Skip to main content
Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture
Download PDF
Download ePub

Is there any influence of biodynamic preparation 501 on the physiological activity of grape leaves cv. Cesanese d’Affile?

Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture volume 10, Article number: 114 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Biodynamic agriculture is a management approach that aims to reduce the reliance on agrochemicals for production by emphasizing the use of specific natural preparations. A 2-year field trial spanning 2019–2020 was conducted in an established vineyard (Vitis vinifera L., cv. Cesanese d’Affile) to elucidate the impact of the cow horn silica biodynamic preparation (BD-501) on leaf vine physiology, potential resistance via chitinase activity, and analysis of secondary metabolites. The vineyard under biodynamic management was divided into two plots: one treated with BD-501 (BD-501) and the other untreated (BD). Throughout the vine growth season, measurements of carotenoid and chlorophyll levels, polyphenols, and chitinase activity were taken around key phenological phases (BBCH scale). During the ripening phase, a fluorometer was employed to assess chlorophyll fluorescence in the leaves.

Results

Leaves treated with BD-501 exhibited elevated concentrations of polyphenols and increased chitinase activity during the later phenological phases. In contrast, the untreated BD samples demonstrated high values primarily in the central phase of the observation period but not consistently throughout. At the time of harvest, chlorophyll concentration and quantum yield exhibited no statistically significant differences. BD-501 triggered a distinct response in terms of potential defense mechanisms (elevated polyphenols and chitinase activity) during the veraison phase. However, conversely, lower levels of chlorophylls and carotenoids were observed.

Conclusions

Nevertheless, a further round of experimental work is required to thoroughly comprehend the regulatory mechanisms behind this adaptive response and to ascertain the efficacy of BD-501.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Alternative agronomic practices, such as organic and biodynamic agriculture, have been supported by growing consumer awareness of environmental degradation in agriculture and the significance of food quality in connection to human health [1, 2]. Generally speaking, biodynamic agriculture differs from traditional organic management, in the use of specific fermented preparations proposed by Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) which are claimed to stimulate the soil nutrient cycle and enforce the efficiency of leaf activity and optimal evolution of compost enhancing both soil and crop quality [2, 3]. These treatments, which are applied to crops, compost, and soil, have been shown to enhance the quality of crops and animals while promoting an effective nutrient cycle. Sustainable agro-ecosystems with biodynamic management are thought to have positive environmental benefits in terms of their energy efficiency [3,4,5].

As regards wine quality from biodynamic management of vine and vinification, some papers have been published especially from Italian group comparing the quality of conventional and biodynamic produced wines [6,7,8,9]. In vineyard, some studies were conducted to better understand the effects of the preparations/method on vine physiology and on yield [5, 10, 11]. Regarding vine physiology response, it was found a better enzymatic activity of chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase in the biodynamic method [10], while regarding the yield, similar values were found when compared with organic management [4, 5, 12]. Other studies [12,13,14] showed that berries from vine biodynamic cultivation had higher level of soluble solids, total phenols and anthocyanins in red grape, and in white grape no difference on soluble solids, pH and total acidity was detected.

Another study [11] approach was made through the application of the high resolution nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (HR-NMR) to reveal differences between the metabolomes of organic and biodynamic red wines, with a multivariate analysis. It confirmed the presence of specific differences that are statistically meaningful.

Biodynamic agriculture is managed according to Demeter standards, to produce products labeled Demeter or Biodynamic®. To obtain authorization to use the trademark, Regulation 834/0715 must be respected, replaced by Reg. 889/0816, relating to organic production, the Demeter standards of production, processing and distribution and labeling [15].

Silica (Si) is the second most present element on the planet, following oxygen, and makes up 26–27% of the earth's crust [16]. In the soil, it normally occurs in the form of silicic acid (H4SiO4), and similarly to potassium, calcium and other elements, is considered essential in plant nutrition [17, 18]. In plants it is absorbed and reaches concentrations in a range that varies between 1 and 10% of the dry matter, except for Equisetaceae’ plants which highest values are reached in [19]. Si may be incorporated into the cell wall by cross-linking with other wall constituents such as hemicelluloses, pectins, and phenols in the endo- and exo-dermal tissues of roots [20, 21]. Si is transported from the soil to the plant as silicic acid which is often limiting in the soil [22], two Si transporters, Lsi1 and Lsi2, are responsible and are located in the absorbing root [23,24,25]. Lis6 transporter, a homolog of Lsi1, is needed to unload silicic acid from the xylem throughout all the plant cells [26, 27].

Many reports presented Si as a prosperous beneficial plant nutrient for stimulating the growth and yield of different crops [28,29,30]. Therefore, Si has important vital roles in alleviating the adverse negative impacts of drought stress [17, 31, 32]. Silica is widely accepted that it has two key processes in contribution to stress resistance: (i) physical and mechanical protection from Si deposited in the cell wall, which reduces leaves stomatal conductance and transpiration; (ii) a biochemical reaction causing metabolic changes [33].

Another function of Si is correlated with its activity of inhibiting insect damage [28, 34, 35]. Therefore, Si is one possible remedy to reduce the intensive use of pesticides, since it is a natural environment-friendly alternatives, that pose no threat to the human health and environment [18, 36].

In plants, Si after the absorption and accumulation is subsequently transported to the outer part of the cell wall of the epidermis or in the trichomes of the leaves. Moreover, it is documented that Si promotes cells division and cells enlargement, controls the physiological processes and metabolic activities such as membrane permeability, water and nutrients uptake, photosynthesis, transpiration and phytohormones biosynthesis [31, 37, 38].

The underlying research postulated that the utilization of Preparation 501, derived from horn silica, might impact the physiological activity of vine leaves while potentially inducing a resistance mechanism. This investigation spanned 2 years and was conducted within a vineyard that had been under long-term biodynamic management.

Methods

Vineyard management and climatic conditions

The experimental site was an old vineyard located in Piglio (Frosinone, Lazio), Italy (41° 49′ 45″ 84 N, 13° 7′ 23″ 88 E, 430 m a.s.l) planted in 1965 with cv. Cesanese d’Affile (Vitis vinifera L.), grafted onto 1103 Paulsen, trained to guyot. Tested vineyard was on a slope, with south/north and downhill oriented rows, vine were spaces at 2.2 m × 1.2 m, with a density of 3787 plants/ha. Agriculture in the Piglio area is characterized by a hilly mountainous territory with the presence of very rich soil. Cesanese d'Affile is the only red variety authorized in Lazio region suitable to produce PDO wines. Starting in 2012, this vineyard was managed and certified as organic in accordance with EC Regulation 834/2007. In 2019 and 2020 seasons, the number of buds (10–12) for vine was adjusted by winter pruning. The herbaceous species fava bean (Vicia faba), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneous), pea (Pisum sativum), and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) were sown in the rows at the conclusion of each vegetative season in both treatments. No irrigation was applied in both seasons. Using organic products permitted by EC Regulation 1112/2002, the entire plot was treated to manage diseases and pests in the same way. Treatment consisted mainly of copper (an average of 5 kg/ha year) and sulphur (an average of 7 kg/ha year), enabling control of fungal pathogens.

Temperatures during the vegetative season of 2019 were higher than the seasonal norm, with August seeing the highest temperature peaks of 35 °C. The average relative humidity (RH) ranged from 40 to 70% from bud bursting to harvest; the highest values were noted in May (85%), which was unexpected, and the lowest (33%) in August, which was expected. The total rainfall (250 mm) from bud burst to harvest was concentrated mainly in May and at ripening time, September. In 2020, there was an increase of the temperatures over the average in March (average T: 23 °C) with a subsequent lowering in April where freezing and cold occurred in the lowland areas, but it did not affect the vineyards of the experimentation. July and August were very hot (many days at 35 °C) with no rain. The RH from bud burst to harvest varied from 30 to 82% with higher peaks in July and in September. The total rainfall (330 mm), registered from bud burst to harvest, mainly occurred in spring.

Experimental design

In 2019, the surface of 0.4 ha was divided in two large uniform blocks with similar soil characteristics [The 0–0.4 m soil layer was silty clay loam (Aquic Haplustepts, fine, mixed, mesic), sub-alkaline (pH 8.0), and contained 14.0 g/kg of total organic carbon, 1.1 g/kg of total nitrogen, and 7.4 mg/kg of available phosphorus]. Each block was used to test a specific manure cultivation method: (i) BD-501 biodynamic farming, based on biodynamic management with the application of the 501 born silica preparation according to Demeter standards (biodynamic certification organism; (ii) BD based on the same management but without the application of the BD-501. Each treatment was provided on 4 plots (2 plot per type of treatment), containing 30 monitored vines each, for a total of 120 vines. Between the two blocks two rows of vines were left not considered in the experimentation.

The biodynamic preparations consisting of cattle manure-horn (500) and horn silica powder (501) were produced by Azienda agricola biodinamica Carlo Noro (Labico, Italy). The 500 and 501 preparations were prepared as indicated by Demeter protocol (Biodynamic Federation Demeter International E.V. Brandschneise 1D-64295 Darmstadt, DE). The latter preparation, which was the focus of the experimental work, was sprayed on vines with a backpack atomizer, with low water usage nozzle, during early morning, without any breeze or wind. In 2019, 2020 three applications of preparation 500 have been applied during spring period in the entire vineyard. Three applications of preparation 501 in both blocks have been supplied one during spring and two during summer, only in block named BD-501. The blocks without the treatment of 501, named BD were used as control to assess the effect of the preparate. The application times were chosen according to environmental conditions and plant phenological condition. 6 leaves per plant were sampled on the top, middle and bottom of the canopy of the grapevine. In total 60 plant per treatment (BD-501 or BD), for a total of 360 leaves during each phenological phase were used. Sampling was carried out in 3 different phenological phases: at the beginning of berry growth (BBCH 71), at cluster closure (BBCH 79) and when the berries were partially red (BBCH 83).

Chemical and enzymatic analyses

Leaves sampling was carried out in the three different phenological phases according to experimental design and application of BD-501. Leaves were immediately frozen with liquid nitrogen after treatment. In Lab, the samples were ground with A11 Basic IKA laboratory mortar.

The analysis of carotenoids (Car) and chlorophylls (Chl-a and Chl-b) content was carried out according to Porra et al. [39] and Yang et al. [40]. The concentrations were expressed as µg/g of fresh weight (fw) of sample. The assay for the polyphenol determination was carried out using the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method as previously described by Bianchi et al. [41], expressing the results as mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per g of fresh weight (fw) of sample.

The extraction of the chitinase (β-N-acetyl-hexosaminidase EC 3.2.1.52) was determined according to Botelho et al. [10] and expressing the results as the values in µM/min referring to the enzymatic activity.

Physiological and photochemical analyses

Physiological and photochemical traits of cv. Cesanese d’Affile have been assessed by chlorophyll (Chl), the quantum yield (QY) and stomatal conductance (gs).

The Chl content was used to assess leaf functionality [42], and was estimated using a hand-held MC-100 Chlorophyll Concentration Meter (Apogee Instruments, Inc., Logan, UT, USA), that performs a non-destructive measurement on the leaf without damaging or disrupting it. The meter includes equation with grapevine specific coefficient and display output unit as μmol of Chl per m2 of leaf surface.

The quantum yield of photosystem II (QY) was recorded by the portable fluorescence meter, FluorPen FP 110 (Photon systems instruments, Czech Republic), which also allowed for the measurement of photosynthetically active radiation (400–700 nm—PAR–PPFD). The values are expressed as mol/mol quanta absorbed and provide us the photochemical efficiency of leaf [42].

Stomatal conductance (gs) was determined using a leaf porometer (SC-1, Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA). Measurement was taken from 12:00 to 14:00 h on basal mature fully exposed leaves. Measurements were done on ten random vines per treatment. From this tested vine four basal mature and full exposed leaves were selected and three measurements for leaf were done, among them two closes to the base of petiole sinus and one on the main tip lobe (tip). The values are expressed as μmol of H2O/m2 s. Parameter monitoring was done at ripening of berries (BBCH 89).

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed by JMP Pro 17.0 software package (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). All the evaluations were performed in quadruplicate, and data are reported as mean values ± standard deviation (SD). One-way ANOVA (CoStat, Cohort 6.0) was performed on data, followed by the Tukey’s HSD test at p ≤ 0.05 of significance.

Results and discussion

Chlorophylls and carotenoids

The values of Chl content expressed in μg/g fw in both years, decreased linearly along the phenological phases, irrespective of the treatment (Table 1).

Table 1 Leaf pigments (carotenoids and chlorophyll) detected during three different phenological phases of berry development, during both years of the study
Full size table

In some phenological phases, the content significantly differed from each other although no substantial disparities have occurred. In the leaf of BD sample, a high decrease in Chl in BBCH 83 compared to the previous phase, was measured. In the second year the Chl contents were higher than in the previous year (Table 1). Leaf of BD-501 treatment, showed less Chl content during the first two phenological phases but, in the last phenological phase, increased the value, scoring the highest one (Table 1).

By comparing the concentrations of Chl-b between the 2 years, it is possible to observe in Table 1 a decreasing pattern of the values; in the first phenological phase, the leaves of BD-501 treatment have higher values than the other two phases. Both management systems showed a decreasing trend of the Chl content. However, it can be noted that, in the cluster closure phase, the Chl values of BD are lower than that of BD-501. The leaves of the BD-501 block did not undergo the strong decrease which the leaves of BD are subjected to, in the BBCH 83 phase. This highlights the ability of the 501 application to retain a higher content of pigments over time. In fact, Si foliar applications increase the Chl content, preserving it from non-enzymatic and enzymatic antioxidants either under well water or water deficit conditions in compared to the respective controls (sprayed with distilled water) [43]. In a work made by Malagoli et al. [44] regarding the application of BD-501, the results of the content of Chl-a and Chl-b was higher in plant treated with 501 manure than in plant non-treated.

The sum of both pigments of chlorophyll indicates that there is an induction for greater synthesis of pigments while the ratio indicates if, in some way, the situation of water stress stimulates a greater synthesis of pigments. In fact, in conditions of water and temperature stress, i.e., stress that affects the osmotic potential of the leaf, the pigments undergo a decrease in their value, but the Chl-b decreases more than Chl-a, and the a/b Chl ratio increases. With the increase in solar radiation, one of the ways used by the plant to resist climate change is to induce a lower synthesis of chlorophyll.

It has been demonstrated that adding Si to other plants causes them to accumulate more Chl and other pigments, both in Si accumulators like rice [23, 45] and wheat [46], and in Si non-accumulators like tomato [47, 48]. One of the most significant effects of adding Si to salt-stressed plants in all of those test conditions was the rise in chlorophyll content. However, the rise in Chl brought on by Si fertilization varies by species and cultivar and is not always appreciable [49,50,51]. Si may have a more direct impact on photosynthesis through improved light distribution across the photosystems and a resulting increase in quantum efficiency [47]; nevertheless, no molecular explanation of this phenomenon has been proposed.

The primary silicon transporters, namely Lsi1 and Lsi6 from the aquaporin family, play a crucial role in the allocation of silicon within root and shoot tissues [26]. In contrast, Lsi2 functions as a putative anion transporter, primarily expressed in the endodermis of roots [23, 24].

Concentrations of chlorophyll (Chl) undergo a reduction, and according to existing literature, the degradation of chlorophyll constitutes a pivotal aspect of nitrogen recycling. This process holds significance in preventing cellular damage. When the degradation of chlorophyll is not adequately regulated, it leads to severe photodamage and triggers cell death [52,53,54].

By comparing the concentrations of total chlorophyll and carotenoids over time, BD-501 sample shows a lower loss of concentrations as the phenological phase progress. In fact, the BD-501 system remains partially constant until the BBCH 71 stage and after dropping down of about 20% to BBCH 83 phase, while the BD presents a loss of more than 40%. Analyzing the ratio of the sum between the two pigments there are no significant differences between the content of Chl inside the leaves, but only a decrease in the final phase close to veraison (BBCH 83) in which the BD system has the lowest values can be noted (Table 1). Therefore, the BD-501 system maintains the highest values of chlorophylls over time, resulting more efficient in maintaining photosynthetic pigments content.

Carotenoids allow the absorption of photons from wavelengths other than chlorophyll pigments and protect them from photo-oxidation [55]. Moreover, they play a relevant role in the synthesis of the stress-related plant hormones since they are being precursors of phytohormones such as ABA and strigolactones [56, 57]. Analyzing the first year, in BBCH 71 the concentrations show similar values and in the following phase they undergo an increase in both treatments (Table 1). The leaf of BD-501 treated undergo a stronger increase in comparison to the BD-treated leaf in BBCH 79 and a subsequent decrease in BBCH 83 occurs (Table 1). During the second year an analogous behavior is observed. In BBCH 71, leaf treated with BD-501 has the lowest value in comparison with leaf treated with BD (Table 1). In BBCH 79 the carotenoids in leaves of both treatments are subjected to an increase, but in the following phase they present lower statistically values, since there is no univocal connection between the data but only this increase during cluster closure. Leaf treated with BD-501 presents the higher value in the last phase in both years.

Polyphenols

Polyphenol content of leaves showed increasing values starting from the BBCH 71 phase (Table 2) in both years, and an analogous behavior is measured. There is no substantial difference between the 2 years analyzed, witnessing that the synthesis pathway of these molecules was not subject to variation between the 2 years of analysis.

Table 2 Polyphenols and enzymatic activity (chitinase) measured during three different phenological phases of berry development, during both years of the study
Full size table

At the first analyzed phase, a high value of these compounds is detectable in the leaf treated with preparation BD-501 compared to the BD. The last phase (BBCH 83) is characterized by an increase in the polyphenols amount in the leaf treated with BD-501, which has the highest value (Table 2).

The biodynamic system 501 seems to favor and stimulate the production of polyphenols, in fact according to the literature biochemical/molecular mechanisms are induced or increased in their activity by Si allowing the plant to improve resistance to biotic stress and include defensive compounds such as phenolics, phytoalexins and momilactones [58]. In fact, silica nanoparticles were shown to protect wheat seedlings against UV-B stress by stimulating the antioxidant defense system [59].

Fawe et al. [60] detected and identified flavonoids and phenolic acids that were specifically and strongly induced in a pattern typical of phytoalexins, following the Si treatment. Thus, Si was hypothesized to play an active role in disease resistance by stimulating defense mechanisms [61].

It is known that higher plant tolerance to abiotic stresses is related to increased synthesis of polyphenols, such as phenolic acids and flavonoids [62].

Malagoli et al. [44] affirm that the application of preparation 501 may trigger the biosynthesis of antioxidants beneficial to enhance stress tolerance in grapevine plants, although the different variations in the leaf metabolite levels recorded in the plants may be attributable to the site effect of the vineyards.

Enzymatic activity

The chitinase activity overall increased during the phenological phases and followed an increasing linear trend (Table 2). In the first year during BBCH 71 average values are very similar between the two samples; in BBCH 83 phase there was an increase in the leaves of both treatments and those treated with preparation BD-501 had the highest value. In the second year BD and BD-501 treated-leaves showed higher activity in comparison with the previous year and there is a linear increasing trend from the beginning. Leaf of BD-501 treatment presented the highest value during the ripening stage, BBCH 83.

Chitinase is a hydrolytic enzyme capable of breaking the glycosidic bonds present in chitin, a homopolysaccharide present in many living beings. The extractable chitinases from V. vinifera can be classified into six classes in relation to structure and homology between the various isoforms [63,64,65]. Chitinase is involved in the defensive processes of the plant from pathogenic fungi and hydrolyzes the main fibrillar polysaccharide of the fungal wall. The breakdown products of chitin are released and converted into chitosan, which is a molecule that plays a key role in resistance mechanisms. In fact, it is an elicitor, promoter of the activity of lipoxygenase (LOX), an enzyme that plays an important role in hypersensitive responses, of ammonium phenylalanine (PAL), an enzyme that intervenes in the metabolic pathways of synthesis of polyphenol and among them precursors of phytoalexins and salicylic acid, and of the chitinase itself [66].

The plants of the vineyard treated with the preparation BD-501 show a strong increase in the enzymatic activity in the final stage (BBCH 83) in both years (Table 2). This effect and its association with the biodynamic treatment would support the thesis, according to which the preparation BD-501 is able to stimulate elements of the plant defense mechanisms [3]. The treatment might in fact have favored the plants on which it was distributed, stimulating a greater capacity to absorb light and therefore an advancement in ripening compared to control. We discovered in the literature that Si lowers oxidative damage by an average of 30% under both salinity and drought stress. This is probably due to an increase in antioxidant enzyme activity, which was elevated by an average of 50% under salt stress and 20% more frequently under drought stress [67].

Ma et al. [25] demonstrated that the Si treatment was linked to increased expression of oxidative stress genes. Mechanistic models, however, are still fully unknown to us; post transcriptional or transcriptional pathways may be used to boost enzyme activity. Both pathways would need cytosolic molecular interactions [31].

Consequently, several studies have linked Si with elevated shoot and root activities of antioxidants, both enzymatic (e.g., superoxide dismutase, peroxidase, catalase, ascorbate peroxidase and glutathione reductase) and non-enzymatic (e.g., ascorbate, glutathione, phenolic compounds, etc.), as well as changes in the concentrations of common markers of oxidative stress, including malondialdehyde, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and proline, under various abiotic stresses [68, 69].

From this it can be deduced that the BD-501 sample presents an increase in chitinase activity over time, in the different phenological phases, which could favor resistance to fungal diseases, especially in the final phases of grape ripening. An important correlation between enzymatic activity and polyphenols content is present along the two experimental years (Fig. 1a, b).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Regression analysis between polyphenols and enzymatic activity (chitinase) carried on leaves sampled with R.2 and slope values: year 2019 (a); year 2020 (b)

Full size image

Physiological and photochemical determinations

The photosynthetic efficiency (QY) and stomatal conductance (gs) at berry ripening time (BBCH89) did not show significant differences, scoring analogous average values in both years (Table 3). Similarly, the concertation of foliar chlorophyll for the two managements under investigation, did not show significant differences between them during the 2 years of study.

Table 3 Values of non-destructive analyses [chlorophyll (Chl), quantum yield (QY) and stomatal conductance (gs)] detected directly on leaves in the field during the phenological phase of berry development immediately before the harvesting (BBCH 89)
Full size table

Conclusions

The results obtained from this research work have shown that the application of preparation BD-501 seems to have effects on the plant physiology during vegetative growth phases in both years of study. Among the analyzed foliar components, we observed that the quantity of polyphenols linearly increased, reaching the higher concentration at the early veraison phase, simultaneously with the decrease of chlorophylls quantity. The chitinase activity increased as well and the values detected in leaves treated with BD-501 manure might be attributed to the promotive induction of silicon.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

References

  1. Pettinelli S, Pardini L, De Angeli G, Bianchi A, Najar B, Cerreta R, et al. Innovative “Soft” maceration techniques in red grape fermentation. Beverages. 2022;8:62. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages8040062.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Brock C, Geier U, Greiner R, Olbrich-Majer M, Fritz J. Research in biodynamic food and farming—a review. Open Agric. 2019;4:743–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2019-0064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Turinek M, Grobelnik-Mlakar S, Bavec M, Bavec F. Biodynamic agriculture research progress and priorities. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2009;24:146–54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S174217050900252X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Döring J, Collins C, Frisch M, Kauer R. Organic and biodynamic viticulture affect biodiversity and properties of vine and wine: a systematic quantitative review. Am J Enol Vitic. 2019;70:221–42. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2019.18047.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Döring J, Frisch M, Tittmann S, Stoll M, Kauer R. Growth, yield and fruit quality of grapevines under organic and biodynamic management. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138445.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Picchi M, Canuti V, Bertuccioli M, Zanoni B. The influence of conventional and biodynamic winemaking processes on the quality of sangiovese wine. Int J Wine Res. 2020;12:1–16. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJWR.S245183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maioli F, Picchi M, Millarini V, Domizio P, Scozzafava G, Zanoni B, et al. A methodological approach to assess the effect of organic, biodynamic, and conventional production processes on the intrinsic and perceived quality of a typical wine: the case study of chianti DOCG. Foods. 2021;10:1894. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081894.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Parpinello GP, Rombolà AD, Simoni M, Versari A. Chemical and sensory characterisation of Sangiovese red wines: comparison between biodynamic and organic management. Food Chem. 2015;167:145–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.06.093.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Parpinello GP, Ricci A, Rombolà AD, Nigro G, Versari A. Comparison of Sangiovese wines obtained from stabilized organic and biodynamic vineyard management systems. Food Chem. 2019;283:499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.073.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Botelho RV, Roberti R, Tessarin P, Garcia-Mina JM, Rombolà AD. Physiological responses of grapevines to biodynamic management. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2016;31:402–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170515000320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Picone G, Trimigno A, Tessarin P, Donnini S, Rombolà AD, Capozzi F. 1H NMR foodomics reveals that the biodynamic and the organic cultivation managements produce different grape berries (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese). Food Chem. 2016;213:187–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.06.077.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Reeve JR, Carpenter-Boggs L, Reganold JP, York AL, McGourty G, McCloskey LP. Soil and winegrape quality in biodynamically and organically managed vineyards. Am J Enol Vitic. 2005;56:367–76. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2005.56.4.367.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tassoni A, Tango N, Ferri M. Polyphenol and biogenic amine profiles of Albana and Lambrusco grape berries and wines obtained following different agricultural and oenological practices. Food Nutr Sci. 2014;5:9. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2014.51002.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Tassoni A, Tango N, Ferri M. Comparison of biogenic amine and polyphenol profiles of grape berries and wines obtained following conventional, organic and biodynamic agricultural and oenological practices. Food Chem. 2013;139:405–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.01.041.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Zikeli S, Deil L, Möller K. The challenge of imbalanced nutrient flows in organic farming systems: a study of organic greenhouses in Southern Germany. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;244:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Datnoff LE, Snyder GH, Korndörfer GH. Silicon in agriculture. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Yavaş İ, Aydın Ü. The role of silicon under biotic and abiotic stress conditions. Türk Tarımsal Araştırmalar Derg. 2017;4:204–9. https://doi.org/10.19159/tutad.300023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schaller J, Puppe D, Kaczorek D, Ellerbrock R, Sommer M. Silicon cycling in soils revisited. Plants. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020295.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Epstein E. The anomaly of silicon in plant biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1994;91:11–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.91.1.11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Fleck AT, Schulze S, Hinrichs M, Specht A, Waßmann F, Schreiber L, et al. Silicon promotes exodermal casparian band formation in Si-accumulating and Si-excluding species by forming phenol complexes. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138555.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. He C, Ma J, Wang L. A hemicellulose-bound form of silicon with potential to improve the mechanical properties and regeneration of the cell wall of rice. New Phytol. 2015;206:1051–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13282.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Côté-Beaulieu C, Chain F, Menzies JG, Kinrade SD, Bélanger RR. Absorption of aqueous inorganic and organic silicon compounds by wheat and their effect on growth and powdery mildew control. Environ Exp Bot. 2009;65:155–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2008.09.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma JF, Yamaji N, Mitani N, Tamai K, Konishi S, Fujiwara T, et al. An efflux transporter of silicon in rice. Nature. 2007;448:209–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05964.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Che J, Yamaji N, Shao JF, Ma JF, Shen RF. Silicon decreases both uptake and root-to-shoot translocation of manganese in rice. J Exp Bot. 2016;67:1535–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv545.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ma D, Sun D, Wang C, Qin H, Ding H, Li Y, et al. Silicon application alleviates drought stress in wheat through transcriptional regulation of multiple antioxidant defense pathways. J Plant Growth Regul. 2016;35:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-015-9500-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mitani N, Yamaji N, Ma JF. Identification of maize silicon influx transporters. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009;50:5–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcn110.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Yamaji N, Mitatni N, Ma JF. A Transporter regulating silicon distribution in rice shoots. Plant Cell. 2008;20:1381–9. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.059311.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bakhat HF, Bibi N, Zia Z, Abbas S, Hammad HM, Fahad S, et al. Silicon mitigates biotic stresses in crop plants: a review. Crop Prot. 2018;104:21–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.10.008.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rizwan M, Ali S, Ibrahim M, Farid M, Adrees M, Bharwana SA, et al. Mechanisms of silicon-mediated alleviation of drought and salt stress in plants: a review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22:15416–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-5305-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Shehata MN, Abdelgawad KF. Potassium silicate and amino acids improve growth, flowering and productivity of summer squash under high temperature condition. Am Eur J Agric Environ Sci. 2019;19:74–86. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2019.74.86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Thorne SJ, Hartley SE, Maathuis FJM. Is silicon a panacea for alleviating drought and salt stress in crops? Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:1221. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tubana BS, Babu T, Datnoff LE. A review of silicon in soils and plants and its role in US agriculture: history and future perspectives. Soil Sci. 2016;181:393–411. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0000000000000179.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Luyckx M, Hausman J-F, Lutts S, Guerriero G. Silicon and plants: current knowledge and technological perspectives. Front Plant Sci. 2017. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00411.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kvedaras OL, Keeping MG. Silicon impedes stalk penetration by the borer Eldana saccharina in sugarcane. Entomol Exp Appl. 2007;125:103–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2007.00604.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Massey FP, Ennos AR, Hartley SE. Silica in grasses as a defence against insect herbivores: contrasting effects on folivores and a phloem feeder. J Anim Ecol. 2006;75:595–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2656.2006.01082.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cataldo E, Fucile M, Mattii GB. Biostimulants in viticulture: a sustainable approach against biotic and abiotic stresses. Plants. 2022;11:162. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11020162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhu Y, Gong H. Beneficial effects of silicon on salt and drought tolerance in plants. Agron Sustain Dev. 2014;34:455–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0194-1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Jindo K, Goron TL, Pizarro-Tobías P, Sánchez-Monedero MÁ, Audette Y, Deolu-Ajayi AO, et al. Application of biostimulant products and biological control agents in sustainable viticulture: a review. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:3657. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.932311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Porra RJ, Thompson WA, Kriedemann PE. Determination of accurate extinction coefficients and simultaneous equations for assaying chlorophylls a and b extracted with four different solvents: verification of the concentration of chlorophyll standards by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 1989;975:384–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-2728(89)80347-0.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang C-M, Chang K-W, Yin M-H, Huang H-M. Methods for the determination of the chlorophylls and their derivatives. Taiwania. 1998;43:116–22. https://doi.org/10.6165/tai.1998.43(2).116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Bianchi A, Venturi F, Zinnai A, Taglieri I, Najar B, Macaluso M, et al. Valorization of an old variety of Triticum aestivum: a study of its suitability for breadmaking focusing on sensory and nutritional quality. Foods. 2023;12:1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12061351.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Brunori E, Bernardini A, Moresi FV, Attorre F, Biasi R. Ecophysiological response of Vitis vinifera L. in an urban agrosystem: preliminary assessment of genetic variability. Plants. 2022;11:3026. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Salim BBM, Abou El-Yazied A, Salama YAM, Raza A, Osman HS. Impact of silicon foliar application in enhancing antioxidants, growth, flowering and yield of squash plants under deficit irrigation condition. Ann Agric Sci. 2021;66:176–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2021.12.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Malagoli M, Sut S, Kumar G, Dall’Acqua S. Variations of elements, pigments, amino acids and secondary metabolites in Vitis vinifera (L.) cv Garganega after 501 biodynamic treatment. Chem Biol Technol Agric. 2022;9:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-022-00299-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Chen T, Cai X, Wu X, Karahara I, Schreiber L, Lin J. Casparian strip development and its potential function in salt tolerance. Plant Signal Behav. 2011;6:1499–502. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.6.10.17054.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sienkiewicz-Cholewa U, Sumisławska J, Sacała E, Dziągwa-Becker M, Kieloch R. Influence of silicon on spring wheat seedlings under salt stress. Acta Physiol Plant. 2018;40:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-018-2630-y.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Cao B, Ma Q, Zhao Q, Wang L, Xu K. Effects of silicon on absorbed light allocation, antioxidant enzymes and ultrastructure of chloroplasts in tomato leaves under simulated drought stress. Sci Hortic (Amst). 2015;194:53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.07.037.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Muneer S, Park YG, Manivannan A, Soundararajan P, Jeong BR. Physiological and proteomic analysis in chloroplasts of Solanum lycopersicum L. under silicon efficiency and salinity stress. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:21803–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms151221803.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Abbas T, Balal RM, Shahid MA, Pervez MA, Ayyub CM, Aqueel MA, et al. Silicon-induced alleviation of NaCl toxicity in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) is associated with enhanced photosynthesis, osmoprotectants and antioxidant metabolism. Acta Physiol Plant. 2015;37:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-014-1768-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ali N, Schwarzenberg A, Yvin J-C, Hosseini SA. Regulatory role of silicon in mediating differential stress tolerance responses in two contrasting tomato genotypes under osmotic stress. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01475.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Mahdieh M, Habibollahi N, Amirjani MR, Abnosi MH, Ghorbanpour M. Exogenous silicon nutrition ameliorates salt-induced stress by improving growth and efficiency of PSII in Oryza sativa L. cultivars. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2015;15:1050–60. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-95162015005000073.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Horie Y, Ito H, Kusaba M, Tanaka R, Tanaka A. Participation of chlorophyll b reductase in the initial step of the degradation of light-harvesting chlorophyll a/b-protein complexes in arabidopsis. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:17449–56. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M109.008912.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Hörtensteiner S, Kräutler B. Chlorophyll breakdown in higher plants. Biochim Biophys Acta Bioenerg. 2011;1807:977–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2010.12.007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Pružinská A, Tanner G, Anders I, Roca M, Hörtensteiner S. Chlorophyll breakdown: pheophorbide a oxygenase is a Rieske-type iron–sulfur protein, encoded by the accelerated cell death 1 gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2003;100:15259–64. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2036571100.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Armstrong GA, Hearst JE. Genetics and molecular biology of carotenoid pigment biosynthesis. FASEB J. 1996;10:228–37. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.10.2.8641556.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Guillory A, Bonhomme S. Phytohormone biosynthesis and signaling pathways of mosses. Plant Mol Biol. 2021;107:245–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-021-01172-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Mostofa MG, Li W, Nguyen KH, Fujita M, Tran L-SP. Strigolactones in plant adaptation to abiotic stresses: an emerging avenue of plant research. Plant Cell Environ. 2018;41:2227–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.13364.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Rémus-Borel W, Menzies JG, Bélanger RR. Silicon induces antifungal compounds in powdery mildew-infected wheat. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2005;66:108–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2005.05.006.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Tripathi DK, Singh S, Singh VP, Prasad SM, Chauhan DK, Dubey NK. Silicon nanoparticles more efficiently alleviate arsenate toxicity than silicon in maize cultiver and hybrid differing in arsenate tolerance. Front Environ Sci. 2016;4:46. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Fawe A, Abou-Zaid M, Menzies JG, Bélanger RR. Silicon-mediated accumulation of flavonoid phytoalexins in cucumber. Phytopathology®. 1998;88:396–401. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.1998.88.5.396.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Rodrigues FÁ, Benhamou N, Datnoff LE, Jones JB, Bélanger RR. Ultrastructural and cytochemical aspects of silicon-mediated rice blast resistance. Phytopathology®. 2003;93:535–46. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO.2003.93.5.535.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Sharma A, Shahzad B, Rehman A, Bhardwaj R, Landi M, Zheng B. Response of phenylpropanoid pathway and the role of polyphenols in plants under abiotic stress. Molecules. 2019;24:2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24132452.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Collinge DB, Kragh KM, Mikkelsen JD, Nielsen KK, Rasmussen U, Vad K. Plant chitinases. Plant J. 1993;3:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1993.t01-1-00999.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Flach J, Pilet P-E, Jollès P. What’s new in chitinase research? Experientia. 1992;48:701–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02124285.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Robert N, Roche K, Lebeau Y, Breda C, Boulay M, Esnault R, et al. Expression of grapevine chitinase genes in berries and leaves infected by fungal or bacterial pathogens. Plant Sci. 2002;162:389–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(01)00576-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Trotel-Aziz P, Couderchet M, Vernet G, Aziz A. Chitosan stimulates defense reactions in grapevine leaves and inhibits development of botrytis cinerea. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2006;114:405–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-006-0005-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Sattar A, Cheema MA, Sher A, Ijaz M, Ul-Allah S, Nawaz A, et al. Physiological and biochemical attributes of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings are influenced by foliar application of silicon and selenium under water deficit. Acta Physiol Plant. 2019;41:146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-019-2938-2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Coskun D, Deshmukh R, Sonah H, Menzies JG, Reynolds O, Ma JF, et al. The controversies of silicon’s role in plant biology. New Phytol. 2019;221:67–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Santini G, Bianchi A, Pettinelli S, Modesti M, Cerreta R, Bellincontro A. Air speed and plastic crate vent-holes for wine grape quality during postharvest dehydration: commercial and laboratory studies. J Sci Food Agric. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.12817.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment (DAFE), University of Pisa, Via del Borghetto 80, 56124, Pisa, Italy

    Stefano Pettinelli, Alessandro Bianchi & Fabio Mencarelli

  2. Department for Innovation in Biological, Agro-Food and Forest Systems (DIBAF), University of Tuscia, Via De Lellis, 01100, Viterbo, Italy

    Laura Buzzi, Brunella Ceccantoni & Elena Brunori

  3. Department of Agriculture and Forest Sciences (DAFNE), University of Tuscia, 01100, Viterbo, Italy

    Rosario Muleo

Authors
  1. Stefano Pettinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Buzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Brunella Ceccantoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rosario Muleo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Alessandro Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elena Brunori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Fabio Mencarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PS: data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; visualization; writing—review and editing. LB: formal analysis; investigation. BC: formal analysis; investigation. RM: data curation; roles/writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. AB: data curation; formal analysis; investigation; methodology; visualization; roles/writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. EB: formal analysis; investigation; methodology; writing—review and editing. FM: conceptualization; resources; supervision; validation; visualization; roles/writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Bianchi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pettinelli, S., Buzzi, L., Ceccantoni, B. et al. Is there any influence of biodynamic preparation 501 on the physiological activity of grape leaves cv. Cesanese d’Affile?. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 10, 114 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-023-00492-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-023-00492-7

Keywords