Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias
Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Tomo 57(1). ISSN (en línea) 1853-8665.
Año 2025.
Original article
Impact
of intra-vineyard soil heterogeneity on Malbec. Vine growth, yield and wine
elemental composition and sensory profile
Impacto
de la heterogeneidad de suelo intra parcelaria en Malbec. Crecimiento,
rendimiento, composición elemental y perfil sensorial de sus vinos
Federico
Roig-Puscama1,
Patricia Piccoli2,
Raúl Gil3,
Daniel Patón4,
1 Biogéosciences UMR 6282 CNRS uB, Université
Bourgogne-France-Comté. 6 Boulevard Gabriel. 21000 Dijon. France.
2 Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias.
Instituto de Biología Agrícola de Mendoza (IBAM). CONICET-Almte. Brown 500.
Chacras de Coria. M5528AHB. Mendoza. Argentina.
3 Universidad Nacional de San Luis. Facultad de Química Bioquímica
y Farmacia. Instituto de Química de San Luis (INQUISAL). CONICET-Área de
Química Analítica. Av. Ejército de los Andes 950. 5700. San Luis. Argentina.
4 Universidad de Extremadura. Facultad de Ciencias. Unidad de
Ecología. Avda. Elvás s/n. 06071. Badajoz. España.
* fberli@fca.uncu.edu.ar
Abstract
In Mendoza,
viticulture is increasingly expanding into mountainous regions, taking
advantage of cooler temperatures. High-altitude vineyards, characterized by
greater soil heterogeneity, can significantly impact grapevine growth,
development, elemental uptake, and wine sensory attributes. Despite its
relevance, the effects of intra-vineyard variability on wine organoleptic
quality and elemental composition remain underexplored in the existing
literature. This study investigated a high-altitude vineyard planted with Vitis
vinifera L. cv. “Malbec”, focusing on two contrasting soil depth profiles:
shallow soil (SS) and deep soil (DS). The DS exhibited a finer texture, higher
water retention and greater cation exchange capacity than the SS. Additionally,
DS contained higher concentrations of Mn, while SS was richer in Ca. Vegetative
growth and yield varied according to soil type and vintage. Wines from DS
showed higher [Mn], consistent with the soil, and increased [Fe] and [Cu]
compared to SS wines, possibly due to indirect effects. Significant differences
were observed in wine organoleptic properties, with SS wines exhibiting greater
color intensity, astringency, and structure. Certain aromas, such as cherry and
plum were negatively correlated with [Mn]. These findings highlight the
influence of vineyard soils on the elemental composition and sensory profiles
of wines, providing valuable insights into terroir characteristics for
management strategies.
Keywords: cationic profile,
edaphic variability, organoleptic wine properties, phenotypic expression, soil
type, terroir
Resumen
En Mendoza, la
viticultura está en expansión creciente hacia áreas montañosas para aprovechar
temperaturas más frescas. Los viñedos de altura, que están caracterizados por
una mayor heterogeneidad del suelo, pueden influir significativamente en el
crecimiento, desarrollo, absorción de elementos, y atributos sensoriales de las
uvas y vinos. A pesar de su relevancia, los impactos de la variabilidad a nivel
intra parcelario, en la calidad organoléptica y la composición elemental de los
vinos, han sido poco explorados en la literatura existente. Este estudio
investigó un viñedo de altura plantado con Vitis vinifera L. cv. “Malbec”,
centrándose en dos sectores con profundidad contrastante de suelo: suelo
superficial (SS) y suelo profundo (DS). DS presentó una textura más fina, mayor
capacidad de retención de agua y mayor capacidad de intercambio catiónico en
comparación con SS. Además, DS mostró mayores concentraciones de Mn, mientras
que SS tuvo más [Ca]. El crecimiento vegetativo y el rendimiento variaron según
el tipo de suelo y la temporada de cultivo. Los vinos de DS presentaron mayor
[Mn] en concordancia con el suelo y mayor [Fe] y [Cu] en comparación con los
vinos de SS, posiblemente debido a efectos indirectos. Se encontraron
diferencias significativas en las propiedades organolépticas de los vinos, con
una mayor intensidad de color, astringencia y estructura en los vinos de SS.
Algunos aromas, como cereza o ciruela, se correlacionaron negativamente con
[Mn]. Estos hallazgos destacan la influencia de los suelos del viñedo en la
composición elemental y los perfiles sensoriales del vino, contribuyendo a la
comprensión de las características del terroir para estrategias de manejo.
Palabras clave: perfil catiónico,
variabilidad edáfica, propiedades organolépticas del vino, expresión
fenotípica, tipo de suelo, terruño
Originales: Recepción: 12/11/2024 - Aceptación: 20/02/2025
Introduction
In Mendoza,
Argentina’s primary wine-growing region, vineyards planted near the Andes
mountain in the Uco Valley, at altitudes ranging from 900 to 1,500 m above sea
level, have expanded rapidly in recent years. Malbec is the most widely planted
red grapevine cultivar in Argentina, covering 42,999 ha, with 85.1% of this
area located in Mendoza province (30). According to the
literature, high-altitude vineyards are generally defined as those located
within a broad elevation range of 350 m to 2,900 m a. s. l. (46), with the primary
goal of achieving optimal temperatures for grapevine cultivation. As a result,
high-altitude viticulture is gaining significance due to its potential to
produce high-quality wines in regions increasingly affected by global warming (3).
As vineyards are
planted closer to the mountains in search of optimal temperatures, they also
experience other environmental changes, such as fluctuations in ambient
humidity, wind patterns, and increased exposure to ultraviolet-B radiation
(UV-B) (3, 8). Soil composition constitutes one
critical factor to be considered in mountainous environments (21). Soils play a
fundamental role in balancing the vegetative and reproductive development of
grapevines, influencing berry quality and the sensory profile of the resulting
wine (56). In foothill areas, soils are shaped
by alluvial and fluvial processes, forming alluvial cones with variations in
soil depth, texture, and rock volume, which lead to pronounced soil
heterogeneity at an intra-vineyard scale (≤ 1 ha) (21,
41, 50). This- high degree of variability can significantly affect
grapevine cultivation and wine quality (11). Differences in
soil depth can result in physical and chemical variations, such as changes in
texture, water-holding capacity, and cation exchange capacity (CEC) (50),
all of which impact root development, water uptake and nutrient absorption (60). These factors, in
turn, influence vegetative growth, yield, and the quality and sensory profile
of berries and wines (61). Considering
Malbec cultivar, Roig-Puscama
et al. (2021) reported that strong soil heterogeneity within a single
vineyard induces changes in the xylem structure of grapevine main stems, interpreted
as an adaptive response to differences in soil water retention capacity. Soils
with low water retention can induce water stress, leading to higher levels of
abscisic acid (ABA) and, consequently, increased total polyphenol content in
berries and wines under heterogeneous soil conditions (47). This variability
can produce wines with distinct styles from the same vineyard (11). Intra-vineyard
variability challenges viticulturists and winemakers who seek uniform fruit
parcels for specific products (12). However, it also
offers an opportunity for winemakers to differentiate their products by
leveraging the unique characteristics of soil heterogeneity.
Soil heterogeneity
influences mineral composition, affecting uptake and accumulation of elements
in grapevines. Regional-scale studies have demonstrated a correlation between
the elemental composition of soils, berries and wines, facilitating the
identification of a wine’s geographical origin (32,
39). Berry and wine elemental profile primarily reflects soil
characteristics, shaped by its distinct geological features (2). However, the
accumulation of these elements can vary depending on the plant material (31), while changes in
soil fertility may influence the ripening process and sugar accumulation in
berries (29). Variations in elemental content in
berries can also affect oxidation-reduction reactions during vinification,
leading to differences in organoleptic properties and, ultimately, wine quality
(55). Despite this, the
relationship between soil elemental composition and sensory attributes of wine
remains poorly understood (36).
Previous studies on
the effects of soil in vineyards have primarily been conducted at a regional
scale, making it difficult to disentangle key influencing factors such as
climate and topography (25, 32, 59). Moreover, there
is limited understanding of how soil elemental concentrations at the
intra-vineyard scale affect the elemental composition of wine and,
consequently, its organoleptic characteristics.
This study aimed to examine the influence of two soil types with
contrasting properties, specifically depth, texture, and the presence of
boulders, on vegetative growth, yield, elemental composition, and the sensory
profile of wines at an intra-vineyard scale. Importantly, the objective was not
to propose management strategies for homogenizing vigor and yield based on soil
type. Instead, the analysis was conducted within a high-altitude Malbec vineyard,
where plant material, management practices, and climate were controlled as
fixed factors.
Material and methods
Study site
The
study was conducted over three growing seasons (2017-2019) in a high-altitude
commercial vineyard located within the Geographical Indication (GI) “Paraje
Altamira” (Zuccardi Valle de Uco winery, 33°46’20.29’’ S; 69°9’14.62’’ W; 1,100
m a. s. l.), Mendoza, Argentina. This vineyard, situated in the foothills of
the Andes mountains, is characterized by significant soil heterogeneity.
Plant material and vineyard characteristics
The
study focused on a 2.5-ha parcel planted in 2009 with own-rooted Vitis vinifera
cv. Malbec, derived from massal selection. The vines were 8 years old at
the start of the study. The vineyard was trained using the Double Guyot system,
with each vine pruned to two five-bud canes (long fruit-bearing shoots) and
two-bud spurs (short shoots for renewal), totaling 14 buds per plants. Rows
were oriented north-south, with a planting density of 1.8 m between rows and
0.8 m between plants. Shoots were vertically positioned using foliage wires,
and the vineyard was equipped with anti-hail nets and drip irrigation.
Fertigation consisted of potassium (potassium nitrate), nitrogen (urea) and
phosphoric acid, applied at a rate of 25-7-12 N-P-K units over five weeks
between flowering and fruit set. Pathogen management included micronized sulfur
(7.2 kg ha-1 in four applications per season), and three CuSO4
applications per season, with increasing concentration of 1% for the first two
applications and 1.5% for the third. All management practices were applied
uniformly across soil types.
Experimental design
Sectors with contrasting soil depths were identified using
electromagnetic conductivity (EMC) maps generated with an EM38MK2 ground meter
(Geonics Ltd., Canada). Measurements were taken at depths of 0.75 m and 1.5 m,
identifying six conductivity classes ranging from 1.06 to 5.24 mS m-1.
The two extreme classes were selected using GIS software (48),
and soil properties were confirmed through trench excavations. Two distinct
soil types were identified. Shallow soils (SS) contained boulders (>0.3 m in
diameter) occupying ~85% of the soil profile, with an alluvial layer depth of
0.2-0.3 m. Deep soils (DS) consisted of alluvial sediments with a sandy-loam
texture and an average depth of 2 m. The depth and structure of both soil types
are shown in figure 1. Six experimental units
(plots) were established per soil type, totaling 12 plots. Each plot covered
184 m2 and included 128 plants (figure 1).
Figure 1. Vertical
profile of soil structure and depth for SS (A) and DS (B). Schematic
representation of soil profile found in Paraje Altamira (C). Electromagnetic conductivity
(EMC) maps measured with the EM38 MK2 ground meter and EMC values. Experimental
blocks are showed with parallelogram: reds for SS and blues for DS (D).
Figura 1. Perfil
vertical de la estructura y profundidad del suelo para SS (A) y DS (B). Representación
esquemática del perfil de suelo encontrado en Paraje Altamira (C). Mapas de
conductividad electromagnética (EMC) medidos con el medidor de suelo EM38 MK2 y
los valores de EMC. Los bloques experimentales se muestran con un
paralelogramo: rojos para SS y azules para DS (D).
Soil sampling and analysis
Soil
sampling was conducted in 2017 at the start of the study during trench
excavations used to define soil types. Composite soil samples were collected
from each plot at a depth of 0.20-1 m to minimize surface contaminants and
capture the root zone. Soil texture was analyzed using the hydrometer method
described by Bouyoucos (1951)
and cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined following Richards
(1954). Water-holding capacity, including saturated water point (Ws),
field capacity (Wc) and permanent wilting point (Wp), was estimated using
pedotransfer functions based on soil texture classes (14,
49). Elemental composition was determined by acid digestion
following Funes-Pinter (2018) Dried soil samples were treated with a mixture of
HNO3 (65%), HCl (37%), HCl4 (65%), and H2O2
(30% vol), followed by centrifugation and dilution. Elemental analysis was
performed using an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometer (ICP-MS) with a
PerkinElmer SCIEX, ELAN DRC-e equipment (Thornhill, Canada), to quantify Mg,
Ca, Na, K, Mn, Fe, Cu, Al, Zn, Li, Rb, and Cd concentrations.
Vegetative growth, yield components
Vegetative
growth and yield observations were assessed annually over three growing seasons
(2017-2019). Three healthy and homogeneous plants per plot were randomly
selected for monitoring. During the growing season, at the berry pea-size
phenological stage (fruit diameter ~5 mm, classified by Baggiolini
(1952), measurements were taken for shoot length, internode length,
and shoot diameter, key indicators of vine vigor. For this purpose, the
north-directed cane in the row was selected on each plant, corresponding to the
five-bud canes left during pruning, as described in the vineyard
characteristics section. Shoot diameter was measured with a caliper at the
midpoint of the first internode, and average values were recorded for each
plant. At harvest, yield components were evaluated, including the number of
bunches per plant, bunch weight, yield per plant, berries per bunch, and berry
weight. During winter dormancy, vegetative growth was further assessed by
measuring total pruning weight per plant, another key vigor indicator. These
measurements were performed on the same plants monitored during the growing
season. The yield to pruning weight ratio was expressed as the Ravaz index (27).
Additionally, stem water potential (Ψstem) was measured weekly from
flowering to mid-veraison each season using a Scholander pressure chamber,
following Scholander (1965).
Fully expanded leaves were covered with aluminum foil at least one hour before
measurement to ensure equilibration, and Ψstem values were recorded
to assess plant water status.
Harvest and vinification procedure
Harvesting
was conducted at commercial maturity, defined at a sugar concentration of 24
°Brix (1° Brix = 1 g of sugar per 100 mL of grape juice). Harvest dates varied
by soil type (table S1). All plants in each plot
were harvested, and grapes were collected in 16 kg boxes to minimize berry
breakage. Quality control at the winery involved discarding dehydrated grapes
and those showing signs of Botrytis infection. Micro-vinifications were
performed for each plot following the standardized protocols of Zuccardi Valle
de Uco Winery. Grapes were destemmed, sulphited, and placed in 50 kg stainless
steel tanks, then inoculated with a proprietary yeast poll (confidential data).
Maceration and alcoholic fermentation occurred over 12 days at 25-28°C. Wines
were then transferred to 20 L plastic tanks for malolactic fermentation, with
pH adjusted to 3.75 using tartaric acid and free sulfur dioxide corrected to 45
mg L-1. Finally, wines were bottled in 0.75 L glass bottles and
stored at 20°C in darkness until analysis.
Elemental composition of wines and descriptive sensory analysis
The elemental composition of wine samples was analyzed using
ICP-MS, following a modified version of the soil analysis protocol. Five
milliliters of each wine sample were transferred into a 15 mL tube, and 0.5 mL
of 65% HNO3 was added. The mixture was vortexed for 15 seconds,
microwaved for 15 seconds at 600 W, and diluted with 9.5 mL of ultrapure water.
Subsequently, 1 mL of the diluted sample was mixed with 1 mL of 65% HNO3,
sonicated for 30 minutes, and combined with 0.5 mL of H2O2.
The mixture was heated in a water bath at 60°C for 60 minutes, then diluted
with 9.5 mL of ultrapure water, and used for elemental analysis.
Additionally,
wines from each plot were evaluated through quantitative descriptive sensory
analysis (QDA), following the protocol described by Lawless
and Heymann (2010). Two bottles of wine from each plot were analyzed. A
professional panel of eight tasters from Argentina’s National Institute of
Viticulture (INV) established sensory descriptors for each soil type, covering
visual, aroma, and taste attributes. These included 11 aroma descriptors, 11
taste descriptors, and 5 visual descriptors (table 1).
Table 1.
General sensory descriptors in Malbec wines from both types of soil during
tasting consensus.
Tabla 1.
Descriptores sensoriales generales encontrados en los vinos Malbec de ambos
tipos de suelo durante el consenso realizado por el panel de cata.
Sensory evaluations were conducted in individual booths. Each
panelist used a structured tasting sheet with an unstructured scale from 1
(very low intensity) to 5 (very high intensity). Wine samples (30 mL) were
served at room temperature in ISO-standard tasting glasses (ISO 3591-1977),
covered with plastic lids and coded for blind evaluation.
Statistical analysis
Soil
physicochemical variables and elemental composition data were analyzed using
non-parametric tests (p ≤ 0.05, Kruskall-Wallis), as the data did not
meet the normality and homoscedasticity assumptions required for parametric
tests. Vegetative growth and yield components were analyzed by multifactorial
ANOVA (soil type and growing seasons; Fisher’s LSD, p ≤ 0.05). All
statistical analyses were performed using InfoStat software (23).
Multiple
Factor Analysis (MFA) and biplot graphics were used to explore relationships
among elemental composition, sensory descriptors, and qualitative variables
such as soil type and vintage. The analysis integrated two datasets, the
elemental content matrix and the sensory variable matrix, into a unified
framework, using the FactoMineR package in R (1,
34). Two biplots were generated: the first considered soil type as
an active variable and vintage as a supplementary variable, highlighting the
impact of soil type on the analysis. The second combined both, the elemental
and sensory datasets. Aromatic Persistence, Varietal Typicity, and Global
Quality descriptors were excluded, following Abdi et al. (2007),
as these variables reflect taster preferences. Additionally, the biplot
emphasized the 10 variables with the highest contribution percentages.
Results
Soil physicochemical traits and grapevine growth
The analysis revealed significant differences in physicochemical
properties between the two soil types, except for pH. Shallow soils (SS)
contained 18.6% more sand than deep soils (DS), while DS had 97.8% more clay
and 88.8% more silt. Additionally, DS exhibited a 78% higher CEC and greater
water retention capacity at all measured points (Ws, Wc, and Wm), with
increases of 16.9%, 28.4%, and 33.4%, respectively (table 2).
Table 2.
Soil water holding capacity (as indicated by Ws, saturated water point; Wc,
field capacity; Wp, permanent wilting point), extractable soil water (RU), soil
texture (clay, silt, and sand) and soil cation exchange capacity (CEC).
Tabla 2.
Capacidad de retención de agua del suelo (indicado por Ws, punto de saturación.
Wc, capacidad de campo; Wp, punto de marchitez permanente), agua extraíble del
suelo (RU), textura del suelo (arcilla, limo y arena) y capacidad de
intercambio catiónico del suelo (CEC).
Values are means and different
letters within each factor and column indicate statistically significant
differences (p≤ 0.05, Kruskall-Wallis test).
Los valores son medias, y letras diferentes dentro
de cada factor y columna indican diferencias estadísticamente significativas
(p≤ 0,05, prueba de Kruskal-Wallis).
Regarding
vegetative growth and yield components, DS plants generally showed higher
vegetative growth indices, with pruning weight (153%), shoot length (29%),
internode length (25%), and shoot diameter (19%) exceeding those of SS vines.
No significant differences were observed in yield, number of berries per bunch,
or average berry weight between the two soil types. However, DS plants produced
12% more bunches per plant, while SS plants had 25% higher average bunch
weight. The Ravaz index indicated an imbalance in DS plants, with values below
5, largely influenced by the 2017 season, suggesting that DS plants exhibit
greater vegetative growth relative to berry production. In contrast, SS plants
demonstrated more balanced values (table 3).
Table 3. Multifactorial
ANOVA of vegetative growth and yield components of plants growing in shallow
(SS) and deep soils (DS), during 2017-2019 seasons.
Tabla 3. ANOVA
multifactorial del crecimiento vegetativo y componentes de rendimiento de
plantas en suelos cortos (SS) y profundos (DS), durante las temporadas de
2017-2019.
The Values are means (n = 18) and
different letters between each factor indicate statistical differences (p ≤
0.05, LSD Fisher).
Los
valores son medias (n = 18), y letras diferentes entre cada factor indican
diferencias estadísticas (p ≤ 0,05, prueba LSD de Fisher).
The season significantly influenced all analyzed variables.
Pruning weight per plant in 2017 was 84% higher compared to the average of the
2018 and 2019 seasons. Yield per plant in 2017 was 50.6% lower than in 2019,
which recorded the highest yield of the analyzed period. The 2019 season saw an
average increase of 9 more bunches per plant, along with a higher average bunch
weight, a greater number of berries per bunch, and a higher average berry
weight compared to 2017. The interaction between soil type and season was
significant for pruning weight, yield, number of bunches per plant, bunch
weight, and berry weight. Pruning weight was consistently higher in DS plants
across all years, with the largest difference observed in 2017, where DS had
187% higher pruning weight than SS. Conversely, yield responses varied by soil
type and season. In 2017, SS yielded 43% less than DS, while in 2019, DS
produced 33% more yield than SS. The number of bunches per plant also
fluctuated based on soil type across the three years. In 2017, DS had 21.4%
fewer bunches per plant than SS, but in 2018 and 2019, DS plants produced 29.2%
and 27.1% more bunches, respectively. Bunch weight was significantly lower in
DS during 2017 and 2018, with reductions of 28% and 38%, respectively. Berry
weight only showed significant differences in 2018, where DS was 21% lower than
SS.
Elemental composition of soil and wine
There
were no significant differences in the total elemental concentrations between
DS and SS soils. However, specific elements showed notable variations: SS
contained higher levels of calcium [Ca], while DS had greater concentrations of
manganese [Mn] and potassium [K]. The average concentrations of major elements
in both soil types followed the order Mg > Ca > K, and for trace
elements, Fe > Al > Na > Mn > Zn > Cu > Rb > Li > Cd (table
4).
Table
4. Nonparametric analysis of variance
(Kruskal Wallis) for elemental content in soil and Malbec wines (mg L-1).
Tabla 4.
Análisis de varianza no paramétrico (Kruskal-Wallis) para el contenido
elemental en suelos y vinos Malbec (mg L-1).
Values are means and different
letters within each factor and column indicate a statistically significant
difference (p≤0.05, Kruskall Wallis).
Los
valores son medias, y letras diferentes dentro de cada factor y columna indican
una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p≤0,05, prueba de
Kruskal-Wallis).
Considering
wines, no significant differences were observed in total elemental
concentrations between soil types. However, wines from DS-grown plants
exhibited higher levels of iron [Fe], manganese [Mn], and copper [Cu] compared
to those from SS-grown plants. The concentrations of major elements in the
wines followed the order K > Mg > Ca. For trace elements, wines from DS
plants showed the order Na > Fe > Al > Mn > Rb > Cu > Li >
Cd, whereas wines from SS plants followed Na > Al > Fe > Rb > Mn
> Cu > Li > Cd. Notably, [Zn] concentrations in wines were below the
detection limit for both soil types (table 4).
Descriptive sensory evaluation of wine
The visual descriptors indicated that soil type influenced the
intensity of certain characteristics. SS wines exhibited greater color
intensity and a more pronounced violet hue than DS wines (table 5).
In terms of aromas, SS wines displayed more intense mineral notes, as well as
plum aromas, compared to DS wines (table 5).
For taste descriptors, SS wines were characterized by greater astringency,
structure, varietal typicity, and overall quality than DS wines. In contrast,
DS wines had a more pronounced sensation of acidity (table 5).
Table 5.
Intensity of visual, aroma, taste and mouthfeel descriptors of Malbec wines.
Tabla 5.
Intensidad de los descriptores visuales, aromáticos, sabor y sensación en boca
de los vinos Malbec.
Values are means and different
letters between each factor indicate statistical differences (p ≤ 0.05, LSD
Fisher).
Los valores son medias, y letras diferentes entre
cada factor indican diferencias estadísticas (p ≤ 0,05, prueba LSD de Fisher).
The
MFA revealed that wines from DS showed greater variability across vintages,
suggesting a stronger influence of interannual conditions on this soil type. In
contrast, wines from SS exhibited more consistent characteristics, highlighting
the dominant effect of soil type on sensory variables over climatic variations
(figure
2A).
(A) Influencia del tipo de suelo (variable activa) y
la añada (variable suplementaria) en Dim1 y Dim2, mostrando una mayor
variabilidad interanual en los vinos de DS en comparación con los de SS. (B)
Biplot que integra descriptores elementales y sensoriales, destacando los
principales contribuyentes.
Figure
2. Multiple Factor Analysis (MFA).
Figura 2. Resultados
del Análisis Multifactorial (MFA).
Among
the sensory and elemental variables with the highest contributions were Cherry,
Strawberry, Clarity, Garnet hue, Plum, Violet hue, Color intensity, Heat, Mn,
and Ca (Figure
S3). The analysis combining elemental composition and sensory data
highlighted key relationships between quantitative and qualitative variables,
such as soil type and vintage. Variables positioned closer to the gray circle
(value 1) in the biplot contributed significantly to the model, emphasizing
their relevance in the main dimensions. For example, [Ca] was more influenced
by vintage than soil type, with 2017 showing a higher accumulation of this
element in wines. Conversely, [Mn] was more strongly associated with deep
soils, regardless of vintage (figure 2B).
In
terms of visual descriptors, wines from SS were characterized by higher color
intensity and more pronounced violet hues, whereas wines from DS exhibited
subtler visual attributes, such as clarity. Considering aromatic descriptors,
SS wines were particularly noted for their plum aromas.
Some sensory descriptors, however, appeared to be more
influenced by vintage than soil type, likely due to climatic conditions. For
instance, cherry and strawberry aromas, as well as the visual descriptor Garnet
hue were more closely associated with climatic conditions, especially the 2018
vintage. In contrast, the sensation of heat (linked to higher alcohol content)
was primarily associated with the 2017 vintage.
Discussion
Our
findings indicate that soil characteristics, such as depth, texture and
fertility, have differential effects on vegetative growth, as well as on the
elemental composition and sensory profile of Malbec wines. However, yield
components did not show a consistent pattern based on soil type, exhibiting
variability across seasons. Indicators of vegetative growth, including pruning
weight, shoot length, internode length, and shoot width, were strongly
correlated with soil depth, with DS displaying superior values across all vigor
indicators. These differences in vegetative growth can likely be attributed to
variations in water availability, as DS retained higher water content than SS,
and these growth indicators are known to be highly sensitive to water deficit (52).
This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted in similar areas of
the Mendoza foothills, where vines planted in deeper soils exhibited improved
growth due to better water retention (42).
Surprisingly,
no significant differences in yield were observed between soil types when
analyzing the average values across the three studied seasons. However, a
strong interaction was found between vigor and production indicators, which
varied by season. The 2017 season saw significantly higher vigor in DS plants
across all analyzed variables. However, the most productive plants during this
season were those in SS, likely due to a greater number of bunches and more
berries per bunch. This suggests improved fruit set, reduced berry shatter,
and/or lower bunch abortion rates in SS compared to DS plants. As noted
earlier, no bunch thinning was performed in the analyzed treatments. Notably,
the 2017 season was particularly humid compared to the historical average (Figure
S1), which could have influenced the vigor of DS plants, creating
an imbalance between vigor and fertility. The imbalance is important, as the
Malbec cultivar is prone to shatter and millerandage in vigorous plants (17).
In
contrast, the 2018 season was approximately 40% drier than the historical
average (Figure S1). The impact of this
drier season was primarily observed in reduced internode growth in plants from
both soil types, with consistently low values and no significant differences
between soils. Yield per plant also showed no differences between soil types.
However, SS plants had fewer bunches per plant but higher bunch weights due to
greater berry weight, while DS plants produced more bunches per plant but with
smaller berries. The drier conditions likely affected bud fertility, fruit set,
and bunch necrosis (26)
in SS plants, resulting in fewer bunches. During bud primordia development, low
water availability may cause floral primordia to dedifferentiate into tendrils,
reducing bud fertility and ultimately the number of bunches in the following
season (53).
In
2019, the same trend in vigor indicators as in 2018 was observed, although
internode length values were higher. This season had slightly more rainfall
than the historical average, and the higher yield in DS plants was primarily
due to a greater number of bunches per plant. Since both soil types had the
same number of buds per vine during pruning, this suggests that soil conditions
significantly influence final yield. Reduced bud fertility in SS plants,
evidenced by fewer bunches per plant, likely explains the lower yield in this
soil type. Additionally, some buds in SS plants failed to break, further
contributing to the reduced yields. While soils with higher water-holding
capacity often correlate with increased yields (12),
studies by van Leeuwen et al. (2004)
have reported reduced bunch weights in stony soils compared to clay soils.
Limited water absorption reduces vegetative growth and production (41,
58), but our results showed no significant differences in yield per
plant, number of berries per bunch, or berry weight between soil types.
Although differences in bunches per plant and bunch weight were observed across
vintages, no clear trend was found. While SS plants had larger bunches in 2017,
DS plants exhibited this trait in 2018 and 2019. These variations in yield
across vintages are likely due to climatic factors, as the same number of buds
was retained during pruning.
Bunches per plant
and bunch weight are influenced by various factors, including climatic
conditions, soil electrical conductivity, and agricultural management practices
(42). The equal number
of buds left in plants (14 per plant) in both soil types may have contributed
to the observed results. Previous studies suggest that the Malbec cultivar
develops compensatory mechanisms between vegetative growth and production,
acclimating to the edaphic environment by enhancing hydraulic conductivity in
SS. This adaptation may help Malbec overcome the low water retention capacity
in SS (49), which could play a significant role
in balancing production across different soil types. However, the Ravaz index,
calculated from yield and pruning weight data, indicated that DS plants
exhibited excessive vegetative growth relative to production. This finding
aligns with previous research (41), which showed that
Malbec plants in DS demonstrated greater vegetative growth in relation to
yield. In contrast, other studies have reported that SS plants have lower
vegetative-to-yield ratios (59). Despite these
differences in the Ravaz index between soil types, our study found no
significant differences in yield for the Malbec cultivar under the conditions
analyzed.
Our
study revealed that the elemental profile of soil at intra-vineyard level
varies with depth. Soil analysis showed that DS, characterized by a higher proportion
of fine particles, increased CEC, and greater water retention, provides a
potentially less stressful environment for grapevine growth compared to SS (16).
Although SS exhibited significantly higher [Ca], consistent with the high CaCO3
content in the fluvial strata of the Andes (20,
21), no differences in pH were detected between the two soil types,
which could influence nutrient absorption (13).
The higher [Mn] and [K] observed in DS are consistent with its higher clay
content (43).
Consequently, DS soils are enriched in Mn and K, whereas SS soils have higher
[Ca], potentially influencing nutriment uptake and accumulation in berries, and
subsequently in wine, due to antagonistic or synergistic nutrient interactions (43).
For example, high potassium levels in soil may enhance manganese uptake (5),
while elevated calcium levels may inhibit it (37).
Wines
from DS soils showed higher [Mn], [Cu] and [Fe]. Elevated concentrations of Mn
in DS soils were also reflected in the wines produced from these soils. Similar
findings have been reported by Kment et al. (2005),
who found that wines from deep, clay-rich soils had higher [Mn] than those from
SS (12). Campbell
and Nable (1988) explained that plant [Mn] levels are directly influenced by
xylem flow (25).
Given this and the greater water-holding capacity of DS soil, DS plants likely
experience increased [Mn] availability through mass flow, which would explain
the higher concentrations of this element in DS wines. Although these
observations were made on a regional scale, previous studies have identified Mn
as a key element distinguishing wines based on their origin (39).
This
study highlighted the significant impact of soil heterogeneity at the
intra-vineyard level (micro-scale) on wine, resulting in differential elemental
profiles. Although high [Cu] and [Fe] in wines did not correlate with higher
concentrations of these elements in DS, the increased [Cu] can be attributed to
a potentially greater interception of CuSO4 applications by the canopy, as DS
plants have a larger exposed leaf surface. The elevated [Fe] detected in wines
may be influenced by several factors, including differential adsorption of dust
particles on the epicuticular wax of berries and physiological differences in
Fe uptake and allocation within the plant. While the higher vegetative growth
in DS plants may alter Fe dynamics, the specific mechanism leading to elevated
Fe levels in berries and wines remains unclear. This potential relationship
between vegetative growth and Fe accumulation warrants further investigation to
confirm a direct causal link. Additionally, our study demonstrated that visual,
aroma, and taste descriptors of wine differ depending on soil type at
intra-vineyard level. Grape harvest was standardized across all soil types at
24° Brix to ensure uniform maturity levels and minimize sensory differences
related to ripeness. Visual descriptors showed that SS wines had greater color
intensity and a more pronounced violet hue, consistent with previous findings (41),
reporting higher total anthocyanin concentrations in Malbec berries grown under
similar SS conditions. Bramley et al. (2011)
similarly observed greater color intensity in Cabernet Sauvignon wines from
shallow soils. The quantity and composition of anthocyanins in wines directly
affect color intensity and tonality, and are influenced by factors such as
water restrictions, yield, plant vigor, temperature, and soil characteristics
like texture and stone volume (18, 45).
Furthermore, wine color is also influenced by pH, as lower pH values favor the
proportion of anthocyanins in the form of flavylium cation (22).
However, during the winemaking process, the pH was standardized to 3.75 for all
wines, which likely minimized potential color differences related to pH.
Water deficit,
depending on intensity and the phenological stage, can increase anthocyanin and
tannin content in berries (60). This effect is
primarily attributed to increased production of abscisic acid (ABA) in response
to water stress, which stimulates anthocyanin biosynthesis (7). The higher color
intensity observed in SS wines aligns with the more stressful water conditions
typically associated with this soil type (Figure S2). Additionally,
the greater color intensity may be influenced by vegetative expressions in each
soil type, and high-altitude vineyard conditions. Indicators such as pruning
weight, shoot length, internode length, and shoot width suggest that DS plants
exhibit greater vegetative growth, which could result in increased berry
shading. In contrast, the reduced vegetative growth in SS plants likely leads to
greater exposure of the berries to solar radiation.
Previous
studies conducted in a nearby vineyard demonstrated that Malbec berries exposed
to higher UV-B radiation accumulated higher concentrations of total
anthocyanins than those exposed to reduced UV-B (8).
The intensified violet hue observed may result from copigmentation effects, in
which molecular associations between anthocyanins and other organic molecules,
such as myricetin or caffeic acid, induce a color shift towards violet (9). McDonald
et al. (1998) noted that the concentration of flavonols, such as myricetin,
may vary depending on geographical origin and could be higher in thick-skinned
berries. Furthermore, Berli et al. (2008)
reported increased flavonols, such as quercetin, myricetin, and kaempferol, in
vineyards exposed to higher UV-B radiation. These compounds, powerful
antioxidants, accumulate either through direct stimulation of their synthesis
or indirectly by increasing berry skin thickness, enhancing their concentration
(53).
However, further studies are required to validate these findings, as berry skin
thickness and specific flavonol concentrations were not measured in this study.
Regarding
aromas, SS wines exhibited more intense plum aromas, which are commonly
associated with fruit characteristics (44).
This finding aligns with Bramley et al. (2011),
who reported higher concentration of volatile compounds associated with fruity
aromas in SS wines. Additionally, Chapman et
al. (2005) found that wines from vineyards subjected to water deficit tend
to have more pronounced fruity aromas and flavors. Furthermore, SS wines were
characterized by a higher intensity of mineral notes, which the tasting panel
described as a “wet stone” aroma. Although this specific descriptor is not
explicitly listed in the aromatic wheel of Noble et al. (1987),
it is generally referred to as a mineral note. Panelists described these aromas
as reminiscent of crushed stones, rocks, wet cement, chalk, gravel, or
limestone (26).
While such descriptors are often associated with wines from stony soils and are
sometimes referred to as “rich in minerals”, it is important to note that
berries have limited direct chemical interaction with soil minerals, and
minerals themselves are odorless, so they cannot contribute directly to wine
aroma (35).
Our study found no differences in total elemental content between the two soil
types or the wines they produced, suggesting that the mineral aroma in wine
does not stem from a higher elemental content. Tominaga et
al. (2003) suggested that benzene methane thiol (benzyl mercaptan) could
contribute to mineral aromas in wine, but further research is needed to better
understand the origins of these sensory characteristics.
Concerning
taste descriptors, SS wines exhibited greater astringency and structure,
suggesting water stress plays a significant role in promoting tannins
concentration (flavanol polymers) in berries, which are primarily responsible
for astringency sensations (4).
This observation is supported by Figure S2,
which shows that SS plants experienced moderate water stress compared to DS
plants. This was previously found by Mezzatesta et
al. (2022), who reported higher total polyphenol content in SS berries.
Wine structure is influenced by three key components: tannins, acidity, and
alcohol (18).
Although the acidity sensation in SS wines was significantly lower than in DS
wines, the heightened astringency may have contributed to a more pronounced
structure in SS wines. Wine typicity refers to the specific varietal
organoleptic traits, which can be modified by the unique characteristics of the
terroir (18).
In the case of SS wines, the attributes of this soil favored the varietal
expression of Malbec, enhancing plum notes with a slight tendency towards
violet aromas, typical of this cultivar (18).
Finally, the higher overall quality attributed to Malbec SS wines likely stems
from the combination of sensory attributes distinguishing these wines. In
general, sensory analyses support the assertion by Bramley and
Hamilton (2007) that wines originating from delineated areas within the same
parcel, uniformly managed according inherent vigor and yield propensity,
exhibit distinct sensory profiles.
According to this study, evidence suggests that the significant
heterogeneity of intra-vineyard soils generates distinct sensory profiles, with
soil type playing a predominant role. SS soils were linked to vineyards
experiencing water stress, leading to distinct sensory profiles. Identifying
and distinguishing soil types within a vineyard and adjusting harvesting practices
accordingly could result in wines with diverse sensory profiles.
MFA
highlighted the interactions between the edaphic characteristics and
interannual climatic conditions in shaping elemental wine composition and
sensory attributes. The greater variability observed in DS wines across
vintages emphasizes the sensitivity of this soil type to climatic conditions,
such as differences in precipitation and water stress between 2017 and 2018 (Figures
S1 and S2). In contrast, wines from SS exhibited more consistent sensory
characteristics, suggesting that soil properties largely influenced climatic
factors.
The
variation in [Ca] across vintages, with higher accumulation in 2017, could be
attributed to the elevated precipitation during that season, which likely
favored the availability and transport of Ca to the berries (62).
In contrast, the [Mn], more strongly associated with DS irrespective of
vintage, may be linked to the higher clay content in these soils, which,
combined with their greater water retention capacity, influences plant
absorption and accumulation of this element (45).
These differences in elemental composition reflect soil-climate interactions
and contribute to the observed variations in sensory descriptors.
In
sensory terms, wines from SS stood out for their higher color intensity and
fruity aromas, such as plum, which were likely amplified by the moderate to
severe water stress experienced in these soils. In contrast, wines from DS,
while exhibiting subtler visual attributes (clarity) displayed greater
variability in descriptors like cherry and strawberry, particularly in 2018, a
drier season that may have heightened these attributes. Additionally, Mn, a key
element influencing wine color due to its ability to form stable complexes with
amino acids and polyphenols (56),
showed a negative association with color intensity and violet hue. This
contrasts with the findings of Mantilla et
al. (2018), who reported greater color intensity in Shiraz wines with
higher Mn levels. This discrepancy underscores how soil properties modulate the
impact of climatic conditions on wine quality, emphasizing the importance of
differentiated management strategies to optimize both productivity and sensory
profiles.
Finally,
the associations of descriptors such as “Garnet hue” or “Heat” with specific
climatic conditions highlight vintage significance in shaping the final wine
profile, particularly in soils like DS, which are more responsive to
interannual variations. These observations reinforce the need to understand
soil-climate dynamics to interpret and predict how these interactions influence
wine quality and terroir expression.
Conclusions
The
significant intra-vineyard soil heterogeneity in high-altitude plantations
located in the foothills of the central Andes influence both elemental and
sensory profiles of wines. While Malbec yield was not distinctly affected by
soil type, probably given climatic variations across growing seasons, there
were notable differences in vegetative expression between shallow and deep
soils. Although we confirmed that wine elemental profile is influenced by soil
characteristics, further studies should stablish its direct impact on sensory
attributes. This is crucial for winemakers aiming to diversify their blends or
produce distinct wines from the same vineyard under the single parcel concept.
It is important to clarify that this study does not propose
management strategies to increase or decrease vine vigor based on soil type.
Instead, we aimed to examine the effect of relatively homogeneous but
contrasting soil sections on grapevines and wine quality. The findings may
contribute to developing management strategies in Argentinian Malbec vineyards
that optimize parcel shapes and sizes according to soil type, facilitating the
production of wines with unique elemental and sensory profiles on a small
scale. Moreover, further research on Malbec phenotypic plasticity and its
relationship with elemental composition and sensory properties will have
significant implications for both viticulture and oenology, offering valuable
insights for the winemaking industry.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to
express their gratitude for the technical assistance of Laura Principiano,
Martín Di Stefano, Sebastián Zuccardi, Hernán Del Río, Leandro Mastrantonio,
Cristian Bazán, Mario F. Moyano, Carla Aruani, Stella Maris Moreiras and
Sebastien Nicolas.
This research was supported by Proyecto de Investigación en
Ciencia y Técnica (PICT) 2016-2668, Proyecto Unidad Ejecutora (PUE) Consejo
Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas CONICET 2016
(22920160100124CO), Secretaría de Investigaciones (SIIP) Universidad Nacional
de Cuyo (06/A716), and Bodega Familia Zuccardi (La Agrícola S.A.).
1.
Abdi, H.; Williams, L. J.; Valentin, D. 2013. Multiple factor analysis:
Principal component analysis for multitable and multiblock data sets. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics. 5(2): 149-179.
https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1246
2.
Almeida, C.; Vasconcelos, M. 2003. Multielement composition of wines and their
precursors including provenance soil and their potentialities as fingerprints
of wine origin. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 51(16): 4788-4798.
https://doi: 10.1021/jf034145b
3.
Arias, L. A.; Berli, F.; Fontana, A.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. 2022 Climate
change effects on grapevine physiology and biochemistry: Benefits and
challenges of high altitude as an adaptation strategy. Frontiers in Plant
Science. 13: 835425. https://doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.835425
4.
Attia, F.; Garcia, F.; Ben Mariem, F.; Nuzzo, V.; Dedieu, F.; Garcia, M.;
Lamaze, T. 2010. Water stress in Tannat and Duras grapevine cultivars (Vitis
vinifera L.): Leaf photosynthesis and grape phenolic maturity. Journal
International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin. 6: 81-93.
5.
Ayamba B. E.; Abaidoo R. C.; Opoku A.; Ewusi-Mensah N. 2023. Mechanisms for
nutrient interactions from organic amendments and mineral fertilizer inputs
under cropping systems: A review. PeerJ. 11: e15135.
https://doi:10.7717/peerj.15135
6.
Baggiolini M. 1952. Les stades repères dans le développement annuel de la vigne
et leur utilisation pratique. Revue romande d’Agriculture et d’Arboriculture.
8(1): 4-6.
7.
Berli, F.; D’Angelo, J.; Cavagnaro, B.; Bottini, R.; Wuilloud, R.; Silva, M. F.
2008 Phenolic composition in grape (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Malbec)
ripened with different solar UV-B radiation levels by capillary zone
electrophoresis. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 56: 2892-2898.
https://doi: 10.1021/jf073421+
8.
Berli, F.; Alonso, R.; Beltrano, J.; Bottini, R. 2015. High altitude solar UV-B
and abscisic acid sprays increase grape berry antioxidant capacity. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 66(1): 65-72.
https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2014.14067
9.
Boulton, R. 1999. El fenómeno de la copigmentación en los vinos tintos. Actas
Seminario Internacional “Hacia la Enología del siglo XXI”. INTA, Facultad de
Ciencias Agrarias. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Argentina.
10.
Bouyoucos, G. J. 1951. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making
mechanical analysis of soils. Agronomy Journal. 43(9): 434-438.
11.
Bramley, R. G. V.; Hamilton, R. P. 2007. Terroir and precision viticulture: are
they compatible? Journal International des Sciences de
la Vigne et du Vin. 41: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.20870/ oenoone.2007.41.1.855
12.
Bramley, R.; Ouzman, J.; Boss, P. 2011. Variation in vine vigour, grape yield
and vineyard soils and topography as an indicator of variation in the chemical
composition of grapes, wine and wine sensory attributes. Australian Journal of
Grape and Wine Research. 17(2): 217-229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00136.x
13.
Bravo, S.; Amoros, J. A.; Perez-De-Los-Reyes, C.; García, F. J.; Moreno, M. M.;
Sanchez-Ormeno, M.; Higueras, P. 2017. Influence of the soil pH in the uptake
and bioaccumulation of heavy metals (Fe, Zn, Cu, Pb and Mn) and other elements
(Ca, K, Al, Sr and Ba) in vine leaves. Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Journal of
Geochemical Exploration. 174: 79-83. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gexplo.2015.12.012
14.
Bruand, A.; Duval, O.; Cousin, I. 2004. Estimation des propriétés de rétention
en eau des sols à partir de la base de données SOLHYDRO: Une première
proposition combinant le type d’horizon, sa texture et sa densité apparente.
Étude et gestion des Sols. 11(3): 3-323.
15.
Campbell, L. C.; Nable, R. O. 1988. Physiological functions of manganese in
plants. In: Graham, R. D.; Hannam, R. J.; Uren N. C. (Eds.). Manganese in soils
and plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht. 139-154.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2817-611
16.
Caravaca, F.; Lax, A.; Albaladejo, J. 1999. Organic matter, nutrient contents
and cation exchange capacity in fine fractions from semiarid calcareous soils.
Geoderma. 93: 161-176. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(99)00045-2
17.
Carrillo, N.; Piccoli, P.; Bottini, R.; Rodríguez, J.; Berli, F. 2020. Girdling
of shoots at flowering reduces shatter in grapevine cv. Malbec. Australian
Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 26(2): 102-109.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12423
18.
Catania, C. D.; Avagnina, S. 2010. La interpretación sensorial del vino. In: El
terruño argentino. INTA y Editora Andina Sur.
19.
Chapman, D. M.; Roby, G.; Ebeler, S. E.; Guinard, J. X.; Matthews, M. A. 2005.
Sensory attributes of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made from vines with different
water status. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 11(3): 339-347.
https://doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005. tb00033.x
20.
Chavez, D. 2013. Groundwater potential of pampa aquifers in two glacial
watersheds, Cordillera Blanca, Peru. Master Science Thesis. McGill University,
Montreal. Quebec. Canada. 69 p.
21.
Corona, G. 2019. La geografía del vino. In: Malher, P. (Ed.). Ciudad Autónoma
de Buenos Aires. Argentina.
22. de Freitas, V. A. P.; Fernandes, A.; Oliveira, J.; Teixeira,
N.; Mateus, N. 2017. A review of the current knowledge of red wine colour. OENO
One. 51: 1. https://doi.org/10.20870/ oenoone.2017.51.1.1604
23. Di Rienzo, J.
A.; Casanoves, F.; Balzarini, M. G.; González, L.; Tablada, M.; Robledo, C. W.
2018. InfoStat (versión 2018) [Software]. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba,
Argentina. http:// www.infostat.com.ar
24. Funes Pinter,
I.; Salomon, M. V.; Gil, R.; Mastrantonio, L.; Bottini, R.; Piccoli, P. 2018.
Arsenic and trace elements in soil, water, grapevine and onion in Jachal,
Argentina. Science of the Total Environment. 615: 1485-1498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.114
25.
Galani-Nikolakaki, S.; Kallithrakas-Kontos, N.; Katsanos, A. A. 2002. Trace
element analysis of Cretan wines and wine products. Science of the Total
Environment. 285(1-3): 155-163. https://doi:10.1016/S0048-9697(01)00912-3
26. Guilpart, N.;
Metay, A.; Gary, C. 2014. Grapevine bud fertility and number of berries per
bunch are determined by water and nitrogen stress around flowering in the
previous year. European Journal of Agronomy. 54: 9-20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.002
27. Heymann, H.;
Hopfer, H.; Bershaw, D. 2014. An exploration of the perception of minerality in
white wines by projective mapping and descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory
Studies. 29(1): 1-13. https://doi:10.1111/joss.12076
28. Hidalgo, J.
2006. La calidad del vino desde el viñedo. In: Ediciones Mundi-Prensa. Madrid.
29. Hilbert, G.;
Soyer, J. P.; Molot, C.; Giraudon, J.; Milin, S.; Gaudillere, J. P. 2003.
Effects of nitrogen supply on must quality and anthocyanin accumulation in
berries of cv. Merlot. Vitis. 42(2): 69-76.
https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2003.42.69-76
30. INV. 2023.
Informe anual de superficie 2023. https://www.argentina.gob.ar/inv/vinos/
estadisticas/superficie/anuarios
31. Kabata-Pendias,
A. 2011. Trace elements of soils and plants. In: CRC Press, Taylor &
Francis Group.
32. Kment, P.;
Mihaljevič, M.; Ettler, V.; Šebek, O.; Strnad, L.; Rohlová, L. 2005.
Differentiation of Czech wines using multi element composition - A comparison
with vineyard soil. Food Chemistry. 91(1): 157-165. https://doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2004.06.010
33. Lawless, H. T.;
Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory evaluation of food - principles and practices. In:
Sensory Evaluation of Food-Principles and Practices. p. 473-478.
34. Lê, S.; Josse,
J.; Husson, F. 2008. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis.
Journal of Statistical Software. 25(1): 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01
35. Maltman, A.
2008. The role of vineyard geology in wine typicity. Journal of Wine Research.
19(1): 1-17. https://doi:10.1080/09571260802163998
36. Maltman, A.
2013. Mineral taste in wine, minerals in the vineyard are they connected? Wines
and Vines. 94(5): 63.
37. Malvi, U. R.
2011. Interaction of micronutrients with major nutrients with special reference
to potassium. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 24(1): 106-109.
38. Mantilla, S. M.
O.; Collins, C.; Iland, P. G.; Kidman, C. M.; Ristic, R.; Boss, P. K.; Jordans,
C.; Bastian, S. E. 2018. Shiraz (Vitis vinifera L.) berry and wine
sensory profiles and composition are modulated by rootstocks. American Journal
of Enology and Viticulture. 69(1): 32-44. https://doi: 10.5344/ajev.2017.17017
39. Marengo, E.;
Aceto, M. 2003. Statistical investigation of the differences in the
distribution of metals in Nebbiolo-based wines. Food Chemistry. 81(4): 621-630.
https://doi:10.1016/S0308- 8146(02)00564-2
40. McDonald, M.
S.; Hughes, M.; Burns, J.; Lean, M. E. J.; Matthews, D.; Crozier, A. 1998.
Survey of the free and conjugated myricetin and quercetin content of red wines
of different geographical origins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.
46(2): 368-375. https://doi:10.1021/ jf970677e
41. Mezzatesta, D.
S.; Berli, F.; Arancibia, C.; Buscema, F.; Piccoli, P. 2022. Impact of
contrasting soils in a high-altitude vineyard of Vitis vinifera L. cv.
Malbec: root morphology and distribution, vegetative and reproductive
expressions, and berry skin phenolics. OENO One. 56(2): 149-163.
https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2022.56.2.4917
42. Monteiro, A.;
Malheiro A.; Bacelar, E. (2021). Morphology, physiology and analysis techniques
of grapevine bud fruitfulness: A Review. Agriculture. 11(2): 127.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ agriculture11020127
43. Mousavi, S. R.;
Shahsavari, M.; Rezaei, M. 2011. A general overview on manganese (Mn)
importance for crop production. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences. 5(9): 1799-1803.
44. Noble, A. C.;
Arnold, R. A.; Buechsenstein, J.; Leach, E. J.; Schmidt, J. O.; Stern, P. M.
1987. Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 38(2): 143-146.
45. Ojeda, H. 2000.
Los compuestos polifenólicos de la uva. In: EEA Mendoza. INTA.
46. Oliveira, C.;
Ferreira, A. C.; Costa, P.; Guerra, J.; Guedes de Pinho, P. 2004. Effect of
some viticultural parameters on the grape carotenoid profile. Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 52: 4178-4184. https://doi: 10.1021/jf0498766
47. Pirie, A.; Mullins,
M. G. 1976. Changes in anthocyanin and phenolics content of grapevine leaf and
fruit tissues treated with sucrose, nitrate, and abscisic acid. Plant
Physiology. 58: 468-472. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.58.4.468
48. QGIS Development Team. 2020. QGIS Geographic Information
System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation. https://qgis.org
49. Richards, L. A.
1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. United States
Salinity Laboratory Staff. Agriculture 160. Handbook 60.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ ARSUserFiles/20360500/hb60_pdf/hb60complete.pdf
50. Roig-Puscama,
F.; Berli, F.; Roig, F. A.; Tomazello-Filho, M.; Mastrantonio, L.; Piccoli, P.
2021. Wood hydrosystem of three cultivars of Vitis vinifera L. is
modified in response to contrasting soils. Plant and Soil. 463: 573-588.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-021-04907-y
51. Scholander, P.
F.; Hammel, H. T.; Bradstreet, E. D.; Hemmingsen, E. A. 1965. Sap pressure in
vascular plants. Science. 148(3668): 339-346.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.148.3668.339
52.
Silva-Contreras, C.; Sellés-Von Schouwen, G.; Ferreyra-Espada, R.;
Silva-Robledo, H. 2012. Variation of water potential and trunk diameter answer
as sensitivity to the water availability in table grapes. Chilean Journal of
Agricultural Research. 72(4): 459-469. https://doi:10.4067/
S0718-58392012000400001
53. Srinivasan, C.;
Mullins, M. G. 1981. Physiology of flowering in the grapevine-a review.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 11(1): 47-63.
https://doi.org/10.5344/ ajev.1981.32.1.47
54. Stockley, C.
S.; Høj, P. B. 2005. Better wine for better health: Fact or fiction? Australian
Journal of Grape and Wine Research. 11(2): 127-138.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005. tb00284.x
55. Tariba, B.
2011. Metals in wine-Impact on wine quality and health outcomes. Biological
Trace Element Research. 144(1-3): 143-156.
https://doi:10.1007/s12011-011-9052-7
56. Tomasi, N.;
Monte, R.; Varanini, Z.; Cesco, S.; Pinton, R. 2015. Induction of nitrate
uptake in Sauvignon Blanc and Chardonnay grapevines depends on the scion and is
affected by the rootstock. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research.
21(2): 331-338. https://doi. org/10.1111/ajgw.12137
57. Tominaga, T.;
Guimbertau, G.; Dubourdieu, D. 2003. Contribution of benzenemethanethiol to
smoky aroma of certain Vitis vinifera L. wines. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry. 51(5): 1373-1376. https://doi:10.1021/jf020756c
58. van Leeuwen C.
2010. Terroir: the effect of the physical environment on vine growth, grape
ripening and wine sensory attributes. In: Reynolds A. (Ed.). Managing wine
quality. Woodhead publishing series in food science, technology and nutrition,
p. 273-315. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1533/9781845699284.3.273
59. van Leeuwen,
C.; Friant, P.; Choné, X.; Tregoat, O.; Koundouras, S.; Dubourdieu, D. 2004.
Influence of climate, soil, and cultivar on terroir. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture. 55: 207-217.
https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2004.55.3.207
60. van Leeuwen,
C.; Seguin, G. 2006. The concept of terroir in viticulture. Journal of Wine
Research. 17: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260600633135
61. van Leeuwen,
C.; Tregoat, O.; Choné, X.; Bois, B.; Pernet, D.; Gaudillère, J. P. 2009. Vine
water status is a key factor in grape ripening and vintage quality for red
Bordeaux wine. How can it be assessed for vineyard management purposes? Journal
International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin. 43: 121-134.
https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2009.43.3.798
62. White, P. J.; Broadley, M. R. 2003. Calcium in plants. Annals
of Botany. 92(4): 487-511. https://doi. org/10.1093/aob/mcg164