, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 39–45 | Cite as

Leaf Removal Treatments Combined with Kaolin Particle Film Technique from Different Directions of Grapevine’s Canopy Affect the Composition of Phytochemicals of cv. Muscat Hamburg (V. Vinifera L.)

Original Article


In some viticulture regions of the world, high temperature and irradiance can negatively affect the grapevine growth and grape quality. Particle film technology is a remarkable tool, leading to decrease in environmental stress conditions for grape production. In current study, leaf removal and kaolin particle film treatments were performed on east and west sides of grapevine’s canopy of cv. Muscat Hamburg and five different treatments were respectively evaluated: Control (C), leaf removal treatment from east side of grapevine’s canopy (LR-E), leaf removal treatment from east side of grapevine’s canopy plus kaolin particle film treatment (LR-E + K), leaf removal treatment from west side of grapevine’s canopy (LR-W), leaf removal treatment from west side of grapevine’s canopy plus kaolin particle film treatment (LR-W + K). In present research, the higher total phenolic compounds contents were measured in LR-W (2010.56 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-W + K (2006.42 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-E (1925.58 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-E + K (1913.15 mg GAE/kg fw) and C treatment (1851.46 mg GAE/kg fw). Furthermore, means of higher total anthocyanin content were obtained from LR-W (737.68 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-W + K (736.16 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-E (706.50 mg GAE/kg fw), LR-E + K (701.94 mg GAE/kg fw) and C treatment (679.12 mg GAE/kg fw). Consequently, it was observed that both LR-W and LR-W + K treatments had especially advantages in terms of increasing grape quality attributes of cv. Muscat Hamburg; were followed by LR-E and LR-E + K treatments.


V. Vinifera L. Leaf Removal Treatment Kaolin Particle Film Treatment Canopy Direction Grape Quality 

Entblätterungsmaßnahmen bei der Rebsorte ‘Muscat Hamburg‘ (V. Vinifera L.) haben in Abhängigkeit von der Himmelsrichtung und in Kombination mit einem Kaolinbelag Einfluss auf die Zusammensetzung von sekundären Pflanzenstoffen


V. Vinifera L. Entblätterungsmaßnahmen Kaolin Laubwand Trauben-Qualität 


  1. Bergqvist J, Dokoozlai N, Ebisuda N (2001) Sunlight exposure and temperature effects on berry growth and composition of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California. Am J Enol Vitic 52:1–6Google Scholar
  2. Chamchaiyaporn T, Jutamanee K, Poonpipope K, Vaithanomsat P, Henpitak C (2013) Effects of kaolin clay coating on mango leaf gas exchange, fruit yield and quality. Kasetsart J 47:479–491Google Scholar
  3. Chorti E, Guidoni S, Ferrandino A, Novello V (2010) Effect of different cluster sunlight exposure levels on ripening and anthocyanin accumulation in Nebbiolo grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 61:23–30Google Scholar
  4. Dimitriadis E, Williams PJ (1984) The development and use of a rapid analytical technique for the estimation of free and potentially volatile monoterpene flavorants in grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 35:66–74Google Scholar
  5. Dinis LT, Bernardo S, Conde A, Pimentel D, Ferreira H, Felix L (2016a) Kaolin exogenous application boosts antioxidant capacity and phenolic content in berries and leaves of grapevine under summer stress. J Plant Physiol 191:45–53CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dinis LT, Ferreira H, Pinto G, Bernardo S, Correia CM, Moutinho Pereira J (2016b) Kaolin based, foliar reflective film protects photosystem II structure and function in grapevine leaves exposed to heat and high solar radiation. Photosynthetica 54:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di Stefano R, Cravero MC (1991) Metodi per lo studio deipolifenolidell’uva. Riv Vitic Enol 2:37–45Google Scholar
  8. Glenn DM, Puterka GJ, Drake SR, Unruh TR, Baherele P, Prado E, Baugher T (2001) Particle film application influences apple leaf physiology, fruit yield and fruit quality. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 126:175–181Google Scholar
  9. Glenn DM, Puterka GJ (2005) Particle films: A new technology for agriculture. Hortic Rev 31:1–44Google Scholar
  10. Glenn DM (2009) Particle film mechanism of action that reduce the effect of environmental stress in ‘Empire’ apple. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 134:314–321Google Scholar
  11. Glenn DM, Cooley NM, Walker RR, Clingeleffer PR, Shellie KC (2010) Impact of kaolin particle film and water deficit on wine grape water use efficiency and plant water relations. HortScience 45(8):1178–1187Google Scholar
  12. Glenn DM (2012) The mechanisms of plant stress mitigation by kaolin-based particle films and applications in horticultural and agricultural crops. HortScience 47(6):710–711Google Scholar
  13. Gonzalez MF, Di Stefano R, Briones A (2003) Hydrolysis and transformation of terpene glycosides from muscat must by different yeast species. Food Microbiol 20(1):35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gougoulias N, Masheva L (2010) Effect of Gibberellic acid (GA3) on polyphenols content and antioxidative activity of some table grape varieties. Oxid Commun 33(2010):652–660Google Scholar
  15. Hoffmann M (1991) Elektrochemische Merkmale zur Differenzierung von Lebensmitteln. In: Meier-Ploeger A, Vogtmann H (eds) Lebensmittelqualität – Ganzheitliche Methoden und Konzepte – Alternative Konzepte, vol 66. Deukalion, Germany, pp 67–86Google Scholar
  16. Kara Z, Akay A, Ateş F, Yağmur B (2008) The P‑Value as A Tool for Quality Measurements in Grape Industry. 31. World Congress of Vine and Wine, 6. General Assembly of the O.I. V., Growing Techniques. Sustainability and Specificity of Production, Verona, 15–20 June 2008Google Scholar
  17. Kara Z, Ateş F, Sabir A (2012) Some Quality Parameters Investigated in Sultani Çekirdeksiz (Vitis vinifera L.) Clones During Ripening Period. 47. Croatian and 7th International symposium on Agriculture, Opatija, 13–17 February 2012.Google Scholar
  18. Kasimatis AN, Bearden BE, Bowers K (1977) Wine grape varieties in North Coast countries of California. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Sale Publication, 4069:1–30Google Scholar
  19. Keller M, Torres-Martinez N (2004) Does UV radiation affect wine grape composition? J Grapevine Res 37:171–172Google Scholar
  20. Keppel H (2001) Erfahrungen und ausgewählte Ergebnisse elektrochemischer Untersuchungen unter Berücksichtigung des P‑Wertes. Tagungsband der 8. Internationalen Tagung Elektrochemischer Qualitätstest, 22–24. 02. 2001. Univ Bodenkultur in Wien Hrsgb: BTQ, Inst f Obst- und GartenbauGoogle Scholar
  21. Kliewer WM, Freeman CH (1983) Effect of irrigation, crop level and potassium fertilization on Carignan vines. I. Degree of water stress and effect on growth and yield. Am J Enol Vitic 34:186–196Google Scholar
  22. Kok D (2011) Influences of pre-and post-verasion cluster thinning treatments on grape composition variables and monoterpene levels of Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Sauvignon Blanc. J Food Agric Environ 9(1):22–26Google Scholar
  23. Kok D, Bal E, Celik S (2013) Influences of various canopy management techniques on wine grape quality of V. vinifera L. cv. Kalecik Karası. Bulg J Agric Sci 19(6):1247–1252Google Scholar
  24. Kok D, Bal E (2014) The response of monoterpene compounds of cv. Gewürztraminer grape (Vitis vinifera L.) to various doses of prohexadione-calcium applied at different periods. Turk J Agric Nat Sci 1:1231–1235Google Scholar
  25. Kok D, Bal E (2016) Variation in total phenolic compounds, anthocyanin and monoterpene content of ‘Muscat Hamburg’ table grape variety (V. vinifera L.) as affected by cluster thinning and early and late period basal leaf removal treatments. Erwerbs Obstbau. doi: 10.1007/s10341-016-0283-9 Google Scholar
  26. Kok D, Bal E (2016) Effects of foliar seaweed and humic acid treatments on monoterpene profile and biochemical properties of cv. Riesling berry (V. vinifera L.) throughout the maturation period. JOTAF 13(2):67–74Google Scholar
  27. Mateo JJ, Jimenez M (2000) Monoterpenes in grape juice and wines. J Chromatogr 881:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mori K, Saito H, Goto-Yamamoto N, Kitayama M, Kobayashi S, Sugaya S, Gemma H, Hashizume K (2005) Effects of abscisic acid treatment and night temperatures on anthocyanin composition in Pinot noir grapes. J Grapevine Res 44:161–165Google Scholar
  29. Ou C, Du X, Shellie K, Ross C, Qian MC (2010) Volatile compounds and sensory attributes of wine from cv. Merlot (Vitis vinifera L.) grown under differential levels of water deficit with or without a kaolin based, foliar reflectant particle film. J Agric Food Chem 58:12890–12898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Palliotti A, Silvestroni O, Leoni F, Poni S (2012) Maturazione dell’uva e gestione della chioma in Vitis vinifera: Processi e tecniche da riconsiderare in funzione del cambiamento del clima e delle nuove esigenze del mercato. Italus Hortus 19:1–15Google Scholar
  31. Petrie PR, Trought MCT, Howell SG (2000) Fruit composition and ripening of Pinot Noir (Vitis vinifera L.) in relation to leaf area. Aust J Grape Wine Res 6:46–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Plaza EG, Ortin AB, Garcia YR, Fernandez JIF, Munoz RG (2016) Effect of elicitors on the evolution of grape phenolic compounds during the ripening period. J Sci Food Agric Doi. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.7823 Google Scholar
  33. Poni S, Casalini L, Bernizzoni F, Civardi S, Interieri C (2006) Effects of early defoliation on shoot photosynthesis, yield components and grape composition. Am J Enol Vitic 57:397–407Google Scholar
  34. Reynolds AG, Wardle DA (1989) Impact of various canopy manipulation techniques on growth, yield, fruit composition and wine quality of Gewürztraminer. Am J Enol Vitic 40:121–129Google Scholar
  35. Ristic R, Bindon K, Francis LI, Herderich MJ, Iland PG (2010) Flavonoids and C13 – norisoprenoids in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz: Relationships between grape and wine composition, wine colour and wine sensory properties. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:369–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosati A (2007) Physiological effects of kaolin particle film technology: A review. Funct Plant Sci Technol 1(1):100–105Google Scholar
  37. Shanan NT, Shalaby EA (2011) Influence of some chemical compounds as antitranspirant agents on vase life of Monstera deliciosa leaves. Afr J Agric Res 6(1):132–139Google Scholar
  38. Shellie K, Glenn DM (2008) Wine grape response to foliar particle film under differing levels of pre-verasion water stress. HortScience 43(5):1392–1397Google Scholar
  39. Shellie K (2015) Foliar reflective film and water deficit increase anthocyanin to soluble solids ratio during berry ripening in merlot. Am J Enol Vitic 66:348–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singleton VL, Timberlake CF, Kea L (1978) The phenolic cinnamates of white grapes and wine. J Sci Food Agric 29:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Song J, Shellie KC, Wang H, Qian MC (2012) Influence of deficit irrigation and kaolin particle film on grape composition and volatile compounds in Merlot grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Food Chem 134:841–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Smart RE, Robinson M (1991) Sunlight into wine. A handbook for wine grape canopy management. Winetitles, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  43. Spayd SE, Tarara JM, Mee DL, Ferguson JC (2002) Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot berries. Am J Enol Vitic 53:171–182Google Scholar
  44. Tarara JM, Lee JM, Spayd SE, Scagel CF (2008) Berry temperature and solar radiation alter acylation, proportion, and concentration of anthocyanin in Merlot grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 59:235–247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017
, corrected publication August 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural Faculty, Department of HorticultureNamık Kemal UniversityTekirdağTurkey

Personalised recommendations