Table Of ContentTable of Contents
Cover
Title Page
List of contributors
CHAPTER 1: Grapevines in a changing environment: a global perspective
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Climate suitability for viticulture and wine production
1.3 Climate change and variability
1.4 Environmental impacts on viticulture and wine production
1.5 conclusions
References
CHAPTER 2: The ups and downs of environmental impact on grapevines: future
challenges in temperate viticulture
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Variability and trends in evapotranspiration and precipitation – global is ≠ regional
2.3 Variability and trends in plant water status globally and regionally
2.4 The underground risk of variability affecting above ground quality
2.5 The CO problem
2
References
CHAPTER 3: Drought and water management in Mediterranean vineyards
3.1 introduction
3.2 Varietal adaptation to water scarcity and heat stress
3.3 Deficit irrigation – a tool to increase transpiration efficiency and control grapevine
and berry growth/development
3.4 Soil management practices
3.5 Impact of deficit irrigation on berry metabolism
References
CHAPTER 4: Rootstocks as a component of adaptation to environment
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Main components of root architecture and morphology
4.3 Rootstock as a key component to cope with pests
4.4 Contribution of rootstocks to drought responses
4.5 Rootstocks to cope with salinity
4.6 Iron chlorosis and rootstocks
4.7 Concluding remarks
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 5: Carbon balance in grapevine under a changing climate
5.1 General introduction
5.2 Grapevine carbon balance as an integration of different physiological processes:
main components of carbon fluxes
5.3 How to measure the plant carbon balance
5.4 Environment and genotype affect whole plant carbon fluxes
5.5 Whole plant carbon fluxes and carbon footprint calculation
5.6 Future challenges
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 6: Embolism formation and removal in grapevines: a phenomenon affecting
hydraulics and transpiration upon water stress
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Organs affected
6.3 Spread and recovery
6.4 Genotype effect
6.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 7: Grapevine under light and heat stresses
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Light and heat stresses: excess
7.3 Effects of light and heat stress on morphostructural and biochemical characteristics
at leaf and shoot level
7.4 Effects of light and heat stress on physiological behaviour
7.5 Effects of light and heat stress on vine yield and grape composition
7.6 energy dissipation mechanisms
7.7 Protective strategies
7.8 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 8: Remote sensing and other imaging technologies to monitor grapevine
performance
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Sensor technologies
8.3 Deployment of sensors
8.4 Applications
8.5 Concluding comments
References
CHAPTER 9: Boron stress in grapevine: current developments and future prospects
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Function of boron in plants
9.3 Stress triggered by boron in grapevine
9.4 Uptake and transport mechanisms of boron in plants
9.5 Grapevine boron transporters VvBOR
9.6 Conclusion and outlook
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 10: Berry response to water, light and heat stresses
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Berry composition
10.3 Abiotic stress and grapevine physiology
10.4 Abiotic stress in grapevine berry and its impact on berry quality
10.5 concluding remarks
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 11: Grapevine responses to low temperatures
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Distribution and acclimation
11.3 Modifications to plant cell membranes
11.4 Formation of ice
11.5 Photosynthesis and photosynthesis-related pigments
11.6 Calcium and cold temperatures
11.7 Cold-mediated transcription regulation
11.8 Expression of pathogenesis-related genes and synthesis of antifreeze proteins
11.9 Changes in phytohormone metabolism
11.10 Cold-induced osmolites/osmoprotectants
11.11 Effect on reproductive organs
11.12 Effect of microorganisms on cold tolerance in grapevine
11.13 Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 12: Metabolic rearrangements in grapevine response to salt stress
12.1 Introduction
12.2 NaCl toxicity and irrigation and cultivar dependency
12.3 Metabolic readjustments in response to salt stress
12.4 Conclusions and future perspectives
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 13: Copper stress in grapevine
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Grapevine diseases and copper-based fungicides
13.3 Effect of copper in grapevine physiology and mineral balance
13.4 Intracellular accumulation of copper in grape cells
13.5 Effect of copper in grapevine metabolism and in grape berry composition
13.6 Effect of copper in soil and berry microbiome
13.7 Effect of copper in fermentation and wine quality
13.8 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 11: Grapevine abiotic and biotic stress genomics and identification of stress
markers
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Abiotic stress
14.3 Biotic stress
14.4 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
CHAPTER 15: Exploiting Vitis genetic diversity to manage with stress
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Grapevine diversity
15.3 Grapevine responses and adaptation to stressful conditions
15.4 Breeding strategies to manage with stress
15.5 Conclusions
Acknowledgements
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 02
Table 2.1 Simulated potential rates of nitrogen mineralization during the month of
August for three vineyard sites with two soil types for two years with low (2009) and
medium–high (2011) incidence of Botrytis cinerea. The model used was developed by
Schaller et al. (1994a, 1994b).
Table 2.2 Responses of physiological and qualitative parameters of fruit and vegetable
crops in the field under elevated CO . For results based on post-harvest experiments,
2
references are underlined (modified and amended based on Moretti et al., 2010).
Chapter 03
Table 3.1 Five years (2009–2014) of studies dealing with the effect of deficit irrigation
on biochemical and molecular traits of berries.
Chapter 04
Table 4.1 Phylloxera rating for Vitis accessions from the INRA repository (Bordeaux-
France). Root assays were performed using leaf gall inoculum according to Pouget
(1975). Data were recorded in 2010, 2011 and 2012. The number of tested accessions
per species is given in brackets for each class of resistance.
Table 4.2 Overview of the most important rootstock genotypes used in the world
including parentage, phylloxera resistance and water-deficit adaptation characteristics.
The grey scale part showed rootstocks with high adaptation to water-deficit stress.
Table 4.3 Classification of rootstocks according to their ability to maintain yield under
saline conditions (Southey and Jooste, 1991; Strauss and Archer, 1986; Fisirakis et al.,
2001; Walker et al., 2010).
Table 4.4 Classification of rootstock tolerance to limestone induced iron chlorosis
according to Galet (1947), Juste and Pouget (1972) and Pouget and Ottenwalter (1978),
cited by Champagnol (1984).
Chapter 05
Table 5.1 Evaluation of different approaches to measure carbon balances in grapevine.
Chapter 06
Table 6.1 Summary table on the main aspect involved in embolism formation and
repair. The authors propose a classification based on the separation between
mechanisms devoted to avoid the embolism formation, therefore supporting plant
resistance, and those involved in the recovery phase, therefore in plant tolerance.
Symbols ‘+’, ‘–’ and ‘±’ indicate a positive, a negative or a two-direction relationship
between the parameter and its effect towards resistance or recovery of the embolism.
Chapter 07
Table 7.1 Changes in maximal photochemical efficiency (F /F , arbitrary units), dark
v m
respiration (R , μmol CO /m2 s), non-photochemical quenching (NPQ, relative units),
d 2
photorespiration (P , μmol CO /m2 s), electron flow to carboxylation (J , μmol CO /m2
r 2 c 2
s), actual photochemical efficiency of PSII (Φ ), electron transport rate (ETR, μmol
PSII
e-/m2 s) and ETR/P ratio (μmol e-/μmol CO ), total chlorophyll and some
n 2
xanthophylls content in mature leaves of 60 L-potted non-stressed and stressed
Sangiovese and Montepulciano vines. Data were taken 3 weeks after water deprivation
during 12.00–13.00 hour interval under heat stress + light stress + water stress (air T°
of ~ 37–38 °C, PAR of ~ 1900 μmol photons/m2 s and soil moisture set at 40% of
maximum water availability). Means followed by different letters are significantly
different (P ≤ 0.05) according to the Student–Newman–Keuls test.
Chapter 09
Table 9.1 Identification of grapevine VvBOR genes.
Table 9.2 Sequence identity between VvBOR protein sequences.
Table 9.3 Sequence identity between VvBOR and AtBOR protein sequences.
Chapter 13
Table 13.1 Copper levels in grape berries, grape juice and wines from different
origins. ND, not detected.
Chapter 15
Table 15.1 Summary of grapevine genetic sources of tolerance to different abiotic
stressing factors available for breeding.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 01
Figure 1.1 General climate zones for viticulture defined by growing season average
temperatures (April–October in the Northern Hemisphere and October–April in the
Southern Hemisphere) derived from the WorldClim database (Hijmans et al., 2005).
The classes depict the climate types for cool, intermediate, warm, and hot growing
season temperatures requiring cultivars (Jones, 2006). Note that grapevines are not
necessarily grown across all areas depicted, as other climate issues could be limiting
to viticulture.
Chapter 02
Figure 2.1 Observed and simulated precipitation and potential evapotranspiration for
(A) the hydrological summer (May–October) and (B) the hydrological winter
(November–April) for Geisenheim in the Rheingau grape growing region (Germany,
50° North, 8° East). Data show 10-year running mean values. Potential
evapotranspiration rates for the observed time period (1958–2013) were calculated
according to Penman–Monteith. Simulations were conducted with the STARII model of
the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact using the medium realization run (Orlowski et
al., 2008).
Figure 2.2 Seasonal courses of pre-dawn leaf water potential from different vineyard
sites in different growing regions and climates. Left panel is Syrah from the Pic St Loup
area north of Montpellier (warm, dry; adapted from Schultz, 2003) and the Aude region
(warm, dry; adapted from Winkel and Rambal, 1993), both in southern France
(Mediterranean climate). Central panel is Cabernet franc from different vineyard sites
in the Loire Valley (cool, summer rainfall; adapted from Morlat et al., 1992) and St
Emilion (warm, summer rainfall; adapted from van Leeuwen and Seguin, 1994), France
(temperate climate) and Napa Valley, California (warm, dry, Mediterranean climate)
for an irrigated treatment and a water deficit treatment after veraison (Schultz and
Matthews, unpublished). Right panel is White Riesling from the Rheingau region (cool,
summer rainfall) in Germany collected over three years in different vineyards (open
square 1999, closed symbols 2002; both adapted from Gruber and Schultz, 2005, open
circles 2009; adapted from Schüttler, 2012). All treatments are rain-fed unless
otherwise indicated.
Figure 2.3 Simulated past and future development of the number of drought days (pre-
dawn leaf water potential more negative than –0.6 MPa) for the time period 1958–
2060 for two vineyard sites differing in soil water holding capacity (Ehrenfels, 100
L/m2; Johannisberg, 380 L/m2 over the rooting profile). Simulations were conducted
for the Rheingau grape growing region (Germany, 50° North, 8° East) with a vineyard
water balance model (Lebon et al., 2003) using local weather data (Deutscher
Wetterdienst, DWD, German Meteorological Service, station Geisenheim, Germany)
and regional forecasts in precipitation and potential evapotranspiration for the
hydrological summer (May–October) of the STARII model. Data show 10-year running
mean values.
Figure 2.4 Mean temperature and precipitation sum for the ripening period of Vitis
vinifera L. cv. Riesling for Geisenheim for the years from 1955 to 2014. The ripening
period is defined by the stage of 60 days following veraison, where veraison refers to
the date when grape berries reached approximately 5 °Brix, which corresponds to the
onset of sugar accumulation. Years from 2000 to 2014 are marked in black. The
horizontal and vertical lines describe the median value for precipitation and
temperature, respectively. Therefore each rectangle contains a quarter of all years.
Chapter 03
Figure 3.1 Pruning weight, yield and berry quality parameters in PRD and DI
grapevines calculated as percentage (%) of the non-irrigated (NI) vines, in two V.
vinifera varieties, Moscatel and Castelão, during three years (2000, 2001 and 2002).
The experiment was carried out in a sandy soil in Pegões, Central Portugal (redrawn
from Costa et al., 2012a).
Figure 3.2 Pruning weight, yield and quality parameters in PRD, RDI and DI vines as
percentage (%) of the non-irrigated (NI) vines studied in the V. vinifera variety
Aragonez (syn. Tempranilho) during two successive and particularly dry years (2005
and 2006), in a loamy soil in a commercial vineyard (Herdade Seis Reis), Alentejo,
South Portugal. Data relative to phenols and anthocyanins is not available for the year
2006 (adapted from Costa et al., 2012a).
Figure 3.3 Effect of resident vegetation on vegetative growth, yield components and
berry composition of field-grown Aragonez (syn. Tempranillo) grapevines. Values
expressed as a percentage of soil tillage treatment (control). * and ns indicate
significance and not significance, respectively, at P < 0.05. Data obtained at the third
season (2006) after an experimental setup, at Estremoz, south Portugal (Lopes et al.,
2011).
Figure 3.4 Effect of soil management techniques on Cabernet Sauvignon wine sensory
attributes. Scores expressed as a percentage of the score obtained on the soil tillage
treatment (control). RV – resident vegetation between rows; SCC – permanent sown
cover crop between rows. Data obtained at the third season (2004) after cover crop
establishment, Alenquer, Portugal (Lopes et al., 2008).
Chapter 04
Figure 4.1 Schematic presentation of complex scion–rootstock interactions affecting
whole-grapevine responses to drought.
Figure 4.2 Relationship between shoot length and leaf chlorophyll content (recorded
with a SPAD chlorophyll meter) for 20 V. berlandieri accessions grown as grafted
plants with a single scion (V. vinifera cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) in pots with calcareous
soils. Data from the second growth season after grafting were recorded in June.
Genotypes can be classified as growing and not chlorotic (GNC), not growing and not
chlorotic (SNC), growing and chlorotic (GC) and not growing and chlorotic (SC).
Chapter 05
Figure 5.1 Seasonal fluxes of carbon assimilation, total demand by sink organs and
reserve accumulation/consumption estimated with a structural–functional carbon
balance model adjusted to a cv. Chardonnay vineyard that includes 3D canopy
architecture, light interception by leaves, photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, carbon
allocation and organ respiration.
Figure 5.2 Conceptual scheme of the relationships between photosynthesis, respiration
and carbon balance. Grey arrows indicate carbon gain; black arrows indicate carbon
losses; dotted arrows indicate information flux; LAI: leaf area index.
Figure 5.3 Linear association between rate of Vitis vinifera net CO exchange at the
2
single-leaf level (NCEL) and at the canopy level expressed per unit leaf area (NCEC,
LA) for vines under an industry standard practice of regulated deficit irrigation or
under an additional deficit that reduced the standard irrigation application by half.
Symbols represent means over 1 h of simultaneous measurement (n = 6 for NCEL, n =
10 for NCEC), error bars are ± s.e.
Figure 5.4 (A) Whole-canopy gas-exchange balloon chambers used in field-grown
vines in Valencia, Spain (photograph courtesy of Dr Diego Intrigliolo). (B) Automated
and remote-controlled multichamber system for long-term monitoring of whole-canopy
gas exchange in the grapevine (cv. Sangiovese, Vitis vinifera L.), Piacenza, Italy
(photograph courtesy of Dr Stephano Poni).
Figure 5.5 Whole-canopy gas-exchange framed chambers used in field-grown vines in
different varieties around the world: (A) Syrah, Gruissan, France; (B) Cabernet
Sauvignon, Washington, USA; (C) Malbec, Mendoza, Argentina; (D) Grenache,
Mallorca, Spain.
Figure 5.6 Measurements of soil CO efflux: (A) soil respiration, (B) Stem respiration
2
and (C) cluster respiration.
Figure 5.7 (A) Seasonal evolution of measured (open circles) and modelled (grey line)
daily mean soil temperature (T d) and (B) vineyard soil respiration components
s
estimated using the trenching method (symbols) and mode led at a daily time step
(lines), which was partitioned into total (closed circles and upper black line), basal
(open circles and lower black line) and Vitis vinifera root-dependent (closed squares
and grey line). Bars indicate ± 1 SE (n = 5). (Franck et al., 2011).
Figure 5.8 Response of bunch respiration (R ) to bunch temperature (T ) of cv.
B B
Carmenère grapevines during the final growth stage (because bunches have ceased
growth during this stage respiration represents mainly maintenance).
Chapter 06
Figure 6.1 Scheme of the main mechanisms involved in the embolism formation and
repair. The basal area marks the processes located at the root level and the top area
