Next Article in Journal
Comparison of the Source–Sink Characteristics between Main Season and Ratooning in Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Previous Article in Journal
A Moderate Wetting and Drying Regime Combined with Appropriate Nitrogen Application Increases Grain Yield and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Rice
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy13071732
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Physiological, Enological and Agronomic Characterization of Pedro Ximénez Grapevine Cultivar under Organic Farming in a Warm Climate Zone

by
Saray Gutiérrez-Gordillo
1,
Juan Manuel Pérez-González
1,
Pau Sancho-Galán
2,*,
Antonio Amores-Arrocha
1,
Víctor Palacios
2 and
Ana Jiménez-Cantizano
1
1
Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Vegetal Production Area, University of Cadiz, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3), IVAGRO, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Spain
2
Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Food Technology Area, University of Cadiz, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3), IVAGRO, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(7), 1732; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071732
Submission received: 5 May 2023 / Revised: 15 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Horticultural and Floricultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the challenges that European agriculture will have to face will be to adapt conventional agriculture to procedures of the new European agricultural policies. In this way, organic farming will have more importance in the coming years. One of the most important crops worldwide is grapevine. The main objective of this research work focuses on the physiological, agronomic, and enological characterization of Pedro Ximénez with the purpose of knowing the viability of the organic cultivation of this cultivar in a warm climate zone. Two experimental plots were selected with two different types of management, organic and conventional. In both plots, photosynthetic capacity (AN), stomatal conductance (gs), and intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUEi) were measured, and physicochemical composition of grape must was analyzed during ripening. In addition, bunch and pruning weight were measured as agronomic parameters. Physiological results were not significantly different between management at a general level in gs and WUEi, being possible to identify a difference in AN just before the harvest. At the level of fruit ripening, significant differences were found between the two managements. At harvest, grape must had a higher sugar concentration, amine nitrogen (α-NH2), and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in the organic management than in conventional, where higher values of pH and l-malic acid were observed. Taking into account the preliminary results obtained it could be concluded the viability of the organic management for Pedro Ximénez crop in a warm climate zone.

1. Introduction

One of the most important challenges that European agriculture will have to face will be to halve the use of pesticides, reduce fertilizers by at least 20%, increase the agricultural area dedicated to organic farming to 25%, and reduce by 50% antimicrobials used on farm animals [1]. That is why, in agriculture, the area under organic management systems is being implemented as opposed to conventional ones in order to face these changes that will be introduced by the new European Agricultural Policies [1]. Specifically, in the latest report by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), the area under organic cultivation has increased by 3.7% in Europe in 2021 [2]. This indicates that there is still a lot of cultivated area that must be converted to meet the objectives set out in the European agricultural policies.
Among the different fruit crops, the cultivation of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) stands out, due to the different uses of its fruits [3]. This importance lies not only in its use for the elaboration of wine but also as a table grape and raisin production. For this reason, the economic importance associated with this crop is of great value, in such a way that more than 90 countries in the world grow grapevines [4]. The world area dedicated to this crop is estimated at around 7.3 mha in 2021. In production terms, the European Union (EU) is one of the largest grape producers worldwide, with Spain leading the European ranking (964 kha), followed by France (798 kha) and Italy (718 kha) [5]. However, the majority of this cultivation area is under conventional management, this type of managing being among the most pesticide consuming in agricultural systems [6]. In Spain, only 15% of the vineyard area is organic (142,176.9 ha) [7].
Another of the challenges that the wine sector has to face is the effects of climate change. Many of the grape-producing regions are categorized by having a Mediterranean climate, characterized by mild winters and dry summers [8]. Due to these effects, the cultivation of the grapevine faces a gradual modification of its phenological cycle, in consequence it is being harvested 10–24 days earlier than in the last 30–50 years and with overripened grapes [9,10,11]. Furthermore, these changes are more pronounced in warm climate zones which could affect the quality of the wines. Although, according to Sancho-Galán et al. [12], production of wines from overripened grapes is a viable approach to make new white wines taking advantage of the conditions imposed by climate change in a warm climate zone.
The Designation of Origin (D.O.) Marco de Jerez, located in Andalusia (Spain) is one of the viticulture area most important in the south of Europe with a higher recognition of their wines [13]. These wines are made with three grape varieties, Palomino, used in dry wines, and Pedro Ximénez and Muscat of Alexandria, used in sweet wines. Specifically, Pedro Ximénez cultivar was the 80th most planted variety worldwide, occupying an area of 8810 ha in 2016. This cultivar is mainly grown in Spain (8528 ha, 96.8%), Portugal (259 ha), Australia (20 ha), and South Africa (2 ha) [14]. Also, this cultivar is one of the most commonly used for sweet wine production in Andalusia (SW Spain). This cultivar has been cultivated in Andalusia for many years, specifically in the provinces of Cádiz, Málaga and Córdoba [15]. Regarding its agronomic performance, it is an upright plant, with significant vigor and medium–high grape production. Taking into account its enological aptitude, something that stands out about this cultivar is the number of different wines that can be made with it due to the high sugar content and low acidity [16]. Concerning grapevine physiological performance, there are many works focused on its response under deficit irrigation systems [17,18,19,20], the effect of climate change on vineyards [21,22], or sun drying effects [23,24] on grapevine. The majority of these works were carried out on red grape cultivars [25]; however, there are few works focused on the characterization of Pedro Ximénez cultivar at a physiological and agronomic level, and many more focused on organic management [26,27]. The absence of studies carried out on this cultivar means that Andalusian viticulturists do not have information on the field management of this cultivar under a warm climate zone in the D.O Marco de Jerez.
For these reasons, the main objective of this research work focuses on the physiological, agronomical, and enological characterization of Pedro Ximénez with the purpose of knowing the viability of the organic cultivation of this cultivar in a warm climate zone. The results of this preliminary characterization could contribute to increase the organic cultivation in the wine regions.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

The experiment was conducted from August to October 2022 in a private vineyard (Dos Mercedes, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz) located in the winery Williams & Humbert, South-West Spain (36.7483 N, −6.12848 W), at 100 m above sea level.
Seven-year-old grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pedro Ximénez) grafted on 161-49 Couderc rootstock were used in the study. The grapevines were pruned in a simple cordon (8 buds per vine), with a space between rows and plants of 2.40 × 1.10 m, respectively. Plats grew in an albariza soil characterized by a high calcium carbonate content, with 25–40% active limestone, low in organic matter and nitrogen, and a high level of porosity, which helps to retain moisture [28]. The training system was a vertically positioned shoot (VPS) with movable wires. No irrigation and fertilization treatment were applied.
The climatic classification of the study area is typical Mediterranean (Csa) [29], with an annual ETo rate of 1360 mm and accumulated rainfall of 775 mm. In relation to the temperature, ranges between 9.54 °C and 25.29 °C and the relative humidity between 45.42% to 96.45% (average data corresponding to the last 10 years; obtained from the Agroclimatic Information Network of Andalusia (RIA), Station Basurta, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, Spain) located at 3 km from both plots.

2.2. Plant Measurements

During the experiment (August to October; ripening period), leaf stomatal conductance (gs) and photosynthetic capacity (AN) were measured between 10:00 and 12:00 GTM, and with a weekly periodicity in a vine marked and a leaf fully expanded per side of the canopy. These readings being taken with an open gas-exchange system (Li-6800; Li-Cor, Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA), equipped with the fluorescence chamber using saturating radiation light at 1200 µmol·m2·s−1 and a 400 ppm CO2 concentration. These measurements were performed on a total of 12 vines, by agronomic management.
In addition, intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi) [30] was calculated as:
WUE i = A N g s
At the same time that the physiology measurements were made, temperature and humidity were recorded with a data logger (LOG-210 Labprocess, Barcelona, Spain) in order to analyze the plant–atmosphere response. In addition, the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) was calculated according to the methodology proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) [31].
Additionally, during the fruit-ripening process (August) it was monitored through random sampling. This sampling consists of taking individual berries from the bunch that represent the greatest possible variability. Thus, berries were taken from low, medium, and high bunches, and exposed, or not, to the sun. Berrie’s size or weight was not taken into account. Approximately, on each of the sampling days and plots, one kilo of grapes was destemmed and collected in order to perform a physicochemical characterization. In this characterization, the parameters measured were Baume degrees (˚Bé, Baume hydrometers HYBE-010-001 and HY-BE-020-001) and pH (pH-meter CRISON-2001, Crison, Barcelona, Spain) equipped with a combined electrode with automatic temperature compensation, following the officially approved methods for grape must analysis proposed by the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) [32].
In addition, organic acids (l-tartaric, d-gluconic, citric and l-malic) and nitrogen content (amine nitrogen (α-NH2), ammoniacal nitrogen (NH4), and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN)) were determined using a chemical analyzer equipment (Micro Miura®, TDI, Barcelona, Spain) [33]. Throughout the harvest (236 Day Of the Year (DOY)) the bunch weight of each of the physiologically monitored vines were obtained, using a hanging balance (Kern, Balingen, Germany HDB 10K-2XL). After the winter stoppage of the grapevines, pruning was carried out (356 DOY), recording the pruning weight of each of the physiologically monitored vines with a hanging balance.

2.3. Experimental Design and Stadistical Analysis

Two experimental plots were used within the same vineyard, with the same planting characteristics and soil type. The only difference between both plots was the agronomic management. In one of them, conventional management was used, using phytosanitary compounds to combat pests and diseases. In the other one, an organic management (implemented five years ago) was used where the products applied to combat pests and diseases are those established in Regulation (EU) 2018/848, of the European Parliament and of the Council, on organic production and labeling of organic products. Regarding the application of phytosanitary products, in the case of the conventional management, an application of herbicide for weed control was made in November. For the prevention and control of pests and diseases, three treatments for Plasmopara viticola and four for Erysiphe necator were applied in the conventional plot. In the case of the organic plot, three treatments were applied to Tetranychus urticae and Jacobiasca lybica.
In each experimental plot, the trial design was of randomized blocks, with three lines in which four strains were monitored both for physiology measurements, fruit ripening control and brunch and pruning weight (n = 12). The vines were selected following Santesteban et al. [34] methodology.
Statistical analysis was developed by using the Sigma Plot statistical software (version 14.0, Systat Software, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Day-by-day, an exploratory descriptive analysis of the entire physiological and agronomical measurements and for the ripening control for each management was completed; applying a Levene’s test to check the variance homogeneity of the variables studied. After this, for each management, a two-way ANOVA was developed, applying Bonferroni’s test to compare pairs of treatments when significant differences in the ANOVA were detected.
Additionally, there were defined the correlation between AN and gs at three different moments in the experiment for each management, analyzing the differences by applying an ANCOVA in order to evaluate the differences in the interception points and slopes.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Experimental Conditions

Regarding the experimental conditions registered (from August to October) during the monitored year, the average temperature was 26.5 °C with minimum and maximum average temperatures of 18.2 °C and 32.0 °C, respectively. In relation to the relative humidity (RH), it ranged between 28.10% and 70.08% (Figure 1A).
Concerning the average Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD), it ranged from 0.64 to 2.82 KPa (Figure 1B). Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and rainfall during the experimental period (August–October) amounted to 410 and 65.6 mm. Regarding the accumulated precipitation in the test period, it was a total of 258 mm in August, 264 mm in September, and 278 mm in October.

3.2. Physiological Characterization of Grapevine during the Experiment

In relation to AN, in the course of the experiment the ANOVA for repeated measures was not different between the two managements (Figure 2). The general performance in both systems was similar, except for the DOY 221, 229, 276, 297, and 304.
In this sense, an increase in VPD (Figure 1B) is observed related to the DOY with significant differences registered in AN between management, having more impact on AN the relative humidity than the temperature.
The maximum and minimum values of AN were 9.32 µmol·m−2·s−1 and −2.20 µmol·m−2·s−1 in conventional management and 8.67 µmol·m−2·s−1 and −2.02 µmol·m−2·s−1 in organic management. These AN ranges are in agreement with those obtained by other authors. In this way, Salazar-Parra et al. [35] in cv. Tempranillo measured an AN of 11 µmol·m−2·s−1, Hendrickson et al. [36] in cv. Riesling obtained an AN of 15 µmol·m−2·s−1 and Lucchetta et al. [37] in cv. Sauvignon Blanc evidenced an AN of 15 µmol·m−2·s−1.
It is worth noting the negative AN obtained in 234 DOY just two days before the harvest in both systems (−1.44 µmol·m−2·s−1 in conventional management and −2.02 µmol·m−2·s−1 in the organic management), which may indicate that the plant was not sending photo assimilates to the fruit and, therefore, preparing for harvest. Similar results have been found in other fruit trees, where there is a disconnection between the fruit and the plant when the former reaches maturity due to the accumulation in the Triose Phosphate Use (TPU) [38].
After harvesting, AN decreased in both management systems, from 8–9 µmol·m−2·s−1 to 4–5 µmol·m−2·s−1. This effect on AN after harvest could be verified in a study carried out by Ozelkan et al. [39] in which nine grapevine cultivars were used, confirming that, after harvest, AN went from values of 10.34 15 µmol·m−2·s−1 to 3.39 µmol·m−2·s−1.
Regarding gs (Figure 3), the ANOVA for repeated measures was not different between the two managements. gs ranged between 0.06 and 0.11 mol·m−2·s−1 in conventional management and 0.04 and 0.12 mol·m−2·s−1 in organic management.
It has already been extensively studied in vineyards that there is no robust correlation between water potential (Ψ) and gs [40,41]. This lack of correlation may be due to grapevine isohydric performance and, therefore, Ψ is not a good indicator in the central hours of the day, not being used in this experiment [42,43].
In the case of grapevine, the gs is a parameter that is sensitive to water deficit in the soil. In this sense, it has already been demonstrated that the grapevine is a species in which the stomatal opening depends on the concentration of abscisic acid (ABA) in the xylem [44,45,46]. In this line, it has also been shown that in vineyards when there is a water deficit, stomatal closure and decreased growth are induced without the need to modify Ψ [47,48], which causes ABA synthesis in roots that modifies the gs.
Furthermore, a correlation was made between AN and gs, discerning the data in three periods, before the harvest, two days before the harvest, and after the harvest (Figure 4). In this sense, the ANCOVA analysis was not different in terms of slope and interception point for any of the studied management in any of the periods. However, there is a difference in which before and after the harvest, the organic management for the same gs has more AN than the conventional management (Figure 4A,C). The same results, but in a negative sense, took place two days before harvest (Figure 4B). It should also be noted that data display a recovery in terms of the AN of the grapevine after harvest reaching AN values close to those of the beginning of August (2–12 µmol·m−2·s−1 before the harvest and 2–10 µmol·m−2·s−1 after the harvest).
Many authors have found a curvilinear relationship between AN and gs under moderate water stress [42,49,50]. However, the relationship found in this study is linear, where, in addition to stomatal limitations, non-stomatic limitations occur that reduce AN.
Regarding WUEi, no significant differences were found between both management methods (Figure 5). It should be noted that organic management in reference to the WUEi was higher than conventional management despite there being no significant differences. As seen in Figure 4A,C, the organic management for the same gs exhibited a higher AN, which translates into an increase in WUEi.
For the same gs, a decrease in the AN obtained in the DOY 234 and 297 produced a decrease in the WUEi. In this line, Cifre et al. [51] established three thresholds for gs in grapevine. The first one is where the gs values are greater than 1.5 µmol·m−2·s−1 where stomatal effects predominate; a second threshold between 1.5 and 0.05 µmol·m−2·s−1 is where WUEi increases because stomatal effects continue to be predominant; and a third threshold is where gs is lower to 0.05 µmol·m−2·s−1 where stomatal effects are not dominant and WUEi decreases.

3.3. Enological Characterization

Table 1 presents the results of the physicochemical analysis of grape must during grape ripening. In general, the must obtained from grapes cultivated in conventional management showed higher values in soluble solids (˚Bé), pH, l-malic acid, and YAN than the organic grape must.
Regarding ˚Bé evolution during berry ripening, it was observed that conventional management grape must had a total increase in soluble solids of 16% compared to the increase of 20% in the organic management must.
The pH values ranged in both managements between 3.55 and 4.01 for conventional and 3.53 and 3.86 for organic. As expected, the pH values showed a general tendency to increase during the period of ripening. However, these fluctuations and changes observed may be mainly due to variations in the concentration of organic acids in the grape must, such as tartaric acid, followed by malic acid and citric acid. It should be pointed out that, on harvest day (DOY 236), conventional management had significantly higher values (pH: 4.01 ± 0.02) compared to the organic one (pH: 3.86 ± 0.01). These results are in agreement with those observed for l-tartaric acid content below, where its lower content at harvest date (DOY 236) translates into a higher pH value.
Tartaric acid is synthesised by a large number of plants, but only a few genera, one of which is Vitaceae, accumulate significant amounts [52]. However, as can be seen in Table 1, its concentration decreases with the ripening of the fruit, probably because of dilution and the increase in the weight of the berry during ripening.
Regarding l-malic acid, which is one of the essential organic acids in ripening, its concentration in grapevines has been widely studied [53,54,55] and differences were observed between both managements. In this sense, it is known that this acid takes part in respiratory combustion carried out by the plant during the fruit ripening and its concentration drops rapidly and sharply during this process [56]. This involves an increase in pH as a direct consequence of the decrease in the acid content in the fruit. Moreover, this decrease in l-malic acid in the organic management may be due to the high temperatures (Figure 1A) suffered during grape ripening period [57,58]. The decrease in malic acid concentration, together with an increase in total soluble solids content during the course of ripening, as well as a lower AN value (Figure 2) could be translated into a mobilization of sugars in the ripening process through osmotic adjustment to increase the turgor and growth of the fruit [59,60,61].
Regarding gluconic acid content, no significant differences were observed between the different managements evaluated. However, it should be noted that, in both cases, the concentration of this acid is minimal, which indicates almost no grape rotting and a great sanitary condition to avoid, among others, the deleterious effects of Botrytis cinerea. Like gluconic acid, citric acid did not show significant differences. This is the minor organic acid in grape musts and its oscillatory tendency has no significant effect on the physicochemical composition of the must [62].
In reference to the YAN content, compounds that are essential for the growth and development of yeasts during fermentation [63,64], values ranged between 191 mg/L for organic management on DOY 231 and 288 mg/L for conventional management in DOY 234. However, in all cases concentrations were higher than 140 mg/L, which is established as the minimum value required to carry out fermentation [65]. YAN values observed for organic management in DOY 236 were slightly higher than the conventional one. These values correlate with a higher α-NH2 concentration, statistically significant (ANOVA p < 0.05), obtained for the same day in organic management.

3.4. Agronomical Characterization

Table 2 shows the agronomical characterization of conventional and organic managed vines. There were no significant differences in weight between both managements. In this sense, bunch weight per vine were 2.72 kg and 2.32 kg for conventional and organic management, respectively. In this same line, the pruning weight per vine was not significantly different between managements either (Table 2), being 0.99 kg in conventional management and 0.82 kg in ecological management.
In organic agriculture, the risk of lower yields can be an obstacle for the development of organic farming [66,67]. However, as can be seen in Table 2, in this study there are no significant differences in productive terms between both managements. In addition, in a four-year experiment carried out by Merot and Smith [67], it was evidenced that despite being a yield loss of 27–35% in the second year of conversion of a vineyard from conventional to organic, an analysis of the yield is not enough to establish conclusions about a general loss of production. This is due to the fact that, not only the total quantity of grapes produced is involved, but the quality of the wine obtained and the increase in market value within the organic market are also involved in general production.

4. Conclusions

Taking into account the new policies in agriculture where organic farming will be more and more necessary, with this study the physiological, agronomical, and enological responses of the Pedro Ximénez cultivar in a warm climate zone were characterized. From the results obtained it can be concluded that (1) at the physiological level, no significant differences were found between the conventional and organic management, so the use of phytosanitary products could be dispensable; (2) at the physicochemical level of the grapes must analyzed during berries ripening, significant differences were found between the two managements. The final sampling point showed higher sugar concentration, amine nitrogen (α-NH2), and yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in organic management than in conventional, where higher values of pH and l-malic acid were observed. (3) Regarding bunch and pruning weight, no significant differences were found in vines of two plots studied, therefore the type of management did not negatively influence the final yield. Taking into account the preliminary results obtained, the viability of the organic management for Pedro Ximénez crop in a warm climate zone could be concluded. In addition, the transfer of these results could enhance organic farming in the wine industry, combined with the new objectives of European Agricultural Policies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.P., A.A.-A. and A.J.-C.; methodology, S.G.-G., P.S.-G. and A.J.-C.; formal analysis, S.G.-G., A.A.-A. and J.M.P.-G.; investigation, S.G.-G., J.M.P.-G., P.S.-G. and A.J.-C.; data curation, S.G.-G., J.M.P.-G. and P.S.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G.-G.; writing—review and editing, S.G.-G., P.S.-G. and A.J.-C.; supervision, A.J.-C. and V.P.; funding acquisition, A.J.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

To carry out this research work, data originating from the GOPC-CA-20-0008 (GO INVITEC-PX) project, financed by the Fondo Europeo Agrícola de Desarrollo Rural (FEADER), la Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Agua y Desarrollo Sostenible de la Junta de Andalucía e Inversión Territorial Integrada Provincia de Cádiz.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Williams & Humbert winery for their collaboration with the GOPC-CA-20-0008 (GO INVITEC-PX) project, contributing with their vineyards and winery.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. European Commission. The New Common Agricultural Policy (CAP): 2023–2027; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  2. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics & Emerging Trends; FiBL: Brussels, Belgium, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alston, J.M.; Sambucci, O. Grapes in the World Economy. In The Grape Genome; Cantu, D., Walker, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  4. FAO-OIV. FAO-OIV Focus 2016. In Table and Dried Grapes; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV). State of the World Vine and Wine Sector-OIV, 2021; OIV: Dijon, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aubertot, J.N.; Barbier, J.M.; Carpentier, A.; Gril, J.J.; Guichard, L.; Lucas, P.; Savary, S.; Voltz, M.; Savini, I. Pesticides, agriculture et environnement. Réduire l’utilisation des pesticides et en limiter les impacts environnemen-taux. Expert. Sci. Collect. Inra-Cemagref 2005, 120, 64. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación. Informe Estadístico Anual 2003–2021. Available online: https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/alimentacion/temas/produccion-eco/ (accessed on 3 April 2023).
  8. Gramaje, D.; Urbez-Torres, J.R.; Sosnowski, M.R. Managing grapevine trunk diseases with respect to etiology and epidemiology: Current strategies and future prospects. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 12–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Nemani, R.R.; White, M.A.; Cayan, D.R.; Jones, G.V.; Running, S.W.; Coughlan, J.C.; Peterson, D.L. Asymmetric warming over coastal California and its impact on the premium wine industry. Clim. Res. 2001, 19, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Mira de Orduña, R. Climate change associate effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1844–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Loira, I. Optimización de Parámetros Fermentativos de Calidad en Vinos Tintos de Zonas Cálidas. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sancho-Galán, P.; Amores-Arrocha, A.; Palacios, V.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A. Effect of Grape Over-Ripening and Its Skin Presence on White Wine Alcoholic Fermentation in a Warm Climate Zone. Foods 2021, 10, 1583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sancho-Galán, P.; Amores-Arrocha, A.; Palacios, V.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A. Identification and Characterization of White Grape Varieties Autochthonous of a Warm Climate Region (Andalusia, Spain). Agronomy 2020, 10, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Anderson, K.; Nelgen, S. Which Wine Grape Varieties Are Grown and Where? University of Adelaide: Adelaide, Australia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  15. Marín, M.F.; Hierro, M.J.; Villar, E.C.; García, B.P. Estudio del comportamiento enológico de cuatro clones de la variedad Pedro Ximénez. In XLII Jornadas de Viticultura y Enología de la Tierra de Barros; Centro Cultural Santa Ana: Villaconejos, Spain, 2020; pp. 109–124. [Google Scholar]
  16. Romero, P.; Navarro, J.M.; Ordaz, P.B. Towards a sustainable viticulture: The combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards. A review and update. Agric. Water Manag. 2022, 259, 107216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ferreira, M.I.; Silvestre, J.; Conceição, N.; Malheiro, A.C. Crop and stress coefficients in rainfed and deficit irriga-tion vineyards using sap flow techniques. Irrig. Sci. 2012, 30, 433–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Darouich, H.; Ramos, T.B.; Pereira, L.S.; Rabino, D.; Bagagiolo, G.; Capello, G.; Simionesei, L.; Cavallo, E.; Bid-doccu, M. Water Use and Soil Water Balance of Mediterranean Vineyards under Rainfed and Drip Irrigation Management: Evapotranspiration Partition and Soil Management Modelling for Resource Conservation. Water 2022, 14, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ma, X.; Jacoby, P.W.; Sanguinet, K.A. Improving net photosynthetic rate and rooting depth of grapevines through a novel irrigation strategy in a semi-arid climate. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 575303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Arias, L.A.; Berli, F.; Fontana, A.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. Climate change effects on grapevine physiology and biochemistry: Benefits and challenges of high altitude as an adaptation strategy. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 835425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naulleau, A.; Gary, C.; Prévot, L.; Hossard, L. Evaluating strategies for adaptation to climate change in grapevine production–A systematic review. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 607859. [Google Scholar]
  22. Doymaz, I. Drying kinetics of black grapes treated with different solutions. J. Food Eng. 2006, 76, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mahmutoğlu, T.; Emir, F.; Saygi, Y.B. Sun/solar drying of differently treated grapes and storage stability of dried grapes. J. Food Eng. 1996, 29, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ruiz, M.J.; Zea, L.; Moyano, L.; Medina, M. Aroma active compounds during the drying of grapes cv. Pedro Xi-menez destined to the production of sweet Sherry wine. Eur. Food Res. 2010, 230, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G.; Verdugo-Vásquez, N.; Díaz-Gálvez, I. Influence of Type of Management and Climatic Conditions on Productive Behavior, Oenological Potential, and Soil Characteristics of a ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Vineyard. Agronomy 2019, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Serratosa, M.P.; Lopez-Toledano, A.; Medina, M.; Merida, J. Drying of Pedro Ximenez grapes in chamber at con-trolled temperature and with dipping pretreatments. Changes in the color fraction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 10739–10746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ruiz-Bejarano, M.J.; Castro-Mejías, R.; del Carmen Rodríguez-Dodero, M.; García-Barroso, C. Volatile composition of Pedro Ximénez and Muscat sweet Sherry wines from sun and chamber dried grapes: A feasible alternative to the traditional sun-drying. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 2519–2531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jimenez-Povedano, M.V.; Cantos-Villar, E.; Jimenez-Hierro, M.J.; Casas, J.A.; Trillo, L.M.; Guimera, S.; Puertas, B. Influencia del tipo de suelo en la características de los mostos, vinos y destilados del cv. L Palomino fino. In E3S Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 50, p. 02002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Köppen, W. Versuch Einer Klassifikation Der Klimate, Vorzugsweise Nach Ihren Beziehungen Zur Pflanzenwelt. Geogr. Z 1900, 6, 593–611. [Google Scholar]
  30. Osmond, C.B.; Björkman, O.; Anderson, D.J. Physiological Processes in Plant Ecology; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  31. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  32. OIV. Office International de La Vigne, & Du Vins. In Recueil Des Méthodes Internationales D’analyse des Vins et des Moûts; Édition Officiel-le: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  33. International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV). Compendium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis; OIV: Dijon, France, 2008; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  34. Santesteban, L.G.; Miranda, C.; Royo, J.B. Vegetative Growth, Reproductive Development and Vineyard Balance. In Methodologies and Results in Grapevine Research, 1st ed.; Delrot, S., Medrano, H., Or, E., Bavaresco, L., Gran-do, S., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  35. Salazar-Parra, C.; Aguirreolea, J.; Sánchez-Díaz, M.; Irigoyen, J.J.; Morales, F. Photosynthetic response of Tempranillo grapevine to climate change scenarios. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2012, 161, 277–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hendrickson, L.; Ball, M.C.; Wood, J.T.; Chow, W.S.; Furbank, R.T. Low temperature effects on photosynthesis and growth of grapevine. Plant Cell Environ. 2004, 27, 795–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lucchetta, V.; Volta, B.; Tononi, M.; Zanotelli, D.; Andreotti, C. Effects of pre-harvest techniques in the control of berry ripening in grapevine cv. Sauvignon blanc. In BIO Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Ulis, France, 2019; Volume 13, p. 04016. [Google Scholar]
  38. Gutiérrez-Gordillo, S.; García Tejero, I.F.; Durán Zuazo, V.H.; Díaz-Espejo, A.; Hernández-Santana, V. The effect of nut limitation on triose phosphate utilization and downregulation of photosynthesis in almond. Tree Physiol. 2023, 43, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Ozelkan, E.; Karaman, M.; Candar, S.; Coskun, Z.; Ormeci, C. Investigation of grapevine photosynthesis using hyperspectral techniques and development of hyper-spectral band ratio indices sensitive to photosynthesis. J. Environ. Biol. 2005, 36, 91. [Google Scholar]
  40. Rodrigues, M.L.; Chaves, M.M.; Wendler, R.; David, M.M.; Quick, W.P.; Leegood, R.C.; Stitt, M.; Pereira, J.S. Osmotic adjustment in water stressed grapevine leaves in relation to carbon assimilation. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1993, 20, 309–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Naor, A.; Wample, R.L. Gas exchange and water relations of field-grown Concord (Vitis labruscana Bailey) grape-vines. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 1994, 45, 333–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Escalona, J.M.; Flexas, J.; Medrano, H. Stomatal and non-stomatal limitations of photosynthesis under water stress in field-grown grapevines. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1999, 26, 421–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Choné, X.; van Leeuwen, C.; Dubordieu, D.; Gaudillère, J.P. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grape-vine water status. Ann. Bot. 2001, 87, 477–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Loveys, B.R.; Kriedemann, P.E. Internal control of stomatal physiology and photosynthesis. I. Stomatal regulation and associated changes in endogenous levels of abscisic and phaseic acids. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 1974, 1, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loveys, B.R.; Düring, H. Diurnal changes in water relations and abscisic acid in field-grown Vitis vinifera cultivars. II. Abscisic acid changes under semiarid conditions. New Phytol. 1984, 97, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Correia, M.J.; Pereira, J.S.; Chaves, M.M.; Rodrigues, M.L.; Pacheco, C.A. ABA xylem concentrations determine maximum daily leaf conductance of field-grown Vitis vinifera L. plants. Plant Cell Environ. 1995, 18, 511–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dry, P.R.; Loveys, B.R.; Düring, H. Partial drying of the rootzone of grape. I. Transient changes in shoot growth and gas exchange. Vitis 2000, 39, 3–7. [Google Scholar]
  48. Stoll, M.; Loveys, B.; Dry, P. Hormonal changes induced by partial rootzone drying of irrigated grapevine. J. Exp. Bot. 2000, 51, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  49. Düring, H. Stomatal responses to alterations of soil and air humidity in grapevines. Vitis 1987, 26, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  50. Flexas, J.; Bota, J.; Escalona, J.M.; Sampol, B.; Medrano, H. Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines un-der field conditions: An evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations. Funct. Plant Biol. 2002, 29, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Cifre, J.; Bota, J.; Escalona, J.M.; Medrano, H.; Flexas, J. Physiological tools for irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): An open gate to improve water-use efficiency? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2005, 106, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jackson, R.S. Chemical constituents of grapes and wine. Wine Sci. 2008, 1, 270–331. [Google Scholar]
  53. Cotea, V.; Pomohaci, N.I.; Gheorhita, M. Oenologie; Didáctica e Pedagógica: Bucuresti, Romania, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  54. Maujean, A.; Brun, O.; Veselle, G.; Bureau, G.; Boucher, J.M.; Cousin, M.; Feuillat, M. Étude de la maturation de cépages champenois. Modeles de prévisión de la data ded vendage. Vitis 1983, 22, 137–150. [Google Scholar]
  55. Iland, P.G.; Coombe, B.G. Malate, tartare, potassium and sodium in fish and skin of Shiraz grapes during ripen-ing concentration and compartmentation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1988, 39, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Rodríguez, M.S.A.; San José, M.L.G. Influencia climática en la maduración de la uva: Estudio de cultivares de La Rioja y Madrid. Zubía 1995, 7, 79–102. [Google Scholar]
  57. Catalina, L. Estudio de la maduración del fruto de la vid. In Proceedings of the II Jornadas Universitarias Sobre el Jerez (Universidad de Cádiz), Cádiz, Spain, 24–28 May 1982. [Google Scholar]
  58. Gerber, C. Research sur la maduration des fruits charnus. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot. 1897, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  59. Deluc, L.G.; Quilici, D.R.; Decendit, A.; Grimplet, J.; Wheatley, M.D.; Schlauch, K.A.; Mérillon, J.-M.; Cushman, J.C.; Cramer, G.R. Water deficit alters differentially metabolic pathways affecting important flavour and quality traits in grape berries of Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay. BMC Genom. 2009, 10, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. García-Romero, J.P. Impacto y adaptación al cambio climático en España. In El Sector Vitivinícola Frente al Desafío del Cambio Climático, 1st ed.; Compés, R., Sotés, V., Eds.; Monografías Cajamar: Murcia, Spain, 2018; pp. 265–268. [Google Scholar]
  61. Castellarin, S.D.; Matthews, M.A.; Di Gaspero, G.; Gambetta, G.A. Water deficits accelerate ripening and induce changes in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Plant 2007, 227, 101–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Boulton, R.B.; Singleton, V.; Bisson, L.; Kunkee, R. Principles and Practices of Winemaking; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  63. Barre, P.; Blondin, P.; Dequin, S.; Feuillat, M.; Sablayrolles, J.-M.; Salmon, J.-M. La Levure de Fermentation Al-Coolique; Oenologie Technique et Documentation; Lavoisier: Paris, France, 1998; pp. 414–495. [Google Scholar]
  64. Bell, S.-J.; Henschke, P. Implications of nitrogen nutrition for grapes, fermentation and wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 242–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ribéreau-Gayon, P.; Dubourdieu, D.; Donéche, B.; Lonvaud, A. Tratado de Enología. Microbiología del vino. Vinificaciones. In Ediciones Mundi-Prensa, 1st ed.; Hemisfério Sur: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  66. De Ponti, T.; Rijk, B.; van Ittersum, M.K. The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agric. Syst. 2012, 108, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Merot, A.; Smits, N. Does conversion to organic farming impact vineyards yield? A diachronic study in south-eastern France. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 01732 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Evolution of the relative humidity (%) and Temperature (°C), (B). Evolution of the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) during the experiment. DOY; Day of the year.
Figure 1. (A) Evolution of the relative humidity (%) and Temperature (°C), (B). Evolution of the vapor pressure deficit (VPD) during the experiment. DOY; Day of the year.
Agronomy 13 01732 g001
Agronomy 13 01732 g002 550
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the photosynthetic rate in both managements. * Indicates significant differences between managements for the same day (p < 0.05). DOY; Day of the year.
Figure 2. Temporal evolution of the photosynthetic rate in both managements. * Indicates significant differences between managements for the same day (p < 0.05). DOY; Day of the year.
Agronomy 13 01732 g002
Agronomy 13 01732 g003 550
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the stomatal conductance (gs) in conventional and organic managements. The absence of * indicates that there are no significant differences between managements for the same day. DOY; Day of the year.
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the stomatal conductance (gs) in conventional and organic managements. The absence of * indicates that there are no significant differences between managements for the same day. DOY; Day of the year.
Agronomy 13 01732 g003
Agronomy 13 01732 g004 550
Figure 4. Correlation between Photosynthetic rate (AN) and stomatal conductance (gs), in three different periods: before the harvest (A), two days before the harvest (B) and after the harvest (C).
Figure 4. Correlation between Photosynthetic rate (AN) and stomatal conductance (gs), in three different periods: before the harvest (A), two days before the harvest (B) and after the harvest (C).
Agronomy 13 01732 g004
Agronomy 13 01732 g005 550
Figure 5. Temporal evolution of intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi) in conventional and organic managements. The absence of * indicates that there are no significant differences between managements for the same day. DOY; Day of the year.
Figure 5. Temporal evolution of intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi) in conventional and organic managements. The absence of * indicates that there are no significant differences between managements for the same day. DOY; Day of the year.
Agronomy 13 01732 g005
Table
Table 1. Physicochemical characterization of the grapevine Pedro Ximénez during the fruit ripening.
Table 1. Physicochemical characterization of the grapevine Pedro Ximénez during the fruit ripening.
DOY˚BépHd-Gluconic Acid (g/L)l-Tartaric Acid (g/L)Citric
Acid
(g/L)		l-Malic Acid (g/L)α-NH2
(g/L)		NH4
(g/L)		YAN
(mg/L)
Conventional Management
21610.95 ± 0.00 a3.65 ± 0.01 a0.01 ± 0.00 a6.89 ± 0.05 a0.08 ± 0.01 a0.68 ± 0.00 a88.00 ± 0.71 a160.00 ± 1.41 a248.00 ± 0.71 a
22011.10 ± 0.00 a3.65 ± 0.01 a0.01 ± 0.00 a8.23 ± 0.27 a0.09 ± 0.01 a0.68 ± 0.02 a90.00 ± 4.24 a172.00 ± 4.95 a262.00 ± 0.71 a
22211.35 ± 0.00 a3.65 ± 0.01 a0.01 ± 0.00 a8.00 ± 0.49 a0.05 ± 0.00 a0.59 ± 0.01 a81.00 ± 2.12 a156.00 ± 1.41 a237.00 ± 0.71 a
22411.00 ± 0.00 a3.55 ± 0.01 a0.00 ± 0.00 a7.98 ± 0.01 a0.07 ± 0.01 a0.57 ± 0.01 a83.00 ± 4.95 a138.00 ± 2.12 a220.00 ± 7.07 a
22812.05 ± 0.00 a3.72 ± 0.01 a0.01 ± 0.00 a7.78 ± 0.09 a0.07 ± 0.00 a0.76 ± 0.01 a57.00 ± 2.00 a154.00 ± 3.54 a210.00 ± 5.66 a
23112.50 ± 0.00 a3.71 ± 0.01 a0.00 ± 0.00 a8.93 ± 0.10 a0.06 ± 0.00 a0.6 ± 0.01 a61.00 ± 1.00 a160.00 ± 2.00 a221.00 ± 4.00 a
23413.00 ± 0.00 a3.82 ± 0.01 a0.00 ± 0.00 a7.5 ± 0.24 a0.09 ± 0.00 a0.77 ± 0.01 a84.00 ± 2.00 a206.00 ± 1.00 a288.00 ± 1.00 a
23612.70 ± 0.00 a4.01 ± 0.02 a0.02 ± 0.00 a5.83 ± 0.14 a0.12 ± 0.00 a0.87 ± 0.00 a54.00 ± 1.00 a185.00 ± 1.00 a239.00 ± 1.00 a
Organic Management
21610.70 ± 0.00 a3.54 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.00 a7.20 ± 0.06 a0.08 ± 0.00 a0.51 ± 0.01 b92.00 ± 0.71 a139.00 ± 2.12 b230.00 ± 1.41 b
22010.70 ± 0.00 a3.54 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.00 a7.81 ± 0.16 a0.08 ± 0.00 a0.49 ± 0.01 b88.00 ± 0.71 a151.00 ± 1.41 b239.00 ± 2.12 b
22210.90 ± 0.00 a3.57 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.00 a7.34 ± 0.10 a0.07 ± 0.00 a0.43 ± 0.01 b84.00 ± 2.83 a148.00 ± 0.71 a232.00 ± 3.54 a
22411.00 ± 0.00 a3.53 ± 0.02 a0.00 ± 0.00 a7.08 ± 0.02 b0.08 ± 0.01 a0.42 ± 0.01 b79.00 ± 2.12 a142.00 ± 3.54 a220.00 ± 5.66 a
22811.75 ± 0.00 a3.60 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.00 a7.68 ± 0.00 a0.05 ± 0.00 a0.42 ± 0.00 b63.00 ± 2.00 b139.00 ± 0.71 b197.00 ± 8.49 a
23111.95 ± 0.00 a3.55 ± 0.01 b0.00 ± 0.00 a7.65 ± 0.14 b0.05 ± 0.00 a0.37 ± 0.01 b61.00 ± 1.00 a130.00 ± 1.00 b191.00 ± 1.00 b
23412.7 ± 0.00 a3.56 ± 0.01 b0.00 ± 0.00 a8.35 ± 0.16 b0.07 ± 0.00 a0.37 ± 0.01 b86.00 ± 3.00 a149.00 ± 3.00 b235.00 ± 6.00 b
23612.85 ± 0.00 a3.86 ± 0.01 b0.01 ± 0.00 a5.84 ± 0.02 a0.11 ± 0.00 a0.53 ± 0.01 b61.00 ± 0.00 b181.00 ± 1.00 a242.00 ± 1.00 a
DOY, day of the year. Different superscript letters mean significant differences (ANOVA p < 0.05, determined by two-way ANOVA applying a Bonferroni Multiple Range (BSD) Test) among management within each parameter and for the same DOY.
Table
Table 2. Bunch weight in the harvest and pruning weight after the harvest.
Table 2. Bunch weight in the harvest and pruning weight after the harvest.
ManagementBunch Weight (kg/vine)Pruning Weight (kg/vine)
Conventional2.72 ± 1.17 a0.99 ± 0.30 a
Organic2.32 ± 0.80 a0.82 ± 0.16 a
Different superscript letters mean significant differences between managements within each parameter (ANOVA p < 0.05, determined by two-way ANOVA applying a Bonferroni Multiple Range (BSD) Test).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gutiérrez-Gordillo, S.; Pérez-González, J.M.; Sancho-Galán, P.; Amores-Arrocha, A.; Palacios, V.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A. Physiological, Enological and Agronomic Characterization of Pedro Ximénez Grapevine Cultivar under Organic Farming in a Warm Climate Zone. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071732

AMA Style

Gutiérrez-Gordillo S, Pérez-González JM, Sancho-Galán P, Amores-Arrocha A, Palacios V, Jiménez-Cantizano A. Physiological, Enological and Agronomic Characterization of Pedro Ximénez Grapevine Cultivar under Organic Farming in a Warm Climate Zone. Agronomy. 2023; 13(7):1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071732

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gutiérrez-Gordillo, Saray, Juan Manuel Pérez-González, Pau Sancho-Galán, Antonio Amores-Arrocha, Víctor Palacios, and Ana Jiménez-Cantizano. 2023. "Physiological, Enological and Agronomic Characterization of Pedro Ximénez Grapevine Cultivar under Organic Farming in a Warm Climate Zone" Agronomy 13, no. 7: 1732. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071732

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop