ISHS
  eJHS
     
EJHS
Home


Submit
an article


Subscriptions

ISHS Home

ISHS Contact

Search

eJHS
  Eur.J.Hortic.Sci. 82 (1) 21-30 | DOI: 10.17660/eJHS.2017/82.1.3
ISSN 1611-4426 print and 1611-4434 online | © ISHS 2017 | European Journal of Horticultural Science | Original article

Effect of harvest date on composition and geometry of grape berries

Š. Nedomová1, V. Kumbár2, P. Pavloušek3, R. Pytel1, L. Lampíř4 and J. Buchar2
1Department of Food Technology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2Department of Technology and Automobile Transport (section Physics), Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
3Department of Viticulture and Oenology, Faculty of Horticulture, Mendel University in Brno, 691 44 Lednice, Czech Republic
4Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 165 00 Prague, Czech Republic

SUMMARY
During wine production, the composition of grapes at the time of picking is an important parameter. To determine the harvest day may be considered the most crucial decision in winemaking. While grapes ripen, some complex physicochemical and biochemical processes occur, such as the continuous rising of sugar concentrations and lowering of acid levels, respectively. Chemical composition of seven grapevine cultivars harvested weekly during six consecutive weeks in the South Moravia region (Czech Republic) was evaluated. In addition parameters like size, shape and mass of grape berries were also studied. The geometry of the berry was described using its digital image. This procedure enables to describe the contour curve and to evaluate volume, surface and radii of the curvature. The mass of the berry, surface and volume increased with the total sugar content in all cultivars except for ‘Pinot Gris’ and ‘blue Frankish’ cultivars. The radii of the curvature were increased in all cultivars tested.

Keywords acids, Czech Republic, geometry, grapevine, mass, shape, sugars

Significance of this study

What is already known on this subject?

  • The complex physicochemical and biochemical processes occur during grape ripening.
What are the new findings?
  • The mass, volume and surface of grape berries are correlated with total sugar content with most cultivars. The radii of the curvature increased with the day of harvesting but not too strong in order to be used for the prediction of grapevine maturity on the base of the berry’s geometry.
What is the expected impact on horticulture?
  • The knowledge of the grape berries geometry is probably limited for handling operations with impact on product quality (e.g., behaviour under mechanical loading during harvesting).

Download fulltext version How to cite this article       Export citation to RIS format      

E-mail: vojtech.kumbar@mendelu.cz  

References

  • Ali, K., Maltese, F., Hae Choi, Y., and Verpoorte, R. (2009). Metabolic constituents of grapevine and grape-derived products. Phytochemistry Reviews 9, 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-009-9158-0.

  • Alleweldt G. (1970). Hat die Zűchtung interspezifischer Kreuzungen eine Zukunft? Der Deutsche Weinbau 31, 1146–1148.

  • Andrades, M.S., and González-Sanjosé, M.L. (1995). Climatic influence in the maturation of the grape: Study cultivars of Rioja and Madrid. Zubía Monographic 7, 79–102.

  • Coombe, B.G. (1987). Distribution of solutes within the developing grape berry in relation to its morphology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 38, 120–127.

  • Coombe, B.G., and McCarthy, M.G. (2000). Dynamics of grape berry growth and physiology of ripening. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6(2), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2000.tb00171.x.

  • Gil, M., Pascual, O., Gómez-Alonso, S., García-Romero, A., Hermosín-Gutiérrez, I., Zamora, F., and Canals, J.M. (2015). Influence of berry size on red wine colour and composition. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 21, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12123.

  • González-Sanjosé, M.L., Barrón, L.J.R., Junquera, B., and Robredo, L.M. (1991). Application of principal component analysis to ripening indices for wine grapes. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 4, 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-1575(91)90036-6.

  • Hardie, W.J., O’Brien, T.P., and Jaudzems, V.G. (1996). Morphology, anatomy and development of the pericarp after anthesis in grape, Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2(2), 97–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1996.tb00101.x.

  • Harris, J.M., Kriedemann, P.E., and Possingham, J.V. (1968). Anatomical aspects of grape berry development. Vitis 7, 106–119.

  • Iland, P., Ewart, A., Sitters, J., Markides, A., and Bruer, N. (2000). Techniques for Chemical Analysis and Quality Monitoring during Winemaking (Campbelltown, Australia: Patrick Iland Wine Promotions), p. 6–7.

  • Jones, G.V., and Davis, R.E. (2000). Climate influences on grapevine phenology, grape composition, and wine production and quality for Bordeaux, France. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 51, 249–261.

  • Khojastehnazhand, M., Omid, M., and Tabatabaeefar, A. (2010). Determination of tangerine volume using image processing methods. International Journal of Food Properties 13, 760–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942910902894062.

  • Kumbár, V., Trnka, J., Nedomová, Š., and Buchar, J. (2015a). On the influence of storage duration on rheological properties of liquid egg products and response of eggs to impact loading – Japanese quail eggs. Journal of Food Engineering 166, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.05.030.

  • Kumbár, V., Nedomová, Š., Strnková, J., and Buchar, J. (2015b). Effect of egg storage duration on the rheology of liquid egg products. Journal of Food Engineering 156, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2015.02.011.

  • Lampír, L. (2013). Varietal differentiation of white wines on the basis of phenolic compounds profile. Czech Journal of Food Sciences 31(2), 172–179.

  • Mohsenin, N.N. (1970). Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials. Structure, Physical Characteristics and Mechanical Properties (New York, USA: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers).

  • Nedomová, Š., Kumbár, V., Pavloušek, P., Pytel, R., Zacal, J., and Buchar, J. (2016). Influence of harvest day on changes in mechanical properties of grape berries. Potravinarstvo 10, 181–187. https://doi.org/10.5219/600.

  • Ojeda, H., Deloire, A., Carbonneau, A., Ageorges, A., and Romieu, C. (1999). Berry development of grapevines: Relations between the growth of berries and their DNA content indicate cell multiplication and enlargement. Vitis 38(4), 145–150.

  • Pavloušek, P., and Kumšta, M. (2011). Profiling of primary metabolites in grapes of interspecific grapevine varieties: Sugars and organic acids. Czech Journal of Food Science 29, 361–372.

  • Peynaud, E. (1989). Practical Oenology – Knowledge and Processing of Wine (Madrid, Spain: Mundi-Prensa).

  • Río Segade, S., Orriols, I., Giacosa, S., and Rolle, L. (2011). Instrumental texture analysis parameters as winegrapes varietal markers and ripeness predictors. International Journal of Food Properties 14, 1318–1329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942911003650320.

  • Robredo, L.M., Junquera, B., González-Sanjosé, M.L., and Barrón, L.J. (1991). Biochemical events during ripening of grape berries. Italian Journal of Food Science 3, 173–180.

  • Rusjan, D., Korošec-Koruza, Z., and Veberič, R. (2008). Primary and secondary metabolites related to the quality potential of table grape varieties (Vitis vinifera L.). European Journal of Horticultural Science 73, 124–130.

  • Severa, L., Nedomova, Š., and Buchar, J. (2013). Mathematical description of hen egg geometry. International Journal of Food Properties 16, 1472–1482. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2011.595028.

  • Shiraishi, M. (1995). Proposed descriptors for organic acids to evaluate grape germplasm. Euphytica 81, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00022454.

  • Smith, F.A., and Raven, J.A. (1979). Intracellular pH and its regulation. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 30, 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.30.060179.001445.

Received: 27 September 2016 | Accepted: 11 January 2017 | Published: 23 February 2017 | Available online: 23 February 2017

previous article     Volume 82 issue 1     next article