Abstract
Foreseen climate change points to shifts in agricultural production patterns worldwide, which may impact ecosystems directly, as well as the economic and cultural contexts of the wine industry. Moreover, the combined effects of environmental threats (light, temperature, and water relations) at different scales are expected to impair natural grapevine mechanisms, decreasing yield and the quality of grapes. Hence, the interaction between several factors, such as climate, terroir features, grapevine stress responses, site-specific spatial-temporal variability, and the management practices applied, which represents and effective challenge for sustainable Mediterranean viticulture, allowed researchers to develop adaptive strategies to cope with environmental stresses. Here, we review the effects of abiotic stresses on Mediterranean-like climate viticulture and the impacts of summer stress on grapevine growth, yield, and quality potential, as well as the subsequent plant responses and the available adaptation strategies for winegrowers and researchers. Our main findings are as follows: (1) environmental stresses can trigger dynamic responses in grapevines, comprising photosynthesis, phenology, hormonal balance, berry composition, and the antioxidant machinery; (2) field research methodologies, laboratory techniques, and precision viticulture are essential tools to evaluate grapevine performance and the potential quality for wine production; and (3) advances in the existing adaptation strategies are vital to maintain sustainability and regional wine identity in a changing climate. Also, these topics suggest that rational and focused management of grapevines may enlighten grapevine summer stress responses and improve the resilience of agro-ecosystems under harsh conditions. Despite the challenge of developing different strategic responses, winegrowers should clearly define their objectives, so applied research can provide rational technical support for the decision making process towards sustainable viticulture.
Similar content being viewed by others
-
1. Introduction
-
-
4.1. Short-term
-
4.1.1. Cultural practices
-
-
4.2. Long-term
-
-
6. Conclusion
-
Acknowledgments
-
References
1 Introduction
In the recent past, higher temperatures and moderate water deficit have increased wine quality in most wine-growing regions, whereas yields have generally decreased. However, based on the latest climate projections worldwide, this pattern will undoubtedly change (van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). Scientific evidence sharply states that climate change represents a dominant challenge for viticulture in the upcoming decades (Giorgi and Lionello 2008; Fraga et al. 2012; Hannah et al. 2013). Over the last 10 years, the number of publications regarding abiotic stresses in Vitis vinifera L. increased by around 90% as shown by the results on PubMed, showing the significance of climate change and abiotic constraint impacts on viticulture, as well as the scientific efforts performed towards climate change adaptation. Driven by multiple factors, such as the emission of greenhouse gases, temperature, precipitation, and human activities, climate change is expected to directly impact ecosystems, thus leading to shifts in agricultural production patterns (Hannah et al. 2013; Fraga et al. 2016). The major perceptible effect of climate change is the increase in the growing-season mean temperatures that can be already observed (Jones et al. 2005). Several climate-based models predict temperatures to increase up to 3.7 °C until the end of the century, respecting the reference period of 1985–2005 (Jones et al. 2005; Malheiro et al. 2010; Fraga et al. 2012; IPCC 2014). Despite the lower consensus regarding rainfall trends, it is widely accepted that the patterns will vary in terms of periodicity and intensity depending on the region (IPCC 2014). These changes can also have impacts in the Mediterranean region, which lies in a transition zone between the arid climate of North Africa and the moderate temperate and rainy climate of central Europe. Exhibiting a typical Mediterranean climate (mild and wet winters; warm and dry summers), the suitability of the Mediterranean region for grapevine production also arises from the complex topography, coastline, and vegetation that covers this region (Giorgi and Lionello 2008; Hannah et al. 2013).
Even though the best wine quality rankings encompass Mediterranean-like climate countries, the impacts of climate change on viticulture and winemaking go beyond the economic and cultural dynamics of this industry. Future trends point to an impairment of numerous plant natural mechanisms, affecting grapevine growth, physiology, and berry ripening, which can cause severe losses regarding yield and the quality of vines (Fig. 1). Due to the overall projected impacts of climate change on agriculture, assessing the magnitude of the potential risk for vines will assist the development of rationale and sustainable adaptation strategies for winegrowers (Iglesias et al. 2007). Also, the study of climate change effects on viticulture will lead to a better understanding of grapevine stress responses. Through the development of different grapevine stress assessment methodologies, it might be possible to increase the quality, profitability, efficiency, and sustainability of the wine industry in a changing climate. Hence, adaptation strategies should be explored to sustain grapevine yield and quality towards a sustainable viticulture (Fig. 2).
Adaptation strategies include all the set of actions and processes that can be performed in response to climate change (Akinnagbe and Irohibe 2014). A classic example of an adaptive strategy applied in viticulture is the sustainable management of vineyards, which can act as a carbon sink and improve the resilience of agro-ecosystems under harsh conditions, providing a batch of ecosystem services (Brunori et al. 2016). Besides, by adjusting natural and human systems, three significant purposes can be achieved: (1) reduce the risk of damage, (2) develop the capacity to manage certain damages, and (3) find opportunities with climate change (Ollat and Touzard 2014).
Recent multidisciplinary research had focused not only on the impacts of climate change on the physical, biological, and molecular aspects of grapevines but also on the current adaptation strategies that can be generally applied (Mosedale et al. 2016; Neethling et al. 2016). However, we still require more information on the combined effects of environmental threats (light, temperature, and water relations) at local and regional scales, especially in Mediterranean-like climate countries, where the environmental thresholds can be reached during the summer season.
Although some research has been carried out on grapevine varietal resilience to summer stress, there is still little scientific understanding of varietal sensibility regarding interactions between environmental parameters and plant adaptation responses (Ollat and Touzard 2014). Moreover, few studies have addressed the sustainability and the validation of the adaptation strategies nowadays available in an industrial and applied context (Ollat and Touzard 2014; Duchêne 2016). Also, there is uncertainty regarding the capacity of winegrowers to adapt to changing conditions. In this sense, the first purpose of this paper is to review current knowledge regarding summer stress impacts in Mediterranean areas, on a socio-economic and biological perspective, as well as the responses triggered in grapevines by those stimuli. Next, we will focus on short-term and long-term adaptation strategies that can be adopted by the winegrowers to cope with summer stress. Then, some field and laboratory methodologies will be considered to approach grapevine performance and fruit quality potential. Finally, we will discuss future perspectives and research topics regarding adaptation strategies applied in viticulture, which could support the decision-making process towards sustainable adaptation strategies.
2 Climate change on Mediterranean-like climate regions
According to Wardlaw (1972), stress can be defined as a factor that is potentially unfavorable to an organism, and it is nowadays unanimous that those factors can be either environmental (abiotic) or caused by other organisms (biotic). Despite the increasing scientific concern focused on abiotic and biotic stresses, other variables must be taken into consideration when extending this concept to a field crop, such as yield and quality (Keller 2010a; Cramer et al. 2011). The overall effects of individual or combined climate change-related variables, such as interactions between high radiation levels and high temperatures, and both soil and atmospheric water deficits, may have negative impacts on vineyards yield, specifically in most Mediterranean-like climate regions (Fraga et al. 2012; Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014). In fact, under the current management conditions for much of the Mediterranean region, decreases in crop yields up to 40% are predicted (Iglesias et al. 2007). Also, yield variability is predicted to increase, while a decrease in water availability is foreseen, alongside an increase in water demand (Iglesias et al. 2007). Decreasing water resources in some areas may also affect soil structure while reduced soil drainage may lead to increased salinity (Hu and Schmidhalter 2005). However, it is expected that an increase in the frequency and intensity of floods would be likely to occur in some areas presenting significant winter rainfall, leading to the loss of Mediterranean species diversity (Fraga et al. 2013; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016).
2.1 Viticultural climatic indices
Several bioclimatic indices have been proposed for estimating the risk of moisture-induced diseases, which showed that areas displaying a Mediterranean-like climate would tendentiously present low risks of contamination, particularly in southern Europe (Fraga et al. 2013; Calonnec et al. 2017). While drier environments may lead to higher insect and viral outbreaks, wet periods are expected to trigger cryptogamic and bacterial diseases, which can indirectly disturb population dynamics of insect pests (Katsaruware-Chapoto et al. 2017). In fact, current research suggests that mildews remains the major phytosanitary threat in most wine-growing regions, even in dry climate vineyards, as a result of the irrigation practices applied, but also because of the fact that mildews can be highly damaging, thus requiring a rapid intervention (Calonnec et al. 2017). Moreover, existing pests are likely to expand, as well as invasion by new insect pests as a consequence of the foreseen increased frequency of extreme weather events, temperature, carbon dioxide levels, and changes in moisture conditions (Jaworski and Hilszczański 2013). However, an accurate quantification of the potential impact of climate change on biotic stresses represents an important challenge, since pest and host responses to environmental shifts are highly variable and complex (Katsaruware-Chapoto et al. 2017).
Along with these considerations, the Mediterranean region features unique characteristics (cover vegetation, coastline, and topography) that may modulate the regional climate, which is particularly decisive in viticulture, where the concept of terroir is closely related to wine quality and typicity (van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006; Giorgi and Lionello 2008). The terroir not only includes the key elements of a delimited geographical area defined from society but also embraces the physical elements of the vineyard itself: the vine, subsoil, location, drainage, and microclimate, which altogether are essential to delineate vine-growing regions (Unwin 2012). Nonetheless, it is difficult to define the ideal terms of the natural environment (climate, soil, and geology) and their interactions with human factors, agronomic approaches, and the vine water uptake conditions, which can modulate the quality of wines (Choné et al. 2001a; van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006).
The integration of climatic variables, such as heliothermal conditions over the growing cycle, temperature summation, rainfall, potential soil water balance over the growing cycle, night temperature during berry ripening or seasonal weather data, with other non-climate-related indicators (e.g., potential quality of grapes at harvest and management practices) improved winegrowers’ adaptive strategies, both in time and space (Tesic et al. 2002; Malheiro et al. 2010). This ongoing process in decision-making can be supported by the improvement and development of several viticultural climatic indices, describing the climate of wine-growing regions worldwide at different scales. One of the earliest indices was the heat unit concept, using a growing degree base of 10 °C (degree-days) since grapevines need a specific heat accumulation to complete the growing cycle (Winkler and Amerine 1944). The cool night index (CI), which accounts for minimum temperatures during maturation, and the diurnal temperature range, are other thermal indices that can estimate the production of high-quality wines (Tonietto and Carbonneau 2004; Ramos et al. 2008). However, grapevine variety and day-temperature can also influence the effect of night temperature on the ripening process (Kliewer and Torres 1972). Based on the potential water balance of the Riou Index (Riou et al. 1994), Tonietto and Carbonneau (2004) developed the dryness index (DI) that considers the soil–water availability at the beginning of the growing cycle, besides the potential evapotranspiration and precipitation. Also, these authors integrated the Huglin heliothermal index (HI) in their proposed model, which adjusts the value of heliothermic index for different latitudes, and created a multicriteria climatic classification system (Geoviticulture MCC System) for the grape-growing regions worldwide (Tonietto and Carbonneau 2004). This system represents a research tool for viticultural zoning, allowing the assessment of the potential suitability for grape production at different scales for economically sustained viticulture in a changing environment.
2.2 Summer stress impacts
Shifts in climate patterns leading to abiotic stresses encompass the set of environmental conditions that decrease growth and yield below optimal levels (Skirycz and Inzé 2010). The most common abiotic stresses comprise drought (water deficit), salinity, soil acidification, high temperatures, and excessive radiation exposure, being difficult to discriminate the individual impacts of each stress in an open field situation, since all these environmental factors are interrelated (Tester 2005). Generally, the term summer stress describes the combination of various abiotic stresses, such as water deficit, high sunlight, and high temperature, which are more severe during the summer season (Cramer et al. 2011). The relationship between sunlight exposure and temperature of grape clusters is important to perceive grapevine metabolism, since many of the biochemical pathways are both light and temperature sensitive (Spayd et al. 2002). Previous studies have shown that shaded berries were often 2.4 °C above ambient temperature, whereas sun-exposed clusters were up to 12.4 °C above ambient (Millar 1972; Smart and Sinclair 1976). Similarly, Crippen and Morrison (1986) reported that sun-exposed clusters were warmer than shaded clusters during the day and cooler during the night, indicating greater net radiation loss by the sun-exposed berries at night. Moreover, it is widely known that high temperatures can cause damages throughout the growing cycle, including scorching of leaves, sunburn, leaf senescence and abscission, shoot and root growth inhibition, fruit damage, and reduced yield (Vollenweider and Günthardt-Goerg 2005; Wahid et al. 2007). Another related topic is the increased incoming radiation, particularly in the UV-B range, which despite having a positive impact on skin phenolics, is also likely to affect grape aromas, and consequently the quality potential of wines (Schultz 2000; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016; van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017).
Vine water status depends, not only on climatic parameters, but also on soil water retention capacity, while a period of high frequency and intensity of water stress, when transpiration exceeds the ability of the root system to supply water to the transpiring leaves, may impair photosynthesis, due to severe the water deficit (Choné et al. 2001a; van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). However, since grapevine features a reasonable tolerance to drought, moderate water deficit may induce changes in the source to sink relationships (competition for carbon resources), reducing both shoot vigor and berry size, and consequently increasing skin surface/mass berry ratio (Castellarin et al. 2007). Besides, mild water deficits are known to cause embolism in the xylem shoot apex, which can have positive effects on berry skin anthocyanin and tannin content in red grape varieties, due to the lower competition between vegetative growth and reproductive development for sink resources (Schultz and Matthews 1993; Choné et al. 2001a). These findings also suggest that vines exposed to moderate water deficit may have richer must and wine quality (Choné et al. 2001a).
3 Grapevine stress responses
Plants perceive abiotic stress signals and acquire complex and dynamic defense responses, either elastic (reversible) or plastic (irreversible), depending on the duration and intensity of the stress (acute vs. chronic), as well as the organ or tissue involved (Cramer et al. 2011). Since grapevine features a reasonable tolerance to drought, moderate water deficit may induce changes in the source to sink relationships (competition for carbon resources), reducing both shoot vigor and berry size, and consequently increasing skin surface/mass berry ratio (Castellarin et al. 2007). Besides, the association between several biotic and abiotic factors and the capacity of a plant to adapt to extreme stress conditions may determine plant resilience, despite being genotype dependent (Cramer 2010). Stress, in turn, has several biological consequences for the plants, hampering the adaptation, profitability, quality, and even the survival of many crops with high economic impact on a global scale (Fraga et al. 2012). These considerations influence the complexity of the response. The most common stress responses include shifts in photosynthesis, growth, changes in protein synthesis, hormonal metabolism, transcription, signaling networks, and stimulation of the cellular defense machinery (Vierling and Kimpel 1992; Moutinho-Pereira et al. 2004; Zhu 2016).
3.1 Effects on phenology, growth, and yield
Climate plays a crucial role regarding the development of vines, through optimal thermal requests, water availability over the growing cycle, and radiation intensities and extent, which may compromise plant growth, yield, and quality (Mira de Orduña 2010; Dinis et al. 2014). In nature, plant responses to abiotic stresses may follow a different sequence of internal events. However, the initial growth inhibition arises before inhibition of photosynthesis or respiration (Pellegrino et al. 2005; Zhou et al. 2007). Plants’ ability to osmotically adjust or conduct water may modulate their growth, meaning that during stress exposure, morfo-anatomical and metabolic changes will gradually occur (Cramer et al. 2011). The structural dynamic of the grapevine canopy over the growing cycle is closely linked to growth and production of grapes of high-quality potential (Wahid et al. 2007). However, increasing sunlight penetration into the canopy structure can have impacts on the ratio between older and younger leaves at berry softening stage, mainly when reaching environmental thresholds. These consequences are likely to trigger impairments in the vegetative growth and the reproductive development and functioning of plants (Wahid et al. 2007). Some studies have considered the effects of environmental stresses and canopy management practices throughout the growing cycle, enlighten the dynamic between grapevine microclimate and farming practices and their effects on fruit ripening, yield, and quality potential (Smart 1985; Jackson and Lombard 1993; Dokoozlian 1996; Mabrouk and Sinoquet 1998). Phenology is considered one of the first biological indicators of stress used to quantify the magnitude of climate change impact in vines during the main grapevine phenological stages (bud break, flowering, and veraison) and at harvest (Menzel et al. 2006; García de Cortázar-Atauri et al. 2017). Several models have been applied to predict the onset of vines phenology, and to enlighten the factors that may interfere in the development of vines under different conditions (Duchêne and Schneider 2005; Parker et al. 2011; Daux et al. 2012; Jones 2013). These studies based on phenology evolution models showed that all main grapevine phenological stages would advance in the upcoming years, being more perceptible in northern vineyards, while earlier onset of grapevine phenophases often precedes changes in growth (García de Cortázar-Atauri et al. 2017).
Previous research established that increasing mean temperatures are negatively correlated with the number of flowers per inflorescence (Keller et al. 2010). Besides, the upward shift in seasonal temperatures is expected to settle the typical development pattern of grapevines towards an earlier onset of flowering, veraison, and harvest (García de Cortázar-Atauri et al. 2017). Earlier veraison suggests that the critical ripening stage may deviate towards the warmest period of the season, affecting yield and fruit composition, mainly sugars, organic acids, and phenolics (Fraga et al. 2012; Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014).
Generally, the number and size of grape clusters formed during grape development determine harvest yield, which is influenced by several key stages of vine phenology and seasonal conditions; however, the response of berry growth and physiology to abiotic stresses varies during the ripening process (van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). In fact, although region dependent, several studies have observed a relationship between increasing summer stress and reduced grapevine yield and quality (Pratt 1971; Petrie and Clingeleffer 2005; Watt et al. 2008; Duchêne 2016). For instance, water stress induces a lower yield by restraining photosynthesis, meaning that only a limited amount of berries can achieve the full ripeness (Zulini et al. 2007). In addition to carbon metabolism impairment, water stress also affects nitrogen metabolism and assimilation, through decreases in nitrate reductase activity (Bertamini et al. 2006). Moreover, Huffaker et al. (1970) suggested that a pronounced decrease of the nitrogen assimilation pathway could be associated with biochemical adaptations to drought, through the reduction of energy requirements during stress exposure, which prevents the accumulation of nitrite and ammonium. These findings suggest that it is vital to develop management tools, adapted to match specific cultivar/rootstock/site combinations, in order to maximize grapevine quality in a changing climate.
3.2 Effects on photosynthesis
The physiological processes of grapevine initiate when the average temperature is around 10 °C; however, above 35 °C, plants start triggering adaptation mechanisms (Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014). The most pronounced effects of summer stress on plant physiology comprise the decrease of photosynthetic rates by photoinhibition of photosystem II (PSII) and reduction in stomatal conductance (Moutinho-Pereira et al. 2007; Pinheiro and Chaves 2011; Dinis et al. 2015). Non-photochemical quenching (NPQ) is the primary protective mechanism against photoinhibition, involving xanthophylls for the dissipation of excessive non-radiative energy (Hendrickson et al. 2004). Moreover, summer stress increases respiratory activity, which can overcome CO2 fixation, leading to unbalanced growth (Millar 2003).
Studies have revealed that high temperatures induce anatomical and structural changes in the organization of the photosynthetic membranes of chloroplasts, leading to a decrease in the photosynthetic and respiratory activities (Zhang et al. 2005; Wahid et al. 2007). For instance, Yamada et al. (1996) showed that chlorophyll fluorescence, the ratio of variable fluorescence to maximum fluorescence (Fv/Fm), and the basal fluorescence (F0) are physiological parameters correlated to stress tolerance (Yamada et al. 1996). Similarly, other authors have reported a sustained decrease in Fv/Fm of dark-adapted grapevine leaves along with an increase in F0, suggesting the occurrence of photoinhibitory damage in response to high temperature and drought (Gamon and Pearcy 1989; Zulini et al. 2007). Moreover, studies regarding the effect of rootstock on grapevine physiological performance in a stressful environment appear to be interlinked with photochemical changes and stomatal limitations (Iacono et al. 1998; Toumi et al. 2007)
Nonetheless, the combined effect of water deficit, high temperature, and light are presumably the main constraints for photosynthesis, particularly under severe soil water deficits (Flexas et al. 1998). Chlorophyll degradation is also a consequence of summer stress and appears to be associated with the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Camejo et al. 2006; Guo et al. 2006). Besides pigment degradation, high temperatures, light, and drought can also decrease soluble protein contents and alter the rate of rubisco regeneration (Todorov et al. 2003; Salvucci and Crafts-Brandner 2004). In fact, though some authors have observed a decrease in rubisco regeneration in stressed plants, little effect was observed on rubisco activity, indicating that this activity, and consequently photosynthetic efficiency, depends on the water deficit conditions and the species under study (Flexas et al. 1998; Galmes et al. 2010).
3.3 Oxidative stress and antioxidants
One of the main physiological consequences of abiotic stress lays on the inevitable leakage of electrons from different cellular compartments to oxygen (O2), which disturbs redox homeostasis by the overproduction of ROS, ultimately leading to a state of oxidative stress (Sharma et al. 2012). In turn, oxidative stress can lead to shifts in enzymatic activity and the regulation of genes, which may compromise plant survival. ROS exist either as radicals, such as superoxide anion (O2·ˉ), hydroxyl (·OH), peroxyl (RCOO·), and alkoxyl (RO·) radicals, and non-radicals, all of them capable of propagating chain reactions and targeting biomolecules (DNA, lipids, pigments, and proteins) (Møller et al. 2007; Sharma et al. 2012). Although photochemical events, as well as photorespiration, are considered to represent the main sources of ROS during day light exposure, enzymes like NADPH-oxidase, xanthine oxidase, peroxidases, and amine oxidase can also contribute to ROS production (Schmidt and Schippers 2015). Furthermore, hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) has received particular attention as a signal molecule involved in the regulation of specific biological processes, in numerous series of environmental stresses (high light, heat, salinity, drought, and cold stress) and pathogen invasions (Bienert et al. 2007). In grapevines, H2O2 is also considered a key regulator of small heat shock proteins and many genes of the anthocyanin metabolic pathway (Grimplet et al. 2009; Guo et al. 2016).
Phenolic accumulation is also linked with several environmental disturbances (Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014). Indeed, under high temperatures exposure, the probably increased degradation and inhibition of anthocyanins synthesis may lead to higher H2O2 production with forwarding induction of the antioxidant machinery (Mori et al. 2015; Conde et al. 2016; Bernardo et al. 2017). Flavonoids act as primary antioxidants in plant responses to a wide range of stresses, inhibiting ROS production and reducing ROS levels once they are formed (Agati et al. 2012). Due to the multiple disturbances to which plants are exposed, it becomes essential to expand the research on their enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defenses, as well as concerning the signaling mechanisms and metabolic pathways behind plant stress responses.
3.4 Hormonal balance
Hormones are essential regulators of plant stress responses, with abscisic acid (ABA), ethylene, and auxins, representing the most preponderant for the defense mechanisms acquired by plants (Pieterse et al. 2012). Several studies extensively reported the oxidative effects of environmental stresses on plant responses and their interaction with hormones (Spoel and Dong 2008; Cramer et al. 2011; Dinis et al. 2018). Changes in ABA concentrations are correlated with abiotic stress regulation, while biotic stress responses are in turn mediated by other hormones such as salicylic acid, ethylene, and jasmonic acid (Rejeb et al. 2014). Besides, hormonal dynamics, like auxin-ABA crosstalk, have been demonstrated to increase the sensitivity to ABA in plants (Tognetti et al. 2012). ABA plays a central role in stress responses, acting either rapidly, without involving transcriptional activity (e.g., control of stomata aperture) or slower, when stress signals trigger transcriptional responses, such as the regulation of growth and germination (Hubbard et al. 2010; Pieterse et al. 2012). Moreover, ABA also regulates essential physiological responses to summer stress, including photoprotection and stomatal conductance. Under water deficit, ABA plays a vital role in controlling water relations in grapevines, by increasing its concentration and flux in the xylem vessels and influencing hydraulic conductance, aquaporin gene expression, and embolism repair (Schachtman and Goodger 2008). Furthermore, interactions between ABA signaling pathways and sugars have been reported to control sugar transport in grapevines (Cramer et al. 2011). The onset of grapevine ripening is proved to be tied to sugar accumulation, being followed by a marked increase in ABA concentration (Gambetta et al. 2010). Additionally, the synergetic effect of ABA and sucrose, concerning anthocyanin accumulation in grapevine, was observed through ABA exogenous application trials, highlighting the role of ABA during grape ripening (Pirie and Mullins 1976; Xi et al. 2012). Also, Conde et al. (2011) highlighted the role of ABA exogenous application in triggering drought resistance mechanisms, due to the increased expression of transport proteins, improved carbon metabolism, and through the expression of stress resistance-related proteins.
During a stress-induced stimulus, apart from its function through signal transduction pathways on cells, ABA may also regulate some genes, and gene products that control the expression of stress adaptive-specific genes, featuring a pivotal role in plant survival under environmental fluctuations (Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014; Sah et al. 2016). In this sense, some authors suggested that ABA may increase berry quality potential through the accumulation of secondary metabolites, since many key genes of the flavonoid biosynthetic pathways were proven to be upregulated during the ripening stage (Tardieu et al. 2010).
3.5 Effects on berry composition
Abiotic stresses, particularly high temperatures, may cause shifts in grape chemistry, which are reflected in over-ripened fruits, with low acidity, high sugar, and thus increased alcohol levels, as well as aroma and color modifications (Mira de Orduña 2010; Mozell and Thach 2014; Darriet et al. 2017). Within specific ranges, sun exposure of grape clusters boosts the production of secondary metabolites, which play a central role in fruit and wine quality potential (Cohen et al. 2008). Indeed, the temperature has been shown to play an essential role in anthocyanin synthesis, since modifications in phenolic compounds are relevant, cultivar dependent, and temperature associated. Under field conditions, Sadras and Moran (2012) observed decoupling of anthocyanin and sugar contents in red wine varieties exposed to stressful environments, suggesting that a moderate water deficit before veraison could partially restore the anthocyanin/sugar balance, impaired by summer stress. While low temperatures do not influence anthocyanin concentrations, higher temperatures (T ≥ 30 °C) can lead to a decrease in anthocyanin synthesis, and even to its inhibition, when temperatures rise above 37 °C. As a consequence, wine quality can be affected by the reduced grape color and increased volatilization of aroma compounds (Buttrose and Hale 1971; Coombe 1987; Spayd et al. 2002; Tarara et al. 2008). Moreover, Darriet et al. (2017) pointed that the absence of herbaceous notes in wines may be associated with exposure to high temperatures during berry ripening. Grape berry composition is also affected by sunlight, since many of the biochemical pathways are both temperature and light sensitive. In fact, increased UV-B radiation has shown positive effects on skin phenolics accumulation, and in the development of berry aroma and aroma precursor profiles (van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017).
In berries, apart from total anthocyanin levels, compositional changes related to summer stress have been also associated with the increased formation of malvidin, petunidin and delphinidin derivatives in berries (Tarara et al. 2008). As summer temperature rises to atypical values, the anthocyanin biosynthetic genes are downregulated, reducing berry skin anthocyanin biosynthesis (Conde et al. 2016). For instance, Tarara et al. (2008) showed that high temperatures are associated with decreases in grapevine delphinidin, cyanidin, petunidin, and peonidin based anthocyanin contents, but found no influence on malvidin derivatives’ concentrations.
The expected earlier onset of grapevine vegetative cycle also brings considerable consequences for grape composition, such as increased berry sugar contents and lower acidity. Increased sugar contents, leading to higher alcohol content in wine, can alter wine flavors and mouthfeel, which triggers a reduction in anthocyanin content and consequently the color potential of red grapevine varieties (Keller 2010b). Summer stress can also have effects on the content of organic acids in grapes. Malic and tartaric acids represent the most common organic acids in grapevine fruits, featuring variable regulation over the ripening stage (Conde et al. 2007). Typically, although both acids reach their highest concentrations near veraison, it is believed that once synthesized, tartaric acid remains stable whereas malic acid is metabolized and used as an energy source during the ripening process (Sweetman et al. 2014; Rienth et al. 2016). Recent research points that water stress during the summer season, along with high light and temperature, can induce changes in aroma, increased skin phenolic content, and reduced malic acid concentrations in berries (van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). Also, since berry volume increases during ripening, decreases in tartaric acid concentration are often assigned to a dilution effect (Dokoozlian 2000; Conde et al. 2007). In this sense, while tartaric acid is moderately stable to upward temperature, malic acid levels are firmly dependent on temperature and maturity (Buttrose and Hale 1971; Mira de Orduña 2010). Moreover, decreases in total grape acidity are usually linked with higher pH, though this relationship is affected by increased potassium accumulation, which is also temperature dependent, particularly during the ripening phase (Coombe 1987).
Therefore, climate change has brought an impending challenge to wine industries, derived from grape composition and condition, such as the increased temperature of harvested grape delivered to the winery, higher environmental temperatures during the fermentation process, increased berry sugars and lower acidity levels (Mira de Orduña 2010).
4 Adaptation strategies
The effects of climate change, along with the future climate projections, pose severe challenges to the winemaking sector. However, winegrowers display great uncertainty regarding future climate trends, being thus essential to improve practical and scientific-based knowledge to enhance adaptive vine responses (Jones et al. 2005; Neethling et al. 2016). Therefore, adaptation strategies should be developed and optimized to sustain yield and quality. The climate projections are predicting shifts in the ripening period of grapes, meaning that winegrowers will have to adapt, by delaying the growth cycle of the vine. In various wine-growing regions, this will require a highly modified approach to viticulture, through the implementation of strategies to delay ripeness rather than techniques to improve it (van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). Adaptation measures can be focused on specific threats (short-term), aiming to the optimization of grapevine development and growth, or could embrace a strategic response (long-term), letting actions to be taken before critical thresholds are reached (Schultz 2010; Fraga et al. 2012).
4.1 Short-term
The evolution of viticultural techniques applied worldwide allowed winegrowers to focus on additional aspects of grapevines’ adaptation to a changing environment, such as the choice for grape quality potential rather than yield, which has significant implications across the soil, canopy and harvest management (Battaglini et al. 2008; Barbeau et al. 2014; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). The increasing interest in understanding soil influence on vine and grape growth and development, as well as the evolution of the grape maturation concept, promoted a greater balance between technological parameters, such as the ratio between sugar and acidity levels, and the physiological variables associated with ripening, such as phenolic maturation (van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006; Neethling et al. 2016; van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). Moreover, the recognition of vine vigor and grape yield as essential fractions of grapevine maturation process and quality, revitalized some existing practices such as adjustments of bud number per cane, shoot trimming, soil amendments, the introduction of cover cropping, and rational leaf removal (Martínez de Toda et al. 2014; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016).
4.1.1 Cultural practices
Once grape harvesting is occurring earlier in the season because of summer stress, short-term adaptive measures can be undertaken towards vine phenology delay to avoid quality reduction (Keller 2010b; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). For this purpose, viticulturists can use training systems with higher trunks to decrease bunch zone temperature and limit maximum temperatures on dry and stony soils. On the other hand, winegrowers can adopt the so-called goblet training system, used over centuries, characterized by shorter trunks and lower total leaf area, to promote water use efficiency (Lereboullet et al. 2013; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). The main drawback of this system is converting mechanical harvest into a difficult challenge (van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). Besides, late pruning can delay bud break, and thus, the subsequent phenological stages. Reduced leaf area/fruit mass ratio can also delay maturity and decrease sugar/acid ratio in grapes (Parker et al. 2015). Rational hedging and selective defoliation can promote a sustainable ripening, improving the balance between skin phenolics’ synthesis and UV-B radiation exposure in the bunch zone. The reduced sunlight exposure on grapes will promote a cooler microclimate, allowing grapes to retain more acidity, and a slower sugar accumulation (Lereboullet et al. 2013; Teixeira et al. 2013; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016).
Previous studies have shown the effect of pre-flowering leaf removal on grapevine growth, wood carbohydrates reserves, and chlorophyll fluorescence (Risco et al. 2014; Drenjančević et al. 2017). Palliotti et al. (2011) reported that early defoliation was effective in limiting yield per vine and berry weight, while improving berry skin mass in consecutive years, besides improving the control of vigor. Such features, alongside increased anthocyanin contents in berries, suggest that this technique may improve grape composition and wine quality potential (Palliotti et al. 2011). Also, regulation of vine vigor can be obtained through vine inter-row practices, for instance, by using cover cropping during wet growing seasons and, instead of removing it, applying the mulching technique, which will promote the self-reproduction of cover vegetation during dry growing seasons (Møller et al. 2007; Lereboullet et al. 2013; Teixeira et al. 2013; van Leeuwen and Darriet 2016). Furthermore, if feasible, changes in row orientation should also be considered, since this is one of the main factors influencing solar radiation interception (Hannah et al. 2013). Another alternative to avoid the effects of climate change is the use of irrigation strategies that modify vine water uptake conditions. Despite the positive effect on yield, sugar, and skin phenolics, irrigation systems represent an economic, environmental, and social cost, since water scarcity is increasing, while a balanced decrease in the water use can improve grapevine water use efficiency without changing terroir expression (Chaves et al. 2010; Fraga et al. 2012; Lereboullet et al. 2013). In the driest wine-growing regions, van Leeuwen and Seguin (2006) pointed that only deficit irrigation can bring economically acceptable yields with high-quality potential grapes. However, the ideal water status, aiming to grape quality, is highly dependent on yield. Under dry conditions, severe water stressed vines might lead to fine red wines as long as yield is low, whereas higher yields may benefit berry quality potential when water deficit is mild (van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006).
Besides its effects on vegetative growth, several authors have studied the management of cultural practices towards the improvement of berry growth and ripening, which may also have impacts on sugar accumulation and berry quality potential (Matsui et al. 1986; Greer and Weedon 2014; Oliveira et al. 2014; Hochberg et al. 2015). For instance, the application of shading panels on “Semillon” grapevine variety has been suggested to delay ripening and decrease canopy temperatures, besides sugar concentration in grapes (Greer and Weedon 2013). However, other authors found no differences in berry sugar accumulation during ripening in “Shiraz” grapevines exposed to high air temperatures, suggesting that vine responses to summer stress are possibly varietal dependent (Soar et al. 2009).
Nutrient management represents an essential issue for winegrowers since it impacts grapevine growth, yield, berry composition, and the quality of wines (Leibar et al. 2017). Although research in grapevine nutrition has been conducted in several wine growing regions, little is known regarding micronutrient distribution and uptake in grapevines (Pradubsuk and Davenport 2011). Under environmental constraints, increasing evidence suggests that appropriate mineral nutrition may play a critical role in increasing both yield and stress tolerance mechanisms in agricultural crops (Cakmak 2005; White and Brown 2010). Besides, consumers and legislators are requiring sustainable production practices, aiming to decrease vineyard inputs and environmental impacts, which may lead to changes in the nutrient management of vines (Leibar et al. 2017). The effects of nutrient management in grapevines can be either direct, unbalancing berry composition and wine aroma, or indirect, through the influence on vegetative growth (Proffitt and Campbell-Clause 2012). Generally, grapevine nutrient requirements are moderate; however, abiotic stresses can compromise the nutritional balance of vines, leading to a lack of acidity in wine, when the fertilization is excessive, while nutrient deficiency has been reported to increase plant oxidative processes (Delgado et al. 2004; Waraich et al. 2012). Hence, since macronutrients display different roles in vines, appropriate nutrition is essential for sustaining plant structural integrity and many key physiological processes (Moutinho-Pereira et al. 2001; Waraich et al. 2012).
Nitrogen (N) application effects in grapevines have been widely explored, pointing to increased vegetative growth, pruning weights, and lateral shoot length (Choné et al. 2001b; Keller 2010a, b). In grapes, several studies suggested a relationship between moderate N applications and increased berry size and fruit set (Bell and Robson 1999; Zerihun and Treeby 2002; Martín et al. 2004). However, Martín et al. (2004) found no change in “Tempranillo” grapevines yield and berry size as a response to N application under the conditions of their trial. In the same study, the authors observed that increased N doses delayed berry sugar accumulation during ripening and that an average N supply (50 g N vine−1) increased skin anthocyanin content, which significantly increased wine color. Nonetheless, Keller et al. (2001) showed that an appropriate N supply might reduce symptoms of inflorescence necrosis, improve fruit set and acidity, and also decrease grape sugar. At a leaf level, Kato et al. (2003) reported that plants grown under high light and high N supply had greater tolerance to photo-oxidative damage and increased photosynthesis capacity, than those grown under similar high light with a low N supply, indicating that adequate N levels in plants may trigger their defense mechanisms.
4.1.2 Application of protective compounds
Exogenous application of some protective elements, such as phytohormones (e.g.., ABA, gibberellic acid, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, etc.), signaling molecules, elicitors (methyl jasmonate, yeast extracts, etc.), osmoprotectants (proline, glycine betaine, etc.), trace elements (selenium, silicon, etc.), and nutrients, have been found to be helpful in alleviating the damage of summer stress in plants (Wahid et al. 2007; Hasanuzzaman et al. 2013). In grapevines, many studies regarding the preharvest application of several treatments demonstrated benefits in managing plant stress responses and improving stress tolerance (Table 1). For instance, a number of authors demonstrated that exogenous applications of ABA, auxins, salicylic acid, gibberellin and kinetin, enhanced yield and graft union formation, increased total phenols, and promoted changes in berry sugar, acidity, and color (Köse and Güleryüz 2006; Deytieux-Belleau et al. 2007; Zhang 2011; Blazquez et al. 2014; Abdel-Salam 2016b; Degaris et al. 2017; El-kenawy 2017). Moreover, Meng et al. (2018) reported that melatonin pre-harvest application could benefit phenolic content and antioxidant activity in the “Merlot” variety (Meng et al. 2018). Similarly, Böttcher et al. (2013) suggested that the application of an ethylene-releasing compound in grapevines might stimulate auxins biosynthesis, which may assist the development of late ripening strategies for winegrowers (Böttcher et al. 2013).
Alternatively, other types of treatments can be applied to increase grapevine leaf and berry pigments, such as the application of humic acid or polyamines (Abdel-Salam 2016a; Mirdehghan and Rahimi 2016). Many authors have focused their research on the development of environmentally friendly practices, like kaolin application, to sustain yield and quality in a challenging climate, through the reduction of leaf and fruit berry surface temperature, thus improving the antioxidant machinery (Glenn 2012; Boari et al. 2015; Dinis et al. 2015). In fact, foliar application of solar protectants, has already shown promising results regarding grapevine increased yield, physiological performance, and general fruit quality potential, in the context of climate change at a local scale (Coniberti et al. 2013; Dinis et al. 2016; Bernardo et al. 2017; Dinis et al. 2017; Conde et al. 2018; Dinis et al. 2018).
Nitrogen composition in must also plays an important role on grape and wine quality potential, affecting yeast metabolism, fermentation kinetics, the amino acid content, and synthesis of volatile fermentative compounds, since the amino acids are precursors of volatile compounds (Bell and Henschke 2005; Arias-Gil et al. 2007). Despite the existence of some contrasting results about the impact of foliar nitrogen sources application on amino acid composition of must (Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. 2017; Gutiérrez-Gamboa et al. 2018; Pérez-Álvarez et al. 2017), the majority of the studies report an increase in must amino acids and yeast available nitrogen (YAN) content in grapevines treated with nitrogen sources (Choné et al. 2006; Lacroux et al. 2008). However, these studies suggest that the effects of foliar application of nitrogen sources in grapevines might be varietal dependent.
Even though these short-term measures might enlighten specific plant stress–based responses and the possible mechanisms behind them, an interdisciplinary and applied approach should be adopted, in order to fully understand those processes in different wine-growing regions (Keller 2010b).
4.2 Long-term strategies
Long-term measures rely on a strategic response encompassing changes in varietal and land allocations, changes to cooler sites with lower solar exposure, or to higher altitudes, selection of appropriate rootstocks, besides genetic enhancement approaches (Giorgi and Lionello 2008; Cramer et al. 2011; Fraga et al. 2016). Genetic variability and plasticity may maximize the adaptation potential of the existing varieties, including clonal diversity, to specific growing regions, to produce a broad range of different wines from the same varieties, or to breed new varieties better adapted to diverse wine-growing regions (Dai et al. 2011; Duchêne 2016; van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). These adaptations may be also oriented towards late-ripening varieties, or genotypes found among the traditional varieties in some wine-growing areas (Mozell and Thach 2014). Through the development of climatic data-based models, it would be possible to predict the grapevine pheno-phases onset in the future, which may optimize adaptation strategies and action boundaries for winegrowers over the growing cycle (Parker et al. 2011; Parker et al. 2013; Fila et al. 2014). Besides, other studies have focused on achieving high fruit to leaf ratio and late veraison dates, breeding new varieties with reduced sugar content and thus low alcohol levels. However, few studies have addressed the actual weight of the genetic variability in sugar metabolism (Duchêne 2016). Since stress has numerous impacts on different grapevine quality and yield components, recent research has been focused on the varietal characterization of phenolic profiles in order to breed or unveil new varieties whose color would be less affected by high temperatures (Kliewer and Torres 1972; Fournier-Level et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2012; Barnuud et al. 2013).
Despite the challenge of developing different strategic responses, winegrowers should clearly define their objectives to provide rational technical support to the wine industry and to improve scientific-applied knowledge.
5 Grapevine performance and fruit quality assessment
5.1 Field research methodologies
Plant stress manifestation can often be silent, yet there are certain symptoms in different plant organs that can be accurately detected. Also, there are symptoms exhibited by plants that are common to biotic and abiotic stress exposures (Jackson 1986). Overall, field crops present a set of signals that reflect the simultaneous occurrence of various stresses, such as water deficit, nutrient deficiency, high temperature, radiation, and salinity (Ramegowda and Senthil-Kumar 2015). In agricultural crops, several parameters, such as yield and berry weight, are of the upmost relevance, with productivity representing essential data to estimate the resistance of a plant to specific environmental deviations. In viticulture, it is also common to quantify the number of grape bunches to more accurately estimate the influence exerted by the vine training systems on yield (Keller 2010b).
Stress induces a plant response, which can cause several changes to the grapevine, thus serving as a warning for the viticulturist, and a protection signal. Tropisms and nastic movements are phenomena where the plant reacts to different stimuli, environmental or biotic, for instance, in cases of excessive light, one of the most frequent types of tropism is the paraheliotropism, in which the plant’s leaves move to reduce injuriously intense light (Keller 2010a). Winding leaves can be also indicative of some biotic or abiotic stress exposure, as well as their yellowing and the appearance of necrosis. In berries, water deficit can be also detected by their deformed appearance, showing dehydration signals (Chaves et al. 2010).
The morphological characteristics of the plant, in each phenological stage, are also important to monitor the phytosanitary status of grapevines, allowing to obtain values of growth and development, which are useful to estimate the plant resilience potential to specific environmental deviations (Keller 2010b).
There are various non-destructive and prompt tools to accurately evaluate the physiological state of the plant in real time, which can be quantified in vivo, revealing detailed information about photosynthetic performance, nitrogen and water status of each plant, from the leaf to the whole canopy. The high level of environmental heterogeneity hinders the conduction of physiological field measurements, particularly in regions where climate varies frequently (Sebastian et al. 2016). Thus, stable and reliable measurements of physiological parameters are only possible when experiments are conducted between morning to mid-afternoon on a sunny day, since photosynthetic rates measured in overcast days are usually lower and inaccurate (Greer and Weedon 2012). Measurement of gas exchanges with IRGA (infra-red gas analyzer) is the most commonly used approach for research purposes to evaluate photosynthesis by individual leaf or by whole canopy. Gas exchange measurements provide direct measures of net rate photosynthetic carbon assimilation and data regarding stomatal conductance, internal CO2 concentration, transpiration, leaf temperature, and photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD).
During the process of light harvesting, excited chlorophylls dissipate the excessive energy in the form of heat and fluorescence, the latter being possible to determine under field conditions and in real time (Krause and Weis 1991). The use of a pulse-amplitude-modulated fluorimeter allows researchers to calculate fluorescence yield, PPFD incident on the leaf plane, leaf temperature, maximum and effective quantum efficiency of PSII, apparent relative electron transport rates, and photochemical and non-photochemical fluorescence quenching (qP and NPQ, respectively). Fluorescence parameters represent an essential tool to assess crop tolerance to individual or combined stresses, which can be fully understood with the JIP test. The JIP test is a tool to analyze the polyphasic rise of Chl a fluorescence transient from basal to maximal fluorescence (F0 and Fm, respectively), corresponding to the redox states of PSII and photosystem I (PSI), and to electron transfer effectiveness (Papageorgiou 2004). The polyphasic fluorescence rise (O, J, I, and P steps) is observed after the illumination of dark-adapted leaves, providing information on the relationship between function and structure of PSII reaction center and core complexes (Dinis et al. 2015).
In grapevines, water status represents an important factor for berry growth and quality potential that can be influenced by environmental and cultural conditions. Besides, the evaluation of crop water status is also required to monitor vine water uptake conditions, through the development of sustainable irrigation strategies and by measuring or modelling variations in soil water content, or by means of physiological indicators so the crop water demands can be supplied (Choné et al. 2001b; Pellegrino et al. 2005; Gambetta 2016). The pressure chamber is a plant-focused monitoring system that integrates both soil and climatic conditions for determining plant water status (Scholander et al. 1964). Pressure chamber measurements can provide values of predawn leaf water potential, daily leaf and stem water potential, and can be performed in open-field or at laboratorial environments (Choné et al. 2001b). The evaluation of bulk leaf water relations parameters, mainly the capability for osmotic adjustment, and the maximum bulk modulus of elasticity of cells, is an important tool which can be also monitored with this equipment through the development of pressure–volume curves (Rodrigues et al. 1993; Moutinho-Pereira et al. 2007).
Leaf chlorophyll content is also closely related to plant stress and senescence (Steele et al. 2008). The amount of solar radiation absorbed by a leaf results from its contents in photosynthetic pigments, with the chlorophylls representing the essential pigments for the conversion of radiative energy to stored chemical energy (Foyer et al. 1982). Moreover, Chl gives an indirect estimation of the nutritional status, since much of the leaf nitrogen is incorporated in Chl (Steele et al. 2008). For instance, the portable N-tester tool measures leaf nitrogen status, which enables fast and accurate field specific recommendations to monitor N application during the growing season (Spring and Zufferey 2000). In grapevines, inexpensive and rapid alternative solutions have been recently developed for analyzing leaf pigments by non-destructive optical methods, which are applicable in a field setting and on a larger leaf area (Buschmann and Nagel 1993). These methods are based on numerical transformations derived from spectral reflectance or absorbance, providing reliable estimations of leaf Chl to the researcher or winegrower (Moutinho-Pereira et al. 2012).
5.2 Laboratory research tools
Laboratorial methods can complement the valuable information recorded in the field, besides adding essential data and outcomes. Some methods assess the general physiological state of the plant, such as pigment quantification, sugars and starch content, protein levels, and the evaluation of lipid peroxidation (Bertamini 2003; Lazo-Javalera et al. 2015). Stress imbalances plant homeostasis, triggering specific processes and pathways that will promote a response. Hormonal signaling, which regulates specific physiological responses (e.g., stomatal closure) reveals a broader perception of stress by the plants (Ferrandino and Lovisolo 2014). Therefore, hormones tracking and quantification can provide vital information regarding, not only hormonal signaling pathways, but also hormonal crosstalk and stress responses (Sah et al. 2016).
The quantification of total or individual ROS gives a perception of the plant redox state, besides, in association with ascorbate quantification data and osmolytes content, it may also provide an overview of the plant defense mechanisms. The antioxidant potential is also relevant when assessing plant stress–based responses, which can be estimated by the presence of compounds with antioxidant activity, while many of them also exhibit biological activity with relevance for health purposes (Cramer 2010; Sah et al. 2016). Besides, complementary analysis can be undertaken in berries to evaluate fruit quality potential, such as the determination of colorimetric parameters and biometric features. Nevertheless, a molecular approach is also crucial to understand, in a robust, assertive, and clear way, the regulation of plant stress–based responses (Cramer et al. 2011).
5.3 Precision viticulture tools
Precision viticulture is a strategy that integrates the advanced information technologies and field research methodology data, aiming to maximize production efficiency, quality potential, and profitability, while minimizing environmental impacts (Hall et al. 2002; Rey-Caramés et al. 2015). Modern and sustainable viticulture requires objective and regular monitoring of key parameters for rational and differentiated agronomic management of vineyards regarding spatio-temporal variability of growth, yield, and grape composition at a local scale (Ferreiro-Armán et al. 2006). Through the acquisition of spectral data from several platforms (satellites, aircrafts, and remotely aerial systems), remote sensing is one of the tools used in precision viticulture to assess fine-scale temporal and spatial changes in soil moisture, canopy growth, water status, chlorophyll, and carotenoids levels, as well as grape composition and quality potential (Ferreiro-Armán et al. 2006; Lamb et al. 2008; Meggio et al. 2010; Zarco-Tejada et al. 2013). For instance, a recent study of Silva et al. (2018) introduced a model combining hyperspectral imaging and support vector regression to predict anthocyanin concentration, pH index and sugar content in “Touriga Franca” variety, which can be potentially used for a wider variety of grapevines in an environmentally friendly approach. Also, Acevedo-Opazo et al. (2008) proposed a possible site-specific approach to characterize grapevine water status variability. Several studies showed that remote sensed hyperspectral data could be also used for grapevine varietal mapping, representing a practical tool for winegrowers to manage grapevine variability, and for inventory purposes (Hall et al. 2002; Ferreiro-Armán et al. 2006). Hence, the association of high resolution information and the development of site-specific agricultural management can produce a potential computer-based model, allowing the characterization of spatial-temporal variability at a vineyard level, with minimum impacts for the vine (Hall et al. 2002). Moreover, along with all the field research methodologies applied in grapevines, this technology represents a novel reliable approach to support the decision-making process.
6 Conclusion
Climate change and its impacts represent a primary concern for the winemaking sector, which boosted interdisciplinary scientific research to cope with a challenging world (Jones et al. 2005). Future climate trends may point to shifts in vine growing regions, where it will be difficult to maintain the high-quality standards with the traditionally cultivated varieties (Hannah et al. 2013; IPCC 2014; Mozell and Thach 2014). Moreover, evidence suggests that climate change will affect both grapevine physiology and biochemistry, as well as the methods usually used during the winemaking process. Therefore, focused adaptation strategies should be adopted to maintain grapevine yield and quality potential in a changing environment (Schultz 2010; van Leeuwen and Destrac-Irvine 2017). As terroir defines each wine-growing region, understanding the interrelation between contextual factors (physical, environmental, social, and economic) and climate change, at local and regional scales, should be the first step to identify and prioritize sustainable adaptation strategies (Neethling et al. 2016; Ollat et al. 2017). To address these issues, it is crucial to coordinate efforts on the description of standard methods, development of data management tools, besides the maintenance and enhancement of cultivar and clone collections through multidisciplinary programs, which will define our capacity to adapt to climate change (Ollat et al. 2017).
Despite the increasing research on grapevine environmental stresses, we still require more information regarding how plants, micro-organisms, and pathogens, will respond to an increase in CO2 concentration, temperature and water deficit under field conditions. Hence, future research may be focused on these issues (Mozell and Thach 2014).
Besides the direct impact of high temperatures and radiation on grapevine physiology, grape berry chemistry, and wine character, the secondary effects associated with climate change have to be also considered. For instance, climate change has triggered the incidence of forest and bushfires that, along with the significant damage of green areas, will bring consequences for the viticulture and enology sectors (Overpeck et al. 1990; Mira de Orduña 2010).
From the field to the winery, further efforts should be made to measure the global wine-sector contribution to climate change so that new adaptation strategies can be developed to the wine business in a sustainable process (Schultz 2010).
References
Abdel-Salam MM (2016a) Effect of foliar application with humic acid and two antioxidants on ruby seedless grapevine. Middle East J Agric Res 5(2):123–131 ISSN 2077-4605
Abdel-Salam MM (2016b) Effect of foliar application of salicylic acid and micronutrients on the berries quality of “Bez El Naka” local grape cultivar. Middle East J Appl Sci 6(1):178–188 ISSN 2077-4613
Acevedo-Opazo C, Tisseyre B, Ojeda H, Ortega-Farias S, Guillaume S (2008) Is it possible to assess the spatial variability of vine water status? J Int Sci Vigne Vin 42(4):203. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2008.42.4.811
Agati G, Azzarello E, Pollastri S, Tattini M (2012) Flavonoids as antioxidants in plants: location and functional significance. Plant Sci 196:67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.07.014
Akinnagbe OM, Irohibe IJ (2014) Agricultural adaptation strategies to climate change impacts in Africa: a review. Bangladesh J Agric Res 39(3):407–418
Arias-Gil M, Garde-Cerdán T, Ancín-Azpilicueta C (2007) Influence of addition of ammonium and different amino acid concentrations on nitrogen metabolism in spontaneous must fermentation. Food Chem 103(4):1312–1318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.10.037
Barbeau C, Barbeau G, Joannon A (2014) Analyzing the sensitivity of viticultural practices to weather variability in a climate change perspective: an application to workable-day modelling. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 48(2):141. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2014.48.2.1563
Barnuud NN, Zerihun A, Gibberd M, Bates B (2013) Berry composition and climate: responses and empirical models. Int J Biometeorol 58(6):1207–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-013-0715-2
Battaglini A, Barbeau G, Bindi M, Badeck FW (2008) European winegrowers’ perceptions of climate change impact and options for adaptation. Reg Environ Chang 9(2):61–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-008-0053-9
Bell S-J, Henschke PA (2005) Implications of nitrogen nutrition for grapes, fermentation and wine. Aust J Grape Wine Res 11(3):242–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00028.x
Bell S, Robson A (1999) Effect of nitrogen fertilization and growth, canopy density, and yield of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Am J Enol Vitic 50(3):351–358
Bernardo S, Dinis LT, Luzio A, Pinto G, Meijón M, Valledor L, Conde A, Gerós H, Correia CM, Moutinho-Pereira J (2017) Kaolin particle film application lowers oxidative damage and DNA methylation on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Environ Exp Bot 139:39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2017.04.002
Bertamini M (2003) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis in mature and young leaves of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Sci 164(4):635–644. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0168-9452(03)00018-9
Bertamini M, Zulini L, Muthuchelian K, Nedunchezhian N (2006) Effect of water deficit on photosynthetic and other physiological responses in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling) plants. Photosynthetica 44(1):151–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-005-0173-0
Bienert GP, Møller ALB, Kristiansen KA, Schulz A, Møller IM, Schjoerring JK, Jahn TP (2007) Specific aquaporins facilitate the diffusion of hydrogen peroxide across membranes. J Biol Chem 282(2):1183–1192. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M603761200
Blazquez MA, Jung CJ, Hur YY, Yu H, Noh J, Park K, Lee H (2014) Gibberellin application at pre-bloom in grapevines Down-regulates the expressions of VvIAA9 and VvARF7, negative regulators of fruit set initiation, during parthenocarpic fruit development. PLoS One 9(4):e95634. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0095634
Boari F, Donadio A, Schiattone MI, Cantore V (2015) Particle film technology: a supplemental tool to save water. Agric Water Mgmt 147:154–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.014
Böttcher C, Burbidge CA, Boss PK, Davies C (2013) Interactions between ethylene and auxin are crucial to the control of grape (Vitis vinifera L.) berry ripening. BMC Plant Biol 13(1):222. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-13-222
Brunori E, Farina R, Biasi R (2016) Sustainable viticulture: the carbon-sink function of the vineyard agro-ecosystem. Agric Ecosyst Environ 223:10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.02.012
Buschmann C, Nagel E (1993) In vivo spectroscopy and internal optics of leaves as basis for remote sensing of vegetation. Int J Remote Sens 14(4):711–722. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431169308904370
Buttrose MS, Hale CR (1971) Effects of temperature on accumulation of starch or lipid in chloroplasts of grapevine. Planta 101(2):166–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00387627
Cakmak I (2005) The role of potassium in alleviating detrimental effects of abiotic stresses in plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 168(4):521–530. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200420485
Calonnec A, Zito S, Bois B (2017) Climate vs grapevine pests and diseases worldwide: the first results of a global survey. OENO One 51(2):133–139. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1780
Camejo D, Jiménez A, Alarcón JJ, Torres W, Gómez JM, Sevilla F (2006) Changes in photosynthetic parameters and antioxidant activities following heat-shock treatment in tomato plants. Funct Plant Biol 33(2):177. https://doi.org/10.1071/fp05067
Castellarin SD, Matthews MA, Di Gaspero G, Gambetta GA (2007) Water deficits accelerate ripening and induce changes in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Planta 227(1):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-007-0598-8
Chaves MM, Zarrouk O, Francisco R, Costa JM, Santos T, Regalado AP, Rodrigues ML, Lopes CM (2010) Grapevine under deficit irrigation: hints from physiological and molecular data. Ann Bot 105(5):661–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq030
Choné X, Van Leeuwen C, Chery P, Ribereau-Gayon P (2001a) Terroir influence on water status and nitrogen status of non irrigated Cabernet-Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.): vegetative development, must and wine composition. S Afr J Anol Vitic 22(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.21548/22-1-2159
Choné X, Van Leeuwen C, Dubourdieu D, Gaudillere JP (2001b) Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Ann Bot 87(4):477–483. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1361
Choné X, Lavigne-Cruège V, Tominaga T, Van Leeuwen C, Castagnède C, Saucier C, Dubourdieu D (2006) Effect of vine nitrogen status on grape aromatic potential: flavor precursors (S-cysteine conjugates), glutathione and phenolic content in Vitis vinifera L. Cv Sauvignon blanc grape juice. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 40(1):1. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2006.40.1.880
Cohen SD, Tarara JM, Kennedy JA (2008) Assessing the impact of temperature on grape phenolic metabolism. Anal Chim Acta 621(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2007.11.029
Conde C, Silva P, Fontes N, Dias ACP, Tavares R, Sousa M, Agasse A, Delrot S, Gerós H (2007) Biochemical changes throughout grape berry development and fruit and wine quality. Food 1(1):1–22
Conde A, Chaves MM, Geros H (2011) Membrane transport, sensing and signaling in plant adaptation to environmental stress. Plant Cell Physiol 52(9):1583–1602. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcr107
Conde A, Pimentel D, Neves A, Dinis LT, Bernardo S, Correia CM, Gerós H, Moutinho-Pereira J (2016) Kaolin foliar application has a stimulatory effect on phenylpropanoid and flavonoid pathways in grape berries. Front Plant Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01150
Conde A, Neves A, Breia R, Pimentel D, Dinis LT, Bernardo S, Correia CM, Cunha A, Gerós H, Moutinho-Pereira J (2018) Kaolin particle film application stimulates photoassimilate synthesis and modifies the primary metabolome of grape leaves. J Plant Physiol 223:47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2018.02.004
Coniberti A, Ferrari V, Dellacassa E, Boido E, Carrau F, Gepp V, Disegna E (2013) Kaolin over sun-exposed fruit affects berry temperature, must composition and wine sensory attributes of Sauvignon blanc. Eur J Agron 50:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.06.001
Coombe BG (1987) Influence of temperature on composition and quality of grapes. Acta Hortic (206):23–36. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1987.206.1
Cramer GR (2010) Abiotic stress and plant responses from the whole vine to the genes. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:86–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00058.x
Cramer GR, Urano K, Delrot S, Pezzotti M, Shinozaki K (2011) Effects of abiotic stress on plants: a systems biology perspective. BMC Plant Biol 11(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-11-163
Crippen DD, Morrison J (1986) The effects of sun exposure on the compositional development of Cabernet Sauvignon berries. Am J Enol Vitic 37(4):235–242
Dai ZW, Ollat N, Gomès E, Decroocq S, Tandonnet JP, Bordenave L, Pieri P, Hilbert G, Kappel C, van Leeuwen C, Vivin P, Delrot S (2011) Ecophysiological, genetic, and molecular causes of variation in grape berry weight and composition: a review. Am J Enol Vitic 62(4):413–425. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2011.10116
Darriet P, Thibon C, Rauhut D, Schüttler A, Allamy L, Pons A (2017) What is the expected impact of climate change on wine aroma compounds and their precursors in grape? OENO One 51(2):141–146. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1868
Daux V, Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri I, Yiou P, Chuine I, Garnier E, Le Roy Ladurie E, Mestre O, Tardaguila J (2012) An open-access database of grape harvest dates for climate research: data description and quality assessment. Clim Past 8(5):1403–1418. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-1403-2012
Degaris KA, Walker RR, Loveys BR, Tyerman SD (2017) Exogenous application of abscisic acid to root systems of grapevines with or without salinity influences water relations and ion allocation. Aust J Grape Wine Res 23(1):66–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12264
Delgado R, Martín P, delÁlamo M, González MR (2004) Changes in the phenolic composition of grape berries during ripening in relation to vineyard nitrogen and potassium fertilisation rates. J Sci Food Agric 84(7):623–630. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.1685
Deytieux-Belleau C, Gagne S, L'Hyvernay A, Donèche B, Geny L (2007) Possible roles of both absicisic acid and indol-acetic acid in controlling grape berry ripening process. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 41(3):141–148
Dinis LT, Correia CM, Ferreira HF, Gonçalves B, Gonçalves I, Coutinho JF, Ferreira MI, Malheiro AC, Moutinho-Pereira J (2014) Physiological and biochemical responses of Semillon and Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains winegrapes grown under Mediterranean climate. Sci Hortic 175:128–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.06.007
Dinis LT, Ferreira H, Pinto G, Bernardo S, Correia CM, Moutinho-Pereira J (2015) Kaolin-based, foliar reflective film protects photosystem II structure and function in grapevine leaves exposed to heat and high solar radiation. Photosynthetica 54(1):47–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-015-0156-8
Dinis LT, Bernardo S, Conde A, Pimentel D, Ferreira H, Félix L, Gerós H, Correia CM, Moutinho-Pereira J (2016) Kaolin exogenous application boosts antioxidant capacity and phenolic content in berries and leaves of grapevine under summer stress. J Plant Physiol 191:45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.12.005
Dinis LT, Malheiro AC, Luzio A, Fraga H, Ferreira H, Gonçalves I, Pinto G, Correia CM, Moutinho-Pereira J (2017) Improvement of grapevine physiology and yield under summer stress by kaolin-foliar application: water relations, photosynthesis and oxidative damage. Photosynthetica 56:641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-017-0714-3
Dinis LT, Bernardo S, Luzio A, Pinto G, Meijón M, Pintó-Marijuan M, Cotado A, Correia C, Moutinho-Pereira J (2018) Kaolin modulates ABA and IAA dynamics and physiology of grapevine under Mediterranean summer stress. J Plant Physiol 220:181–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2017.11.007
Dokoozlian NK (1996) Influence of light on grape berry growth and composition varies during fruit development. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 121(5):869–874
Dokoozlian NK (2000) Grape berry growth and development. In: Christensen LP (ed) Raisin production manual. Oakland, California, p 30–37
Drenjančević M, Jukić V, Zmaić K, Kujundžić T, Rastija V (2017) Effects of early leaf removal on grape yield, chemical characteristics, and antioxidant activity of grape variety Cabernet Sauvignon and wine from eastern Croatia. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 67(8):705–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710.2017.1332238
Duchêne E (2016) How can grapevine genetics contribute to the adaptation to climate change? OENO One 50(3):113–124
Duchêne E, Schneider C (2005) Grapevine and climatic changes: a glance at the situation in Alsace. Agron Sustain Dev 25(1):93–99. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2004057
El-kenawy M (2017) Effect of chitosan, salicylic acid and fulvic acid on vegetative growth, yield and fruit quality of Thompson seedless grapevines. Egypt J Hortic 44(1):45–59. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejoh.2017.1104.1007
Ferrandino A, Lovisolo C (2014) Abiotic stress effects on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): focus on abscisic acid-mediated consequences on secondary metabolism and berry quality. Environ Exp Bot 103:138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2013.10.012
Ferreiro-Armán M, Da Costa JP, Homayouni S, Martín-Herrero J (2006) Hyperspectral image analysis for precision viticulture. 4142:730–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/11867661_66
Fila G, Gardiman M, Belvini P, Meggio F, Pitacco A (2014) A comparison of different modelling solutions for studying grapevine phenology under present and future climate scenarios. Agric For Meteorol 195-196:192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.05.011
Flexas J, Escalona JM, Medrano H (1998) Down-regulation of photosynthesis by drought under field conditions in grapevine leaves. Aust J Plant Physiol 25(8):893. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp98054
Fournier-Level A, Le Cunff L, Gomez C, Doligez A, Ageorges A, Roux C, Bertrand Y, Souquet JM, Cheynier V, This P (2009) Quantitative genetic bases of anthocyanin variation in grape (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sativa) berry: a quantitative trait locus to quantitative trait nucleotide integrated study. Genetics 183(3):1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.109.103929
Foyer C, Leegood R, Walker D (1982) What limits photosynthesis? Nature 298(5872):326–326. https://doi.org/10.1038/298326a0
Fraga H, Malheiro AC, Moutinho-Pereira J, Santos JA (2012) An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food Energy Sec 1(2):94–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.14
Fraga H, Malheiro AC, Moutinho-Pereira J, Santos JA (2013) Future scenarios for viticultural zoning in Europe: ensemble projections and uncertainties. Int J Biometeorol 57(6):909–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-012-0617-8
Fraga H, Santos JA, Malheiro AC, Oliveira AA, Moutinho-Pereira J, Jones GV (2016) Climatic suitability of Portuguese grapevine varieties and climate change adaptation. Int J Climatol 36(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4325
Galmes J, Ribas-Carbo M, Medrano H, Flexas J (2010) Rubisco activity in Mediterranean species is regulated by the chloroplastic CO2 concentration under water stress. J Exp Bot 62(2):653–665. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq303
Gambetta GA (2016) Water stress and grape physiology in the context of global climate change. J Wine Econ 11(01):168–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2015.16
Gambetta GA, Matthews MA, Shaghasi TH, McElrone AJ, Castellarin SD (2010) Sugar and abscisic acid signaling orthologs are activated at the onset of ripening in grape. Planta 232(1):219–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-010-1165-2
Gamon JA, Pearcy RW (1989) Leaf movement, stress avoidance and photosynthesis in Vitis californica. Oecologia 79(4):475–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00378664
García de Cortázar-Atauri I, Duchêne E, Destrac-Irvine A, Barbeau G, De Rességuier L, Lacombe T, Parker AK, Saurin N, Van Leeuwen C (2017) Grapevine phenology in France: from past observations to future evolutions in the context of climate change. OENO One 51(2):115–126. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1622
Giorgi F, Lionello P (2008) Climate change projections for the Mediterranean region. Glob Planet Chang 63(2–3):90–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.09.005
Glenn DM (2012) The mechanisms of plant stress mitigation by kaolin-based particle films and applications in horticultural and agricultural crops. HortSci 47(6):710–711
Greer DH, Weedon MM (2012) Modelling photosynthetic responses to temperature of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Semillon) leaves on vines grown in a hot climate. Plant Cell Environ 35(6):1050–1064. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02471.x
Greer DH, Weedon MM (2013) The impact of high temperatures on Vitis vinifera L. cv. Semillon grapevine performance and berry ripening. Front Plant Sci 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00491
Greer DH, Weedon MM (2014) Temperature-dependent responses of the berry developmental processes of three grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 42(4):233–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2014.894921
Grimplet, Wheatley MD, Jouira HB, Deluc LG, Cramer GR, Cushman JC (2009) Proteomic and selected metabolite analysis of grape berry tissues under well-watered and water-deficit stress conditions. Proteomics 9(9):2503–2528. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200800158
Guo YP, Zhou HF, Zhang LC (2006) Photosynthetic characteristics and protective mechanisms against photooxidation during high temperature stress in two citrus species. Sci Hortic 108(3):260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2006.01.029
Guo M, Liu JH, Ma X, Luo DX, Gong ZH, Lu MH (2016) The plant heat stress transcription factors (HSFs): structure, regulation, and function in response to abiotic stresses. Front Plant Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00114
Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Garde-Cerdán T, Gonzalo-Diago A, Moreno-Simunovic Y, Martínez-Gil AM (2017) Effect of different foliar nitrogen applications on the must amino acids and glutathione composition in Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard. J Food Sci Technol 75:147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.08.039
Gutiérrez-Gamboa G, Portu J, López R, Santamaría P, Garde-Cerdán T (2018) Elicitor and nitrogen applications to Garnacha, Graciano and Tempranillo vines: effect on grape amino acid composition. J Sci Food Agric 98(6):2341–2349. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8725
Hall A, Lamb DW, Holzapfel B, Louis J (2002) Optical remote sensing applications in viticulture - a review. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8(1):36–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00209.x
Hannah L, Roehrdanz PR, Ikegami M, Shepard AV, Shaw MR, Tabor G, Zhi L, Marquet PA, Hijmans RJ (2013) Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 110(17):6907–6912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210127110
Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Alam M, Roychowdhury R, Fujita M (2013) Physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms of heat stress tolerance in plants. Int J Mol Sci 14(5):9643–9684. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms14059643
Hendrickson L, Forster B, Furbank RT, Chow WS (2004) Processes contributing to photoprotection of grapevine leaves illuminated at low temperature. Physiol Plant 121(2):272–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-9317.2004.0324.x
Hochberg U, Batushansky A, Degu A, Rachmilevitch S, Fait A (2015) Metabolic and physiological responses of Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) to near optimal temperatures of 25 and 35 °C. Int J Mol Sci 16(10):24276–24294. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms161024276
Hu Y, Schmidhalter U (2005) Drought and salinity: a comparison of their effects on mineral nutrition of plants. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 168(4):541–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.200420516
Huang YF, Doligez A, Fournier-Level A, Le Cunff L, Bertrand Y, Canaguier A, Morel C, Miralles V, Veran F, Souquet JM, Cheynier V, Terrier N, This P (2012) Dissecting genetic architecture of grape proanthocyanidin composition through quantitative trait locus mapping. BMC Plant Biol 12(1):30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-12-30
Hubbard KE, Nishimura N, Hitomi K, Getzoff ED, Schroeder JI (2010) Early abscisic acid signal transduction mechanisms: newly discovered components and newly emerging questions. Genes Dev 24(16):1695–1708. https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1953910
Huffaker RC, Radin T, Kleinkopf GE, Cox EL (1970) Effects of mild water stress on enzymes of nitrate assimilation and of the carboxylative phase of photosynthesis in barley. Crop Sci 10(5):471. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1970.0011183X001000050003x
Iacono F, Buccella A, Peterlunger E (1998) Water stress and rootstock influence on leaf gas exchange of grafted and ungrafted grapevines. Sci Hortic 75(1–2):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4238(98)00113-7
Iglesias A, Avis K, Benzie M, Fisher P, Harley M, Hodgson N, Horrocks L, Moneo M, Webb J (2007) Adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector. AEA Energy and Environment ED05334 (1):137
IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Summaries, frequently asked questions, and cross-chapter boxes. A contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:190
Jackson RD (1986) Remote sensing of biotic and abiotic plant stress. Annu Rev Phytopathol 24(1):265–287. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.24.090186.001405
Jackson DI, Lombard PB (1993) Environmental and management practices affecting grape composition and wine quality—a review. Am J Enol Vitic 44:409–430
Jaworski T, Hilszczański J (2013) The effect of temperature and humidity changes on insects development their impact on forest ecosystems in the expected climate change. For Res Inf Pap 74(4):345–355. https://doi.org/10.2478/frp-2013-0033
Jones GV (2013) Winegrape phenology. 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6925-0_30
Jones GV, White MA, Cooper OR, Storchmann K (2005) Climate change and global wine quality. Clim Chang 73(3):319–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-4704-2
Kato MC, Hikosaka K, Hirotsu N, Makino A, Hirose T (2003) The excess light energy that is neither utilized in photosynthesis nor dissipated by photoprotective mechanisms determines the rate of photoinactivation in photosystem II. Plant Cell Physiol 44(3):318–325
Katsaruware-Chapoto RD, Mafongoya PL, Gubba A (2017) Responses of insect pests and plant diseases to changing and variable climate: a review. J Agric Sci 9(12):160. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n12p160
Keller M. (2010a). The science of grapevines: anatomy and physiology. Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Washington State University, Prosser, WA, USA, p 227–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-374881-2.00007-6
Keller M (2010b) Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment: a climate change primer for viticulturists. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16:56–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00077.x
Keller M, Kummer M, Vasconcelos MC (2001) Reproductive growth of grapevines in response to nitrogen supply and rootstock. Aust J Grape Wine Res 7(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2001.tb00188.x
Keller M, Tarara JM, Mills LJ (2010) Spring temperatures alter reproductive development in grapevines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 16(3):445–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00105.x
Kliewer WM, Torres RE (1972) Effect of controlled day and night temperatures on grape coloration. Am J Enol Vitic 23(2):71–77
Köse C, Güleryüz M (2006) Effects of auxins and cytokinins on graft union of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). N Z J Crop Hortic Sci 34(2):145–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2006.9514399
Krause GH, Weis E (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: the basics. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 42(1):313–349. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.42.060191.001525
Lacroux F, Trégoat O, Van Leeuwen C, Pons A, Tominaga T, Lavigne-Cruège V, Dubourdieu D (2008) Effect of foliar nitrogen and sulphur application on aromatic expression of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sauvignon blanc. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 42(3):125. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2008.42.3.816
Lamb DW, Weedon MM, Bramley RGV (2008) Using remote sensing to predict grape phenolics and colour at harvest in a Cabernet Sauvignon vineyard: timing observations against vine phenology and optimising image resolution. Aust J Grape Wine Res 10(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2004.tb00007.x
Lazo-Javalera MF, Tiznado-Hernández ME, Vargas-Arispuro I, Valenzuela-Soto E, Rocha-Granados MC, Martínez-Montero ME, Rivera-Domínguez M (2015) Data on antioxidant activity in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) following cryopreservation by vitrification. Data Brief 5:549–555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2015.10.012
Leibar U, Pascual I, Aizpurua A, Morales F, Unamunzaga O (2017) Grapevine nutritional status and K concentration of must under future expected climatic conditions texturally different soils. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-95162017005000028
Lereboullet AL, Bardsley D, Beltrando G (2013) Assessing vulnerability and framing adaptive options of two Mediterranean wine growing regions facing climate change: Roussillon (France) and McLaren Vale (Australia). EchoGéo (23). https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.13384
Mabrouk H, Sinoquet H (1998) Indices of light microclimate and canopy structure of grapevines determined by 3D digitising and image analysis, and their relationship to grape quality. Aust J Grape Wine Res 4(1):2–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.1998.tb00129.x
Malheiro AC, Santos JA, Fraga H, Pinto JG (2010) Climate change scenarios applied to viticultural zoning in Europe. Clim Res 43(3):163–177. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00918
Martín P, Delgado R, González MR, Gallegos JI (2004) Colour of ‘tempranillo’ grapes as affected by different nitrogen and potassium fertilization rates. Acta Hortic (652):153–160. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.652.18
Martínez de Toda F, Sancha JC, Zheng W, Balda P (2014) Leaf area reduction by trimming, a growing technique to restore the anthocyanins: sugars ratio decoupled by the warming climate. Vitis 53(4):189–192
Matsui S, Ryugo K, Kliewer WM (1986) Inhibition of Napa Gamay and Thompson seedless berry development by heat stress and its partial reversibility by applications of gibberellic acid and promalin. Acta Hortic (179):425–426. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1986.179.65
Meggio F, Zarco-Tejada PJ, Núñez LC, Sepulcre-Cantó G, González MR, Martín P (2010) Grape quality assessment in vineyards affected by iron deficiency chlorosis using narrow-band physiological remote sensing indices. Remote Sens Environ 114(9):1968–1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.004
Meng JF, Yu Y, Shi TC, Fu YS, Zhao T, Zhang ZW (2018) Melatonin treatment of pre-veraison grape berries modifies phenolic components and antioxidant activity of grapes and wine. Food Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.24517
Menzel A, Sparks TH, Estrella N, Koch E, Aasa A, Ahas R, Alm-Kübler K, Bissolli P, Braslavská O, Briede A, Chmielewski FM, Crepinsek Z, Curnel Y, Dahl Å, Defila C, Donnelly A, Filella Y, Jatczak K, MÅGe F, Mestre A, Nordli Y, Peñuelas J, Pirinen P, Remišová V, Scheifinger H, Striz M, Susnik A, van Vliet AJH, Wielgolaski F-E, Zach S, Zust ANA (2006) European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. Glob Chang Biol 12(10):1969–1976. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01193.x
Millar AA (1972) Thermal regime of grapevines. Am J Enol Vitic 23(4):173–176
Millar AH (2003) Control of ascorbate synthesis by respiration and its implications for stress responses. Plant Physiol 133(2):443–447. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.103.028399
Mira de Orduña R (2010) Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res Int 43(7):1844–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.05.001
Mirdehghan SH, Rahimi S (2016) Pre-harvest application of polyamines enhances antioxidants and table grape (Vitis vinifera L.) quality during postharvest period. Food Chem 196:1040–1047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.10.038
Møller IM, Jensen PE, Hansson A (2007) Oxidative modifications to cellular components in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 58(1):459–481. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103946
Mori K, Goto-Yamamoto N, Kitayama M, Hashizume K (2015) Effect of high temperature on anthocyanin composition and transcription of flavonoid hydroxylase genes in ‘pinot noir’ grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 82(2):199–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2007.11512220
Mosedale JR, Abernethy KE, Smart RE, Wilson RJ, Maclean IMD (2016) Climate change impacts and adaptive strategies: lessons from the grapevine. Glob Chang Biol 22(11):3814–3828. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13406
Moutinho-Pereira JM, Magalhães N, Torres de Castro LF, Chaves MM, Torres-Pereira JM (2001) Physiological responses of grapevine leaves to Bordeaux mixture under light stress conditions. Vitis 40(3):117–121
Moutinho-Pereira JM, Correia CM, Gonçalves BM, Bacelar EA, Torres-Pereira JM (2004) Leaf gas exchange and water relations of grapevines grown in three different conditions. Photosynthetica 42(1):81–86. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHOT.0000040573.09614.1d
Moutinho-Pereira J, Magalhães N, Gonçalves B, Bacelar E, Brito M, Correia C (2007) Gas exchange and water relations of three Vitis vinifera L. cultivars growing under Mediterranean climate. Photosynthetica 45(2):202–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11099-007-0033-1
Moutinho-Pereira J, Correia CM, Gonçalves B, Bacelar EA, Coutinho JF, Ferreira HF, Lousada JL, Cortez MI (2012) Impacts of leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaV-1 and -3) on the physiology of the Portuguese grapevine cultivar ‘Touriga Nacional’ growing under field conditions. Ann Appl Biol 160(3):237–249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2012.00536.x
Mozell MR, Thach L (2014) The impact of climate change on the global wine industry: challenges & solutions. Wine Econ Policy 3(2):81–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wep.2014.08.001
Neethling E, Barbeau G, Julien S, Le Roux R, Quénol H (2016) Local based approach for assessing climate change adaptation in viticulture. Proceedings of Climwine, sustainable grape and wine production in the context of climate change. 11–13 April 2016, Bordeaux, p 121–130
Oliveira M, Teles J, Barbosa P, Olazabal F, Queiroz J (2014) Shading of the fruit zone to reduce grape yield and quality losses caused by sunburn. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 48(3):179. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2014.48.3.1579
Ollat N, Touzard JM (2014) Long-term adaptation to climate change in viticulture and enology: the LACCAVE project. J Int Sci Vigne Vin (special issue LACCAVE):1–7
Ollat N, van Leeuwen C, Garcia de Cortazar I, Touzard J-M (2017) The challenging issue of climate change for sustainable grape and wine production. OENO One 51(2):59–60. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1872
Overpeck JT, Rind D, Goldberg R (1990) Climate-induced changes in forest disturbance and vegetation. Nature 343(6253):51–53. https://doi.org/10.1038/343051a0
Palliotti A, Gatti M, Poni S (2011) Early leaf removal to improve vineyard efficiency: gas exchange, source-to-sink balance, and reserve storage responses. Am J Enol Vitic 62(2):219–228. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2011.10094
Papageorgiou GC (2004) Chlorophyll a fluorescence: a signature of photosynthesis. Springer, Dordrecht
Parker AK, De CortÁZar-Atauri IG, Van Leeuwen C, Chuine I (2011) General phenological model to characterise the timing of flowering and veraison of Vitis vinifera L. Aust J Grape Wine Res 17(2):206–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00140.x
Parker A, de Cortázar-Atauri IC, Chuine I, Barbeau G, Bois B, Boursiquot JM, Cahurel JY, Claverie M, Dufourcq T, Gény L, Guimberteau G, Hofmann RW, Jacquet O, Lacombe T, Monamy C, Ojeda H, Panigai L, Payan JC, Lovelle BR, Rouchaud E, Schneider C, Spring JL, Storchi P, Tomasi D, Trambouze W, Trought M, van Leeuwen C (2013) Classification of varieties for their timing of flowering and veraison using a modelling approach: a case study for the grapevine species Vitis vinifera L. Agric For Meteorol 180:249–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.06.005
Parker AK, Hofmann RW, van Leeuwen C, McLachlan ARG, Trought MCT (2015) Manipulating the leaf area to fruit mass ratio alters the synchrony of total soluble solids accumulation and titratable acidity of grape berries. Aust J Grape Wine Res 21(2):266–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12132
Pellegrino A, Lebon E, Simonneau T, Wery J (2005) Towards a simple indicator of water stress in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) based on the differential sensitivities of vegetative growth components. Aust J Grape Wine Res 11(3):306–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00030.x
Pérez-Álvarez EP, Garde-Cerdán T, García-Escudero E, Martínez-Vidaurre JM (2017) Effect of two doses of urea foliar application on leaves and grape nitrogen composition during two vintages. J Sci Food Agric 97(8):2524–2532. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8069
Petrie PR, Clingeleffer PR (2005) Effects of temperature and light (before and after budburst) on inflorescence morphology and flower number of chardonnay grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.). Aust J Grape Wine Res 11(1):59–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2005.tb00279.x
Pieterse CMJ, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SCM (2012) Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 28(1):489–521. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-cellbio-092910-154055
Pinheiro C, Chaves MM (2011) Photosynthesis and drought: can we make metabolic connections from available data? J Exp Bot 62(3):869–882. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erq340
Pirie A, Mullins MG (1976) Changes in anthocyanin and phenolics content of grapevine leaf and fruit tissues treated with sucrose, nitrate, and abscisic acid. Plant Physiol 58(4):468–472. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.58.4.468
Pradubsuk S, Davenport JR (2011) Seasonal distribution of micronutrients in mature ‘Concord’ grape: boron, Iron, manganese, copper, and zinc. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 136(1):69–77
Pratt C (1971) Reproductive anatomy in cultivated grapevines—a review. Am J Enol Vitic 22:92–109
Proffitt T, Campbell-Clause J (2012) Managing grapevine nutrition and vineyard soil health. Wines of Western Australia:1–32 www.winewa.asn.au
Ramegowda V, Senthil-Kumar M (2015) The interactive effects of simultaneous biotic and abiotic stresses on plants: mechanistic understanding from drought and pathogen combination. J Plant Physiol 176:47–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2014.11.008
Ramos MC, Jones GV, Martínez-Casasnovas JA (2008) Structure and trends in climate parameters affecting winegrape production in northeast Spain. Clim Res 38:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00759
Rejeb I, Pastor V, Mauch-Mani B (2014) Plant responses to simultaneous biotic and abiotic stress: molecular mechanisms. Plants 3(4):458–475. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants3040458
Rey-Caramés C, Diago M, Martín M, Lobo A, Tardaguila J (2015) Using RPAS multi-spectral imagery to characterise vigour, leaf development, yield components and berry composition variability within a vineyard. Remote Sens 7(11):14458–14481. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs71114458
Rienth M, Torregrosa L, Sarah G, Ardisson M, Brillouet JM, Romieu C (2016) Temperature desynchronizes sugar and organic acid metabolism in ripening grapevine fruits and remodels their transcriptome. BMC Plant Biol 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-016-0850-0
Riou C, Becker N, Sotés RV, Gomez-Miguel VAO (1994) Le déterminisme climatique de la maturation du raisin: application au zonage de la teneur en sucre dans la communauté européenne. Office des Publications Officielles des Communautés Européennes, Luxembourg
Risco D, Pérez D, Yeves A, Castel JR, Intrigliolo DS (2014) Early defoliation in a temperate warm and semi-arid Tempranillo vineyard: vine performance and grape composition. Aust J Grape Wine Res 20(1):111–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12049
Rodrigues ML, Chaves MM, Wendler R, David MM, Quick WP, Leegood RC, Stitt M, Pereira JS (1993) Osmotic adjustment in water stressed grapevine leaves in relation to carbon assimilation. Aust J Plant Physiol 20(3):309. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9930309
Sadras VO, Moran MA (2012) Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in berries of Shiraz and Cabernet Franc. Aust J Grape Wine Res 18(2):115–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00180.x
Sah SK, Reddy KR, Li J (2016) Abscisic acid and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Front Plant Sci 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00571
Salvucci ME, Crafts-Brandner SJ (2004) Inhibition of photosynthesis by heat stress: the activation state of Rubisco as a limiting factor in photosynthesis. Physiol Plant 120(2):179–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-9317.2004.0173.x
Schachtman DP, Goodger JQD (2008) Chemical root to shoot signaling under drought. Trends Plant Sci 13(6):281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.04.003
Schmidt R, Schippers JHM (2015) ROS-mediated redox signaling during cell differentiation in plants. Biochim Biophys Acta 1850(8):1497–1508. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2014.12.020
Scholander PF, Hammel HT, Hemmingsen EA, Bradstreet ED (1964) Hydrostatic pressure and osmotic potential in leaves of mangrovers and some other plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci 52(1):119–125
Schultz H (2000) Climate change and viticulture: a European perspective on climatology, carbon dioxide and UV-B effects. Aust J Grape Wine Res 6(1):2–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2000.tb00156.x
Schultz HR (2010) Climate change and viticulture: research needs for facing the future. J Wine Res 21(2–3):113–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2010.530093
Schultz H, Matthews M (1993) Xylem development and hydraulic conductance in sun and shade shoots of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): evidence that low light uncouples water transport capacity from leaf area. Planta 190(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00196969
Sebastian B, Lissarrague JR, Santesteban LG, Linares R, Junquera P, Baeza P (2016) Effect of irrigation frequency and water distribution pattern on leaf gas exchange of cv. ‘Syrah’ grown on a clay soil at two levels of water availability. Agric Water Mgmt 177:410–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2016.08.032
Sharma P, Jha AB, Dubey RS, Pessarakli M (2012) Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J Bot 2012:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/217037
Silva R, Gomes V, Mendes-Faia A, Melo-Pinto P (2018) Using support vector regression and hyperspectral imaging for the prediction of oenological parameters on different vintages and varieties of wine grape berries. Remote Sens 10(2):312. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020312
Skirycz A, Inzé D (2010) More from less: plant growth under limited water. Curr Opin Biotechnol 21(2):197–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2010.03.002
Smart RE (1985) Principles of grapevine canopy microclimate manipulation with implications for yield and quality. A review. Am J Enol Vitic 36:230–239
Smart RE, Sinclair TR (1976) Solar heating of grape berries and other spherical fruits. Agric Meteorol 17(4):241–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-1571(76)90029-7
Soar CJ, Collins MJ, Sadras VO (2009) Irrigated Shiraz vines (Vitis vinifera L.) upregulate gas exchange and maintain berry growth in response to short spells of high maximum temperature in the field. Funct Plant Biol 36(9):801. https://doi.org/10.1071/fp09101
Spayd SE, Tarara JM, Mee DL, Ferguson JC (2002) Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Merlot berries. Am J Enol Vitic 53(3):171–182
Spoel SH, Dong X (2008) Making sense of hormone crosstalk during plant immune responses. Cell Host Microbe 3(6):348–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2008.05.009
Spring J-L, Zufferey V (2000) Intérêt de la détermination de l’indice chlorophyllien du feuillage en viticulture. Rev Suisse Vitic Arboric Hortic 32(6):323–328
Steele M, Gitelson AA, Rundquist D (2008) Nondestructive estimation of leaf chlorophyll content in grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 59(3):299–305
Sweetman C, Sadras VO, Hancock RD, Soole KL, Ford CM (2014) Metabolic effects of elevated temperature on organic acid degradation in ripening Vitis vinifera fruit. J Exp Bot 65(20):5975–5988. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eru343
Tarara JM, Lee J, Spayd SE, Scagel CF (2008) Berry temperature and solar radiation alter acylation, proportion, and concentration of anthocyanin in merlot grapes. Am J Enol Vitic 59:235–247
Tardieu F, Parent B, Simonneau T (2010) Control of leaf growth by abscisic acid: hydraulic or non-hydraulic processes? Plant Cell Environ 33(4):636–647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02091.x
Teixeira A, Eiras-Dias J, Castellarin S, Gerós H (2013) Berry Phenolics of grapevine under challenging environments. Int J Mol Sci 14(9):18711–18739. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms140918711
Tesic D, Woolley DJ, Hewett EW, Martin DJ (2002) Environmental effects on cv cabernet sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in Hawke’s bay, New Zealand.: 2. Development of a site index. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8(1):27–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00208.x
Tester M (2005) Abiotic stress tolerance in grasses. From model plants to crop plants. Plant Physiol 137(3):791–793. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.104.900138
Todorov DT, Karanov EN, Smith AR, Hall MA (2003) Chlorophyllase activity and chlorophyll content in wild type and eti 5 mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana subjected to low and high temperatures. Biol Plant 46(4):633–636. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024896418839
Tognetti VB, Mühlenbock PER, Van Breusegem F (2012) Stress homeostasis—the redox and auxin perspective. Plant Cell Environ 35(2):321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02324.x
Tonietto J, Carbonneau A (2004) A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide. Agric For Meteorol 124(1–2):81–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2003.06.001
Toumi I, M'Sehli W, Bourgou S, Jallouli N, Bensalem-Fnayou A, Ghorbel A, Mliki A (2007) Response of ungrafted and grafted grapevine cultivans and rootstocks (Vitis sp.) to water stress. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 41(2):85. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2007.41.2.853
Unwin T (2012) Terroir: at the heart of geography. In: Dougherty P (ed) The geography of wine. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0464-0_2
van Leeuwen C, Darriet P (2016) The impact of climate change on viticulture and wine quality. J Wine Econ 11(01):150–167. https://doi.org/10.1017/jwe.2015.21
van Leeuwen C, Destrac-Irvine A (2017) Modified grape composition under climate change conditions requires adaptations in the vineyard. OENO One 51(2):147–154. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2017.51.2.1647
van Leeuwen C, Seguin G (2006) The concept of terroir in viticulture. J Wine Res 17(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260600633135
Vierling E, Kimpel JA (1992) Plant responses to environmental stress. Curr Opin Biotechnol 3(2):164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/0958-1669(92)90147-b
Vollenweider P, Günthardt-Goerg MS (2005) Diagnosis of abiotic and biotic stress factors using the visible symptoms in foliage. Environ Pollut 137(3):455–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2005.01.032
Wahid A, Gelani S, Ashraf M, Foolad M (2007) Heat tolerance in plants: an overview. Environ Exp Bot 61(3):199–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2007.05.011
Waraich EA, Ahmad R, Halim A, Aziz T (2012) Alleviation of temperature stress by nutrient management in crop plants: a review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 12(2):221–244. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-95162012000200003
Wardlaw IF (1972) Responses of plants to environmental stresses. J. Levitt. Academic Press, New York, 1972. xiv, 698 pp., illus. $32.50. Physiological Ecology. Science 177(4051):786–786. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.177.4051.786
Watt AM, Dunn GM, May PB, Crawford SA, Barlow EWR (2008) Development of inflorescence primordia in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay from hot and cool climates. Aust J Grape Wine Res 14(1):46–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00006.x
White PJ, Brown PH (2010) Plant nutrition for sustainable development and global health. Ann Bot 105(7):1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq085
Winkler AJ, Amerine MA (1944) Composition and quality of musts and wines of California grapes. Hilgardia 15(6):493–675. https://doi.org/10.3733/hilg.v15n06p493
Xi ZM, Meng JF, Huo SS, Luan LY, Ma LN, Zhang ZW (2012) Exogenously applied abscisic acid to Yan73 (V. vinifera L.) grapes enhances phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of its wine. Int J Food Sci Nutr 64(4):444–451. https://doi.org/10.3109/09637486.2012.746291
Yamada M, Hidaka T, Fukamachi H (1996) Heat tolerance in leaves of tropical fruit crops as measured by chlorophyll fluorescence. Sci Hortic 67(1–2):39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4238(96)00931-4
Zarco-Tejada PJ, Guillén-Climent ML, Hernández-Clemente R, Catalina A, González MR, Martín P (2013) Estimating leaf carotenoid content in vineyards using high resolution hyperspectral imagery acquired from an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Agric For Meteorol 171-172:281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.12.013
Zerihun A, Treeby MT (2002) Biomass distribution and nitrate assimilation in response to N supply for Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon on five Vitis rootstock genotypes. Aust J Grape Wine Res 8(3):157–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2002.tb00251.x
Zhang Y (2011) Foliar application of abscisic acid induces dormancy responses in greenhouse-grown grapevines. HortSci 46(9):1271–1277
Zhang JH, Huang WD, Liu YP, Pan QH (2005) Effects of temperature acclimation pretreatment on the ultrastructure of mesophyll cells in young grape plants (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Jingxiu) under cross-temperature stresses. J Integr Plant Biol 47(8):959–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2005.00109.x
Zhou Y, Lam HM, Zhang J (2007) Inhibition of photosynthesis and energy dissipation induced by water and high light stresses in rice. J Exp Bot 58(5):1207–1217. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl291
Zhu JK (2016) Abiotic stress signaling and responses in plants. Cell 167(2):313–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2016.08.029
Zulini L, Rubinigg M, Zorer R, Bertamini M (2007) Effects of drought stress on chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthetic pigments in grapevine leaves (Vitis vinifera L. Cv. 'White Riesling'). Acta Hortic (754):289–294. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.754.37
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by the European Investment Funds by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI–Operational Competitiveness and Internationalization Programme, under Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-006958, National Funds by FCT - Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the project UID/AGR/04033/2013, and by IC&DT INTERACT project – “Integrated Research in Environment, AgroChain and Technology,” no. NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000017 co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through NORTE 2020. Sara Bernardo acknowledges the financial support provided by the FCT-Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PD/BD/128273/2017), under the Doctoral Programme “Agricultural Production Chains – from fork to farm.” The postdoctoral fellowship awarded to L.-T. Dinis (SFRH/BPD/84676/2012) is also appreciated. Machado kindly acknowledges the Postdoctoral research grant BDP/UTAD/Innovine&Wine/959/2016 from the Project: INNOVINE&WINE–Plataforma de inovação da vinha e do vinho, n.° da operação NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000038.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Bernardo, S., Dinis, LT., Machado, N. et al. Grapevine abiotic stress assessment and search for sustainable adaptation strategies in Mediterranean-like climates. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 38, 66 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0544-0
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0544-0