Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
      • Proprietary Rights Notice for AJEV Online
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

User menu

  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • Follow ajev on Twitter
  • Follow ajev on Linkedin
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
Article

Photosynthetic and Photoinhibition Behavior of Two Field-Grown Grapevine Cultivars under Multiple Summer Stresses

Alberto Palliotti, Oriana Silvestroni, Despoina Petoumenou
Am J Enol Vitic.  2009  60: 189-198  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2009.60.2.189
Alberto Palliotti
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: palliot{at}unipg.it
Oriana Silvestroni
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
Despoina Petoumenou
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The identification of drought-resistant genotypes of Vitis vinifera that can optimize their water use is attracting increasing interest, especially in areas where it is difficult to extend irrigation and that are undergoing a progressive shift toward subtropicalization. This study was carried out in 2003 (a year characterized by severe drought conditions) and 2004 (characterized by absence of drought conditions) to evaluate the changes in morphostructural characteristics and physiological behavior of two red grapevine cultivars widely cultivated in Italy: Sangiovese and Montepulciano. Unlike 2004, data recorded during 2003 showed that, contrary to Montepulciano vines, the vertical shoot-positioned canopy of Sangiovese vines was divided into two different zones. The basal zone was close to the fruiting zone, featured low carbon gain, and was characterized by 57% of leaves affected by chlorosis and necrosis, while the remaining leaves were affected by chronic photoinhibition (Fv/Fm <0.50). The upper zone was characterized by high photosynthetic activity and water-use efficiency. The changes in leaf inclination and lower leaf absorption and the greater leaf transmittance in Sangiovese leaves appeared to help in the avoidance of excessive light and heat absorption. Irrespective of their positions, the leaves of Montepulciano promptly closed their stomata and saved water, while reducing their physiological activity. Results indicate that grapevine strategies in response to multiple and severe summer stress conditions are a function of genotype, leaf age, and leaf position along the shoot. Unlike Montepulciano, under drought conditions, Sangiovese can be considered to be well adapted, since it can optimize the whole-vine carbon gain.

  • chlorophyll fluorescence
  • drought
  • grape composition
  • leaf orientation
  • photoinhibition
  • photosynthetic pigments
  • Vitis vinifera

Vitis vinifera L. is a drought-resistant crop cultivated in all semiarid regions of the world. However, there is evidence of a warmth-induced reduction in its photosynthetic capacity that has a dominant and limiting role in vine growth and yield and in grape composition (Bravdo and Hepner 1987, Matthews and Anderson 1988, Schultz and Matthews 1988, Poni et al. 1994, Schultz 1996a, Medrano et al. 2003). These limiting factors can include multiple mild or severe summer deficiencies, such as water deprivation in the soil, high temperatures and radiation regimes, and high water vapor pressure deficit (VPD) between air and leaf. A quantification of the effects of these factors on source capabilities and sink strength is essential to avoid a damaging imbalance between vine growth and yield, to optimize the use of natural resources, especially water and light, and to develop appropriate management strategies.

Under drought conditions, the stomata have an important role in optimizing the balance between CO2 gain and H2O loss, so as to favor heat loss and prevent photoinhibition. Stomatal and nonstomatal factors interact to limit down-regulation of the photosynthetic systems and to avoid their irreversible damage, which depends on how the drought occurs and on the degree of drought. Irreversible dysfunction to the photosynthetic systems (such as chronic photoinhibition) is linked to prolonged exposure to direct, high irradiance during water deprivation (Gamon and Pearcy 1990). This dysfunction can occur not only when the excitation energy exceeds the capacity for CO2 assimilation, which results in overreduction of the photochemical component (Osmond 1994), but also when repair mechanisms become inefficient. Synergistic effects on photoinhibition of water stress, high temperatures, and high light intensities have been reported for different species (Powles 1984, Giardi et al. 1996), including grapevine (Gamon and Pearcy 1989 and 1990, Correia et al. 1990, Schultz 1996a, Medrano et al. 2003).

Light levels and air temperatures can influence both leaf characteristics and the biochemical components of the photosynthetic machinery (Berry and Björkman 1980). Thus, photosynthesis will also depend on the environmental conditions of the leaves, which can result in changes in leaf morphology, chloroplast ultrastructure, pigment composition, and photoinhibition vulnerability (Lichtenthaler et al. 1983, Palliotti et al. 2000).

According to a recent hypothesis, the strict dependence of yield and grape composition on soil and environmental conditions is cultivar-dependent (Schultz 1996a, Medrano et al. 2003, de Souza et al. 2005). This hypothesis stresses the importance of identifying drought-resistant genotypes, particularly as in many countries in the Mediterranean basin the vineyards are dry-farmed because of legal restrictions on water supplies for irrigation. In such cases, it becomes very important to avoid or limit the down-regulation of photosynthesis, especially during particularly dry months. Thus, the identification of grapevine cultivars that can optimize their water use is attracting increasing interest, particularly where it is difficult to extend irrigation, where the replenishing of sufficient water reserves is difficult because of sandy soil or limited soil depth or where water requirements are very high because of high vine densities (>6,000–7,000 vine/ha) (Williams 2001). Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze field-grown grapevines for morphostructural characteristics and physiological behavior under dry conditions in two major red grapevine cultivars that are widely cultivated in central and southern Italy. The cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) were Sangiovese, cultivated on 69,750 ha, corresponding to 10.3% of total Italian vineyard acreage, and Montepulciano, cultivated along the coastline of the Adriatic Sea on 29,830 ha, corresponding to 4.4% of total Italian acreage.

Materials and Methods

Experimental vineyard.

This study was carried out during summer 2003 and 2004 in a 7-year-old vineyard situated on a hillside with a southern exposure in the Marche region (central Italy; lat. 43°40′N; elevation 50 m asl). The vineyard covers ~2 ha, with 1 ha Sangiovese vines and 1 ha Montepulciano vines. Twenty vines of each cultivar on adjacent rows with a north-south orientation were used for all measurements. All vines were of clonal origin, grafted onto 420A rootstock, trained to cordons, spur-pruned, and spaced at 2.5 × 1 m. The main wire was 0.70 m above the soil surface, and shoots were maintained in a vertical position by three pair of movable wires, the highest of which was 1.80 m above the soil surface. All vines were uniformly pruned, with a bud charge of 12 ± 2 buds per vine. Vines were grown on a calcareous soil, of clayey texture, with 23.9% total calcium carbonate and 12.3% active lime. The soil was alkaline (pH 8.1), low in organic matter (0.7%) and phosphorous (11 g/kg), and high in potassium (308 mg/ kg) and magnesium (720 mg/kg). The climate is Mediterranean, with a mean annual rainfall of 780 mm, of which ~62% falls during the dormant period. Weather conditions during the study were monitored by an automated meteorological station located near the vineyard. In both study years, no irrigation was carried out and the manual canopy management practice included shoot-tip cutting (first week of July).

Chlorophyll fluorescence, gas exchange measurements, and leaf characteristics.

The data for the physiological, biochemical, and morphological traits were for leaves in the basal (4th–5th node from the base) and medial (12th–15th node from the base) portions of the Sangiovese and Montepulciano primary shoots. Each data set consisted of at least 10 replicates.

In 2003 and 2004, the fluorescence transients for chlorophyll a were measured in the morning (0600–0700 hr) and in the early afternoon (1300–1400 hr; denoted as “midday”), from just after berry set to the postveraison stage, at roughly two-week intervals, using a portable, continuous, excitation-type fluorimeter (Handy-PEA, Plant Efficiency Analyser, Hansatech Instruments, Norfolk, UK) and according to a published method (Strasser et al. 1995, 2000). Fluorescence emission was induced by homogeneous irradiation on a 4-mm diam area of the leaf sample (upper surface), using an array of six high-intensity, light-emitting diodes (peak 650 nm), and an irradiance >3,000 μmol photon m−2 s−1. The duration of the dark adaptation required to obtain relaxation of the rapid energy-dependent, nonphotochemical quenching was experimentally established as 20 min. An algorithm was used to determine the line of best fit through the initial 4–16 data points at the onset of illumination. This line of best fit was then extrapolated to time zero, to determine the ground fluorescence (Fo). The maximum fluorescence (Fm) was obtained from the same light intensity when the primary electron acceptors (Qa, plastoquinone) from photosystem II (PSII) became fully reduced. The variable fluorescence (Fv) was calculated by subtracting Fo from Fm. The Fv/Fm ratios, which represent the maximum quantum yield of PSII (Butler 1978, Russel et al. 1995), were calculated automatically by the Handy-PEA, as well as the area over the fluorescence curve between Fo and Fm (Area), which indicates the pool size of Qa on the reducing side of PSII. The integrated energy needed to close all of the reaction centers was also calculated, as Sm = Area / (Fm − Fo), which takes into account multiple turnover in the closure of the reaction centers (Strasser et al. 2000).

To quantify the irreversible and reversible photoinhibition for the data measurements for the hottest periods during summer 2003, the total photoinhibition assessed on basal and medial leaves from the primary shoot of the Montepulciano and Sangiovese vines was separated into chronic and dynamic components (Osmond 1994, Werner et al. 2002). The chronic photoinhibition represents the long-term sustainable decrease in Fv/Fm and was calculated as:

Embedded Image

where (Fv/Fm)max represents the maximum value recorded for mature leaves, early in the morning and before heat stress (mid-June). The (Fv/Fm)predawn values were measured at 0700 hr.

The dynamic photoinhibition represents the diurnal decline in Fv/Fm that was fully reversible overnight and was calculated as:

Embedded Image

where (Fv/Fm)midday was measured at 1300 to 1400 hr.

In the 2003 and 2004 seasons, the physiological traits were recorded for the same leaves used for the chlorophyll fluorescence measurements. Net photosynthesis (Pn) and stomatal conductance (gs) were measured by exposing 10 basal and 10 medial leaves of each cultivar to saturating light, as light with a photosynthetic photon flux density >1,800 μmol photon m−2 s−1. An LCA-4 portable, open-system, infrared gas analyzer (Analytical Development, Hoddesdon, Herts, UK) and a Parkinson-type leaf chamber were used. The intrinsic water-use efficiency (WUEi, μmol CO2 mol−1 H2O) was calculated as the Pn/gs ratio.

For both years, the leaves used for the gas-exchange measurements were collected to determine their relative water content (RWC). The RWC was measured on 10 leaf discs, as (FW-DW)/(TW-DW) × 100, where FW is the fresh weight, DW the dry weight after three days of drying at 80°C, and TW the turgid weight obtained after 24 hr in distilled water at 4°C in the dark. The specific leaf weight (mg DW/cm2) was also calculated, together with the water content/dry mass ratio (g/g).

In 2003, the leaves used for gas-exchange measurements were also used to determine the chlorophyll a and b and carotenoid contents, with eight leaf discs (1.76 cm2 each) per treatment, according to a published method (Lichtenthaler and Wellburn 1983). Leaf reflectance, transmittance, and absorbance were measured on 20 leaves per treatment, between 1300 and 1400 hr, using a proper tripod and an LI-190S Quantum Sensor (LI-COR, Lincoln, NE) (Schultz 1996b). The stomata density and sizes were measured using impressions taken by painting clear nail polish on the abaxial surface of 10 basal Sangiovese and Montepulciano leaves collected on 19 Aug. After drying at room temperature, the film was removed from the leaf surface and mounted on a glass microscope slide. The stomata were counted under a binocular microscope on stomata impressions taken from each leaf. The mean stomatal size was calculated from stomata length × width × 0.785 (the standard formula for an ellipse).

Leaf orientation was calculated by measuring the angles between the main vein of the leaves relative to the horizontal (0°) using a compass protractor. The measurements were taken between 1300 and 1400 hr on 200 leaves for each leaf type and cultivar selected on both sides of the canopy.

During the third week of August in both 2003 and 2004, the percentages of basal (from the base of the shoot to 10th node) and medial (from the 11th node to the apex of the shoot) leaves affected by chlorosis and necrosis were determined.

Growth and replenishing of carbohydrate reserves.

At the end of February in 2003 and 2004, canes from 20 vines for each cultivar were pruned and weighed to estimate the annual vine growth. In March 2004, three weeks before budbreak, the soluble sugars and starch concentrations in stems, permanent cordons, and roots (fine and medium brown roots, 1.5 ± 0.2 and 3.4 ± 0.3 mm mean diam, respectively) were determined on six replicates. Soluble sugars were extracted from 500 mg dry samples with ethanol:water (80:20). The soluble solids in the extract were determined by the colorimetric method using the anthrone reagent (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany), at 620 nm on a LKB-Ultrospec III spectrophotometer (Pharmacia, Uppsala, Sweden), according to Morris (1948), and as modified by Loewus (1952). To break down the starch, the remaining pellets were rehydrated with water, boiled for 15 min, and incubated for 24 hr at 27°C with α-amylase and amylo-glucosidase in a sodium acetate buffer at pH 5.0. The resulting soluble carbohydrates were determined with the anthrone reagent, as above. A calibration curve was constructed immediately prior to the measurements, using 0.0, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, and 1.50 mg/mL glucose solutions (1 mL).

Statistical analysis.

Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to examine year, cultivar, and leaf position effects on chlorophyll fluorescence and gas-exchange parameters. One-way ANOVA was applied to the data for the morphostructural characteristics of sun-exposed leaves from the basal and medial portions of primary shoots and for the replenishing of carbohydrate reserves. The Student-Newman-Keuls test was used to compare adjacent means at a level of 0.05, using SigmaStat 3.5 (Systat Software, San Jose, CA).

Results

Environmental conditions.

Unlike 2004, the 2003 season was very hot and dry, with a rainfall of only 92 mm from budbreak to grape harvest, compared with 255 mm during the same period in 2004 and with the 42-year average of 353 mm from April to September (2003 rainfall was thus 64% and 74% lower, respectively) (Figure 1⇓). In addition, the 2003 average temperatures were higher compared with 2004 and the 42-year average, especially from May to August. In August 2003, the maximum air temperature at midday (1300–1400 hr) was 40.4°C, compared with 36.2°C in August 2004.

Figure 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1

Monthly total rainfall and mean air temperature at the experimental site during 2003 and 2004 and mean values over 42 years (1959–2001).

Chlorophyll fluorescence and gas exchange.

In general, in June and July the three variables of year, cultivar, and leaf position had no significant effects on the Fv/Fm ratio (photoinhibition, as the maximum quantum yield of PSII), net photosynthesis (Pn), and stomatal conductance (gs) (Table 1⇓). In July, there were significant effects of leaf position on Pn and gs (with the medial leaves, which in general were more efficient compared to the basal leaves). However, on 20 Aug, after two weeks of drought conditions, year, cultivar, and leaf position and all relative interactions showed significant effects for the variability of Fv/Fm, Pn, and gs.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

ANOVA and interactions with the effects of year (2003, 2004), cultivar (Sangiovese, Montepulciano), and leaf position along the shoot (basal, medial) on some physiological parameters on three days of June, July, and August.

During the summers of 2003 and 2004, although with the exception of 20 Aug in 2003, for both cultivars and leaf type, there were no indications of permanent photoinhibition, as seen by the midday Fv/Fm values that were always close to 0.8 (Figure 2⇓). During the hottest hours of 20 Aug 2003, which were characterized by clear skies (1,900 μmol photon m−2 s−1, VPD of 3.2 kPa at midday, and total radiation of 22.8 MJ m2 d−1), there was a significant down-regulation of PSII activity in the Sangiovese basal leaves, which showed an ~33% decrease in the Fv/Fm ratio (Figure 2A⇓). There was only a moderate decrease in the Fv/Fm ratio for the Montepulciano basal leaves on 20 Aug 2003. The medial leaves of both cultivars performed similarly, showing only slight reductions in the Fv/Fm ratio compared with the prior measurements (Figure 2C⇓), although the environmental conditions were particularly favorable for the onset of photoinhibition.

Figure 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2

Seasonal evolution of maximum quantum yield (Fv/Fm) measured at midday (1300–1400 hr) in light-exposed leaves located in basal (A and B) (4th–5th nodes from base) and medial (C and D) (13th–15th nodes from base) portions of Montepulciano and Sangiovese shoots in 2003 and 2004. For 20 Aug 2003 and 18 Aug 2004, morning Fv/Fm (measured between 0600 and 0700 hr, solar time) and leaf relative water contents (values in parentheses) are given. Data are mean ± SE (n = 10).

As expected, midday RWC measured on 20 Aug 2003 was reduced in comparison to the morning RWC of both cultivars, irrespective of leaf position along the shoot (Figure 2A, C⇑). The extent of the RWC drop from the morning to midday was ~8% in basal leaves of both cultivars. Of note, when compared with the RWC of Montepulciano basal leaves at midday (86.1%), there was only a minor reduction in Sangiovese leaves (<3.5%). Thus, even for the basal leaves that show considerable photoinhibition, leaf water status was not the primary cause of the reduction in PSII activity, as has been reported previously for the other genotypes of Vitis vinifera L. (Schultz 1996a) and Vitis californica Benth (Gamon and Pearcy 1990). Also, for both cultivars and years, the RWC of the basal and medial leaves measured at midday during June, July, and the first week in August was consistently greater than 88% (data not shown), indicating good water availability in the soil and the absence of any manifest environmental stress.

The Fv/Fm decrease in Sangiovese basal leaves as compared with Montepulciano leaves was due to an increase in Fo (+16%) and a decrease in Fm (−22%) (Table 2⇓). There were also significant reductions in Fv (−41%) and Area (−57%) for Sangiovese basal leaves. Furthermore, a high value was determined for the integrated energy needed to close all of the reaction centers, the Sm parameter, for Montepulciano basal leaves (+38% over Sangiovese), indicating the high amount of energy required (Table 2⇓).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Chlorophyll a fluorescence of sun-exposed leaves located in the basal (4th–5th nodes from base) and medial (13th–15th nodes from the base) portions of Montepulciano and Sangiovese shoots. Measurements were taken on 20 Aug 2003 between 1300 and 1400 hr, solar time (n = 10).

Leaves located in the medial portions of Sangiovese shoots did not differ from the homologous Montepulciano leaves in regard to the fluorescence parameters (Table 2⇑). In comparison with basal leaves, these young sun-exposed leaves of both cultivars had high Fv/Fm values during the hottest hours of the sunny days (Figure 2C, D⇑) and were never affected by chronic photoinhibition.

In contrast, Sangiovese basal leaves clearly showed higher levels of chronic and dynamic photoinhibition than Montepulciano leaves (Figure 3⇓). Sangiovese was more prone to a reduction in transpiration loss through leaf abscission, since chronic photoinhibition is associated with the permanent loss of function in the PSII reaction centers and leads to the irreversible destruction of the photosynthetic pigment in the antenna system, followed by chlorosis and necrosis (Long et al. 1994). Contrary to the 2004 season and the Montepulciano leaves, during the third week of August 2003, ~57% of basal leaves and only 5% of medial leaves on the primary shoots of Sangiovese vines were chlorotic (discolored and yellowed) and necrotic (Table 3⇓). This occurred predominantly on leaves situated on the western side of the row, which was exposed to direct solar radiation during the afternoon, suggesting that direct exposure of these leaves to sunlight triggered leaf chlorosis followed by necrosis, with irreversible damage to the photosynthetic apparatus. Such conditions were not seen for Montepulciano grapevines. The Sangiovese leaves bordering on irreversible photoinhibition were the older leaves, located in the cluster zone and temporarily exposed to direct sunlight.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3

Characteristics of sun-exposed leaves located in the basal (4th–5th nodes from base) and medial (13th–15th nodes from base) portions of Montepulciano and Sangiovese primary shoots. Measurements were taken on 20 Aug 2003, between 1300 and 1400 hr, solar time.

Figure 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 3

Chronic and dynamic photoinhibition in basal (A) and medial (B) light-exposed leaves of Montepulciano and Sangiovese cultivars measured on a clear, hot day in August 2003. Chronic photoinhibition was calculated as the reduction (%) in predawn Fv/Fm relative to the seasonal maximum Fv/Fm, whereas dynamic photoinhibition represents the additional diurnal reduction of Fv/Fm (fully reversible overnight, therefore a flexible adjustment).

As recorded in 2004 (data not shown), in the 2003 season, the Pn and gs measured at midday during June, July, and the first week of August were similar for both cultivars (Figure 4⇓). During the hottest hours of 20 Aug 2003, Sangiovese had significantly higher Pn (+56% and +173% for basal and medial leaves, respectively) and gs (+26% and +56% for basal and medial leaves, respectively) than the Montepulciano (Figure 4⇓). At the same time, the Sangiovese medial leaves showed significantly higher values of WUEi (+75%) compared with the homologous Montepulciano leaves (Figure 5⇓). In June, July and the first weeks of August, no significant differences were seen in WUEi, neither between Sangiovese and Montepulciano, nor between basal and medial leaves (Figure 5⇓).

Figure 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 4

Seasonal evolution of midday net photosynthesis (Pn) and stomatal conductance (gs) in light-exposed leaves located in basal (A and B) (4th– 5th nodes from base) and medial (C and D) (13th–15th nodes from base) portions of Montepulciano and Sangiovese shoots in 2003. For 20 Aug 2003, morning (measured between 0800 and 0900 hr, solar time) Pn and gs values are also given. Data are mean ± SE (n = 10).

Figure 5
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 5

Seasonal evolution of midday intrinsic water use efficiency (WUEi, calculated as the Pn/gs ratio) in light-exposed leaves located in the basal (A) (4th–5th nodes nodes from base) and medial (B) (13th–15th nodes from base) portions of Montepulciano and Sangiovese shoots. Data are mean ± SE (n = 10).

Leaf characteristics.

In general, medial leaves had significantly higher photosynthetic pigment content than basal leaves, whereas chlorophyll a/b and chlorophyll/carotenoid ratios did not change (Table 3⇑, pooled means). Irrespective of their position, Montepulciano leaves had significantly higher concentrations of chlorophyll a and b and of carotenoid than Sangiovese leaves (Table 3⇑). No significant differences in chlorophyll a/b and chlorophyll/carotenoid ratios were seen between the cultivars. A high level of photosynthetic pigment was detected in Montepulciano leaves, compared with data published on other grapevine cultivars (Palliotti et al. 2000, Smithyman et al. 2001). Large levels of photosynthetic pigment in Montepulciano leaves might, on the one hand, enhance light absorption, and on the other, increase energy dissipation by the chlorophyll fluorescence processes.

Again irrespective of their position, Montepulciano leaves had significantly higher specific weights than Sangiovese leaves (Table 3⇑), perhaps due to a greater lamina thickness and/or to greater solute accumulation. The higher water content/dry weight ratio of Sangiovese leaves (+23% and +18% in basal and medial leaves, respectively) might indicate an increased osmotic adjustment. Several studies have, indeed, reported good correlations between the water content/dry weight ratio and changes in osmotic adjustment (Sobrado and Turner 1983, Turner et al. 1987).

The two cultivars showed different optical characteristics for the leaves (Table 2⇑), with the exception of reflectance. Montepulciano leaves showed higher absorptance (+6.2% and +5.1% for basal and medial leaves, respectively) and a lower transmittance (−4.5% for both leaf types). The leaf absorptance and reflectance values for both cultivars were comparable to those previously reported for grapevines (Smart 1987, Schultz 1996b). The absorption of incident radiant energy in the wavelength range 400 to 700 nm was enhanced by an increase in the total chlorophyll concentrations of the leaves. As the total chlorophyll concentrations increased, leaf transmittance decreased significantly (r2 = 0.91), with an exponential trend (Figure 6⇓).

Figure 6
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 6

Leaf transmittance in leaves of Vitis vinifera L. cvs. Montepulciano and Sangiovese as a function of total chlorophyll concentration. The nonlinear regression of leaf transmittance versus total chlorophyll concentration is represented by: y = 0.60 + 53.31 e(−0.0441 x); R2 = 0.931.

Sangiovese basal leaves had a lower stomatal density (−16%) and size (−14%) than Montepulciano leaves (Table 3⇑).

Contrary to 2004, during the hottest hours of the sunny days in August 2003, a significantly more vertical position with increased lamina inclination was observed for both basal and medial leaves on Sangiovese vines, with an average angle between the leaf axis and the horizon of ~84° to 89°, as opposed to the average range of 64° to 71° for Montepulciano leaves (Table 3⇑). This behavior gives a more closely woven canopy (erectophile vegetation) and reduces the amount of direct irradiation on the adaxial surface of Sangiovese leaves. To decrease light absorption, leaf lamina orientation may change during drought (Gamon and Pearcy 1989, Flexas et al. 1998). This movement has been attributed to leaf wilting and not to pulvin tissue (Flexas et al. 1998), as found in other species (Koller 1990).

Growth and replenishing of carbohydrate reserves.

As determined by the weight of one-year-old wood removed by winter pruning, in both years vine vigor was similar for Montepulciano and Sangiovese (809 and 827 g/vine in 2003, respectively, and 565 and 611 g/vine in 2004, respectively). In 2004, three weeks before budbreak, starch concentration measured in aboveground vine organs and in roots was greater in Sangiovese vines than in Montepulciano vines (Table 4⇓). Compared with Montepulciano vines, Sangiovese vines had starch concentrations that were 18% higher in the canes, 41% higher in the permanent cordons, and 42% higher in the fine brown roots. Sangiovese fine brown roots had a 49% higher soluble sugar concentration than Montepulciano roots.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4

Carbohydrate levels in canes, permanent cordons, and roots in Montepulciano and Sangiovese vines. Samples taken in March 2004, three weeks before budbreak (n = 6).

Discussion

Grapevines are mainly cultivated in dry or semiarid regions characterized by hot summers and water deficiency. Furthermore, the global climate change that appears to be leading to a progressive shift toward subtropicalization in several viticultural areas (Schultz 2000) underlines the importance of obtaining detailed knowledge about the mechanisms that regulate CO2 assimilation and partitioning under these limiting conditions.

The results from our study under field conditions now update the list of grapevine cultivars that can be considered drought resistant. They also indicate that the responses seen in these grapevines as a result of multiple summer stress conditions depend not only on the cultivar but also on leaf age and position within the canopy. As has recently been shown for potted vines (Palliotti et al. 2008), Sangiovese also show low stomatal sensitivity to dry conditions under open-field conditions, therefore maintaining higher physiological activities and good WUEi, especially in the younger, medial leaves. Moreover, the ability of Sangiovese leaves to avoid direct sunlight and excessive heat by changing leaf inclination acts as a protective mechanism, particularly under severe drought conditions, as suggested by greater Fv/Fm recovery (~32% and 9% of dynamic photoinhibition in basal and medial leaves, respectively, compared with only 2.6% and 5.8% in Montepulciano leaves). Lower leaf absorption (which is linked to lower chlorophyll and carotenoid contents) and greater leaf transmittance (which is associated with decreased lamina thickness, underlined by low specific weight) may have allowed this cultivar to dissipate excessive light absorption and have helped to avoid chronic photoinhibition, especially in the medial leaves. The 3-to-4-month-old basal leaves of Sangiovese experienced irreversible photoinhibition and necrosis when exposed to direct solar radiation and high air temperature and VPDs. Their midday Fv/Fm values were lower than 0.50 as a consequence of an increase in Fo and a decrease in Fm, which indicates initial damage to the PSII reaction centers and diminished nonradiative energy dissipation (Osmond and Grace 1995). These results do not contradict those of others (Flexas et al. 1998, Medrano et al. 2003), since the youngest leaves in our study, as in other studies, did not show irreversible photoinhibition (Fv/Fm constantly higher than 0.66). Under these drought conditions, Sangiovese basal leaves showed modifications in Fo and Fm that were similar to those already reported for water-stressed Tempranillo leaves (Medrano et al. 2002). The reduction in Fv/ Fm of Sangiovese basal leaves was also associated with a decrease in the plastoquinone pool and a lower efficiency of the PSII centers, as previously reported for Tempranillo (Maroco et al. 2002).

Therefore, under severe stresses that are at least similar to those in summer 2003, the vertical shoot-positioned canopy of Sangiovese vines was divided into two zones: a basal zone, located close to the fruiting zone (from the base of the shoot, up to ~10 nodes), featuring a low carbon gain, and an upper zone (from 10 nodes to the shoot apex), characterized by a high carbon gain, because of high CO2 fixing ability.

Irrespective of their positions along the shoot, the Montepulciano leaves that were exposed to direct sunlight and had limited water availability promptly closed their stomata, reducing Pn and gs and saving water during the hottest hours of the day. According to other researchers, in Montepulciano vines, when gs dropped below 0.050 mol H2O m−2 s−1, the decrease in Pn was not due to photoinhibition; Fv/Fm was, in fact, unaffected (Flexas et al. 1998, Cifre et al. 2005). In this last case, nonstomatal limitations to photosynthesis became dominant.

It would appear that Montepulciano leaves have efficient mechanisms to dissipate excess energy and avoid chronic photoinhibition. Apart from nonradiative energy dissipation (high Fm) and the amount of energy required to close all of the reaction centers (high Sm), our data cannot differentiate among the various photoprotective processes, including the xanthophyll cycle, photorespiration, and the Mehler reaction and phosphorylation of chloroplast membrane proteins (Düring 1988, Osmond and Grace 1995, Medrano et al. 2002).

During a dry and hot summer like 2003, significant losses of carbon gain can occur as a result of diurnal photoinhibition. Since no limitation on vine growth and replenishing of carbohydrate reserves was seen for Sangiovese, which was the more chronically photoinhibited cultivar, photoinhibition could be an adaptive rather than a detrimental response under these conditions, by reducing the transpirational surface by abscission of older leaves to optimize the use of the available water. This specific behavior was shown by Sangiovese vines but not Montepulciano vines, and it has also been seen in other grapevine cultivars (Winkel and Rambal 1993); hence, it should be considered a typical drought-avoidance mechanism.

Conclusions

The strategies used by species that are well adapted to drought conditions are complex and require the integral evaluation of responses at multiple levels, either internal or external to PSII. These adaptive strategies include changes in root, shoot and leaf morphostructural and biochemical characteristics, and canopy morphology and plant architecture. In Vitis vinifera L., the leaf age and position along the shoot and the genotype also influence these strategies. The present study shows that in contrast to Montepulciano vines, field-grown vines of Sangiovese under severe, multiple summer stresses show morpho-biochemical and physiological behaviors that result in the optimization of the whole-vine carbon gain. Therefore, in comparison to Montepulciano, Sangiovese can be considered as well adapted to drought conditions. Finally, cultivar genetic background appears to have a crucial role in adaptation to multiple summer stresses and in the ability of the grapevine for CO2 uptake and accumulating nonstructural carbohydrates into reserve organs.

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the Azienda Vinicola Umani Ronchi (Osimo, Ancona, Italy) for the use of their commercial vineyard. The authors thank Stefano Poni for critical reading of the manuscript and helpful discussions and Chris Berrie for editorial assistance and critical appraisal of the manuscript.

  • Received June 2008.
  • Revision received November 2008.
  • Accepted December 2008.
  • Published online June 2009
  • Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    Berry, J., and O. Björkman. 1980. Photosynthetic response to temperature in higher plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 31:491–543.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  2. ↵
    Bravdo, B., and Y. Hepner. 1987. Water management and effect on fruit quality in grapevines. In Proceedings of Sixth Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference. T. Lee (Ed.), pp. 150–158. Australian Industrial Publishers, Adelaide.
  3. ↵
    Butler, W.L. 1978. Energy distribution in the photochemical apparatus of photosynthesis. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 29:345–378.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    Cifre, J., J. Bota, J.M. Escalona, H. Medrano, and J. Flexas. 2005. Physiological tools for irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). An open gate to improve water-use efficiency? Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 106:159–170.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    Correia, M.J., M.M. Chaves, and J.S. Pereira. 1990. Afternoon depression in photosynthesis: Evidence for a high light stress effect in grapevine leaves. J. Exp. Bot. 41:417–426.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    de Souza, C.R., J.P. Maroco, T.P. Dos Santos, M.L. Rodrigues, C. Lopes, J.P. Pereira, and M.M. Chaves. 2005. Control of stomatal conductance and carbon uptake by deficit irrigation in two grapevine cultivars. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 106:261–264.
    OpenUrl
  7. ↵
    Düring, H. 1988. CO2 assimilation and photorespiration of grapevine leaves: Responses to light and drought. Vitis 27:199–208.
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    Flexas, J., J.M. Escalona, and H. Medrano. 1998. Down-regulation of photosynthesis by drought under field conditions in grapevine leaves. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 25:893–900.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. Flexas, J., J. Bota, J.M. Escalona, B. Sampol, and H. Medrano. 2002. Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines under field conditions: An evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations. Funct. Plant Biol. 29:461–471.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    Gamon, J.G., and R.W. Pearcy. 1989. Leaf movement, stress avoidance and photosynthesis in Vitis californica. Oecologia 79:475–481.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Gamon, J.A., and R.W. Pearcy. 1990. Photoinhibition in Vitis californica: Interactive effects of sunlight, temperature and water status. Plant Cell Environ. 13:267–275.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    Giardi, M.T., A. Cona, B. Geiken, T. Kucera, J. Masojidek, and A.K. Mattoo. 1996. Long-term drought stress induces structural and functional reorganisation of photosystem II. Planta 199:118–125.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    Koller, D. 1990. Light-driven leaf movements. Plant Cell Environ. 13:615–632.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  14. ↵
    Lichtenthaler, H.K., and A.R. Wellburn. 1983. Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 11:591–592.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    Lichtenthaler, H.K., R. Burgstahler, C. Buschmann, D. Meier, U. Penzel, and A. Schönthal. 1983. Effect of high light and high light stress on composition, function and structure of the photosynthetic apparatus. In Effects of Stress on Photosynthesis. M. Marcelle et al. (eds.), pp. 353–371. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk, The Hague.
  16. ↵
    Loewus, F.A., 1952. Improvement in anthrone method for determination of carbohydrates. Ann. Chem. 24:219.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    Long, S.P., S. Humphries, and P.G. Falkowski. 1994. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in nature. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 45:633–662.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  18. ↵
    Maroco, J.P., M.L. Rodrigues, C. Lopes, and M.M. Chaves. 2002. Limitations to leaf photosynthesis in field-grown grapevine under drought—metabolic and modelling approaches. Funct. Plant Biol. 29:451–459.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    Matthews, M.A., and M.M. Anderson. 1988. Fruit ripening in Vitis vinifera L.: Responses to seasonal water deficits. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 39:313–320.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    Medrano, H., J. Bota, A. Abadia, B. Sampol, J.M. Escalona, and J. Flexas. 2002. Effects of drought on light-energy dissipation mechanisms in high-light-acclimatised, field-grown grapevines. Funct. Plant Biol. 29:1197–1207.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    Medrano, H., J.M. Escalona, J. Cifre, J. Bota, and J. Flexas. 2003. A ten-year study on the physiology of two Spanish grapevine cultivars under field conditions: Effects of water availability from leaf photosynthesis to grape yield and quality. Funct. Plant Biol. 30:607–619.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  22. ↵
    Morris, D.L. 1948. Quantitative determination of carbohydrates with Dreywood’s anthrone reagent. Science 107:254–255.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  23. ↵
    Osmond, C.B. 1994. What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparisons of shade and sun plants. In Photoinhibition of Photosynthesis from Molecular Mechanisms to the Field. N.R. Baker and J.R. Bowyer (eds.), pp. 1–24. Bios Science Publisher, Oxford.
  24. ↵
    Osmond, C.B., and S.C. Grace. 1995. Perspectives of photoinhibition and photorespiration in the field: Quintessential inefficiencies of the light and dark reaction of photosynthesis? J. Exp. Bot. 46:1415–1422.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  25. ↵
    Palliotti, A., A. Cartechini, and F. Ferranti. 2000. Morpho-anatomical and physiological characteristics of primary and lateral shoot leaves of Cabernet franc and Trebbiano Toscano grapevines under two irradiance regimes. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 51:122–130.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Palliotti, A., O. Silvestroni, D. Petoumenou, S. Vignaroli, and J.B. Berrios. 2008. Evaluation of low-energy demand adaptive mechanisms in Sangiovese grapevine during drought. J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 42:1–7.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Poni, S., A.N. Lakso, J.R. Turner, and R.E. Melious. 1994. Interactions of crop level and late season water stress on growth and physiology of field-grown Concord grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 45:252–258.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Powles, S.B. 1984. Photoinhibition of photosynthesis induced by visible light. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35:15–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    Russel, A.W., C. Critchley, S.A. Robinson, L.A. Franklin, G.G.R. Seaton, W.S. Chow, J.M. Anderson, and C.B. Osmond. 1995. Photosystem II regulation and dynamics of the chloroplast D1 protein in Arabidopsis leaves during photosynthesis and photoinhibition. Plant Physiol. 107:943–952.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  30. ↵
    Schultz, H.R. 1996a. Water relation and photosynthetic responses of two grapevine cultivars of different geographical origins during water stress. Acta Hortic. 427:251–266.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    Schultz, H.R. 1996b. Leaf absorptance of visible radiation in Vitis vinifera L.: Estimates of age and shade effects with a simple field method. Sci. Hortic. 66:93–102.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    Schultz, H.R. 2000. Climate changes in viticulture: A European perspective on climatology, carbon dioxide and UV effects. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 6:2–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    Schultz, H.R., and M.A. Matthews. 1988. Vegetative growth distribution during water deficits in Vitis vinifera L. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 15:641–656.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  34. ↵
    Smart, R.E. 1987. Influence of light composition and quality of grapes. Acta Hortic. 206:37–47.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    Smithyman, R.P., R.L. Wample, and N.S. Lang. 2001. Water deficit and crop level influences on photosynthetic strain and blackleaf symptom development in Concord grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52:364–375.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  36. ↵
    Sobrado, M.A., and N.C. Turner. 1983. Comparison of the water relations characteristics of Helianthus annuus and Helianthus petiolaris when subjected to water deficits. Oecologia 58:309–318.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Strasser, R.J., A. Srivastava, and Govindjee. 1995. Polyphasic chlorophyll a fluorescence transient in plants and cyanobacteria. Photochem. Photobiol. 61:32–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  38. ↵
    Strasser, R.J., A. Srivastava, and M. Tsimilli-Michael. 2000. The fluorescence transient as a tool to characterize and screen photosynthetic samples. In Probing Photosynthesis: Mechanism, Regulation and Adaptation. M. Yunus et al. (eds.), pp. 445–483. Taylor & Francis, London.
  39. ↵
    Turner, N.C., W.R. Stern, and P. Evans. 1987. Water relations and osmotic adjustment of leaves and roots of lupins in response to water deficits. Crop Sci. 27:977–983.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    Werner, C., O. Correia, and B. Wolfram. 2002. Characteristic patterns of chronic and dynamic photoinhibition of different functional groups in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Funct. Plant Biol. 29:999–1011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  41. ↵
    Williams, L.E. 2001. Irrigation of grapevines in California. In Proceedings Journee Professionelle (Gestion de l’eau dans le vignobles) XII GESCO, Montpellier, pp. 63–74. Groupe Europeen d’Etude des Systemes de Conduite de la Vigne.
  42. ↵
    Winkel, T., and S. Rambal. 1993. Influence of water stress on grapevines growing in the field: From leaf to whole-plant response. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 20:143–157.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 60 Issue 2

  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
Print
View full PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on AJEV.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Photosynthetic and Photoinhibition Behavior of Two Field-Grown Grapevine Cultivars under Multiple Summer Stresses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from AJEV
(Your Name) thought you would like to read this article from the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
You have accessRestricted access
Photosynthetic and Photoinhibition Behavior of Two Field-Grown Grapevine Cultivars under Multiple Summer Stresses
Alberto Palliotti, Oriana Silvestroni, Despoina Petoumenou
Am J Enol Vitic.  2009  60: 189-198  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2009.60.2.189
Alberto Palliotti
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: palliot{at}unipg.it
Oriana Silvestroni
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Despoina Petoumenou
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
You have accessRestricted access
Photosynthetic and Photoinhibition Behavior of Two Field-Grown Grapevine Cultivars under Multiple Summer Stresses
Alberto Palliotti, Oriana Silvestroni, Despoina Petoumenou
Am J Enol Vitic.  2009  60: 189-198  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2009.60.2.189
Alberto Palliotti
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: palliot{at}unipg.it
Oriana Silvestroni
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Despoina Petoumenou
1Associate professor, 3Ph.D., Università degli Studi di Perugia, Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06128 Perugia, Italy; 2Professor, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali e delle Produzioni Vegetali, Via Brecce Bianche, 60131 Ancona, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More from this TOC section

  • Mechanical Canopy and Crop-Load Management of Pinot gris in a Warm Climate
  • Impact of Exogenous Abscisic Acid on Vine Physiology and Grape Composition of Cabernet Sauvignon
  • Predicting Berry Quality Attributes in cv. Xarel·lo Rain-Fed Vineyards Using Narrow-Band Reflectance-Based Indices
Show more Article

Similar Articles

AJEV Content

  • Current Volume
  • Archive
  • Best Papers
  • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
  • Back Orders

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access Publishing
  • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions

Other

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASEV
asev.org

© 2026 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 0002-9254.

Powered by HighWire