Vine and water: a short review

Abstract

<p style="text-align: justify;">Water is an important factor in the terroirs of grape-growing regions. The vine obtains water from rainfall and the water table and when it is in short supply, it is necessary either to irrigate or accept the effects of water stress. Depending on the intensity of the water stress and the period at which it occurs, it may or not be favourable for the harvest and the wine it is used to produce. The objective of this article is to provide some information on the relationship that exists between the vine and water. The climate and the soil, which are essential but not the sole elements of this relationship will only be touched upon, but we will discuss in a non exhaustive way, with information’s from the bibliography or from our research, the following aspects: the root system, vegetative growth, the relationship between plant architecture and the water status of the vine, the carbon balance and the biochemical composition of the grape berry in relation to vine water status. We will also present the currently available techniques for measuring vine water status and its evolution during the vegetative cycle as a function of water reserves in the soil easy to use by the roots. Finally examples are presented of possible recommendations for vine cultural practices as a function of the vine water status evolution during the growth, according to the predawn leaf water potential thresholds.</p>

Physiological responses and production of 'Syrah' vines as a function of training systems

“…Furthermore, the greater trunk height in GDC system (1.90 m) as compared to VSP (1.0 m) and also the differences in branch orientation could have contributed to hinder water transport to the grapevine canopy. Schubert et al (1999) showed that shoot hydraulic conductivity is negatively affected by downward branch orientation in contrast with upward growing (Deloire et al, 2004), the photosynthesis was unaffected as shown by other authors for grapevine (Souza et al, 2005b) and other crop species (Fereres and Soriano, 2007). The differences between seasons of CO 2 assimilation rates were probably due to weather conditions (temperatures) during gas exchange measurements, as explained above for results of leaf water potential.…”

“…Moreover, the Ψ stem can be a powerful tool to assess vine water status since it is less affected by shortterm fluctuations induced by stomatal behavior and environmental conditions as compared to Ψ md (Choné et al, 2001). Despite the differences for Ψ pd values of the 2007 season, they were above -0.2 MPa in both management systems, which is in the range considered as absence of water stress, whereas in 2008 season the values were around -0.4 MP, considered as a mild water stress (Deloire et al, 2004). The differences between seasons may be explained by evapotranspiration and by the interval between irrigation and measurements of pre-dawn leaf water potential.…”

“…The Ψ pd and Ψ stem have been considered in the literature as good water stress indicators for vines (Deloire et al, 2004). Moreover, the Ψ stem can be a powerful tool to assess vine water status since it is less affected by shortterm fluctuations induced by stomatal behavior and environmental conditions as compared to Ψ md (Choné et al, 2001).…”

“…Furthermore, high temperature during berry ripening may inhibit anthocyanin synthesis or increase anthocyanin degradation (Haselgrove et al, 2000). In addition, there is also a relationship between training system, root distribution and leaf surface area, which have impacts on vine water status (Deloire et al, 2004). Grape growth and berry biochemical composition are closely linked to vineyard water status, and to canopy and grape bunch microclimate (Ojeda et al, 2001;Souza et al, 2005a;Santos et al, 2005).…”

Comparación de la cámara de presión tipo Scholander modelo Pump-up respecto a la cámara de presión tradicional en vides de mesa

“…Esta diferencia se puede deber a la metodología de medición, ya que evaluaciones con cámara de presión tipo Scholander tradicional es fácil cometer errores en la lectura, debido a que la presión es regulada con una válvula que fácilmente puede entregar más presión a la cámara, si la experiencia del operario no es la adecuada, entregando valores más negativos que los reales, con mayor facilidad cuando se requiere menos presión para la determinación del potencial hídrico. Esta puede ser la explicación de por qué algunos investigadores (Sellés et al, 2002;Deloire et al, 2004;López, 2005;Girona et al, 2006) catalogan a vides en condición óptima de riego con valores de xm más negativos; xm < -1 MPa.…”