Impact of grapevine exposure to smoke on vine physiology and the composition and sensory properties of wine

  • Renata Ristic
  • Anthea L. Fudge
  • Kerry A. Pinchbeck
  • Roberta De Bei
  • Sigfredo Fuentes
  • Yoji Hayasaka
  • Stephen D. Tyerman
  • Kerry L. WilkinsonEmail author


Smoke was applied to seven different grapevine cultivars (Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Pinot Gris, Pinot Noir, Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot) for 1 h at approximately 7 days post-veraison. A range of viticultural measurements were subsequently performed to evaluate any effects on crop yield, vegetative growth and vine physiology. Few significant differences in berry growth or maturation (as sugar accumulation), yield or vine growth were observed between control and smoke-affected grapevines; but the photosynthetic capacity of some varieties, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon in particular, decreased significantly following smoke exposure. The extent of smoke taint in the resultant wines was then determined by quantification of volatile phenols and guaiacol glycoconjugates, and by descriptive sensory analysis. Elevated concentrations of volatile phenols and guaiacol glycoconjugates were observed in wines made from smoke-affected grapes; with smoke-affected Pinot Gris and Cabernet Sauvignon wines found to exhibit the most intense smoke-related sensory attributes. The physiological, compositional and sensory consequences of grapevine exposure to smoke were found to vary amongst cultivars, suggesting some grape varieties might be more susceptible to the effects of smoke exposure than others. Further research into the impact of smoke exposure by different cultivars might inform varietal selection in smoke-prone wine regions, in order to mitigate the risk of smoke exposure.


Bushfires Cultivars Smoke taint Volatile phenols 



This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (LP0989138); the financial contributions of industry partners are also gratefully acknowledged. Anthea Fudge and Kerry Pinchbeck thank Wine Australia for the provision of research scholarships. The authors would also like to acknowledge: the vineyard owners and managers who participated in the project; the sensory panel for their invaluable contribution to wine sensory evaluation; Andrew Markides of Lallemand, Australia for the provision of yeast and winemaking consumables; Margaux Vigy and Jesse Graffam for technical assistance; and the Australian Wine Research Institute’s Commercial Services Laboratory for GC–MS analysis.

Supplementary material

40626_2016_54_MOESM1_ESM.doc (392 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 392 kb)
40626_2016_54_MOESM2_ESM.doc (149 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOC 149 kb)


  1. Bell TL, Stephens SL, Moritz MA (2013) Short-term physiological effects of smoke on grapevine leaves. Int J Wildland Fire 22:933–946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Calder WJ, Lifferth G, Moritz MA, Clair SBS (2010) Physiological effects of smoke exposure on deciduous and conifer tree species. Int J Forestry Res 2010:438930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dungey KA, Hayasaka Y, Wilkinson KL (2011) Quantitative analysis of glycoconjugate precursors of guaiacol in smoke-affected grapes using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry based stable isotope dilution analysis. Food Chem 126:801–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. During H (1998) Photochemical and non-photochemical responses of glasshouse-grown grape to combined light and water stress. Vitis 37:1–4Google Scholar
  5. Fudge AL, Ristic R, Wollan D, Wilkinson KL (2011) Amelioration of smoke taint in wine by reverse osmosis and solid phase adsorption. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:41–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fudge AL, Schiettecatte M, Ristic R, Hayasaka Y, Wilkinson KL (2012) Amelioration of smoke taint in wine by treatment with commercial fining agents. Aust J Grape Wine Res 18:302–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fuentes S, Sullivan W, Tilbrook J, Tyerman S (2010) A novel analysis of grapevine berry tissue demonstrates a variety-dependent correlation between tissue vitality and berry shrivel. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert ME, Ripley BS (2003) The effect of smoke on the photosynthetic gas exchange of Chrysanthemoides monilifera. South Afr J Bot 68:525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guehl JM, Aussenac G (1987) Photosynthesis decrease and stomatal control of gas-exchange in Abies-alba mill in response to vapor-pressure difference. Plant Physiol 83:316–322CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayasaka Y, Baldock GA, Parker M, Pardon KH, Black CA, Herderich MJ, Jeffery DW (2010) Glycosylation of smoke-derived volatile phenols in grapes as a consequence of grapevine exposure to bushfire smoke. J Agric Food Chem 58:10989–10998CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hayasaka Y, Parker M, Baldock GA, Pardon KH, Black CA, Jeffery DW, Herderich MJ (2013) Assessing the impact of smoke exposure in grapes: development and validation of a HPLC-MS/MS method for the quantitative analysis of smoke-derived phenolic glycosides in grapes and wine. J Agric Food Chem 61:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Heath RL (1980) Initial events in injury to plants by air-pollutants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 31:395–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iland PG, Bruer N, Edwards G, Weeks S, Wilkes E (2004) Chemical analysis of grapes and wine: techniques and concepts Adelaide. Patrick Iland Wine Promotions Pty Ltd, CampbelltownGoogle Scholar
  14. Kelly D, Zerihun A, Hayasaka Y, Gibberd M (2014) Winemaking practice affects the extraction of smoke-borne phenols from grapes into wines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 20:386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kennison KR, Wilkinson KL, Williams HG, Smith JH, Gibberd MR (2007) Smoke-derived taint in wine: effect of postharvest smoke exposure of grapes on the chemical composition and sensory characteristics of wine. J Agric Food Chem 55:10897–10901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kennison KR, Gibberd MR, Pollnitz AP, Wilkinson KL (2008) Smoke-derived taint in wine: the release of smoke-derived volatile phenols during fermentation of Merlot juice following grapevine exposure to smoke. J Agric Food Chem 56:7379–7383CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kennison KR, Wilkinson KL, Pollnitz AP, Williams HG, Gibberd MR (2009) Effect of timing and duration of grapevine exposure to smoke on the composition and sensory properties of wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 15:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kennison KR, Wilkinson KL, Pollnitz AP, Williams HG, Gibberd MR (2011) Effect of smoke application to field-grown Merlot grapevines at key phenological growth stages on wine sensory and chemical properties. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:S5–S12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawless HT, Heymann H (1999) Acceptance and preferance testing. In: Heldman DR (ed) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. International Thomson Publishing, New York, pp 430–479Google Scholar
  20. Mayr CM, Parker M, Baldock GA, Black CA, Pardon KH, Williamson PO, Herderich MJ, Francis IL (2014) Determination of the importance of in-mouth release of volatile phenol glycoconjugates to the flavor of smoke-tainted wines. J Agric Food Chem 62:2327–2336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Parker M, Osidacz P, Baldock GA, Hayasaka Y, Black CA, Pardon KH, Jeffery DW, Geue JP, Herderich MJ, Francis IL (2012) Contribution of several volatile phenols and their glycoconjugates to smoke-related sensory properties of red wine. J Agric Food Chem 60:2629–2637CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Pollnitz AP, Pardon KH, Sefton MA (2000) Quantitative analysis of 4-ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol in red wine. J Chromatogr A 874:101–109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollnitz AP, Pardon KH, Sykes M, Sefton MA (2004) The effects of sample preparation and gas chromatograph injection techniques on the accuracy of measuring guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol and other volatile oak compounds in oak extracts by stable isotope dilution analyses. J Agric Food Chem 52:3244–3252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ristic R, Osidacz P, Pinchbeck KA, Hayasaka Y, Fudge AL, Wilkinson KL (2011) The effect of winemaking techniques on the intensity of smoke taint in wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:S29–S40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ristic R, Pinchbeck KA, Fudge AL, Hayasaka Y, Wilkinson KL (2013) Effect of leaf removal and grapevine smoke exposure on colour, chemical composition and sensory properties of Chardonnay wines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 19:230–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ristic R, Boss PK, Wilkinson KL (2015) Influence of fruit maturity at harvest on the intensity of smoke taint in wine. Molecules 20:8913–8927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rosen PM, Musselman RC, Kender WJ (1978) Relationship of stomatal resistance to sulfur-dioxide and ozone injury in grapevines. Sci Hortic 8:137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadras VO, Soar CJ (2009) Shiraz vines maintain yield in response to a 2-4 degrees C increase in maximum temperature using an open-top heating system at key phenostages. Eur J Agron 31:250–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saxe H (1986) Effects of NO, NO2 and CO2 on net photosynthesis, dark respiration and transpiration of pot plants. New Phytol 103:185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schultz HR (1992) An empirical-model for the simulation of leaf appearance and leaf-area development of primary shoots of several grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) canopy-systems. Sci Hortic 52:179–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schultz HR, Stoll M (2010) Some critical issues in environmental physiology of grapevines: future challenges and current limitations. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:4–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sepulveda G, Kliewer WM, Ryugo K (1986) Effect of high temperature on grapevines (Vitis Vinifera L.). I. Translocation of 14C-photosynthates. Am J Enol Vitic 37(1):13–19Google Scholar
  33. Shertz RD, Kender WJ, Musselman RC (1980) Effects of ozone and sulfur-dioxide on grapevines. Sci Hortic 13:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soar CJ, Speirs J, Maffei SM, Penrose AB, McCarthy MG, Loveys BR (2006) Grape vine varieties Shiraz and Grenache differ in their stomatal response to VPD: apparent links with ABA physiology and gene expression in leaf tissue. Aust J Grape Wine Res 12:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stone H, Sidel JL (2004) Descriptive analysis. In: Taylor SL (ed) Sensory evaluation practices, 3rd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 201–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilkinson KL, Ristic R, Pinchbeck KA, Fudge AL, Singh DP, Pitt KM, Downey MO, Baldock GA, Hayasaka Y, Parker M, Herderich MJ (2011) Comparison of methods for the analysis of smoke related phenols and their conjugates in grapes and wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:S22–S28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Brazilian Society of Plant Physiology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and WineThe University of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia
  2. 2.School of Land and EnvironmentThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.The Australian Wine Research InstituteGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations