p. 1

2010-2012 soil-plant water status and wine quality innovative implementation in viticulture zoning a institute for mediterranean agricultural and forest systems isafom-cnr ercolano na italy b university federico ii of naples portici na bonfante a.a albrizio r a agrillo a b,basile a.a buonomo r a de mascellis r.a erbaggio a fragnito f a gambuti a b giorio p a guida g a langella g a mileti a b manna p.b moio l b terribile f.a antonello.bonfante@cnr.it

[close]

p. 2

everybody well knows the meaning of the term terroir generally a good viticultural zoning includes there isn t a standard unique procedure to define and study terroir soil map /geology soil science climate information e.g · solar radiation · bioclimatic indexes like established in recent research work viticultural zoning

[close]

p. 3

like showed in a lot of contributions presentend in the last a lot of works on viticulture tell us that water stress is important but the implementation at the zoning scale is indeed lacking bravdo and naor 1996 schultz 1996 esteban et al 1999 kennedy et al 2000 tregoat et al 2002 oijeda et al 2002 van leeuwen et al 2004 kounduras 2006 van leeuwen et al 2010 etc than we use a physically based simulation model to shed light in part of black box of the standard approach to terroir analysis influence of changes in soil water content on grape quality in vitis vinifera var albariño maría fandiÑo réponse de la vigne à l évolution saisonnière de l état de l eau en champagne vine response to seasonal evolution of water status in champagne olivier garcia delimitation of climate plant soil wine quality black box terroirs in the salto region uruguay influence of soil on the plant response gerardo echeverrÍa characterizing the soil moisture regime for viticultural zoning purposes josep miquel ubalde soil and climate interactions with grapevines andrew g reynolds

[close]

p. 4

here we focus on the importance to add another information in the viticultural zoning procedure the crop water stress index cwsi obtained through the use of physically based simulation model e.g swap bonfante et al 2011 1.2 250 cwsi act.traspiration pot.transpiration 1 0.8 150 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1/4 shoot growth flowering berry formation berry ripening andosol cambisol weight of 100 berries andosol weight of 100 berries cambisol 100 50 0 14/10 30/9 8/7 5/8 15/4 29/4 13/5 27/5 10/6 24/6 22/7 19/8 2/9 the use of an physically based model allows to calculate in quantitative terms the stress during the different crop phenological stages and most importantly make predictions of system behavior in different climatic condition providing an useful tool during the evaluation of viticulture area 16/9 weight of 100 berries g 200

[close]

p. 5

this research work is part of regional project on viticultural zoning at farm scale zovisa geophysical survey and pedological characterization identification of representative soils and their characterization physical and chemical analysis of soil profiles soil hydraulic properties characterization identification of reference vineyards monitoring of soil water balance variables wc climate monitoring of crop response physiological and biometric measurements grape and wine quality responses to soil water stress agro-hydrological model application microvinification and vinification

[close]

p. 6

the project is conducted in two farms of southern italy del monte pontebn and quintodecimo mirabella eclano av located in the campania region and devoted to quality wines production aglianico and falanghina doc 3 ha altitude 370 a.s.l.m 2.3 ha 5000 plant/ha

[close]

p. 7

the present work aims to illustrate the early results obtained during the first year of activities realized specifically in the quintodecimo farm aglianico cultivar­ standard clone population planted in the year 2000 on 1103 paulsen rootstocks espalier system cordon spur pruning 5000 units per hectare altitude 370 a.s.l.m 2.3 ha 5000 plant/ha

[close]

p. 8

two representative soils were identified by means of a pedological survey supported by spatial measurements of apparent electrical conductivity geophysical analisys with em38 haplic cambisol humic haplic calcisol clayic

[close]

p. 9

the soil cambisol is deeper than to the calcisol calcisol this last upslope present a calcic horizon at 45 cm below the soil surface cambisol downslope soil horizon and thickness cm ap1 ap2 bk bc cb ap1 ap2 bw1 bw2 bw3 bw4 2bw 2bk 2c 0-10/20 10/20-45 45-80 80-105 105-130 0-10 10-40 40-60 60-90 90-120 120-160 160-190 190-210 210-220 ph h2o 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.3 8.3 7.5 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.8 8.0 7.9 co g kg-1 10.6 10.1 2.5 1.6 2 20.9 16.7 15.9 9.8 9.7 9.8 1.3 1.2 0.9 cec cmol kg-1 19 19.1 17.4 15.3 15.3 24.9 23.8 25.3 24.7 24.1 23.5 18.0 17.7 12.0 caco3 g kg-1 240.2 245.2 307.2 282.4 242.7 100.8 85.5 67.3 41.4 34.5 23.6 135.4 252.5 261.3 ece ms cm -1 252 214 163 227 320 225 190 165 156 159 165 149 145 130 texture soil horizon and thickness cm ap1 0-10/20 10/20-45 45-80 80-105 105-130 0-10 10-40 40-60 60-90 90-120 120-160 160-190 190-210 210-220 clay 31.9 32 32.6 33.8 34.9 31.5 36.8 33.8 41.3 42.9 41.1 34.4 29.9 26.1 silt 38.1 37.7 39.7 39.3 37.6 31.7 31.2 31.6 28.4 29.5 30.8 23.7 29.3 41.4 30.1 30.3 27.7 27 27.5 36.8 32 34.6 30.3 27.7 28.1 41.9 40.9 32.5 sand calcisol upslope ap2 bk bc cb ap1 ap2 bw1 bw2 both soils are clay loam texture cambisol downslope bw3 bw4 2bw 2bk 2c

[close]

p. 10

the undisturbed soil sampling was realized and the soil hydraulic properties were measured in lab calcisol 0.60 soil cambisol 0.60 ap1 0.50 -15 cm -40 cm -80 cm ap1 0.50 water content water content 0.40 0.30 ap1 ap2 bk ap2 bk ap2 bw2 0.40 ap1 ap2 bw2 bw3 0.30 0.20 0.20 -120 cm 0.10 bw3 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.1 1.00e+03 1.00e+02 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 |h cm 1.00e+03 1.00e+02 1.00e+01 1.00e+00 |h cm ap1 ap2 1.00e+01 ap1 k cm/day bk 1.00e-01 1.00e-02 1.00e-03 1.00e-04 1.00e-05 1.00e-06 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 the awc in the first 80 cm of soil depth explored by roots is 85 mm for calcisol and 145 mm for cambisol ap2 1.00e+00 bw2 bw3 k cm/day 1.00e-01 1.00e-02 1.00e-03 1.00e-04 1.00e-05 1.00e-06 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 |h cm |h cm

[close]

p. 11

two monitoring stations of climate soil water content and soil pressure head were installed in both microzones upslope and downslope where the phenological and physiological grapevine data were collected on 27 plants experimental vineyards crop monitoring downslope upslope soil and climate monitoring tdr probes at different soil depths were applied in both soils each 20 cm tensiometers were used at five soil depths 30 -45 60 -75 120 cm

[close]

p. 12

despite the experimental plots had the same cultivar aglianico the same rootstocks 1103p and the same management the crop responses in terms of biomass development and must quality were very different at the fruit thinning 8.7 bunches/plant 14.6 bunches/plant after thinning an average of 4.8 bunches/plant at the harvest time the sugar of must was 23.4 °brix in the calcisol vineyard and 21.3°brix in the cambisol vineyard despite a unique cumulative value of amerine &winkler index 2064 gdd -2 crop production at harvest time calcisol cambisol 2.4 0.97 kg/plant 1.81 kg/plant leaf water potential lwp leaf area index leaf area index -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 2.0 1.6 mpa -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 lai 1.2 0.8 calcisol upslope upslope p1 0.4 cambisol downslope downslope p4 30/8 9/9 19/9 20/8 1/6 30/5 11/6 1/7 11/7 21/7 18/8 29/6 21/6 31/7 17/9 10/8 0 9/6 9/7 8/8 10/5 29/7 28/8 20/5 19/6 19/7 7/9

[close]

p. 13

between the soils the leaf water potential doesn t show significant differences in terms of crop water stress in the shoot growth phase but after flowering they differences were very significant during the berry formation and ripening -2 -1.8 -1.6 -2 -1.4 -1.2 -1.4 -1.8 -1.6 leaf water potential lwp leaf water potential lwp mpa -1 -1.2 -0.6 -0.8 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 -0.6 -0.4 mpa -0.8 -1 upslope p1 calcisol upslope 9/7 8/8 17/9 9/6 19/6 downslope p4 cambisol downslope 28/8 7/9 17/9 0 19/7 18/8 29/7 29/6 19/7 10/5 30/5 29/6 29/7 28/8 20/5 18/8 10/5 20/5 30/5 19/6 0 9/6 9/7 8/8 7/9

[close]

p. 14

the differentiation between the experimental plots was also evident for other important physiological parameters measured during the crop monitoring chlorophyll content cci photosynthetic assimilation 30 25 35 30 25 20 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 leaf water potential lwp a mol m-2 s-1 20 15 10 5 cci 15 10 5 -1.2 upslope p1 downslope p4 8/8 upslope p1 0 downslope p4 9/7 8/8 29/6 29/7 28/8 19/7 18/8 7/9 17/9 10/5 30/5 20/5 9/6 mpa 9/6 9/7 10/5 20/5 29/6 29/7 28/8 7/9 0.500 stomatal conductance -0.8 -0.6 17/9 30/5 19/6 19/7 18/8 0.400 calcisol upslope cambisol downslope 9/6 9/7 8/8 10/5 30/5 29/6 29/7 28/8 20/5 19/6 19/7 18/8 gs mol m-2 s-1 -0.4 0.300 -0.2 0.200 0 7/9 0.100 upslope p1 0.000 downslope p4 9/7 8/8 19/6 19/7 18/8 29/6 29/7 28/8 9/6 20/5 10/5 30/5 7/9 17/9 17/9 19/6 0 -1

[close]

p. 15

the organoleptic evolution of the must has been monitored considering a lot of -0.8 parameters-0.6 have a direct influences on wine quality that mpa -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 28 -0.4 -0.2 -0.2 9/6 9/7 10/5 10/5 calcisol upslope p1 upslope cambisol downslope downslope p4 upslope p1 downslope p4 8/8 3.6 3.5 3.4 24 20 19/7 7/9 20/5 30/5 29/6 9/6 29/7 19/6 19/7 18/8 9/7 28/8 20/5 19/6 17/9 0 0 8/8 29/7 18/8 28/8 7/9 17/9 30/5 29/6 sugar °brix 3.3 12 8 3.1 3 2.9 4 0 2.8 2.7 250 200 150 100 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 50 0 6/9 10/9 14/9 18/9 22/9 26/9 10/9 14/9 18/9 26/9 30/9 22/9 30/9 6/9 weight of 100 berries g titrable acidity g/l ph 16 3.2

[close]