Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation and canopy manipulation on the biochemical composition of Sauvignon Blanc grapes
Article first published online: 25 MAY 2012
© 2012 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research
Volume 18, Issue 2, pages 227–238, June 2012
How to Cite
GREGAN, S.M., WARGENT, J.J., LIU, L., SHINKLE, J., HOFMANN, R., WINEFIELD, C., TROUGHT, M. and JORDAN, B. (2012), Effects of solar ultraviolet radiation and canopy manipulation on the biochemical composition of Sauvignon Blanc grapes. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 18: 227–238. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00192.x
- Issue published online: 25 MAY 2012
- Article first published online: 25 MAY 2012
- Manuscript received: 8 August 2011; Revised manuscript received: 19 December 2011; Accepted: 24 March 2012
Figure S1. Spectra of the materials used in field experiments to study Sauvignon Blanc grape composition and the effects of leaf removal and ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The spectra indicate the percentage transmission in the UV-radiation range (250–400 nm). Acrylic excludes wavelengths below 260 nm but allows transmission of UV-B (280–315 nm) and UV-A (315–400 nm). PETG excludes wavelengths below 315 nm, specifically blocking UV-B but allowing transmission of UV-A. Polycarbonate excludes all wavelengths below 400 nm and therefore blocks UV-B and UV-A transmission.
Figure S2. Field experiment to study the effects of canopy manipulation and ultraviolet radiation exclusion on Sauvignon Blanc berry composition showing (a) the profile of the screens in the vine row; (b) leaf removal treatments with exposed fruit compared with neighbouring control (full leaf canopy) vines and (c) the positioning of the screens over the exposed fruiting zone.
Table S1. Amino acid concentrations in Sauvignon Blanc berries from samples taken at harvest 2008 (6 weeks post-veraison) comparing viticultural treatments.
Table S2. Amino acid concentrations in Sauvignon Blanc berries from samples taken at harvest 2009 (6 weeks post-veraison) comparing viticultural treatments.
|AJGW_192_sm_FigS1.doc||112K||Supporting info item|
|AJGW_192_sm_FigS2.doc||931K||Supporting info item|
|AJGW_192_sm_TableS1.doc||60K||Supporting info item|
|AJGW_192_sm_TableS2.doc||60K||Supporting info item|
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.