Research Article

Received: 4 March 2014 Revised: 14 May 2014 Accepted article published: 22 May 2014 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 16 June 2014

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.6748

Influence of viticulture practices on grape

aroma precursors and their relation
with wine aroma
Purificacion Hernandez-Orte,a* Belen Concejero,a Jesus Astrain,b
Blanca Lacau,b Juan Cachoa and Vicente Ferreiraa

Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of two different operations in the vineyard (basal leaf plucking and head trimming) on the synthesis of
aromatic precursors in the grape and their impact on wine aroma have been studied and compared with a control sample. The
study was carried out over two consecutive years with four different varieties. Glycosidic precursors were analysed in grapes
and volatile compounds were studied in the wines. ANOVA studies were performed to study the effect of the vintage, variety
and treatment for each of the compounds released from their precursors.

RESULTS: Regarding treatment, the highest values in the concentration of free aroma compounds were achieved in the leaf
plucking grapes, except for Chardonnay. Significant and positive correlations between aromatic precursors of terpenes present
in grapes and their released form in wines were found for all varieties. For norisoprenoids, significant and positive correlations
were exclusively found for Chardonnay and for phenols and vanillins in the year 2010 the correlations were high in three of the
four varieties studied.

CONCLUSION: In the assays of the 2 years, more precursors were synthesised in Merlot, Gewurztraminer and Tempranillo grapes
if the vineyards were plucked.
© 2014 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: aromatic precursors; grape; basal leaf plucking; head trimming; wine

INTRODUCTION clusters to the sunlight.15 – 17 Head trimming is the cutting of grow-

One of the most important factors in the quality of wine is the
aroma. The compounds which exert an effect on the aroma are
produced at different stages and by different biosynthetic path-
ways, and many factors are involved in their concentration.1 – 3
Compounds that contribute to wine aroma are found in free
or bound form.4 The latter are not odorant compounds that
release the aromatic molecules during fermentation or ageing.
Precursors include mercaptan compounds derived from cysteine
or glutathione5 – 8 and norisoprenoids, volatile phenols, lactones,
vanillins and terpenes linked to sugar molecules.4,9 – 12
Viticultural practices are known to influence secondary metabo-
lites. The first explanation is that the quality of the berries (i.e.
chemical composition and/or colouration of the fruits) is very sen-
sitive to the microclimate.13,14 Vineyards are subjected to a large
number of management practices including row orientation and
spacing, density, pruning, clipping, tilling, soil surface manage-
ment or manipulation of the canopy structure among others,
which lead to changes in the microclimate of the cluster.
There are many ways for canopy structure management: basal
leaf plucking is a viticulture practice used worldwide in order
to improve the microclimate of clusters. It is traditionally per-
formed with the main aims of improving bunch microclimate,
reducing grape rot (Botrytis cinerea and sour rot) and obtain-
688
ing shoot tips. The principal aim of this operation is to remove
non-photosynthetic leaves. Other benefits of this practice are
reducing transpiration, inducing the lignification of the plant, bal-
ancing the development of branches and increasing airflow and
insulation within the foliage.
Some authors have found that grapevine canopy management
(trimming and leaf removal) can induce modifications in grape
composition and quality.18 – 20 The relationship between canopy,
microclimate and secondary metabolites produced by the plant,
including aroma precursors and their linkage to wine flavour, are
not well known.21
The factors that influence the ripening process and consequently
grape composition and wine quality are related to climatic condi-
tions such as precipitation, temperature, wind and sun exposure.22
Glycosylated precursors are synthesised during ripening and their
∗ Correspondence to: Purificacion Hernandez-Orte, Laboratory for Flavour Anal-
ysis and Enology, Department of Analytical Chemistry, School of Sciences, Uni-
versity of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain. E-mail: puhernan@unizar.es
a Laboratory for Flavour Analysis and Enology, Department of Analytical Chem-
istry, School of Sciences, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
b Bodega Pirineos, Carretera de Barbastro, Km 3.500, 22300 Barbastro, Huesca,

ing better ripening, as this practice improves the exposure of Spain

J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 www.soci.org © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma
concentration is influenced by environmental and agricultural
factors.23 The effect of the exposure of bunches of grapes to the
sun on their composition is complex. Heat and radiation form the
sun can influence the rate of metabolic reactions and can also
cause stress.24 In particular, according to Bureau et al.25 and Belan-
cic et al.,26 sun exposure plays an important role in the variations of
the volatile composition of grapes. It has been reported that high
levels of terpene precursors are produced in over-ripe grape.27
Although their proportion is not directly related to the
organoleptic properties of the grapes, the concentration of
glycosylated compounds in grapes could be an indicator of their
aromatic potential. To date there have been few studies focused
on the effect of environment28 or vine water status29 on the
synthesis of glycosidic aroma precursors.
It has been found that exposure of grapes to the sun can
lead to an increase in the concentration of both free and bound
terpenes.30,31 Zoecklein et al.21 found that the removal of leaves in
the fruit zone increases the concentration of total and phenol-free
glycosides versus control in Riesling and Chardonnay grapevines.
Furthermore, Reynolds et al.32 found that wines obtained from
defoliated grapes present higher fruity notes according to wine
tasters.
Regarding the effect of water, the results are contradictory.
McCarthy and Coombe33 found a significantly lower rate of
accumulation of terpene precursors in ripening Riesling grapes
under irrigation while Escalona et al.29 found positive correlations
between irrigation and aroma potential at harvest in Tempranillo
grapes. Others authors, such as Koundouras et al.,34 found that a
limited availability of water in the plant promotes the synthesis of
precursors in Agiorgitiko grapes.
Most studies found that the total content of glycosides depends
on the vintage, and that there are substantial year-to-year varia-
tions in the potential aroma of grapes. Comparing the sum of gly-
cosides in the main groups of aroma compounds in different years,
it is seen that norisoprenoids, terpenes and volatile phenols are
particularly affected.34
The aim of this paper is to study the effect that different vine-
yard treatments have on the synthesis of glycosidic precursors and
their influence on wine aroma. The plant has been head trimmed
to reduce the young energy-user leaves and left only photosyn-
thetically active leaves, these being the adult ones which need less
water. On the other hand, basal leaf plucking has also been used
in order to understand the behaviour of the plant with the clusters
totally exposed to sunshine. Most researchers have focused on the
terpene fraction in varieties such as Muscat and on norisoprenoid
concentration, while few studies have focused on volatile phenols,
lactones, vanillins and C6 alcohols that are also precursors of grape
varieties considered to be aromatically neutral.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Reagents and standards
The aroma standards were supplied by Aldrich (Gillingham, UK),
Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland), Sigma (St. Louis, MO, USA), Lancaster
(Strasbourg, France), PolyScience (Niles, IL, USA), Chemservice
(West Chester, PA, USA), Interchim (Monluçon, France), Interna-
tional Express Service (Allauch, France) and Firmenich (Geneva,
Switzerland). LiChrolut EN resins (styrene–divinylbenzene) and
polypropylene cartridges were obtained from Merck (Darmstadt,
Germany). Dichloromethane and methanol of LiChrosolv quality
were obtained from Merck while absolute ethanol and ammonium
sulfate were obtained from Panreac (Barcelona, Spain), all of ARG
J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
quality. Pure water was obtained from a Milli-Q purification system
(Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA). Semi-automated solid phase extrac-
tion (SPE) was carried out with a VAC ELUT 20 station supplied by
Varian (Walnut Creek, CA, USA).
Samples, plant material and experimental design
The experiment was carried out in years 2010 and 2011. Samples
of four varieties [Tempranillo (TE), Merlot (ME), Gewurztraminer
(GW) and Chardonnay (CH)] were taken at four different vineyards
located in the Somontano D.O. (Spain).
In all four vineyards, four lines were marked. In each line, vine
plants were divided into groups of six. The first six plants were left
plucking, the next six were head trimming and the other six were
maintained as control. In each line this distribution was made in
duplicate.
Basal leaf removal and head trimming were carried out in the
four lines. The basal leaf removal was performed once at the
beginning of pea size stage (between 31 May and 8 June). This was
manually performed on both sides of the plant, approximately four
leaves in each cane, leaving all clusters fully exposed (defoliating
about the first four internodes).
Head trimming began when the plant had shoots with more
than nine leaves up to the ninth internodes and was repeated sev-
eral times depending on the growth of the vine plant, always up to
the ninth internodes. This operation was performed mechanically
with a hedge trimmer machine, both apically and laterally on both
sides.
In both years, 2010 and 2011, vines were trimmed three times
between the 15 May and 15 June for the two white varieties (CH,
GW). For the two red varieties (TE, ME) only two trimmings were
carried out in the first half of June.
For each variety (GW, CH, TE, ME) and treatment (leaf plucking,
head trimming and control) samples of at least 500 berries of
grapes were randomly collected in triplicate. The grapes were
transported to the winery and frozen at −20 ∘ C until analysis.
Grapes were harvested at their optimum maturity time. The
ripeness degree of grapes was evaluated with the Dyostem
machine (Vivelys, France). The Dyostem System measures sugar
loading of grapes over time, which helps to assess the maturity
kinetics of the vines and its berry profile. It indicates the picking
date according to the desired wine profile, and allows creating a
more consistent year after year wine profile. All the experiments of
the same grape variety were harvested on the same day (Table 1).
All the grape fruit of each treatment were microvinificated. Dur-
ing the maturity control, each viticulture practice zone was sepa-
rated in three areas in order to sample in triplicated. Then only one
microvinification was performed from the grapes harvested from
the same zone of viticultural practice, approximately 80–90 kg per
zone. The harvesting was carried out manually and the fruit was
packed in 20-kg boxes. The stemming and crushing was performed
with special equipment for small volumes.
For Tempranillo and Merlot wines before the addition of yeasts,
10 g hL−1 metabisulfite and 2 g hL−1 of Fruit LAFASE enzyme from
Laffort (Errenteria, Spain) were added to the grapes. The two
varieties were fermented with RX-60 yeast (Laffort) and 2 g hL−1
of organic nutrient Nutriferm Energy (Sepsa-Enartis, Vilafranca del
Penedes, Spain) were added.
For Chardonnay and Gewürztraminer, before pressing the
grapes were treated with 50 mg L−1 of sulfur dioxide and 1 m
hL−1 Endozym enzyme (AEB Éclair, Brescia, Italy). Both varieties
were fermented with yeast ES-181 (Sepsa-Enartis) and 2 g hL−1
689
of organic nutrient Nutriferm Energy (Sepsa-Enartis) were added
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org P Hernandez-Orte et al.

Table 1. Oenological parameters: variety [Chardonnay (CH), Gewurztraminer (GW), Merlot (ME), Tempranillo (TE)]; vintage [2010 (10) or 2011 (11)]
and treatment [leaf plucking (D), head trimming (P) and control (C)]

Sugar Potential alcohol Total acidity Malic acid Tartaric acid

Variety Vintage date (g L−1 ) (%vol) (g H2 SO4 L−1 ) pH (g L−1 ) (g L−1 )

CH10C 26 Aug 2010 238 14.1 4.9 3.27 1.3 10.2

CH10D 26 Aug 2010 238 14.1 4.9 3.32 1.3 10.1
CH10P 26 Aug 2010 235 14.0 5,0 3.27 1.4 10.9
CH11C 19 Aug 2011 233 13.8 5.5 3.36 1.8 10.7
CH11D 19 Aug 2011 234 13.9 5.7 3.30 1.4 11.2
CH11P 19 Aug 2011 228 13.5 5.8 3.32 1.7 11.1
GW10C 31 Aug 2010 229 13.6 3.4 3.58 1.3 7.7
GW10D 31 Aug 2010 223 13.3 3.4 3.53 1.3 8,0
GW10P 31 Aug 2010 221 13.1 3.7 3.53 1.9 8.3
GW11C 26 Aug 2011 281 16.7 4.1 3.60 0.6 10.9
GW11D 26 Aug 2011 277 16.5 4.0 3.50 0.5 10.4
GW11P 26 Aug 2011 272 16.2 4.3 3.50 0.7 10.5
ME10C 31 Aug 2010 209 12.4 5.4 3.23 0.4 12.4
ME10D 31 Aug 2010 205 12.2 5.7 3.15 0.1 13.2
ME10P 31 Aug 2010 193 11.5 6.0 3.08 0.5 13.7
ME11C 30 Aug 2011 237 14.1 4.7 3.40 0.4 9.9
ME11D 30 Aug 2011 227 13.5 4.9 3.30 0.8 10.3
ME11P 30 Aug 2011 227 13.5 4.8 3.36 0.7 9.6
TE10C 09 Sept 2010 225 13.4 3.2 3.36 1.1 7.5
TE10D 09 Sept 2010 233 13.8 3.2 3.38 1.1 7.9
TE10P 09 Sept 2010 198 11.8 3.8 3.26 1.7 7.7
TE11C 26 Aug 2011 259 15.4 4.2 3.41 1.7 9.5
TE11D 26 Aug 2011 246 14.6 4.3 3.33 1.6 9.6
TE11P 26 Aug 2011 255 15.2 4.1 3.37 1.7 9.2

too. The fermentation temperature was 18 ∘ C for the white vari-
eties and 25 ∘ C for the red ones. The strains were added in a
concentration of 20 g hL−1 .
One racking was made in order to clean the wine and then wait-
ing until malolactic fermentation take place. After that, another
racking was performed and the addition of 5 g hL−1 of sulfur diox-
ide.
The wine was maintained in the tank for some weeks to stabilise
it, making controls of free SO2 , and once the wine was stabilised
and corrected to 30 mg L−1 of free SO2 , it was bottled.
Climatic conditions
Barbastro has a Mediterranean climate. Figure 1 shows average
temperatures and rainfall of years 2010 and 2011. The average
temperatures, as Fig. 1 shows, have been lower than 30 ∘ C. The
maximum temperature reached was lower than 37 ∘ C. In 2010,
rainfall of 506 L m−2 occurred, while in 2011, only 375 L m−2 was
noted. In 2010, the vegetative cycle had a delay of 10 days,
therefore it was a late harvest. In 2011 the weather was dry and
the harvest was earlier.
Chemical quantitative analysis
General oenological parameters
Methods of analysis for general parameters were according to the
Office International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV, 1990).
Analysis of glycosidic precursors in grapes
The methodology used to extract the glycosidic precursors in
690
purpose, 100 g of previously unfrozen grapes were weighed,
crushed and centrifuged. The must obtained was passed through
cartridges of previously conditioned Lichrolut EN. When the must
was loaded, the cartridges were washed with water and dried, after
which dichloromethane was passed through them to remove free
grape flavours. Retained precursors were eluted with a mixture of
ethyl acetate–methanol (9:1). The eluate was then placed in a roto-
vap where the solvent was removed. The residue obtained was
redissolved in 10 mL of buffer at pH 2.5 containing 10% ethanol.
The solution was heated in a furnace at 100 ∘ C for 4 h while acid
hydrolysis occurred rapidly. After this time, the solution was cooled
in an ice bath. The aromas released were analysed following the
protocol optimised by Loscos et al.35 consisting of SPE isolation
and quantification by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry
(GC-MS). Following this protocol, terpenes, norisoprenoids, volatile
phenols, vanillins, benzenoid compounds and other compounds
are determined simultaneously.
Determination of minor compounds in wines
Minor compounds were determined by using GC–ion trap–MS
analysis, which was carried out using the method proposed and
validated by López et al.36 with the following changes to the
previous procedure: standard SPE cartridges (1 mL total volume)
filled with 200 mg of LiChrolut EN resins were placed in the vac-
uum manifold extraction system and the sorbent was condi-
tioned by rinsing the cartridges with 4 mL of dichloromethane,
4 mL of methanol and, finally, with 4 mL of a water–ethanol mix-
ture (12%, v/v). The cartridges were then loaded with 50 mL
of wine sample and 26 𝜇L of a surrogate standards solution

grapes follows the protocol developed by Loscos et al.35 For this (recovery standard) containing 3-octanone, 𝛽-damascone and

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma
Figure 1. Temperature and rainfall from April to September in Barbastro
(Spain) during the years 2010 and 2011.
heptanoic acid (all at 200 μg g−1 of ethanol). This mixture was
passed through the SPE cartridges (2 mL min−1 ), followed by a
wash step using 5 mL of 30% water–methanol, 1% NaHCO3 solu-
tion. The resins were then dried by allowing air to pass through
them (negative pressure of 0.6 bar, 10 min). Analytes were recov-
ered in a 2 mL vial by elution with 1.6 mL of dichloromethane.
Thirty-four microlitres of an internal standard solution (300 mg L−1
of 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone and 2-octanol) was added to
the eluted sample. The extract was then analysed by GC with ion
trap MS detection. A GC-450 gas chromatograph fitted to a Varian
Saturn 2200 ion trap MS was used. Chromatographic analyses were
performed under the conditions described by Lopez et al.36
Sensory analysis
Triangle tests were carried out with the 2011 wines37 in order
to determine if the different vineyard treatments influence sig-
nificantly on the obtained wines. The test panel was composed
of 14 subjects (10 women and four men, ranging from 25 to 60
years of age) who participated regularly in sensory tests. In all
tests, samples (20 mL, 20 ∘ C) were presented in a random order
in coded black tulip-shaped wine glasses covered with a Petri
dish. The samples used for the test were control/leaf-plucked;
control/head-trimmed and leaf-plucked/head-trimmed for each of
the varieties. Three cups were presented to each judge, who had
to decide which sample was different from the two others based
on its aroma. The number of correct answers was compared with
tabulated values to decide if any significant differences existed as
a result of the treatments in the vineyard.
J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 15.0 from
SPSS Inc. (Chicago, IL, USA). A three-factor ANOVA analysis (treat-
ment × vintage × variety) was performed on all the analytical data
of the grapes. The interaction between the three factors was also
evaluated. One-way ANOVA were also carried out for evaluating
differences in treatments. The results presented in this article will
focus on the treatment factor. For the wines for which replicates
were not available, no ANOVA was calculated. Principal compo-
nent analysis of the wines was carried out using Unscramble ver-
sion 9.7 from Camo (Oslo, Norway).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Grapes
The enological parameters of the must used in the study are
shown in Table 1. Within each variety the differences found in
must composition for the different treatments in the same vintage
for acidity, pH, malic acid and sugars are low (in the absence of
replicates, no significance studies have been done).
However, if the two vintages are compared, it could be observed
that in 2011 samples the sugar concentration was higher than
in 2010 samples for all varieties, except for Chardonnay, which
reached similar concentrations both years. Acidity and pH were
higher in 2011 for all varieties except for Merlot or Gewurztraminer
respectively, which was the opposite.
To study the influence of the treatments on the synthesis of gly-
cosidic precursors, one-factor ANOVAs were carried out comparing
the control, trimmed and leaf-plucked samples for each year and
for each variety. The results are shown in Tables 2 to 5. Each table
shows the concentrations of aroma compounds released from
their glycosidic precursors separated by vintages and varieties.
For the Chardonnay variety (Table 2), the results obtained for
each year are very different. In 2010 significant differences were
found for exclusively 𝛿-terpineol and neric acid, while in 2011
there were 26 compounds with P < 0.05. In 2011 the total amount
of terpenes, norisoprenoids, vanillins and volatile phenols (in the
compounds with P < 0.05) was higher in leaf plucked grapes,
except for 𝛽-damascenone, 4-allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol and
2-phenoxy-ethanol, which presented higher concentrations in
head trimming grapes.
For Gewüztraminer grapes (Table 3), both in years 2010 and
2011, the total amount of terpenes and norisoprenoids was
higher in leaf-plucked grapes and, except for linalool in 2010, in
compounds with P < 0.05 the concentration was higher in the
leaf-plucked grapes. For the volatile phenols, vanillins and ben-
zene derivatives no patterns were found. This depended on the
year. In this variety in 2010, there were 20 compounds with
P < 0.05, while in 2011 only 12 compounds were significantly dif-
ferent between treatments, especially for the groups of terpenes
and norisoprenoids in both years.
If the two white varieties (CH, GW) are compared it can be
seen that the concentration of terpenes is much higher in Gewuz-
traminer grapes while the opposite is true of the norisoprenoids,
especially in 2010.
The hexenols varied depending on the isomer and the year.
In 2011, (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol was higher in leaf-plucked grapes for
white varieties and the (E)-2-hexen-1-ol was higher in control
grapes in the two varieties, except for Chardonnay 2010 in which
it was higher in trimmed grapes. Several authors38,39 have found a
691
lower vegetative character in wines made from grapes which had
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org P Hernandez-Orte et al.

Table 2. Mean concentration of the aromatic compounds (μg L−1 ) released from glycosidic precursors found in Chardonnay (CH) grapes during 2010
and 2011 for the different treatments [leaf plucking (D), Head trimming (P) and control (C)]

Compound CH10C CH10D CH10P CH11C CH11D CH11P

𝛼-Terpinolene ND ND ND 0.15b 0.37a 0.10b

(Z)-Rose oxide ND 0.71 0.71 0.06 0.06 0.06
(Z)-Linalool oxide 10.3 27.1 40.7 6.15 7.06 6.03
(E)-Linalool oxide 7.04 18.3 24.5 4.70 4.84 4.52
Linalool 0.26 0.35 0.36 ND ND ND
𝛼-Terpineol 0.80 8.08 8.46 1.88b 4.65a 1.59b
Geraniol 2.80 3.14 5.02 1.97 1.98 2.02
Linalyl acetate* 1.01 6.14 7.76 ND ND ND
𝛿-Terpineol* 0.80b 4.94a 6.23ab 3.70b 6.74a 3.60b
Neric acid 9.92b 22.8a 22.6ab 22.5b 42.2a 21.4b
Total terpenes 33.0 91.6 116 41.1b 67.9a 39.3b
𝛽-Damascenone 0.99 5.04 8.96 22.2ab 18.1b 22.6a
𝛽-Ionone 0.02 0.06 0.12 ND ND ND
Vitispirane A* ND 5.20 6.50 7.56b 9.38a 7.07b
Vitispirane B* ND 7.65 10.0 7.99b 9.87a 7.35b
Riesling acetal* ND ND ND 0.39b 0.49a 0.36b
TDN* ND 27.3 31.8 37.8b 56.2a 38.8b
TPB* 3.55 15.1 9.88 29.4b 39.4a 25.9b
3-Oxo-𝛽-ionone 11.1 42.8 50.2 64.3b 89.3a 68.8b
Actinidols* 15.2 57.3 67.4 86.1b 117a 91.0b
Norisoprenoid 1* 0.89 13.9 17.3 21.7b 30.4a 23.0b
3-Oxo-𝛼-ionol 20.0 10.1 8.77 0.50b ND 4.43
Total norisoprenoids 51.8 184 211 278b 370a 289b
Guaiacol ND ND ND 0.19 0.20 0.19
Eugenol 2.36 2.24 2.96 1.33 1.31 1.29
4-Ethylphenol 24.9 36.8 40.0 NDb 0.72a 0.59a
4-Ethylguaiacol 81.3 126 163 42.6ab 49.1a 34.5b
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol ND ND ND 0.13 0.14 0.13
(E)-Isoeugenol 1.48 2.38 ND 0.27b 0.42a 0.27b
4-Vinylphenol 46.1 100 106 17.8 16.0 14.0
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 19.1 12.3 14.0 5.43a 4.27b 5.55a
Total volatile phenols 175 280 326 68.1 72.2 56.7
Vanillin 1.61 6.64 10.4 0.95 1.18 1.05
Methyl vanillate 4.04 2.93 3.81 1.51 1.50 1.48
Ethyl vanillate 0.13 0.15 ND ND ND ND
Acetovanillone 3.59 3.42 3.93 0.68b 1.03a 0.73b
Zingerone 1.50 1.63 1.24 0.45b 1.04a 0.46b
Syringaldehyde 2.63 40.0 69.4 2.88b 4.21a 4.30a
Acetosyringone 2.40 2.93 2.59 0.39b 1.06a 0.43b
Total vanillin 15.9 57.8 91.4 6.86b 10.0a 8.46b
Benzaldehyde 0.63 1.20 1.68 0.50 0.49 0.51
Phenylacetaldehyde 1.84 7.28 9.91 5.78a 3.65b 4.52ab
Benzyl alcohol 31.7 28.4 43.3 13.4a 11.7ab 9.61b
𝛽-Phenylethanol 20.9 19.9 33.1 11.9a 10.5ab 8.87b
2-Phenoxyethanol ND ND ND 0.37b 0.37b 0.67a
Benzoic acid 7.87 7.44 8.46 3.02 3.24 3.23
Dihydromethyleugenol* 24.1 15.5 ND 1.35 1.34 1.35
Total benzenes 87.2 79.9 96.8 36.4a 31.4ab 28.7b
(E)-Whiskylactone ND ND ND 0.35 ND ND
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol ND ND ND 0.54a 0.56a 0.48b
(E)-2-Hexen-1-ol 1.79 3.44 5.31 1.11 0.54 0.38
Ethyl decaonate ND ND ND 2.02 2.01 2.02
3-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 0.38 0.39 0.41
2-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 1.12 1.18 1.34
2-Ethyl hexanoic acid ND ND ND 1.10 1.19 1.11
Pantolactone* ND ND ND 4.34 4.30 4.65
* Relative areas (to 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone × 1000) of the volatile compounds for which pure references were not available. Rest of the data
in μg L−1 .
For each vintage, means with different letters (a,b,c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA comparing the concentrations of the
compounds found in control grapes, leaf plucking and head trimming.
TDN, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; TPB, t-1-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-1,3-diene; ND, not detected.
692

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma www.soci.org

Table 3. Mean concentration of the aromatic compounds (μg L−1 ) released from glycosidic precursors found in Gewurztraminer (GW) grapes during
2010 and 2011 for the different treatments (leaf plucking (D), Head trimming (P) and control (C))

Compound GW10C GW10D GW10P GW11C GW11D GW11P

𝛼-Terpinolene ND ND ND 15.6 17.7 13.6

(Z)-Rose oxide 0.75a 0.78a 0.57b 1.43 1.43 1.22
(Z)-Linalool oxide 4.51b 6.42a 6.86a 43.2 41.1 40.2
(E)-Linalool oxide 0.83b 1.02a 0.66c 44.0 41.8 41.5
Linalool 4.82c 7.05b 9.09a 10.7ab 13.0a 9.98b
𝛼-Terpineol 33.1a 36.6a 27.0b 75.8 81.3 111
Geraniol 3.64 4.02 4.23 6.34 8.13 6.59
Linalyl acetate* ND ND ND 1.49c 8.49a 6.63b
Terpinen-4-ol 13.7 18.5 14.8 ND ND ND
𝛿-Terpineol* 83.4 105.6 77.8 ND ND ND
Neric acid 84.7 54.9 68.7 152 162 140
Total terpenes 229 235 209 350 375 372
𝛽-Damascenone 14.2a 12.1a 8.68b 15.0 15.2 16.7
Vitispirane A* 8.25 9.42 8.82 11.5 12.4 10.8
Vitispirane B* 10.5 11.4 10.8 14.1 14.8 13.7
Riesling acetal* ND ND ND 0.57b 1.24a 1.02a
TDN* 23.9b 37.6a 22.4b 30.1b 42.4a 32.4ab
TPB* 7.46 8.37 6.70 11.3b 18.2a 13.5b
3-Oxo-𝛽-ionone 29.3b 41.6a 35.2ab 29.9b 49.8a 36.0b
Actinidols* 39.9b 56.2a 46.4b 40.4b 67.2a 48.6b
Norisoprenoid 1* 6.38b 9.79a 6.70b 7.52b 11.8a 8.51b
Total norisoprenoids 140b 186a 145b 160b 233a 181b
Guaiacol 0.19ab 0.21a 0.18b 0.34 0.37 0.37
4-Ethylguaiacol ND ND ND 0.72 0.87 0.90
Eugenol ND ND ND 1.57 1.61 1.70
4-Ethylphenol 1.08 1.13 1.00 8.85 8.24 7.20
4-Vinylguaiacol 74.1 73.3 54.0 148a 54.0b 38.1b
(E)-Isoeugenol 0.36 0.32 0.33 0.67 0.72 0.73
4-Vinylphenol 3.45a 2.69b 1.91c 12.4 20.1 15.1
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 2.89 3.45 3.52 4.08 4.61 5.22
Total volatile phenols 82.0 81.2 61.1 177a 90.6b 69.4b
Vanillin 0.69b 0.79a 0.65b 1.50 1.62 1.75
Methyl vanillate 2.07ab 2.33a 1.64b 4.23 4.15 4.60
Ethyl vanillate ND ND ND 0.07 0.13 0.11
Acetovanillone 1.33a 1.28a 0.81b 2.53 2.82 3.15
Zingerone 2.10ab 2.26a 1.53b 2.77 3.35 3.46
Syringaldehyde 2.21b 3.95a 2.28b 4.64b 5.26b 7.80a
Acetosyringone 1.19 0.97 1.05 1.35 1.63 2.12
Total vanillin 9.60ab 11.5a 7.96b 17.0 18.9 22.9
Benzaldehyde ND ND ND 0.20 0.41 0.37
Benzyl alcohol 3.97a 3.25a 2.29b 7.30 6.49 7.97
𝛽-Phenylethanol 2.05a 2.13a 1.37b 4.68 4.54 4.94
Benzoic acid 2.02 2.12 2.15 2.76 2.91 2.89
Total benzenes 8.05a 7.50a 5.81b 14.9 14.3 16.1
(E)-Whiskylactone 3.82 4.57 4.58 ND ND ND
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol 2.61 2.77 2.93 3.62 4.31 3.61
(E)-2-Hexen-1-ol 2.52a 2.38ab 1.90b 0.39 0.33 0.36
Ethyl decanonate ND ND ND 2.03b 2.03b 2.06a
3-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 0.40a NDb 0.41a
2-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 1.07 1.08 1.06
2-Ethyl hexanoic acid ND ND ND ND ND ND
Pantolactone* 2.03 1.96 2.38 3.83 3.74 4.16

*Relative areas (to 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone × 1000) of the volatile compounds for which pure references were not available. Rest of the data
in μg L−1 .
For each vintage, means with different letters (a,b,c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA comparing the concentrations of the
compounds found in control grapes, leaf plucking and head trimming.
TDN, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; TPB, t-1-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-1,3-diene; ND, not detected.
693

J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org
undergone leaf plucking around the clusters. The data found may
explain some of these results.
For the red varieties Merlot and Tempranillo, the effect of
the treatments applied is very similar. The sum of terpenes,
norisoprenoids, and benzene derivatives was higher in the basal
leaf-plucked grapes in both years (Table 4 and Table 5).
The sum of vanillins, except in 2011 for Tempranillo grapes, was
also higher (P < 0.05) in the leaf-plucked grapes. For volatile phe-
nols, the same pattern occurred as in the white varieties, depend-
ing on the year and variety. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the com-
pounds with significant differences in most cases present higher
concentrations in leaf-plucked grapes as well as the compounds
without significant differences. The concentration of terpenes in
the red varieties is significantly lower than in the white varieties.
In the 2 years of the study, the group of compounds showing the
most significant difference is the norisoprenoid group for the two
red varieties (more than 50% of the compounds have a P < 0.05).
The remaining groups are less significant (only 17 and 18 for Tem-
pranillo grapes (Table 4) and 13 and 19 for each Merlot (Table 5)
in the years 2010 and 2011, respectively). Zoecklein et al.21 deter-
mined the concentration of total glycosides in grapes from vines in
which a part of the leaves had been plucked and compared them
with those from an untreated control. They found that the concen-
tration of total glycosidic precursors in grapes was higher when
leaves had been plucked in the two studied varieties, Riesling and
Chardonnay.
As for volatile phenols, we see that in the two red varieties
(Tempranillo and Merlot) in 2011 much higher concentrations of
these compounds were reached (multiplied by a factor of 3.4)
Overall, for the red varieties leaf-plucked operation produced
higher concentrations of the compounds released from their pre-
cursors in both years. As other authors have found,40 an increase
in the exposure of bunches to the sun promotes the synthesis of
glycosidic precursors. Most researchers have worked only with the
precursors of terpenes and norisoprenoids, especially in white vari-
eties. In this paper we also present data for red varieties, and the
results are generally consistent with those found by other authors
for white varieties.31,41
To analyse the influence the different factors on the synthesis
of precursors, a three-way ANOVA study was performed (factors:
vintage, variety and treatment). Most of the compounds (Table 6)
showed significant differences (P < 0.05) for the vintage factor (of
the 52 compounds released, only six were not significantly differ-
ent: 𝛽-ionone, t-isoeugenol, 4-allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol, vanillin,
syringaldehyde and benzoic acid). Likewise the ANOVA results
based on the variety indicated that only five compounds showed
no significant differences (𝛼-terpinolene, 𝛼-terpineol, 𝛿-terpineol,
neric acid and 4-ethylguaiacol).
Finally, the analysis according to the treatment showed that less
than 50% of the compounds had significant differences. Therefore,
vintage and variety were responsible for more differences in the
synthesis of precursors than the basal leaf plucking or head trim-
ming treatments.
In addition, the interaction between the three factors was stud-
ied (Table 6). In 41 of the 52 compounds analysed, an interaction
occurred between the year and the variety. In 14 compounds
there was interaction between the vintage and the treatment
and in 22 between the treatment and the variety. This indicates
the great influence of the vintage and variety on the synthesis of
precursors. These interactions indicate that the factors analysed
694
are interdependent and therefore the synthesis is affected by all
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
P Hernandez-Orte et al.
factors simultaneously. As showed in Table 6, the number of com-
pounds that are affected by the interaction between vintage and
variety is twice higher than the ones affected by the interaction
between variety and treatment, and three times higher than the
ones affected by the interaction vintage and treatment. Thus,
the vintage seems to significantly influence the presence of most
of the compounds studied and significantly interacts with the
compounds produced by the different varieties.
Wines
Microvinification assays were performed on grapes produced from
each block of plants (head-trimmed, leaf-plucking, control). Table 7
and Table 8 show the aroma compounds for both the white (GW,
CH) and red wines (TE, ME), respectively.
The terpenes reached higher total concentrations in wines from
Gewüztraminer and Chardonnay grapes which had undergone
leaf-plucking treatment, while for red wines higher total con-
centrations were found in the control wines, except for Merlot
in 2011 in which there were more terpenes in wines coming
from head-trimmed grapes. The sum of concentrations of noriso-
prenoids was also higher in the white wines made from grapes
treated by leaf-plucking except for Chardonnay in 2010 in which
the sum of concentration is higher in the control sample. In the red
wines, the variations in sum of concentration are small and do not
follow a clear trend. Volatile phenols have higher sum of concen-
trations in red wines made from head-trimmed grapes while for
white wines the sum of concentrations depend on the year and
the variety, as in the case of the grapes. The amount of volatile
phenols is much higher for 2011 than 2010 for both treatments.
Finally, vanillins have higher sum of concentrations in white wines
obtained from leaf-plucked grapes except for Chardonnay 2011. In
the red wines, the sums of concentrations depend on the year and
variety.
Principal component analysis was performed using concentra-
tions (μg L−1 ) of aroma compounds (Tables 7 and 8) analysed in
the 24 wines under study. Figure 2 shows the first two principal
components, which accounted for 62% of initial sample variability.
Component 1 accounted for 46% of the total variance and showed
the potential to discriminate between white wine and red wine
varieties.
White wines have positive while red wines have negative PC1. On
the other hand, PC2 differentiated more in function of the vintage
than the variety. We can see that most of the 2011 samples have
positive PC2, while the PC2 for 2010 is negative. As in the case of
the grapes, this graph (Fig. 2) indicates that the factors determining
the rankings are the vintage and variety, while the influence of the
treatment is much lower.
Finally, the correlation was studied between the groups of aro-
mas found as precursors in grapes and the same groups found in
wines. It was calculated as the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) of
the line formed when we represented the concentration of the dif-
ferent groups of compounds found in wines (D, P, C) at the end of
alcoholic fermentation versus the sum of the same groups of com-
pounds found in the grapes (average value of the three replicates
of each treatment).
The results are shown in Table 9. High correlations of norisor-
prenoids have been found for the 2 years of study for Chardon-
nay only. For the other groups of compounds, the correlations
depend on the year. Terpenes have high correlations for most
varieties in the 2 years of study. Correlations above 0.9 were
found for volatile phenols and vanillins in 2010 in most wines,
while in 2011 the correlations are very bad. A hypothesis to
J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma www.soci.org

Table 4. Mean concentration of the aromatic compounds (μg L−1 ) released from glycosidic precursors found in Tempranillo (TE) grapes during 2010
and 2011 for the different treatments (leaf plucking (D), head trimming (P) and control (C))

Compound TE10C TE10D TE10P TE11C TE11D TE11P

𝛼-Terpinolene ND ND ND 0.09 0.10 0.10

(Z)-Rose oxide 0.02b 0.02a 0.02c 0.04 0.03 0.03
(Z)-Linalool oxide 1.72a 1.81a 1.30b 3.13 3.47 2.98
(E)-Linalool oxide 1.18 1.25 0.94 2.28 2.52 2.17
Linalool 0.13a 0.17a 0.06b ND ND ND
𝛼-Terpineol 0.54 0.53 0.47 1.15 1.17 1.13
Geraniol 0.95 1.02 0.93 2.76 2.81 2.65
Linalyl acetate ND ND ND 0.30 0.33 0.26
𝛿-Terpineol 1.06 1.00 0.85 2.68 2.82 2.58
Neric acid 8.56 10.7 7.78 25.5 29.9 25.0
Total terpenes 14.1b 16.5a 12.3b 38.0 43.2 37.0
𝛽-Damascenone 5.03a 3.10b 3.74ab 9.04 9.32 9.26
Vitispirane A 7.78ab 10.8a 5.63b 18.6b 21.1a 15.3b
Vitispirane B 8.05ab 11.0a 5.61b 14.9b 17.1a 12.2b
Riesling acetal ND ND ND 1.67b 2.11a 1.41b
TDN 35.4ab 53.1a 25.1b 83.2b 94.0a 64.8b
TPB 1.18 1.02 1.04 3.00b 3.47a 2.91b
3-Oxo-𝛽-ionone 4.72 4.93 3.82 6.19 6.96 5.52
Actinidols 6.46 6.70 5.20 8.60 9.66 7.70
Norisoprenoid 1 1.51 1.86 1.19 2.02ab 2.27a 1.68b
Total norisoprenoids 70.1b 92.6a 51.3b 147b 166a 120b
Guaiacol 0.32ab 0.36a 0.27b 0.64a 0.55b 0.63a
Eugenol 0.28a 0.30a 0.22b 0.71a 0.66b 0.73ab
4-Ethylphenol 0.25a 0.32a 0.16b 0.23b 0.25a 0.21b
4-Vinylguaiacol 15.5 19.1 12.5 54.0a 52.5b 61.1a
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol 1.23ab 1.37a 0.87b 2.92a 2.74b 2.95a
(E)-Isoeugenol 0.39 0.12 0.29 0.23a 0.22b 0.24ab
4-Vinylphenol 4.33 5.70 4.91 34.4ab 34.4b 40.1a
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 4.80a 4.91a 3.60b 4.84 4.78 5.05
Total volatile phenols 27.1b 32.1a 22.8b 98.1b 96.2b 111a
Vanillin 0.37ab 0.39a 0.34b 0.87a 0.79b 0.93a
Methyl vanillate 0.30 0.36 0.30 0.35a 0.37b 0.38a
Ethyl vanillate 0.27 0.33 0.13 0.71 0.59 0.73
Acetovanillone 0.45ab 0.53a 0.29b 2.13 2.41 2.43
Zingerone 0.77b 1.09a 0.64b 1.95 1.90 1.98
Homovanillil alcohol ND ND ND 0.20b 0.40a ND
Syringaldehyde 1.00 0.99 0.69 2.44a 2.30b 2.57a
Acetosyringone 1.41 1.40 1.02 3.07 3.12 3.42
Total vanillin 4.57a 5.09a 3.41b 11.7 11.8 12.4
Benzaldehyde ND ND ND 0.43 0.43 0.38
Phenylacetaldehyde 0.62ab 0.74a 0.47b 2.19 2.27 2.34
Benzyl alcohol 2.43 2.22 2.11 7.93 8.87 7.81
𝛽-Phenylethanol 2.21 2.37 1.83 7.86 8.49 7.31
2-Phenoxyethanol ND ND ND 0.64 0.64 0.69
Benzoic acid 1.92 1.93 1.78 2.68 2.81 2.80
Dihydromethyleugenol 0.38 0.42 0.46 0.71 0.84 0.81
Total benzenes 7.55 7.69 6.66 22.4 24.3 22.1
(E)-Whiskylactone 0.35 0.29 0.28 0.37b 0.49a 0.40ab
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol 0.63 0.68 0.57 1.75 1.76 1.64
(E)-2-Hexen-1-ol 1.87 1.45 1.92 0.71 0.63 0.67
Ethyl decanoate ND ND ND 2.00 2.01 2.00
3-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 0.33 0.35 0.34
2-Methylbutyric acid 0.13 0.13 0.11 0.36 0.47 0.49
2-Ethyl hexanoic acid 0.48a 0.43ab 0.36b 1.67b 2.30a 2.43a
Pantolactone 2.42 1.79 2.22 3.36 3.55 3.37
* Relative areas (to 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone × 1000) of the volatile compounds for which pure references were not available. Rest of the data
in μg L−1 .
For each vintage, means with different letters (a,b,c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA comparing the concentrations of the
compounds found in control grapes, leaf plucking and head trimming.
TDN, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; TPB, t-1-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-1,3-diene; ND, not detected.
695

J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org P Hernandez-Orte et al.

Table 5. Mean concentration of the aromatic compounds (μg L−1 ) released from glycosidic precursors found in Merlot (ME) grapes during 2010 and
2011 for the different treatments (leaf plucking (D), Head trimming (P) and control (C)).

Compound ME10C ME10D ME10P ME11C ME11D ME11P

𝛼-Terpinolene ND ND ND 0.07b 0.10a 0.09ab

(Z)-Rose oxide 0.02b 0.03a 0.03a 0.05 0.05 0.05
(Z)-Linalool oxide 1.07 1.64 1.54 3.10 3.37 2.94
(E)-Linalool oxide 1.05 1.53 1.40 3.11 3.37 3.01
𝛼-Terpineol 0.44b 0.78a 0.67ab 1.44 1.71 1.56
Geraniol 0.79 1.33 0.74 3.06 2.99 3.10
Linalyl acetate* ND ND ND 0.42a NDb NDb
𝛿-Terpineol* 2.53b 4.39a 3.97ab 3.15 3.74 3.40
Neric acid 7.13 10.5 11.0 21.6 25.0 24.7
Total terpenes 13.0b 20.2a 19.3ab 36.0 40.3 38.8
𝛽-Damascenone 8.13b 12.1a 11.0ab 20.3 21.6 18.6
Vitispirane A* 0.92b 1.92a 1.64ab 3.06b 4.34a 3.46ab
Vitispirane B* 0.98 1.85 1.81 3.12b 4.27a 4.01a
Riesling acetal* ND ND ND 0.40 0.53 0.35
TDN* 4.63 9.42 9.37 15.1b 25.5a 18.9ab
TPB* 1.99b 2.81ab 3.17a 7.15 9.88 7.62
3-Oxo-𝛽-ionone 9.90 16.1 15.2 22.5b 31.9a 23.6b
Actinidols* 13.3 21.7 20.8 30.6b 43.4a 32.2b
Norisoprenoid 1* 1.89 2.80 3.43 5.40 7.38 5.52
Total norisoprenoids 41.7 68.8 66.6 107b 149a 114b
Guaiacol 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.48 0.55 0.48
Eugenol 0.17 0.26 0.22 0.35ab 0.36a 0.30b
4-Ethylphenol 0.27 0.34 0.31 0.32 0.36 0.33
4-Vinylguaiacol 7.51 9.44 10.1 35.4 43.3 41.0
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol 1.27 1.64 1.43 4.30 4.32 3.60
(E)-Isoeugenol 0.12b 0.16a 0.15a 0.29 0.29 0.32
4-Vinylphenol 4.07b 5.47ab 6.39a 20.9 22.9 24.2
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 0.94 1.26 1.37 1.71a NDb NDb
Total volatile phenols 14.5 18.8 20.2 63.8 72.1 70.3
Vanillin 0.37 0.81 0.41 0.83b 0.96ab 0.99a
Methyl vanillate 0.48b 0.90a 0.81a 1.64b 2.37a 1.72b
Ethyl vanillate 0.16a 0.20a 0.08b 0.74 0.95 0.82
Acetovanillone 0.54 0.86 0.87 3.61b 5.03a 3.98ab
Zingerone 0.79b 0.93ab 1.09a 2.91 4.16 3.40
Homovanillyl alcohol ND ND ND 0.96 0.61 0.46
Syringaldehyde 0.37 1.15 0.73 2.03 1.86 2.19
Acetosyringone 2.20 2.03 2.05 10.8 14.4 11.8
Total vanillin 4.91 6.86 6.03 23.5 30.3 25.4
Benzaldehyde 0.28 0.28 0.24 0.54b 0.68b 0.80a
Phenylacetaldehyde 0.57 0.77 0.59 2.40b 8.14ab 14.3a
Benzyl alcohol 5.05 7.30 5.03 20.0 18.8 18.0
𝛽-Phenylethanol 2.83 4.77 4.12 13.6 13.5 11.8
2-phenoxyethanol 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.69 0.88 0.78
Benzoic acid 2.04 2.19 2.12 3.53 4.17a 3.78ab
Dihydromethyleugenol* 1.07b 1.51a 1.66a 3.02ab 3.35a NDb
Total benzenes 12.0 17.0 13.9 43.8 49.6 49.5
(E)-Whiskylactone 0.27 0.27 0.32 0.46 0.47 0.43
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol 0.48 0.67 0.69 0.81 0.75 0.76
(E)-2-Hexen-1-ol 0.52 1.91 0.44 1.02 1.16 0.72
Ethyl decanonate ND ND ND 2.01b 2.03a 2.02ab
3-Methylbutyric acid ND ND ND 0.42 0.43 0.41
2-Methylbutyric acid 0.27 0.43 0.34 1.47 1.64 1.36
2-Ethylhexanoic acid 0.37 0.41 0.34 2.67a 1.45b 1.49b
Pantolactone* 2.25b 2.94a 2.88a 5.39b 6.28a 6.18a
* Relative areas (to 4-hydroxy-4-methyl-2-pentanone × 1000) of the volatile compounds for which pure references were not available. Rest of the data
in μg L−1 .
For each vintage, means with different letters (a,b,c) are significantly different (P < 0.05) according to ANOVA comparing the concentrations of the
compounds found in control grapes, leaf plucking and head trimming.
TDN, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; TPB, t-1-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-1,3-diene; ND, not detected.
696

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma www.soci.org

Table 6. Three-way ANOVA results calculated for the compounds released from their precursors, being the fixed factors: vintage (2010 or 2011),
variety (CH, GW, TE, ME) and treatment (leaf plucking, head trimming and control)

Factors Interaction
Compound Vintage Variety Treatment Vi/Va Vi/T Va/T

𝛼-Terpinolene <0.0001 0.999 0.028 0.906 0.011 1

(Z)-Rose oxide <0.0001 0.01 0.458 0.007 0.092 0.008
(Z)-Linalool oxide <0.0001 <0.0001 0.196 <0.0001 0.002 0.022
(E)-Linalool oxide <0.0001 <0.0001 0.704 0.001 0.133 0.056
Linalool <0.0001 <0.0001 0.001 0.836 <0.0001 1
𝛼-Terpineol <0.0001 0.747 0.659 0.954 0.276 0.995
Geraniol <0.0001 0.017 0.016 <0.0001 0.027 0.030
Linalyl acetate 0.037 0.001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.193 0.008
Terpinen-4-ol <0.0001 <0.0001 0.003 1 0.001 1
𝛿-Terpineol <0.0001 0.763 0.001 0.873 0.003 0.904
Neric acid <0.0001 0.389 0.864 0.867 0.114 0.777
Total terpenes <0.0001 0.035 0.564 0.044 0.126 0.463
𝛽-Damascenone <0.0001 <0.0001 0.090 <0.0001 0.296 0.677
𝛽-Ionone 0.090 0.016 0.446 0.003 0.286 0.055
Vitispirane A <0.0001 <0.0001 0.001 <0.0001 0.285 0.084
Vitispirane B <0.0001 <0.0001 0.008 0.014 0.358 0.005
Riesling acetal <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.004
TDN* <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.398 <0.0001
TPB* <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.365 0.020
3-Oxo-𝛽-ionone <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.003 <0.0001
Actinidols <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.058 <0.0001
Norisoprenoid 1 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.126 <0.0001
3-Oxo-𝛼-ionol 0.041 <0.0001 0.552 <0.0001 0.185 0.101
Total norisoprenoids <0.0001 0.001 0.007 0.003 0.238 0.046
Guaiacol <0.0001 <0.0001 0.250 0.074 0.014 <0.0001
4-Ethylguaiacol <0.0001 0.094 0.620 1 0.414 1
Eugenol <0.0001 <0.0001 0.678 <0.0001 0.772 0.149
4-Ethylphenol 0.001 <0.0001 0.410 <0.0001 0.117 0.008
4-Vinylguaiacol 0.008 <0.0001 0.235 <0.0001 0.002 0.363
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.453 0.209
(E)-Isoeugenol 0.121 0.014 0.283 0.006 0.184 0.008
4-Vinylphenol 0.036 <0.0001 0.021 <0.0001 0.078 0.001
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 0.672 <0.0001 0.420 <0.0001 0.600 0.118
Total volatile phenols 0.098 0.001 0.453 0.023 0.045 0.039
Vanillin 0.720 0.012 0.464 0.006 0.333 0.061
Methyl vanillate <0.0001 <0.0001 0.952 <0.0001 0.465 0.014
Zingerone <0.0001 <0.0001 0.024 <0.0001 0.064 0.451
Homovanillin alcohol <0.0001 <0.0001 0.204 <0.0001 0.103 <0.0001
Syringaldehyde 0.446 0.038 0.424 0.034 0.384 0.068
Acetosyringone <0.0001 <0.0001 0.426 <0.0001 0.268 0.419
Total vanillins 0.123 0.043 0.0342 0.004 0.027 0.564
Benzaldehyde <0.0001 <0.0001 0.002 <0.0001 0.387 0.002
Phenylacetaldehyde <0.0001 0.003 0.049 <0.0001 0.710 0.061
Benzyl alcohol 0.002 <0.0001 0.864 <0.0001 0.426 0.150
𝛽-Phenylethanol 0.013 <0.0001 0.823 <0.0001 0.836 0.298
2-phenoxyethanol <0.0001 0.005 0.148 0.106 0.201 0.008
Benzoic acid 0.063 <0.0001 0.917 <0.0001 0.743 0.230
Dihydromethyleugenol 0.042 <0.0001 0.001 <0.0001 0.001 <0.0001
(E)-whiskylactone <0.0001 <0.0001 0.290 0.864 0.013 0.685
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol <0.0001 <0.0001 0.217 <0.0001 0.191 0.970
(E)-2-Hexen-1-ol <0.0001 0.003 0.002 <0.0001 0.081 0.002
Ethyl decaonate <0.0001 <0.0001 0.001 0.001 <0.0001 0.126
3-Methylbutyric acid <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.598
2-Methylbutyric acid <0.0001 <0.0001 0.720 <0.0001 0.869 0.521
2-Ethyl hexanoic acid <0.0001 <0.0001 0.768 0.039 0.609 <0.0001i
Pantolactone <0.0001 <0.0001 0.140 0.819 0.041 0.880

Vi, Vintage; Va, Variety; T, Treatment.

* TDN, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene; TPB, t-1-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-1,3-diene.
697

J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org P Hernandez-Orte et al.

Table 7. Concentration (μg L−1 ) of esters, terpenes, lactones, norisoprenoids, volatile phenols and vanillins found in wines from white grape varieties
[Chardonnay (CH) and Gewurztraminer (GW)] during 2010 and 2011 obtained from grapes subjected to treatments: leaf plucking (D), head trimming
(P) and control (C) grapes

Compound GW10C GW10D GW10P GW11C GW11D GW11P CH10C CH10D CH10P CH11C CH11D CH11P

Ethyl butyrate 68.3 70.7 110 30.8 30.3 41.3 80.8 92.7 101 56.6 54.8 44.7
Isobutyl acetate 193 268 175 308 245 248 200 150 191 199 174 200
Buthyl acetate 21.1 37.1 13.0 52.4 48.2 38.9 30.6 20.2 23.4 20.8 24.6 31.6
Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 4.75 8.69 8.15 3.13 2.94 3.85 4.96 6.50 7.52 5.47 6.04 4.68
Ethyl isovalerate 9.04 11.4 16.1 6.47 5.98 7.64 9.14 10.9 11.5 9.34 9.63 9.30
Linalol acetate 0.20 0.17 0.12 0.27 0.16 0.20 ND ND ND 0.19 0.16 0.17
Ethyl furoate 3.37 4.21 4.41 2.05 4.45 2.88 5.98 5.73 6.34 3.93 5.36 3.13
Ethyl dihydrocinnamate 0.44 0.32 0.33 ND ND ND 0.57 0.49 0.50 ND ND ND
Ethyl cinnamate 0.40 0.40 0.38 0.39 0.58 0.33 1.57 0.98 1.16 2.18 1.61 1.91
Sum of esters 301 401 328 404 337 343 333 288 343 298 276 295
Phenylacetaldehyde 43.9 0.0 26.4 64.2 57.5 90.7 42.8 41.6 37.4 106 31.7 123
Linalool 37.0 57.7 40.1 22.5 52.5 33.2 2.58 2.74 2.35 2.87 4.28 2.92
𝛼-Terpineol 13.0 21.3 15.4 6.56 16.7 9.74 1.19 1.53 1.45 1.11 1.60 0.92
𝛽-Citronellol 16.8 13.7 7.99 31.6 18.5 16.8 3.38 4.06 2.33 2.68 3.17 2.65
Geraniol 58.1 67.7 45.7 85.3 84.1 58.5 3.97 3.73 3.20 4.91 5.71 5.02
Sum of terpenes 125 160 109 146 171 118 11.1 12.1 9.3 11.5 14.7 11.5
trans-Whiskylactone 2.01 3.91 0.96 5.28 6.50 4.69 5.48 4.60 4.12 4.34 5.36 5.43
𝛾-Nonalactone 2.69 4.03 2.22 3.91 3.85 3.15 3.08 3.23 2.80 2.69 2.77 3.55
𝛾-Decalactone 2.65 2.20 2.39 1.87 1.71 1.63 1.41 1.36 1.73 2.18 2.00 1.88
𝛿-Decalactone 63.6 47.7 60.0 28.8 28.4 32.4 47.1 58.6 75.6 41.3 44.0 42.2
Sum of lactones 70.9 57.8 65.6 39.8 40.5 41.8 57.1 67.8 84.3 50.5 54.1 53.1
𝛽-Damascenone 2.29 4.22 2.92 4.24 7.07 6.82 4.71 2.95 2.51 6.41 6.92 6.08
𝛼-Ionone 0.99 1.67 ND 2.96 3.09 0.89 ND ND ND ND ND ND
𝛽-Ionone 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.47 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.08
Sum of norisoprenoids 3.45 6.07 3.09 7.29 10.2 7.78 5.18 3.07 2.65 6.53 7.03 6.16
Guaiacol 0.17 0.21 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.19 0.17 0.24
o-Cresol 0.20 0.18 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.28 ND ND ND ND ND 0.24
4-Ethylguaiacol 0.35 0.31 0.23 0.39 0.38 0.43 ND ND ND 0.06 0.12 0.11
m-Cresol 0.74 0.52 0.50 2.20 1.40 1.39 0.40 0.34 0.20 0.98 0.56 0.94
Eugenol 1.75 1.72 1.39 1.90 1.54 1.41 ND ND ND 0.49 0.56 0.52
4-Ethylphenol ND ND ND 0.63 0.52 0.62 ND ND ND 0.38 0.51 0.43
4-Vinylguaiacol 14.6 118 52.9 716 661 642 23.2 7.77 5.09 26.4 126 88.2
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol 0.42 ND 0.34 ND ND 0.19 ND ND ND ND ND ND
4-Vinylphenol 7.53 60.9 23.2 1111 1008 1143 124 30.4 10.9 258 841 697
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 1.98 2.54 1.61 1.16 1.78 0.75 2.76 1.06 1.74 ND 1.11 ND
Sum of volatile phenols 27.8 184 80.7 1834 1676 1792 151.1 39.8 18.1 287 971 788
Vanillin ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Methyl vanillate 14.7 20.4 10.1 17.8 23.9 20.4 12.8 12.6 11.5 11.8 14.5 17.1
Ethyl vanillate 4.54 7.29 3.91 4.54 2.70 3.40 1.21 1.31 1.31 1.90 1.96 1.87
Acetovanillone 6.12 11.3 5.43 10.2 15.1 13.7 9.77 11.5 9.33 6.05 9.58 10.2
Syringaldehyde ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Sum of vanillin derivates 26.1 39.3 19.5 33.4 42.3 36.2 24.7 25.5 22.1 19.7 26.0 29.2

ND, not detected.

explain this lack of correlation could be the participation of
Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeasts involved in the
release of varietal aroma compounds during alcoholic fermen-
tation and their different actions in the two years under study.
Some studies carried out by Hernandez-Orte et al.3 with differ-
ent yeast genera showed that the yeast genera exerts a criti-
cal influence on the levels of most varietal aroma compounds,
affecting all families coming from precursors, including noriso-
prenoids, terpenols, benzenoids, volatile phenols, vanillins and lac-
tones due to the wide range of enzyme activities between different
698
In previous studies conducted in the laboratory by Loscos
et al.,35 we found that the levels of aroma compounds are lower
in wines than those obtained in the analysis of precursors, con-
firming that some of the aroma potential of grapes in conjugated
form remains after alcoholic fermentation. The varietal aroma
compounds increase during ageing due to slow acid hydrolysis of
these precursors.
The wines produced in the control plots were compared to those
obtained from leaf-plucked or head-trimmed grapes by triangular
tests. For the white wine varieties, none of the comparisons were

genera. significant. For the red wine varieties, significant differences

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma www.soci.org

Table 8. Concentration (μg L−1 ) of esters, terpenes, lactones, norisoprenoids, volatile phenols and vanillins found in wines from red grape varieties
[Tempranillo (TE) and Merlot (ME)] during 2010 and 2011 obtained from grapes subjected to treatments: leaf plucking (D), head trimming (P) and
control (C) grapes

Compound ME10C ME10D ME10P ME11C ME11D ME11P TE10C TE10D TE10P TE11C TE11D TE11P

Ethyl butyrate 72.8 41.5 54.9 86.4 85.9 60.8 78.5 81.3 98.5 65.9 64.3 56.6
Isobutyl acetate 53.0 26.0 31.5 59.4 49.5 30.4 73.9 114.2 38.4 116.1 85.6 75.7
Buthyl acetate 2.02 3.04 2.63 3.24 3.35 2.34 3.34 4.97 2.41 6.34 3.89 3.74
Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 9.18 5.40 8.57 11.9 10.33 7.29 6.21 6.74 8.97 7.93 8.10 7.20
Ethyl isovalerate 16.0 8.91 12.5 17.6 15.3 11.4 9.32 10.3 12.2 10.0 11.4 10.3
Linalol acetate ND ND ND 0.26 0.21 0.31 ND ND ND 0.49 0.26 0.30
Ethyl furoate 4.38 ND 5.03 6.07 6.01 6.23 3.02 2.81 5.59 4.84 6.03 4.56
Ethyl dihydrocinnamate 0.51 0.32 0.34 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.57 0.50 0.38 0.68 0.65 0.70
Ethyl cinnamate 0.54 0.40 0.39 0.62 0.61 0.82 0.49 0.46 ND 0.42 0.44 0.44
Sum of esters 158 86.3 116 186 172 120 175 221 167 213 181 160
Phenylacetaldehyde 34.8 51.5 53.3 18.9 15.7 11.4 31.8 30.9 38.1 40.4 13.6 17.6
Linalool 4.06 3.68 4.45 4.90 5.05 5.70 3.48 3.76 4.28 5.35 5.01 4.73
𝛼-Terpineol 1.94 2.12 2.52 2.50 2.97 4.26 1.83 1.61 2.51 1.74 1.64 1.54
𝛽-Citronellol 10.6 9.12 9.10 13.3 13.3 14.3 16.0 14.2 8.07 17.8 17.5 15.7
Geraniol 5.12 4.17 3.60 5.79 6.43 10.63 7.25 7.25 3.28 8.00 8.08 7.93
Sum of terpenes 21.7 19.1 19.7 26.6 27.8 35.0 28.6 26.8 18.1 32.9 32.3 29.9
trans-Whiskylactone ND ND ND 2.56 2.63 2.05 1.47 2.72 1.35 3.82 2.86 3.21
𝛾-Nonalactone 14.2 10.9 8.51 16.1 20.2 12.4 10.1 7.14 9.45 8.58 12.4 9.37
𝛾-Decalactone 3.00 2.00 2.51 2.53 2.97 2.82 2.11 2.34 2.01 2.16 2.15 1.76
𝛿-Decalactone 41.6 36.7 35.6 46.7 48.0 47.0 45.0 48.9 50.2 51.0 48.8 47.6
Sum of lactones 58.8 49.7 46.6 68.0 73.8 64.3 62.6 64.2 66.6 65.5 66.3 61.9
𝛽-Damascenone 3.13 3.58 4.18 4.73 4.50 4.60 3.22 3.06 2.92 3.74 4.30 3.39
𝛼-Ionone ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
𝛽-Ionone 1.07 0.72 0.72 0.48 0.42 0.43 1.25 1.07 0.80 0.92 0.72 0.76
Sum of norisoprenoids 4.20 4.30 4.90 5.20 4.92 5.03 4.47 4.13 3.72 4.66 5.02 4.15
Guaiacol 1.08 0.46 0.55 1.00 0.98 1.22 2.53 2.27 1.90 4.01 2.79 3.56
o-Cresol 0.57 0.54 0.57 0.54 0.44 1.23 1.10 0.88 1.06 1.15 0.80 1.08
4-Ethylguaiacol ND 16.8 25.1 ND 0.15 0.10 ND ND 2.90 ND ND ND
m-Cresol 0.36 0.29 0.26 1.14 0.98 1.95 1.18 0.81 1.20 1.10 0.65 0.68
Eugenol 0.76 0.78 0.79 ND ND ND 3.16 2.79 2.31 2.39 1.61 1.82
4-Ethylphenol 0.13 79.3 172 0.20 1.10 0.35 0.20 0.14 5.76 ND ND ND
4-Vinylguaiacol 2.42 8.04 8.41 8.15 9.85 16.7 0.67 0.71 0.89 1.22 0.66 0.67
2,6-Dimethoxyphenol ND 4.41 3.37 6.97 7.83 7.94 7.71 7.47 3.18 7.82 6.65 6.91
4-Vinylphenol 1.68 10.3 10.6 2.34 2.23 2.76 1.77 1.86 4.43 1.59 1.33 1.79
4-Allyl-2,6-dimethoxyphenol 2.40 3.00 2.43 3.43 3.17 4.75 4.35 3.18 2.95 2.41 2.35 2.26
Sum of volatile phenols 9.40 124 224 23.8 26.7 37.1 22.7 20.1 26.6 21.7 16.8 18.8
Vanillin 15.6 0.25 4.10 6.80 3.91 8.77 4.56 4.49 4.17 3.98 ND 0.93
Methyl vanillate 31.4 37.4 39.5 51.7 70.7 70.2 5.20 4.63 4.56 14.3 7.49 7.23
Ethyl vanillate 594 111 92.7 366 316 323 25 253 106 231 19 207
Acetovanillone 163 171 175 259 305 314 111 114 153 148 158 151
Syringaldehyde 14.2 33.8 18.6 24.9 30.0 34.1 18.4 37.3 4.29 11.5 11.6 8.46
Sum of vanillin derivatives 818 354 330 709 726 751 391 413 271 409 370 375

ND, not detected.

were found for Tempranillo between control/leaf-plucked,
control/head-trimmed and leaf-plucked/ head-trimmed, while
for Merlot significant differences were exclusively found in the
leaf-plucked/head-trimmed. There were no significant differences
between the control samples with respect to the two treatments.
CONCLUSIONS
The vintage introduces significant differences in most of the
compounds tested in this work. In addition, there is significant
interaction between all three factors (vintage, variety, treatment)
indicating their high degree of dependence on each other and
treatment, the highest values of terpene and norisoprenoids com-
pounds were reached for leaf-plucked grapes, excepting Chardon-
nay. The concentrations of vanillins and volatile phenols changed
depending on the year and variety, i.e. the influence of the
treatment and the year for these groups of compounds is not
clear. Most precursor synthesis occurs in warmer years and under
more sun-exposed grapes in Tempranillo, Merlot and the Gewurz-
traminer varieties.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project was founded by Diputación General de Aragon
699

that the results are influenced by them simultaneously. Regarding (project OTRI 2010/0340).

J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org P Hernandez-Orte et al.

Figure 2. Graphic representation of the two principal components for wines obtained from grapes Chardonnay (CH), Gewurztraminer (GW), Tempranillo
(TE) and Merlot (ME) during 2010 and 2011 subjected to treatments: leaf plucking (D) and head trimming (P) compared with control grapes (C). Variables:
minor aromatic compounds.

8 Peyrot Des Gachons C, Tominaga T and Dubourdieu D, Measuring

Table 9. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) between aromatic com- the aromatic potential of Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Sauvignon blanc
pounds released from their glycosidic precursors by acid hydrolysis in grapes by assaying S-cysteine conjugates, precursors of the volatile
grapes and found in wines thiols responsible for their varietal aroma. J Agric Food Chem
48:3387–3391 (2000).
Volatile 9 Gunata Z, Bitteur S, Brillouet JM, Bayonove C and Cordonnier R,
Variety Terpenes Norisoprenoids phenols Vanillins Sequential enzymatic hydrolysis of potentially aromatic glycosides
from grape. Carbohydr Res 184:139–149 (1988).
Chardonnay 10 0.374 0.936 0.988 0.448 10 Baumes RL, Aubert CC, Gunata ZY, Moor WD, Bayonove CL and Tapiero
Chardonnay 11 0.999 0.940 0.055 0.866 C, Structures of two C13-norisoprenoid glucosidic precursors of
Gewurztraminer 10 0.988 0.255 0.145 0.999 wine flavor. J Essent Oil Res 6:587–599 (1994).
11 Winterhalter P, Sefton MA and Williams PJ, Two-dimensional GC-DCCC
Gewurztraminer 11 0.722 0.245 0.563 0.105
analysis of the glycoconjugates of monoterpenes, norisoprenoids,
Tempranillo 10 0.865 0.617 0.986 0.996 and shikimate-derived metabolites from Riesling wine. J Agric Food
Tempranillo 11 0.868 0.084 0.032 0.310 Chem 38:1041–1048 (1990).
Merlot 10 0.795 0.367 0.972 0.838 12 Mateo JJ and Jiménez M, Monoterpenes in grape juice and wines. J
Merlot 11 0.460 0.290 0.504 0.247 Chromatogr A 881:557–567 (2000).
13 Spayd SE, Tarara JM, Mee DL and Ferguson JC, Separation of sunlight
and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera cv.
Merlot berries. Am J Enol Vitic 53:171–182 (2002).
14 Ewart AJW, Brien CJ, Soderlund R and Smart RE, The effects of light
REFERENCES pruning, irrigation and improved soil-management on wine quality
1 Ugliano M, Genovese A and Moio L, Hydrolysis of wine aroma precur- of the Vitis Vinifera CV Riesling. Vitis 24:209–217 (1985).
sors during malolactic fermentation with four commercial starter 15 Austin CN and Wilcox WF, Effects of fruit-zone leaf removal, training
cultures of Oenococcus oeni. J Agric Food Chem 51:5073–5078 systems, and irrigation on the development of grapevine powdery
(2003). mildew. Am J Enol Vitic 62:193–198 (2011).
2 Swiegers JH, Bartowsky EJ, Henschke PA and Pretorius IS, Yeast and 16 Perez G, Operaciones Manuales en Viñedo. Servicio de Formación
bacterial modulation of wine aroma and flavour. Aust J Grape Wine Agraria e Iniciativas Junta de Castilla y León, Palencia, Spain (2007).
Res 11:139–173 (2005). 17 Zoecklein BW, Wolf TK, Duncan NW, Judge JM and Cook MK, Effects
3 Hernandez-Orte P, Cersosimo M, Loscos N, Cacho J, Garcia-Moruno E of fruit zone leaf removal on yield, fruit composition, and fruit rot
and Ferreira V, The development of varietal aroma from non-floral incidence of Chardonnay and white Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.) grapes.
grapes by yeasts of different genera. Food Chem 107:1064–1077 Am J Enol Vitic 43:139–148 (1992).
(2008). 18 Mandelli F, Miele A, Rizzon L and Sozanus MC, Effect of summer
4 Williams PJ, Sefton MA and Francis IL, Glycosidic precursors of varietal pruning on the physicochemical composition of the Merlot grape
grape and wine flavor, in Flavor Precursors, Thermal and Enzymatic must. Revista Brasileira De Fruticultura 30:667–674 (2008).
Conversions, ed. by Terahishi R, Takeoka GR and Güntert M. American 19 Guidoni S, Oggero G, Cravero S, Rabino M, Cravero MC and Balsari P,
Chemical Society, Washington DC, pp. 74–86 (1992). Manual and mechanical leaf removal in the bunch zone (Vitis vinifera
5 Darriet P, Tominaga T, Demole E and Dubourdieu D, Mise en évidence L., cv barbera): Effects on berry composition, health, yield and wine
dans le raisin de Vitis vinifera var. Sauvignon d’un précurseur de la quality in a warm temperate area. J Int Des Sciences De La Vigne et Du
4-mercapto-4-méthylpentan-2-one. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie Vin 42:49–58 (2008).
des sciences, Paris (Serie D) 316:1332–1335 (1993). 20 Pereira GE, Gaudillere JP, Pieri P, Hilbert G, Maucourt M, Deborde C,
6 Tominaga T, Masneuf I and Dubourdieu D, A S-cysteine conjugate, et al., Microclimate influence on mineral and metabolic profiles of
precursor of aroma of white Sauvignon. J Int des Sciences de la Vigne grape berries. J Agric Food Chem 54:6765–6775 (2006).
et du Vin 29:227–232 (1995). 21 Zoecklein BW, Wolf TK, Duncan SE, Marcy JE and Jasinski Y, Effect
7 Tominaga T, Furrer A, Henry R and Dubourdieu D, Identification of new of fruit zone leaf removal on total glycoconjugates and conjugate
volatile thiols in the aroma of Vitis vinifera L. var. Sauvignon blanc fraction concentration of Riesling and Chardonnay (Vitis vinifera L.)
700

wines. Flavour Fragr J 13:159–162 (1998). grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 49:259–265 (1998).

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701
Effect of viticulture on grape aroma
22 Jones GV and Davis RE, Climate influences on grapevine phenology,
grape composition, and wine production and quality for Bordeaux,
France. Am J Enol Vitic 51:249–261 (2000).
23 Dieguez SC, Lois LC, Gomez EF and de la Pena MLG, Aromatic composi-
tion of the Vitis vinifera grape Albarino. Lebensm–Wiss Technol Food
Sci Technol 36:585–590 (2003).
24 Crippen DD and Morrison JC, The effects of sun exposure on the
compositional development of Cabernet–Sauvignon berries. Am J
Enol Vitic 37:235–242 (1986).
25 Bureau SM, Razungles AJ and Baumes RL, The aroma of Muscat of
Frontignan grapes: Effect of the light environment of vine or bunch
on volatiles and glycoconjugates. J Sci Food Agric 80:2012–2020
(2000).
26 Belancic A, Agosin E, Ibacache A, Bordeu E, Baumes R, Razun-
gles A, et al., Influence of sun exposure on the aromatic
composition of Chilean Muscat grape cultivars Moscatel de
Alejandria and Moscatel rosada. Am J Enol Vitic 48:181–186
(1997).
27 Bayonove C and Cordonni R, Researches on aroma of Muscat.
1. Development of volatile constituants during maturation of
Muscat-of-Alexandria. Annales De Technologie Agricole 19:79–93
(1970).
28 Araujo M, Oliveira JM, Maia MO and Baumes RL, Soil and climatic
influence on the free and glycosidically bound volatiles of grapes
from two white varieties from Vinhos Verdes region, in Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Symposium on Grapevine Growing, Com-
merce and Research, ed. by De Sequeira OA and Sequeira JC.
International Society Horticultural Science, Leuven, pp. 205–212
(2004).
29 Escalona JM, Flexas J, Schultz HR and Medrano H, Effect of moderate
irrigation on aroma potential and other markers of grape quality,
in First ISHS Workshop on Water Relations of Grapevines, Proceedings,
ed. by Ruhl EH and Schmid J. International Society Horticultural
Science, Leuven, pp. 261–267 (1999).
30 Reynolds AG, Riesling grapes respond to cluster thinning and shoot
density manipulation. J Am Soc Hort Sci 114:364–368 (1989).
J Sci Food Agric 2015; 95: 688–701 © 2014 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
31 Reynolds AG and Wardle DA, Influence of fruit microclimate on
monoterpene levels of Gewurztraminer. Am J Enol Vitic 40:149–154
(1989).
32 Reynolds AG, Wardle DA and Dever M, Vine performance, fruit compo-
sition, and wine sensory attributes of Gewurztraminer in response
to vineyard location and canopy manipulation. Am J Enol Vitic
47:77–92 (1996).
33 McCarthy MG and Coombe BG, Water status and wine grape quality.
Acta Hortic 171:447–456 (1985).
34 Koundouras S, Marinos V, Gkoulioti A, Kotseridis Y and van Leeuwen C,
Influence of vineyard location and vine water status on fruit matura-
tion of nonirrigated cv. Agiorgitiko (Vitis vinifera L.). Effects on wine
phenolic and aroma components. J Agric Food Chem 54:5077–5086
(2006).
35 Loscos N, Hernandez-Orte P, Cacho J and Ferreira V, Release and for-
mation of varietal aroma compounds during alcoholic fermenta-
tion from nonfloral grape odorless flavor precursors fractions. J Agric
Food Chem 55:6674–6684 (2007).
36 Lopez R, Aznar M, Cacho J and Ferreira V, Determination of minor and
trace volatile compounds in wine by solid-phase extraction and gas
chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. J Chromatogr
A 966:167–177 (2002).
37 AENOR, Analisis sensorial. Tomo1. Alimentacion. ISO 4120:1983 (1997).
38 Arnold RA and Bledsoe AM, The effect of various leaf removal treat-
ments on the aroma and flavor of Sauvignon Blanc wine. Am J Enol
Vitic 41:74–83 (1990).
39 Smart RE, Robinson JB, Due GR and Brien CJ, Canopy microclimate
modification for the cultivar Shiraz. 2. Effects on must and wine
composition. Vitis 24:119–128 (1985).
40 Razungles AJ, Baumes RL, Dufour C, Sznaper CN and Bayonove CL,
Effect of sun exposure on carotenoids and C-13-norisoprenoid
glycosides in Syrah berries (Vitis vinifera L.). Sciences Des Aliments
18:361–373 (1998).
41 Macaulay LE and Morris JR, Influence of cluster exposure and wine-
making processes on monoterpenes and wine olfactory evaluation
of Golden Muscat. Am J Enol Vitic 44:198–204 (1993).
701
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa