GiESCO 2013 - Archivo Digital UPM
Transcrição
GiESCO 2013 - Archivo Digital UPM
APOIOS E PATROCÍNIOS / PATRONAGE AND SPONSORSHIP / PATRONAGES, SUPPORTS ET SPONSORS SAPEC AGRO PORTUGAL | CARMO | BAYER CROPSCIENCE | SIPCAM PORTUGAL CIÊNCIA E TÉCNICA VITIVINÍCOLA Journal of Viticulture and Enology (Revista Semestral / Six monthly review) Director: EIRAS DIAS (J.E.) Comissão de Redacção/Journal Staff: SILVESTRE (J.), Coordenador; CANAS (S.) Conselho de Leitura / Editorial Review Board Amâncio (S.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Baleiras-Couto (M. M.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Barre (P.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Barreira (M. A.),Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Barroso (J. M.),Universidade de Évora, Évora (Portugal) Bayonove (C.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Belchior (A. P.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Bertrand (A.), Faculté d'Oenologie, Bordeaux (France) Brillouet (J. M.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Brun (S.), Université de Montpellier (France) Bruno de Sousa (R.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Caldeira (I. J.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Caló (A.), Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticoltura, Conegliano (Italia) Cameira-dos-Santos (P.J.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Canas (S.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Cantagrel (R.), B. N. I. C., Cognac (France) Carbonneau (A.), E. N. S. A. M., Montpellier (France) Carneiro (L. C.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Casal (M.), Departamento de Biologia/UM, Braga (Portugal) Castino (M.), Istituto Sperimentale per l'Enologia, Asti (Italia) Castro (R.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Catarino (S.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Porugal) Clímaco (M. C.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Clímaco (P.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Chatonnet (P.), Laboratoire EXCELL, Merignac (France) Cotea (V.), Centrul de Cerceturi pentru Oenologie, Iasi (Roumanie) Cunha (J. M.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Curvelo-Garcia (A. S.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Duarte (F. L.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Duarte (M. F. R.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Eiras-Dias (J. E.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Faia (A. M.), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real (Portugal) Ferreira (M. A.), Universidade do Porto (Portugal) Fevereiro (M. P. S.), Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica/UNL, Oeiras (Portugal) Flanzy (C.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Freitas (V. A. P.), Faculdade de Ciências/UP, Porto (Portugal) Garcia de Lujans (A.), Est. Exp. Rancho de la Merced, Jerez de la Frontera (España) Hogg (T.), ESB, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto (Portugal) Kovac (V.), Faculté de Technologie, Novi Sad (Serbie) Laureano (O.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Lee (T. H.), E. & J. Gallo Winery, Modesto (USA) Lima (J. C.), Universidade do Porto (Portugal) Lima (M. B.), Estação Agronómica Nacional, Oeiras (Portugal) Loureiro (V.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Lopes (C. M. A.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia/UTL, Lisboa (Portugal) Magalhães (N.), Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real (Portugal) Martins (A.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Moutounet (M.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Puech (J. L.), Institut des Produits de la Vigne, Montpellier (France) Ricardo-da-Silva (J.), Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Lisboa (Portugal) Rohlf (F. J.), State University of New York at Stony Brook (USA) Rolo (J. A. C.), Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária, Lisboa (Portugal) San Romão (M. V.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Santos-Buelga (C.), Faculdad de Farmacia/Universidade de Salamanca, Salamanca (Espanha) Sequeira (O.), Estação Agronómica Nacional, Oeiras (Portugal) Silvestre (J. M.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Spranger (M. I.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Sun (B. S.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) Snakkers (G.), Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac, Station Viticole (França) Vilas Boas (L.), Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa (Portugal) Wittkowski (R.), BGVV, Berlin (Germany) Zanol (G.), Estação Vitivinícola Nacional, Dois Portos (Portugal) 18th International Symposium of the Group of International Experts of vitivinicultural Systems for CoOperation (GiESCO 2013) Porto, Portugal 7th – 11th July 2013 PROCEEDINGS / COMPTES RENDUS TOME II Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola - ISSN 0254-0223 Modifications in the layout of papers received from Authors have been made to fit the publication format of Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola. All texts have been reviewed and corrected by the Editorial Review Board, members of the Scientific Committee of GiESCO 2013 and Editors. We apologize for errors that could have arisen during the editing process despite our careful vigilance. GiESCO 2013 Scientific Committee: Rogério de CASTRO Isabel ANDRADE Borbala BALO Mota BARROSO Vasco BOATTO Alain CARBONNEAU Giovanni CARGNELLO Pedro CLÍMACO Peter CLINGELEFFER Eduardo EIRAS-DIAS Rosario DI LORENZO Nick DOKOOZLIAN Milka FERRER Kobus HUNTER Cesare INTRIERI Gregory JONES Markus KELLER Stefanos KOUNDOURAS Carlos LOPES Nuno MAGALHÃES Fernando MARTINEZ de TODA António MEXIA Teresa MOTA Montserrat NADAL Vittorino NOVELLO Hernan OJEDA Laura de PALMA Jocelyne PÉRARD Giuliano PEREIRA Đordano PERŠURIĆ Enrico PETERLUNGER Eugenio POMARICI Jorge PRIETO Stefano PONI Filippo PSCZOLKOWSKI Jorge QUEIROZ Andrew REYNOLDS Jorge RICARDO-DA-SILVA Jean-Philippe ROBY Raúl RODRIGUES Hans SCHULTZ José SILVESTRE Vicente SOTES Bruno TISSEYRE Jorge TONIETTO Laurent TORREGROSA Kees VAN LEEUWEN Jesus YUSTE Vivian ZUFFEREY GiESCO 2013 Organizing Committee: President: Jorge QUEIROZ Members: Teresa MOTA Barros CARDOSO Pedro CLÍMACO Amândio CRUZ Ana FARIA Raúl JORGE Raúl RODRIGUES GiESCO BOARD: President: Alain CARBONNEAU Vice Presidents: Giovanni CARGNELLO Hans SCHULTZ Hernan OJEDA Scientific Secretariat Anabela CARNEIRO Rua Campo Alegre 687 4169 - 007 Porto - Portugal E-mail: [email protected] Secretariat Skyros-Congressos Av. Antunes Guimarães, 554 | 4100-074 - Porto Phone. +351 226 165 450 | Fax. +351 226 189 539 E-mail: [email protected] II PREFÁCIO 18º Simpósio Internacional GiESCO 2013, Porto, Portugal PORTUGAL – Diversidade, Património, Inovação O 18º Simpósio Internacional GiESCO 2013 (Grupo internacional de Especialistas em Sistemas vitivinícolas para a CoOperação) decorre entre 7 e 11 de Julho, na Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto – Portugal, sob o Alto Patrocínio de Sua Excelência O Presidente da República. A este evento associam-se o OIV (Organização Internacional da Vinha e do Vinho), a Reitoria da Universidade do Porto, o Instituto Superior de Agronomia – Universidade Técnica de Lisboa, o Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária, I.P., a Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, o Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho, I.P., a Comissão de Viticultura da Região dos Vinhos Verdes, o Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto, I.P., a Casa do Douro, a ViniPortugal e a “Chaire UNESCO Culture et Traditions du Vin”. A grande adesão da comunidade científica traduz-se na apresentação de mais de 220 trabalhos científicos (comunicações orais e posters), de cerca de 250 investigadores e cientistas, provenientes de 23 países. Ao longo de quatro dias e nove sessões, serão abordados os temas: Metodologia e ecofisiologia; Relações hídricas; Viticultura de Montanha e de Regiões quentes; Meio Ambiente: clima e solo, Gestão da vinha, rendimento, qualidade; Sistemas de condução; Novos conceitos e Tecnologias avançadas em Viticultura; Viticultura Geral; Gestão do Território. Viticultura Sustentável; Academia da Vinha e do Vinho. Este encontro será também uma boa ocasião para que os congressistas se possam inteirar dos mais recentes avanços tecnológicos da vitivinicultura portuguesa e da sua diversidade, através de visitas técnicas à REGIÃO DOS VINHOS VERDES e ao ALTO DOURO VINHATEIRO, classificado como Património da Humanidade pela UNESCO em 2001. Nesta edição do Simpósio, pretende-se ainda homenagear o Prof. Rogério de Castro pelo seu contributo para a docência, a Viticultura e a sua colaboração com o GiESCO, e por esse motivo o seu dia será aberto à comunidade científica e técnica. Aproveitando para desejar as boas vindas a todos os participantes, agradecemos a todos as pessoas envolvidas na organização deste evento, especialmente à Doutora Teresa Mota, à Engª Anabela Carneiro, à Engª. Susete Melo e Eng.º António Fonseca, aos membros da Comissão de Organização, do Comité Científico pela revisão dos artigos, assim como a todas as instituições e empresas que de uma ou outra forma apoiaram a organização deste simpósio. Por último agradeço à minha família pelo apoio de sempre. Jorge B. Lacerda de Queiroz Presidente da Comissão de Organização Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto Título: 18th International Symposium GiESCO – Proceedings. Editores: Jorge QUEIROZ, Anabela CARNEIRO Publicação: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola - ISSN 0254-0223 Citação: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola – Volume 28, Proceedings 18th International Symposium GiESCO, Porto, 7-11 July 2013, (pg)-(pg) III FOREWORD 18th International Symposium GiESCO 2013, Porto, Portugal PORTUGAL – Diversity, Heritage, Innovation The 18th International Symposium GiESCO 2013 (Group of International Experts of vitivinicultural Systems for CoOperation) takes place from 7th to 11th July, at the Faculty of Sciences of University of Porto - Portugal, under the High Patronage of His Excellency The President of the Republic of Portugal. In this has the patronage of the OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine), the Dean of the University of Porto, the Institute of Agronomy - Technical University of Lisbon, the National Institute of Agricultural Research and Veterinary IP, the Foundation for Science and Technology, the Institute of Vine and Wine, IP, the Viticulture Commission of the Vinhos Verde Region, the Institute of Douro wines and Port, IP, the ViniPortugal, the “Casa do Douro” and the "Chaire UNESCO Culture et Traditions du Vin". The great adherence of the scientific community to GiESCO 2013 is reflected in the more than 220 scientific papers (oral and posters) submitted by about 250 researchers and scientists from 23 countries. Over four days and nine sessions will be presented papers subjected to: Methodology and ecophysiology, Water relations; Mountain and hot Regions Viticulture; Environment: climate and soil; Vineyard management, yield, quality; Training systems; New concepts and Advanced Technologies in Viticulture; Viticulture General; Territory Management. Sustainable Viticulture; Vine and Wine Academy. This meeting will also be an opportunity for the participants could to contact with the latest technological advancements of Portuguese vitivinicultural industry and its diversity, through technical visits to the VINHOS VERDE REGION and ALTO DOURO WINE REGION, classified as World Heritage by UNESCO in 2001. This Symposium is intended to honour Prof. Rogério de Castro for his contribution to teaching, Viticulture and their collaboration with GiESCO, and that way this day will be open to all the scientific and technical community. Taking the opportunity to wish a warm welcome to all participants, we thank everybody involved in organizing this event, especially to Dra. Teresa Mota, Engª. Anabela Carneiro, à Engª. Susete Melo and Eng.º António Fonseca, to the members of the Organizing Committee, the Scientific Committee for reviewing the articles, as well as all institutions and companies in one way or another supported the organization of this symposium. Finally I would like to thank my family for their support. Jorge B. Lacerda de Queiroz President of the Organization Committee Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto Title: 18th International Symposium GiESCO – Proceedings. Editores: Jorge QUEIROZ, Anabela CARNEIRO Publisher: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola - ISSN 0254-0223 Citation: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola – Volume 28, Proceedings 18th International Symposium GiESCO, Porto, 7-11 July 2013, (pg)-(pg) IV PREFACE 18èmes Journées Internationales GiESCO 2013, Porto, Portugal PORTUGAL - Diversité, Patrimoine, Innovation Le 18ème Symposium International GiESCO 2013 (Groupe international d’Experts en Systèmes vitivinicoles pour la CoOpération) s'étend entre 7 et 11 Juillet, à la Faculté des Sciences de l'Université de Porto - Portugal, sous le Haut Patronage de Son Excellence Monsieur le Président de la République Portugaise. A ce événement sont associés l'OIV (Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin), le Rector de l'Université de Porto, l'Institut d'Agronomie Université Technique de Lisbonne, l'Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique et Vétérinaire IP, la Fondation pour Science et Technologie, l'Institut de la Vigne et du Vin, IP, la Commission de la Viticulture de la Région des Vinhos Verdes, l'Institut des Vins du Douro et de Porto, IP, le ViniPortugal, la « Casa do Douro » et la "Chaire UNESCO Culture et Traditions du Vin". Le grand succès auprès de la communauté scientifique se traduit par la présentation de plus de 220 articles scientifiques (orales et posters) d’environ 250 chercheurs et scientistes de 23 pays. Pendant quatre jours et neuf séances, seront abordés les sujets: Méthodologie et écophysiologie, Relations Hydriques; Viticulture de montagne et des régions chaudes; Environnement: climat et sol ; Système de culture, Rendement, Qualité ; Systèmes de Conduite; Nouveaux concepts et Technologies avancées en Viticulture, Viticulture Générale; Gestion des territoires. Viticulture durable; Académie de la Vigne et du Vin. Cette réunion sera également l'occasion pour que les participants puissent connaitre les dernières avancées technologiques de l'industrie de la vigne et du vin Portugais et sa diversité, à travers des visites techniques dans la REGION DES VINHOS VERDES et la région de le HAUT DOURO VITICOLE, classé Patrimoine Mondial par l'UNESCO en 2001. Dans ce colloque on désire aussi honorer le Prof. Rogério de Castro pour sa contribution à l'enseignement, de la Viticulture et de leur collaboration avec GiESCO, raison pour laquelle ce jour et ouvert à la communauté scientifique et technique. Saisissant l'occasion pour souhaiter la bienvenue à tous les participants, nous remercions à toutes les personnes impliquées dans l'organisation de cet événement, en particulier à Dra. Teresa Mota, Engª. Anabela Carneiro, à Engª. Susete Melo et Eng.º António Fonseca, les membres du Comité Organisateur et du Comité Scientifique par la révision des articles, ainsi que toutes les institutions et les entreprise que, d'une manière ou d'une autre, ont contribué à l'organisation de ce colloque. Finalement, je remercie ma famille pour leur soutien. Jorge B. Lacerda de Queiroz Presidente da Comissão de Organização Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade do Porto Titre: 18th International Symposium GiESCO – Proceedings. Editeurs: Jorge QUEIROZ, Anabela CARNEIRO Publication: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola - ISSN 0254-0223 Citation: Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola – Volume 28, Proceedings 18th International Symposium GiESCO, Porto, 7-11 July 2013, (pg)-(pg) V Impressão realizada com o apoio da Fundação Ciência e Tecnologia Impression held with the support of the Fundação Ciência e Tecnologia Impression organisé avec le soutien de la Fundação Ciência e Tecnologia VI IMPORTANCE OF CANOPY POROSITY INTO VINEYARD AND THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GRAPE MATURITY. DIGITAL ESTIMATION METHOD IMPORTANCE DE LA POROSITE DE LE COUVERT VEGETAL DANS LE VIGNOBLE ET LA RELATION AVEC LA MATURITE DU RAISIN. METHODE D'ESTIMATION Mario de la Fuente1*, Rubén Linares, Pilar Baeza and José Ramón Lissarrague 1 Departamento de Producción Vegetal: Fitotecnia. Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Agrónomos. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. C/ Senda del Rey s/n, 28040, Madrid, Spain. *Corresponding author: de la Fuente, M. phone: +34 915491137, Fax: +34 915491137, Email: [email protected] SUMMARY In warm and dry climates, the use of porous systems should be required in order to allow a better leaf distribution inside the plant, causing more space in the clusters area and enhancing determined physiological processes so in the leaf (photosynthesis, ventilation, transpiration) as in berry (growth and maturation). Plant geometry indexes, yield and must composition have been studied in three different systems: sprawl with 12 shoots/m (S1); sprawl system with 18 shoots/m (S2) and vertical positioned system or VSP with 12 shoots/m (VSP1). Total leaf area increases as the crop load does, whoever surface area depends on to two factors: crop load and the training system (VSP vs. sprawl), which can provide differences in leaf exposure efficiencies. The main objective of this study was to validate digital photography measurements used to compare porosity differences among treatments and, as they affect plant microclimate and, therefore, yield and berry quality. Also, all previous studied indexes (LAI, SA, SFEr) tended to overestimate the relationship between exposed leaf surface and porosity of each treatment, but the use of digital method proved to be an effective tool in order to assess canopy porosity. Results showed that not positioned and free systems (sprawl) scored between 25-50% more porosity in the clusters area than the fixed vertical system (VSP), which resulted in a better plant microclimate for test conditions, mainly by improving the exposure of internal clusters and internal canopy ventilation. On the other hand, higher crop load treatment (S2) showed a real increase in yield (16%) without any relevant change into must composition, even improving total anthocyanin content into berry during ripening. RÉSUMÉ Dans les climats chauds et secs, l'utilisation de systèmes poreuses devrait être nécessaire afin de permettre une meilleure distribution de la feuille à l'intérieur de la vigne, causant plus d'espace dans la zone des grappes et l'amélioration des processus physiologiques déterminés ainsi dans la feuille (photosynthèse, ventilation, transpiration) comme en raisin (croissance et maturation). Index de la géométrie des plantes, rendement et doit la composition ont été étudiés dans les trois systèmes différents : système non positionnée avec 12 pampre (S1) ; système non positionnée avec 18 pampre (S2) et le système de positionnement vertical ou VSP avec 12 pampre (VSP1). La surface foliaire totale augmente avec la charge, la surface foliarire qui repose sur deux facteurs : charge et système de formation (VSP contre système non positionnée), qui peut fournir des différences dans la feuille d'efficacités de l'exposition. L'objectif principal de cette étude était de valider les mesures de photographie numérique utilisés pour comparer les différences de porosité entre les traitements et, car ils modifient le microclimat des plantes et, par conséquent, rendement et qualité des baies. Aussi, tous les index étudiés précédentes (LAI, SA, SFEr) avaient tendance à surestimer la relation entre la surface foliaire exposée et la porosité de chaque traitement, mais l'utilisation de la méthode numérique s'est avérée pour être un outil efficace pour évaluer la porosité de la couvert végétal. Les résultats ont montré que les systèmes non positionnés et libres (système non positionnée) a marqué entre 25-50 porosité plus dans le domaine des grappes que le système vertical fixe (VSP), qui a donné lieu à un microclimat de meilleur plante pour les conditions de l'essai, principalement par l'amélioration de l'exposition des grappes internes et ventilation interne canopée. En revanche, plus charge de traitement (S2) ont montré qu'une réelle augmentation du rendement (16%) sans changement pertinent dans doit composition des moûts, même teneur en anthocyanes total amélioration en berry au cours du maturite. Key Words: sprawl, training system, porosity, canopy, grape composition. Mots –Clés: système non positionnée, systèmes de conduit, couvert végétal, porosité, composition des raisins . 633 INTRODUCTION The plant geometry and training system should be joined with a proper sunlight and temperature microclimate in the clusters area and, also in the rest of the plant (Spayd, et al. 2002). In warm and dry climates is required the use of porous systems that allow a better leaf distribution inside the plant, cause more space in the clusters area and enhance several physiological processes so in the leaf (photosynthesis, aeration, transpiration) as in berry (growth and maturation). Several authors have showed the relevance of 3D spatial measures to describe the architecture of leaf plant (Schultz 1995; Mabrouk, et al. 1997; Gladstone and Dokoozlian, 2003), for adequate canopy management and also, can estimate degree shading in clusters area (key factor in the berry ripening development). Digital image analysis are common used in vineyards to estimate crop coefficients or radiative balance models (Pieri, 2010). Porosity canopy measurement provides information on leaf surface distribution along the shoot and its spatial situation into plant air system or canopy volume (Gladstone and Dokoozlian, 2003). MATERIAL AND METHODS This field experiment was conduced over two consecutive seasons (2006 and 2007) into an experimental trial in Toledo (Spain), under a fine clay-sandy soil (Palexeralf, Soil Survey Staff, 2003) with a 50 cm depth clay superficial horizon (5055% of clay). The weather conditions were Mediterranean semiarid (Papadakis, 1966). The cultivar was Syrah grafted on 110R and spaced 1.2 m inside the NO-SW orientated rows and 2.7 m between rows. Irrigation system drippers (3·l h-1) were spaced 1.2 m along the planting line and the amount applied was equal for all treatments. Climatic conditions of 2006 and 2007 were significantly different being the 2006 a campaign extremely warm while 2007 did not. Differences can be observed mainly in growing degree day accumulated (2000 vs. 2525 GDD), rainfall (168 vs. 246 mm) and in evapotranspiration reference (1211.1 vs. 1064.6 mm; Eto) index too. Trial was designed with three treatments placed into four blocks at random and each experimental plot consists of 20 control plants separated by rows and vines edge. Three treatments studied, in order to assess the impact of training system and crop load, were: i) VSP1, Espaldera or vertical positioned system (VSP) with 12 shoots/m crop load, ii) S1, Sprawl with 12 shoots/m crop load and iii) S2, Sprawl with 18 shoots/m crop load. (50% crop load more than VSP1 and S1).Vines were spur pruned and trained to a bilateral cordon at a height of 1.40 m to the floor. The sprawl system had a single couple vegetation wires from 0.4 m to the basal wire and they opened 0.6 m between wires. VSP system had a couple wires from 0.3 m to the basal wire and a higher wire at 1.5 m to basal wire. At harvest, the value of incident photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) inside the canopy is usually low (about 10% of total ambient radiation). The degree of canopy density changes that percentage and there is a positive correlation among PAR, leaf area and density into clusters area (Dokoozlian and Kliewer, 1995). Sunlight, air ventilation within canopy, temperature cluster and microclime is affected by exposure and radiation percentage received during growth and maturation period. If the lighting inside clusters area decreases during berry state development, berries will produce less solutes accumulation and also, polyphenols and anthocyanins too (Dokoozlian and Kliewer, 1995). On the other hand, too much cluster lighting can cause excessive higher temperatures into cluster areas and produce degradation for these compounds (Spayd, et al. 2002). The measures of the total leaf area index (LAI; m2 leaf·area m-2 soil) were taken in accordance with a modification of the method described by Carbonneau (1976) according to Sánchez de Miguel et al., (2010). Five shoots were measured in two vines by treatment and block. Surface area (SA; m2 external foliar·m-2 surface soil) was calculated based on inner geometric parameters of each system. Five measures were taken at two different heights, in two vines by treatment and block. In VSP treatment, the area was likened to a parallelepiped and measures were taken from vegetation lateral wall (total vegetation height, basal vegetation zone and fruiting zone) and the width of vegetation row. For both sprawl system treatments were calculated by estimated perimeter with flexible tape and vectorial graphic design program (Cad 2008®) to calculate the circular section of plant wall along the row. Likewise, there are many factors which having important effects into plant microclimate and are related with training system, so that is the reason for comparing different training systems in this study. Sprawl is a porous training system with alternating spur-pruned uniform distribution along horizontal cordon that caused spacing clusters zone. VSP on the other hand, is a vertical, rigid positioning system that shoots and leaf area caused a linear clusters zone, usually closely spaced. Results show porosity differences among three treatments and will be compared and related with other typical canopies measures, such as leaf area index (L.A.I.), surface area (S.A.) or point quadrat method which are more complicated to take than a picture. On the other hand, surface exposed real (SFEr) was calculated such as Carbonneau (1995) described as 634 result of multiply radiation intercepted percentage by vegetation cover and total leaf area developed (LAI) by the plant. It took data from radiation throughout ripening in different day hours (8, 12 and 16 s.t.) for this variable calculated. related to the level of crop load left in the plant, and did not cause any increase in secondary leaf area between low load treatments (VSP1 and S1) compared to the higher load treatment (S2). Surface area exposed (Table 1) at maturity showed that sprawl treatments obtained higher values than VSP (10-30% compares to S treatments in 2006 and 2007 respectively in 2007) when the crop load effect made them open up the top vegetation centre. Spatial aerial parts distribution of the plant were measured by Point Quadrat (PQ) method described by Smart (1985) in the same vines that previous vegetation measures did. Real porosity percentages were calculated through processing tool photography program (Adobe Photoshop CS3 ®). Photographs were taken by night and with the only flash lighting from the digital camera (to well discriminate gaps from leaves). Pictures from vegetal wall were taken between two consecutive vines for each block (the same vines used for the geometric measures) and with a distance same as the width of between plant lines (2.7 m). However, the best indicator of the relationship between vegetation amount and surface porosity into the canopy is the ratio called surface real exposed (SFEr; Carbonneau, 1995). Results measured at 8, 12 and 16 s.t. reflect (Table 1) a greater exposure (during all day) of treatment S2 in relation to the other treatments, reaching much higher values compared to VSP (increase between 36.4% and 68.4%, P<0.001). S1 obtained intermediate values, so that it was clear, a combined effect between crop load and training system caused an increase of canopy plant volume, decreasing crowed vegetation cover and increasing leaf exposure (14-29%) of open systems versus rigid vertical positioning system. The division of the canopy in more vegetation planes can increase yield and crop quality (Bordelon et al. 2008), and also, the quality of wines. A reproductive yield study was done during harvest (30/08/2006 and 05/09/2007) in ten previously selected plants for each treatment and block. Cluster number, average cluster weight, average berry weight, berry number per cluster and yield (kg m-1) were calculated individually for each harvested plant. A digital field scale was used for experimental data measures. Also, at harvest a 100berry sample per single plot was collected to follow 100-berries weight (g), SST (ºBrix), pH and phenol maturity according to Glories (2001) method, so final values corresponded to harvest date of each year. These differences are very interesting in warm climates, where one of the main goals is not cause leaf and clusters overexposure in order to prevent premature senescence and berry overripening process respectively (de la Fuente, 2009). Increasing load and with a not positioned free exposure, the plant shows a higher overhead opening and exposed a higher number of leaves to solar radiation but during less time, because flow radiation unit per leaf is smaller, so senescence process is not caused easily. Also, total leaf area is more efficient because is working with a larger number of inner leaves than rigid vertical systems, where the number of leaves layers is usually minor, increasing the leaf exposure to solar radiation, but lowering the undesirable effect of premature senescence in basal leaves due to excessive heat. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Canopy measures In both years (Table I), total leaf area of greater crop load treatment (S2) was higher than the other two treatments with lesser load (VSP1 and S1) between 27-33% over all vegetative cycle, as was likely, emphasizing differences before stopping vegetative prior to ripening. There were not significant differences between treatments in relation to growth of secondary shoots. These Table I - Vegetative development (LAI, m2·m-2), surface area (SA, m2·m-2) and surface real exposed (SFEr) for three treatmets at harvest. Développement végétatif (LAI, m2·m-2), surface habitable (SA, m2·m-2) et real surface exposée (SFEr) pour trois treatmets à la récolte. LAI Treatment SA 2006 2007 SFEr 2006 2007 1.32 1.06b 1.33 Main Lateral Main Lateral VSP1 1.16b 0.63 1.28b S1 1.34b 0.68 1.40b 2006 2007 8 s.t. 12 s.t. 16 s.t. 8 s.t. 12 s.t. 16 s.t. 1.11b 0.47c 0.31c 0.41b 1.08b 1.03b 1.38 1.15b 1.26ab 0.83b 0.56b 1.12b 1.01b 0.74b 1.59 S2 2.00a 0.73 2.12a 1.24 1.50ª 1.31ª 1.15ª 0.98ª 1.23ª 1.78a 1.62a 1.65 EEM1 (n=8) 0.16 0.104 0.076 0.075 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 S ig2 * ns *** ns ** * *** *** *** *** *** ns differences show that total leaf area is directly Porosity 635 Aerial parts plant positional study by PQ showed lower vegetation density (Table II) in S treatments, with around 2 and 3 extra-layers more than VSP1. Several authors (Gladstone and Dokoozlian, 2003; Kliewer et al., 2000 and Vanden Heuvel et al., 2004) obtained values of the leaf layer number in previous trials and considered at appropriate values of LLN in cluster area between 1.5 to 2 for trellis and 3-4 for other open systems with high density. Data from trial treatments are within the optimal definition intervals (2-4 LLN) for each training systems calculated by previous researchers. The results of porosity by digital photography analysis (Table II) show how VSP treatment obtained lower values of porosity along all the vegetation cover. In the first 40 cm (clusters zone), S1 presented higher porosity thanVSP (48 and 19% for 2006 and 2007 respectively) with the same crop load. Also, load increase does not affect to system porosity, because S2 shows higher values in this area during 2006 (+38.6%, P<0.001) or similar (in 2007) compared to VSP1 treatment. But, that is a key question: Is there a reliable and fast method to calculate the porosity of a system? However, today it is still difficult to obtain an estimated method to calculate the real porosity value of a training system. The PQ method defines the number of Likewise, while there were a higher number of clusters in S treatments comparing with VSP system (differences among 1.0-1.7 and 0.8-1.6 in Table II - Point Quadrat and digital porosity estimation method for three treatmets during maturation period. Point Quadrat et méthode d'estimation de porosité numérique pour trois treatmets au cours de la période de maturation. Treatment VSP1 S1 S2 EEM1 (n=8) S ig 2 PQ 2006 PQ 2006 % Porosity Cluster Zone Vegetation Zone Cluster Zone Vegetation Zone 2006 2007 Gap Internal Internal Gap Internal Internal Leaf Leaf 0-40 40-70 70-100 0-40 40-70 70-100 fraction Clusters Lateral Leaves fraction Clusters Lateral Leaves layers layers cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. cm. (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) b b 2,20 15,00 77,90 2,20 7,50 2,7 26,4 65,6b 3,5b 44,5b 7,57b 20,17b 62,00b 5,67b 7,00b 23,75b 2,60 10,00 82,40 58,3ª 2,40 7,50 5,8ª 66,1ª 14,63ª 26,25ª 85,00a 7,00a 14,83ª 66,87ª 5,0a 81,0a 2,50 20,00 82,10 5,9ª 2,60 5,00 87,3ª 68,1ª 12,33a 16,20b 64,64b 4,87b 17,00a 78,25ª 60,0a 6,5a 0,23 4,5 0,5 0,41 2,01 0,22 1,8 0,56 0,31 1,53 0,88 1,15 6,73 0,17 1,81 6,3 ns ns ns *** *** ns ns ** ** ** *** ** * ** * ** 2006 and 2007 respectively, P<0.05), there were a higher percentage of clusters not subjected to direct radiation (24.9-19.0% more for S2 and S1 in 2007, P<0.01). Several autors obtained differences in porosity values between 30-10% compairing divided and not divided training systems (Kliewer et al., 2000; Gladstone and Dokoozlian, 2003; Bordelon et al., 2008). layers of leaves and the percentage of non-contacts (gaps) so directs porosity measurements, and like other often used parameters (LAI and SA), are indirect methods (less precise) and, moreover, certain measures may be overestimated and some system discontinuities are not consider. Therefore, porosity variations are priority to assess Table III - Yield partitioning and must composition in 2006 and 2007 growing seasons for three treatments at harvest. Composantes du rendement et moût en 2006 et 2007 pour les trois traitements à la récolte. Yield partitioning 2006 Treatment … 1 Nº Clusters·m -1 Yield (Kg·m-2) Yield partitioning 2007 Cluster 100 Berries Nº Nº -2 average average -1 -1 Yield (Kg·m ) weight (g) weight (g) berries·cluster Clusters·m Cluster average weight (g) 100 Berries Nº average -1 weight (g) berries·cluster VSP1 S1 S2 24.68 b 23.82 b 36.20 a 1.73 b 1.71 b 2.05 a 190.42 a 195.10 a 153.24 b 111.34 a 104.57 b 101.05 c 171.19 a 187.34 a 152.06 b 20.96 b 21.04 b 30.66 a 1.61 b 1.61 b 1.93 a 204.36 a 206.55 a 169.32 b 150.54 b 160.09 a 158.7 a 135.63 a 128.29 a 106.92 b EEM1 (n=40) 0.604 0.041 6.09 0.081 1.02 0.46 0.10 7.71 1.39 5.05 S ig2 ** ** ** ** ** *** *** ** *** *** Treatment ºBrix VSP1 S1 S2 EEM1 (n=8) 25.1 25.9 25.8 0.76 S ig2 ns Must Composition 2006 Antocian Total Antocian extractables pH IPT content (mg·L-1) (mg·L-1) 3.5 46.7 794.33 1470.35 b 3.5 54.7 936.95 1804.34 a 3.5 52.7 983.94 1903.30 a 0.02 2.54 76.94 81.28 ns ns ns * ºBrix pH 25.2 25.4 24.7 0.27 3.06 b 3.13 a 3.20 a 0.02 ns ** Must Composition 2007 Antocian Total Antocian extractables IPT content (mg·L-1) (mg·L-1) 45.8 931.0 1172.5 51.8 976.5 1228.5 47.7 861.0 1197.88 4.1 102.7 57.1 ns ns ns EEM: standard average error for n= 40 and 8 samples per yield and must composition respectively. 2 Sig: significant differences; ns, *, ** and *** means to there is no significant differences, P<0,05, P<0,01 and P<0,001 respectively. The values with the same letter are equal (T. Duncan). P-values were determined by analysis of variance. 636 a correct leaf area distribution in the plant. Results of digital photography shown that open systems get better porosity into cluster area between 25 and 50%.that improves the exposure of inner clusters and would enhance thermal effects such as lowering internal temperature due to increase ventilation into the canopy. Also, in training systems studies is not only important how many leaves layers have the canopy, but also the total volume occupied by them. With the PQ method is possible to estimate correctly the LLN, but not the percentage of gaps into the canopy, so this method should be only applied to compare values of porosity with the same training system, while the use of digital photography allow to study different training systems or vine areas or volumes and really estimate the canopy porosity inside the plant. training system, prevent the degradation of anthocyanins at the end of ripening. The effect of the load is less important than using open training systems, which increase phenolic and anthocyanic berry content modifying light and thermal microclimate through spatial distribution of vegetation and shading effects in the plant. CONCLUSIONS Double effect due to not positioned open system (sprawl) and crop load increment gave to the plant a higher leaf exposure and a lower vegetation density, which in hot or arid climates means a great microclimate of plant improvement. Digital photography is a simple, fast and effective tool to evaluate possible differences refers to porosity and leaf area exposure between training systems. It appears that porosity increase in sprawl treatments between 25-50% in cluster area compares to VSP and caused a better plant microclimate. Yield components, berry sampling and juice analysis During 2006 and 2007 reflected a main crop load effect was showed (Table III), where higher load treatment (S2) had an increment of 16% in yield than the others treatments. On the other hand, S2 showed an average bunch weight lower (from 17.0 to 22.5%) and reduced the number of berries (from 12 to 21%) per cluster, but it was equilibrated by a higher cluster number per vine (from 32 to 35%) and during 2007 with the same average berry weight (only in 2006 was lower, between 4.4 to 9.2%), caused by a higher crop load. Therefore, with an increment of load will get berry size decrease but berries number increase, which has direct effect in total yield and as same time, an increase in skin/flesh ratio during harvest. Finally, free and non-positioned systems can help to improve plant microclimate, influence positively on anthocyanic berry composition but do not change must composition and then allowing a yield increase if there is enough water availability in plant-soil system. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the effort of Osborne Distribuidora S.A. company for technical and financial support for the implementation of this project (MEC, IDI: P030260221). Also, D. Juan Dominguez Torre (REDISEÑA S.L.) for their invaluable and uninterested support by assistance in digital image analysis. Leaves and cluster microclimate are the key factor (Vanden Heuvel et al. 2004) for determinating the acidity contents, pH and K must and last, wine composition. Differences obtained during 2007 for acidity and pH values are not quantitatively significant (8-7%) and are probably due to a greater exposure to radiation clusters, which increases final pH (Bergqvist et al. 2001 and Spayd et al. 2002). Data from total and extractable anthocyanin (Table III) content reflect that there is an effect of increasing shading clusters area in the final berry synthesis of anthocyanins, which is very useful in winemaking process (Haselgrove et al. 2000). It should also be remembered that cv. Syrah is very sensitive to changes in thermal effects during total anthocyanins synthesis (Spayd et al. 2002). This effect causes differences in berry anthocyanins content, which are heavier in extremely hot conditions (2007), getting around 20% in open and not positioned free systems. REFERENCES Bergqvist J., Dokoozlian N., Ebusida N. 2001. Sunlight exposure temperature effects on berry growth and compositon of Cabernet-Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central San Joaquin Valley of California. Am.J.Enol. Vitic. 52(1). Bordelon B. P., Skinkis P. A., Howard P.H. 2008. Impact of training system on vine perfomance and fruit composition of Traminette. Am. J. enol. vitic 59(1), 39-46. Carbonneau A. 1995. La surface foliare exposée potentielle. Le progrès agricole et viticole 112(9), 204-212. de la Fuente M. 2009. Caracterización geométrica, ecofisiológica y evaluación agronómica de sistemas continuos de vegetación libre (SPRAWL) vs. espaldera para atenuar la sobreexposición de hojas de racimos en cv. syrah (Vitis vinifera L.) en viñedos de zonas cálidas. 301 p. Tesis doctoral. E.T.S.I.A. Producción Vegetal: Fitotecnia. Madrid. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid. Finally, crop load does not change must composition seriously, but it increase total plant yield (Junquera et al., 2009) becouse gives more clusters but less exposed to sunlight and with the Dokoozlian N., Kliewer W. M. 1995. The light environment within grapevine canopies. Am.J.Enol. Vitic. 46(2), 209-226. Gladstone E. A., Dokoozlian N. 2003. Influence of leaf area density and trellis/training system on the light microclimate within grapevine canopies. Vitis 42(3), 123-131. 637 Glories Y. 2001. Caracterisation du potentiel phènolique : adaptation de la vinification. Le Progrès Agricole et Viticole. 118 (15 -16) : 347 – 350. Pieri P. 2010. Modelling radiative balance in a row-crop canopy: Cross-row distribution of net radiation at the soil surface and energy available to clusters in a vineyard. Ecological Modelling, 221, 802–811. Haselgrove L., Bottinf D., Heeswijck R., Rod P.B., Dry P., Ford C., Illand P.G. 2000. Canopy microclimate and berry composition: the effect of bunch exposure on the phenolic composition od Vitis vinifera L. cv Shiraz grape berries. Aus. J. Grape and Wine Research 6: 141-149. Sánchez de Miguel P., Junquera P., de la Fuente M., Jiménez L., Linares R., Baeza P., Lissarrague J.R. 2011. Estimation of vineyard leaf area by linear regression. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 9(1): 202 - 212 Kliewer W. M., Wolpert J. A., Benz M. 2000. Trellis and vine spacing effects on growth, canopy microclimate, yield and fruit composition of Cabernet-Sauvignon. V International symposium on grapevine physiology, Jerusalem - Israel, ISHS.21-31. Schultz H. R. 1995. Grape canopy structure, light microclimate and photosynthesis I. A two dimensional model of the spatial distribution of surface area densities and leaf ages in two canopy systems. Vitis 34(4), 211-215. Junquera, P., Jiménez L., Sánchez de Miguel P., Lissarrague J.R. 2009. Effect of shoot number on vine balance and berry composition of Tempranillo grapevines. 16th International GiESCO Symposium, 2009. University of California, Davis (CA, USA). 419-424. Smart, R. E. 1985. Principles of grapevine canopy microclimate manipulation with implications for yield and quality. A review. Am.J.Enol. Vitic. 36(3), 230-239. Spayd S., Tarara J., Mee D.L., Fergurson 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(3), 171-182. Mabrouk H., Sinoquet H., Carbonneau A. 1997. Canopy structure and radiation regime in grapevine II: Modelling radiation interception and distribution inside the canopy. Vitis 36(3), 125-132. Vanden Heuvel J. E., Proctor J. T. A., Sullivan J.A., Fisher K.H. 2004. Influence of training/trellising system and rootstock selection on productivity and fruit composition of Chardonnay and Cabernet franc grapevines in Ontario, Canada. Am. J. Enol. Vitic 55(3): 253-264. 638