Canopy spatial architecture as a structural adaptation to climate warming in Pinot noir (Burgundy, France)
Abstract
Climate warming is advancing grapevine phenology and shifting ripening toward hotter periods, challenging the preservation of wine typicity in temperate regions (van Leeuwen & Darriet, 2016). In Burgundy, the traditional vertical shoot-positioned system historically optimized radiation under cool conditions, but increasing summer temperatures may accelerate sugar accumulation and reduce acidity (Poni et al., 2018). Structural modification of training systems is increasingly considered a long-term adaptation strategy (Santos et al., 2021; Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al., 2021), as canopy spatial organization directly modulates radiation, temperature and airflow within the fruiting zone (Carbonneau, 1980). This study compares three canopy architectures in Pinot noir (Vosne-Romanée, France) at constant planting density (10,000 plants/ha): low espalier (reference), high espalier, and paisseaux (discontinuous bush-type system). Exposed leaf area per hectare (ELA) was estimated using a geometric approach assuming 20% canopy porosity. ELA reached 15,600 m²/ha in low espalier and 23,600 m²/ha in high espalier (+50%), whereas paisseaux exhibited 12,000 m²/ha — 20% lower than the reference and nearly half that of high espalier despite similar canopy height. Cluster radiation, wind circulation, berry temperature, vine water status (stem water potential and δ¹³C), and must composition were monitored during the vintage 2025. Canopy architecture significantly altered berry-zone microclimate: espaliers generated corridor wind effects aligned with row orientation, while paisseaux promoted multidirectional airflow and reduced peak solar interception. Lower ELA in paisseaux suggests reduced evaporative demand per hectare, without inducing greater vine water stress. Vine water status remained comparable across systems, as indicated by both stem water potential measurements during the warmest days and δ¹³C values at harvest (δ¹³C < −26‰), consistent with the absence of seasonal water deficit. Slightly higher stem water potentials were observed in paisseaux on most measurement dates, together with a tendency toward more negative δ¹³C values. Cluster-level degree-day accumulation was lower in paisseaux. At harvest, paisseaux maintained higher total acidity, with statistically significant increases in malic and tartaric acid concentrations. These preliminary findings, based on the 2025 vintage, suggest that canopy spatial discontinuity and reduced exposed leaf area per hectare enhance microclimatic buffering capacity. Bush-type architectures may therefore represent a viable structural adaptation to preserve freshness and typicity of Pinot noir under ongoing climate warming.
References
Van Leeuwen, C., & Darriet, P. (2016). The impact of climate change on viticulture and wine quality. Journal of Wine Economics, 11(1), 150–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2015.21
Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G., Zheng, W., & Martínez de Toda, F. (2021). Strategies in vineyard establishment to face global warming in viticulture: A mini review. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 101(4), 1261–1269. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.10813
Santos, J. A., Costa, R., Fraga, H., & Malheiro, A. C. (2021). Long-term adaptation of European viticulture to climate change: An overview from the H2020 Clim4Vitis project. IVES Technical Reviews, Vine and Wine. https://doi.org/10.20870/IVES-TR.2021.4644
Poni, S., Gatti, M., Palliotti, A., Dai, Z., Duchêne, E., Truong, T.-T., Ferrara, G., Matarrese, A. M. S., Gallotta, A., Bellincontro, A., Mencarelli, F., & Tombesi, S. (2018). Grapevine quality: A multiple choice issue. Scientia Horticulturae, 234, 445–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2017.12.035
Carbonneau, A. (1981). Recherche sur les systèmes de conduite de la vigne : essai de maîtrise du microclimat et de la plante entière pour produire économiquement du raisin de qualité. Versailles: INRA.
Issue: Terclim 2026
Type: Poster
Authors
1 Université Bourgogne Europe, CNRS, Biogéosciences UMR 6282, F-21000 Dijon, France
2 UMR Agroécologie Université Bourgogne Europe, Institut AgroDijon, INRAE 21000 Dijon, France