effect of bunch thinning and water stress on chemical and sensory characteristics of tempranillo...

Effect of bunch thinning and water stress on chemical andsensory characteristics of Tempranillo wines

E. GAMERO1, D. MORENO1, M. VILANOVA2, D. URIARTE3, M.H. PRIETO3 andM. ESPERANZA VALDÉS1

1 Technological Institute of Food and Agriculture (CICYTEX-INTAEX, Government of Extremadura), Av.Adolfo Suárez,s/n ó,Aptdo. 20107, Badajoz, Spain

2 Misión Biológica de Galicia (CSIC), PO Box 28, Pontevedra 38080, Spain3 Technological Institute of Food and Agriculture (CICYTEX-Finca la Orden Valdesequera), Ctra.A-V, Km 372, Guadajira,

Badajoz, SpainCorresponding author: Dr M. Esperanza Valdés, email [email protected]

AbstractBackground and Aims: The influence of water status and bunch thinning on the chemical and sensory propertiesof Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo wines was studied. Tempranillo vines from Extremadura (Spain) were subjected totwo irrigation treatments (100 and 25% of evapotranspiration) and two bunch-thinning treatments (7–9 and 4–5bunches/m2 of planting area), applied at veraison.Methods and Results: Both thinning and deficit irrigation significantly affected must and wine chemical compo-sition and wine sensory properties. Deficit irrigation increased floral and fruity aromas and reduced herbaceousaromas. The combination of deficit irrigation with bunch thinning improved the sensory characteristics of wines,showing improved colour intensity, persistence and balance. Partial least squares regression showed a correlationamong the sensory attributes and chemical composition of Tempranillo wines from different treatments of irrigationand bunch thinning. The sensory attributes, cherry colour, colour intensity, balance and structure, were stronglypredicted by anthocyanins, colour intensity and ethanol.Conclusions: Deficit irrigation and bunch thinning at veraison improved the sensory characteristics of Tempranillowines. Improvements due to bunch thinning were independent of those due to irrigation.Significance of the Study: Deficit irrigation and bunch thinning at veraison can improve grape composition andwine sensory characteristics in Tempranillo wine. Any improvements, however, must be balanced against a loweryield and the increased management costs of bunch thinning.

Keywords: irrigation, sensory analysis, wine composition, yield management

IntroductionPlant water status and crop load can significantly affect grapecomposition and wine quality (Intrigliolo and Castel 2011).Wine quality is highly related to colour, aroma and taste andtherefore to the compounds responsible for these characteristics,mainly phenolic substances and volatile compounds. A combi-nation of studying chemical composition and sensory analysiscan help to improve our understanding of wine quality(Vilanova et al. 2012).

Appropriate viticultural practices that enhance ripening, bycreating favourable mesoclimates, or by achieving adequatebut not excessive vine vigour, will improve wine quality(Koundouras et al. 2006). The effect of plant water status onwine quality and sensory properties has been recognised(Chapman et al. 2005, Koundouras et al. 2006).

Irrigation is commonly practised in countries with hotsummers, and Kliewer et al. (1983) reported that irrigation canimprove wine quality. Several authors, however, suggest thatthe effect of irrigation on wine quality is either negative ornonexistent (Boubals et al. 1984, Van Zyl and Van Huyssteen1988). These apparent contradictions may be due to variouscomplex and indirect effects of water stress during specificphases of berry growth (Hepner et al. 1985). Deficit drip irriga-tion is widely practised as it saves water, can reduce vine vigour

and can improve wine quality. For red wine grapes, some waterdeficit during the growing season can be beneficial for fruitcomposition and wine quality (Bravdo et al. 1985, Williams andMatthews 1990).

Yield management can have a large influence on berry com-position and wine quality. Fruit thinning has been a widelyapplied technique and its effect on sensory properties has beenstudied (Bravdo et al. 1985, Reynolds and Wardle 1997, Diagoet al. 2010). Quantitative descriptive analysis techniques for theobjective characterisation and discrimination of products havebeen applied to wines in recent decades and have become stand-ard practice in sensory evaluation of wine (Noble et al. 1984,Gambaro et al. 2003).

Multivariate analysis has been used for evaluating winecharacteristics. Principal component analysis and partial leastsquare (PLS) are statistical techniques frequently employed andhave been applied to sensory analysis (Rodriguez-Nogales et al.2009, Vilanova et al. 2009, 2012).

There is little published information on the response ofTempranillo grapevines to water stress and bunch thinning.The objective of this research was to study the effectof water deficit and yield management through bunch thin-ning on the chemical and sensory attributes of Tempranillowines.

394 Water stress and bunch thinning on Tempranillo wine Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 394–400, 2014

doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12088© 2014 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

Materials and methods

Vineyard site and experimental designThe experiment was conducted in a Vitis vinifera L. cv.Tempranillo vineyard in Finca la Orden, (RegionalGovernmentde Extremadura), Extremadura, Spain over the2007 and 2008 vintages. The vineyard was planted in 2001 onRichter 110 rootstock at a spacing of 2.5 by 1.2 m (3333 vines/ha). Row orientation was north-south and vines were trained toa bilateral cordon and vertical trellis.

The experimental design was a complete randomised blockwith 16 experimental plots, four replicates by four treatments(irrigation and bunch thinning). Experimental plots consisted of48 vines across six rows. The experiment comprised 768 vines intotal. The irrigation regimes, applied during veraison and ripen-ing, were as follows:

• deficit irrigation (DI) corresponding to 25% of crop evapo-transpiration (ETc); and

• full irrigation (FI), corresponding to 100% of ETc.

Crop ETc was calculated according to the following equation:

ETc ETo Kc= ×

where ETc was estimated as the product of referenceevapotranspiration (ETo), measured by a weather stationlocated at the site, and crop coefficient (Kc), following themethodology of Allen et al. (1998). Irrigation was initiatedwhen stem water potential reached −0.5 MPa and ceased afterharvest, in mid-September. Irrigation was applied withpressure-compensated emitters supplying 4 L/h and spaced120 cm apart. Two bunch load levels were established for eachirrigation regime:

• control treatment (C) without bunch thinning (7–9bunches/m2 of planting area); and

• bunch-thinning treatments (T), in which the load wasadjusted to 4–5 bunches/m2 of planting area by removingbunches at veraison.

MicrovinificationVines were manually harvested when a minimum total solublesolids (TSS) of 22°Brix was reached in both the 2007 and 2008vintages. The grapes were transported to the Technological Insti-tute of Food and Agriculture experimental winery; samples ofabout 30 kg from each plot, most often four fermentations pertreatment, were fermented separately. Tempranillo grapes fromthe different experimental blocks were mechanically crushedand destemmed. Chemical analysis of the musts is shown inTable 1.

The must from each experimental block was fermented in50-L steel tanks at 22°C. Initially sulfur dioxide (SO2) was addedat 50 mg/kg and Saccharomyces cerevisiae Viniferm from theAgrovin Company (Alcazar de San Juan, Spain) was added at30 g/hL. Density and the phenolic substances index of the mustswere measured daily during fermentation. Wines were rackedwhen the phenolic substances index began to asymptote. At theend of fermentation, SO2 was adjusted to 75 mg/L. Wines werethen transferred to 0.75-L bottles and stored at 15°C until analy-sis, without initiating malolactic fermentation.

Must and wine chemical compositionMusts were analysed for density, TSS, pH, titratable acidity (TA),malic acid, tartaric acid and phenolic substances potential (PPT)and wines were analysed in triplicate 3 months after bottling forpH, TA, ethanol, phenolic substances, anthocyanins, tannins,catechins and colour attributes.

Analysis for density, TSS, pH and TA was according to theofficial methods of the Organisation Internationale de la Vigneet du Vin (1990). Malic acid and tartaric acid were, respectively,analysed enzymatically (European Commission 1990) and afterBlouin (1992), using a multidetector Easychem system (SysteaS.p.a., Anagni, Italy).

The phenolic substances (PPT) of must and phenolic sub-stances (TPC) of wine were measured by spectrophotometry at280 nm (Ribéreau-Gayon et al. 1999). Anthocyanins, catechinsand tannins were determined according to Di Stefano andGuidoni (1989) and Ribéreau-Gayon and Stonestreet (1966),respectively. The colour attributes, colour intensity (CI), colourtonality (CT) and proportion of red colour produced by theflavylium cations (dA%), were measured according to Glories(1984) using a Shimadzu spectrophotometer with chromatog-raphy data system control software (Shimadzu Corporation,Kyoto, Japan).

Wine sensory analysisSensory analysis of the Tempranillo wines was undertaken by12 judges, four men and eight women, whose age rangedbetween 25 and 50 years. All judges were experienced winetasters. The evaluation of wines by sensory analysis followedquantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) methods (Lawless andHeymann 1998). During two training sessions, judges generateddescriptive terms to define Tempranillo wines fromExtremadura. Each wine (30 mL) was evaluated at 12°C in awine glass that met the design criteria of Una Norma Española(UNE) 87-022-92 (Asociación Española de Normalización yCertificación 1997). During the analysis, wine tasters scored theintensity of each attribute using a ten-point scale. The fre-quency, intensity and geometric mean (GM%) of the agreeddescriptors were calculated for each wine. The GM was calcu-lated as the square root of the product between relative intensity(I%) and relative frequency (F%). The descriptors were classi-fied for each wine by using the GM, according to the ISO 11035(International Organization for Standardization 1994). The clas-sification of descriptors according to these means made it pos-sible to eliminate the descriptors whose GMs were relativelylow. The testing was performed only with descriptors whereGM > 10%, according to Vilanova et al. (2012).

Sensory analysis of experimental wines was conducted overfour sessions each year. The assessors tasted eight wines in eachof these sessions for a total of 32 wines (four treatments × fourexperimental by treatment × two replications).

Statistical analysisThe chemical and sensory data were analysed using XLstat-Pro(Addinsoft, Paris, France). To test significant differences amongwines (oenological variables and intensity of sensory descrip-tors), a two-factor (irrigation and bunch thinning) analysis ofvariance (ANOVA) was applied. To show the relationshipbetween sensory variables (colour and taste) and chemical vari-ables of the wines, partial least squares regression (PLSR) wasapplied to X data (chemical compounds) and Y data (sensorydescriptors). The X data are actively used in estimating the latentvariables to ensure that the first components are those that aremost relevant for predicting the Y variable. This is a data reduc-tion technique, since it reduces the X variables to a set ofnon-correlated factors that describe the variation in the data.

Results and discussion

Agronomic parameters and must compositionTable 1 shows the must composition, TSS, malic acid, tartaricacid, pH, TA and PPT from the different treatments in addition

Gamero et al. Water stress and bunch thinning on Tempranillo wine 395

© 2014 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Tabl

e1.

Effe

ctof

defic

itirr

igat

ion

and

bunc

hth

inni

ngat

vera

ison

onth

ech

emic

alco

mpo

sitio

nof

Tem

pran

illo

mus

ts.R

esul

tsfro

mth

e20

07an

d20

08vi

ntag

esw

ere

aver

aged

(±st

anda

rdde

viat

ion)

.

Trea

tmen

tsY

ield

(kg/

ha)

Ber

rym

ass

(g)

Ber

ries

/bu

nch

Bu

nch

es/v

ine

TSS

(°B

rix)

Mal

icac

id(g

/L)

Tart

aric

acid

(g/L

)p

HTA (g/L

)P

PT

(AU

280

nm

)

FIC

2140

3.7

±16

08.7

2.1

±0.

214

8±

5423

±6

22.7

±1.

42.

4±

0.1

5.9

±0.

23.

7±

0.2

6.4

±0.

851

.4±

20.4

FIT

1498

7.0

±59

10.2

2.2

±0.

217

4±

6014

±2

23.9

±1.

12.

5±

0.7

5.9

±0.

43.

7±

0.1

5.1

±0.

359

.8±

20.2

DIC

1874

9.6

±13

34.4

2.0

±0.

215

9±

4521

±7

21.9

±1.

71.

9±

0.8

5.9

±0.

43.

7±

0.2

5.5

±0.

852

.7±

13.2

DIT

1470

4.2

±34

50.6

1.9

±0.

115

6±

7015

±3

24.4

±1.

62.

3±

0.8

5.9

±0.

43.

8±

0.1

4.3

±0.

667

.2±

23.1

FI18

195.

4±

1216

.72.

1±

0.2

161

±57

18±

723

.3±

1.5

2.4

±0.

95.

9±

0.3

3.7

±0.

15.

8±

0.8

55.6

±20

.0

DI

1672

6.9

±96

44.4

1.9

±0.

215

7±

5718

±6

23.1

±2.

02.

1±

0.8

5.9

±0.

43.

7±

0.2

4.9

±0.

959

.9±

19.7

C20

076.

7±

1434

.42.

0±

0.2

154

±49

22±

724

.1±

1.5

2.1

±0.

95.

9±

0.4

3.7

±0.

25.

9±

0.9

52.0

±16

.6

T14

845.

6±

4677

.42.

0±

0.2

165

±64

14±

322

.3±

1.6

2.4

±0.

75.

9±

0.3

3.8

±0.

14.

7±

0.6

63.5

±21

.3

AN

OVA

Irri

gatio

nn.

s.*

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

***

n.s.

Thin

ning

**n.

s.n.

s.**

***

*n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.**

*n.

s.

Irri

gatio

n*th

inni

ngn.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.

Thin

ning

inFI

n.s.

n.s.

**n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.**

*n.

s.

Thin

ning

inD

In.

s.n.

s.*

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

***

n.s.

Irri

gatio

nin

Cn.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.*

n.s.

Irri

gatio

nin

Tn.

s.**

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

**n.

s.

*P≤

0.05

;**P

≤0.

01;*

**P

≤0.

001;

n.s.

,not

sign

ifica

nt.A

NO

VA,a

naly

sis

ofva

rian

ce;A

U,a

bsor

banc

eun

its;C

,con

trol

with

out

bunc

hth

inni

ng(7

–9bu

nche

s/m

2of

plan

ting

area

);D

I,ir

riga

ted

with

25%

evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n(E

Tc);

DIC

,de

ficit

irri

gatio

nw

ithco

ntro

l;D

IT,d

efici

tirr

igat

ion

with

bunc

hth

inni

ng;F

I,ir

riga

ted

with

100%

ETc;

FIC

,ful

lirr

igat

ion

with

cont

rol;

FIT,

full

irri

gatio

nw

ithbu

nch

thin

ning

;PPT

,phe

nolic

subs

tanc

espo

tent

ial;

T,bu

nch

thin

ning

(4–5

bunc

hes/

m2

ofpl

antin

gar

ea);

TA,t

itrat

able

acid

ity;T

SS,t

otal

solu

ble

solid

s.



to the yield, berry mass, berries per bunch and bunchesper vine.

Berry mass was affected by water status with a strong cor-relation between FI and berry mass. This is in agreement withother studies (Hepner et al. 1985, Stevens et al. 1995) thatdescribed a strong correlation between berry growth andapplied water. Other authors found that an early (pre-veraison)water deficit was more effective than a late-season deficit inreducing berry growth, which resulted in higher TSS andanthocyanins concentration (Intrigliolo et al. 2012). Asexpected, bunch thinning decreased yield because of fewer clus-ters per vine, however, yield effects due to irrigation were theresult of changes in berry mass. Berry mass was increased by FIand more severe bunch thinning.

None of the treatments or combination of treatments sig-nificantly affected malic acid and tartaric acid concentration andPPT (Table 1). Only TSS was affected by bunch thinning, as seenin other studies (Valdés et al. 2009, Santesteban et al. 2011). Ofall the measured parameters, TA was most affected by irrigationand bunch thinning (P < 0.001), decreasing with both treat-ments (Table 1). The reduction in TA with water deficit has beenattributed to reduced malate concentration (Matthews andAnderson 1988).

Chemical composition of winesThe pH, ethanol, TA, TPC, anthocyanins, tannins, catechins, CI,CT and dA% of wines (mean 2007 and 2008 vintages) areshown in Table 2. Irrigation affected only pH, CT and %dA, withFI increasing pH and CT but decreasing %dA.

Bunch thinning and irrigation affected the composition ofwines differently. Ethanol, pH, TPC, anthocyanins and CI differedamong wines. Colour parameters increased with bunch thinningassociated with alcohol concentration in line with previousstudies, which showed that bunch thinning increased CI andwine quality of Cabernet Sauvignon wines from the Riverlandand Sunraysia regions in Australia (Clingeleffer et al. 2002, Petrieand Clingleffer 2006). When water availability is low, bunchthinning may moderate the detrimental effects of water stressbetween veraison and harvest (Santesteban et al. 2011).

A significant decrease in pH was observed with bunch thin-ning, which agrees with previous studies on Cabernet Sauvignon(Ough and Nagaoka 1984). Bunch thinning has been shown toimprove the phenolic substances composition and colour of redgrapes and wines (Santesteban et al. 2011). In our study, bunchthinning also increased the accumulation of phenolic substances,suggesting that bunch thinning improves wine compositionthrough its effect on yield alone. Bubola et al. (2011) showed thatthe yield reduction at veraison obtained by bunch thinningincreased the leaf area/fruit mass ratio and accelerated ripeningand improved the phenolic substances composition of Merlotwine in Istrian agroecological conditions (north-west Croatia, theMediterranean Basin, Central-Eastern Europe). Our results alsoshowed that the effect of yield reduction on the concentration ofwine phenolic substances was independent of irrigation prac-tices. In general, FI combined with bunch thinning and DIcombined with bunch thinning enhanced the chemical charac-teristics generally associated with improved wine quality over theless severely bunch-thinned (C) treatments.

Sensory analysis of winesThe experienced sensory panel generated a total of 30 descrip-tors: four for colour, 17 for aroma and nine for taste. The GMwas used to reduce the total descriptors. The tasting sheet wasperformed with descriptors where GM > 10%: three for colour Ta

ble

2.Ef

fect

ofde

ficit

irrig

atio

nan

dbu

nch

thin

ning

atve

rais

onon

chem

ical

com

posi

tion

ofTe

mpr

anill

ow

ine.

Resu

ltsfro

mth

e20

07an

d20

08vi

ntag

esw

ere

aver

aged

(±st

anda

rdde

viat

ion)

.

Trea

tmen

tsp

HTA

(g/L

)E

than

ol(%

vol)

TP

C(A

U28

0n

m)

An

thoc

yan

ins

(mg/

L)

Tan

nin

s(g

/L)

Cat

ech

ins

(mg/

L)

CI

CT

dA

%

FIC

3.96

±0.

076.

17±

0.29

12.3

4±

0.49

34.7

5±

1.48

258.

95±

21.5

01.

54±

0.33

432.

36±

71.8

76.

70±

0.56

0.65

±0.

0355

.27

±1.

97FI

T3.

81±

0.19

5.80

±0.

1813

.18

±0.

2937

.41

±2.

31o

340.

02±

28.1

01.

49±

0.24

328.

33±

67.1

49.

52±

0.53

0.67

±0.

0753

.73

±2.

08D

IC3.

85±

0.09

5.90

±0.

1612

.04

±0.

3234

.70

±3.

0625

2.61

±41

.72

1.44

±0.

1737

5.14

±87

.70

6.71

±1.

130.

63±

0.04

57.3

6±

2.69

DIT

3.70

±0.

086.

32±

0.10

13.0

9±

0.90

39.6

6±

5.74

314.

21±

63.5

91.

30±

0.23

398.

96±

90.6

09.

71±

1.40

0.61

±0.

0258

.71

±1.

13FI

3.89

±0.

225.

99±

0.34

12.7

6±

0.62

36.0

8±

4.29

299.

49±

79.1

61.

52±

0.28

380.

35±

86.2

38.

11±

1.73

0.66

±0.

0354

.50

±2.

41D

I3.

78±

0.12

6.11

±0.

2612

.56

±0.

9037

.18

±6.

2928

3.41

±76

.23

1.37

±0.

3038

7.05

±11

7.43

8.21

±2.

130.

62±

0.04

58.0

3±

2.46

C3.

91±

0.10

6.04

±0.

2612

.19

±0.

4334

.73

±2.

2425

5.78

±34

.62

1.50

±0.

2740

3.75

±87

.17

6.71

±0.

830.

64±

0.03

56.3

2±

2.49

T3.

75±

0.17

6.06

±0.

3213

.13

±0.

6438

.54

±4.

2732

7.11

±47

.72

1.40

±0.

2836

3.65

±89

.06

9.64

±1.

010.

64±

0.05

56.2

2±

3.21

Irri

gatio

n*

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

***

*Th

inni

ng**

n.s.

***

****

*n.

s.n.

s.**

*n.

s.n.

s.Ir

riga

tion*

thin

ning

n.s.

***

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

*ns

n.s.

**Th

inni

ngin

FIn.

s.**

***

***

n.s.

***

*n.

s.*

Thin

ning

inD

I**

***

*n.

s.**

*n.

s.n.

s.**

*n.

s.n.

s.Ir

riga

tion

inC

**

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

n.s.

Irri

gatio

nin

Tn.

s.**

*n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.n.

s.**

***

*

*P≤

0.05

;**P

≤0.

01;*

**P

≤0.

001;

n.s.

,not

sign

ifica

nt.A

U,a

bsor

banc

eun

its;C

,con

trol

with

outb

unch

thin

ning

(7–9

bunc

hes/

m2

ofpl

antin

gar

ea);

CT,

colo

urto

nalit

y;dA

%,p

ropo

rtio

nof

red

colo

urpr

oduc

edby

the

flavy

lium

catio

ns;

DI,

irri

gate

dw

ith25

%ev

apot

rans

pira

tion

(ETc

);D

IC,d

efici

tirr

igat

ion

with

cont

rol;

DIT

,defi

citi

rrig

atio

nw

ithbu

nch

thin

ning

;FI,

irri

gate

dw

ith10

0%ET

c;FI

C,f

ulli

rrig

atio

nw

ithco

ntro

l;FI

T,fu

llir

riga

tion

with

bunc

hth

inni

ng;T

,bun

chth

inni

ng(4

–5bu

nche

s/m

2of

plan

ting

area

);TA

,titr

atab

leac

idity

;TPC

,phe

nolic

subs

tanc

es;C

I,co

lour

inte

nsity

.



(cherry, violet and CI), six for aroma (red fruit, herbaceous,floral, licorice, lactic and persistence) and seven for taste (tannic,structure, alcoholic, acidity, bitter, balanced, persistence).

The individual intensity scores of attributes were subjectedto ANOVA. The effect of irrigation regime (Table 3) was signifi-cant for the aroma descriptors floral, herbaceous, red fruit, lacticand aroma persistence. The colour and taste were not affectedby the irrigation regime. Intrigliolo and Castel (2011) found thatwines from non-irrigated vines showed higher CI. The highestintensity of wine aroma descriptors was found for DI versus FI,with the exception of the herbaceous descriptor. This resultsuggested that grape ripening was incomplete under FI. Previ-Ta

ble

3.Ef

fect

ofde

ficit

irrig

atio

nan

dbu

nch

thin

ning

atve

rais

onon

sens

ory

anal

ysis

(aro

ma

and

tast

e)of

Tem

pran

illo

win

e.Re

sults

from

the

2007

and

2008

vint

ages

wer

eav

erag

ed(±

stan

dard

devi

atio

n).

Tre

atm

ents

Co

lou

rd

escr

ipto

rsA

rom

ad

escr

ipto

rsT

aste

des

crip

tors

Ch

erry

Vio

let

Co

lou

rin

ten

sity

Flo

ral

Her

bac

eou

sR

edfr

uit

Lic

ori

ceL

acti

cP

ersi

sten

ceA

lco

ho

lic

Tan

nic

Aci

dit

yB

alan

ced

Per

sist

ence

Str

uct

ure

Bit

ter

FIC

5.5

±0

.85

.5±

1.0

5.5

±0

.64

.0±

1.4

3.9

±1

.84

.9±

1.6

5.4

±1

.72

.3±

1.0

5.1

±0

.85

.2±

1.1

5.1

±0

.75

.3±

0.4

4.6

±1

.25

.8±

0.6

4.1

±0

.92

.0±

0.6

FIT

6.6

±1

.26

.6±

1.2

6.6

±0

.43

.9±

2.2

4.1

±1

.15

.9±

1.2

3.3

±0

.93

.7±

1.6

5.0

±1

.55

.5±

0.6

4.6

±1

.16

.3±

1.3

6.3

±0

.95

.6±

1.7

5.4

±1

.72

.5±

0.9

DIC

5.9

±1

.05

.9±

0.6

5.9

±0

.56

.2±

1.6

2.6

±1

.36

.5±

0.6

4.6

±1

.03

.0±

1.7

5.5

±1

.44

.7±

0.6

4.9

±0

.65

.4±

1.0

4.5

±0

.85

.1±

1.3

4.4

±0

.62

.0±

0.9

DIT

6.8

±1

.46

.8±

1.8

6.8

±0

.86

.4±

1.2

3.6

±1

.76

.6±

1.3

4.4

±1

.44

.9±

1.2

7.0

±0

.55

.0±

0.7

4.6

±1

.05

.2±

0.4

6.0

±1

.16

.3±

1.0

5.4

±0

.93

.5±

1.2

FI

6.1

±1

.26

.1±

1.2

6.1

±1

.74

.0±

2.1

4.0

±1

.65

.4±

1.5

4.4

±1

.73

.0±

1.6

5.1

±1

.45

.4±

1.2

4.9

±0

.95

.8±

1.1

5.4

±1

.35

.7±

1.3

4.8

±1

.52

.2±

0.8

DI

6.4

±1

.46

.4±

1.4

6.4

±1

.66

.3±

1.6

2.8

±1

.76

.6±

1.0

4.5

±2

.23

.9±

1.7

6.2

±1

.44

.9±

1.3

4.7

±1

.75

.3±

0.6

5.2

±1

.35

.7±

1.5

4.9

±1

.32

.8±

1.6

C5

.7±

0.9

5.7

±1

.05

.7±

0.6

5.1

±2

.03

.3±

1.6

5.7

±1

.55

.0±

1.6

2.6

±1

.45

.3±

1.3

5.0

±0

.95

.0±

1.2

5.4

±0

.74

.5±

0.6

5.4

±1

.24

.2±

0.9

2.0

±0

.8T

6.7

±1

.26

.7±

1.6

6.7

±0

.85

.2±

2.3

3.8

±1

.56

.3±

1.5

3.8

±1

.94

.3±

1.8

6.0

±1

.85

.3±

0.7

4.6

±1

.05

.8±

1.1

6.1

±1

.16

.0±

1.4

5.4

±1

.42

.3±

1.1

AN

OV

AIr

riga

tio

nn

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

***

***

ns

***

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

ns

Th

inn

ing

**n

.s.

***

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.*

***

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

***

n.s

.**

**Ir

riga

tio

n*t

hin

nin

gn

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.*

n.s

.*

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.T

hin

nin

gin

FI

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.*

***

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

Th

inn

ing

inD

In

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

**n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.**

n.s

.n

.s.

*n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.Ir

riga

tio

nin

C*

n.s

.**

*n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

***

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.*

**n

.s.

*n

.s.

Irri

gati

on

inT

n.s

.n

.s.

***

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

**

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.**

**

**

*P≤

0.05

;**P

≤0.

01;*

**P

≤0.

001;

n.s.

,not

sign

ifica

nt.A

NO

VA,a

naly

sis

ofva

rian

ce;C

,con

trol

with

out

bunc

hth

inni

ng(7

–9bu

nche

s/m

2of

plan

ting

area

);D

I,ir

riga

ted

with

25%

evap

otra

nspi

ratio

n(E

Tc);

DIC

,defi

cit

irri

gatio

nw

ithco

ntro

l;D

IT,d

efici

tir

riga

tion

with

bunc

hth

inni

ng;F

I,ir

riga

ted

with

100%

ETc;

FIC

,ful

lirr

igat

ion

with

cont

rol;

FIT,

full

irri

gatio

nw

ithbu

nch

thin

ning

;T,b

unch

thin

ning

(4–5

bunc

hes/

m2

ofpl

antin

gar

ea).

Figure 1. Effect of bunch thinning at veraison and irrigation on thesensory profiles (a) colour, (b) aroma and (c) taste of Tempranillowines. FIC [full irrigation (FI) with control (7–9 bunches/m2 of plant-ing area) ( )]; FIT [full irrigation with bunch thinning (4–5bunches/m2 of planting area) ( )]; DIC [deficit irrigation (DI) withcontrol ( )] and DIT [deficit irrigation (DI) with bunch thinning( )].



ous studies performed by Valdés et al. (2009) suggested that DIaccelerated ripening and improved fruit quality. Matthews andAnderson (1988) concluded that for Cabernet Sauvignon, awater deficit led to wines with more fruity aroma and lessherbaceous aroma compared with that of fully irrigated vines.

Wines from bunch-thinning treatments showed a significantdifference in colour, aroma and taste descriptors. Cherry colourand CI were increased by bunch thinning. The aroma descriptorlicorice was the most intense in control wines, while lactic aromawas highest for bunch-thinned wines. Bunch thinning increasedtaste balance, structure and bitterness. Diago et al. (2012)showed that mechanical bunch thinning altered the chemicalcomposition of fruit and wines as well as aroma, taste andmouthfeel. Tempranillo and Garnacha wines were improvedbecause of increased wine CI and phenolic substances contentwith mechanical bunch thinning. With the bunch-thinningtreatments, control wines (high crop load level) that were deficitirrigated increased intensity of floral and red fruit aroma descrip-tors compared with those of FI, but decreased the herbaceousdescriptor. Taste descriptors were not affected by irrigation inwines from less severely bunch-thinned vines. The resultsobserved for aroma descriptors showed that grapes are poten-tially more aromatic when DI is applied. Similar behaviour isshown in bunch-thinning treatments (FIT vs DIT), where thefloral aroma descriptor and aroma persistence were increased byDI, but acidity in taste declined. Colour was not affected byirrigation when more severe bunch thinning was applied.

The effect of thinning for the two irrigation treatmentsshowed that FI affected seven descriptors. Cherry colour andintensity were increased. The aroma descriptor lactic increased,while licorice decreased. For taste, wines from the more severebunch-thinning treatment were more acid, structured and bal-anced. DIT vines produced wine of increased CI, persistence,balance, structure and bitterness.

Sensory profiles of Tempranillo winesSensory profiles of Tempranillo wines from different treatmentsof irrigation and bunch thinning are shown in Figure 1, whichshows the intensity of colour, aroma and taste descriptors withGM > 10%. Wines from FIT vines were characterised by highintensity colour, herbaceous aroma and high acidity and alco-

holic sensation in taste. Wines from FIC vines showed highintensity of licorice aroma. Wines from DIT vines were associ-ated with floral, red fruit, lactic and persistent in aroma. In taste,DIT wines had more structure and persistence and were high inbitter. Deficit irrigation (DI) without bunch thinning led towines with a high intensity of floral aroma and minor persis-tence in taste. Irrespective of irrigation, wines from bunch-thinned treatments were the more balanced and structuredcompared with that of wines from non-bunch-thinned treat-ments and were generally of higher quality. This result mayencourage growers to thin bunches after yield estimation toreduce crop load, assuming that the lost revenue from a loweryield will be recaptured through an increased price resultingfrom changes desired by the buyer, such as TSS or increasedflavour (Preszler et al. 2010).

PLS modelling relationships between sensory descriptors andchemical composition of winesPartial least squares regression was applied to establish correla-tions among the sensory attributes and chemical compounds ofthe Tempranillo wines made from different irrigation andbunch-thinning treatments. Figure 2 showed PLS performedtaking into account significant descriptors with GM > 10%,cherry and colour intensity for colour descriptors and acidity,balanced, persistence and bitter for taste descriptors. Effects onchemical compounds are presented for pH, TA, ethanol, TPC,anthocyanins, catechins, IC, CT and dA%. Prior to PLSR analy-sis, the data were standardised to allow similar scaling. The plotexplained 89.53% of the total variance and showed a strongcorrelation between the sensory (colour and taste) and chemicalvariables of wines. Sensory quality was associated with bunchthinning independent of irrigation. According to the loadingweight, cherry, CI, balanced and structure sensory attributeswere mainly predicted by anthocyanins, CI and ethanol.Tempranillo wines from DIT vines were also associated withhigh TA and dA%.

ConclusionsDeficit irrigation and bunch thinning strongly affected thechemical composition and sensory properties of Tempranillowine. Berry quality attributes were improved by water stress at

Figure 2. Partial least squareregression of chemicalcomposition (in blue) andsensory profiles (in black) ofTempranillo wines made fromdifferent treatments of bunchthinning at veraison andirrigation. FIC [full irrigation(FI) with control (7–9bunches/m2 of planting area)];FIT [full irrigation with bunchthinning (4–5 bunches/m2 ofplanting area)]; DIC [deficitirrigation (DI) with control] andDIT [deficit irrigation (DI) withbunch thinning].



veraison (25% ETc) compared with FI (100% ETc). Deficit irri-gation (25% ETc) combined with bunch thinning producedwines with the highest fruity and floral sensory scores and CI,persistence and balance. Irrespective of irrigation, bunch thin-ning at veraison improved wine sensory attributes.

AcknowledgementsThis research has been partially supported by Instituto Nacionalde Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA)research project RTA-2005-00038. Esther Gamero thanks theExtremadura Government for her scholarship.

ReferencesAllen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998) Crop evapotran-

spiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO irriga-tion and drainage paper No 56 (Food and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations: Rome, Italy).

Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación. (1997) Análisis sen-sorial. Tomo I. Alimentación (Asociación Española de Normalización yCertificación: Madrid, Spain).

Blouin, J. (1992) Techniques d’analyse des moûts et des vins (Dujardin-Salleron: Paris, France).

Boubals, D., Meriaux, S., Rollin, H., Panine, M., Potier, J.M., Lessut, J. andGuiraud J.L. (1984) Results of an experiment with localised and floodirrigation on seven varieties in the south of France. Bulletin de l’OIV 57,597–605.

Bravdo, B., Hepner, Y., Loinger, C., Cohen, S. and Tabacman, H. (1985)Effect of crop level and crop load on growth, yield, must and wine com-position, and quality of Cabernet Sauvignon. American Journal ofEnology and Viticulture 36, 125–131.

Bubola M., Persuríc D. and Kovacevíc, K. (2011) Impact of cluster thinningon productive characteristics and wine phenolic composition of cv. Merlot.Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 9, 36–39.

Chapman, D.M., Roby, G., Ebeler, S.E., Guinard, J.-X. and Matthews, M.A.(2005) Sensory attributes of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made from vineswith different water status. Australian Journal of Grape and WineResearch 11, 339–347.

Clingeleffer, P.R., Krstic, M.P. and Welsh, M.A. (2002) Effect of post-set, cropcontrol on yield and wine quality of Shiraz. Blair, R.J., Williams, P.J. andHøj, P.B., eds. Proceedings of the eleventh Australian wine industry tech-nical conference; 7–11 October 2001; Adelaide, SA, Australia (AustralianWine Industry Technical Conference Inc.: Urrbrae, SA, Australia) pp.84–86.

Di Stefano, R. and Guidoni, S. (1989) La determinazione dei polifenoli totalinei mosti e nei vini. Vigne Vini 1/2, 47–52.

Diago, M.P., Vilanova, M. and Tardaguila, J. (2010) Effects of timing ofmanual and mechanical early defoliation on the aroma of Vitis vinifera L.Tempranillo wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 61, 382–391.

Diago, M.P., Vilanova, M., Blanco, J.A. and Tardaguila, J. (2012) Effects ofmechanical thinning on fruit and wine composition and sensory attributesof Grenache and Tempranillo varieties (Vitis vinifera L.). Australian Journalof Grape and Wine Research 16, 314–326.

European Commission (1990) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2676/90 of17 September 1990 determining community methods for the analysis ofwines. Official Journal of the European Union L 272, 1–192.

Gambaro, A., Varela, P., Boido, E., Gimenez, A., Medina, K. and Carrau, F.(2003) Aroma characterization of commercial red wines of Uruguay.Journal of Sensory Studies 18, 353–366.

Glories, Y. (1984) La couleur des vins rouges. Mesure, origine et interpre-tation. Connaissance de la Vigne et du Vin 18, 253–271.

Hepner, Y., Bravdo, B., Loinger, C., Cohen, S. and Tabacman, H. (1985)Effect of drip irrigation schedules on growth, yield, must composition andwine quality of Cabernet Sauvignon. American Journal of Enology andViticulture 36, 77–85.

International Organization for Standardization (1994) Sensory analysis –identification and selection of descriptors for establishing a sensory profileby a multidimensional approach (International Organization for Stand-ardization: Geneva, Switzerland).

Intrigliolo, D.S. and Castel, J.R. (2011) Interactive effects of deficit irrigationand shoot and cluster thinning on grapevine cv. Tempranillo. Water rela-tions, vine performance and berry and wine composition. IrrigationScience 29, 443–454.

Intrigliolo, D.S., Pérez, D., Risco, D., Yeves, A. and Castel, J.R. (2012) Yieldcomponents and grape composition responses to seasonal water deficits inTempranillo grapevines. Irrigation Science 30, 339–349.

Kliewer, M.W., Freeman, B.M. and Hossom, C. (1983) Effect of irrigation,crop level and potassium fertilization on Carignane vines. Degree of waterstress and effect of growth and yield. American Journal of Enology andViticulture 34, 186–196.

Koundouras, S., Marinos, V., Gkoulioti, A., Kotseridis, Y. and Van LeeuwenC. (2006) Influence of vineyard location and vine status on fruit matura-tion of nonirrigated cv. Agiorgitiko (Vitis vinifera L.). Effects on wine phe-nolics and aroma components. Journal of Agricultural and FoodChemistry 54, 5077–5086.

Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. (1998) Sensory evaluation of food. Princi-ples and practices (Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA).

Matthews, M.A. and Anderson, M.M. (1988) Fruit ripening in Vitis viniferaL.: responses to seasonal water deficits. American Journal of Enology andViticulture 39, 313–320.

Noble, A.C., Williams, A.A. and Langron, S.P. (1984) Descriptive analysisand quality ratings of 1976 wines from four Bordeaux communes. Journalof the Science of Food and Agriculture 35, 88–98.

Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin. (1990) Recueil desméthodes internationales d’analyse des vins et des moûts (OrganisationInternationale de la Vigne et du Vin: Paris, France).

Ough, C. and Nagaoka, R. (1984) Effect of cluster thinning and vineyardyields on grape and wine composition and wine quality of CabernetSauvignon. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35, 30–34.

Petrie, P.R. and Clingeleffer, P.R. (2006) Crop thinning (hand versusmechanical), grape maturity and anthocyanin concentration: outcomesfrom irrigated Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) in a warm climate.Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 12, 21–29.

Preszler, T., Schmit, T.M. and Vanden Heuvel, J.E. (2010) A model toestablish economically sustainable cluster-thinning practices. AmericanJournal of Enology and Viticulture 61, 140–146.

Reynolds, A.G. and Wardle, D.A. (1997) Flavour development in the vine-yard: impact of viticultural practices on grape monoterpenes and theirrelationship to wine sensory response. South African Journal for Enologyand Viticulture 18, 3–18.

Ribéreau-Gayon, P. and Stonestreet, E. (1966) Dosage des tanins du vinrouge et détermination de leur structure. Chimie Analytique 48, 188–196.

Ribéreau-Gayon, P., Maujean, A. and Dubourdieu, D. (1999) Phenolic com-pounds. Ribéreau-Gayon, P., Glories, Y., Maujean, A. and Dubourdieu, D.,eds. Handbook of enology: the chemistry of wine stabilization and treat-ments. Vol. 2. 2d edn (John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, England)pp.129–186.

Rodriguez-Nogales, J., Fernández-Fernández, E. and Vila-Crespo, J. (2009)Characterization and classification of Spanish Verdejo young white winesby volatile and sensory analysis with chemometric tools. Journal of theScience of Food and Agriculture 89, 1927–1935.

Santesteban, L.G., Miranda, C. and Royo, J.B. (2011) Thinning intensity andwater regime affect the impact cluster thinning has on grape quality. Vitis50, 159–165.

Stevens, R.M., Harvey, G. and Aspinall, D. (1995) Grapevine growth ofshoots and fruit linearly correlate with water stress indices based onroot-weighted soil matric potential. Australian Journal of Grape and WineResearch 1, 58–66.

Valdés, M.E., Moreno, D., Gamero, E., Uriarte, D., Prieto, M.H., Manzano,R., Picon, J. and Intrigliolo, D.S. (2009) Effects of cluster thinning andirrigation amount on water relations, growth, yield and fruit and winecomposition of Tempranillo grapes in Extremadura (Spain). Journal Inter-national des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin 43, 67–96.

Van Zyl, J.L. and Van Huyssteen, L. (1988) Irrigation systems – their role inwater requirements and the performance of grapevines. South AfricanJournal for Enology and Viticulture 9, 3–8.

Vilanova, M., Masa, A. and Tardaguila, J. (2009). Evaluation of the aromaticvariability of Spanish grape by quantitative descriptive analysis. Euphytica165, 383–389.

Vilanova, M., Campo, E., Escudero, A., Graña, M., Masa, A. and Cacho, J.(2012) Volatile composition and sensory properties of Vitis vinifera redcultivars from North West Spain: correlation between sensory and instru-mental analysis. Analytica Chimica Acta 720, 104–111.

Williams, L.E. and Matthews, M.A. (1990) Grapevine. Stewart, B.A. andNielsen, D.R., eds. Irrigation of agricultural crops (American Society ofAgronomy: Madison, WI, USA) pp. 1019–1055.

Manuscript received: 5 May 2014

Revised manuscript received: 7 May 2014

Accepted: 12 May 2014



effect of bunch thinning and water stress on chemical and sensory characteristics of tempranillo...

Documents