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

Grape (Vitis vinifera) is one of the world’s oldest agricultural fruit crops, grown for wine, table grape, raisin, and other products. One of the factors that can cause a reduction in the grape growing area is temperature rise due to climate change. Elevated temperature causes changes in grapevine phenology and fruit chemical composition. Previous studies showed that grape varieties respond differently to a temperature shift of 1.5°C; few varieties had difficulties in the fruit development or could not reach the desired Brix level.

The foundation of wine production lies in the use of high-quality grapes. To produce wines that meet the highest standards, a fast and reliable analytical assessment of grape quality is essential. Many wineries currently employ Fourier-Transform Middle-Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) for this purpose.

In sparkling wines, foam is a relevant aspect whose measurement method could affect the results. The shaking test (ST) is a simple method measuring foamability1,2

In this study, a soil mapping methodology at subplot level (scale 1:5000) for vineyard soils was developed. The aim of this mapping method was to establish mapping units, which could be used as basic units for ‘terroir’ characterisation and vineyard management (precision viticulture).

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.