Certified clone and powdery mildew impact rotundone in red wine from <i>Vitis vinifera L.</i> cv. Duras N
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: Few recent studies have been investigating the effect of clone on aroma compounds. The aim of this research work was to study the impact of certified clones from Vitis vinifera L. cv. Duras N on grape quality and rotundone, a sesquiterpene responsible for peppery aroma which has been reported recently in red wines made from this cultivar. Methods and results: The experimental site consisted of four consecutive rows, each row planted with one of the four certified clones of Duras N (554, 555, 627 and 654). For each clone, measurements were replicated on three experimental units per row. Each experimental unit consisted of twelve continuous vines. Rotundone concentration was measured in wines prepared by microvinification techniques (1-L Erlenmeyer flasks). For both vintages of study, rotundone concentrations were significantly higher in wines from clones 554 and 654 in comparison with clone 555, while clone 627 showed an intermediate level. In 2014, differences in powdery mildew (PM) severity on clusters were identified between the four clones and a positive logarithmic correlation (r2 = 0.58) was reported on the experimental site between rotundone in wines and PM severity on grapes. Conclusion: Our results found differences in rotundone concentrations in wines made from the four Duras N certified clones. The results also suggested that grapevine defence response to PM could enhance rotundone production in berries. Clonal differences in susceptibility to biotic stress, such as PM, might explain the differences observed in rotundone concentrations between the four studied clones. Significance and impact of the study: Our results may assist grape growers to produce high quality wines with a desired aroma attribute made from Duras N. One should consider planting clone 554 in order to promote high levels of rotundone in wines made from this cultivar.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".