Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Morphological and quality variability of white wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties under Pune conditions

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7486
Submitted
30 January 2025
Published
17-12-2025

Abstract

This study evaluated the ampelographical and bunch characteristics of 19 white wine grape varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) grafted on Dogridge rootstock at the National Active Germplasm Site, National Research Centre for Grapes, Pune, during 2023-24. The experiment was conducted on completely randomized block design comprising five vines per replication and three replications per cultivar. The results of the study revealed significant variability in the morphological characteristics of white wine grape varieties. The young shoot tip's opening with a high CV of 37.86 %, indicating substantial variation. The highest variability was observed for berry shape (CV 58.66 %) and berry color (CV 62.09 %), highlighted the diverse phenotypic traits among cultivars. Parameters such as bunch compactness and formation of seed showed lower variability, suggesting more consistency in these traits. Most cultivars had fully open young shoot tips. Tendril distribution was predominantly found sub-continuous, with unified tendrils. Young leaves were found mainly green colored with bronze spots (7). All cultivars exhibited bark peeling. The shoot attitude was primarily erect. Most mature leaves had large blades and pentagonal shapes. Berry density in bunches was generally compact, with round berries being the most common shape. Berry skin color was often green-yellow and all berries lacked anthocyanin coloration in the mesocarp. Time to bud burst ranged from 8.7 to 12.7 days after fruit pruning. Full bloom stage occurred between 34 and 44 days after fruit pruning. Flowering lasted 3.3 to 6.7 days. Veraison occurred from 95 to 114.67 days after fruit pruning and physiological berry maturity ranged from 122 to 147 days after fruit pruning. The results showed a range of correlations among various traits. Pruning biomass had a moderate positive correlation with 50 berry weight and berry skin thickness. Bunch weight showed strong correlations with bunch length and bunch width. TSS was negatively correlated with bunch weight and berry skin thickness. Total acids had a high positive correlation with malic acid. Ethanol content was positively correlated with TSS.

References

  1. 1. Mohsen FS. Effect of some rootstocks on the performance of Flame Seedless grapevines. Egyptian J Hortic. 2021;48:1-8. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejoh.2020.47060.1145
  2. 2. OIV. State of the world vine and wine sector in 2023. 2024.
  3. 3. Anonymous. Area and production of horticulture crops for 2023-24 (2nd advance estimates). 2024.
  4. 4. Ausari PK, Gurjar PKS, Somkuwar RG, Naruka IS, Sharma AK, Gharate PS. Effect of rootstocks on yield and wine quality of Sauvignon Blanc variety. Plant Arch. 2024;24(1):1477-82. https://doi.org/10.51470/PLANTARCHIVES.2024.v24.no.1.207
  5. 5. El-Morsy FM, Gaser ASA, Mohamed MN. Morphological description and evaluation of six newly introduced grape cultivars under Egyptian conditions. J Plant Prod. 2017;8:1059-70. https://doi.org/10.21608/jpp.2017.41111
  6. 6. Soylemezoglu G, Agaoglu YS, Uzun HI. Ampelographic characteristics and isozymic analysis of Vitis vinifera spp. sylvestris Gmel. in southwestern Turkey. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2001;15:106-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2001.10819140
  7. 7. Santiago JL, Boso S, Gago P, Alonso-Villaverde V, Martinez MC. Molecular and ampelographic characterization of Vitis vinifera L. ‘Albariño’, ‘Savagnin Blanc’ and ‘Caíño Blanco’ shows that they are different cultivars. Span J Agric Res. 2007;5:333-40. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2007053-253
  8. 8. Mahmoud RA, Dahab AA, Mahmoud GA, El-Aziz Abd El-Wahab MA, El-Bassel EH, Mahdy EMB. Ampelographic and genetic diversity assessment of some local grape genotypes under Egyptian conditions. Am J Mol Biol. 2023;13:183-96. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajmb.2023.133013
  9. 9. Alleweldt G, Possingham JV. Progress in grapevine breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 1988;75:669-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00265585
  10. 10. Singh A, Gill MIS, Arora NK, Bedi S, Bakshi P, Kumar K. Variability in grapes (Vitis vinifera) genotypes using morphological traits. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(SP1):439-46.
  11. 11. Fatahi R, Ebadi A, Vezvaei A, Zamani Z, Ghanadha MR. Relationship among quantitative and qualitative characters in 90 grapevine (Vitis vinifera) cultivars. Acta Hortic. 2004;640:275-82.
  12. 12. Rubio JA, Yuste J. Ampelographic differentiation of ‘Tempranillo’ clones from different area of origin, according to their synonym. Acta Hortic. 2004;652:73-9. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.652.7
  13. 13. Pavek DS, Lamboy WF, Garvey EJ. Selecting in situ conservation sites for grape genetic resources in the USA. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2004;50(2):165-73. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022947605916
  14. 14. Snopek L, Mlcek J, Baron L, Sochorova M, Hlavacova I, Jurikova T, et al. Contribution of red wine consumption to human health protection. Molecules. 2018;23(7):1684. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071684
  15. 15. Sharma J, Upadhyay AK. Effect of moisture stress on performance of own rooted and grafted vines of Tas-A Ganesh (Vitis vinifera L.). Acta Hortic. 2005;662:253-7.
  16. 16. Somkuwar RG, Ramteke SD, Sawant SD, Takawale P. Canopy modification influences growth, yield, quality and powdery mildew incidence in Tas-A-Ganesh grapevine. Int J Fruit Sci. 2019;19:437-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/15538362.2018.1555509
  17. 17. Somkuwar RG, Ausari PK, Sharma AK, Gobade N, Gharate PS. Evaluation of training systems for growth, yield, photosynthetic activities and wine quality in Cabernet Sauvignon. J Eco-friendly Agric. 2025;20(1):122-9. https://doi.org/10.48165/jefa.2024.20.1.19
  18. 18. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV). List of descriptors for grapevine cultivars and species (Vitis L.). 2012. http://www.oiv.int/oiv/info/enizmiroivreport
  19. 19. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Guidance on objective tests to determine quality of fruits and vegetables and dry and dried produce. 2018; p.11-6.
  20. 20. SAS Institute. SAS procedures, version 6. 3rd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute; 1990.
  21. 21. Somkuwar RG, Nale RD, Karande PB, Sharma AK, Nikumbhe NH, Naik S, et al. Morphological and fruit variability in grape (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm under Indian condition. Res Square. 2024. https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-4100305/v1
  22. 22. Abiri K, Rezaei M, Tahanian H, Heidari P, Khadivi A. Morphological and pomological variability of a grape (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm collection. Sci Hortic. 2020;266:109285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109285
  23. 23. Vafaee Y, Ghaderi N, Khadivi A. Morphological variation and marker-fruit trait associations in a collection of grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Sci Hortic. 2017;225:771-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.08.007
  24. 24. Khadivi-Khub A, Salimpour A, Rasouli M. Analysis of grape germplasm from Iran based on fruit characteristics. Braz J Bot. 2014;37:105-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-014-0054-5
  25. 25. Boz Y, Bakir M, Cerlikkol BP, Kazan K, Yilmaz F, Cakir B, et al. Genetic characterization of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm from southeast Anatolia by SSR markers. Vitis. 2011;50:99-106. https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2011.50.99-106
  26. 26. Akram MT, Qadri R, Khan MA, Hafiz IA, Nisar N, Khan MM, et al. Morpho-phenological characterization of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) germplasm grown in northern zones of Punjab, Pakistan. Pak J Agric Sci. 2021;58(4):1223-36. https://doi.org/10.21162/PAKJAS/21.91
  27. 27. Leao PCS, Cruz CD, Motoike SY. Genetic diversity of table grape based on morphoagronomic traits. Sci Agric (Piracicaba, Braz). 2011;68:42-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162011000100007
  28. 28. Somkuwar RG, Satisha J, Ramteke SD. Effect of bunch load on berry growth in Tas-A-Ganesh grafted on different rootstocks. Indian J Hortic. 2010;64(4b):578-80.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.