Kizildeniz, T.a*, Irigoyen, J. J.a, Pascual, I.a, Morales, F.b
a Universidad de Navarra, Facultades de Ciencias y Farmacia y Nutrición, Grupo de Fisiología del Estrés en Plantas (Dpto. de Biología Ambiental), Unidad Asociada al CSIC (EEAD, Zaragoza, ICVV, Logroño), c/ Irunlarrea 1, 31008, Pamplona, Spain. b
Estación Experimental de Aula Dei (EEAD). CSIC. Dpto. Nutrición Vegetal. Apdo. 13034. 50080. Zaragoza, Spain *email: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The effects of climate change factors, including elevated CO2, high temperature and water
deficit, acting individually and/or interacting, on reproductive growth and berry quality were investigated on grapevines with 3 experimental repetitions in TGGs. Yield was significantly reduced by drought and was year-dependent, being especially low in 2015 due to eventual heat shocks in the first week of July. In three years of experiments, high temperature and drought significantly and consistently increased must pH, due to the decrease in malic acid. On the contrary, elevated CO2 decreased pH probably associated with significant increases
in tartaric acid concentration. In conclusion, the response of grape quality and reproductive growth was highly variable and depended on the year, probably due to the variability of the climate and the interactions among factors defining the climate (temperature, humidity, sunlight, etc.).
INTRODUCTION
In the Mediterranean area, limitation of crop yield and quality is occurring by climate change that is associated to increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, elevated temperature and
scarce water availability (Tubiello et al., 2000). For this reason, it is urgent to study the effects of climate change scenarios. Previously, we had described a drastic attenuation on vegetative growth by drought (Kizildeniz et al., 2015). In this work, the influence of climate change factors, acting individually and/or interacting, on reproductive growth in fruit-bearing cuttings of two grapevine cultivars was evaluated.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The climate change scenarios were simulated in experiments (2013, 2014 and 2015, as three experimental repetitions) where eight different treatments from fruit set to maturity on both Red and White Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) were applied: CO2 level (400 vs 700 μmol
drought). Experiments were conducted in four temperature gradient greenhouses (TGGs) located in Pamplona (42◦48’9.486”N, 1◦40’1.5882”W) Spain. Yield (bunch fresh weight) and quality (pH, TSS, malic and tartaric acid) were evaluated when berries reached 21-23ºBrix.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Our results agree with the finding that grapevine yield is generally impacted by water stress (Korkutal et al., 2011; Williams and Matthews, 1990). Yield was significantly reduced by drought and year, especially in 2015 due to eventual heat shocks. The high temperatures of the heat shocks (above 35ºC) induced berry burns and browning and finally the loss of 50% of the bunch berries. It is known that water deficit decreases malic acid concentration (López et al., 2007) and must pH (Bahar et al., 2011), which has negative impact on wine quality. In this work, high temperature and drought significantly increased must pH, due to a decrease in malic acid as previously reported in Kizildeniz et al. (2015). In this study, three experimental repetitions showed that this effect is consistent. By the contrary, elevated CO2
decreased pH probably associated with a significant increase in tartaric acid concentration (Table 1).
CONCLUSIONS
Within the climate change-related factors investigated during 3 years, drought and temperature decreased the grapevine yield of Red and White Tempranillo. The response of grape quality to climate change-related factors was highly variable and depended on the year, probably due to the variability of the climate and the interactions among factors defining the climate (temperature, humidity, sunlight, etc.). This study, which to our best knowledge is the first to address the combined effects of three factors (elevated CO2, high temperature
and drought) linked to climate change on grapevine Red and White Tempranillo berry composition, shows that primary and secondary must metabolites change under elevated CO2, high temperature and drought conditions, but consecutively repeated experimental
simulations are needed in order to minimize the high variability of climate factors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We acknowledge Innovine European project (Nº 311775), Aragón Government (A03 group) and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación of Spain (MCINN AGL2014-56075-C2-1- 18 R) for funding and Asociación de Amigos de la Universidad de Navarra for T. Kizildeniz grant.
REFERENCES
Bahar, E., Carbonneau, A., Korkutal, I. (2011). The effect of extreme water stress on leaf drying limits and possibilities of recovering in three grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6 (5), 1151–1160.
López, M.I., Sánchez, M.T., Díaz, A., Ramírez, P., Morales, J. (2007). Influence of a deficit irrigation regime during ripening on berry composition in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in semi-arid areas. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 58, 491–507.
Kizildeniz, T., Mekni, I., Santesteban, H., Pascual, I., Morales, F., Irigoyen, J.J. (2015). Effects of
climate change including elevated CO2 concentration, temperature and water deficit on growth, water
status, and yield quality of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Agric. Water Manag. 159, 155-164. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.06.015.
Tubiello, F.N., Donatelli, M., Rosenzweig, C., Stockle, C.O. (2000). Effects of climate change and
elevated CO2 on cropping systems: models predictions at two Italian locations. Eur. J. Agron. 13, 179–
189.
Korkutal, I., Bahar, E., Carbonneau, A., 2011. Growth and yield responses of cv. Merlot (Vitis vinifera L.) to early water stress. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 6 (29), 6281–6288.
Williams, L.E., Matthews, M.A., 1990. In: Stewart, B.A., Nielsen, D.R. (Eds.), Grapevine, 30. Irrigation of Agricultural Crops. Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 1019–1055.
Table 1. Yield and fruit characteristics at harvest from fruit-bearing cuttings of Red and White Tempranillo subjected to different CO2 levels: elevated (E CO2) or ambient (A CO2), temperature
regimes: high (T+4°C) or ambient (T) and irrigation treatments: full irrigation or water deficit during 2013, 2014 and 2015. Values represent means (n = 5-10). Within each parameters, means followed by a different letter are significantly different (P<0.05).
Treatments Years pH
TSS Malic Tartaric Fresh Bunch Acid Acid Weight
(°Brix) (g L-1) (g L-1) (g plant-1) Red Tempranillo Full irrigation T A CO2 2013 4.0 cde 21.8 bcd 4.0 ab 1.22 cdefg 190.3 bcd 2014 3.9 f 20.7 e 4.0 abc 0.51 ab 193.6 defg 2015 3.8 d 22.6 abcd 4.1 a 0.25 de 53.6 def E CO2 2013 3.9 de 21.1 cdef 4.1 ab 1.26 cde 194.1 bcd 2014 3.5 g 21.0 de 4.8 a 0.45 abc 252.6 ab
2015 4.0 abcd 22.7 abcd 3.8 abc 0.39 abcd 96.4 a
T + 4ºC
A CO2
2013 4.1 bcd 21.6 bcd 3.2 cde 1.56 b 164.4 cd
2014 4.0 cde 21.9 bcde 4.3 abc 0.40 abc 263.6 a
2015 3.9 bcd 22.5 abcd 3.8 abc 0.34 cd 51.0 efg
E CO2
2013 4.0 cde 21.3 bcde 3.4 bcde 1.03 gh 173.7 bcd
2014 3.9 f 21.9 bcde 4.6 ab 0.54 a 249.8 abc 2015 3.8 cd 23.0 ab 2.8 def 0.55 a 87.4 ab Water deficit T A CO2 2013 4.1 bcd 21.8 bcd 3.0 de 0.95 h 187.8 bcd 2014 4.2 ab 22.0 abcde 4.6 ab 0.35 bc 134.1 h 2015 3.8 cd 21.8 cd 4.1 a 0.36 bcd 43.2 fg E CO2 2013 4.0 cde 24.7 a 3.0 e 1.04 fgh 190.9 bcd
2014 4.2 ab 23.2 abc 4.4 abc 0.49 abc 218.2 abcde
2015 4.0 abcd 22.3 abcd 4.0 abc 0.23 de 64.2 cde
4ºC 2014 4.3 a 20.8 de 3.8 abc 0.32 c 181.4 efgh 2015 4.3 a 23.3 a 2.8 def 0.32 cd 40.5 fg
E CO2
2013 4.0 cde 20.2 def 3.1 cde 1.80 a 196.5 bcd
2014 3.9 def 22.7 abcd 4.6 ab 0.44 abc 193.7 defg
2015 4.0 abcd 22.5 abcd 2.2 fg 0.39 abcd 32.2 g
White Tempranillo
Full irrigation T
A CO2
2013 4.0 bcde 20.3 def 3.9 abc 1.11 efgh 224.6 abcd
2014 3.9 ef 22.6 abcd 4.2 abc 0.12 d 211.0 bcde
2015 4.0 abcd 22.1 bcd 3.2 bcd 0.13 e 84.1 abc
E CO2
2013 3.9 de 19.0 f 3.5 bcde 1.13 efgh 228.0 abcd
2014 4.1 cde 23.8 a 4.3 abc 0.51 ab 211.8 bcde
2015 4.1 abcd 22.0 bcd 3.3 abcd 0.35 cd 86.5 ab
T + 4ºC
A CO2
2013 4.2 b 20.1 def 3.6 bcde 1.14 defgh 204.5 abcd
2014 3.9 cdef 22.2 abcde 3.4 bc 0.12 d 199.8 cdef
2015 4.1 abc 21.9 bcd 3.1 cde 0.46 abc 65.5 cde
E CO2
2013 4.0 cdef 21.0 cdef 3.8 abcd 1.23 cdef 293.3 a
2014 3.8 f 21.7 bcde 3.5 abc 0.47 abc 243.5 abcd
2015 3.9 bcd 21.6 d 2.1 fg 0.52 ab 35.7 fg Water deficit T A CO2 2013 4.1 bc 19.0 f 4.0 ab 0.99 h 249.7 abc 2014 4.1 cd 22.3 abcde 3.9 abc 0.12 d 153.0 fgh 2015 4.0 abcd 21.7 cd 3.2 cde 0.26 de 90.2 ab E CO2 2013 3.8 e 23.2 abc 3.4 bcde 1.34 cd 265.7 ab 2014 4.1 bc 23.5 ab 4.3 abc 0.36 bcd 176.0 efgh 2015 3.8 cd 22.8 abc 2.1 fg 0.45 abc 78.5 bc T + 4ºC A CO2 2013 4.6 a 19.3 ef 4.4 a 0.62 i 190.5 bcd 2014 4.3 a 20.6 e 4.0 abc 0.47 abc 147.7 gh 2015 4.2 ab 22.0 bcd 2.4 efg 0.33 cd 81.0 abc E CO2 2013 4.1 bcd 21.8 bcd 3.1 cde 0.73 i 203.9 abcd
2014 4.1 cd 21.5 cde 3.0 c 0.44 abc 172.8 efgh