Risco et al.

Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 111

Early defoliation in a temperate warm and semi-arid

Tempranillo vineyard: vine performance and grape composition
D. RISCO, D. PÉREZ, A. YEVES, J.R. CASTEL and D.S. INTRIGLIOLO
Instituto Valenciano Investigaciones Agrarias (IVIA), Sustainable Agriculture Center,
PO Box 46113, Moncada, Valencia, Spain
Corresponding author: Dr Diego Intrigliolo, email intrigliolo_die@ivia.gva.es

Abstract
Background and Aims: Early defoliation (ED) can reduce vine yield and improve fruit composition in vigorous
vineyards. The objective of this study was to test the effectiveness of this technique for the Vitis vinifera (L.) cultivar
Tempranillo under the temperate warm and semi-arid climatic conditions of south-eastern Spain.
Methods and Results: Four treatments were applied over three seasons to drip-irrigated vines, planted with rows
orientated north–south and shoots vertically positioned. Non-defoliated vines (control) were compared with vines
defoliated either just before anthesis (phenological stage H, treatment ED) or at fruitset [phenological stage J,
treatment late defoliation (LD)]. In the fourth treatment, only the leaves facing east were removed at phenological
stage H (treatment east ED). In the fourth experimental season, all treatments were managed similarly. Defoliation
did not reduce fruitset but reduced berry mass, particularly in the ED and the LD treatments. Defoliation, however,
had a cumulative negative effect on vine bud fertility. Even in the fourth experimental season, the yield of the ED
treatment was 18% lower than that of the control. Both the ED and particularly the LD treatments increased berry
total soluble solids (TSS) and phenolic concentration. The effect of leaf removal on berry TSS and phenolic
concentration was not significant in the east ED treatment.
Conclusions: Defoliation at fruitset was the most effective treatment for increasing berry phenolics and TSS while
maintaining must acidity. Growers should take into account, however, the important yield penalty because of
defoliation, particularly in the mid-term.
Significance of the Study: Early defoliation of Tempranillo grapes growing in semi-arid and temperate climates
needs to be applied with caution and probably limited to specific seasons while consecutive defoliations should be
avoided.

Keywords: anthocyanin, berry mass, canopy management, fruit microclimate, fruitset, leaf removal

Introduction Previous studies have shown that ED improved fruit com-

Traditionally, defoliation has been used to increase fruit expo-
sure to sunlight and airflow in the fruiting zone to improve
berry composition and disease control (Jackson and Lombard
1993). This practice is more often applied in cool climates or to
vigorous vines, where fruit microclimate and the environmental
conditions are often inadequate to ensure adequate berry rip-
ening. Traditionally, vines are defoliated well after fruitset (i.e.
around veraison) when the impact on yield is less (Intrigliolo
and Lakso 2009) and potential berry size has been established.
Furthermore, later in the season, vines will normally have
enough foliage and, therefore, source capacity to withstand a
degree of leaf removal. At this time, older leaves with lower
photosynthetic activity are removed (Poni et al. 1994).
Several studies have shown that leaf removal earlier in the
season (around flowering) can reduce fruitset, fruit growth and
even vine yield in the next season (Coombe 1959, Candolfi-
Vasconcelos and Koblet 1990, Hunter and Visser 1990a,b).
Based on this, Poni et al. (2006) developed a technique com-
monly referred to as ‘early defoliation’ (ED) to reduce yield
and bunch compactness. More recently, Palliotti et al. (2011)
showed that when vine photosynthesis capacity is suppressed
by spraying the canopy with an antitranspirant, yield can be
reduced due to the effect of source limitation during flowering
and fruitset.
position and reduced bunch compactness in vigorous vineyards
in northern Italy (Poni et al. 2006, 2009). More recently,
Tardáguila et al. (2010) and Diago et al. (2010) applied ED
successfully on cvs Graciano, Carignan and Tempranillo in the
relatively cool La Rioja region of Spain. Defoliation of cv.
Tempranillo just prior to flowering was more effective for reduc-
ing yield than defoliation at fruitset. The same was true for cvs
Graciano and Carignan (Tardáguila et al. 2010).
An important advantage of ED is that it can be mechanised
(Poni et al. 2008, Tardáguila et al. 2010) and is the focus of
current research (Poni and Bernizzoni 2010, Sabbatini and
Howell 2010, Filippetti et al. 2011). Early defoliation in warm
climates, however, has not been studied. In these climates, ED
and subsequent increased fruit exposure may reduce berry
colour (Bergqvist et al. (2001).
In Tempranillo vines grown in the semi-arid terroir of south-
eastern Spain, Intrigliolo and Castel (2011) showed a strong
relationship between yield and final grape composition, irre-
spective of how yield was manipulated, i.e. water withholding
or shoot and bunch thinning. Reducing yield always increased
total soluble solids (TSS) and anthocyanins in berries. Bunch
thinning is an expensive technique that does not always
improve fruit composition (Keller 2010) often because of yield
compensatory effects. Consequently, the objective of this study

doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12049
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
112 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard
was to evaluate the effect of defoliation applied at different times
and at several levels of severity on yield and fruit composition of
Tempranillo vines grown in south-eastern Spain.
Materials and methods
Site description
The experiment was carried out during four consecutive seasons
(2008–2011) in a Tempranillo vineyard (Vitis vinifera L.) planted
in 1991 on 161-49 rootstock at a spacing of 2.45 by 2.45 m
(1666 vines/ha). The vineyard was located near Requena
(39°29'N, 1°13'W, elevation 750 m), Valencia, Spain. Vines
were spur-pruned in winter, leaving 22–23 nodes per vine, and
were trained to a vertical trellis on a bilateral cordon system
oriented in a north–south direction. Canopy management was
manual and included summer pruning carried out before flow-
ering in order to remove all shoots arising from buds from wood
more than 1-year old. In addition, shoot tips were trimmed once
each season but not until well after fruitset. Drip irrigation was
applied with two pressure-compensated emitters of 2.4 L/h
located at 60 cm on each side of the vine. All treatments were
drip-irrigated to replace half of the estimated crop water needs.
Vines were fertilised at a rate of 30-20-60-16 kg/ha of N, P, K,
and Mg, respectively. By the end of the season, irrigation appli-
cation was 130, 174, 60 and 122 mm in 2008, 2009, 2010 and
2011, respectively.
The soil at the site is a Typic Calciorthid, with a clay loam to
light clay texture, highly calcareous and of low fertility (0.66%
of organic matter and 0.04% of nitrogen). The soil has a deep
soil profile (>2 m), and available water capacity is about
200 mm/m with bulk density ranging from 1.43 to 1.55 t/m3.
Bud break for Tempranillo in this area usually occurs by mid-
April, flowering by early June; veraison is reached by early
August, with harvest during September and leaf fall at the
beginning of November. Climate can be classified as temperate
warm and semi-arid. At the experimental site, the average
annual rainfall for the last 12 years was 430 mm of which about
65% falls during the dormant period. The historical growing
degree days (base 10°C) from 1 April to 31 October is 1669°C,
and the heliothermal index is 2291 corresponding to a temper-
ate warm viticultural climate according to the classification of
Huglin and Schneider (1998). Weather conditions during the
experiment were measured with an automated meteorological
station located in the plot and are reported in Table 1.
Defoliation treatments
Sixteen vines per treatment were randomly selected within the
vineyard and treatments applied were:
(i) Control – undefoliated.
(ii) ED – Leaf removal was applied just before flowering
[phenological stage H, Baggiolini (1952)]. All the leaves of
Table 1. Growing degree days (base 10°C), rainfall registered from
April to October, annual rainfall and average daily maximum air
temperature (Tair) during the veraison to harvest period for a
Tempranillo vineyard in Requena (Valencia), Spain.
2008 2009 2010 2011
Growing degree days 1464 1708 1465 1668
Tair (°C) 30.7 32.0 30.3 31.4
Rainfall (April–October) (mm) 468 145 331 192
Annual rainfall (mm) 491 454 638 359
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014
the first six nodes were removed, including leaves from
lateral shoots at these node positions.
(iii) LD – late defoliation. Leaf removal was applied at fruitset
[phenological stage J, Baggiolini (1952)]. All the leaves of
the first six nodes were removed, including leaves from the
lateral shoots.
(iv) EED – east ED. Leaf removal was applied just before flow-
ering (stage H). Only the leaves facing east of the eight first
nodes were removed (four leaves), including lateral shoots.
In all treatments, the lateral apices were not removed. In the
ED and EED treatments, defoliation was applied on 29 May, 25
May and 2 June of 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. In the LD
treatment, defoliation was applied on 17, 6 and 14 June of 2008,
2009 and 2010, respectively. In 2011, no defoliation treatments
were applied, and vines were assessed to evaluate possible carry
over effects of the three consecutive seasons of defoliation on
vine performance.
Leaf area determinations
The total area of leaves removed was assessed by weighting the
total leaf mass removed from each experimental vine and divid-
ing this by the specific leaf mass [leaf area (cm2)/dry mass (g)].
Existing leaf area at the time of defoliation was quantified by
linear equations relating leaf area per shoot and total (main plus
laterals) shoot length. These relationships were obtained from
samples of 15 shoots of different lengths collected at each time
of defoliation in vines outside the experimental plots. In defo-
liated vines, all existing shoots were measured for leaf area
determination. After veraison, when shoot length growth had
stopped, the total (main + lateral) shoot length was measured in
all experimental vines along with shoots per vine to determine
vine leaf area.
Leaf assimilation rates and fruit microclimate determination
Leaf assimilation rate (Pn) was measured in 2008 and 2009. In
2008, only the control and ED treatment were measured, while
in 2009, all treatments were measured. Measurement of Pn was
conducted under ambient light, temperature, relative humidity,
and air CO2 conditions between 10 and 11 am solar time using
a portable IRGA system (Model ADC LC Pro+, The Analytical
Development Co. Ltd, Hoddesdon, England) on 12 mature,
well-exposed leaves per treatment. In all treatments, leaves of
similar age were randomly selected among the experimental
vines. Leaves were most often located in the 7–9 bud position
within a shoot.
Microclimate conditions in the fruit zone were measured
during the second experimental season (2009). Berry tempera-
ture was measured in six berries per treatment by inserting the
probe of a dual hypodermic thermocouple (Omega Engineering,
Inc., Stamford, CT, USA) into the centre of the berry. This
insertion did not affect berry development as indicated by meas-
urement of berry diameter with a digital calliper. Determination
of berry temperature started after fruitset and continued until
the end of the ripening period. Thermocouples readings were
registered continuously using a datalogger and multiplexer
(CR1000 + AM25T, Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT, USA) pro-
grammed to report 30-min average values.
Light intensity in the fruit zone was assessed by measuring
the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) using 50-cm
length bar sensors (Skye Instruments Ltd, Llandrindod Wells,
Wales) positioned within the fruiting zone. Because of availabil-
ity of the sensors, only a single bar per treatment was used.
Above canopy, PAR was measured by means of a single PAR
quantum sensor (Skye Instruments Ltd). Readings of PAR were
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Risco et al.
recorded from 25 June to 30 August by a CR1000 datalogger
(Campbell Scientific) programmed to report average 30-min
values. Data obtained during entire days were averaged in order
to calculate daily average values.
Flowering, fruitset and yield determination
In all experimental vines, four inflorescences were selected just
before anthesis and photographed against a dark background
with a digital camera held perpendicular to the inflorescence. A
regression between actual flower number (obtained by destruc-
tive counting on 30 inflorescences in 2008 and 14 per year in
seasons 2009, 2010 and 2011 – inflorescences taken from guard
vines) and the number of flowers counted on photo prints was
then established. The resulting linear relationship (no flowers =
2.06 x no flowers photo; r2 = 0.96*** n = 72) was then used to
estimate the actual flower number per inflorescence. This
regression equation was used in all four seasons as there was no
significant (P < 0.05) difference observed among seasons. The
same selected inflorescences tagged for flower number determi-
nation were harvested 1–2 days before the commercial vintage
and the number of berries per bunch counted to obtain the
fruitset rate and weighed to obtain the bunch and berry fresh
mass. At harvest, the remaining bunches per vine were counted
and weighed separately to obtain the total yield per vine.
Harvest was carried out on 29, 1, 20 and 23 September of 2008,
2009, 2010 and 2011, respectively.
Fruit composition
Must composition was measured in four samples per treatment
comprising about 300 berries. Half of the sample was crushed
with a Thermomix blender and hand-pressed through a metal
screen filter. Juice was then centrifuged during 10 min at
17608 × g. TSS (°Brix) was determined by refractometry. Juice
pH and titratable acidity (TA) were determined by an automatic
titrator (Metrohm, Herisau, Switzerland). Juice was titrated
with a 0.1 N solution of NaOH to an end point of pH 8.2, and
results were expressed as g/L of tartaric acid. Malic and tartaric
acids were determined using a Systea Easychem Plus automatic
sequential analyzer (Easychem, Oak Brook, IL, USA). Tartaric
acid was measured according to the spectrophotometric method
of Rebelein (Blouin 1973), and malic acid was measured using
the enzymatic method described by Chretien and Sudraud
(1993). Duplicate samples were measured for all must
components.
Total anthocyanins (expressed in malvidin equivalents),
total phenols (in absorbance units) and tannins (in catechin
equivalents) were determined in triplicate by ultraviolet/visible
Table 2. Leaf area removed in a Tempranillo vineyard under three defoliation regimes.
Parameter Treatment
Total leaf area removed (m2/vine) ED
LD
EED
Leaf area removed as a proportion ED
of the total (%) LD
EED
Within each column, different letters indicate a significant difference among treatments after Duncan test at P < 0.05. Data are average values (n = 16) for the
defoliation treatments applied either before flowering (ED), at fruitset (LD) or at flowering, removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy (EED). Leaf area
removed is reported in absolute terms and also relative to the total vine leaf area at the time of defoliation. For the analysis of the data across years, the statistical
significance of the effect of year and treatment by year interaction are also indicated. ED, early defoliation; EED, east ED; LD, late defoliation.
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 113
spectrophotometry in samples of 150 berries homogenised
(Ultraturrax T25) to a grape paste (Iland et al. 2004). Two sam-
plings were performed each season on 9 and 29 September
2008, 26 August and 1 September 2009, and 7 and 20
September 2010. The second sample collection coincided with
commercial harvest.
Statistical analysis
Analysis of variance was undertaken with the mixed procedure
of the SAS statistical package (version 8.2; SAS Institute, Inc.,
Cary, NC, USA). Differences among treatments were assessed by
Duncan’s Least Significant Difference test. Data across seasons
were also analysed including the year and treatment by year
factors. In this case, differences between means were analysed
only when the interaction treatment by year effect was not
statistically significant at P < 0.05 (i.e. the effect of the treatment
was not different in each season). For berry components, differ-
ences between treatment means were assessed within each
sampling date with a Duncan’s least significant difference test
and also by comparing with a Dunnett’s t-test data from the
control vines for the late sampling with those from the defoli-
ated vines for the first early sampling.
Results
Climatic conditions
Growing degree-days from April to October in all years were
above 1464°C and in 2009 reached 1708°C (Table 1). During the
berry-ripening period (i.e. August and beginning of September),
average daily maximum air temperature varied from 30.3 to
32°C, registered in 2010 and 2009, respectively. Rainfall was
relatively low in 2009 with only 145 mm registered for the
entire April to October period (Table 1). During 2008 and 2010,
a higher annual precipitation rate was recorded reaching a
maximum value of 638 mm (Table 1).
Leaf area removed and vine vegetative growth
In all experimental seasons, the highest amount of leaf area
removed with defoliation was registered in the LD treatment
where, pooling data across seasons, an average of 3.7 m2 of leaf
area was removed, which represented about 69% of the total
leaf area (Table 2). When values were expressed in relative
terms, however, the highest proportion of leaf area was
removed in the ED treatment, with up to 80% of the total leaf
area present at phenological stage H removed (Table 2).
Average vine shoot length at phenological stage H was
similar in all treatments and seasons (Table 3). Later in the
season, defoliation increased shoot length by 25% compared
2008 2009 2010 Average Year Treat*year
1.5b 2.1b 1.9b 1.8b <0.0001 0.238
2.9a 3.3a 4.8a 3.7a
1.3b 1.5c 1.3c 1.4c
79a 93a 69a 80a <0.0001 0.195
58b 84a 66a 69b
55b 60b 47b 54b
114 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014

Table 3. Shoot length at several phenological stages in a Tempranillo vineyard under three defoliation regimes.

Parameter Treatment 2008 2009 2010 Average Year Treat*year

Main shoot length at Control 71a 73a 53a 63a <0.0001 0.299
phenological stage H ED 66a 67a 53a 60a
(cm) LD 68a 68a 53a 61a
EED 70a 71a 53a 62a
Total (main + laterals) Control 177a 181a 155a 171 <0.0001 0.0432
shoot length after ED 222b 162a 140a 175
veraison (cm) LD 222b 179a 145a 182
EED 210ab 172a 150a 177
Lateral shoot length after Control 45b 46a 18a 36 <0.0001 0.0345
veraison (cm) ED 73a 39a 13b 42
LD 77a 52a 16a 48
EED 89a 48a 15ab 51

Within each column, different letters indicate a significant difference among treatments after Duncan test at P < 0.05. Data are average values (n = 16) for the control,
and the defoliation treatments applied either before flowering (ED), at fruitset (LD) or at flowering, removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy (EED). For
the analysis of the data across years, the statistical significance of the effect of year and treatment by year interaction is also indicated. ED, early defoliation; EED, east
ED; LD, late defoliation.

with that of the control vines but only in the first experimental
season and only in the ED and LD treatments. This increase was
mainly a consequence of a shoot lateral regrowth (Table 3). In
contrast, in 2009 and 2010, similar total shoot length values
were registered in all treatments (Table 3).

Leaf assimilation rates and fruit microclimate

Leaf assimilation rates for the different treatments are reported
in Figure 1. In 2008, compared with that of control vines, Pn for
the ED vines increased once defoliation was applied. In 2009,
when a more comprehensive analysis of leaf assimilation rates
was conducted, the ED treatment maintained a Pn value higher
than that of the control until the beginning of July. Afterwards,
Pn of the ED treatment decreased to a value close to that of the
control. In contrast, Pn for the EED treatment was in all deter-
minations, except for that in mid-August, close to that of
control, indicating that in this treatment, leaf assimilation rate
was not affected by defoliation. In the LD treatment, immedi-
ately after defoliation was carried out, Pn was close to that of the
control, but it increased to a value about 30% higher than that
of the control 20 days after the application of the treatment, and
the value remained 20–40% higher than that of the control
until September (Figure 1). The Pn value in the control vines
increased during the first part of the season, reaching a leaf
assimilation rate of 12 μmol/(m2·s) recorded in mid-July. After-
wards, Pn of the control vines had a decreased to a value around
6.5 μmol/(m2·s).
Light exposure in the fruit zone was the maximum in the LD
treatments, with about half of incident PAR reaching the fruit
(Figure 2). The ED and EED treatments had similar fruit expo-
sure, with about one third of the available light reaching the
fruit zone. In the control treatment, an average of only 4.7% of Figure 1. Seasonal variation of leaf assimilation rates (Pn) in a
the ambient PAR light penetrated to the fruiting zone. Tempranillo vineyard under different leaf defoliation regimes in (a)
Berries from defoliated vines had 1–2°C higher daytime and 2008 and (b) 2009. Data are average values for the control,
undefoliated vines (●) and the defoliation applied before flowering
0.5–1°C lower night-time temperature than that of control
[early defoliation (ED)] (○), at fruitset [late defoliation (LD)] (▼) or
berries (Figure 2). Berry temperature difference among the dif- at flowering, but removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy
ferent defoliation treatments was not as clear. Shortly after (east ED) (▽). The dotted and solid vertical lines indicate the time
fruitset, the ED had a berry temperature slightly higher than when defoliation was applied in the ED and LD treatments, respec-
that of the LD and EED treatments. The berry growing degree- tively. In 2008, Pn was determined only in the control and ED treat-
days (base 10°C) calculated from berry temperature data ments. Error bars are the standard error values.

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Risco et al. Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 115

Figure 2. Seasonal variation (a) of the photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) above the canopy (—) and reaching the fruit zone
(○,●,▽,▼) and (b) of the daytime and night-time berry temperature in a Tempranillo vineyard under three defoliation regimes. Data are
average values (n = 6) for the control (no defoliation) (●), for the defoliation applied before flowering [early defoliation (ED)] (○), at fruitset
(late defoliation) (▼) or at flowering, but removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy (east ED) (▽). Daytime (●,○,▼,▽) and night-time
(■,□,◆,◇) temperatures are average values for the periods 07:00–20:00 and 22:00–06:00 solar time, respectively. PAR radiation values are
daily averages. In the berry temperature graph, the error bars are the standard deviations.

showed that Control and EED treatments were not statistically
different at 967 and 981°C*day, respectively, while the ED and
LD treatments values (998 and 999°C*day, respectively) were
significantly (P < 0.05) but not substantially higher than that for
the Control and EED treatments.
Yield components
The average number of shoots per vine retained after summer
pruning was similar in all treatments and ranged from 22 to 23
across seasons (results not shown). In the first experimental
season, a similar number of bunches per shoot was recorded in
all treatments (Table 4). Only in 2011, after three consecutive
seasons of defoliation application, a significant decrease in the
number of bunches per shoot could be recorded in the ED
treatment compared with that of the control. Pooling data from
2009 to 2011 (the years when the defoliation carried out in the
previous seasons could have affected bud fertility), the number
of bunches per shoot of the ED treatment was 28% lower than
that in the control vines (Table 4). In 2008 the number of florets
per inflorescence was similar in all treatments (Table 4). This
was not surprising since the defoliation treatments started in
2008. In 2009 and 2010, however, defoliation carried out at
phenological stage H (i.e. the ED treatment) decreased by
22–25% the number of florets per inflorescence, whereas in
2011, the number of florets per inflorescence of the ED treat-
ment returned to a value similar to that of the control. The LD
and EED treatments did not significantly affect the number of
inflorescences per shoot or the number of florets per inflores-
cence compared with the control treatment in any of the experi-
mental seasons (Table 4).

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

116 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014

Table 4. Effect of early defoliation on bud fertility and yield components of Tempranillo grapevines under three defoliation regimes.

Parameter Treatment 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Year T*year

Bud fertility (inflorescences Control 1.31a 0.76a 0.97a 1.32a 1.01a <0.0001 0.8955
per shoot) ED 1.20a 0.54a 0.68a 0.97b 0.73b
LD 1.20a 0.65a 0.76a 1.18a 0.87ab
EED 1.26a 0.67a 0.77a 1.20a 0.88ab
Flowers per infloresence Control 379a 304a 430a 468a 401a <0.0001 0.0885
ED 353a 229b 353b 478a 353a
LD 362a 310a 396ab 470a 393a
EED 400a 281ab 456a 456a 398a
Fruitset (%) Control 42.5a 43.8a 38.2a — 41.4a <0.001 0.466
ED 42.0a 43.5a 33.1a — 39.6a
LD 42.5a 41.0a 36.6a — 40.0a
EED 42.3a 48.2a 38.5a — 42.9a
Berries per bunch Control 155a 149a 160a — 155a 0.018 0.084
ED 140a 130a 104b — 124b
LD 144a 138a 124ab — 135b
EED 161a 149a 155a — 156a
Berry mass (g) Control 1.95a 2.06a 1.78a — 2.0a <0.001 0.508
ED 1.75b 1.89b 1.62b — 1.82b
LD 1.73b 1.76b 1.58b — 1.69c
EED 1.90ab 1.91b 1.84ab — 1.89ab
Bunch mass (g) Control 282a 275a 278a 277a 281a 0.001 0.054
ED 230b 219b 153b 304a 234b
LD 255b 248b 172b 308a 237b
EED 317a 299a 256a 281a 305a

Within each column different letters indicate a significant difference among treatments after Duncan test at P < 0.05. Data are average values (n = 16) for the control,
and the defoliation treatment applied either before flowering (ED), at fruitset (LD) or at flowering, removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy (EED). For the
analysis of the data across years, the statistical significance of the effect of year and treatment by year interaction is also indicated. For the variables bud fertility and
flowers/inflorescence average data correspond to the 2009–2011 period; for the other variables, the averages are for the 2008–2010 period. Fruitset, berries/bunch
and bunch mass were not obtained in 2011 when defoliation was not applied in any treatment. —, no data collected; ED, early defoliation; EED, east ED; LD, late
defoliation.

Fruitset did not vary among all treatments in any of the
experimental seasons (Table 4). In 2010, however, there were
still differences in the number of berries per bunch among
treatments because the ED treatment significantly decreased the
number of berries per bunch compared with that of the control
and EED treatments (Table 4). When pooling data across
seasons, both the ED and LD reduced by 20 and 13%, respec-
tively, the number of berries per bunch, while the EED did not
impair this variable when compared with that of the control, the
ED and the LD treatments.
Berry mass was the yield component variable more consist-
ently affected by defoliation. Pooling data across seasons, the ED
and LD treatments decreased berry mass by 9 and 16%, respec-
tively, compared with that of the control vines. There was also
a significant difference between ED and LD, with the LD treat-
ment resulting in a greater reduction in berry mass. In contrast,
compared with the control treatment, the effect of the EED
defoliation regime on berry mass was statistically significant
only in 2009 (Table 4).
In all seasons in which defoliation was applied, the ED and
LD treatments reduced bunch mass (Table 4). Considering
average data for 2008, 2009 and 2010, bunch mass was 25%
lower in the ED and LD treatments compared with that of the
control, and differences between the ED and EED treatments
were also noticeable and statistically significant (Table 4). In
2011, when defoliation was not applied, similar bunch mass was
recorded in all treatments.
Vine vegetative growth and yield
Total vine leaf area was significantly affected by defoliation only
in the ED and LD treatments (Table 5). The reduction observed
varied among seasons with the greatest reduction (−45%)
observed in the LD treatment in 2008 and the least pronounced
(−14%) in the ED treatment in 2010. It should be noted that
defoliation applied in the EED treatment did not significantly
affect total leaf area (Table 5).
The effect of defoliation on yield also varied among seasons
and tended to become more pronounced over the years
(Table 5). For instance, in 2008, yield in the ED treatment was
reduced with respect to that of the control vines by 23%, while
in 2009, it decreased by 50% and in 2010, the yield reduction
was as high as 54%. In 2011, when defoliation was not applied
and the ED vines were managed similarly to the Control vines,
there was a carry-over effect, and an 18% reduction in yield was
recorded (Table 5). In the first two experimental seasons in the
LD treatment, the yield reduction compared with that of the
control treatment was similar to that reported for the ED. In
2010, however, the LD treatment reduced yield less than the ED
treatment, with a statistical significant difference between these

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Risco et al. Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 117

Table 5. Leaf area, yield and leaf area to yield ratio of Tempranillo grapevines under three defoliation regimes.

Parameter Treatment 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average Year T*Year

Leaf area (m2/vine) Control 7.9a 7.7a 13.0a — 9.5 <0.0001 0.034
ED 6.1b 5.0b 11.2b — 7.4
LD 4.4b 5.6a 12.9a — 7.6
EED 6.7ab 6.3a 11.6ab — 8.2
Yield (t/ha) Control 11.1a 9.2a 11.9a 13.2a 10.7 <0.0001 0.049
ED 8.6b 4.6b 5.1d 10.9b 6.1
LD 8.2b 5.0b 6.4c 12.8a 6.5
EED 9.3ab 6.7b 8.6b 11.6ab 8.6
Leaf area/yield (m2/kg) Control 1.14a 1.33b 1.74b — 1.41 <0.0001 0.023
ED 1.14a 1.74a 3.51a — 2.13
LD 0.86b 1.78a 3.23a — 1.96
EED 1.16a 1.50ab 1.87b — 1.51

Within each column, different letters indicate a significant difference among treatments after Duncan test at P < 0.05. Data are average values (n = 16) for the control,
and the defoliation treatment applied either before flowering (ED), at fruitset (LD) or at flowering removing, leaves facing the east side of the canopy (EED). For the
analysis of the data across years, the statistical significance of the effect of year and treatment by year interaction is also indicated. Leaf area was not determined in
2011 when leaf pulling was not applied in any treatment. —, no data collected; ED, early defoliation; EED, east ED; LD, late defoliation.

two treatments. In 2011, the LD and the control treatments
yielded similarly. In the EED treatment, yield was reduced by
28% compared with that of the control vines in 2009 and 2010.
Grape composition
Grape composition for each single season (2008, 2009 and
2010) is presented in Figures 3 and 4. It should be highlighted,
however, that the defoliation treatment by season interactive
factor was not statistically significant at P < 0.05 for any of the
grape composition parameters analysed. This suggests that in
general, the trends observed were consistent among seasons.
Data are separated in the two samplings obtained before harvest
(early sampling) and at harvest (late sampling). Differences
among treatments are reported within each sampling date and
also between values of the defoliation treatments in the early
sampling and the control treatment for the late sampling.
In all three seasons and for both sampling dates, grape TSS
was significantly increased by the LD treatment compared with
that of the control vines (Figure 3). In the first two seasons, this
TSS increment was still noticeable when compared with that of
control samples collected some 15 days later (Figure 3). When
compared with control values, the ED treatment significantly
increased TSS only in the early sample of the last experimental
season. The EED treatment had, in all seasons, a similar TSS
value to that of the control and the LD berries. On each sam-
pling date, defoliation tended to decrease TA and to increase
must pH, respectively, compared with that of the control vines.
Differences in must acidity with respect to the control values
were more noticeable in the LD treatment and in the last two
experimental seasons. However, on comparing values of the
defoliation vines for the early sampling with those of the late
sampling, it was observed that ED resulted in an increase in
must acidity concentration and a decrease in must pH
(Figure 3).
Defoliation had a variable effect on the concentration of the
organic acids. Thus, on each sampling date, while tartaric acid
increased in the defoliation treatments LD and EED, malic acid
decreased, and the effect was statistically significant in the LD
treatment. In the last two experimental seasons, however, malic
acid concentration of the defoliation treatments at the early
sampling was similar to that of the control late sampling
(Figure 3).
Defoliation also clearly affected the grape phenolic compo-
sition (Figure 4). In all seasons, the ED and particularly the LD
treatments increased the concentration of total phenolics and
anthocyanins in berries. For the LD treatment, this effect was
still statistically significant even when comparing samples with
a 2-week difference. In contrast, the EED treatment did not
increase the concentration of grape phenolics when compared
with that of the control samples. Despite the fact that there was
a general trend for the LD treatment to have a concentration of
total phenolics and anthocyanins higher than that of the ED
treatment, the difference between these two defoliation treat-
ments was in most cases not statistically significant at P < 0.05.
Grape tannins concentration was also increased in the LD treat-
ment compared with that of the control treatment in the first
two seasons (Figure 4). Pooling data for all three seasons, for
instance, the concentration of total phenolics, anthocyanins and
tannins was 13, 18 and 48 units higher in the early sampling of
the ED treatment compared with that of the late sampling of the
control treatment.
Discussion
ED effects on grape composition
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to report on
the effect of ED in a relatively warm and dry climate. Since the
original study by Poni et al. (2006), ED has been the subject of
several investigations in relatively cool and humid viticultural
sites (Diago et al. 2010, Poni and Bernizzoni 2010, Sabbatini
and Howell 2010). Overall, the results agree with previous
studies (Poni et al. 2006, Diago et al. 2010, Poni and Bernizzoni
2010), which showed that ED when severe, i.e. by removing all
main leaves and lateral leaves of the first six nodes, increased
TSS (Figure 3) and phenolic concentration (Figure 4). Other
studies conducted in high light and high temperature areas have
reported that berry colour could be reduced by defoliation
(Bergqvist et al. 2001, Spayd et al. 2002). Those studies recom-
mended caution as to the timing for applying leaf defoliation
under warm and arid environments. Our results, similar to
those of Palliotti et al. (2011), suggest that leaf removal can be
effective early in the season, when air temperature is still mild
and when berries are at an early stage of growth and develop-
ment. Under these circumstances, it is likely that berries and

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

118 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014

Figure 3. Concentration of sugar [total soluble solids (TSS)], and tartaric and malic acids, pH and titratable acidity of berries on two sampling
dates at the end of the ripening period in a Tempranillo vineyard under three defoliation regimes. Averages are obtained from four replicates
per treatment for the control (no defoliation) and for the defoliation applied before flowering [early defoliation (ED)], at fruitset [late defoliation
(LD)] or at flowering, but removing leaves facing the east side of the canopy (east ED). Within each sampling date, different letters indicate
statistically significant differences at P < 0.05 after Duncan test. *Indicates significant differences at P < 0.05 among the early samples of the
defoliation treatments and the late sample of the control treatment. The horizontal dotted lines mark the value of the LD treatment for the early
sampling.

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Risco et al. Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 119

Figure 4. Concentration of total phenolic, total anthocyanins and tannins at two sampling dates at the end of the ripening period in a
Tempranillo vineyard under three defoliation regimes. Data are obtained in four replicates per treatment for the control (no defoliation) and
for the defoliation applied before flowering [early defoliation (ED)], at fruitset [late defoliation (LD)] or at flowering, but removing leaves facing
the east side of the canopy (east ED). Within each sampling date different letters indicate statistically significant differences at P < 0.05 after
the Duncan test. * indicates a significant difference at P < 0.05 among the early samples of the defoliation treatments and the late sample of
the control treatment. The horizontal dotted lines mark the value of the LD treatment for the early sampling.

vines can withstand sudden high exposure to sunlight by either
promoting the growth of skin tissues (Poni et al. 2008) or a
lateral regrowth to compensate for the defoliation (Poni et al.
2006).
There are three possible explanations for the positive
responses reported here. First, berry mass was lower in the
defoliation treatments. Smaller berries have a higher surface
area to volume ratio, increasing the concentration of phenolic
substances mainly present in skin tissues (Roby et al. 2004). In
fact, the largest effect of leaf removal on berry TSS and phenolic
concentration was observed in the LD treatment (Figures 3,4),
the treatment with a greatest effect on berry mass (Table 4).
Second, crop level was also lower in the defoliated vines, and
previous studies (Intrigliolo and Castel 2011) suggest that yield
per se can affect TSS and berry colour. In addition, at least in the
final two experimental seasons, vine crop load was lower
(higher leaf area to yield ratio) in the defoliation treatments
(Table 5). Third, it is possible that fruit microclimate was
improved by defoliation. The fact that defoliation was applied
early in the season and lateral apices were not removed might
have led to more favourable light conditions, which avoided
excessive sun exposure while only slightly increasing berry tem-
perature. In support of this contention, berry temperature in
defoliated vines did not exceed 35°C (Figure 2), a temperature
above which has a deleterious effect on colour (Kliewer 1977,
Mori et al. 2007). In addition, berries from the defoliation treat-
ments had higher daily thermal variation compared with that of
control vines, with night-time berry temperature being higher
in the control vines (Figure 2). This was most likely due to the
higher amount of foliage that control vines had in the fruit zone,
which presumably increased the resistance to heat exchange
between berries and the surrounding environment. Lower
night-time berry temperature can favour berry coloration
(Kliewer and Torres 1972, Tomana et al. 1979).
Although defoliation increased TSS and phenolics in berries,
it should be noted that this was not the case on a whole vine
basis (Table 5) as the reduction in grapevine yield in all treat-
ments was larger than the increase in TSS and phenolic
concentration in berries (Figures 3,4). Thus, overall vine perfor-
mance was not stimulated by the defoliation treatments. The
positive response that severe defoliation had on leaf assimilation
rates diminished during the last part of the season (Figure 1)
coinciding with berry ripening, including sugar accumulation.
In addition, contrary to a previous study on Sangiovese grape-

© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

120 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard
vines (Palliotti et al. 2011), Tempranillo grapevines grown in an
arid climate did not exhibit regrowth potential (Table 3) possibly
because of soil water limitation as only half of the potential
evapotranspiration was replaced with irrigation. Indeed, the
deficit irrigation applied limited plant functioning towards the
end of the season as reflected in the leaf photosynthetic
responses (Figure 1).
The only important negative effect that defoliation had on
grape composition was the decrease in must TA and increase
in must pH (Figure 3). This is particularly problematic for
Tempranillo grapes grown in southern Spain, where must pH
can often be too high for normal vinification practices. Despite
the fact that in many other ED trials, must acidity was not
modified by defoliation (Intrieri et al. 2008, Tardáguila et al.
2008, Poni and Bernizzoni 2010), the results reported here are
not surprising. This is mainly due to the fact that leaf defoliation
decreased berry malic acid concentration (Figure 3) probably
because of higher berry temperature (Ford 2012), with berry
GDD accumulation in the defoliated vines being higher than in
control vines. In addition, berries from the defoliation treatment
had higher TSS. Similarly, Diago et al. (2012) found defoliation-
improved fruit ripeness. Interestingly, even though fruit was
sampled earlier, berries from the LD vines had higher TSS and
phenolic concentration than berries from the control vines,
which were sampled 7–20 days later (Figures 3,4). In addition,
must pH from the early sample of the LD treatment was lower
than that from control grapes picked in the later sampling
(Figure 3). This suggests that when defoliation is applied in
commercial Tempranillo vineyards under temperate warm and
dry conditions harvest could be advanced to counteract the
possible negative effect that defoliation might have on berry
acidity. Further studies need to be conducted to understand how
wine sensory properties are affected by defoliation as wine
quality is not purely a function of TSS and berry acidity. For
instance, several skin maturity components that were not ana-
lysed in the present research are known to be affected by defo-
liation (Diago et al. 2010, 2012) and by the degree of grape
ripening (Keller 2010).
Timing and intensity of leaf removal
We initially hypothesised that removing leaves only from the
east side could be a better practice. Unfortunately, these treat-
ment vines were defoliated only at phenological stage H, which
turned out to be the less effective of the two timings tested here.
Indeed, when an average 54% of the total leaf area was
removed at stage H, as in treatment EED, vine performance and
fruit composition was not affected. It appears that defoliation
needs to be severe to significantly affect vine performance.
Tardáguila et al. (2008) found that removing the leaves in
Grenache vines only from the first five nodes without eliminat-
ing lateral leaves did not affect yield. Vines can compensate in
response to leaf removal by increasing the area of remaining
leaves (Poni et al. 2006) and by increasing the rate of leaf CO2
assimilation (Poni et al. 2008). Both of these short-term
responses were detected in this study (Table 3 and Figure 1).
However, in the mid-term (second season of leaf removal appli-
cation), only leaf assimilation was increased by severe defolia-
tion treatments. Only in the first season did vines respond to
defoliation through increasing leaf area. In subsequent seasons,
shoot growth was not increased by defoliation, perhaps suggest-
ing a reduction of vine regrowth capacity over time.
The more severe defoliation treatments did not affect fruitset
even over three seasons of consecutive leaf removal (Table 4).
Although the vine source reduction because of leaf removal
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014
affected berry growth, it was probably not severe enough to
cause berries to be shed. Similarly, Diago et al. (2010) showed
that severe defoliation of Tempranillo grapes in La Rioja (north-
ern Spain) carried out by removing the first eight basal leaves at
fruitset did not reduce the number of berries per bunch. More
recently, Gatti et al. (2012) showed that fruitset was affected by
defoliation after only two consecutive seasons of leaf removal.
Research conducted on other grape cultivars, however, has
shown that fruitset is often clearly reduced by defoliation while
berry growth is unaffected (Poni et al. 2008, Sabbatini and
Howell 2010). Intrigliolo and Lakso (2009) showed that berry
abscission can be related to the berry growth rate in two species
of the Vitis genus, highlighting important differences among
plant materials. It is possible that different cultivars or different
environmental conditions might determine different berry
growth and berry drop patterns in response to a carbohydrate
source limitation. It may be that Tempranillo grapes need a
drastic decrease in berry growth in order to promote berry
abscission. In any case, more research is needed to better under-
stand and predict responses to leaf removal around flowering.
The fact that defoliation affected berry mass but not fruitset
has implications not only for yield control but also for fruit
composition because a reduction in individual berry mass might
have a greater effect on final grape composition rather than a
reduction in the number of berries per bunch. Although berry
size per se is not the only determinant of must composition
(Matthews and Nuzzo 2007), smaller berries could facilitate
greater extraction during fermentation of phenolic substances
localised in the berry skins, leading to more concentrated wines.
More research evaluating the effects of defoliation on the skin
tissues growth is needed. Recent studies by Poni et al. (2009)
and Palliotti et al. (2011) have shown that relative skin mass in
defoliated berries was higher than that in the control berries,
even when comparing berries of similar size (Poni et al. 2009).
In contrast with previous findings obtained in La Rioja with
Tempranillo, Grenache and Carignan vines (Diago et al. 2010,
Tardáguila et al. 2010), showing preflowering defoliation to be
more effective than post-flowering leaf removal for regulating
yield, our results show that defoliation at fruitset (phenological
stage J) had a greater effect on yield via berry mass. In addition,
berry TSS was clearly increased by defoliation, particularly
when applied at phenological stage J. This may be due to higher
exposure to light in treatment LD compared with that in ED.
Mid-term effects of defoliation on vine performance
Particularly in the treatment ED, defoliation decreased both
inflorescences per shoot and flowers per inflorescence. It is
well known that a carbohydrate source limitation occurring
around flowering can reduce bud fertility in the next season
(May 2000). It is not clear, however, why the ED treatment
decreased bud fertility more than the LD treatment (Table 4).
Candolfi-Vasconcelos and Koblet (1990) in cultivar Pinot Noir
showed that the period from flowering to 2 weeks after was the
most critical for bud fruitfulness responses to defoliation applied
the previous season. This period of time covers both the ED and
LD treatments. Thus, for Tempranillo, bud fertility may be more
sensitive to the period just before flowering than the period after
flowering (phenological stage J). The greater effect that ED had
on bud fertility might also be due to a greater limitation in
carbohydrate supply. More leaves were removed with the
treatment also lasting longer (earlier defoliation). Similar to
the present results, Candolfi-Vasconcelos and Koblet (1990)
showed, after two seasons of leaf removal, that even in a third
season in the absence of leaf removal, vines still exhibited
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Risco et al.
reduced bud fertility and berry mass. Vines needed two seasons
without defoliation to recover. Other previous studies have
not shown such marked reductions in bud fertility over time
because of the ED (Poni et al. 2008, Poni and Bernizzoni 2010,
Palliotti et al. 2011). Mainly, this has been attributed to any
negative effects because of the source being counteracted by
higher bud exposure to light.
Bud fertility varied substantially between seasons (Table 4).
A recent review by Clingeleffer (2010) on crop management
concluded that seasonal differences in bud fertility were a major
determinant of vineyard productivity. The marked season-to-
season differences in bud fruitfulness observed here had as
much of an effect on yield as defoliation.
Overall, the long-term results obtained suggest that
preflowering defoliation should not be carried out in deficit-
irrigated Tempranillo vines under relatively warm conditions
in contrast with what has been previously suggested for this
cultivar in a cooler climate (Diago et al. 2010). These contrasting
results clearly point out the importance of conducting local
research before extrapolating results across environmental
conditions.
Conclusions
Overall results indicate that in a temperate warm and arid
environment under deficit irrigation, defoliation at fruitset by
removing all leaves from the first six nodes is the most effective
treatment to reduce bunch and berry mass, and to increase
berry phenolics and TSS. Growers should take into account,
however, the yield penalty because of defoliation, particularly in
the mid-term. ED in Tempranillo growing in semi-arid and
warm climates needs to be applied with caution and should
probably be limited to specific seasons. Consecutive ED should
be avoided.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by funds from the Spanish Ministry
of Economy and Competitiveness with European regional
development fund co-financing Projects RTA2008-00037-
C04-01 and AGL2011-30408-C04-04, and a grant agreement
with CajaMar and Fundación Lucio Gil de Fagoaga. Dr
Intrigliolo acknowledges the financial support received from the
Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness program
‘Ramón y Cajal’. Thanks are also due to Mr Felipe Sanz, Mr
Javier Castel and Ms Angela Martinez for help in field determi-
nations and analytical data.
References
Baggiolini, M. (1952) Les stades repérés dans le développement annuel de la
vigne et leur utilisation pratique. Revue Romande d’ Agriculture, de
Viticulture et d’ Arboriculture 8, 4–6.
Bergqvist, J., Dokoozlian, N. and Ebisuda, N. (2001) Sunlight exposure and
temperature effects on berry growth and composition of Cabernet
Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central San Joaquín Valley of California.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 52, 1–7.
Blouin, J. (1973) Manuel pratique d’ analyses des moûts et des vines
(Chambre d’Agriculture de la Gironde, Service de la Vigne et du Vin:
Bordeaux, France).
Candolfi-Vasconcelos, M.C. and Koblet, W. (1990) Yield, fruit quality, bud
fertility and starch reserves of the wood as a function of leaf removal in
Vitis vinifera: evidence of compensation and stress recovering. Vitis 29,
199–221.
Chretien, D. and Sudraud, P. (1993) Présence naturelle d’acide D(+)-
malique dans les moûts et les vins. Journal International des Sciences de
la Vigne et du Vin 27, 147–149.
Clingeleffer, P.R. (2010) Plant management research: status and what it can
offer to address challenges and limitations. Australian Journal of Grape
and Wine Research 16, 25–32.
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard 121
Coombe, B.G. (1959) Fruit-set development in seeded grape varieties as
affected by defoliation, topping, girdling, and other treatments. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 10, 85–100.
Diago, M.P., Vilanova, M. and Tardáguila, J. (2010) Effects of timing of
manual and mechanical early defoliation on the aroma of Vitis vinifera L.
Tempranillo wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 61, 382–
391.
Diago, M.P., Ayestarán, B., Guadalupe, Z., Poni, S. and Tardáguila, J. (2012)
Impact of prebloom and fruit-set Bbasal leaf removal on the flavonol and
anthocyanin composition of Tempranillo grapes. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 63, 367–376.
Filippetti, I., Allegro, G., Valentini, G., Pastore, C., Poni, S. and Intrieri, C.
(2011) Effects of mechanical pre-bloom defoliation on cordon de royat
pruned Sangiovese (Vitis Vinifera L.) vines. Journal International des Sci-
ences de Vigne et du Vin 45, 19–25.
Ford, C.M. (2012) The biochemistry of organic acids in the grapevine. Gerós,
H., Chaves, M.M. and Delrot, S., eds. The biochemistry of the grape berry.
(Bentham Sciences: Oak Par, IL, USA) pp. 67–88. doi: 10.2174/
97816080536051120101.
Gatti, M., Bernizzoni, F., Civardi, S. and Poni, S. (2012) Effects of cluster
thinning and pre-flowering leaf removal on growth and grape composition
in cv. Sangiovese. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 63, 325–
332.
Huglin, P. and Schneider, C. (1998) Biologie et ecologie de la vigne
(Lavoisier: Paris, France).
Hunter, J. and Visser, J.H. (1990a) The effect of partial defoliation on growth
characteristics of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon I. Vegetative
growth. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 11, 18–25.
Hunter, J. and Visser, J.H. (1990b) The effect of partial defoliation on growth
characteristics of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon II. Reproductive
growth. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 11, 26–
32.
Iland, P., Bruer, N., Edwards, G., Weeks, S. and Wilkes, E. (2004) Chemical
analysis of grapes and wine: techniques and concepts (Patrick Iland Wine
Promotions: Campelltown, SA, Australia).
Intrieri, C., Filippetti, I., Allegro, G., Centinari, M. and Poni, S. (2008) Early
defoliation (hand vs mechanical) for improved crop control and grape
composition in Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.). Australian Journal of Grape
and Wine Research 14, 25–32.
Intrigliolo, D.S. and Castel, J.R. (2011) Interactive effects of deficit irrigation
and shoot and cluster thinning on grapevine cv. Tempranillo. Water rela-
tions, vine performance and berry and wine composition. Irrigation
Science 29, 443–454.
Intrigliolo, D.S. and Lakso, A.N. (2009) Berry abscission is related to berry
growth in Vitis labruscana cv. Concord and Vitis vinifera cv. Riesling. Vitis 48,
53–54.
Jackson, D.I. and Lombard, P.B. (1993) Environmental and management
practices affecting grape composition and wine quality – a review. Ameri-
can Journal of Enology and Viticulture 44, 409–430.
Keller, M. (2010) Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a
challenging environment: a climate change primer for viticulturists. Aus-
tralian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 16, 56–69.
Kliewer, W.M. (1977) Influence of temperature, solar radiation and nitro-
gen on coloration and composition of Emperor grapes. American Journal
of Enology and Viticulture 28, 96–103.
Kliewer, W.M. and Torres, R.E. (1972) Effect of controlled day and night
temperatures on grape coloration. American Journal of Enology and Viti-
culture 23, 71–77.
Matthews, M.A. and Nuzzo, V. (2007) Berry size and yield paradigms on
grapes and wine quality. Acta Horticulturae 754, 423–435.
May, P. (2000) From bud to berry, with special reference to inflorescence
and bunch morphology in Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape and
Wine Research 6, 82–98.
Mori, K., Goto-Yamamoto, N., Kitayama, M. and Hashizume, K. (2007)
Effect of high temperature on anthocyanin composition and transcription
of flavonoid hydroxylase genes in ‘Pinot noir’ grapes (Vitis vinifera).
Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 82, 199–206.
Palliotti, A., Gatti, M. and Poni, S. (2011) Early leaf removal to improve
vineyard efficiency: gas exchange, source to sink balance, and reserves
storage responses. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 62, 219–
228.
Poni, S. and Bernizzoni, F. (2010) A three-year study on the impact of
pre-flowering leaf removal on berry growth components and grape com-
position in cv. Barbera vines. Journal International des Sciences de Vigne
et du Vin 44, 21–30.
Poni, S., Intrieri, C. and Silvestroni, O. (1994) Interactions of leaf age,
fruiting and exogenous cytokinins in Sangiovese grapevines under non-
irrigated conditions. I. Gas exchange. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 45, 71–78.
122 Early defoliation in Tempranillo vineyard
Poni, S., Casalini, L., Bernizzoni, F., Civardi, S. and Intrieri, C. (2006) Effects
of early defoliation on shoot photosynthesis, yield components, and grape
composition. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 57, 397–407.
Poni, S., Bernizzoni, F. and Civardi, S. (2008) The effects of early leaf
removal on whole-canopy gas exchange and vine performance of Vitis
vinifera L. ‘Sangiovese’. Vitis 47, 1–6.
Poni, S., Bernizzoni, F., Civardi, S. and Libelli, C. (2009) Effects of pre-bloom
leaf removal on growth of berry tissues and must composition in two red
Vitis vinifera L. cultivars. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research
15, 185–193.
Roby, G., Harbertson, J.F., Adams, D.A. and Matthews, M.A. (2004) Berry
size and vine water deficits as factors in winegrape composition: antho-
cyanins and tannins. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 10,
100–107.
Sabbatini, P. and Howell, S.G. (2010) Effects of early defoliation on yield,
fruit composition, and harvest season cluster rot complex of grapevines.
HortScience 45, 1804–1808.
Spayd, S.E., Tarara, J.M., Mee, D.L. and 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, 171–182.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 20, 111–122, 2014
Tardáguila, J., Diago, M.P., Martinez de Toda, F., Poni, S. and Vilanova, M.
(2008) Effects of timing of leaf removal on yield, berry maturity, wine
composition and sensory properties of cv. Grenache grown under non
irrigated conditions. Journal Internal des Sciences de Vigne et du Vin 42,
211–229.
Tardáguila, J., Martinez de Toda, F., Poni, S. and Diago, M.P. (2010) Impact
of early leaf removal on yield and fruit and wine composition of Vitis
vinifera L. Graciano and Carignan. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 61, 372–381.
Tomana, T., Utsunomiya, N. and Kataoka, I. (1979) The effect of environ-
mental temperatures on fruit ripening on the tree. II. The effect of tem-
peratures around whole vines and clusters on the coloration of ‘Kyoho’
grapes. Journal of Japanese Society for Horticultural Sciences 48, 261–
266.
Manuscript received: 2 May 2012
Revised manuscript received: 13 October 2012
Accepted: 21 February 2013
© 2013 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.