Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • AJEV Content
    • Current Volume
    • Papers in Press
    • Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Collections
    • Free Sample Issue
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access and Subscription Publishing
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
      • Proprietary Rights Notice for AJEV Online
    • Permissions and Reproductions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

User menu

  • Log in

Search

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

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • AJEV Content
    • Current Volume
    • Papers in Press
    • Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Collections
    • Free Sample Issue
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access and Subscription Publishing
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
    • Alerts
    • RSS Feeds
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
Review Articles

Facing Spring Frost Damage in Grapevine: Recent Developments and the Role of Delayed Winter Pruning – A Review

Stefano Poni, Paolo Sabbatini, Alberto Palliotti
Am J Enol Vitic. October 2022 73: 211-226; published ahead of print May 20, 2022 ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2022.22011
Stefano Poni
1Dipartimento di Scienze delle Produzioni Vegetali Sostenibili, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, 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: stefano.poni@unicatt.it
Paolo Sabbatini
2Department of Horticulture, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States;
  • 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
Alberto Palliotti
3Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali, Università di Perugia, Perugia, 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

In this review, we briefly discuss factors that increase spring frost risk in viticulture and provide updates on vine susceptibility to frost events and damage assessment. The core of the review describes a physiologically based tool to prevent frost damage by delayed winter pruning (done at or beyond the “wool” bud stage) to postpone budbreak. The exploited principle is related to the inherent acrotony of the grapevine, which would “sacrifice” the already-developing apical shoots to frost, while basal nodes are still dormant and thus preserved. A survey of 21 published papers confirms that final pruning, performed not later than when two to three unfolded leaves are borne on apical shoots, would delay budbreak by ∼15 to 20 days, while yield is only mildly affected. At times, such a delay can carry on until harvest, postponing fruit maturity into a cooler time of year. Most recommended late-winter pruning protocols use a two-step intervention. In spurred cordons, a mechanical pre-cut that shortens canes to seven to eight nodes while also shredding wood can be made anytime during the dormant season. Thereafter, a final hand spur-shortening is made at a suitable developmental stage of the apical shoots. In a cane-pruned vine, previous year fruiting cane(s) can be removed any time in winter, while selecting at least two canes to keep vertical and longer than the required spacing-dictated length. Shortening of the two canes along with horizontal positioning should take place no later than when there are two to three unfolded leaves borne on the apical end of last season’s shoots.

  • acrotony
  • budbreak
  • climate change
  • cold injury
  • ripening
  • yield

Earlier phenology and the compression of the growing cycle in grapevines because of global warming have been reported widely (Jones et al. 2005, Van Leeuwen et al. 2019, Santos et al. 2020, Venios et al. 2020). Additionally, predictions are for longer growing seasons (Webb et al. 2012, Santos et al. 2020). Taken together, these scenarios justify the increasing need for cultural techniques that, especially in warm/hot regions, can delay key phenological stages and fruit ripening into a cooler period. A key characteristic of climate change is that the frequency and severity of weather extremes are increasing (Aghakouchak et al. 2020). Weather is “extreme” when unusually violent or abnormal in its frequency or length. Weather and climate-related extreme events encompass meteorological events (storms), hydrological events (floods, mass movements) and climatological events (heatwaves, cold waves, droughts, and forest or orchard fires; EEA 2022). In Europe, the increase of extreme events causing relevant production loss has been estimated at ∼60% over the past three decades. The European countries with the most crop failures related to extreme events between 1980 and 2019 is France, with 23,491 events causing 50% of insured losses, followed by Italy with 20,735 events causing 5% of insured losses, and Spain with 14,679 events causing 26% of insured losses (COM 2021, EEA 2022). Within this context, a puzzling interaction exists between global warming and grapevine susceptibility to spring frost damage (Muffler et al. 2016, Zohner et al. 2020). Despite a warming trend related to climate change and a steady decrease in the number of freezing days in Italy (ISPRA 2020), late spring frost is impacting crop production heavily, causing significant economic losses (Cicogna and Tonello 2017, COM 2021). The warming trend has indeed been beneficial, causing longer and warmer growing seasons, but has not reduced the risk of frost. In fact, frost events are not decreasing during overall warming in several viticulture regions (Shultze et al. 2016, De Rosa et al. 2021, Dinu et al. 2021). Budbreak is occurring earlier on average in several varieties and locations, but frost still occurs at about the same rate up until the frost-free date (Schultze et al. 2016). The severity and extent of damage caused by a late frost depends on several factors: altitude, flat versus sloped sites, distance of the vine from the ground, presence of windbreaks or physical barriers, proximity to and size of bodies of water, type of floor management, and so on. However, the increased frost risk is primarily due to earlier budbreak, which widens the time frame within which the probability of incurring freezing temperatures is greater (Kartschall et al. 2015), and to the fact that the frost event may occur when the vine is at a more advanced phenology stage, increasing the risk of severe damage. Typically, in warm/hot growing areas with an average growing season temperature (April to October in the northeast) from 17 to 24°C (Jones et al. 2005), any frost event occurring in mid-April would find vegetative growth at five to six expanded leaves, a phenological stage at which the vine is very susceptible to frost damage. Every degree (°C) of warming would advance budbreak by about seven to 10 days, greatly increasing the chance of frost injury (Webb et al. 2012). Dramatic frost events occurred in Italy, France, Germany, and Austria in 2017, 2020, and 2021 (COM 2021). Similar disruptive frost events happened in the eastern United States: 2014 (polar vortex), 2007 (Easter freeze), 2010 (Mother’s Day freeze), and 2012 (killer frost). These events cost crop insurance brokers an average $250 million per year (nearly half of total market value) in payments to grape and fruit growers for crop loss (www.rma.usda.gov).

These weather challenges have generated an interest toward innovative solutions for damage prevention or minimization (e.g., selective extraction of the coldest air [Arias et al. 2010], usage of hydrophobic particle film and acrylic polymers [Fuller et al. 2003], electrical heating cables [Lamb 2009], and vegetal oil application [Centinari et al. 2018, Herrera et al. 2018, Wang and Dami 2020]). Such relatively recent approaches are often coupled with other methods of frost protection in vineyards involving wind machines, air heaters, and sprinklers (Snyder and Paulo de Melo-Abreu 2005, Davenport et al. 2008). Coverage of these methods is beyond the scope of this review, which focuses on the technique of very late winter pruning, which delays budbreak and subsequent vine phenological stages until fruit ripening, generating a physiological approach to frost protection.

Incidence of spring frost damage in a climate change scenario. Incidence of spring frost damage in a climate change scenario is a complex relationship between several phenomena, including thermal length of the growing season (Trnka et al. 2011), number of frost-free days (FFD, defined as annual number of days with a minimum daily temperature above 0°C), and the advancement of the growing season triggered by the warming effect (Lavalle et al. 2009, Leolini et al. 2018). Several studies have reported a lengthening of the period between the occurrences of the last spring frost and the first autumn frost (Schwartz et al. 2006, Schultze and Sabbatini 2019). This has occurred in recent decades in several areas in Europe and the U.S. and more generally in the northern hemisphere. However, across all of Europe, the delay in the end of the season (8.2 days in the period 1992 to 2008) was more significant than the advanced start of the season (3.2 days over the same time period; Jeong et al. 2011). A somewhat related effect is a general and clear increasing length of the frost-free period in Europe between 1985 and 2014 (Figure 1). The trend is not uniformly spread over Europe, however, and the fastest rates of change (an extension of the frost-free period by more than 0.8 days per year) were in eastern and northern Europe (EASAC 2013). An interesting regression analysis between time (1974 to 2008) and number of FFD in four different regions/countries in Europe shows a regional pattern (Lavalle et al. 2009). In Denmark and the highlands of the United Kingdom, a significant positive linear regression was observed, with an FFD increase of ∼65 and 90 days over a 35-year span, respectively, while in Extremadura (Spain) and Thessalia (Greece), a negative linear regression was found with an FFD reduction of ∼50 and 24 days, respectively. In areas with a significant decrease in the length of the frost-free period, such as in southern Europe, plants are more at risk from frost damage due to delay in the last winter-spring frost (Lavalle et al. 2009). In the eastern U.S., similar trends are reported. Interannual variability of early-season temperatures has led to large increases in frost occurrence from year to year (Schultze et al. 2016). Subfreezing temperatures occurred frequently in March, April, and May. For example, the spring frosts of 2010 reduced juice grape production by 60% (Schultze et al. 2014). An abnormally warm early spring, followed by a return to normal climate, devastated the entire fruit crop in 2012. The spring was 3.7°C warmer than the previous 30-year average throughout the area, featuring days as much as 20°C warmer than their climatological average (Schultze et al. 2016). Many grapegrowing regions reported accelerated phenological development, only to experience devastating frosts in early April across the country. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), crop losses that year were as high as 95% for tart cherries, and 75 and 40% percent for juice and winegrapes, respectively.

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

Annual rate of change of frost-free days representing the trend coefficient for long-term changes in the annual number of days with a minimum daily temperature above 0°C. For example, a value of 1 indicates that the number of frost-free days has increased on average by one day per year over the last 30 years (1985 to 2014). The analysis is based on the JRC-MARS gridded meteorological data at 25 km resolution. Data source: http://agri4cast.jrc.ec.europa.eu/DataPortal/Index.aspx?o=d in https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/rate-of-change-of-frost-1.

The pivotal factor is how global warming is advancing the growing season in fruit trees and grapevines. A bloom advancement of 2.3 days/10 years was reported in several fruit trees: 2.0 days/10 years in cherry and 2.2 days/10 years in apple (Chmielewski et al. 2004). In the grapevine, the advancement of phenology is likely one of the most consistent trends supported by historic data and projection analysis. Budbreak advancement over several decades in grape varieties grown in different environments can vary between seven and 14 days. The advancement is driven by the increased growing season mean temperature, as +1°C advances budbreak by about seven to 10 days, greatly increasing chances of frost injury (Fraga et al. 2012, Webb et al. 2012, Van Leeuwen et al. 2019, Santos et al. 2020, Bernáth et al. 2021, Droulia and Charalampopoulos 2021).

The general expectation is that advanced budbreak may expose vines to spring frost more frequently, because the last frost event will occur at a more advanced stage of shoot growth development, when the organ is most susceptible to freezing (Fuller and Telli 1999). However, several climate analyses carried out in different European locations to estimate spring frost risk under a warming scenario reported contradictory results. A comprehensive chapter on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability related to climate change in Europe, when addressing projected changes in climate extremes, states a general high confidence concerning several phenomena: a) changes in temperature extremes (toward increased number of warm days, warm nights, and heat waves); b) increases in extreme precipitation in Northern Europe (all seasons) and Continental Europe (all seasons except summer); and c) in extreme sea level events (Kovats et al. 2014). Any other change is defined as medium or low confidence and some, like cold waves and spring frost risk projection, are not even listed. Uncertainty related to projections for spring frost risks in Vitis vinifera L. seems to be confirmed in several other, more specific, studies. Phenological changes and forecast frost risk for the cultivar Riesling grown in Germany were calculated using historic data (1901 to 2019) and a projected time span (2011 to 2100) under two climate change scenarios (RCP8.5 and RCP2.6; Kartschall et al. 2015). An acceleration of all main phenology phases was found from the late 1980s, while projection for 2031 to 2060 modeled an acceleration of 11 ± 3 days under the RCP8.5 scenario. Within the same scenario, frost risk is expected to increase slightly over the next decades. Assessment of late frost damage risk in the French regions of Alsace, Champagne, and Burgundy throughout the 21st century was made using three different phenological models, predicting either statistical occurrence of the last frost day or the characteristic budbreak date (Sgubin et al. 2018). Outputs showed that the probability of late frost is expected to increase significantly in two out of three models, while the third model gave contradictory results. For southwest England, the risk of late spring frosts increases under many future climate projections extending until 2099 due to advancement in the timing of budbreak (Mosedale et al. 2015). However, estimates of frost risk were highly sensitive to the choice of phenological model. A case study of the Swiss Rhone Valley (Sion and Aigle locations) employing 12 phenological models projected over 2021 to 2050 concluded that frost risk might increase or decrease, depending upon location and climate change projections (Meier et al. 2018). To add even more variability, a study conducted in Luxembourg reported that the frequency of spring frost damage in the Luxembourg winegrowing region will decrease, but not disappear in the near (2021 to 2050) or far (2069 to 2098) future projections (Molitor et al. 2014). The most comprehensive survey on changes in weather extremes for Italy, for the period 1961 to 2012, reported significant trends in the mean decrease of number of freezing days (-11 on average), especially after 1990 (ISPRA 2013). Despite this apparent decrease, several grapevine districts in Italy were hit in 2017, 2020, and 2021 by severe late spring frost events. The damage in 2017 and 2021 was quite variable. Moving north to south through the country, vineyards reported 20 to 100% damage and loss of the potential crop was estimated at ∼20 to 25% in Lombardy, 20 to 30% in Emilia Romagna, 20 to 25% in Tuscany, and 25 to 35% in Puglia (Atzeni 2017). Indeed, heterogeneity in viticultural traits of Italy play a pivotal role in damage variability. These include a) a wide range of cultivars grown, with large variation in budbreak dates; b) different growing meso-climates, which might enhance or limit susceptibility to late frost; and c) high diversity in training systems with different susceptibility to damage, mostly due to varying distance of the fruiting area from the ground. Summarizing the examples provided above, late spring frosts are a significant risk to grape production in frost-prone viticultural regions. The increase in air temperature due to climate change is likely to advance grape budbreak and exacerbate last frost events and consequent damage in the spring.

An update about grapevine spring frost susceptibility and assessment. Physiological mechanisms and methods. The physiology of grapevine cold hardiness across several budbreak stages (Table 1) has been extensively reported in the literature and results are used to assess and interpret vineyard damages (Howell and Wolpert 1978, Johnson and Howell 1981, Wolpert and Howell 1986, Moncur et al. 1989, Fuller and Telli 1999). On Madeleine Angevine and Siegrebbe cultivars grown in the U.K., budbreak is accompanied by a linear increase in water content in the bud during initial developmental stages up until wool buds (BBCH 05; Fuller and Telli 1999). Freezing tests, enclosing vines in chambers with progressive cooling to a minimum temperature of -4.5°C, found large changes in bud water content from dormant (BBCH 00, water content ∼40%) to green pointing buds (BBCH 07, water content ∼83%). Bud freezing correlated linearly with bud water content and at the mean exotherm temperature of -3.5°C, causing damage of 10 to 20% until stage BBCH 03, defined as end of bud swelling; buds swollen, but not green (Lorenz et al. 1995). Damage was scored at ∼80% at the BBCH 05 stage (Fuller and Telli 1999), and the authors concluded that the temperature at which buds froze was not influenced by cultivar or acclimation treatment. This is consistent with research on Pinot noir, where bud development stage did not influence ice nucleation temperature (Luisetti et al. 1991).

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

Critical temperatures of Pinot noir and Concord at different phenological stages. CT is the temperature at which plant tissues are damaged and is expressed as CT50, corresponding to 50% damage.

Endogenous freezing, assessed using infrared thermography, found that freezing in two grapevine varieties initiated in the cane, then travelled into the buds at a speed of 0.47 cm/sec (Hamed et al. 2000). A model for dormant bud cold hardiness and budbreak prediction in 23 Vitis genotypes was calibrated extensively (Ferguson et al. 2014). Most notably, budbreak occurred earlier in hardier genotypes, consistent with more rapid de-acclimation of genotypes originating from colder climates. As a paradox, these genotypes were more vulnerable to spring frost in warmer environments.

As young, developing leaves are more susceptible to frost due to their greater water content (Fuller and Telli 1999), it was hypothesized that they can function as a better proxy for cultivar phenotyping against frost tolerance. The degree of frost resistance in young leaves of 15 grape cultivars was assessed for this purpose (Sun et al. 2019). The super cooling point was not suitable for comparing frost resistance; instead, the most effective parameters for discrimination were T2 (freezing point) and t2 (time when temperature raises from T1, the super-cooling point, to T2). Based on such analysis, the most frost-resistant varieties were Muscat Hamburg and Frontenac; Summer Black had an intermediate resistance and the remaining varieties were categorized as low-resistant.

Another challenge in determining the frost resistance of plant tissues is choosing the method of air temperature measurement that best represents the actual temperature of the plant organ. Plant and organ temperature is a complex interaction of absorbed radiation, wind speed, wetness, and organ shape that provide shelter or stimulate significant turbulence (Grace 2006). However, buds are dry structures and incapable of effective transpirational cooling; thus at night, when the radiant energy balance is negative (long wave energy streaming from the bud to the sky), the buds are colder than the atmosphere and the magnitude of such a difference is a strong function of wind speed (Michaletz and Johnson 2006). The issue of representativeness of air temperature measures for true organ temperature has been addressed in budding leaves of the grapevine, apricot flowers, and unripe pear fruits (Litschmann and Středa 2019). For young grapevine leaves, the greatest deviations were found between the surface temperature measured with an infrared thermometer sensor and a traditional sheltered thermometer (Stevenson screen type); the latter invariably showed higher nighttime temperatures by 0.4 to 0.8°C on average, with a peak of 1.5°C. Conversely, both a wet bulb thermometer (unsheltered thermometer covered with a wet cloth) and a simple unsheltered thermometer were closer to the actual organ temperature with one important distinction. While the unsheltered thermometer provided the best relationship with the temperature of the plant tissue under any condition, the wet bulb readings were affected by the relative humidity (RH) of the air. When RH was below 65 to 70%, temperature values at night were several degrees lower than bud surface temperature. Thus, when a wet bulb was used to activate a frost protection device (e.g., sprinkler irrigation), the warning could occur prematurely.

Cultural factors. The role that soil temperature can play in regulating the response of grapevine leaves to frost was investigated (Sun et al. 2018). In a pot experiment where Merlot seedling roots were kept either in warm (∼20°C) or cold (∼0°C) soil and then subjected to frost treatment, severe damage to the young leaves occurred with cold soil, while warm soil led to reduced frost injury. A non-targeted metabolomic analysis showed that in the warm treatment, pathways related to the citrate cycle, glycine, serine, and threonine were enhanced. This outcome raises the question of whether root distribution in soil volumes at different temperatures could significantly impact vine frost susceptibility. While soil/root temperature is indeed affected by factors such as lithological features, soil texture, water holding capacity, color, and organic matter content, root depth is quite responsive to under-trellis floor management (Centinari et al. 2016, Klodd et al. 2016). Any practice that favors a shallower root system due to an undisturbed soil surface (e.g., mulching, herbicides) may help mitigate the consequences of a frost event (Guerra and Steenwerth 2012). Moreover, clean cultivated soil absorbs and then re-radiates more heat, providing frost risk mitigation. Any condition that favors soil warming in spring, and therefore root metabolism, is also expected to advance budbreak, increasing the risk of frost damage and potentially counteracting beneficial effects discussed above. This hypothesis is still uncertain: work done on potted Shiraz grapevines exposed to two different soil temperatures (13°C and 23°C) showed no effects on the time of budbreak, anthesis, or the number of flowers per inflorescence (Field et al. 2020).

New digital technologies. Recent efforts in precision viticulture (Matese and Di Gennaro 2015, Ozdemir et al. 2017, Giovos et al. 2021) have provided interesting approaches to monitor and detect spring frost damage in vineyards by remote sensing. Some vegetation indices (VI) such as Red-Edge 7, NIR, EVI, MTVI1, and CARI, all calculated from medium resolution Sentinel-2 acquired data, proved effective in estimating lower light reflectance in pergola-trained vineyards after severe frost damage when compared to undamaged vineyards (Cogato et al. 2020). Moreover, the same VI bands provided evidence of recovery to full canopy size ∼40 days after the frost event. It is indeed encouraging that, likely due to the frequent revisit time of the Sentinel-2 constellation, generating robust time-series for spatial and temporal analyses can be used to assess the impact of late frost in vineyards. The pergola trellis type, which forms an almost horizontal continuous green cover, likely facilitates the performance of indices calculated from low or medium spatial resolutions. However, the robustness of this method will require association with yield or grape quality data and extension to vertically shoot-positioned (VSP) trellises showing a typical discontinuous green cover.

An even broader application is a practical remote-sensing monitoring framework for late frost damage in winegrapes based on in-situ measurements and multi-source satellite data (Li et al. 2021). This framework estimates the daily minimum air temperature (Tmin) with a spatial resolution of 100 m and was used to map the severe late frost damage that occurred in northwest China in April 2020. About 41% of the vineyards suffered severe frost damage, and the total affected area was ∼16,381 ha. The predictions of late frost damage obtained by estimating Tmin agreed with the statistics of the Agricultural Meteorological Disaster Department.

Using high spatial resolution analyses of minimum night temperatures to explore the impact of current and future frost risk is another active research field. Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines (MARS) were used to model high-resolution (30-m grid) minimum temperatures in the Yarra Valley wine region in southeastern Australia (Gobbett et al. 2020). The accuracy for predicting minimum night temperature records was good (R2 = 0.68), while all future climate scenarios project down-elevation movement of the frost line between 10 and 30 m, depending on scenarios. A similar approach in a study on viticulture suitability in Tasmania identified land areas prone to damaging spring and late-season frost (Webb et al. 2018). The main outcomes were that risk classifications for the -1°C threshold were appropriate for this study and that the model’s classifications of suitable, moderately suitable, and unsuitable areas, defined as <1 frost every 10 years (<10%), >1/10 to one frost every two years (10 to 50%), and >1 frost every two years (>50%) for temperature values ≤-1°C, respectively, correlated well with viticulture suitability and grower expectations.

Technical Protocols for Application of Delayed Winter Pruning

Using late winter pruning close to or after the time of normal budbreak to postpone the onset of vegetative growth is neither a brand new nor revolutionary concept in viticulture. Quite old work had already determined the main traits of temperature-driven dormancy-breaking mechanisms in the grapevine bud (Pouget 1966), and that different mid-winter pruning dates, spanning from November until March (northern hemisphere), were ineffective at altering budbreak response (Wample 1994). According to the literature search provided in the present review paper, pioneer studies hypothesized that a purposely delayed winter pruning could achieve a consistent budbreak delay to be used as a prevention tool in areas at high risk of spring frost (Friend and Trought 2007, Friend et al. 2011). Other research covered still-unknown or poorly-studied characteristics of the technique; among them: i) seasonal variation in canopy physiology and efficiency; ii) impact on yield components and return crop next year; iii) chances that the initial growing cycle postponement can carry until ripening; and iv) consequences on grape composition and wine styles. Before addressing these topics, we will describe current best practice for delayed winter pruning on either spur-pruned or cane-pruned vines.

Spur pruning. Once other conditions are similar (e.g., the distance of the productive cane or cordon from the soil, bud load per meter of canopy length, etc.), susceptibility to spring frost damage of spur-pruned cordon vines is usually greater than that observed in a cane-pruned system (Figure 2A and 2B). The reason is related to the different pruning cuts, where a short spur with the typical two-count node has reduced acrotony compared to a long cane with eight to 10 buds. This leads to very uniform sprouting, which is more conducive to severe frost damage (Lavee and May 1997, Intrieri and Poni 2000, Ezzili and Bejaoui 2001, Daskalakis and Biniari 2019). In a situation such as in Figure 2A, any residual crop to be harvested in the current season derives from shoots from latent, base, and secondary buds, which are much less fruitful than primary buds.

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

Close view of a spurred cordon and a cane-pruned Sauvignon blanc vine after a very severe frost event in central Italy (spring 2017). Notably, shoots produced on the spurs suffered 100% mortality (A), while in the cane-pruned system, only apical shoots were killed while the still-dormant first four to five basal nodes avoided the freezing injury (B).

A common working protocol is used in most studies of the efficacy of highly delayed winter pruning strategies in spur-pruned cordons (Figure 3). The operation can be performed in two steps or in a single passage. The two-step procedure uses mechanical prepruning, executed anytime during the dormant season. The over-row rotating disk machine used, unlike a cutter bar machine, easily avoids posts and rigid obstacles along the row, even when the cutting distance from the cordon is regulated to leave more than seven to eight nodes per cane (Figure 3A). Moreover, pruning machines employing rotating disks can perform on-the-go cane chopping and shredding, greatly facilitating any subsequent hand operation. Final shortening to the required spur length (Figure 3B) is performed quickly by hand when, on average, two to three unfolded leaves are formed on the apical buds of the canes. Depending upon vine vigor, lateral canes may be present on the apical portion of last season’s shoots. While their vigor is expected not to be very high as the mechanical prepruning removes most apical nodes and, with them, vigorous laterals developed after shoot trimming the previous season, their presence exerts some control on the development of the subtending nodes (Pellegrino et al. 2020). Therefore, they should be the main target to observe when visual scouting is performed after budbreak to assess whether the two to three unfolded leaf stage has been reached.

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

Diagram of the two pruning steps recommended for delayed winter pruning in a spur-pruned cordon. (A) Mechanical prepruning is performed anytime during the dormant season to leave seven to eight node canes and concurrently perform wood shredding. (B) At the optimal stage of two to three unfolded leaves developed in the apical part of the prepruned canes, manual shortening to the desired spur length is executed.

Based on working time needed to manage a fully or partially mechanized VSP trellis (Intrieri and Poni 1995), combining winter mechanical prepruning with a late hand-finishing should require ∼50 to 60 working hrs/ha (10 to 15 hrs for mechanical hedging and 40 to 45 hrs for the subsequent follow-up, depending on cane number per vine and degree of residual cane detachment), which is less than the estimated working time needed to manage one-step hand pruning in VSPs of comparable vigor (70 to 90 hrs/ha).

Cane pruning. Due to factors related to apical dominance exerted by apical buds on a horizontally positioned cane (Intrieri and Poni 2000), susceptibility to late frost damage of cane-pruned vines is usually milder than that on spur-pruned cordon training systems. The staggered budbreak occurring along horizontal canes (Figure 2B) allows basal and median nodes to be at a delayed growth stage when the freezing event takes place, limiting damage. However, applying a delayed winter pruning on a long cane training system (e.g., Guyot, Pendelbogen) is slightly more cumbersome and risky than on a spur-pruned training system with a permanent cordon. If the successful two-stage pruning described previously for a spur cordon is to be replicated, then a cane-pruned system should receive a preliminary pruning adjustment in the winter (i.e., past year fruiting cane separated from the one to two canes selected for renewal) and the final pruning will then pertain to the selected cane(s). However, this approach was tested on cane-pruned Pinot noir grapevines and had only mild effects on vine phenology and overall vine performance (Gatti et al. 2018). Conversely, when all pruning operations were postponed at a stage of about two to three unfolded leaves on the distal portion of the unpruned canes, a delay in budbreak of 18 days (data pooled over three years) was obtained when compared to the standard winter pruning. However, the one-time pruning method is unlikely to be favored by growers for several reasons: i) postponing and performing in one step the quite complex cane pruning method requires access to skilled hand labor within a narrow time window; ii) an intervention made on the whole canopy when budbreak has already initiated on the apical part of the canes will unavoidably slow down the operational times and potentially damage the swollen buds or initially-developed shoots; and iii) a psychological barrier may exist against the idea of operating so late in a still-untouched canopy. Therefore, a good compromise must be found between the one-step and two-step procedures, giving preference to the latter. In the absence of previous on-site experience, a reasonable starting point would consist of a first passage (A), during which a past-year cane is removed and at least two vertical long canes are retained (Figure 4). Final pruning (B, B’) would shorten the two canes to a length that maintains mostly dormant nodes (B) and simultaneously fills the spacing on the wire (B’). Although no specific research addresses this, the chances of inducing a significant budbreak delay on retained median and basal nodes are maximized if: i) retained canes are as close to vertical as possible, as this position enhances the effects of acrotony; and ii) retained canes are longer than the ones retained for production, dictated by the intrarow vine spacing. When such requirements are overlooked, the chances of delaying budbreak decrease significantly. For example, when short shoot trimming is performed during the growing season, optimal cane length is often unavailable at the time of cane selection during winter pruning, and this may interfere strongly with technique efficacy. Although horizontal cane positioning still obeys the principle of acrotony, the inhibition of basal buds is weaker, which undermines the efficacy of late pruning (Figure 2B). The effects of different cane-pruning dates on Sauvignon blanc was determined, with the last treatment performed just prior to budbreak, therefore without any active vegetation (Trought et al. 2011). Nevertheless, the last pruning dates postponed budbreak by about five days after that of the winter pruning dates, a delay that was recovered by the time of bloom.

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

Diagram of the pruning steps recommended for delayed winter pruning in a cane-pruned training system (i.e., Guyot type). (A) First run of hand pruning is performed anytime during the dormant season to remove the previous year production cane and to select at least two long canes, maintaining them in nearly vertical positions. (B) At the optimal stage of two to three unfolded leaves at the apical part of the retained canes, manual shortening to the desired cane length is performed, along with positioning and tying on the horizontal support wire. (B’) Red boxes in panel B indicate selected canes with extra length, which should be maintained to: i) increase acrotony control of the subtending nodes, and ii) ensure suitable cane length to fill space on the trellis.

Effects of delayed winter pruning on seasonal phenology and vine performance. Budbreak response. A list of published research articles, arranged according to country, cultivar, pruning type and timing, budbreak time, yield response, and ripening delay as compared to standard winter pruning, is provided to identify works published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings that focused on the effect of late winter pruning on the grapevine (Table 2). The primary criteria for data curation were the inclusion of research that, within the definition of late pruning, used at least one treatment with pruning at the swollen bud stage or later. Out of 21 published papers studying an array of cultivars and wine regions, mostly using spur pruning, late winter pruning was carried out anywhere between the two extremes of swollen buds and seven to eight unfolded leaves.

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

Synoptic information from research papers on the impact of late winter pruning (LWP) strategies on growth, yield, and fruit quality of grapevine. C, control; TSS, total soluble solids; TA, titratable acidity.

It is hypothesized that the delay in basal bud development associated with delayed pruning is related to correlative inhibition, as suppression of growth in basal nodes occurs when longer canes, with additional buds, are left at pruning time (Howell and Wolpert 1978). This phenomenon is the expression of shoots growing basipetally along a grapevine cane and becoming stronger with increasing cane length and position tending to become vertical (Bangerth 1989, Lavee and May 1997). These principles find robust confirmation in the listed works as, compared to a control pruning performed at full vine dormancy, any late winter pruning has generated a budbreak delay varying from five to 56 days (Table 2). Such delays in vine growth greatly increase chances to avoid or limit frost damage: the wider the time window between control and late-pruned treatments, the greater the probability that a frost event occurring within this period might hit the already-developing apical shoots while the basal nodes are still dormant (Figure 5). Only one study examined a sprawling canopy, and while many of the canes remained horizontal, few basal buds had burst when the delayed pruning occurred (Petrie et al. 2017). The impact of delayed budbreak can be different in warm and cool climates, where it could also significantly delay ripening. Additional studies in such regions should check whether and how the vines use the recovery mechanisms which, in a warm climate, often allow progressive depletion of the initial delay (Gatti et al. 2016).

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

(A) A spurred cordon in Central Italy (cv. Sangiovese) showing almost 100% main shoots killed by late spring frost in 2021. (B) and (C) Two different details of cane growth two weeks after the frost occurred. Notably, the already-developed apical shoots are dead, while nodes located underneath either show healthy green tissue or are still dormant.

The inherent difficulty of these studies is that data validation, provided by the occurrence of a significant frost event within the trial duration, is truly unpredictable, for obvious reasons. However, such a situation occurred on 29 April 2019 during a two-year trial on Lemberger, when a freezing event occurred when the phenological stage of the control averaged between E-L 3 and 4, woolly buds and green leaf tips visible, respectively (Persico et al. 2021). In 2019, late-pruned (1 May) vines had 61% greater yield than control vines, reflecting differences in shoot freeze damage between the two treatments. Moreover, final grape quality was not affected. Another instance of documentation of effects of late winter pruning in the presence of a significant frost event was a Chardonnay trial in New Zealand (Friend et al. 2011). On 25 to 26 September 2000, a radiation frost occurred with minimum night temperature reaching -1.7°C, causing damage to a portion of the developing buds, quantified at 33% killed primary shoots. Conversely, in the late pruning treatments, killing of the primary shoots was limited to no more than 3%. Then, albeit on a more observational basis in a mature Sangiovese vineyard in Tuscany, Barmpa et al. (2021) verified the effectiveness of late pruning over a severe frost event which occurred between 6 to 8 April 2021 (Figure 6). Cane shortening to required spur length was performed on 22 to 23 April, and the study also included an intermediate treatment where, after mechanical prepruning done the previous December, cane trimming was quickly performed in January 2021 to retain only one cane per spur. With frost damage of ∼90% primary shoots killed, leading to a final cluster number and yield of 7.6 and 1.51 kg/vine, the recommended two-step late pruning maintained at harvest 15.2 clusters and 3.10 kg/vine, while a three-step approach led to 11.5 clusters and 2.34 kg/vine (Barmpa et al. 2021).

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

(A) A spur-pruned vineyard of Sangiovese in the Chianti Classico area, photographed 22 April 2021, as it appeared after mechanical prepruning performed December 2020 and before spur shortening. Severe frost had occurred on 6 to 8 April. (B) The same vineyard where a variant of stage two was adopted and only one long cane for each previous year spur was maintained and then shortened to the desired spur length.

Yield response. The yield response to the phenological stage at which winter pruning is performed seems quite straightforward: a low-to-moderate yield limitation is found when pruning time does not exceed the two to three unfolded leaves stage, while pruning performed at a much later stage severely impairs yield, reaching >50% reduction below standard pruning (Frioni et al. 2016, Gatti et al. 2016, Petrie et al. 2017, Silvestroni et al. 2018, Allegro et al. 2019). The hypothesis of increasing yield limitation with later interventions was first described in a study where the latest treatment (more than seven to eight unfolded leaves) caused a 92% yield reduction due to a very low cluster number (Gatti et al. 2016). The mechanism involved is hypothesized as severe source limitation imposed by very late pruning, causing carbon starvation to the developing inflorescences, a large majority of which deviate into a tendril differentiation (Yang and Hori 1979). The same paper also suggests that to avoid a major yield limitation on a 1 m spur-pruned cordon with an eight to 10 node bud load, removed leaf area per vine should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 m2.

An examination of case studies suggests that cultivar-dependent yield reduction is an important factor to consider (Table 2). A distinct outlier is a study in a Merlot vineyard in New Zealand, which reported a spectacular yield increase with winter pruning delayed until the development of ∼5 cm long shoots (about two unfolded leaves; Friend and Trought 2007). While there is some evidence that a progressive shift of winter pruning closer to budbreak is conducive to a slight yield increase (Coombe 1964), the results reported by Friend and Trought (2007) highlight a special case, as it found in the latest pruning a significant increase in the proportion of large, seeded berries and a drastic reduction in smaller and shot berries. This study was conducted on the east coast of New Zealand, where sudden changes in temperature (10°C change in the space of 20 min) are possible even as late as Nov/Dec (flowering time), favoring setting of a high fraction of seedless, lightweight berries. Conversely, other studies where yield showed a sometimes remarkable increase over standard winter pruning (Friend et al. 2011, Barmpa et al. 2021, Persico et al. 2021) all reported a late frost event occurring before the hand finishing was performed. Not surprisingly, in all cases, such yield preservation occurred without impacting fruit quality at harvest.

Carrying delay until harvest? Chances to extend the delayed growth and development cycle obtained with late winter pruning until harvest is primarily a function of the magnitude of the delay in spring shoot development. This can vary from a few days (Martin and Dunn 2000, Buesa et al. 2021) to >50 days (Zheng et al. 2017, Silvestroni et al. 2018, Allegro et al. 2019). Such a large variation in the postponement of the start of budbreak is related to several factors, including: i) the phenological stage, hence advancement of growth, when the pruning is performed (usually the later the pruning, the longer the budbreak delay); ii) seasonal conditions characterizing the post-pruning phase and differences in crop level, which may hinder late season growth; and iii) the length and position of the unpruned canes, which can affect the number of burst nodes at the time of pruning and the amount of leaf area removed.

Among papers assessing key phenological stages following delayed winter pruning (Gatti et al. 2016, 2018, Frioni et al. 2016, Silvestroni et al. 2018), a general erosion during the season of the maximum delay at budbreak is quite clear. The one exception is likely due to the specific canopy type (sprawl) used in the experiment (Petrie et al. 2017). Physiological bases underlying this behavior are not easy to disentangle, as the canopy in the delayed-pruning treatments developed over a month later than usual, so that leaf formation, growth, senescence, and all stages of berry development took place under different environmental conditions and the dynamic of the source-to-sink balance was deeply altered.

Due to the complexity of the interactions involved, following the seasonal canopy changes to compare a severely delayed winter pruning with standard winter pruning is difficult. The challenge was undertaken using potted vines and a whole-canopy gas exchange system (Poni et al. 2014) and tracked, from budbreak until almost leaf shedding, the net CO2 exchange rate (NCER) of canopies subjected to either late (two to three unfolded leaves; LWP) or very late (seven to eight unfolded leaves) winter pruning and compared them to standard winter pruning (SWP; Gatti et al. 2016). LWP achieved a 17-day delay at budbreak that shortened progressively during the season. The harvest threshold set at a total soluble solids (TSS) of 20 Brix was reached three days before SWP. Three mechanisms contributed to this efficient compensation: i) greater canopy efficiency, measured as shorter time needed to reach maximum NCER/leaf area (22 days versus 34 in SWP); ii) greater maximum NCER/leaf area (+37% more than SWP); and iii) greater NCER/leaf area ratios from veraison to end of season. As a result, seasonal cumulated carbon in LWP was 17% greater than in SWP.

In most studies examining the effect of late pruning, there was a significant delay in grape maturity, measured either as the estimated number of days needed to reach the same maturity as the control vines at harvest or, if there was single harvest date, as reduced physiological ripeness. A frequent trait of this delayed ripening was that technological maturity, assessed as sugar-to-acid ratio, almost invariably confirmed slower sugar accumulation combined with better acid retention and improved phenolic maturity as a consequence of late winter pruning. Thus, late winter pruning of Merlot carried out at three unfolded leaves produced clusters with higher titratable acidity (TA) and anthocyanin-to-sugar ratios at harvest than standard pruning (Allegro et al. 2020). Similarly, pruning Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon vines between E-L 2 and E-L 15 produced fruit with an increased anthocyanin: TSS ratio for a sugar concentration >13.5 Baumé (Petrie et al. 2017). Late pruning of Sangiovese (Palliotti et al. 2017, Silvestroni et al. 2018) and cane-pruned Pinot noir (Gatti et al. 2018) arrived at a consistent common scenario of significantly delayed technological maturity at harvest (i.e., lower TSS and higher TA), unaffected total anthocyanins, and improved phenolics. Despite working under largely different conditions and with different cultivars, three studies on delayed pruning found delayed sugar accumulation was associated with an increase of total anthocyanins and phenolics at harvest (Frioni et al. 2016, Moran et al. 2017, Zheng et al. 2017).

The above results show decoupling of anthocyanins and sugar accumulation: a primary challenge under a global warming scenario, especially in warm/hot regions where the rate of sugar accumulation should be reduced, while accumulation of phenolic components should remain stable or even be improved. Late winter pruning joins the array of techniques used for this purpose (Sadras et al. 2012, Sadras and Moran 2012, Palliotti et al. 2014, Poni et al. 2018, 2020, Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. 2021). However, an explanation for this decoupling potential of a late winter pruning technique must be provided. Based on evidence that anthocyanin synthesis is inhibited and its degradation, enhanced, at berry temperature >35°C (Mori et al. 2007), the most likely hypothesis is that if delayed pruning shifts the onset of veraison into a cooler period, berry pigmentation is enhanced. Recent work on the interaction between timing of winter pruning and elevated temperature in Shiraz concluded that late pruning maintained the anthocyanin-to-sugar ratio, which decreased with heating in two seasons (Moran et al. 2019, 2021). More importantly, wine color density and concentration of anthocyanins and phenolics correlated negatively with daily mean temperature in a short window (two weeks) immediately after veraison. Other effects cannot be ruled out, however. In a trial on Merlot, late winter pruning treatments significantly increased the skin-to-pulp ratio at harvest (Allegro et al. 2020). If cell skin formation takes place within four to five weeks after flowering (Coombe and McCarthy 2000), the process can benefit from more rapid cell division, allowed by postponing the first stage of berry growth into a warmer period. However, the proposed mechanisms have some important deviations: the latest winter pruning applied on Shiraz at E-L 15 and on Cabernet Sauvignon at E-L 11, despite a significant yield reduction, did not achieve the highest anthocyanin:TSS ratio (Petrie et al. 2017). Thus, the decoupling effect of late winter pruning risks being spoiled when a very late timing of intervention (i.e., later than three to four unfolded leaves) leads to prolonged source limitation and carbon deficit (Gatti et al. 2016), which might ultimately impair color accumulation. As reported in Sangiovese and Cabernet Sauvignon vines, a reduced leaf area-to-yield ratio (i.e., 0.33 m2/kg in source-limited vines versus 1.15 m2/kg in control vines) decreased the total anthocyanin concentration to 84.3% of the non-source-limited control, while it decreased the sugar concentration by only 27.1% (Bobeica et al. 2015, Zhu et al. 2019).

The sugar/color decoupling issue assumes quite different traits in a cool climate viticulture, where the most desirable outcome is the longest budbreak delay that doesn’t severely curtail yield and the ability to properly ripen. However, some light can also be shed onto such scenarios. While previous work conducted in cool climate regions (Dami and Beam 2004, Loseke et al. 2015, Wang and Dami 2020) already demonstrated that budbreak-delaying products did not affect grape composition at harvest or wine chemistry, provided that cycle postponement did not exceed 10 to 14 days, when a similar delay was induced through late winter pruning (Persico et al. 2021), wine chemistry, carbohydrate storage, and bud-free tolerance in the following dormant season were not affected.

Conclusions and Future Directions

More advanced grapevine phenology has consistently aggravated damage and related economic losses due to spring frost events in viticulture worldwide. Such worsening is less related to the increased frequency of the freezing events, than to more-advanced bud and shoot growth stages, which significantly increase the probability of severe damage. These events are also now occuring in warm areas which, traditionally, have been almost exempt from such fatalities (i.e., several wine districts in central and southern Italy).

This has increased concern about late frost damage and stimulated new approaches to prevent and mitigate damage. In this review, we described a physiological solution consisting of moderately delayed winter pruning. The principle is both simple and effective. Extra apical buds are retained on canes before final shortening to the pruning length required by the training system. To avoid a significant yield decrease, the late pruning should be done when apical shoot development does not exceed two to three unfolded leaves, or ∼5 cm long. This intervention can postpone budbreak by 15 to 20 days in the basal or subtending nodes, greatly increasing the likelihood of avoiding or limiting frost consequences. Using the technique implies adjustments in the winter pruning calendar and training of the work crew. In medium to large vineyards, where postponing winter pruning may not be realistic, an alternative strategy would be to identify, based on experience and historic weather data, areas at greater risk of spring frost, and concentrate efforts on those. In spur pruning cordons, mechanical pre-pruning with an over-row disk machine in winter, followed by a fast manual shortening to the required spur length, is recommended.

Late pruning must be part of a broader strategy to improve risk assessment and prevent damage due to spring frost in vineyards. Additional work in cool climate areas is desirable to balance the existing knowledge gap between cool and warm/hot regions. On a more operational note, the best compromise between limitations imposed by the short time window for hand finishing and the need to carry out the technique on an entire vineyard still needs fine tuning. While spur pruning seems more suited to this approach than cane pruning, the ideal solution would be a single late, mechanical intervention to perform a short pruning in a previously untouched canopy.

A future ideal strategy would integrate delayed winter pruning into an action plan to be applied, pre- and post-planting, in vineyards now deemed at high risk for frost damage. The strategy must incorporate the following: i) reconsider cordon and cluster distance from the ground at planting and during vine training; ii) adapt floor management to maximize heat absorption during the day and reradiate more heat during the night and early morning hours; and iii) update current anti-frost irrigation systems using a micro-dripper mounted on top of each post that can nebulize water onto a narrow strip along the row, where the organs to be protected are located.

Footnotes

  • Acknowledgments: The authors wish to thank Tenute Ruffino (Tuscany) and in particular Maurizio Bogoni and Barmpa Despoina Maria for allowing vineyard access and performing data collection.

  • By downloading and/or receiving this article, you agree to the Disclaimer of Warranties and Liability. The full statement of the Disclaimers is available at http://www.ajevonline.org/content/proprietary-rights-notice-ajev-online. If you do not agree to the Disclaimers, do not download and/or accept this article.

  • Received February 2022.
  • Revision received April 2022.
  • Accepted May 2022.
  • Copyright © 2022 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. All rights reserved.

Literature Cited

  1. ↵
    1. AghaKouchak A et al.
    2020. Climate extremes and compound hazards in a warming world. Annu Rev Earth Planet Sci 48:519-548.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Allegro G,
    2. Pastore C,
    3. Valentini G and
    4. Filippetti I.
    2019. Effects of delayed winter pruning on vine performance and grape composition in cv. Merlot. BIO Web Conf 13:04003.
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    1. Allegro G,
    2. Pastore C,
    3. Valentini G and
    4. Filippetti I.
    2020. Post-budburst hand finishing of winter spur pruning can delay technological ripening without altering phenolic maturity of Merlot berries. Aust J Grape Wine Res 26:139-147.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Arias M,
    2. Arbiza H and
    3. Mendina M.
    2010. Two experiences of frost damage control in vineyards with selectively extraction of coldest air: Alto Valle, Argentina and Napa Valley, California, USA. Acta Hortic 872:407-414.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Atzeni G.
    2017. Emergenza maltempo. Duro colpo all’annata 2017, ma per molti territori si spera in una ripresa. https://www.gamberorosso.it
  6. ↵
    1. Bangerth F.
    1989. Dominance among fruits/sinks and the search for a correlative signal. Physiol Plantarum 76:608-614.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. ↵
    1. Barmpa DM,
    2. Bogoni M and
    3. Poni S.
    2021. Internship report, Master VENIT, Ed. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, pp.1-15.
  8. ↵
    1. Bernáth S,
    2. Paulen O,
    3. Šiška B,
    4. Kusá Z and
    5. Tóth F.
    2021. Influence of climate warming on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) phenology in conditions of central Europe (Slovakia). Plants 10:1020.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Bobeica N,
    2. Poni S,
    3. Hilbert G,
    4. Renaud C,
    5. Gomès E,
    6. Delrot S and
    7. Dai Z.
    2015. Differential responses of sugar, organic acids and anthocyanins to source-sink modulation in Cabernet Sauvignon and Sangiovese grapevines. Front Plant Sci 6:382.
    OpenUrl
    1. Brighenti AF,
    2. Allebrandt R,
    3. Cipriani R,
    4. Malinovski LI,
    5. de Bem BP,
    6. Feldberg NP and
    7. Silva AL.
    2017. Using delayed winter pruning to prevent spring frost damage in ‘Chardonnay’ cultivar. Acta Hortic 1157:389-392.
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    1. Buesa I,
    2. Yeves A,
    3. Sanz F,
    4. Chirivella C and
    5. Intrigliolo DS.
    2021. Effect of delaying winter pruning of Bobal and Tempranillo grapevines on vine performance, grape and wine composition. Aust J Grape Wine Res 27:94-105.
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    1. Centinari M,
    2. Vanden Heuvel JE,
    3. Goebel M,
    4. Smith MS and
    5. Bauerle TL.
    2016. Root-zone management practices impact above and belowground growth in Cabernet franc grapevines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 22:137-148.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Centinari M,
    2. Gardner DM,
    3. Smith DE and
    4. Smith MS.
    2018. Impact of amigo oil and KDL on grapevine postbudburst freeze damage, yield components, and fruit and wine composition. Am J Enol Vitic 69:77-88.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Chmielewski FM,
    2. Müller A and
    3. Bruns E.
    2004. Climate changes and trends in phenology of fruit trees and field crops in Germany, 1961-2000. Agr Forest Meteorol 121:69-78.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Cicogna A and
    2. Tonello P.
    2017. Gelate primavera 2017: analisi climatologica e danni sulle produzioni. Notiziario ERSA 2:8-13.
    OpenUrl
  15. ↵
    1. Cogato A,
    2. Meggio F,
    3. Collins C and
    4. Marinello F.
    2020. Medium-resolution multispectral data from Sentinel-2 to assess the damage and the recovery time of late frost on vineyards. Remote Sens 12:1846.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. COM
    . 2021. EU Adaptation Strategy. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/adaptation-climate-change/eu-adaptation-strategy_en
  17. ↵
    1. Coombe BG.
    1964. The winter treatment of grapevines with zinc and its interaction with time of pruning. Aust J Exp Agric 4:241-246.
    OpenUrl
  18. ↵
    1. Coombe BG and
    2. McCarthy MG.
    2000. Dynamics of grape berry growth and physiology of ripening. Aust J Grape Wine Res 6:131-135.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  19. ↵
    1. Dami IE and
    2. Beam BA.
    2004. Response of grapevines to soybean oil application. Am J Enol Vitic 55:269-275.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Daskalakis I and
    2. Biniari K.
    2019. A new measurement model to estimate the intensity of acrotony on the latent buds of grapevine canes (Vitis vinifera L.). Not Bot Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 47:1001-1004.
    OpenUrl
  21. ↵
    1. Davenport JR,
    2. Keller M and
    3. Mills LJ.
    2008. How cold can you go? Frost and winter protection for grape. HortScience 43:1966-1969.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. De Rosa V,
    2. Vizzotto G and
    3. Falchi R.
    2021. Cold hardiness dynamics and spring phenology: Climate-driven changes and new molecular insights into grapevine adaptive potential. Front Plant Sci 12:644528.
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    1. Dinu DG,
    2. Ricciardi V,
    3. Demarco C,
    4. Zingarofalo G,
    5. De Lorenzis G,
    6. Buccolieri R,
    7. Cola G and
    8. Rustioni L.
    2021. Climate change impacts on plant phenology: Grapevine (Vitis vinifera) bud break in winter-time in Southern Italy. Foods 10:2769.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Droulia F and
    2. Charalampopoulos I.
    2021. Future climate change impacts on European viticulture: A review on recent scientific advances. Atmosphere 12:495.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. EASAC
    . 2013. Trends in extreme weather events in Europe: implications for national and European Union adaptation strategies. EASAC policy report 22, November 2013. https://easac.eu/publications/details/trends-in-extreme-weather-events-in-europe/
  26. ↵
    1. EEA
    . 2022. Economic losses from climate-related extremes in Europe. Ind-182. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/economic-losses-from-climate-related
    1. Eichhorn KW and
    2. Lorenz DH.
    1977. Phänologische enwicklungsstadien der rebe. Nachrbl Dtsch Pflanzenschutzd (Braunschweig). 29:119-120.
    OpenUrl
    1. El-Zeftawi BM and
    2. Weste HL.
    1970. Time and level of pruning with cincturing or PCPA in relation to yield and quality of Zante currant. Aust J Exp Agric 10:454-487.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Ezzili B and
    2. Bejaoui M.
    2001. New contribution to the survey of the acrotony theory on the branch of one year grapevine: III - Role of buds and leaves in development, application in the vineyard of results obtained in laboratory and greenhouse. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 35:1-21.
    OpenUrl
  28. ↵
    1. Ferguson JC,
    2. Moyer MM,
    3. Mills LJ,
    4. Hoogenboom G and
    5. Keller M.
    2014. Modeling dormant bud cold hardiness and budbreak in 23 Vitis genotypes reveals variation by region of origin. Am J Enol Vitic 65:59-71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Field SK,
    2. Smith JP,
    3. Morrison EN,
    4. Emery RJN and
    5. Holzapfel BP.
    2020. Soil temperature prior to veraison alters grapevine carbon partitioning, xylem sap hormones, and fruit set. Am J Enol Vitic 71:52-61.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  30. ↵
    1. Fraga H,
    2. Malheiro AC,
    3. Moutinho-Pereira J and
    4. Santos JA.
    2012. An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food Energy Secur 1:94-110.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. Friend AP and
    2. Trought MCT.
    2007. Delayed winter spur-pruning in New Zealand can alter yield components of Merlot grapevines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 13:157-164.
    OpenUrl
  32. ↵
    1. Friend AP,
    2. Trought MCT,
    3. Stushnoff C and
    4. Wells GH.
    2011. Effect of delaying bud burst on shoot development and yield of Vitis vinifera L. Chardonnay ‘Mendoza’ after a spring freeze event. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:378-382.
    OpenUrl
  33. ↵
    1. Frioni T,
    2. Tombesi S,
    3. Silvestroni O,
    4. Lanari V,
    5. Bellincontro A,
    6. Sabbatini P,
    7. Gatti M,
    8. Poni S and
    9. Palliotti A.
    2016. Postbudburst spur pruning reduces yield and delays fruit sugar accumulation in Sangiovese in central Italy. Am J Enol Vitic 67:419-425.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  34. ↵
    1. Fuller MP and
    2. Telli G.
    1999. An investigation of the frost hardiness of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) during bud break. Ann Appl Biol 135:589-595.
    OpenUrl
  35. ↵
    1. Fuller MP,
    2. Hamed F,
    3. Wisniewski M and
    4. Glenn DM.
    2003. Protection of plants from frost using hydrophobic particle film and acrylic polymer. Ann Appl Biol 143:93-98.
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    1. Gatti M,
    2. Pirez FJ,
    3. Chiari G,
    4. Tombesi S,
    5. Palliotti A,
    6. Merli MC and
    7. Poni S.
    2016. Phenology, canopy aging and seasonal carbon balance as related to delayed winter pruning of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sangiovese grapevines. Front Plant Sci 7:659.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  37. ↵
    1. Gatti M,
    2. Pirez FJ,
    3. Frioni T,
    4. Squeri C and
    5. Poni S.
    2018. Calibrated, delayed-cane winter pruning controls yield and significantly postpones berry ripening parameters in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot noir. Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:305-316.
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    1. Giovos R,
    2. Tassopoulos D,
    3. Kalivas D,
    4. Lougkos N and
    5. Priovolou A.
    2021. Remote sensing vegetation indices in viticulture: A critical review. Agriculture 11:457.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    1. Gobbett DL,
    2. Nidumolu U and
    3. Crimp S.
    2020. Modelling frost generates insights for managing risk of minimum temperature extremes. Weather Clim Extremes 27:100176.
    OpenUrl
  40. ↵
    1. Grace J.
    2006. The temperature of buds may be higher than you thought. New Phytol 170:1-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Guerra B and
    2. Steenwerth K.
    2012. Influence of floor management technique on grapevine growth, disease pressure, and juice and wine composition: A review. Am J Enol Vitic 63:149-164.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. ↵
    1. Gutiérrez-Gamboa G,
    2. Zheng W and
    3. Martínez de Toda F.
    2021. Current viticultural techniques to mitigate the effects of global warming on grape and wine quality: A comprehensive review. Food Res Int 139:109946.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Hamed F,
    2. Fuller MP and
    3. Telli G.
    2000. The pattern of freezing of grapevine shoots during early bud growth. Cryo Letters 21:255-260.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Herrera JC,
    2. Knöbl R,
    3. Gabler C,
    4. Kührer E and
    5. Forneck A.
    2018. Effect of vegetal oil application on budbreak phenology timing. Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg 68:172-180.
    OpenUrl
  45. ↵
    1. Howell GS and
    2. Wolpert JA.
    1978. Nodes per cane, primary bud phenology, and spring freeze damage to concord grapevines: A preliminary note. Am J Enol Vitic 29:229-232.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  46. ↵
    1. Intrieri C and
    2. Poni S.
    1995. Integrated evolution of trellis training systems and machines to improve grape quality and vintage quality of mechanized Italian vineyards. Am J Enol Vitic 46:116-127.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  47. ↵
    1. Intrieri C and
    2. Poni S.
    2000. Physiological response of winegrape to management practices for successful mechanization of quality vineyards. Acta Hortic 526:33-47.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. ISPRA
    . 2013. Variazioni e tendenze degli estremi di temperatura e precipitazione in Italia. Quaderni ISPRA 37:2-60.
    OpenUrl
  49. ↵
    1. ISPRA
    . 2020. Gli indicatori del clima in Italia nel 2020. Quaderno 96, 55 pp. https://www.isprambiente.gov.it/it/pubblicazioni/stato-dellambiente/rapporto_clima_2020-1.pdf
    OpenUrl
    1. Jensen F and
    2. Dokoozlian N.
    1991. The influence of time of pruning, dormant, at bud break, and after bud break, on yield of Perlette vines In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Enology and Viticulture, Seattle, WA. ASEV, Davis, CA, p. 12.
  50. ↵
    1. Jeong S-J,
    2. Ho C-H,
    3. Gim H-J and
    4. Brown ME.
    2011. Phenology shifts at start vs. end of growing season in temperate vegetation over the Northern Hemisphere for the period 1982-2008. Glob Change Biol 17:2385-2399.
    OpenUrl
  51. ↵
    1. Johnson DE and
    2. Howell GS.
    1981. Factors influencing critical temperatures for spring freeze damage to developing primary shoots on Concord grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 32:144-149
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    1. Jones GV,
    2. White MA,
    3. Cooper OR and
    4. Storchmann K.
    2005. Climate change and global wine quality. Clim Change 73:319-343.
    OpenUrl
  53. ↵
    1. Kartschall T,
    2. Wodinski M,
    3. Von Bloh W,
    4. Oesterle H,
    5. Rachimow C and
    6. Hoppmann D.
    2015. Changes in phenology and frost risks of Vitis vinifera (cv Riesling). Meteorol Z 24:189-200.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Klodd AE,
    2. Eissenstat DM,
    3. Wolf T and
    4. Centinari M.
    2016. Coping with cover crop competition in mature grapevines. Plant Soil 400:391-402.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Kovats RS,
    2. Valentini R,
    3. Bouwer LM,
    4. Georgopoulou E,
    5. Jacob D,
    6. Martin E,
    7. Rounsevell M and
    8. Soussana JF.
    2014. Europe. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Barros VR et al. (eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 1267-1326.
  56. ↵
    1. Lamb DW.
    2009. Electrically heated cables protect vines from frost damage at early flowering. Aust J Grape Wine Res 15:79-84.
    OpenUrl
  57. ↵
    1. Lavalle C,
    2. Micale F,
    3. Houston TD,
    4. Camia A,
    5. Hiederer R,
    6. Lazar C,
    7. Conte C,
    8. Amatulli G and
    9. Genovese G.
    2009. Climate change in Europe. 3. Impact on agriculture and forestry. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 29:433-446.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  58. ↵
    1. Lavee S and
    2. May P.
    1997. Dormancy of grapevine buds - facts and speculation. Aust J Grape Wine Res 3:31-46.
    OpenUrl
  59. ↵
    1. Leolini M,
    2. Moriondo M,
    3. Fila G,
    4. Costafreda-Aumedes SR,
    5. Ferrise R and
    6. Bindi M.
    2018. Late spring frost impacts on future grapevine distribution in Europe. Field Crop Res 222:197-208.
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Li W,
    2. Huang J,
    3. Yang L,
    4. Chen Y,
    5. Fang Y,
    6. Jin H,
    7. Sun H and
    8. Huang R.
    2021. A practical remote sensing monitoring framework for late frost damage in wine grapes using multi-source satellite data. Remote Sens 13:3231.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Litschmann T and
    2. Středa T.
    2019. Surface temperature of plant tissues. Which method of air temperature measurement fits best? Contrib Geophys Geod 49:11-23.
    OpenUrl
  62. ↵
    1. Lorenz DH,
    2. Eichhorn KW,
    3. Bleiholder H,
    4. Klose R,
    5. Meier U and
    6. Weber E.
    1995. Growth stages of the grapevine: Phenological growth stages of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera)—Codes and descriptions according to the extended BBCH scale. Aust J Grape Wine Res 1:100-103.
    OpenUrl
  63. ↵
    1. Loseke BA,
    2. Read PE and
    3. Blankenship EE.
    2015. Preventing spring freeze injury on grapevines using multiple applications of Amigo oil and naphthaleneacetic acid. Sci Hortic 193:294-300.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Luisetti J,
    2. Gaignard JL and
    3. Devaux M.
    1991. Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae as one of the factors affecting the ice nucleation of grapevine buds in controlled conditions. J Phytopathol 133:334-344.
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Martin SR and
    2. Dunn GM.
    2000. Effect of pruning time and hydrogen cyanamide on bud break and subsequent phenology of Vitis vinifera L. variety Cabernet Sauvignon in central Victoria. Aust J Grape Wine Res 6:31-39.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Matese A and
    2. Di Gennaro SF.
    2015. Technology in precision viticulture: A state of the art review. Int J Wine Res 2015:69-81
    OpenUrl
  67. ↵
    1. Meier M,
    2. Fuhrer J and
    3. Holzkämper A.
    2018. Changing risk of spring frost damage in grapevines due to climate change? A case study in the Swiss Rhone Valley. Int J Biometeorol 62:991-1002.
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Michaletz ST and
    2. Johnson EA.
    2006. Foliage influences forced convection heat transfer in conifer branches and buds. New Phytol 170:87-98.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Molitor D,
    2. Caffarra A,
    3. Sinigoj P,
    4. Pertot I,
    5. Hoffmann L and
    6. Junk J.
    2014. Late frost damage risk for viticulture under future climate conditions: A case study for the Luxembourgish winegrowing region. Aust J Grape Wine Res 20:160-168.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Moncur MW,
    2. Rattigan K,
    3. Mackenzie DH and
    4. McIntyre GN.
    1989. Base temperatures for budbreak and leaf appearance of grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 40:21-26.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Moran MA,
    2. Sadras VO and
    3. Petrie PR.
    2017. Late pruning and carry-over effects on phenology, yield components and berry traits in Shiraz. Aust J Grape Wine Res 23:390-398.
    OpenUrl
    1. Moran MA,
    2. Bastian SE,
    3. Petrie PR and
    4. Sadras VO.
    2018. Late pruning impacts on chemical and sensory attributes of Shiraz wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:469-477.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Moran M,
    2. Petrie P and
    3. Sadras V.
    2019. Effects of late pruning and elevated temperature on phenology, yield components, and berry traits in Shiraz. Am J Enol Vitic 70:9-18.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Moran MA,
    2. Bastian SE,
    3. Petrie PR and
    4. Sadras VO.
    2021. Impact of late pruning and elevated ambient temperature on Shiraz wine chemical and sensory attributes. Aust J Grape Wine Res 27:42-51.
    OpenUrl
    1. Morgani MB,
    2. Peña JEP,
    3. Fanzone M and
    4. Prieto JA.
    2022. Pruning after budburst delays phenology and affects yield components, crop coefficient and total evapotranspiration in Vitis vinifera L. cv. ‘Malbec’ in Mendoza, Argentina. Sci Hortic 296:110886.
    OpenUrl
  74. ↵
    1. Mori K,
    2. Goto-Yamamoto N,
    3. Kitayama M and
    4. Hashizume K.
    2007. Loss of anthocyanins in red-wine grape under high temperature. J Exp Bot 58:1935-1945.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Mosedale JR,
    2. Wilson RJ and
    3. Maclean IMD.
    2015. Climate change and crop exposure to adverse weather: changes to frost risk and grapevine flowering conditions. PLoS ONE 10:0141218.
    OpenUrl
  76. ↵
    1. Muffler L,
    2. Beierkuhnlein C,
    3. Aas G,
    4. Jentsch A,
    5. Schweiger AH,
    6. Zohner C and
    7. Kreyling J.
    2016. Distribution ranges and spring phenology explain late frost sensitivity in 170 woody plants from the Northern Hemisphere. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 25:1061-1071.
    OpenUrl
  77. ↵
    1. Ozdemir G,
    2. Sessiz A and
    3. Pekitkan FG.
    2017. Precision viticulture tools to production of high quality grapes. Sci Papers Ser B Hortic 61:209-218.
    OpenUrl
  78. ↵
    1. Palliotti A,
    2. Tombesi S,
    3. Silvestroni O,
    4. Lanari V,
    5. Gatti M and
    6. Poni S.
    2014. Changes in vineyard establishment and canopy management urged by earlier climate-related grape ripening: A review. Sci Hortic 178:43-54.
    OpenUrl
  79. ↵
    1. Palliotti A,
    2. Frioni T,
    3. Tombesi S,
    4. Sabbatini P,
    5. Cruz-Castillo JG,
    6. Lanari V,
    7. Silvestroni O,
    8. Gatti M and
    9. Poni S.
    2017. Double-pruning grapevines as a management tool to delay berry ripening and control yield. Am J Enol Vitic 68:412-421.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. ↵
    1. Pellegrino A,
    2. Rogiers S and
    3. Deloire A.
    2020. Grapevine latent bud dormancy and shoot development. IVES Technical Reviews, vine and wine. https://doi.org/10.20870/IVES-TR.2020.3420
  81. ↵
    1. Persico MJ,
    2. Smith DE and
    3. Centinari M.
    2021. Delaying bud break to reduce freeze damage: Seasonal vine performance and wine composition in two Vitis vinifera cultivars. Am J Enol Vitic 72:346-357.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. ↵
    1. Petrie PR,
    2. Brooke SJ,
    3. Moran MA and
    4. Sadras VO.
    2017. Pruning after budburst to delay and spread grape maturity. Aust J Grape Wine Res 23:378-389.
    OpenUrl
  83. ↵
    1. Poni S,
    2. Merli MC,
    3. Magnanini E,
    4. Galbignani M,
    5. Bernizzoni F,
    6. Vercesi A and
    7. Gatti M.
    2014. An improved multi-chamber gas exchange system for determining whole-canopy water-use efficiency in grapevine. Am J Enol Vitic 65:268-276.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. ↵
    1. Poni S et al.
    2018. Grapevine quality: A multiple choice issue. Sci Hortic 234:445-462.
    OpenUrl
  85. ↵
    1. Poni S,
    2. Gatti M,
    3. Tombesi S,
    4. Squeri C,
    5. Sabbatini P,
    6. Rodas NL and
    7. Frioni T.
    2020. Double cropping in Vitis vinifera L. Pinot noir: Myth or reality? Agronomy 10:799.
    OpenUrl
  86. ↵
    1. Pouget R.
    1966. Relations entre la dormance et le rythme végétatif chez la vigne. Bull la Soc Bot Fr 113:101-109.
    OpenUrl
  87. ↵
    1. Sadras VO and
    2. Moran MA.
    2012. Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in berries of Shiraz and Cabernet franc. Aust J Grape Wine Res 18:115-122.
    OpenUrl
  88. ↵
    1. Sadras VO,
    2. Montoro A,
    3. Moran MA and
    4. Aphalo PJ.
    2012. Elevated temperature altered the reaction norms of stomatal conductance in field-grown grapevine. Agr Forest Meteor 165:35-42.
    OpenUrl
  89. ↵
    1. Santos JA et al.
    2020. A review of the potential climate change impacts and adaptation options for European viticulture. Appl Sci 10:3092.
    OpenUrl
  90. ↵
    1. Schultze SR and
    2. Sabbatini P.
    2019. Implications of a climate-changed atmosphere on cool-climate viticulture. J App Meteorol Clim 58:1141-1153.
    OpenUrl
  91. ↵
    1. Schultze SR,
    2. Sabbatini P and
    3. Andresen JA.
    2014. Spatial and temporal study of climatic variability on grape production in southwestern Michigan. Am J Enol Vitic 65:179-188.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  92. ↵
    1. Schultze SR,
    2. Sabbatini P and
    3. Luo L.
    2016. Interannual effects of early season growing degree day accumulation and frost in the cool climate viticulture of Michigan. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 106:975-989.
    OpenUrl
  93. ↵
    1. Schwartz MD,
    2. Ahas R and
    3. Aasa A.
    2006. Onset of spring starting earlier across the Northern Hemisphere. Glob Change Biol 12:343-351.
    OpenUrl
  94. ↵
    1. Sgubin G,
    2. Swingedouw D,
    3. Dayon G,
    4. García de Cortázar-Atauri I,
    5. Ollat N,
    6. Pagé C and
    7. van Leeuwen C.
    2018. The risk of tardive frost damage in French vineyards in a changing climate. Agric Forest Meteorol 250-251:226-242.
    OpenUrl
  95. ↵
    1. Silvestroni O,
    2. Lanari V,
    3. Lattanzi T and
    4. Palliotti A.
    2018. Delaying winter pruning, after pre-pruning, alters budburst, leaf area, photosynthesis, yield and berry composition in Sangiovese (Vitis vinifera L.). Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:478-486.
    OpenUrl
  96. ↵
    1. Snyder RL and
    2. Paulo de Melo-Abreu JP.
    2005. Frost protection: Fundamentals, practice, and economics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
    1. Sugar D,
    2. Gold R,
    3. Lombard P and
    4. Gardea A.
    2003. Strategies for frost protection. In Oregon Viticulture. Hellman EW (ed.), pp. 213-217. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.
  97. ↵
    1. Sun L,
    2. Ding J,
    3. Zhai H and
    4. Du Y.
    2019. Simplified low temperature exothermic method for evaluating frost resistance of grapevine leaves. Nongye Gongcheng Xuebao/Trans Chinese Soc Agric Eng 35:223-228.
    OpenUrl
  98. ↵
    1. Sun L-L,
    2. Du Y-P,
    3. Duan Q-Y and
    4. Zhai H.
    2018. Root temperature regulated frost damage in leaves of the grapevine Vitis vinifera L. Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:181-189.
    OpenUrl
  99. ↵
    1. Trnka M et al.
    2011. A 200-year climate record in Central Europe: Implications for agriculture. Agr Sustain Dev 31:631-641.
    OpenUrl
  100. ↵
    1. Trought MCT,
    2. Bennett JS and
    3. Boldingh HL.
    2011. Influence of retained cane number and pruning time on grapevine yield components, fruit composition and vine phenology of Sauvignon blanc vines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17:258-262.
    OpenUrl
  101. ↵
    1. van Leeuwen C et al.
    2019. An update on the impact of climate change in viticulture and potential adaptations. Agronomy 9:514.
    OpenUrl
  102. ↵
    1. Venios X,
    2. Korkas E,
    3. Nisiotou A and
    4. Banilas G.
    2020. Grapevine responses to heat stress and global warming. Plants 9:1-15.
    OpenUrl
  103. ↵
    1. Wample RL.
    1994. A comparison of short- and long-term effects of mid-winter pruning on cold hardiness of Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay buds. Am J Enol Vitic 45:388-392.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  104. ↵
    1. Wang H and
    2. Dami IE.
    2020. Evaluation of budbreak-delaying products to avoid spring frost injury in grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 71:181-190.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. ↵
    1. Webb LB,
    2. Whetton PH,
    3. Bhend J,
    4. Darbyshire R,
    5. Briggs PR and
    6. Barlow EWR.
    2012. Earlier wine-grape ripening driven by climatic warming and drying and management practices. Nat Clim Change 2:259-264.
    OpenUrl
  106. ↵
    1. Webb M,
    2. Pirie A,
    3. Kidd D and
    4. Minasny B.
    2018. Spatial analysis of frost risk to determine viticulture suitability in Tasmania, Australia. Aust J Grape Wine Res 24:219-233.
    OpenUrl
  107. ↵
    1. Wolpert JA and
    2. Howell GS.
    1986. Cold acclimation of Concord grapevines. III: Relationship between cold hardiness, tissue water content, and shoot maturation. Vitis 25:151-159.
    OpenUrl
  108. ↵
    1. Yang YS and
    2. Hori Y.
    1979. Studies on retranslocation of accumulated assimilates in “Delaware” grapevines. I. Retranslocating of 14C feeding in summer and autumn. Tohoku J Agric Res 30:43-56.
    OpenUrl
  109. ↵
    1. Zheng W,
    2. García J,
    3. Balda P and
    4. de Toda FM.
    2017. Effects of late winter pruning at different phenological stages on vine yield components and berry composition in La Rioja, North-central Spain. Oeno One 51:363
    OpenUrl
  110. ↵
    1. Zhu J et al.
    2019. Modelling grape growth in relation to whole-plant carbon and water fluxes. J Exp Bot 70:2505-2521.
    OpenUrl
  111. ↵
    1. Zohner et al.
    2020. Late-spring frost risk between 1959 and 2017 decreased in North America but increased in Europe and Asia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:12192-12200.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 73 Issue 4

Issue Cover
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
View full PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
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.
Facing Spring Frost Damage in Grapevine: Recent Developments and the Role of Delayed Winter Pruning – A Review
(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
Facing Spring Frost Damage in Grapevine: Recent Developments and the Role of Delayed Winter Pruning – A Review
Stefano Poni, Paolo Sabbatini, Alberto Palliotti
Am J Enol Vitic.  October 2022  73: 211-226;  published ahead of print May 20, 2022 ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2022.22011

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
Facing Spring Frost Damage in Grapevine: Recent Developments and the Role of Delayed Winter Pruning – A Review
Stefano Poni, Paolo Sabbatini, Alberto Palliotti
Am J Enol Vitic.  October 2022  73: 211-226;  published ahead of print May 20, 2022 ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2022.22011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Technical Protocols for Application of Delayed Winter Pruning
    • Conclusions and Future Directions
    • Footnotes
    • Literature Cited
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

Similar Articles

AJEV Content

  • Current Volume
  • Papers in Press
  • Archive
  • Best Papers
  • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
  • Collections
  • Free Sample Issue

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access/Subscription Publishing
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions
  • Advertisers

Alerts

  • Alerts
  • RSS Feeds

Other

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

© 2023 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 0002-9254.

Powered by HighWire