Previous Article in Journal
Biocatalytic Recycling of Polyethylene Terephthalate: From Conventional to Innovative Routes for Transforming Plastic and Textile Waste into Renewable Resources
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Resources
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/resources14120177
resources-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Integrating Soil Diagnostics and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance Vineyard Sustainability on a Volcanic Island (Tenerife, Spain)

by
Santiago M. Barroso Castillo
1,
Ignacio de Martín-Pinillos Castellanos
2 and
Pablo Alonso González
3,*
1
Escuela de Doctorado, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
2
Departamento de Economía, Contabilidad y Finanzas, Universidad de La Laguna (ULL), 38200 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
3
Social Sciences, Heritage and Food (SOCIALPAT), Institute of Natural Products and Agrobiology (IPNA-CSIC), 38206 La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Resources 2025, 14(12), 177; https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14120177
Submission received: 20 October 2025 / Revised: 12 November 2025 / Accepted: 13 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Viticulture in insular and volcanic environments faces mounting pressures from land abandonment, limited mechanization, and climate-related stress on soil and water resources. This study develops an integrated framework combining Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and soil diagnostics to evaluate the environmental and agronomic performance of vineyards on the island of Tenerife (Canary Islands, Spain). Fifteen representative vineyards located between 100 and 1000 m a.s.l. within the Tacoronte–Acentejo Denomination of Origin were assessed using the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) method and the Ecoinvent 3.8 database. The average carbon footprint reached 1.40 kg CO2-eq kg−1 of grapes, with diesel use for field access and transport contributing over 50% of total impacts and 64% of human toxicity. Copper-based fungicides accounted for ~11% of impacts, underscoring their environmental persistence. Soil analyses revealed widespread Ca/Mg imbalances and sporadic K deficiencies, while organic matter and pH levels were generally adequate. Importantly, vineyards with balanced nutrient ratios exhibited both higher yields and lower environmental burdens, suggesting that improved soil health can enhance eco-efficiency, primarily by supporting higher yields under similar input regimes. Targeted strategies—such as magnesium supplementation, reduced copper inputs, and low-carbon mobility practices—can therefore mitigate emissions while improving productivity. The proposed LCA–soil integration provides a replicable model for sustainable resource management and climate-resilient viticulture in other fragile and topographically constrained agricultural systems.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is one of the primary drivers of global resource use, occupying 4.78 billion hectares—about one-third of the planet’s land surface—in 2022 [1]. Within this context, viticulture represents a resource-intensive and economically strategic sector, covering approximately 7.3 million hectares worldwide, with the European Union accounting for 3.3 million hectares and Spain maintaining the largest vineyard area (955,000 ha) [2]. However, the modern wine industry faces a dual challenge: sustaining productivity and competitiveness while minimizing environmental pressures associated with soil degradation, fossil energy consumption, and agrochemical dependence. These challenges are particularly acute in insular and mountainous regions, where topographic, climatic, and structural constraints limit mechanization and increase resource vulnerability.
In the Canary Islands—a small volcanic archipelago located in the Atlantic Ocean—these constraints are amplified. The rugged terrain, limited water availability, and pronounced rural depopulation have accelerated the abandonment of traditional vineyards, especially on the island of Tenerife. Viticulture, historically rooted in the archipelago since the 16th century [3,4,5,6], remains the second most widespread crop by area but is undergoing structural decline. The island of Tenerife alone has lost 42% of its vineyard surface in the past decade, particularly in the Tacoronte–Acentejo Denomination of Origin (D.O.), the largest and most productive winegrowing area in the Canary Islands [7]. Multiple factors explain this contraction: climate change has exacerbated rainfall shortages, with some zones experiencing over 40% reductions in recent years [8]; at the same time, generational renewal has stagnated, as younger populations are increasingly disengaged from agricultural activities [9,10]. This combination threatens the sustainable management of soil and land resources, upon which both local identity and economic viability depend.
Improving the resource efficiency and environmental performance of vineyard systems is therefore essential to their long-term sustainability. Yet, productivity-enhancing measures must also respect ecological balance, particularly through the rational use of fertilizers, irrigation, and plant protection products [11,12,13]. Training systems have evolved in recent decades—favoring trellises over traditional pergolas for improved labor efficiency—but steep slopes and fragmented land still constrain mechanization and energy optimization [7,13]. Moreover, the lack of precise soil nutrient information often leads to inefficient or excessive agrochemical application, degrading soil quality, reducing nutrient-use efficiency, and undermining vineyard resilience. Soil chemistry—particularly parameters such as pH, organic matter content, and nutrient ratios (Ca/Mg, K/Mg)—plays a decisive role not only in vine health and grape yield but also in determining how effectively resources are used within the production system [14,15,16].
Despite the availability of diagnostic and assessment tools, few studies have combined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and soil analysis at the vineyard scale to explore the links between resource efficiency, soil quality, and environmental impacts in smallholder contexts. Most existing research emphasizes wine sensory characteristics [17,18] or vineyard economics [19], while relatively few examine soil degradation and environmental externalities resulting from input use. In this regard, integrating soil diagnostics with LCA represents a critical step toward quantifying the soil–impact–productivity nexus, thereby advancing both environmental efficiency and sustainable resource management in viticulture [20,21,22,23,24,25,26].
This study addresses that research gap by applying an integrated LCA–soil diagnostic framework to a representative sample of 15 vineyards in the Tacoronte–Acentejo D.O. region (Tenerife, Spain). The main objectives are threefold:
  • To quantify the environmental impacts associated with vineyard management practices through Life Cycle Assessment;
  • To characterize the chemical and nutrient status of volcanic vineyard soils;
  • To evaluate the relationship between soil fertility, yield performance, and environmental efficiency.
The central research question is: Do soil characteristics influence vineyard productivity in volcanic island ecosystems and consequently environmental impacts? By addressing this question, the study contributes to the global debate on resource-efficient and climate-resilient agriculture, offering a replicable methodological framework that supports sustainable viticulture and soil management in other marginal or topographically constrained winegrowing regions [27,28,29,30,31,32,33].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Tacoronte–Acentejo (Figure 1) is in the northeastern part of Tenerife (28°28′ N latitude and 16°26′ W longitude) and comprises nine municipalities: Santa Úrsula, La Victoria de Acentejo, La Matanza de Acentejo, El Sauzal, Tacoronte, La Laguna, El Rosario, Tegueste, and Santa Cruz. Vineyards in this region range in altitude from 100 to 1000 m above sea level. Generally, vineyards are established on terraces or steep slopes oriented northward, facing the sea [34].
This region has followed the general trend observed in the Canary Islands and specifically on the island of Tenerife with respect to the reduction in vineyard area. At the beginning of 2010, the total vineyard area in the Tacoronte–Acentejo region was 2117.1 hectares (ha), whereas by 2021, it had decreased to 1317.4 ha [35,36]. This represents a reduction of over 37% in vineyard area within a decade, surpassing the rate of decline recorded for both the Canary Islands and the island of Tenerife during the same period.
For this study, a total of fifteen vineyards (n = 15) were selected from various locations across the Tacoronte–Acentejo region using a purposive sampling strategy. This approach ensured that all municipalities within the Denomination of Origin (D.O.) Tacoronte–Acentejo were represented, capturing the area’s diverse agroecological conditions. The selected vineyards span a range of altitudes (100–1000 m a.s.l.), surface areas, training systems (traditional, low pergola, trellis, and hybrid forms), and yield levels. Based on official records from the D.O. Regulatory Council and local agricultural agencies, these fifteen plots represent over 30% of the active vineyards in the region with traceable production and accessible soil data. Given the smallholder-based and fragmented nature of viticulture in this volcanic and topographically complex region, this sample is considered both significant and representative.
Fuel consumption and machinery use also varied: in sloped vineyards with limited mechanization capacity, tasks such as spraying and pruning were performed manually, which reduced fuel-related emissions. In flatter areas, tractors or motorized atomizers were used, increasing fossil fuel use and compaction risks.
This diversity in input application methods and management intensity was systematically recorded and integrated into the LCA model on a per-plot basis. It helps explain the variation in environmental impact profiles across the sample and illustrates that improved management practices—even within conventional systems—can lead to significant sustainability gains.
The studied vineyards are located between 238 and 669 m a.s.l., on slopes ranging from 5% to 35%, typical of the mid-elevation areas in northern Tenerife. The predominant grape varieties are Listán Negro and Listán Blanco, although other varieties such as Negramoll, Tempranillo, and Castellana were also found within the analyzed plots. Most vines were over 30 years old, and some appeared to be centenarian, as evidenced by the thickness and diameter of their trunks.

2.2. Sample Characteristics

Data collection was carried out during the 2024 harvest season. Each vineyard was anonymized using the code “Mx” to ensure confidentiality (see Table 1). Two main data sources were used to characterize environmental performance and soil conditions:
  • Soil samples, collected and analyzed in a certified laboratory.
  • Custom-designed questionnaire, administered in person to vineyard owners, managers, or technical staff.
Each questionnaire was completed for the same plot where soil sampling took place, ensuring full alignment between the two datasets. The instrument was adapted from validated Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) surveys commonly used in viticulture research [37,38,39] and customized to reflect the agronomic specificities of the Canary Islands. A total of 15 questionnaires were completed, one for each of the farms analyzed.
The questionnaire consisted of four blocks:
  • General vineyard information (e.g., location, area, altitude, training system).
  • Agronomic inputs (e.g., quantities and types of fertilizers, phytosanitary products, amendments, irrigation).
  • Field operations and mechanization (e.g., fuel consumption, equipment use, labor intensity).
  • Production data (e.g., yields, grape varieties, observed practices).
No personal or sensitive information was gathered. Most answers were cross-validated with digitized vineyard logbooks, and field visits were conducted to verify training systems, irrigation methods, and terrain conditions. The integration of soil and LCA data was performed at the individual plot level, allowing for a one-to-one correspondence between chemical soil parameters and environmental impact indices. This coupling enabled detailed correlation analyses between variables such as nutrient balance (e.g., Ca/Mg ratio), carbon footprint per kg of grapes, and final yield.
While the primary objective was exploratory, basic bivariate correlation analyses (Pearson’s r) were used to evaluate relationships between soil variables, input intensity, and environmental impacts. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were calculated to compare plots. Where applicable, linear regression models were applied to detect patterns linking soil conditions and yields. These statistical tools allowed us to assess the soil–impact–productivity nexus, which is discussed in detail in the results section.

2.3. Agronomic Analysis Methodology

Within each vineyard plot, six to ten soil subsamples were collected at a depth of 15–20 cm using a hand drill. All these subsamples were grouped together in order to obtain the most accurate representation possible of the soil condition. Sampling was carried out following a random diagonal pattern, starting at one corner of the plot and moving diagonally, avoiding the heads and edges. This approach was used to capture the variability within each plot, while maintaining consistency across all sites.
The subsamples were homogenized to form a single composite sample per plot, which was then air-dried, sieved (2 mm mesh), and analyzed in the laboratory. As a result, the soil data presented in this study reflect composite averages per plot, and no replicate-level variance (e.g., standard error) is reported. This methodology is consistent with standard soil monitoring protocols in viticulture studies where logistical or cost limitations constrain per-point analyses.
The soil variables assessed in each sample included: pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter percentage (%OM), available phosphorus (P2O5 in ppm) via the Olsen method, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), sodium (Na), and saturation percentage. Additionally, the following ratios were calculated: calcium/magnesium (Ca/Mg), potassium/magnesium (K/Mg), calcium plus magnesium over potassium ((Ca+Mg)/K), and the percentage of exchangeable cations.
The chemical parameters analyzed in each soil sample included pH, electrical conductivity (EC), organic matter (%), available phosphorus (P2O5), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), sodium (Na), saturation percentage, and cation exchange capacity (CEC). The pH, a key indicator of nutrient availability, biological activity, and cation exchange processes, should range between 4.5 and 8.5, which are considered as values tolerated by the vineyard [40,41]. Organic matter, which affects soil structure, nutrient retention, and microbial resilience, is ideally above 2%, with higher levels promoting vine vigor [42]. Calcium and magnesium, essential for root development, photosynthesis, and enzyme activation, are optimal within the ranges of 5.06–11.03 mg/kg and 1.82–6.6 mg/kg, respectively [43,44]. Potassium, important for osmotic regulation and drought tolerance, should be around 1.54 mg/kg [43], while sodium—although not essential in large amounts—must remain between 0.32 and 1.3 mg/kg to avoid phytotoxicity [43]. EC values near 1.2 dS/m indicate good salinity balance [43], and a soil saturation percentage of around 40% is ideal for proper aeration and drainage [43]. Lastly, CEC, which reflects the soil’s ability to retain nutrients, depends on the sum of exchangeable cations (Ca, K, Mg, Na) and should follow established proportional distributions to ensure fertility and balance [43].

Soil Sample Characterization

Soil pH was measured in a 1:2.5 soil-to-distilled water suspension (w/v) using a combined glass electrode following the ISO 10390:2005 standard [45]. Exchangeable cations (Ca, K, P, Mg, and Na) were extracted using an ammonium acetate solution, based on the official procedure established by the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture. Phosphorus was extracted using a sodium bicarbonate solution at pH 8.5. Saturated soil pastes were prepared using 350 g of air-dried soil and left to equilibrate for 24 h following the standard method. Then, 20 mL of water were added to 100 g of soil, shaken, and more water was added until saturation was reached. The liquid phase was then extracted using a vacuum system. Electrical conductivity of the vacuum extracts was measured using a conductivity meter. To calculate the saturation percentage of the soil paste, the samples were oven-dried at 104 °C for 24 h.

2.4. Environmental Impact Assessment

The methodology used to assess environmental impacts is based on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), as standardized in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 [46,47]. These standards provide a structured approach for evaluating the environmental performance of products throughout all stages of their life cycle, enabling the identification of impact hotspots and the development of mitigation strategies. The LCA framework consists of four main phases:
  • Goal and scope definition.
  • Life cycle inventory (LCI).
  • Life cycle impact assessment (LCIA).
  • Interpretation of results.
In this study, the goal was to quantify and compare the environmental impacts associated with the cultivation phase of grape production across 15 vineyard plots. The system boundaries encompassed all activities from resource extraction (e.g., diesel production) through to harvest, excluding winemaking and distribution stages. The functional unit was defined as 1 kg of harvested grapes, a commonly used reference in agricultural LCA studies to allow for normalized comparisons across plots with varying yields [22,36,48,49,50].
The SimaPro 9.5.0.2 software was used for modeling, owing to its widespread use in agricultural LCA research and compatibility with large databases tailored to crop production. The Ecoinvent 3.8 database provided life cycle inventory data, while impact assessment was performed using the ReCiPe 2016 Midpoint (H) v1.08 method. This method provides scientifically consistent characterization factors (CFs) for multiple environmental categories, four of which were selected for their relevance to vineyard operations: Carbon footprint, in kg CO2-eq, human toxicity, in kg 1,4-dichlorobenzene-eq (1,4-DCB-eq), fossil resource scarcity, in kg oil-eq, ozone depletion, in kg CFC-11-eq.
These categories capture both direct and indirect environmental burdens associated with on-farm inputs such as fertilizers, pesticides, diesel, and machinery. For instance, fossil fuel depletion accounts for the life-cycle energy demands of diesel combustion, machinery use, and product transport [51]; whereas ozone depletion evaluates long-term impacts of refrigerants and fuel-related emissions on stratospheric ozone [52].
The LCA calculations followed the standard LCIA formula:
Impactj = Σ (Ai × CFij)
where Ai: Amount of input or emission i, collected via in person questionnaires (e.g., liters of diesel, kg of copper sulfate); CFij: Characterization factor linking input i to impact category j, as defined in the ReCiPe 2016 method; Impactj: Total environmental impact in category j, normalized per 1 kg of grapes.
For example, diesel use was converted to CO2-equivalents using an emission factor of 2.68 kg CO2/L; similarly, copper-based fungicides contributed to human toxicity via their heavy metal content and energy-intensive production [53,54]. These conversions were handled automatically by SimaPro, which aggregates all emissions associated with upstream and downstream processes based on the defined system boundaries.
All impact values were ultimately normalized by the functional unit (1 kg of grapes) to allow for equitable comparisons between vineyards. The results were then used to identify environmental hotspots (e.g., high fuel or pesticide dependency) and to analyze correlations with soil quality and grape yield.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. LCA Results

Figure 2 summarizes the environmental impacts associated with vineyard management practices across the four selected impact categories: carbon footprint, human toxicity, fossil resource depletion, and ozone layer depletion. The results clearly identify diesel fuel as the dominant contributor to environmental burdens in all categories, with its relative impact exceeding 50% in every case. In the human toxicity category, diesel accounts for 64.2% of the total impact, followed by copper sulfate (12.2%) and synthetic pesticides (9.1%). This aligns with the existing literature that highlights the significant toxicity burden of diesel emissions due to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and particulate matter [54,55].
In terms of carbon footprint, the average carbon footprint per kilogram of grapes was 1.40 kg CO2-eq, a value within the lower end of international benchmarks, which often range from 0.8 to 2.5 kg CO2-eq/kg grapes depending on mechanization intensity and input use [23,55]. The relatively low footprint observed here is explained by the limited use of mechanized equipment in steep plots and the common practice of incorporating pruning residues into the soil instead of burning them [56,57]. Even so, diesel combustion for accessing remote plots remains the most carbon-intensive activity, surpassing other inputs such as fertilizers, copper, and pesticides.
Copper-based fungicides, widely used in conventional viticulture, contribute an average of 11.41% across all categories, with their highest contribution recorded under carbon footprint (12.31%). While effective for disease control, copper’s environmental cost is increasingly debated due to its persistence in soil and ecotoxicity [54]. The continued use of copper-based inputs in the Tacoronte–Acentejo region reflects a lack of viable alternatives, although some vineyards have begun experimenting with reduced application frequencies or biocontrol supplements.
Other inputs—such as sulfur, diatomaceous earth, insecticides, and fertilizers—had considerably lower impacts, individually representing less than 5% of the total environmental burden. These findings reveal a clear hierarchy of environmental hotspots, highlighting diesel and copper as the main targets for intervention. Furthermore, variations in impact profiles among plots (not shown in Figure 2 but available in the dataset) reflect differences in accessibility, mechanization levels, and phytosanitary strategies.
Taken together, the results confirm that input intensity—particularly fossil fuel dependence—is a key driver of environmental pressure in vineyard operations. Strategies such as coordinated logistics, electric or hybrid tools, and targeted reductions in copper usage could significantly improve the environmental performance of viticulture in insular and topographically constrained regions.

3.2. Soil Diagnostics

Figure 3 displays the distribution of key agrochemical soil variables across the 15 vineyard plots sampled in the Tacoronte–Acentejo region. The average pH value was 5.03, which falls within the recommended range for grapevine cultivation (4.5–8.5) [40,41], although it indicates a general trend toward acidity. This result closely aligns with the findings of Alonso González et al. [3], who reported a mean pH of 5.14 for Tenerife, while other Canary Islands like Gran Canaria display much higher values (8.03), pointing to significant inter-island edaphic variability. One probable explanation for the acidic character of the soils in Tacoronte–Acentejo is the periodic application of agricultural lime during winter, a practice used to improve nutrient availability and correct acidity, especially in vineyards where potatoes are also cultivated between rows [58].
Regarding organic matter content, the average value of 3.52% exceeds the 2% threshold considered necessary for healthy vineyard function [42]. This level suggests moderate fertility and beneficial microbial activity, even though it is lower than the 4.33% reported in prior research on Tenerife [3]. When compared to mainland wine regions such as La Mancha, Navarra, and Toledo—where organic matter levels range from 1.39% to 2.08% [59,60,61]—Tacoronte–Acentejo vineyards present a more favorable profile for sustaining vine growth, particularly under low-input or organic practices.
In terms of calcium (Ca) content, substantial heterogeneity was observed. Nine out of the 15 plots showed values below the minimum optimal level of 5.06 mg/kg, while others exceeded the upper threshold of 11.03 mg/kg [43], with one case approaching 21 mg/kg. This over-accumulation is likely due to excessive application of calcium nitrate, a practice historically common in the region, particularly during the winter dormancy period. The overall average calcium level across all samples was 11.37 mg/kg, which is higher than reported values for La Palma (3.31 mg/kg) and even Tenerife as a whole (9.24 mg/kg) [3], although lower than the extreme values seen in Gran Canaria (33.18 mg/kg).
Magnesium (Mg) levels were generally low. Six plots reported values below 1 mg/kg, and only a few samples were comfortably within the optimal range of 1.82 to 6.6 mg/kg [44]. The average magnesium content was 4.00 mg/kg, which, although above the values reported for La Mancha (0.45 mg/kg) and the Tenerife average (2.53 mg/kg), still indicates a potential imbalance in the Ca/Mg ratio. Potassium (K) levels averaged 2.11 mg/kg, exceeding the reference value of 1.54 mg/kg [45] and contributing to adequate osmotic regulation and drought resilience. However, these values are lower than those recorded in other Canary Islands such as Lanzarote (5.38 mg/kg) and Gran Canaria (5.62 mg/kg) [3]. Qualitative observations during field visits suggested possible Mg deficiency symptoms in some vines, but these were not confirmed by foliar analysis.
Sodium (Na) content was on average 0.76 mg/kg, comfortably within the optimal range of 0.32–1.3 mg/kg [43]. This suggests no salinity-related phytotoxic risks in the vineyards studied. Similarly, electrical conductivity (EC) values averaged 0.85 dS/m, below the salinity threshold of 1.2 dS/m, but higher than other Canary Island averages (e.g., 0.45 dS/m reported by Hernández et al. [60]), indicating slightly elevated salt concentrations likely resulting from fertilizer use or irrigation water quality.
The saturation percentage of soils hovered around the optimal level of 40%, suggesting adequate drainage conditions and favorable pore structure [46]. Lastly, the calcium-to-magnesium ratio (Ca/Mg)—a key indicator of ionic balance and nutrient availability—was within the optimal range of 2 to 4 [62] in 10 of the plots. The remaining five exhibited values above this range, implying an overrepresentation of calcium relative to magnesium, which could interfere with nutrient uptake. For instance, Alonso González et al. [3] found an average Ca/Mg ratio of 3.65 in Tenerife, higher than the mean value of 3.48 observed in this study. At the archipelago level, the average reported was 2.37 [3], also within the ideal range.
These findings reinforce the importance of soil diagnostics as a management tool in viticulture, particularly in volcanic island ecosystems where soil fertility constraints, mineral imbalances, and limited mechanization converge. Addressing the observed magnesium deficiencies and correcting calcium overuse through tailored fertilization could improve both vine health and overall sustainability of vineyard systems in the Tacoronte–Acentejo region.
These chemical patterns suggest that nutrient balance and organic matter management could be key levers for improving vine performance and environmental efficiency, which we explore in the following section.
The soil chemical characterization revealed fertility conditions consistent with volcanic vitisols of northern Tenerife. The mean pH was moderately acidic (5.03), a range commonly associated with enhanced micronutrient availability but requiring careful management to avoid excessive acidity in the long term. Organic matter content averaged 3.52%, indicating moderate biological activity and a satisfactory contribution to soil structure and cation exchange. Available phosphorus (P2O5 Olsen) exhibited very high concentrations (138.94 ppm), suggesting legacy effects of past fertilization or inherent mineral contributions typical of basaltic parent materials; consequently, additional P inputs should be avoided to prevent oversaturation. Exchangeable cations showed a clear predominance of calcium (11.37) followed by magnesium (4.00) and potassium (2.16), resulting in a Ca/Mg ratio of 3.49, which lies within the optimal range for grapevine nutrition and supports balanced cationic interactions in the root zone. Sodium levels remained low (0.86), indicating negligible salinity or sodicity risk. Overall, these results confirm that the studied soils provide adequate fertility and favorable chemical conditions for viticulture, although future management should prioritize maintaining pH stability and moderating phosphorus applications to improve long-term soil sustainability.
A correlation analysis was conducted to explore the relationships between vineyard productivity, soil properties, and environmental performance (Table 2). The analysis aimed to determine whether variations in soil fertility indicators and nutrient balance were associated with differences in yield and carbon footprint among the vineyard plots.
Table 2 presents Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) and associated p-values among yield, carbon footprint, Ca/Mg ratio, organic matter (OM %), and magnesium content (Mg). The results show weak, non-significant correlations between yield and both carbon footprint (r = –0.253, p = 0.363) and Ca/Mg ratio (r = –0.109, p = 0.699). Likewise, the relationships of yield with OM % (r = –0.095, p = 0.737) and Mg content (r = 0.237, p = 0.395) were weak and statistically non-significant (p > 0.05). Although none of these associations reached significance (p > 0.05), their direction is agronomically meaningful: plots with higher input intensity (greater carbon footprint) or nutrient imbalance (higher Ca/Mg ratio) tended to exhibit slightly lower productivity.
To further explore these tendencies, two simple linear regressions were performed: (a) yield as a function of carbon footprint and (b) yield as a function of the Ca/Mg ratio (Figure 4a,b). The resulting equations were:
  • Yield = −358.786 × (Carbon footprint) + 51.334 (R2 = 0.064; p = 0.363; n = 15).
  • Yield = −2.337 × (Ca/Mg ratio) + 53.077 (R2 = 0.012; p = 0.699; n = 15).
The models confirmed weak inverse trends consistent with the observed correlations. While the relationships were not statistically significant, their direction agrees with agronomic expectations: higher Ca/Mg ratios are typically associated with reduced Mg availability and vine vigor, and higher carbon intensity indicates greater input dependence and lower production efficiency. The limited sample size (n = 15), single-year data, and high inter-plot variability likely constrained statistical power. Nevertheless, these trends suggest meaningful interactions between soil chemical balance, productivity, and environmental efficiency that warrant further investigation through multi-year studies.
The combination of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and soil diagnostics provides an integrated understanding of vineyard sustainability under the specific edaphoclimatic conditions of Tenerife. Although the statistical relationships identified were weak and non-significant, their direction and magnitude are agronomically coherent and align with trends reported in similar Mediterranean and volcanic viticultural systems.
The inverse trend between yield and carbon footprint suggests that higher input intensity and mechanization—particularly from fuel use, fertilizers, and plant protection products—do not necessarily enhance productivity. Comparable studies in southern Europe have shown that intensification often increases environmental burdens without proportional yield gains [5,6]. This indicates that moderate input strategies and efficient machinery use could improve both yield efficiency and environmental performance in smallholder vineyards.
The slightly negative correlation between the Ca/Mg ratio and yield (r = −0.11) supports the notion that excessive calcium relative to magnesium limits Mg uptake, affecting chlorophyll formation, photosynthesis, and vine vigor [7]. In volcanic soils, maintaining balanced Ca/Mg ratios (≈3–6) is essential to preserve nutrient availability and soil structure. The weak positive association between Mg content and yield is consistent with the agronomic role of this element in sustaining metabolic activity and grape quality [8,9].
Organic matter (OM %) exhibited minimal correlation with yield, contrasting with the positive influence often observed in temperate vineyards. This can be explained by the narrow OM range (2–3%) and the dominance of coarse-textured volcanic soils with limited cation-exchange capacity. Under such conditions, nutrient ratios and water stress likely exert stronger control over productivity. Furthermore, the single-year dataset and inter-plot heterogeneity limited statistical power, a common constraint in field-scale studies coupling LCA and soil data.
Vineyard management factors such as training system, fertilization strategy, and altitude influenced both yield and carbon footprint. Plots located at higher altitudes (>500 m a.s.l.) with traditional systems exhibited lower yields and smaller carbon footprints, mainly due to reduced mechanization and lower fuel consumption. Conversely, vineyards under trellis systems in gentler areas showed higher productivity but also increased emissions linked to machinery use and fertilizer inputs. This pattern aligns with previous findings for Mediterranean smallholder viticulture.
Overall, these results confirm that soil chemical balance and carbon efficiency are pivotal for sustainable vineyard management. Although statistical significance was not achieved (p > 0.05), the observed trends highlight meaningful interactions between soil fertility and environmental performance. Long-term, multi-year monitoring integrating physical, chemical, and biological indicators would strengthen these findings. Practically, promoting balanced fertilization, organic amendments, and optimized mechanization can simultaneously reduce greenhouse-gas emissions and improve soil health in island viticulture.
In addition to the Ca/Mg balance, the K/Mg ratio also plays a crucial role in nutrient uptake and grapevine physiology. Excessive potassium relative to magnesium can interfere with Mg absorption, leading to deficiencies that affect photosynthesis and grape quality. In this study, the K/Mg ratio remained within a balanced range (1.0–1.3), which likely prevented nutritional antagonisms and contributed to the overall chemical stability of the soils.

4. Conclusions

This study combined Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and soil diagnostics to evaluate the sustainability of vineyards in Tenerife’s Tacoronte–Acentejo region, characterized by its volcanic soils and steep topography. The integration of both approaches allowed a comprehensive assessment of how soil fertility and management practices influence environmental performance.
Vineyards with balanced soil conditions-especially appropriate pH, Ca/Mg and K/Mg ratios, and adequate organic matter-showed a non-significant tendency toward higher yields and lower carbon footprints, consistent with the agronomic importance of maintaining soil chemical balance. The results also indicated that fuel use and copper-based fungicides are the main contributors to the overall environmental impact.
Differences in altitude, slope, and training system significantly affected both productivity and emissions: traditional vineyards at higher altitudes presented lower yields but smaller carbon footprints, while trellised vineyards in flatter areas exhibited greater mechanization, higher yields, and increased emissions.
Although limited to a single harvest year, the combined LCA–soil assessment framework proved effective for identifying key interactions between vineyard management, soil quality, and environmental efficiency. The findings highlight the need for multi-year monitoring and the promotion of practices that optimize mechanization, fertilization, and organic amendments, contributing to more sustainable viticulture in island and mountainous environments.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.d.M.-P.C.; methodology, S.M.B.C. and P.A.G.; formal analysis, I.d.M.-P.C. and P.A.G.; resources, S.M.B.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.B.C. writing—review and editing, S.M.B.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study due to Legal Regulations (https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2007-12945, accessed on 12 July 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The Research Ethics and Animal Welfare Committee of the University of La Laguna has approved the exemption from ethical committee approval for this research.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude to the Regulatory Council of the Tacoronte–Acentejo Designation of Origin for its collaboration in data collection, as well as to the participating wineries. The authors also thank the Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition Laboratory (IPNA-CSIC) for conducting the soil analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study.

References

  1. FAO. Land Statistics and Indicators (2000–2020): Global, Regional and Country Trends; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  2. International Organisation of Vine and Wine. State of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2022; International Organisation of Vine and Wine: Dijon, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. González, P.A.; Dans, E.P.; González, M.M.H.; Blázquez, P.A.; Dacal, A.C.A.; Luzardo, O.P. Unveiling terroir: Evaluating the magnitude of the heterogeneity and its main drivers in the Canary Islands wines. Cogent. Food Agric. 2024, 10, 2334997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Santamarta, J.C.; García-Gil, A.; del Cristo Expósito, M.; Casañas, E.; Cruz-Pérez, N.; Rodríguez-Martín, J.; Gimeno, V. The clean energy transition of heating and cooling in touristic infrastructures using shallow geothermal energy in the Canary Islands. Renew. Energy 2021, 171, 505–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Hernández, A.M.M. El paisaje vitícola de Canarias: Cinco siglos de historia. Ería Rev. Cuatrimest. Geogr. 2005, 68, 351–364. [Google Scholar]
  6. Machín, N.; Hontoria, M.; Luis, J.; Gonzalo, C. Variedades de vid en La Isla de Tenerife; Cabildo de Tenerife: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  7. ISTAC. Superficie Cultivada de Viñedo; Instituto Canario de Estadística: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  8. Vallejo Segovia, L.; Hilario Reyes, H. Estación Meteorológica de Bajo Coste Para el Entorno Agrícola; University of La Laguna: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  9. Godenau, D.; Suárez Sosa, S.J.; Febles Ramírez, M. Análisis de los Resultados de la Encuesta Rural Tenerife 2007; Área de Agricultura, Excmo, Cabildo Insular de Tenerife: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife. Plan Hidrológico de la Demarcación Hidrográfica de Tenerife: Revisión de tercer ciclo (2021–2027). In Documentos Iniciales: Programa, Calendario, Estudio General Sobre la Demarcación y Fórmulas de Consulta; Consejo Insular de Aguas de Tenerife: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Compés López, R.; y Sotés Ruiz, V. El Sector Vitivinícola Frente al Desafío del Cambio Climático; Estrategias Públicas y Privadas de Mitigación y Adaptación en el Mediterráneo; Cajamar Caja Rural: Almería, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. ISTAC. Superficie Cultivada Superficie de Producción y Árboles Diseminados Según Productos Agrícolas Permanentes y Sistemas de Cultivo; Municipios e islas de Canarias por años, Instituto Canario de Estadística: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  13. García-Verdugo, D.L. Diagnóstico de la Viticultura en Canarias; Gobierno de Canarias: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  14. González Hernandez, G.; Hardisson de La Torre, A.; Arias León, J.J. Quantity of K, Ca, Na, Mg, Fe, Cu, Pb, Zn and ashes in DOC Tacoronte-Acentejo (Canary Islands, Spain) musts and wines. Z. Für Lebensm.-Unters. Und Forsch. 1996, 203, 517–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lázaro-López, A.; Nota, J.; Hernández, Z. Propuesta de zonificación de suelos vitivinícolas en la Comarca Tacoronte-Acentejo (Tenerife, Islas Canarias): Una herramienta para la gestión territorial. In Proceedings of the VI Congreso Ibérico de la Ciencia del SueloAt, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, 22–25 June 2014. [Google Scholar]
  16. Mackenzie, D.E.; Christy, A.G. The role of soil chemistry in wine grape quality and sustainable soil management in vineyards. Water Sci. Technol. 2005, 51, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alonso González, P.; Parga-Dans, E.; Blázquez, P.A.; Luzardo, O.P.; Peña, M.L.Z.; González, M.M.H.; Rodríguez-Hernández, Á.; Andújar, C. Elemental Composition, Rare Earths and Minority Elements in Organic and Conventional Wines from Volcanic Areas: The Canary Islands (Spain). PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0258739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alonso González, P.; Dans, E.P.; Dacal, A.C.A.; Peña, M.Z.; Luzardo, O.P. Differences in the levels of sulphites and pesticide residues in soils and wines and under organic and conventional production methods. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 112, 104714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Godenau, D.; Cáceres Hernández, J.J.; González Gómez, J.I. Tamaño, Costes y Viabilidad Empresarial en el Sector Vitiviní Cola de Canarias; Universidad de La Laguna: Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  20. Laca, A.; Gancedo, S.; Laca, A.; y Díaz, M. Evaluación de los impactos ambientales asociados a la viticultura y la vinificación. Un estudio de caso en zonas de montaña. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 1204–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barroso Castillo, S.M.; Castellanos, I.D.M.P.; Cruz-Pérez, N.; Santamarta, J.C.; Alonso González, P. Environmental Impact Assessment of Vineyard and Winery Using Life Cycle Analysis on Volcanic Island: Tenerife. Sustainability 2025, 17, 4649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Balafoutis, A.T.; Koundouras, S.; Anastasiou, E.; Fountas, S.; Arvanitis, K. Life cycle assessment of two vineyards after the application of precision viticulture techniques: A case study. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rouault, A.; Beauchet, S.; Renaud-Gentie, C.; Jourjon, F. Life cycle assessment of viticultural technical management routes (TMRs): Comparison between an organic and an integrated management route. OENO One 2016, 50, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rinaldi, S.; Bonamente, E.; Scrucca, F.; Merico, M.C.; Asdrubali, F.; Cotana, F. Water and carbon footprint of wine: Methodology review and application to a case study. Sustainability 2016, 8, 621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Falcone, G.; Strano, A.; Stillitano, T.; De Luca, A.I.; Iofrida, N.; Gulisano, G. Integrated sustainability appraisal of wine-growing management systems through LCA and LCC methodologies. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2015, 44, 223–228. [Google Scholar]
  26. Herrero, M.; Laca, A.; Laca, A.; Díaz, M. Application of life cycle assessment to food industry wastes. In Food Industry Wastes; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 331–353. [Google Scholar]
  27. Villanueva-Rey, P.; Vázquez-Rowe, I.; Moreira, M.T.; Feijoo, G. Comparative life cycle assessment in the wine sector: Biodynamic vs. conventional viticulture activities in NW Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 330–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meneses, M.; Torres, C.M.; Castells, F. Sensitivity analysis in a life cycle assessment of an aged red wine production from Catalonia, Spain. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 562, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Devasirvatham, P.; Gasol, C.M.; Dorado, J.; Férnandez-Quintanilla, C. Environmental impact and energy demand comparison of vineyards by the life cycle assessment methodology. In Proceedings of the XVI Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Malherbología, Pamplona, Spain, 25–27 October 2017; pp. 25–27. [Google Scholar]
  30. Coll, P.; Le Cadre, E.; Blanchart, E.; Hinsinger, P.; Villenave, C. Organic viticulture and soil quality: A long-term study in Southern France. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 50, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G.; Romanazzi, G.; Garde-Cerdán, T.; Pérez-Álvarez, E.P. A review of the use of biostimulants in the vineyard for improved grape and wine quality: Effects on prevention of grapevine diseases. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1001–1009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Godenau, D.; Suárez Sosa, S.J.; Gil Díaz, M.; Fernández López, L. Particularidades del marketing vitivinícola en zonas turísticas. El caso de la Denominación de Origen Tacoronte-Acentejo en Tenerife España. In Proceedings of the XXV Congreso Mundial de la Viña y el Vino, Paris, France, 19–23 June 2000. [Google Scholar]
  33. Casolani, N.; D’Eusanio, M.; Liberatore, L.; Raggi, A.; Petti, L. Life Cycle Assessment in the wine sector: A review on inventory phase. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 379, 134404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Vidergar, P.; Perc, M.; Lukman, R.K. A survey of the life cycle assessment of food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Meier, M.S.; Stoessel, F.; Jungbluth, N.; Juraske, R.; Schader, C.; Stolze, M. Environmental impacts of organic and conventional agricultural products–Are the differences captured by life cycle assessment? J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 149, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kolmans, E.; Vásquez, D. Manual de Agricultura Ecológica; Grupo de Agricultura Orgánica: Havana, Cuba, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  37. Soto, J.M.D.; Gutiérrez, A.D.R.; García, F.P.; Sandoval, O.A. Evaluación de color en suelos del Cerro de Denganthza, municipio de Francisco I. Madero, Hidalgo. Acta Univ. 2011, 21, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Pontallier, P.; Salagoïty, M.H.; Ribéreau-Gayon, P. Intervention du bois de chêne dans l’évolution des vins rouges élevés en barriques. OENO One 1982, 16, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fernández, I.; Cabaneiro, A.; Carballas, T. Organic matter changes immediately after a wildfire in an Atlantic forest soil and comparison with laboratory soil heating. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1997, 29, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hernández, E.J.P. Caracterización y capacidad agrológica de los suelos de viñedo en el municipio de Fuencaliente de La Palma. Rev. Estud. Gen. Isla Palma 2007, 3, 631–666. [Google Scholar]
  41. Delmas, J. Fertilization de la Vigne; Sciences et Techniques de la Vigne; Riberau Gayon, J., Peynaud, E., Eds.; Ed. Dunod.: Paris, France, 1971; pp. 617–650. [Google Scholar]
  42. Figueruelo Ojeda, M.E. Contribución al Estudio de los Suelos y Nutrición Mineral de Viñas de la Zona Tacoronte-Santa Úrsula. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de La Laguna, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain, 1986. [Google Scholar]
  43. FAO. Standard Operating Procedures for Soil Analysis: Volume 2.6—Cation Exchange Capacity and Exchangeable Bases; Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  44. ISO 10390:2005; Soil Quality—Determination of pH. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
  45. ISO14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; p. 20.
  46. ISO14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment: Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; p. 46.
  47. Arzoumanidis, I.; Salomone, R.; Petti, L.; Mondello, G.; Raggi, A. Is there a simplified LCA tool suitable for the agri-food industry? An assessment of selected tools. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 149, 406–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Marson, A.; Masiero, M.; Modesti, M.; Scipioni, A.; Manzardo, A. Life cycle assessment of polyurethane foams from polyols obtained through chemical recycling. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 1718–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Vangoni, E.; Cesaraccio, C.; Pirino, P.; Duce, P. The environmental role of small organic wineries: The case study of a multi-year assessment of a local Italian red wine. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2024, 29, 469–482. [Google Scholar]
  50. Jourdaine, M.; Loubet, P.; Trebucq, S.; Sonnemann, G. A detailed quantitative comparison of the life cycle assessment of bottled wines using an original harmonization procedure. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mackie, K.A.; Müller, T.; Kandeler, E. Remediation of copper in vineyards—A mini review. Environ. Pollut. 2012, 167, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Litskas, V.D.; Tzortzakis, N.; Stavrinides, M.C. Determining the carbon footprint and emission hotspots for the wine produced in Cyprus. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Valderrama, J.O.; Espíndola, C.; Quezada, R. Huella de Carbono, un Concepto que no puede estar Ausente en Cursos de Ingeniería y Ciencias. Form. Univ. 2011, 4, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Simões, C.L.; Simoes, R.; Gonçalves, A.S.; Nunes, L.J. Environmental analysis of the valorization of Woody biomass residues: A comparative study with vine pruning leftovers in Portugal. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Margni, M.D.P.O.; Rossier, D.; Crettaz, P.; Jolliet, O. Life cycle impact assessment of pesticides on human health and ecosystems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2002, 93, 379–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Xue, X.; Hawkins, T.R.; Ingwersen, W.W.; Smith, R.L. Demonstrating an approach for including pesticide use in life-cycle assessment: Estimating human and ecosystem toxicity of pesticide use in Midwest corn farming. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1117–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Medel-Jiménez, F.; Piringer, G.; Gronauer, A.; Barta, N.; Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Krexner, T.; Kral, I. Modelling soil emissions and precision agriculture in fertilization life cycle assessment-A case study of wheat production in Austria. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 380, 134841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Eslava-Lecumberri, F.J.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Delineating vineyard management zones: Intrafield spatial variability of soil properties of carbonate vineyard soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2024, 75, e70029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Brady, N.C.; Weil, R.R. Elements of the Nature and Properties of Soils, 3rd ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ruiz, J.M.; Romero, L. Relationship between potassium fertilisation and nitrate assimilation in leaves and fruits of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2002, 140, 241–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Isleib, J. Soil Calcium-to-Magnesium Ratios Should Not Concern Most Farmers; Michigan State University Extension: East Lansing, MI, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. Leiva Soto, A.; Culman, S.W.; Herms, C.; Sprunger, C.; Doohan, D. Managing soil acidity vs. soil Ca: Mg ratio: What is more important for crop productivity? Crop. Forage Turfgrass Manag. 2023, 9, e20210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Resources 14 00177 g001
Figure 1. Island of Tenerife, where the Acentejo Region has been specified, which is the area of the island where the study has been conducted and encompasses five municipalities: Tacoronte, El Sauzal, La Matanza, La Victoria, and Santa Ursula. On the other hand, the Vitivinicultural Designation of Origin of Acentejo brings together 9 municipalities, which include, in addition to the aforementioned ones, La Laguna, Tegueste, Santa Cruz, and El Rosario.
Figure 1. Island of Tenerife, where the Acentejo Region has been specified, which is the area of the island where the study has been conducted and encompasses five municipalities: Tacoronte, El Sauzal, La Matanza, La Victoria, and Santa Ursula. On the other hand, the Vitivinicultural Designation of Origin of Acentejo brings together 9 municipalities, which include, in addition to the aforementioned ones, La Laguna, Tegueste, Santa Cruz, and El Rosario.
Resources 14 00177 g001
Resources 14 00177 g002
Figure 2. Environmental impact categories.
Figure 2. Environmental impact categories.
Resources 14 00177 g002
Resources 14 00177 g003
Figure 3. Distribution of variables analyzed in the soils.
Figure 3. Distribution of variables analyzed in the soils.
Resources 14 00177 g003
Resources 14 00177 g004
Figure 4. (a). Linear regression between yield and carbon footprint (kg CO2-eq/kg grape). (b). Linear regression between yield and Ca/Mg ratio.
Figure 4. (a). Linear regression between yield and carbon footprint (kg CO2-eq/kg grape). (b). Linear regression between yield and Ca/Mg ratio.
Resources 14 00177 g004
Table 1. Sample used for the study.
Table 1. Sample used for the study.
Sample CodeMunicipalitySurface Area (m2)Production (kg)Yield (kg/ha)Altitude (m2)Training System *
M27Santa Úrsula12007506.250550Trellis
M50La Laguna162714919.164429Trellis and traditional
M47Tacoronte17846313.536669Traditional
M46Tacoronte18006323.511644Trellis
M19Santa Úrsula21005752.738650Trellis
M26La Matanza28229763.458475Traditional
M28La Matanza392120255.164375Trellis
M22Tacoronte532635506.665320Trellis
M20La Victoria640013002.031410Traditional
M24Tacoronte788327243.455530Trellis and traditional
M18La Victoria820026503.231625Trellis
M12Santa Úrsula10,63540703.826238Trellis
M49Tegueste13,18975885.753368Trellis
M48Tegueste15,79688585.607351Trellis
M23La Laguna 68,84032,6004.735435Trellis
* Trellis refers to a T-shaped trellis. Traditional refers to the traditional system known on the island of Tenerife as a table or low trellis.
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) and significance levels (p) among key vineyard variables (n = 15). Carbon footprint is expressed per kg of grapes (functional unit).
Table 2. Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r) and significance levels (p) among key vineyard variables (n = 15). Carbon footprint is expressed per kg of grapes (functional unit).
Yield (kg/ha)Carbon FootprintCa/Mg RatioOM (%)Mg (mg·kg−1)
Yield (kg/ha)1.000 (p = 0.0000)−0.253 (p = 0.3632)−0.109 (p = 0.6987)−0.095 (p = 0.7373)0.237 (p = 0.3954)
Carbon footprint−0.253 (p = 0.3632)1.000 (p = 0.0000)−0.036 (p = 0.8973)0.156 (p = 0.5791)0.173 (p = 0.5363)
Ca/Mg ratio−0.109 (p = 0.6987)−0.036 (p = 0.8973)1.000 (p = 0.0000)0.414 (p = 0.1253)−0.486 (p = 0.0665)
OM (%)−0.095 (p = 0.7373)0.156 (p = 0.5791)0.414 (p = 0.1253)1.000 (p = 0.0000)−0.538 (p = 0.0386)
Mg (mg·kg−1)0.237 (p = 0.3954)0.173 (p = 0.5363)−0.486 (p = 0.0665)−0.538 (p = 0.0386)1.000 (p = 0.0000)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castillo, S.M.B.; de Martín-Pinillos Castellanos, I.; Alonso González, P. Integrating Soil Diagnostics and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance Vineyard Sustainability on a Volcanic Island (Tenerife, Spain). Resources 2025, 14, 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14120177

AMA Style

Castillo SMB, de Martín-Pinillos Castellanos I, Alonso González P. Integrating Soil Diagnostics and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance Vineyard Sustainability on a Volcanic Island (Tenerife, Spain). Resources. 2025; 14(12):177. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14120177

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castillo, Santiago M. Barroso, Ignacio de Martín-Pinillos Castellanos, and Pablo Alonso González. 2025. "Integrating Soil Diagnostics and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance Vineyard Sustainability on a Volcanic Island (Tenerife, Spain)" Resources 14, no. 12: 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14120177

APA Style

Castillo, S. M. B., de Martín-Pinillos Castellanos, I., & Alonso González, P. (2025). Integrating Soil Diagnostics and Life Cycle Assessment to Enhance Vineyard Sustainability on a Volcanic Island (Tenerife, Spain). Resources, 14(12), 177. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources14120177

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop