonal water deficit. Plant, Cell and Environment, 30:1381–1399.

Coombe, B.G. 1987. Influence of temperature on composition and quality of grapes. Acta Horticulturae,206:23–33.

Coombe, B.G. and M.G. McCarthy. 2000. Dynamics of grape berry growth and physiology of ripening.Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 6:131–135.

Corazzina, E., O. Failla, A. Scienza, et al. 1993. Influence of rootstock and mineral nutrition on must acidityin grapevines. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology, Istituto AgrarioSan Michele all’Adige, Universita di Torino, Italy, 11–15 May, pp. 217–220.

Cousins, P. 2005. Evolution, genetics, and breeding: Viticultural applications of the origins of our rootstocks.In Proceedings of the Grapevine Rootstocks: Current Use, Research, and Application. 2005 RootstockSymposium (eds P. Cousins and R.K. Striegler), Osage Beach, Missouri, 5 February 2005. Mid-AmericaViticulture and Enology Center, Southwest Missouri State University, pp. 1–7.

DeBolt, S., J. Hardie, S. Tyerman, et al. 2004. Composition and synthesis of raphide crystals and drusecrystals in berries of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon: Ascorbic acid as precursor for both oxalicand tartaric acids as revealed by radiolabelling studies. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research,10:134–142.

Deloire, A., F. Lopez, and A. Carbonneau. 2002. Reponse de la vigne et le terroir: elements pour une methoded’etude. Progres Agricole et Viticole, 4:78–86.

Deloire, A., B. Federspiel, H. Ojeda, et al. 2003. La vigne et l’eau. GESCO XIII Jornadas, 3–8 February.Di Lorenzo, R. and R. Lo Vetere. 2006. Aromatic compounds in ‘Zibibbo’ grape bush and VSP trained

in Pantelleria island. Preliminary results. First International Congress on Mountain and Steep SlopeViticulture, Saint Vincent, Aosta, 17–18 March 2006.

Di Matteo, M., L. Cinquanta, G. Galiero, et al. 2000. Effect of a novel physical pretreatment process on thedrying kinetics of seedless grapes. Journal of Food Engineering, 46:83–89.

Dixon, R.A., L. Achnine, P. Kota, et al. 2002. The phenylpropanoid pathway and plant defence, a genomicsperspective. Molecular Plant Pathology, 3:371–390.

Dokoozlian, N.K. and W.M. Kliewer. 1996. Influence of light on grape berry growth and composition variesduring fruit development. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 121:869–874.

Downey, M.O., J.S. Harvey, and S.P. Robinson. 2004. The effect of bunch shading on berry developmentand flavonoid accumulation in Shiraz grapes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10:55–73.

Doymaz, _I. 2006. Drying kinetics of black grapes treated with different solutions. Journal of Food Engineer-ing, 76:212–217.

Doymaz,_I. and M. Pala. 2002. The effects of dipping pretreatments on air-drying rates of the seedless grapes.Journal of Food Engineering, 52:413–417.

Failla, O., A. Scienza, A. Galluzzi, et al. 1993. Relationships between mineral nutrition and organic acidmetabolism in grape berry. Proceedings of the IV International Symposium on Grapevine Physiology,Istituto Agrario San Michele all’Adige, Universita di Torino, Italy, 11–15 May, pp. 227–230.

Failla, O., A. Scienza, G. Stringari, et al. 1990. Potassium partitioning between leaves and clusters: role ofrootstock. Vitis, Special Issue:187–196.

Falcao, L.D., G. De Revel, M.C. Perello, et al. 2007. A survey of seasonal temperatures and vineyard altitudeinfluences on 2-methoxy-3-isobutylpyrazine, C-13-585 norisoprenoids, and the sensory profile of BrazilianCabernet Sauvignon wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55:3605–3612.

Ferreira, J.H.S. and P.G. Marais. 1987. Effect of rootstock cultivar, pruning method and crop load on Botrytiscinerea rot of Vitis vinifera cv. Chenin blanc grapes. South African Journal for Enology & Viticulture,8:41–44.

Filippetti, I., G. Allegro, G. Valentini, et al. 2011. Effects of mechanical pre-bloom defoliation on cordonde Royat pruned Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.) vines. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et duVin, 45(1):19–25.


Garcia, M., P. Gallego, C. Daverede, et al. 2001. Effect of three rootstocks on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cv.Negrette, grown hydroponically. I. Potassium, calcium and magnesium nutrition. South African Journalfor Enology & Viticulture, 22:101–103.

Hashizume, K. and T. Samuta. 1999. Grape maturity and light exposure affect berry methoxypyrazineconcentration. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 50:194–198.

Intrieri, C., I. Filippetti, G. Allegro, et al. 2008. Early defoliation (hand vs mechanical) for improve cropcontrol and grape composition in Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.). Australian Journal of Grape and WineResearch, 14:25–32.

Intrieri, C., I. Filippetti, G. Allegro, et al. 2012. Effetto di trattamenti antitraspiranti in pre-fioriturasulla morfologia dei grappoli e sulla composizione dell’uva di Sangiovese. Italus Hortus, 3–5(1):95–101.

Jackson, D.I. and P.B. Lombard. 1993. Environmental and management practices affecting grape compositionand wine quality: A review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 44:409–430.

Jenks, M.A. and E.N. Ashworth. 1999. Plant epicuticular waxes: function, production, and genetics. Horti-cultural Reviews, 23:1–68.

Kliewer, W.M. and N.K. Dokoozlian. 2005. Leaf area/crop weight ratios of grapevines: Influence on fruitcomposition and wine quality. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 56:170–181.

Kodur, S., J.M. Tisdall, C. Tang, et al. 2010. Accumulation of potassium in grapevine rootstocks (Vitis) asaffected by dry matter partitioning, root traits and transpiration. Australian Journal of Grape and WineResearch, 16:273–282.

Mahmutoglu, T., F. Emır, and Y.B. Saygi. 1996. Sun/solar drying of differently treated grapes and storagestability of dried grapes. Journal of Food Engineering, 29:289–300.

Materazzi, A. and E. Triolo. 2000. Inerbimento del vigneto ed incidenza di Botrytis cinerea su ‘Sangiovese’.Il ‘Sangiovese’. Atti del Simposio Internazionale. Firenze, Palazzo dei Congressi, 15–17 February 2000,ARSIA, Florence, pp. 101–105.

Melino, V.J., M.A. Hayes, K.L. Soole, et al. 2011. The role of light in the regulation of ascorbate metabolismduring berry development in the cultivated grapevine Vitis vinifera L. Journal of the Science of Food andAgriculture, 91:1712–1721.

Mori, K., N. Goto-Yamamoto, M. Kitayama, et al. 2007. Loss of anthocyanins in red-wine grape under hightemperature. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58:1935–1945.

Mori, K., H. Saito, N. Goto-Yamamoto, et al. 2005. Effects of abscisic acid treatment and night temperatureson anthocyanin composition in Pinot noir grapes. Vitis, 44:161–165.

Morrison, J.C. and A.C. Noble. 1990. The effects of leaf and cluster shading on the composition of CabernetSauvignon grapes and on fruit and wine sensory properties. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,41:193–200.

Muganu, M., A. Bellincontro, F.E. Barnaba, et al. 2011. Influence of bunch position in the canopy on berryepicuticular wax during ripening and on weight loss during postharvest dehydration. American Journal ofEnology and Viticulture, 62(1):91–98.

Muller, C. and M. Reiderer. 2005. Plant surface properties in chemical ecology. Journal of Chemical Ecology,31:2621–2651.

Pangavhane, D.R., R.L. Sawhney, and P.N. Sarsavadia. 1999. Effect of various dipping pretreatment ondrying kinetics of Thompson seedless grapes. Journal of Food Engineering, 39:211–216.

Percival, D.C., J.A. Sullivan, and K.H. Fisher. 1993. Effect of cluster exposure, berry contact and cultivar oncuticular membrane formation and occurrence of bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea Pers. Fr.) with 3 Vitis viniferaL. cultivars. Vitis, 32:87–97.

Poni, S., L. Casalini, F. Bernizzoni, et al. 2006. Effects of early defoliation on shoot photosynthesis, yieldcomponents, and grape composition. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 57(4):397–407.

Ristic, R., M.O. Downey, P.G. Iland, et al. 2007. Exclusion of sunlight from Shiraz grapes alters wine colour,tannin and sensory properties. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 13:53–65.

Roby, G. and M.A. Matthews. 2003. Relative proportions of seed, skin and flesh, in the ripe berries fromCabernet Sauvignon grapevines grown in a vineyard either well irrigated or under water deficit. AustralianJournal of Grape and Wine Research, 10:74–82.

Romero, P., J.I. Fernandez-Fernandez, and A. Martinez-Cutillas. 2010. Physiological thresholds for efficientregulated deficit-irrigation management in winegrapes grown under semiarid conditions. American Journalof Enology and Viticulture, 61:300–312.

Rosenquist, J.K. and J.C. Morrison. 1988. The development of the cuticle and epicuticular wax of the grapeberry. Vitis, 27:63–70.


Rosenquist, J.K. and J.C. Morrison. 1989. Some factors affecting cuticle and wax accumulation on grapeberries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 40:241–244.

Ruhl, E.H. 1991. Effects of potassium supply on cation uptake and distribution in grafted Vitis champinii andVitis berlandieri × Vitis rupestris rootstocks. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 31:119–125.

Rustioni, L., M. Rossoni, G. Cola, et al. 2011a. Bunch exposure to direct solar radiation increases ortho-diphenol anthocyanins in northern Italy climatic condition. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigneet du Vin, 45:85–99.

Rustioni, L., M. Rossoni, M. Calatroni, et al. 2011b. Influence of bunch exposure on anthocyanins extractabil-ity from grapes skins (Vitis vinifera L.). Vitis, 50:137–143.

Scalabrelli, G. 2006. Razionale gestione dell’acqua di irrigazione in viticoltura. I Georgofili. Quaderni,Accademia dei Georgofili. Polistampa, Firenze, 6:78–118.

Scalabrelli, G. and C. D’Onofrio. 2012. L’Aleatico dai mille profumi. Ed. De Batte, Livorno.Scalabrelli, G., F. Loreti, and G. Ferroni. 2004. La selezione clonale dell’Aleatico dell’Elba: aspetti agro-

nomici e ampelografici. Atti Convegno ‘Miglioramento qualitativo delle produzioni vitivinicole e delmateriale di produzione’, Quaderno ARSIA, 1:47–59.

Scalabrelli, G., C. D’Onofrio, G. Ferroni, et al. 2010. Effect of leaf removal timing on grape and wine qualityof ‘Ciliegiolo’ grapevine. Italus Hortus, 17(suppl. 3):79–83.

Scalabrelli, G., G. Ferroni, A. Zinnai, et al. 2008. Sensorial characteristics of wines obtained from fromexperimental vinification of grapevine variety Malvasia Istriana. Rivista di Viticoltura e di Enologia,2-3-4:261–280.

Scalabrelli, G., D. Remorini, L. Tuccio, et al. 2011. Qualita dell’uva e del vino e interventi irrigui. InformatoreAgrario, 20:38–44.

Scalabrelli, G., E. Saracini, D. Remorini, et al. 2007. Changes of leaf phenolic substances in two grapevinevarieties (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in different water conditions. Acta Horticulturae, 754:295–299.

Scheiner, J.J., G.L. Sacks, B. Pan, et al. 2010. Impact of severity and timing of basal leaf removal on 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine concentrations in red wine grapes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,61(3):358–364.

Smart, R.E. and M. Robinson. 1991. Sunlight into wine. In A Handbook for Winegrape Canopy Management,Winetitles, Adelaide, Australia.

Spayd, S.E., J.M. Tarara, D.L. Mee, et al. 2002. Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on thecomposition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 53:171–182.

Stoll, M., M. Schweidweiler, M. Lafontaine, et al. 2009. Possibilities to reduce the velocity of berry maturationthrough various leaf area to fruit ratio modifications in Vitis vinifera L. Riesling. Proceedings of the 16thInternational GiESCO Symposium, July 12–15, University of California, Davis, USA, pp. 93–96.

Storchi P., M. Leprini, M. Pieri, et al. 2008. Effect of defoliation on grape quality of some Malvasias. Rivistadi Viticoltura ed Enologia, 2-3-4:135–146.

Tarara, J.M., J. Lee, S.E. Spayd, et al. 2008. Berry temperature and solar radiation alter acylation, proportion,and concentration of anthocyanin in Merlot grapes American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59:235–247.

Tardaguila, V., F. Martinez de Toda, S. Poni, et al. 2010. Impact of early leaf removal on yield and fruit andwine composition of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano and Carignan. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,61:372–381.

Terrier, N. and C. Romieu. 2001 Grape berry acidity. In Molecular Biology and Biotechnology of theGrapevine (ed. K.A. Roubelakis-Angelakis), Kluwer Academic Publisher, pp. 35–57.

Tuccio, L. 2011. Aleatico grapevine characterization: physiological and molecular responses to differentwater regimes. PhD Thesis, University of Pisa.

Volk, G.M., V.J.J. Lynch-Holm, T.A. Kostman, et al. 2002. The role of druse and raphide calcium oxalatecrystals in tissue calcium regulation in Pistia stratiotes leaves. Plant Biology, 4:34–45.

Ziliotto, F., F.M. Rizzini, S. Cavaleri, et al. 2012. Evoluzione dei parametri sensoriali, biochimici e molecolariin uve della cv Raboso Piave sottoposte alla Doppia Maturazione Ragionata e alla Vendemmia Tardiva.Italus Hortus, 3–5(1):9–14.

Date post:	10-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pietro
View:	216 times
Download:	4 times

Sweet, Reinforced and Fortified Wines (Grape Biochemistry, Technology and Vinification) ||...

Documents