Precision Agriculture

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 40–58 | Cite as

Spatial variability of grape composition in a Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) vineyard over a 3-year survey

  • Javier Baluja
  • Javier Tardaguila
  • Belen Ayestaran
  • Maria P. Diago
Article

Abstract

The study was conducted in a Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) vineyard, in Navarra (Spain) across three consecutive seasons. Winegrape technological (total soluble solids, pH and titratable acidity) and phenolic (anthocyanins and total phenols) variables were measured in a regular sampling mesh at harvest, covering the entire area. Grape phenolic parameters exhibited more variability, in terms of coefficient of variation and spread than total soluble solids and pH, whilst titratable acidity presented a similar variability than grape phenolic attributes. All the grape composition parameters showed spatial structure when omnidirectional variograms were computed. Spatial dependence was found to be high for total soluble solids and acidity, and moderate for anthocyanins and total phenols, which were found to vary at equal or shorter distances than the sampling mesh. Inter-annual stability of the spatial variation pattern was computed by cross-tabulation techniques such as the percentage of pixels well classified (PPWC) and the Kappa index, and was observed only for grape total soluble solids and acidity in the 3 years of study. Phenolic compounds’ spatial pattern revealed to be more sensitive to changes in the interactions of the soil–weather–vine system over the three seasons. When factorial analysis was applied, two main factors were extracted. Factor 1 was highly related to total soluble solids and acidity parameters, while factor 2 was mostly explained by anthocyanins and total phenols in the berry. The extracted factors allowed the computation of two main descriptor maps for the entire vineyard in terms of grape composition, given that they were also independent, with different spatial distributions. For each season, factor maps were found as a useful way through selective harvest, as they showed the spatial structure of grape composition and provided integrated information of grape quality. This knowledge would enable viticulturists with a useful tool to identify zones within the vineyard of differential grape composition to be devoted to differential wine styles.

Keywords

Precision agriculture Mean correlation distance Factorial analysis Inter-seasonal stability analysis Selective harvest 

Supplementary material

11119_2012_9282_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (199 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (JPEG 198 kb)
11119_2012_9282_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (196 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (JPEG 196 kb)
11119_2012_9282_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (152 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (JPEG 151 kb)

References

  1. Arno, J., Martinez-Casasnovas, J. A., Ribes-Dasi, M., & Rosell, J. R. (2011). Clustering of grape yield maps to delineate site-specific management zones. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 9, 721–729.Google Scholar
  2. Baluja, J., Diago, M. P., Goovaerts, P., & Tardaguila, J. (2012a). Assessment of the spatial variability of grape anthocyanins using a fluorescence sensor. Relationships with vine vigour and yield. Precision Agriculture, 13, 457–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baluja, J., Diago, M. P., Goovaerts, P., & Tardaguila, J. (2012b). Spatio-temporal dynamics of grape anthocyanin accumulation in a Tempranillo vineyard monitored by proximal sensing. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 18, 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergqvist, J., Dokoozlian, 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. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 52, 1–7.Google Scholar
  5. Bramley, R. G. V. (2005). Understanding variability in winegrape production systems. 2. Within vineyard variation in quality over several vintages. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 11, 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bramley, R. G. V. (2010). Precision viticulture: Managing vineyard variability for improved quality outcomes. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Managing wine quality (Vol. 1, pp. 445–480). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bramley, R. G. V., & Hamilton, R. P. (2004). Understanding variability in winegrape production systems. 1. Vineyard variation in yield over several vintages. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10, 32–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bramley, R. G. V., Ouzman, J., & Boss, P. K. (2011a). Variation in vine vigour, grape yield and vineyard soils and topography as indicators of variation in the chemical composition of grapes, wine and wine sensory attributes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17, 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bramley, R. G. V., Ouzman, J., & Thornton, C. (2011b). Selective harvest is a feasible and profitable strategy even when grape and wine production is geared towards large fermentation volumes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17, 298–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cambardella, C. A., Moorman, T. B., Novak, J. M., Parkin, T. B., Karlen, D. L., Truko, R. F., et al. (1994). Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 58, 1501–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carbonneau, A., Champagnol, F., Deloire, A., & Sevilla, F. (1998). Récolte et qualité du raisin. In C. Flanzy (Ed.), Enologie, dondements scientifigues et technologiques (pp. 649–670). Paris: Technique et Documentation Lavoisier.Google Scholar
  12. Chuvieco, E. (2008). Teledetección ambiental. La observación de la Tierra desde el Espacio. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
  13. Coombe, B. G., & Iland, P. G. (2004). Grape berry development and winegrape quality. In P. R. Dry & B. G. Coombe (Eds.), Viticulture (Vol. 1, pp. 210–248). Adelaide: Winetitles.Google Scholar
  14. Cressie, N. (1993). Statistics for spatial data. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  15. Fridgen, J. J., Kitchen, N. R., Sudduth, K., Drummond, S. T., Wiebold, W. J., & Fraisse, C. W. (2004). Management zone analyst (MZA). Agronomy Journal, 96, 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray, J. (2006). The basis of variation in the size and composition of Shiraz berries. In D. Oag, K. DeGaris, S. Partridge, C. Dundon, M. Francis, R. Johnstone, & R. Hamilton (Eds.), ‘Finishing the job’—Optimal ripening of Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz (pp. 30–35). Adelaide: Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, J., & Jones, G. V. (2010). Spatial analysis of climate in winegrape-growing regions in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Han, S., Evans, R. G., Schneider, S. M., & Rawlins, S. L. (1996). Spatial variability of soil properties on two center-pivot irrigated fields. In: Proceedings of the third international conference on precision agriculture (pp. 97–106). Wisconsin: ASA/CSSA/SSA.Google Scholar
  19. Iland, P., Bruer, N., Edwards, G., Weeks, S., & Wilkes, E. (2004). Chemical analysis of grapes and wine: techniques and concepts. Campbelltown: Patrick Iland Wine Promotions.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, D. I., & Lombard, P. B. (1993). Environmental and management practices affecting grape composition and wine quality: A review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 44, 409–430.Google Scholar
  21. Johnstone, R. S. (1999). Vineyard variability—is it important? In R. J. Blair, A. N. Sas, P. F. Hayes, & P. B. Hoj (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth Australian wine industry technical conference (pp. 113–115). Sydney: Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference.Google Scholar
  22. Kerry, R., Oliver, M. A., & Frogbrook, Z. L. (2010). Sampling in precision agriculture. In M. A. Oliver (Ed.), Geostatistical applications for precision agriculture (pp. 35–62). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Krstic, M. P., Leamon, K., DeGaris, K., Whiting, J., McCarthy, M. & Clingeleffer, P. (2001). Sampling for wine grape quality parameters in the vineyard: variability and post-harvest issues. Proceedings of the 11th Australian wine industry technical conference, 7–11 October 2001, Adelaide: South Australia.Google Scholar
  24. Landis, J., & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. May, P. (2000). From bud to berry, with special reference to inflorescence and bunch morphology in Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 6, 82–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McBratney, A. B., & Pringle, M. J. (1999). Estimating average and proportional variograms of soil properties and their potential use in precision agriculture. Precision Agriculture, 1, 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. OIV. (1990). Recueil Méthodes Internationales d′Analyse des Vins des Moûts. Paris: Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin.Google Scholar
  28. Ortega, R. A., Esser, A., & Santibañez, O. (2003). Spatial variability of wine grape yield and quality in Chilean vineyards: Economic and environmental impacts. In J. Stafford & A. Werner (Eds.), Proceedings of 4th European conference on precision agriculture (pp. 499–506). Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Pebesma, E. J., & Wesseling, C. G. (1998). Gstat: A program for geostatistical modelling, prediction and simulation. Computers & Geosciences, 24, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reynolds, A. G. (2010). Viticultural and vineyard management practices and their effects on grape and wine quality. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Managing wine quality (Vol. 1, pp. 365–444). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Spayd, S. E., Tarara, J. M., Mee, D. L., & Ferguson, J. C. (2002). Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 53, 171–182.Google Scholar
  32. Tarara, J. M., Lee, J., Spayd, S. E., & Scagel, C. F. (2008). Berry temperature and solar radiation alter acylation, proportion, and concentration of anthocyanin in Merlot grapes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 59, 235–247.Google Scholar
  33. Tisseyre, B., Mazzoni, C., & Fonta, H. (2008). Within-field temporal stability of some parameters in viticulture: Potential toward a site specific management. Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 42, 27–39.Google Scholar
  34. Trought, M. C. T. (1997). The New Zealand terroir: Sources of variation in fruit composition in New Zealand vineyards. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on cool climate enology and viticulture (pp. 23–27). New York: State Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
  35. Trought, M. C. T., & Bramley, R. G. V. (2011). Vineyard variability in Marlborough, New Zealand: Characterising spatial and temporal changes in fruit composition and juice quality in the vineyard. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17, 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Leeuwen, C. (2010). Terroir: The effect of the physical environment on the vine growth, grape ripening and wine sensory attributes. In A. G. Reynolds (Ed.), Managing wine quality (Vol. 1, pp. 273–315). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Webster, R., & Oliver, M. A. (2000). Geostatistics for environmental scientists. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Javier Baluja
    • 1
  • Javier Tardaguila
    • 1
  • Belen Ayestaran
    • 1
  • Maria P. Diago
    • 1
  1. 1.Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y del Vino University of La Rioja, CSIC, Gobierno de La RiojaLogroñoSpain

Personalised recommendations