IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i6p852-d837359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Grape Quality Zoning and Selective Harvesting in Small Vineyards—To Adopt or Not to Adopt

Author

Listed:
  • Ivana Rendulić Jelušić

    (Zagreb County, Ulica Grada Vukovara 72, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Branka Šakić Bobić

    (Department of Management and Rural Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Zoran Grgić

    (Department of Management and Rural Entrepreneurship, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Saša Žiković

    (Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Rijeka, 51000 Rijeka, Croatia)

  • Mirela Osrečak

    (Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Ivana Puhelek

    (Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Marina Anić

    (Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

  • Marko Karoglan

    (Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia)

Abstract

The practical application of grape quality zoning and selective harvesting in small vineyards (<1 ha) has not yet gained much importance worldwide. However, winegrowers with small vineyards are looking for ways to improve wine quality and maximise profit. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify the most predictive vegetation index for grape quality zoning among three vegetation indices—NDVI, NDRE, and OSAVI—at three grapevine growth stages for the efficient use in small vineyards for the selective harvesting and production of different wine types from the same vineyard. Multispectral images were used to delineate two vigour zones at three different growth stages. The target vines were sampled, and the most predictive vegetation index was determined by overlapping the quality and vigour structures for each site and year. A differential economic analysis was performed, considering only the costs and revenues associated with grape quality zoning. The results show that OSAVI is the least predictive, while NDVI and NDRE are useful for grape quality zoning and selective harvesting. Multi-year monitoring is required to determine the ideal growth stage for image acquisition. The use of grape quality zoning and selective harvesting can be economically efficient for small wineries producing two different “super-premium” wines from the same vineyard.

Suggested Citation

  • Ivana Rendulić Jelušić & Branka Šakić Bobić & Zoran Grgić & Saša Žiković & Mirela Osrečak & Ivana Puhelek & Marina Anić & Marko Karoglan, 2022. "Grape Quality Zoning and Selective Harvesting in Small Vineyards—To Adopt or Not to Adopt," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-22, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:6:p:852-:d:837359
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/6/852/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/6/852/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandro Matese & Salvatore Filippo Di Gennaro, 2018. "Practical Applications of a Multisensor UAV Platform Based on Multispectral, Thermal and RGB High Resolution Images in Precision Viticulture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-13, July.
    2. Lambert, Dayton M. & Lowenberg-DeBoer, James & Griffin, Terry W. & Peone, J. & Payne, Tim & Daberkow, Stan G., 2004. "Adoption, Profitability, And Making Better Use Of Precision Farming Data," Staff Papers 28615, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gonçalo C. Rodrigues, 2022. "Precision Agriculture: Strategies and Technology Adoption," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-4, September.
    2. Ramírez-Cuesta, J.M. & Intrigliolo, D.S. & Lorite, I.J. & Moreno, M.A. & Vanella, D. & Ballesteros, R. & Hernández-López, D. & Buesa, I., 2023. "Determining grapevine water use under different sustainable agronomic practices using METRIC-UAV surface energy balance model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    3. Renwei Chen & Xiaoyu Zhang & Yu Yang & Yonge Yang & Jing Wang & Hongying Li, 2023. "Analyses of Vineyard Microclimate in the Eastern Foothills of the Helan Mountains in Ningxia Region, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-18, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marco Ammoniaci & Simon-Paolo Kartsiotis & Rita Perria & Paolo Storchi, 2021. "State of the Art of Monitoring Technologies and Data Processing for Precision Viticulture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-20, February.
    2. Timothy J. Lowe & Paul V. Preckel, 2004. "Decision Technologies for Agribusiness Problems: A Brief Review of Selected Literature and a Call for Research," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 201-208.
    3. Takács-György, Katalin, 2015. "Chemical Use In Crop Production – Can It Be Reduced By New Technologies?," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2015(3), June.
    4. Bhoomin Tanut & Rattapoom Waranusast & Panomkhawn Riyamongkol, 2021. "High Accuracy Pre-Harvest Sugarcane Yield Forecasting Model Utilizing Drone Image Analysis, Data Mining, and Reverse Design Method," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & English, Burton C. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Marra, Michele C. & Martin, Steven W. & Paxton, Kenneth W. & Reeves, Jeanne M., 2007. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Remotely Sensed Imagery for Site-Specific Management in Cotton Production," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34971, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Robinson, A. & Campo, K.R. & Isaac, W.A. & Ganpat, W., 2013. "Virtual Outreach: Use Of Mobile Technologies For Knowledge Management And Extension Services In Rural Communities," 49th Annual Meeting, June 30-July 6, 2013, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 253574, Caribbean Food Crops Society.
    7. Kolady, Deepthi E. & Van Der Sluis, Evert, 2021. "Adoption Determinants of Precision Agriculture Technologies and Conservation Agriculture: Evidence from South Dakota," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), December.
    8. Dhoubhadel, Sunil P., 2020. "Precision Agriculture Technologies and Farm Profitability," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304229, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Alessia Cogato & Franco Meggio & Massimiliano De Antoni Migliorati & Francesco Marinello, 2019. "Extreme Weather Events in Agriculture: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, May.
    10. Walton, Jonathan C. & Larson, James A. & Roberts, Roland K. & Lambert, Dayton M. & English, Burton C. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Marra, Michele C., 2008. "PDA and Handheld GPS Adoption in Precision Cotton Production," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6839, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    11. Walton, Jonathan C. & Lambert, Dayton M. & Roberts, Roland K. & Larson, James A. & English, Burton C. & Larkin, Sherry L. & Martin, Steven W. & Marra, Michele C. & Paxton, Kenneth W. & Reeves, Jeanne , 2008. "Adoption and Abandonment of Precision Soil Sampling in Cotton Production," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 33(3), pages 1-21.
    12. Ezenne, G.I. & Jupp, Louise & Mantel, S.K. & Tanner, J.L., 2019. "Current and potential capabilities of UAS for crop water productivity in precision agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 158-164.
    13. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi & Kumar, Sandeep & Miao, Yuxin & Rao, Xudong & Obembe, Oladipo & Mirzakhani Nafchi, Ali & Redfearn, Daren & Cheye, Stephen, 2023. "Understanding farmer views of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    14. Joanna Paziewska & Antoni Rzonca, 2022. "Integration of Thermal and RGB Data Obtained by Means of a Drone for Interdisciplinary Inventory," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    15. Enikő Lencsés & István Takács & Katalin Takács-György, 2014. "Farmers’ Perception of Precision Farming Technology among Hungarian Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Wang, Tong & Jin, Hailong & Sieverding, Heidi L. & Rao, Xudong & Miao, Yuxin & Kumar, Sandeep & Redfearn, Daren & Nafchi, Ali, 2022. "Understanding farmer perceptions of precision agriculture profitability in the U.S. Midwest," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322502, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Madhu Khanna, 2021. "Digital Transformation of the Agricultural Sector: Pathways, Drivers and Policy Implications," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(4), pages 1221-1242, December.
    18. Mintert, James & Thompson, Nathanael & Widmar, David & Bir, Courtney, 2019. "Pr - Precision Agriculture Technology Adoption In U.S. Crop Production," 22nd Congress, Tasmania, Australia, March 3-8, 2019 345888, International Farm Management Association.
    19. Yorghos Voutos & Phivos Mylonas & John Katheniotis & Anastasia Sofou, 2019. "A Survey on Intelligent Agricultural Information Handling Methodologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-23, June.
    20. Fernandez-Cornejo, Jorge & Mishra, Ashok K. & Nehring, Richard F. & Hendricks, Chad & Southern, Malaya & Gregory, Alexandra, 2007. "Off-Farm Income, Technology Adoption, And Farm Economic Performance," Economic Research Report 7234, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:6:p:852-:d:837359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.