Terroir 2010 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Stomatal restrictions to photosynthesis in grapevine cultivars grown in a semiarid environment

Stomatal restrictions to photosynthesis in grapevine cultivars grown in a semiarid environment

Abstract

Diurnal changes in the leaves of field-grown grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars Syrah and Tempranillo were followed over summer 2009 with respect to gas exchanges. Net photosynthetic rate (AN) of both cultivars rapidly increased in the morning, decreasing slowly until the late afternoon, when reached the lowest values. Stomatal conductance (gs) changed in parallel with AN, indicating that AN was greatly affected by gs. This pattern was repeated every day throughout the summer, with slight modifications according to plant water status. Under severe water stress situations, when as a result of drought gs decreased below 0.05 mol H2O m-2 s-1, intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi) declined sharply in Tempranillo, which did not happen in Syrah, where despite stomatal closure kept increasing WUEi. Water stress intensified leaf to air vapour pressure deficit (VpdL) response however instantaneous WUE (WUE inst) levels plunged to very low with high VpdL in both cultivars.

DOI:

Publication date: October 6, 2020

Issue: Terroir 2010

Type: Article

Authors

J. Martínez, J. L. Chacón

Instituto de la Vid y del Vino de Castilla-La Mancha. Ctra. de Albacete s/n. 13700 Tomelloso (Spain)

Contact the author

Keywords

leaf to air vapour pressure deficit – leaf water potential – net photosynthetic rate – stomatal conductance – transpiration rate – water use efficiency

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2010

Citation

Related articles…

Sensory profiles and European Consumer Preference related to Aroma and Phenolic Composition of Wines made from Fungus Resistant Grape Varieties

New grape varieties with several resistance loci towards powdery and downy mildew allows to significantly reduce the use of fungicides

EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF S. CEREVISIAE MANNOPROTEINS ON WINE ASTRINGENCY AND THE IMPACT OF THEIR POLYSACCHARIDE STRUCTURE

Mannoproteins (MPs) are proteoglycans from the outmost layer of yeast cell walls released into wine during alcoholic fermentation and ageing on lees processes. The use of commercial preparations of mannoproteins as additives to improve wine stability with regards to the crystallization of tartaric salts and to prevent protein haze in the case of white and rosé wines is authorized by the OIV.
Regarding red wines and polyphenols, mannoproteins are described as able to improve their colloidal stability and modulate the astringent effect of condensed tannins. The latter interact with salivary proteins forming insoluble aggregates that cause a loss of lubrication in the mouth and promote a drying and puckering sensation. However, neither the interaction mechanisms involved in mannoproteins capacity to impact astringency nor the structure-function relationships related to this property are fully understood.

Which microorganisms contribute to mousy off-flavour in our wines?

In this video recording of the IVES science meeting 2024, Mariona H Gil i Cortiella (Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Santiago de Chile, Chile) speaks about Which microorganisms contribute to mousy off-flavour in owines. This presentation is based on articles accessible for free on OENO One and IVES Technical Reviews.

Climate regionalization of Uruguayan viticulture for ecological sustainability

Ecological sustainability refers to developing viticulture in adequate environmental conditions.

Research on the origin and the side effects of chitosan stabilizing properties in wine

Fungal chitosan is a polysaccharide made up of glucosamine and N-acetyl-glucosamine and derived from chitin-glucan of Aspergillus niger or Agaricus bisporus. Fungal chitosan has been authorized as an antiseptic agent in wine since 2009 (OIV) and in organic wine in 2018. At the maximum dose of 10g/hl, it was shown to eliminate Brettanomyces bruxellensis, the main spoilage agent in red wines. Fungal chitosan is highly renewable, biocompatible (ADI equivalent to sucrose) and non-allergenic. However, winemakers often prefer to use sulfites (SO2), though sulfites are classified as priority food allergens, than chitosan. Indeed, many conflicting reports exist regarding its efficiency and its side effects towards beneficial wine microorganisms or wine taste. These contradictions could be explained by the heterogeneity of the fungal chitosan lots traded, the diversity of the wines (chemical composition, winemaking process), but also, by the recently highlighted huge genetic diversity prevailing in wine microbial species.