Agronomic and physicochemical parameters of must and wine as a function of changes in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ grapevine canopy

Silveira, Jansen Moreira; Rombaldi, Cesar Valmor; Aguila, Juan Saavedra del; Gabbardo, Marcos; Cunha, Wellynthon Machado da

doi:10.4025/actasciagron.v45i1.56441

ABSTRACT.

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of vegetative canopy height on the agronomic characteristics and grape must and wine physicochemical properties of a ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ vineyard in an espalier-trained system. The evaluated parameters comprised agronomic characteristics of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ grapevines and physicochemical compositions of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ musts and wines, as well as their phenolic compositions (anthocyanins, stilbenes, and flavonoids), and impact on wine contents of methoxypyrazines (volatile compounds that impart vegetal or earthy odors to wine, which are considered undesirable in large intensity). To that end, four heights of the vegetative canopy were tested: 60 cm (T1), 80 cm (T2), 100 cm (T3), and 120 cm (T4). The experiment was carried out in a commercial vineyard in the region of “Campanha Gaúcha” (Dom Pedrito, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil) during the productive cycles of 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18, and 2018/19. The main agronomic parameters were measured: estimated productivity per plant and hectare, and mean weight and number of clusters. All wines were elaborated by the same traditional winemaking methods. The physicochemical analyses of must and wines were performed by infrared spectroscopy using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FTIR), and the phenolic analysis by high-efficiency liquid chromatography and UV-Vis spectrophotometry. Methoxypyrazines were quantified using headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME), followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The results showed that treatments did not influence agronomic parameters. However, technological maturation (sugar accumulation) had interesting results for plants managed at higher canopy heights, with respective results obtained for wine. Treatments had little influence on individual quantification of anthocyanins, although cycles had a high influence on their profile. The wines had low concentrations of methoxypyrazines and did not differ among treatments.

Keywords:
Vitis vinifera L.; technological maturity; phenolic compounds; methoxypyrazine; Campanha Gaúcha.

[1] * Author for correspondence. E-mail: jansensilveira@unipampa.edu.br

Agronomic characteristic	Productive cycle	Treatment
Agronomic characteristic	Productive cycle	T1 (60 cm)	T2 (80 cm)	T3 (100 cm)	T4 (120 cm)	CV (%)
Average cluster weight (g)	2015/16	78^ns	136	79	70	76.66
	2016/17	113^ns	119	123	129	22.26
	2017/18	155^ns	145	167	173	11.64
	2018/19	138^ns	118	123	121	13.78
Average cluster number per plant	2015/16	24^ns	18	20	22	23.46
	2016/17	45^ns	35	41	37	17.18
	2017/18	24^ns	26	24	24	19.29
	2018/19	23^ns	20	19	21	18.69
Productivity per treatment (kg)	2015/16	13^ns	12	12	10	36.10
	2016/17	36^ns	29	36	34	29.36
	2017/18	26^ns	26	28	28	23.16
	2018/19	21^ns	16	17	18	26.49
Productivity per plant (kg)	2015/16	1.80^ns	1.73	1.70	1.50	36.10
	2016/17	5.11^ns	4.16	5.21	4.85	29.63
	2017/18	3.76^ns	3.78	4.00	4.07	23.16
	2018/19	3.04^ns	2.33	2.39	2.61	26.49
Estimated productivity per hectare (t ha^-1)	2015/16	5.142^ns	4.810	4.727	4.149	36.10
	2016/17	14.169^ns	11.541	14.457	13.464	29.63
	2017/18	10.426^ns	10.492	11.106	11.291	23.16
	2018/19	8.437^ns	6.478	6.643	7.274	26.49
Ravaz Index	2015/16	5.495 ^a	4.016 ^ab	3.535 ^ab	3.040 ^b	11.23

Response parameter	Productive cycle	Treatment
Response parameter	Productive cycle	T1 (60 cm)	T2 (80 cm)	T3 (100 cm)	T4 (120 cm)	CV (%)
Total soluble solids (ºBrix)	2015/16	20.90 ^a	20.70 ^a	19.83 ^b	21.33 ^a	1.27
	2016/17	19.43 ^b	19.50 ^b	19.20 ^c	19.70 ^a	0.30
	2017/18	21.80^ns	22.73	22.13	22.40	3.28
	2018/19	21.67^ns	22.07	21.57	22.03	2.21
Total acidity (g L^-1 H₂SO₄)	2015/16	2.70^ns	2.93	2.93	2.76	3.48
	2016/17	2.70^c	2.86^bc	3.13^a	2.90^b	1.96
	2017/18	2.80^ns	2.86	2.96	2.96	4.34
	2018/19	2.70^ns	2.73	2.75	2.70	3.23
pH	2015/16	3.73 ^a	3.71^a	3.67^b	3.71^a	1.03
	2016/17	3.55 ^a	3.53^b	3.50^c	3.47^d	0.09
	2017/18	3.48^ns	3.48	3.50	3.48	0.86
	2018/19	3.51^ns	3.53	3.51	3.50	0.80
Reducing sugars (g L^-1)	2015/16	208.43 ^a	206.16 ^a	195.60^b	213.10^a	1.44
	2016/17	194.50 ^b	195.76^ab	191.00^c	197.56^a	0.37
	2017/18	220.43^ns	231.56	223.90	226.56	3.92
	2018/19	221.30^ns	226.50	220.30	225.30	2.56
Tartaric acid (g L^-1)	2015/16	6.56^ns	6.36	6.53	6.36	1.34
	2016/17	5.53 ^b	5.53^b	6.03^a	5.66^b	1.01
	2017/18	6.63^ns	6.56	6.60	6.60	3.70
	2018/19	4.80^ns	4.63	4.57	4.60	3.34
Malic acid (g L^-1)	2015/16	2.53^ns	2.80	2.76	2.50	5.19
	2016/17	2.60 ^b	2.86^a	2.90^a	2.66^b	1.60
	2017/18	1.56^ns	1.70	1.96	1.90	8.15
	2018/19	1.93^ns	1.07	2.10	1.97	4.89
Potassium (mg L^-1)	2015/16	2082.33^ns	2072.66	2001.33	2053.33	4.80
	2016/17	1359.33 ^b	1363.33^b	1415.33^a	1278.00^c	1.53
	2017/18	1504.66^ns	1440.66	1446.33	1464.66	4.53
	2018/19	1005.67^ns	1017.00	941.00	952.00	8.54

Response parameter	Productive cycles	Treatment
Response parameter	Productive cycles	T1 (60 cm)	T2 (80 cm)	T3 (100 cm)	T4 (120 cm)	CV (%)
Ethanol (% vol.)	2015/16	11.04 ^a	10.87^ab	10.54 ^b	11.14 ^a	1.49
	2016/17	10.60 ^b	11.10^ab	11.08^ab	11.43 ^a	2.02
	2017/18	12.85^ab	13.20 ^a	12.02 ^b	12.65^ab	3.41
	2018/19	12.80 ^b	13.53^ab	14.02 ^a	13.26^ab	3.13
Total acidity (in g L^-1 tartaric acid)	2015/16	6.86^ns	6.66	6.70	6.90	2.01
	2016/17	5.33^ns	5.26	5.40	5.23	2.01
	2017/18	5.46^ns	5.40	5.40	5.33	1.83
	2018/19	6.90^c	7.16^ab	7.06^bc	7.33^a	0.97
pH	2015/16	3.50^ns	3.52	3.49	3.51	1.24
	2016/17	3.63^ns	3.68	3.64	3.66	1.52
	2017/18	3.80^ns	3.85	3.81	3.82	0.93
	2018/19	3.46^ns	3.57	3.53	3.44	1.93
Volatile acidity (in g L^-1 acetic acid)	2015/16	0.50^ns	0.63	0.53	0.60	16.38
	2016/17	0.50^ns	0.56	0.56	0.50	8.27
	2017/18	0.46^ns	0.53	0.56	0.50	7.21
	2018/19	0.53^ns	0.60	0.63	0.70	15.05
Glycerol (g L^-1)	2015/16	9.26^ns	9.13	9.23	9.06	2.23
	2016/17	7.50 ^b	7.66^ab	7.73^ab	8.06^a	2.32
	2017/18	9.16^ns	9.40	8.86	9.16	2.82
	2018/19	10.53^b	11.66^a	12.43^a	11.43^ab	3.26
Color intensity	2015/16	3.985^ns	4.145	3.749	4.448	9.00
	2016/17	2.639 ^b	3.436^ab	3.603^b	4.181^a	11.90
	2017/18	4.415^ns	4.573	4.433	4.283	7.90
	2018/19	2.565^ns	2.276	2.126	2.611	14.00
Color hue	2015/16	0.884^ns	0.901	0.914	0.875	1.70
	2016/17	0.975 ^a	0.883^ab	0.841^b	0.850^b	4.10
	2017/18	0.611^ns	0.533	0.541	0.539	11.70
	2018/19	1.245^ns	1.011	1.012	1.015	9.00
Total polyphenol index (TPI)	2015/16	23.76^ns	26.56	25.86	27.63	8.00
	2016/17	22.57 ^b	24.70^ab	25.90^ab	27.70^a	6.80
	2017/18	44.20^ns	44.66	45.90	43.56	4.00
	2018/19	28.93^b	28.23^b	30.43^ab	31.56^a	2.80

Anthocyanin	Productive cycle	Treatment
		T1 (60 cm)	T2 (80 cm)	T3 (100 cm)	T4 (120 cm)	CV (%)
Malvidin	2016/17	238.05^ns	239.24	234.69	232.43	1.49
	2017/18	243.32^ns	239.75	238.58	242.89	4.89
	2018/19	270.11^ns	266.47	272.95	275.62	4.25
Delphinidin	2016/17	13.61^b	12.99^b	14.70^a	14.68^a	1.95
	2017/18	16.02^ns	16.28	16.27	16.45	2.75
	2018/19	18.20^ns	18.24	19.33	17.94	3.62
Petunidin	2016/17	24.84^a	23.70^b	24.93^a	24.85^a	0.78
	2017/18	17.83^ns	17.59	18.36	18.64	5.82
	2018/19	15.92^ns	17.68	18.3	18.65	5.53
Peonidin	2016/17	8.74^ns	9.31	8.98	9.80	4.66
	2017/18	12.66^ns	13.43	13.14	12.88	6.70
	2018/19	11.58^ns	11.83	11.47	11.87	6.14

Phenolic compound	Productive cycle	Treatment
Phenolic compound	Productive cycle	T1 (60 cm)	T2 (80 cm)	T3 (100 cm)	T4 (120 cm)	CV (%)
Resveratrol	2016/17	1.42^ns	1.55	1.42	1.43	32.04
	2017/18	1.76^b	4.00^a	1.78^b	1.66^b	11.24
	2018/19	1.42^ns	1.55	1.42	1.43	32.00
(-)-Epicatechin	2016/17	53.32^ns	53.13	53.89	50.49	6.18
	2017/18	53.43^ns	52.54	51.58	52.16	1.94
	2018/19	52.32^ns	52.13	53.49	50.89	1.18
Catechin	2016/17	11.11^ns	11.21	10.62	11.00	8.14
	2017/18	10.68^ns	10.96	11.42	11.20	7.33
	2018/19	11.11^ns	11.21	10.62	11.00	8.14

Brasil

Brasil

Agronomic and physicochemical parameters of must and wine as a function of changes in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ grapevine canopy

ABSTRACT.