| Literature DB >> 32547588 |
Kalliopi Rantsiou1, Simone Giacosa1, Massimo Pugliese1,2, Vasileios Englezos1, Ilario Ferrocino1, Susana Río Segade1, Matteo Monchiero3, Ivana Gribaudo4, Giorgio Gambino4, Maria Lodovica Gullino1,2, Luca Rolle1.
Abstract
Viticulture is a cropping system in which treatment against fungal diseases (in particular powdery and downy mildews) can be extremely frequent. Accordingly, a reduction in antimicrobial treatments and the application of environmentally-friendly compounds are becoming increasingly important for a more sustainable viticulture. In addition to their effect against pathogens, the impact of these products on the quality of the grapes is very important for the oenological industries, but unfortunately at present few data are available. We evaluated the effect of the application of biocontrol products and resistance inducers in the vineyard on the mechanical properties, microbial ecology, technological and phenolic maturity of Vitis vinifera "Nebbiolo" grapes at harvest. The yield and vigor of vines were not influenced by the treatments, nor were the production of primary and secondary metabolites. However, the active ingredients influenced the mechanical properties of the skin (hardness and thickness). A significant hardening of the skin was detected when laminarin and chito-oligosaccharides were used, and sulfur induced a thickening of the skin with potential consequences for wine quality. Furthermore, the yeast community present on grape berries was influenced by the treatments. The abundance of Aureobasidium pullulans, the dominant species on the grape berry, changed in response to the compounds used. In addition, Alternaria sp. was reduced in some treatments with a potentially positive effect on the quality and the safety of the grapes. This study provides an overview of the effect of biocontrol products and resistance inducers on microbial ecology and "Nebbiolo" grape quality, contributing to the establishment of more sustainable and effective defense strategies in viticulture.Entities:
Keywords: antifungal compounds; grapevine berries; harvest; microbial ecology; powdery and downy mildews; texture analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32547588 PMCID: PMC7272676 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00700
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
List of tested treatments, active ingredients, dosages, period and number of applications.
| Treatment | Active ingredient (a.i.) | Dose a.i. (g/ha) | Days between applications | Period of application* | Number of applications |
| CTR | Non-treated control | – | – | – | – |
| AcS-Mt | Acibenzolar-S-methyl | 100 | 7–9 | Till bunch closure | 6 |
| Sulfur + Copper hydroxide | 3200+600 | 7–9 | From bunch closure to harvest | 9 | |
| Fos-Al | Fosetyl-Al | 2000 | 7–9 | Till bunch closure | 6 |
| Sulfur + Copper hydroxide | 3200+600 | 7–9 | From bunch closure to harvest | 9 | |
| K-Pho | Potassium phosphonate | 3020 | 7–9 | Till bunch closure | 6 |
| Sulfur + Copper hydroxide | 3200+600 | 7–9 | From bunch closure to harvest | 9 | |
| Lam | Laminarin +Metiram | 90 + 1400 | 7–9 | Till fruit set | 7 |
| Laminarin + Copper hydroxide | 90 + 600 | 7–9 | From fruit set to harvest | 8 | |
| Chito | Chito-oligosaccharides and oligogalacturonides +Metiram | 2500+1400 | 7–9 | Till fruit set | 7 |
| Chito-oligosaccharides and oligogalacturonides + Copper hydroxide | 2500+600 | 7–9 | From fruit set to harvest | 8 | |
| K-Bic | Potassium bicarbonate+Metiram | 4250+1400 | 7–9 | Till fruit set | 7 |
| Potassium bicarbonate+ Copper hydroxide | 4250+600 | 7–9 | From fruit set to harvest | 8 | |
| S+Met | Sulfur + Metiram | 3200+1400 | 7–9 | Till fruit set | 7 |
| Sulfur + Copper hydroxide | 3200+600 | 7–9 | From fruit set to harvest | 8 | |
| CaO | Calcium oxide | 884 | 7–9 | All growing season | 15 |
| EOW | Electrolyzed water | 10% solution | 7–9 | All growing season | 15 |
| S | Sulfur | 3200 | 7–9 | All growing season | 15 |
| Met | Metiram | 1400 | 7–9 | Till fruit set | 7 |
| Copper hydroxide | 600 | 7–9 | From fruit set to harvest | 8 |
FIGURE 1Efficacy of the treatments against Erysiphe necator on the incidence and severity on grape clusters, compared to non-treated control (CTR) and standard treatments for conventional (S+Met) and organic (S) farms in the region. Different letters mean significant differences (p < 0.05). Treatment descriptions are reported in Table 1.
Field performances of “Nebbiolo” vines subjected to different treatments.
| Treatment | Yield (kg/plant) | No. clusters/plant | Ave. cluster weight (g) | Pruning wood (kg/plant) |
| CTR | 2.18 ± 0.39 | 9.7 ± 1.5 | 226.2 ± 29.3 | 0.60 ± 0.34 |
| AcS-Mt | 2.55 ± 0.58 | 10.9 ± 1.0 | 231.2 ± 34.1 | 0.62 ± 0.42 |
| Fos-Al | 2.35 ± 0.82 | 10.4 ± 2.3 | 220.7 ± 37.1 | 0.73 ± 0.32 |
| K-Pho | 2.24 ± 1.10 | 8.9 ± 2.3 | 241.5 ± 53.4 | 0.68 ± 0.37 |
| Lam | 1.95 ± 0.56 | 9.0 ± 2.6 | 215.7 ± 12.3 | 0.61 ± 0.25 |
| Chito | 2.00 ± 0.20 | 7.7 ± 2.4 | 291.2 ± 131.6 | 0.76 ± 0.42 |
| K-Bic | 2.14 ± 0.56 | 9.5 ± 1.3 | 223.5 ± 33.2 | 0.65 ± 0.30 |
| S+Met | 3.46 ± 1.38 | 12.8 ± 3.3 | 263.2 ± 43.4 | 0.78 ± 0.40 |
| CaO | 2.91 ± 0.72 | 12.4 ± 1.5 | 234.7 ± 45.1 | 0.79 ± 0.32 |
| EOW | 2.13 ± 0.27 | 9.5 ± 1.0 | 226.2 ± 45.3 | 0.60 ± 0.42 |
| S | 2.35 ± 0.73 | 10.5 ± 1.4 | 223.5 ± 62.7 | 0.70 ± 0.29 |
| Met | 2.69 ± 0.75 | 12.3 ± 3.2 | 219.5 ± 31.9 | 0.71 ± 0.41 |
| Sign. | 0.215 | 0.056 | 0.781 | 0.999 |
Must chemical parameters and berry skin mechanical properties of “Nebbiolo” grapes harvested from each treatment.
| Treatment | °Brix | pH | Total acidity (g/L as tartaric acid) | Berry skin break force (Fsk, N) | Berry skin thickness (Spsk, μm) |
| CTR | 24.70 ± 0.34 | 3.26 ± 0.01 | 6.07 ± 0.39 | 0.603 ± 0.101ab | 176 ± 25a |
| AcS-Mt | 24.40 ± 0.47 | 3.28 ± 0.03 | 6.17 ± 0.23 | 0.608 ± 0.106ab | 186 ± 27ab |
| Fos-Al | 23.93 ± 0.36 | 3.30 ± 0.04 | 5.74 ± 0.39 | 0.574 ± 0.099ab | 198 ± 21bc |
| K-Pho | 24.40 ± 0.55 | 3.27 ± 0.05 | 5.69 ± 0.38 | 0.607 ± 0.133ab | 191 ± 30abc |
| Lam | 24.70 ± 0.28 | 3.25 ± 0.05 | 5.81 ± 0.22 | 0.627 ± 0.103b | 195 ± 27abc |
| Chito | 24.28 ± 1.02 | 3.27 ± 0.05 | 5.86 ± 0.61 | 0.629 ± 0.103b | 194 ± 34abc |
| K-Bic | 24.13 ± 0.49 | 3.28 ± 0.05 | 5.70 ± 0.42 | 0.547 ± 0.110a | 198 ± 31bc |
| S+Met | 23.90 ± 1.04 | 3.28 ± 0.02 | 5.77 ± 0.43 | 0.563 ± 0.085ab | 198 ± 28bc |
| CaO | 24.48 ± 0.40 | 3.21 ± 0.04 | 5.97 ± 0.71 | 0.599 ± 0.115ab | 188 ± 23ab |
| EOW | 24.23 ± 1.04 | 3.25 ± 0.02 | 5.90 ± 0.39 | 0.587 ± 0.124ab | 199 ± 22bc |
| S | 24.23 ± 0.55 | 3.27 ± 0.07 | 5.67 ± 0.64 | 0.594 ± 0.121ab | 209 ± 28c |
| Met | 23.95 ± 1.38 | 3.23 ± 0.04 | 5.93 ± 0.59 | 0.567 ± 0.101ab | 191 ± 25abc |
| 0.891 | 0.119 | 0.761 | 0.014 | <0.001 |
Berry skin phenolic content in “Nebbiolo” grapes harvested from each treatment.
| Treatment | Total anthocyanin index (mg malvidin-3-glucoside chloride/g berry skins) | Total flavonoids(mg (+)-catechin/g berry skins) | Proanthocyanidins assay(mg cyanidin chloride/g berry skins) | Vanillin assay (mg (+)-catechin/g berry skins) |
| CTR | 4.43 ± 0.34 | 35.34 ± 1.43 | 30.60 ± 2.05 | 8.57 ± 0.76 |
| AcS-Mt | 4.39 ± 0.54 | 35.85 ± 4.82 | 27.56 ± 4.67 | 8.14 ± 1.71 |
| Fos-Al | 4.90 ± 1.13 | 35.49 ± 8.99 | 30.65 ± 6.30 | 7.86 ± 2.11 |
| K-Pho | 4.27 ± 0.44 | 33.59 ± 4.30 | 30.86 ± 4.20 | 8.71 ± 1.76 |
| Lam | 4.33 ± 0.21 | 32.24 ± 1.18 | 32.40 ± 4.28 | 8.61 ± 0.82 |
| Chito | 4.37 ± 0.36 | 34.25 ± 1.50 | 33.54 ± 2.34 | 9.30 ± 0.95 |
| K-Bic | 4.80 ± 0.58 | 36.06 ± 3.86 | 30.73 ± 3.37 | 8.79 ± 1.95 |
| S+Met | 4.48 ± 1.11 | 32.81 ± 5.28 | 29.00 ± 1.98 | 8.02 ± 0.50 |
| CaO | 3.53 ± 0.23 | 29.03 ± 3.05 | 28.27 ± 3.40 | 8.35 ± 1.52 |
| EOW | 4.65 ± 1.30 | 33.58 ± 7.41 | 30.71 ± 4.79 | 9.39 ± 1.87 |
| S | 4.64 ± 0.78 | 33.24 ± 2.13 | 30.24 ± 4.11 | 7.68 ± 0.48 |
| Met | 4.26 ± 0.89 | 32.81 ± 7.55 | 28.63 ± 2.69 | 7.42 ± 0.37 |
| 0.867 | 0.992 | 0.570 | 0.758 |
FIGURE 2Fungal load, as determined by microbiological analysis on WLN medium, expressed in Log10 CFU/mL. The bars represent mean values and standard deviation from four replicates for each treatment. Different letters mean significant differences (p < 0.05) (A). Fungal species biodiversity: for each treatment, the frequency of isolation of the four species detected is expressed as a percentage. Isolates grown on WLN medium were grouped based on colony morphology and representatives of each colony type were identified to species level by molecular methods (B). Treatment descriptions are reported in Table 1.
FIGURE 3Boxplots to describe α-diversity measures of grape mycobiota. Individual points and brackets represent the richness estimate and the theoretical standard error range, respectively. Treatment descriptions are reported in Table 1.
Relative abundance of OTUs detected by 26S rRNA amplicon target sequencing.
| Treatment | ||||||||||||
| OTU | CTR | AcS-Mt | Fos-Al | K-Pho | Lam | Chito | K-Bic | S + Met | CaO | EOW | S | Met |
| 0.878 | 0.851 | 0.998 | 0.730 | 0.823 | 0.785 | 0.798 | 0.753 | 0.672 | 0.702 | 0.552 | 0.724 | |
| 12.237 | 17.070 | 17.343 | 13.246 | 14.898 | 12.947 | 13.232 | 14.328 | 12.195 | 13.048 | 10.953 | 11.622 | |
| 0.199 | 0.121 | 0.221 | 0.179 | 0.136 | 0.157 | 0.207 | 0.149 | 0.139 | 0.122 | 0.142 | 0.187 | |
| 28.221 | 24.499 | 33.897 | 37.853 | 28.532 | 33.529 | 35.532 | 31.996 | 31.759 | 25.447 | 34.057 | 34.444 | |
| 0.086 | 0.082 | 0.213 | 0.586 | 0.089 | 0.085 | 0.118 | 0.166 | 0.154 | 13.519 | 0.060 | 0.124 | |
| 0.469 | 0.589 | 0.328 | 0.328 | 0.459 | 0.549 | 0.392 | 0.426 | 0.477 | 0.349 | 0.368 | 0.423 | |
| 24.870 | 25.839 | 24.817 | 22.090 | 26.665 | 21.633 | 25.030 | 26.343 | 25.752 | 20.908 | 24.867 | 29.187 | |
| 0.501 | 0.441 | 0.417 | 0.521 | 0.495 | 0.506 | 0.545 | 0.545 | 0.558 | 0.439 | 0.489 | 0.492 | |
| 7.282 | 3.372 | 3.940 | 2.737 | 4.652 | 3.105 | 3.375 | 2.601 | 2.348 | 2.979 | 1.927 | 2.536 | |
| 0.983 | 0.869 | 0.982 | 0.896 | 1.129 | 0.820 | 0.934 | 0.744 | 0.788 | 0.687 | 0.694 | 0.776 | |
| 14.794 | 15.090 | 8.074 | 13.459 | 15.869 | 20.418 | 12.317 | 15.436 | 17.825 | 7.697 | 18.397 | 13.664 | |
| 1.629 | 1.295 | 1.461 | 1.209 | 0.806 | 0.204 | 0.617 | 1.014 | 1.272 | 0.767 | 0.448 | 0.773 | |
| 0.113 | 0.181 | 0.417 | 0.141 | 0.059 | 0.032 | 0.056 | 0.042 | 0.097 | 0.048 | 0.088 | 0.053 | |
| 0.136 | 0.112 | 0.070 | 0.103 | 0.148 | 0.145 | 0.116 | 0.098 | 0.124 | 0.091 | 0.078 | 0.094 | |
| 0.448 | 1.579 | 0.664 | 0.511 | 0.480 | 1.126 | 0.779 | 0.596 | 0.740 | 1.322 | 0.874 | 0.810 | |
| 0.155 | 0.078 | 0.080 | 0.213 | 0.075 | 0.124 | 0.189 | 0.186 | 0.103 | 0.048 | 0.152 | 0.261 | |
| 0.201 | 0.435 | 0.300 | 0.370 | 0.456 | 0.275 | 0.376 | 0.284 | 0.255 | 0.192 | 0.248 | 0.332 | |
| 0.065 | 0.145 | 0.070 | 0.062 | 0.116 | 0.094 | 0.092 | 0.184 | 0.098 | 0.106 | 0.094 | 0.088 | |
| 1.040 | 1.216 | 0.950 | 0.755 | 1.103 | 0.829 | 0.699 | 0.980 | 0.868 | 0.812 | 0.721 | 0.676 | |
| 0.551 | 3.052 | 0.994 | 0.302 | 0.306 | 0.245 | 1.861 | 0.391 | 0.684 | 8.115 | 0.770 | 0.400 | |
| 0.021 | 0.009 | 0.157 | 0.040 | 0.011 | 0.032 | 0.148 | 0.048 | 0.038 | 0.137 | 0.039 | 0.020 | |
| 0.193 | 0.103 | 0.221 | 0.155 | 0.110 | 0.029 | 0.048 | 0.089 | 0.121 | 0.075 | 0.051 | 0.044 | |
| 0.737 | 0.181 | 0.384 | 0.292 | 0.189 | 0.359 | 0.134 | 0.181 | 0.198 | 0.130 | 0.465 | 0.193 | |
| 0.353 | 0.178 | 0.189 | 0.501 | 0.216 | 0.027 | 0.104 | 0.131 | 0.232 | 0.196 | 0.027 | 0.054 | |
| 0.232 | 0.118 | 0.282 | 0.143 | 0.107 | 0.026 | 0.027 | 0.038 | 0.131 | 0.071 | 0.015 | 0.048 | |
FIGURE 4Boxplots showing the relative abundance at species or genus level of the OTUs, differentially abundant based on Wilcoxon matched pairs test, in grape samples. Treatment descriptions are reported in Table 1.