Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
R E S U L T S PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
R E S U L T S

Download Presentation

R E S U L T S

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. CHANGES IN GRAPE PHENYLPROPANOID COMPOSITION INDUCED BY LEAF REMOVAL IN TWO ‘PINOT NOIR’ VINEYARDSMelita Sternad Lemut1, Paolo Sivilotti1, Domenico Masuero2, Roberto Zorer3, Luca Zulini4, Urska Vrhovsek21University of Nova Gorica, Wine Research Centre, Ajdovscina, Slovenia2,3,4 IASMA Research and Innovation Centre, Edmund Mach Foundation, San Michele all’Adige, Italy (2Food Quality and Nutrition Department, 3Biodiversity and Molecular Ecology Department, 4Genomics and Biology of Fruit Crop Department) INTRODUCTION: Beyond the biological significance, secondary metabolites are crucial in the determination of grape and wine quality attributes. Their composition can be significantly modulated by exogenous (site, climate, soil properties) and endogenous factors (variety, clone, rootstock) as well as by different viticultural practices. Leaf removal is an important canopy management technique, that can lead to significant improvements of fruit-zone microclimate and thus also grape quality improvements (Haselgrove et al., 2000). Different results can be achieved depending on the timing of leaf removal performance and earlier leaf removal seems to be more promising even if further results are needed (Sternad Lemut et al., 2011). MATERIALS & METHODS: In this study, leaf removal was performed in two ‘Pinot noir’ vineyards (located in Vipava Valley, Slovenia and in S. Michele all’Adige, Italy) at different phenological stages: 10 days before flowering (pre-flowering leaf removal (PFLR)) and at veraison (VLR), while untreated vines (NLR) were used as a control. For each shoot 4-to-6 leaves were removed manually. At harvest, the grapes from all the treatments were collected separately, processed, and a comprehensive LC-MS/MS metabolic profiling approach (Vrhovsek et al., 2012) was adopted in order to highlight the induced quantitative and qualitative changes of several dozens of phenolic compounds, including a number of up to date very poorly studied ones. R E S U L T S SLOVENIA ITALY SLOVENIA ITALY BENZOATES FLAVAN-3-OLS FLAVONOLS b HYDROXICINNAMATES ANTHOCYANINS STILBENES Figure 1: Canonical analysis of different classes of phenolic compounds as affected by different leaf removal treatments in S. Michele all’Adige (Italy) and Vipava Valley (Slovenia). PFLR = pre-flowering leaf removal; VLR = veraison leaf removal; NLR = no leaf removal (control). (n.s. = not significant; * = p<0.05; ** = p<0.01; *** = p<0.001) Figure 2: Pre-flowering leaf removal Figure 3: Leaf removal at veraison The results revealed a number of changes related both to vineyard location and to the timing of leaf removal. As related to vineyard location, the occurrence of secondary metabolites was 40%-higher in Italian samples, probably due to the different ripening status of the grapes (25 Brix in Italy vs 22 Brix in Slovenia). On the other hand, comparing leaf removal treatments, the most significant changes were observed in the group of 18 flavonols. The amount of total flavonols was increased by 216% and 109% in Slovenia and by 56% and 20% in Italy, in the pre-flowering and in the veraison treatments, respectively, as compared with the controls. Pre-flowering leaf removal has also triggered significant changes in total hydroxycinnamic acids (both vineyards) and anthocyanins (in Slovenia), while other phenolic groups showed some changes in occurrences predominantly within individual group members. CONCLUSIONS: Despite location differences, grape polyphenols included in the study were positively affected by both leaf removal treatments, particularly when performed at early phenologicalstages. Metabolic profiling technique represents a powerful tool, but a lot of efforts and data are still required towards a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms behind it. References: HaselgroveL., Botting D., Van Heeswijck R., Hoj P.B., Dry C., Ford C., Iland P.G.Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6, (2000) 141-149. Sternad Lemut M., Trost K., Sivilotti P., Vrhovsek U. Journal of Food Composition and Analyses. 24, 6 (2011) 777-784. Vrhovsek U., Masuero D., Gasperotti M., Franceschi P., Caputi L., Viola R., Mattivi F. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. DOI: 10.1021/jf2051569.