Influence of Grapevine Training Systems on Vine Growth and Fruit Composition: A Review

Abstract

Training a grapevine involves a manipulation of vine form. The type of training may lead to differences in total leaf area and the percentage of leaf area well-exposed to light. Consequently, the ability for a grapevine to photosynthesize efficiently depends upon its training system and the accompanying light microclimate of its leaves. In addition to altering the light microclimate of the canopy, training may impact numerous other variables such as fruit bud differentiation, cluster exposure, vine water status, and leaf transpiration. Modification of vine training systems to achieve balance between vine vigor and yield has led to divided canopy systems that might simultaneously increase yield and improve fruit composition through optimization of canopy light microclimate. Consequently, many training systems have been identified as being capable of improving wine quality through a combination of enhanced canopy and fruit microclimate.

Comparison of Touriga Nacional With Three Portuguese Minor Grapevine Varieties on Canopy, Production and Quality in the Douro Region

“…rate and shoots/m presented by Malvasia Preta did not originate highest LLN and interior leaves. Since the LLN of the four varieties were within the ideal values for warm climates (Terry & Kurtural, 2011;Reynolds & Vanden Heuvel, 2009;Main & Morris, 2004), they might be able to avoid possible damage caused by excessive direct solar exposure on the clusters (Yu et al, 2016;Cook et al, 2015;Martínez-Lüscher et al, 2014). For all grapevine varieties, the relation between the Canopy Surface Area and yield was around 1 to 1.2 m 2 /kg, indicating of enough canopy for quality wine production (Murisier & Zufferey, 1997;Schneider, 1989).…”

“…According to Smart & Robinson (1991), the ideal canopy must have between 1 and 1.5 leaf layers in order to avoid excessive shadow inside the canopy, where photosynthetically active radiation is lower (Lopes, 1994). In warmer climates, other authors considered Leaf Layers Number (LLN) between 3 and 4 to be more adequate (Terry & Kurtural, 2011;Reynolds & Vanden Heuvel, 2009;Main & Morris, 2004). Canopy Surface Area intercepts directly solar radiation and its ideal value is around 21 000 m2/ha (Smart & Robinson, 1991).…”

“…These problems include sunburn, inhibition of sugar accumulation, accelerated degradation of organic acids, degradation and/or limitation of phenolic compound biosynthesis and consequent decrease in the anthocyanins concentration in berry skin (Yu et al, 2016;Martínez-Lüscher et al, 2014;Bergqvist et al, 2001). The optimal temperature for anthocyanins synthesis ranges between 17 and 26 °C (Martínez de Toda, 2011;Sadras et al, 2007).This temperature in the cluster zone can be achieved if LLN is maintained to a certain level in warm area (Terry & Kurtural, 2011;Reynolds & Vanden Heuvel, 2009;Main & Morris, 2004).…”

Characterisation of the vertical temperature gradient in the canopy reveals increased trunk height to be a potential adaptation to climate change

“…At microscale (parcel level), other factors impact the temperature distribution, particularly the training system and canopy management practices. Planting density, vineyard layout and row orientations affect light interception and wind velocity and hence modify the microclimate inside a vineyard parcel (Reynolds and Vanden Heuvel, 2009;Hunter et al, 2020).…”

“…Given the influence of the training system on the vertical gradient of temperature (Reynolds and Vanden Heuvel, 2009;Hunter et al, 2020), an increase in trunk height can lead to a modification of the microclimate by impacting, for example, air flow patterns, which could also alter vertical temperature profiles. Hence, the results presented here apply to VSP trellised vines planted at a density of 6,000 vines per hectare and give a valuable indication of the usefulness of increasing trunk height, under the assumption that air temperature profiles are not disturbed too much.…”