Identifying the Effect of Clone and Rootstock on Viticultural Performance, Fruit Composition and Winemaking Potential for Pinot
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Identifying the effect of clone and rootstock on viticultural performance, fruit composition and winemaking potential for Pinot Noir, Chardonnay and Riesling, in Niagara, Ontario. Andrea Barker, B.Sc. Submitted to the Department of Biological Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario © April 2019 Abstract Previous research globally has demonstrated that the performance of grapevine clone and rootstock combinations on vine performance and fruit quality are region-specific. Consequently, it is imperative for the Ontario wine industry to have locally-relevant information on the performance of vine combinations before these selections are purchased and established in vineyards. The objective of this research is to identify the influence of clone and rootstock combination on vine performance, fruit composition and oenological potential for core Ontario varieties: Pinot noir (clones: 113, 114, 115 and 777 on rootstock Riparia Gloire), Chardonnay (clones: 548, 96, 95 and 76 on rootstock Selektion Oppenheim 4), and Riesling (clones 9, 12 and 21 on rootstock SO4; clones 239, 49 and 21 on rootstock SO4; rootstocks 101-14, SO4 and 5C on clone 9; and rootstocks 3309C and SO4 on clone 21) over the course of multiple growing seasons and vintages, 2017 and 2018. Replicated blocks for each treatment were established in one of three commercial vineyards within the Niagara region. Vine performance was measured by timing of phenological stages, yield components, vine balance, disease and winter injury. Fruit composition was determined by measuring acid and soluble solid content of 100-berry samples taken from sentinel vines. Fruit was harvested from select research blocks and fermented into wine to evaluate oenological potential through must composition analysis, fermentation kinetics and finished wine composition analysis. Results indicate significant (p≤0.05) differences in all cultivars in both years, for the effects of clone and rootstock on vine performance, fruit composition and oenological potential in Niagara. However, trends were generally not consistent across years, indicating further vintages will be required to eliminate the weather-related differences between years. This project is limited by its duration of two years. Research from additional vintages is required in order to further understand the effects of clone and rootstock selection under Niagara vineyard conditions. Acknowledgements First, I would like to thank my academic advisors, Dr. Debbie Inglis and Dr. Jim Willwerth for their support and guidance through the course of this research. Their experience and insight guided me through this project and helped me to develop as a scientist and a professional. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Belinda Kemp and Dr. Vincenzo De Luca for their time and commitment, adding depth and understanding to my work. Secondly, I would like to thank our funding partners, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada-Collaborative Research and Development and the Ontario Grape and Wine Research Inc and our industry partners. Their collaborative support has made this research possible. Thirdly, I would like to thank the faculty, staff and students at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute that contributed their hard work, time and knowledge towards this research, most notably, Andréanne Hébert-Haché, Stephanie Bilek, Fei Yang, Tony Wang, Tom Willwerth, Mark Willwerth, Cameron Green, Steven Trussler, Lisa Dowling, Shufen Xu, Elena Genkin, Jennifer Kelley, Margaret Thibodeau, Leah Felice del Renton, Brianne Dorin and Robin Holford. Finally, I would like to thank my family. Without their love and support this accomplishment would not have been possible. Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction and Literature Review 1 1.1. Introduction and Objectives 1 1.2. Literature Review 3 1.2.1. The importance of terroir to viticulture 3 1.2.1.1. Terroir 3 1.2.1.2. The terroir of Niagara 4 1.2.2. The benefits of grafting in viticulture 8 1.2.3. Scientific research on grapevine clone and rootstock material 10 1.2.3.1. Findings and advancements of clone research 10 1.2.3.2. Findings and advancements of rootstock research 14 1.2.4. Clonal selection 16 1.2.4.1. Pinot noir clones 16 1.2.4.2. Chardonnay clones 17 1.2.4.3. Riesling clones 18 1.2.5. Rootstock selection 19 1.2.6. Components of winemaking 22 1.2.7. Conclusions 25 Chapter 2. Methods and Materials 26 2.1. Site selection 26 2.1.1. Overview 26 2.1.2. Site 1—Pinot noir clone trial 27 2.1.3. Site 2—Chardonnay clone trial 27 2.1.4. Site 3—Riesling clone and rootstock trials 28 2.2. Vine performance 29 2.2.1. Viticultural data collection 29 2.3. Fruit composition 32 2.4. Winemaking procedure 33 2.5. Oenological potential 35 Chapter 3. Results and Discussion—Pinot noir 37 3.1. Vine performance 37 3.2. Fruit composition 40 3.3. Oenological potential 41 3.4. Discussion 46 Chapter 4. Results and Discussion–Chardonnay 52 4.1. Vine performance 52 4.2. Fruit composition 55 4.3. Oenological potential 56 4.4. Discussion 60 Chapter 5. Results and Discussion—Riesling 65 5.1. Clone trial on rootstock 3309C 65 5.1.1. Vine performance 65 5.1.2. Fruit composition 68 5.2. Clone trial on rootstock SO4 69 5.2.1. Vine performance 69 5.2.2. Fruit composition 72 5.3. Rootstock trial using clone 9 73 5.3.1. Vine performance 73 5.3.2. Fruit composition 76 5.4. Rootstock trial using clone 21 77 5.4.1. Vine performance 77 5.4.2. Fruit composition 80 5.5. Oenological potential 81 5.5.1. Riesling clone trial on rootstock 3309C 81 5.5.2. Riesling clone trial on rootstock SO4 83 5.5.3. Rootstock trial on Riesling clone 21 85 5.5.4. Riesling fermentation kinetics 87 5.6. Discussion 88 Chapter 6. General Conclusions 95 Literature Cited 100 List of Tables Chapter 1 Table 1.1. Characteristics of common rootstocks in Ontario 22 Chapter 2 Table 2.1. Numerical scale for assessing crop disease and véraison. 31 Chapter 3 Table 3.1. Comparison of mean Pinot noir viticulture data, 2017 to 2018. 37 Table 3.2. Comparison of mean Pinot noir fruit composition based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 41 Table 3.3. Comparison of mean Pinot noir must components, 2017-2018. 42 Table 3.4. Comparison of mean Pinot noir wine components, 2017-2018. 46 Chapter 4 Table 4.1. Comparison of mean Chardonnay viticulture data, 2017 to 2018. 52 Table 4.2. Comparison of mean Chardonnay fruit composition based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 55 Table 4.3. Comparison of mean Chardonnay must components, 2017-2018. 56 Table 4.4. Comparison of mean Chardonnay wine components, 2017-2018. 60 Chapter 5 Table 5.1. Comparison of mean Riesling clone viticulture data for rootstock 3309C, 2017 to 2018. 66 Table 5.2. Comparison of mean Riesling clone fruit composition for rootstock 3309C based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 69 Table 5.3. Comparison of mean Riesling clone viticulture data for rootstock SO4, 2017 to 2018. 70 Table 5.4. Comparison of mean Riesling clone fruit composition for rootstock SO4 based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 73 Table 5.5. Comparison of mean Riesling viticulture data for different rootstocks grafted to clone 9, 2017 to 2018. 74 Table 5.6. Comparison of mean Riesling fruit composition for different rootstocks grafted to clone 9 based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 77 Table 5.7. Comparison of mean Riesling viticulture data for different rootstocks grafted to clone 21, 2017 to 2018. 78 Table 5.8. Comparison of mean Riesling fruit composition for different rootstocks grafted to clone 21 based on 100-berry sample analysis, 2017 to 2018. 80 Table 5.9. Comparison of mean Riesling must components for different clones on rootstock 3309C, 2017-2018. 81 Table 5.10. Comparison of mean Riesling wine components for different clones on rootstock 3309C, 2017-2018. 82 Table 5.11. Comparison of mean Riesling must components for different clones on rootstock SO4, 2017-2018. 83 Table 5.12. Comparison of mean Riesling wine components for different clones on rootstock SO4, 2017-2018. 84 Table 5.13. Comparison of mean Riesling must components for different rootstocks grafted to clone 21, 2017-2018. 85 Table 5.14. Comparison of mean Riesling wine components for different rootstocks grafted to clone 21, 2017-2018. 86 List of Figures Chapter 1 Figure 1.1. Niagara viticultural sub-appellations and site map. 7 Chapter 2 Figure 2.1. Riesling trials measured for vine performance and fruit composition. 29 Figure 2.2. Riesling combinations measured for winemaking potential. 29 Chapter 3 Figure 3.1. Pinot noir soluble solids through fermentation, 2017. 44 Figure 3.2. Pinot noir soluble solids through fermentation, 2018. 44 Chapter 4 Figure 4.1. Chardonnay soluble solids through fermentation, 2017. 58 Figure 4.2. Chardonnay soluble solids through fermentation, 2018. 59 Chapter 5 Figure 5.1. Riesling soluble solids through fermentation, 2017. 87 Figure 5.2. Riesling soluble solids through fermentation, 2018. 88 Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review 1.1. Introduction and Objectives The Canadian wine industry is best known worldwide for its Icewines. However, it has been producing quality table wines for decades. In the 1970’s, there was a shift towards replacing American varieties and hybrids (European x American crosses) with traditional European Vitis vinifera species, that gained momentum following the establishment of the Vintners Quality Alliance in 1988 and the free-trade agreement with the United States (Bramble 2014).