Table of Contents

    Topic review

    Atmospheric Influence on Grapevine Development

    Submitted by: João Santos


    In many European regions, viticulture and winemaking play a major socioeconomic role in local economies, with climate being a central component of the terroirs, governing vineyard microclimate, vine development and growth, phenology, yield, and grape berry composition, which ultimately control attributes and typicity of the produced wines. Nonetheless, climate change is already affecting the viticultural suitability of many wine regions throughout the continent and is expected to continue along this same path in the upcoming decades. These climate-driven shifts may lead to a redesign of the geographical distribution of wine regions, while wine typicity may also be threatened in most cases. Climate change does require the implementation of well-timed, appropriate, and economically efficient adaptation strategies, while respecting local specificities for an effective reduction of the risks to which this vulnerable sector is exposed. However, knowledge on the adaptation potential of a range of measures is still incipient and will need more research in the near future.

    1. Grapevine Cycles Versus Weather and Climate

    Grapevine development is associated with several stages of its vegetative and reproductive cycles. Under the conditions of many traditional viticultural regions (i.e., extratropical viticulture), the grapevine vegetative cycle extends over one full year, whereas its reproductive cycle lasts for two years. The reproductive cycle governs several important qualitative and quantitative properties, such as the number of grape clusters in the following year. The vegetative cycle encompasses two main sequential periods: dormancy period and growing season. The grapevine phenological development comprises several stages or phenophases (Figure 1). These stages of grapevine vegetative and reproductive cycles are largely controlled by atmospheric conditions [1].

    Figure 1. Vegetative cycle and main vine phenological stages.

    The impact of atmospheric forcing on grapevine can be divided into two different time scales. On the long-term, climate, which corresponds to the statistical distribution of the different atmospheric variables over long-term periods (decades) at a given location [2], determines the bioclimatic envelope of that location and its viticultural suitability [3][4]. Macroclimates are determinant of the wine geography and the distribution of grapevine varieties, whereas mesoclimates and microclimates promote different terroir units, with diverse wine identity and diversity [5]. The wide range of climate-driven scales, as well as the spatial complexity and temporal dynamics in viticulture, have already been documented [6]. On the short-term, weather considerably governs the whole grapevine development process, as it requires suitable temperatures, radiation intensities, and duration, as well as specific levels of water availability throughout its growth cycle, ultimately influencing yield, biomass production, berry attributes, and wine structure and flavour [7][8]. Effectively, the evolution of weather conditions in a given location can be used to predict local/regional grapevine parameters, such as yield [9] or phenology [10].

    2. The Role of Temperature

    Among all atmospheric elements, air temperature is considered the most important in driving the growth and development of grapevines [11], in cases where water, radiation, and nutrient requirements of the plant are fulfilled [12][13]. From the climatological viewpoint, the distribution of traditional viticultural regions worldwide is mainly confined within a belt defined by the isotherms of average growing season temperatures (April–October, NH; October–April, SH) of 12–13 °C and 22–24 °C [4], underlining the key role played by temperature on viticultural suitability. Growing season temperatures below 12–13 °C commonly occur in regions with growing seasons too short for proper vine development, with typically low solar radiation levels and insufficient heat accumulation. On the other hand, growing season temperatures above 22–24 °C often lead to excessive heat stress on vines, which is also frequently associated with either severe water stress, in dry climates, or strong pest and disease pressures, in humid climates. These areas may also have difficulty in meeting the chilling requirements for the dormancy period, with resulting erratic bud break [4].

    For the meteorological timescales, temperature conditions strongly control both grapevine physiology and berry composition during the preceding and the current growing season [14][15]. The inflorescence primordia differentiation starts around the bloom stage of the preceding year [16][17]. Warm and sunny conditions during this period promote the formation of inflorescence primordia, whereas cool and cloudy weather promotes the formation of tendrils [18][19]. Hence, the environmental conditions in the preceding year have a direct influence on the yield of the following season [20].

    From leaf fall to the beginning of spring, grapevines are dormant and consist entirely of woody tissue, with little physiological activity [3]. This period encompasses two sub-periods that are controlled by endogenous and exogenous thermal factors needed for dormancy release. The first sub-period (endo-dormancy) is triggered by chilling accumulation (chill units) during autumn/winter, whereas the second sub-period (eco-dormancy) is driven by heat accumulation until bud break. Therefore, the winter chill is an important condition for grapevine growth development, as cold promotes bud dormancy [21][22], besides other processes such as day length shortening and ageing of the photosynthetic active parts of the plants. From late winter to early spring, the accumulation of daily mean temperatures above 7 to 10 °C generally promote dormancy break and the onset of the grapevine growing cycle [23].

    During the growing season, grapevines undergo constant changes in terms of morphology and physiology. The length of the growing season for each variety is directly related to the growing season mean air temperature [24], though it may be additionally linked to soil moisture and crop management practices [25]. The length of the different phenological stages significantly differs not only according to each variety, but also to the thermal conditions in a given region for each specific year [26][27]. Despite relatively high resilience to abiotic stresses, extremely low temperatures during winter [28], negative temperatures (Celsius scale) around/after budburst [29][30][31][32], and hail events may severely damage the developing buds, leaves, and inflorescences [33][34]. Cool conditions [30] or extreme heat [20][35][36] may also affect vine physiology and yield, though some grapevine varieties are more tolerant to extreme temperatures than others. Grapevines under severe heat stress may undergo a significant decrease in photosynthetic productivity, as well as suffer injures in other biochemical processes [37]. Extreme events during the veraison–maturity period, such as heatwaves, can significantly influence sugar accumulation [38] and may lead to a decrease in anthocyanin biosynthesis and content [39]. Secondary metabolites, more specifically phenolics, due to their contribution to colour, flavour, aroma, texture, astringency, and stabilization of wine, as well as antioxidant properties [40], are extremely important for fruit quality and wine production [41]. High temperatures may also lead to important losses, as they also influence the synthesis of volatile compounds, which strongly contribute to the sensory character of wines [42]. In autumn, the gradual shortening of the day length and decreasing of temperatures promote acclimation to freezing temperatures in winter. During this phase, the translocation of carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids, and some minerals from leaves to perennial organs (trunk and roots) reaches its maximum [43]. This period, considered as a survival strategy, ordinarily coincides with the generalized leaf senescence, followed by leaf fall and the subsequent dormancy period.

    3. The Role of Water

    Precipitation is another key atmospheric variable in viticulture, as it has a large footprint on soil water balance, determining soil water availability for the plant and its corresponding water status. Water stress leads to a wide range of effects that are also dependent on the grapevine development stage [44]. For instance, moderate-to-high soil moisture during budburst and shoot/inflorescence development is critical for vine growth [45]. Water stress at this stage may lead to stunted shoot growth, as well as poor flower-clustering development and berry set [46]. However, excessive humidity during early development stages may also overstimulate growth, which may lead to excessively vigorous and dense canopies, thereby potentiating the risks of diseases. From flowering to berry ripening, severe water stress may lead to reduced leaf area, thus limiting photosynthesis, as well as promoting flower abortion and cluster abscission [47]. Nevertheless, dry weather during ripening is generally favourable to high-quality wine production [48][49][50]. Slower leaf development also promotes higher water use efficiency [51] Conversely, excessive precipitation is commonly unfavourable to maturation [52], for instance due to sugar dilution [53] or to bunch rot [54]. Recent studies indicated that water deficit affects grape and wine composition [55][56]. Regulated deficit irrigation has been used to improve berry and wine quality [57], increasing the concentration of terpenes by modulating structural and regulatory genes involved in volatile organic compounds biosynthesis [55]. Water deficit early in the season, before veraison, also stimulated increased anthocyanins and phenolic concentrations [58]. Furthermore, the timing and intensity of water deficits influence the extent of changes in berry metabolism and in wine colour, aroma, and flavour by modifying berry size and/or the synthesis of berry compounds, with a positive contribution to the fruit and wine organoleptic properties. Indeed, a water-deficit treatment typically increases the skin to pulp ratio in the berries, when compared with well-watered grapevines [59], increasing the amount of skin tannins and anthocyanins. Colour differences may result from increased anthocyanin synthesis caused by water deficit during the fruit development [60].

    4. The Role of Radiation

    Solar radiation is also a crucial factor in viticulture. The synthesis and accumulation of sugar, phenolic, and many aromatic compounds during maturation are indeed favoured by high solar radiation levels [61]. Regions with relatively low solar radiation normally adjust the training systems and canopy density to maximize the sun-exposed leaf area. Although more exposed leaves generally favour photosynthesis and stomatal conductance, water demand also increases [62], and other problems may also arise, such as leaf and cluster sunburn. On the contrary, less exposed clusters result in lower berry temperatures, generally leading to lower sugar contents and lower anthocyanin concentrations [63]. Additionally, shading due to high canopy density may significantly decrease bud fertility [64], thus negatively affecting the yield potential in the subsequent season.

    In the Mediterranean-type climatic regions, such as in Southern Europe, vineyards are already typically exposed to high radiation levels, high air temperatures, and soil water deficits, which can impact grapevine productivity. Under these circumstances, grapevine leaves often show temporary photoinhibition, chlorosis, and necrosis, thus leading to low intrinsic water use efficiency and excessive exposure of grape clusters [65]. Hence, low vigour tends to be connected to reduced berry weight, sugar content, and yields. Still, other organoleptic properties of berries, such as flavour and aroma attributes, are frequently inhibited by excessive solar radiance and severe dryness or, as in the case of tannins, may be exacerbated in concentration and/or altered in molecular structure. These conditions may lead to unbalanced wines, with undesirable high alcoholic content and low acidity [66], with low commercial value. However, other studies [67][68][69] showed that vineyards exposed to relatively high levels of sunlight, including UV-B radiation, produce berries of high quality for winemaking by inducing synthesis of polyphenols and monoterpenes as photo-protectors.

    5. Agro-Climatic Indices and Viticultural Zoning

    The aforementioned effects of climate and weather on grapevines have been described by several agro-climatic indices. They commonly provide closer relationships between the grapevine development and atmospheric conditions than individual atmospheric variables, such as monthly mean temperatures, radiation, or precipitation. These indices were developed to integrate the plant–atmosphere interactions, thus following the plant physiological development more closely. Further, they can be used to assess the suitability of a given region or site for viticulture, in general, or a specific variety in particular. Due to the strong link between temperature and grapevine development, the agro-climatic indices are frequently based on temperature, such as indices using simple growing degree-day concepts (temperature integration). As a classical example, Amerine and Winkler [23] developed the Winkler growing degree-day scale for a base temperature of 10 °C. Following a similar concept, after some modifications in the temperature summation during the growing season and including a coefficient for day length, the Huglin index [70] was later developed. Molitor et al. [71] applied a trapezoidal model approach to simulate grapevine phenology (UniPhen), on the basis of cumulative degree-days, using three threshold temperatures (10 °C—lower threshold; 20 °C—upper threshold; 30 °C—heat threshold). Other indices based on hourly temperature accumulation were more recently applied [22]. To put more emphasis on the temperature conditions during the ripening period, which may ultimately influence the wine style, the cool night index [52][72], based on the mean minimum temperature in September (NH), was proposed. The dryness index is another very common index in viticultural zoning [61][72], which is based on an estimation of the potential soil water balance. Hence, viticultural zoning using agro-climatic indices is common to assess the suitability of a given region for viticulture and wine production for specific grapevine varieties.

    The entry is from 10.3390/app10093092


    1. Fraga, H.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Santos, J.A. An overview of climate change impacts on European viticulture. Food Energy Secur. 2012, 1, 94–110.
    2. Peixoto, J.P.; Oort, A.H. Physics of climate; American Institute of Physics: New York, NY, USA, 1992; p. xxxix. 520p.
    3. Magalhães, N. Tratado de Viticultura: A Videira, a Vinha e o Terroir; Esfera Poética: Lisboa, Portugal, 2015; p. 605.
    4. Schultz, H.R.; Jones, G.V. Climate induced historic and future changes in viticulture. J. Wine Res. 2010, 21, 137–145.
    5. White, M.A.; Whalen, P.; Jones, G.V. Land and wine. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 82–84.
    6. Neethling, E.; Barbeau, G.; Coulon-Leroy, C.; Quenol, H. Spatial complexity and temporal dynamics in viticulture: A review of climate-driven scales. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2019, 276.
    7. Makra, L.; Vitanyi, B.; Gal, A.; Mika, J.; Matyasovszky, I.; Hirsch, T. Wine quantity and quality variations in relation to climatic factors in the Tokaj (Hungary) winegrowing region. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2009, 60, 312–321.
    8. Fraga, H.; Costa, R.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Correia, C.M.; Dinis, L.-T.; Gonçalves, I.; Silvestre, J.; Eiras-Dias, J.; Malheiro, A.C.; Santos, J.A. Modeling phenology, water status, and yield components of three portuguese grapevines using the STICS crop model. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2015, 66, 482–491.
    9. Fraga, H.; Santos, J.A. Daily prediction of seasonal grapevine production in the Douro wine region based on favourable meteorological conditions. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2017.
    10. Costa, R.; Fraga, H.; Fonseca, A.; de Cortazar-Atauri, I.G.; Val, M.C.; Carlos, C.; Reis, S.; Santos, J.A. Grapevine phenology of cv. Touriga Franca and Touriga Nacional in the Douro Wine Region: Modelling and climate change projections. Agron. Basel 2019, 9, 210.
    11. Fraga, H.; Pinto, J.G.; Santos, J.A. Climate change projections for chilling and heat forcing conditions in European vineyards and olive orchards: A multi-model assessment. Clim. Chang. 2019, 152, 179–193.
    12. Webb, L.; Whetton, P.; Barlow, E. Modelled impact of future climate change on the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2007, 13, 165–175.
    13. Gladstones, J. Wine, Terroir and Climate Change; Wakefield Press: Kent Town, South Australia, 2011.
    14. Due, G.; Morris, M.; Pattison, S.; Coombe, B.G. Modeling grapevine phenology against weather—Considerations based on a large data set. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1993, 65, 91–106.
    15. Coombe, B.G. Influence of temperature on composition and quality of grapes. Acta Hort. 1987, 206, 23–36.
    16. Alleweldt, G.; Ilter, E. Untersuchungen über die Beziehungen zwischen Blütenbildung und Triebwachstum bei Reben. Vitis 1969, 8, 286–313.
    17. Morrison, J.C. Bud development in Vitis vinifera L. Bot. Gaz. 1991, 152, 304–315.
    18. Buttrose, M.S. Fruitfulness in grape-vines: The response of different cultivars to light, temperature and daylength. Vitis 1970, 9, 121–125.
    19. Keller, M. The Science of Grapevines. Anatomy and Physiology, 2nd ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: London, UK, 2015.
    20. Molitor, D.; Keller, M. Yield of Müller-Thurgau and Riesling grapevines is altered by meteorological conditions in the current and the previous growing seasons. OENO One 2016, 50, 245–258.
    21. Kliewer, W.M.; Soleiman, A. Effect of chilling on budbreak in Thompson seedless and Carignane grapevines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1972, 23, 31–34.
    22. Santos, J.A.; Costa, R.; Fraga, H. Climate change impacts on thermal growing conditions of main fruit species in Portugal. Clim. Chang. 2017, 140, 273–286.
    23. Amerine, M.A.; Winkler, A.J. Composition and Quality of Musts and Wines of California Grapes. Hilgardia 1944, 15, 493–675.
    24. Jones, G.V. Climate and Terroir: Impacts of climate variability and change on wine. In Fine Wine and Terroir—The Geoscience Perspective; Macqueen, R.W., Meinert, L.D., Eds.; Geoscience Canada, Geological Association of Canada: Saint John, NL, Canada, 2006.
    25. Webb, L.B.; Whetton, P.H.; Bhend, J.; Darbyshire, R.; Briggs, P.R.; Barlow, E.W.R. Earlier wine-grape ripening driven by climatic warming and drying and management practices. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 259–264.
    26. Mandelli, F.; Tonietto, J.; Hasenack, H.; Weber, E.J. Zoneamento Climático para a produção de uvas para vinhos de qualidade. In Proceedings of the Congersso Brasileiro de Agrometeorologia, Campinas, Brazil, 18–21 July 2005.
    27. Fraga, H.; Amraoui, M.; Malheiro, A.C.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Eiras-Dias, J.; Silvestre, J.; Santos, J.A. Examining the relationship between the Enhanced Vegetation Index and grapevine phenology. Eur. J. Remote Sens. 2014, 47, 753–771.
    28. Hidalgo, L. Tratado de Viticultura General; Mundi-Prensa Libros: Madrid, Spain, 2002. [Google Scholar]
    29. Kartschall, T.; Wodinski, M.; von Bloh, W.; Oesterle, H.; Rachimow, C.; Hoppmann, D. Changes in phenology and frost risks in Vitis vinifera (cv Riesling) between 1901 and 2100. Meteorol. Z. 2015.
    30. Modedale, J.; Wilson, R.J.; Maclean, I.M.D. Climate change and crop exposure to adverse weather: Changes to frost risk and grapevine flowering conditions. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141218.
    31. Molitor, D.; Caffarra, A.; Sinigoj, P.; Pertot, I.; Hoffmann, L.; Junk, J. Late frost damage risk for viticulture under future climate conditions: A case study for the Luxembourgish winegrowing region. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2014, 20, 160–168.
    32. Sgubin, G.; Swingedouw, D.; Dayon, G.; Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I.; Ollat, N.; Pagé, C.; Van Leeuwen, C. The risk of tardive frost damage in French vineyards in a changing climate. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 250–251, 226–242.
    33. Branas, J. Viticulture; Dehan: Montpellier, France, 1974; p. 990.
    34. Spellman, G. Wine, weather and climate. Weather 1999, 54, 230–239.
    35. Kliewer, W.M. Effect of high-temperatures during bloom-set period on fruit-set, ovule fertility, and berry growth of several grape cultivars. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1977, 28, 215–222.
    36. White, M.A.; Diffenbaugh, N.S.; Jones, G.V.; Pal, J.S.; Giorgi, F. Extreme heat reduces and shifts United States premium wine production in the 21st century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2006, 103, 11217–11222.
    37. Berry, J.; Bjorkman, O. Photosynthetic response and adaptation to temperature in higher-plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Phys. 1980, 31, 491–543.
    38. Greer, D.H.; Weedon, M.M. The impact of high temperatures on Vitis vinifera cv. Semi lion grapevine performance and berry ripening. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4.
    39. Conde, A.; Pimentel, D.; Neves, A.; Dinis, L.T.; Bernardo, S.; Correia, C.M.; Geros, H.; Moutinho-Pereira, J. Kaolin foliar application has a stimulatory effect on phenylpropanoid and flavonoid pathways in grape berries. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7.
    40. Teixeira, A.; Eiras-Dias, J.; Castellarin, S.D.; Geros, H. Berry Phenolics of Grapevine under Challenging Environments. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 18711–18739.
    41. Gutierrez-Gamboa, G.; Perez-Alvarez, E.P.; Rubio-Breton, P.; Garde-Cerdan, T. Changes on grape volatile composition through elicitation with methyl jasmonate, chitosan, and a yeast extract in Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) grapevines. Sci. Hortic Amst. 2019, 244, 257–262.
    42. Robinson, A.L.; Boss, P.K.; Solomon, P.S.; Trengove, R.D.; Heymann, H.; Ebeler, S.E. Origins of Grape and Wine Aroma. Part 1. Chemical Components and Viticultural Impacts. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2014, 65, 1–24.
    43. Field, S.K.; Smith, J.P.; Holzapfel, B.P.; Hardie, W.J.; Emery, R.J.N. Grapevine response to soil temperature: Xylem cytokinins and carbohydrate reserve mobilization from budbreak to anthesis. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2009, 60, 164–172.
    44. Austin, M.E.; Bondari, K. A Study of Cultural and Environmental-Factors on the Yield of Vitis-Rotundifolia. Sci. Hortic Amst. 1988, 34, 219–227.
    45. Hardie, W.J.; Martin, S.R. Shoot growth on de-fruited grapevines: A physiological indicator for irrigation scheduling. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2000, 6, 52–58.
    46. Hardie, W.J.; Considine, J.A. Response of grapes to water-deficit stress in particular stages of development. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1976, 27, 55–61.
    47. During, H. ABA and water stress in grapevines. Acta Hortic 1986, 179, 413–420.
    48. Jones, G.V.; Davis, R.E. Using a synoptic climatological approach to understand climate-viticulture relationships. Int. J. Clim. 2000, 20, 813–837.
    49. Nemani, R.R.; White, M.A.; Cayan, D.R.; Jones, G.V.; Running, S.W.; Coughlan, J.C.; Peterson, D.L. Asymmetric warming over coastal California and its impact on the premium wine industry. Clim. Res. 2001, 19, 25–34.
    50. Ramos, M.C.; Jones, G.V.; Martinez-Casasnovas, J.A. Structure and trends in climate parameters affecting winegrape production in northeast Spain. Clim. Res. 2008, 38, 1–15.
    51. Porter, J.R.; Semenov, M.A. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2005, 360, 2021–2035.
    52. Tonietto, J. Les Macroclimats Viticoles Mondiaux et l’Influence du Mésoclimat sur la Typicité de la Syrah et du Muscat de Hambourg dans le sud de la France: Méthodologie de Caractérisation. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique, Montpellier, France, 1999; 233p.
    53. Reynolds, A.G.; Naylor, A.P. Pinot-Noir and Riesling grapevines respond to water-stress duration and soil water-holding capacity. Hortscience 1994, 29, 1505–1510.
    54. Molitor, D.; Baus, O.; Hoffmann, L.; Beyer, M. Meteorological conditions determine the thermal-temporal position of the annual Botrytis bunch rot epidemic on Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling grapes. OENO One 2016, 50, 231–244.
    55. Savoi, S.; Wong, D.C.; Arapitsas, P.; Miculan, M.; Bucchetti, B.; Peterlunger, E.; Fait, A.; Mattivi, F.; Castellarin, S.D. Transcriptome and metabolite profiling reveals that prolonged drought modulates the phenylpropanoid and terpenoid pathway in white grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 67.
    56. Vilanova, M.; Fandino, M.; Frutos-Puerto, S.; Cancela, J.J. Assessment fertigation effects on chemical composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Albarino. Food Chem. 2019, 278, 636–643.
    57. Chapman, D.M.; Roby, G.; Ebeler, S.E.; Guinard, J.X.; Matthews, M.A. Sensory attributes of Cabernet Sauvignon wines made from vines with different water status. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 339–347.
    58. Deluc, L.G.; Grimplet, J.; Wheatley, M.D.; Tillett, R.L.; Quilici, D.R.; Osborne, C.; Schooley, D.A.; Schlauch, K.A.; Cushman, J.C.; Cramer, G.R. Transcriptomic and metabolite analyses of Cabernet Sauvignon grape berry development. BMC Genom. 2007, 8, 429.
    59. Roby, G.; Harbertson, J.F.; Adams, D.A.; Matthews, M.A. Berry size and vine water deficits as factors in winegrape composition: Anthocyanins and tannins. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2004, 10, 100–107.
    60. Castellarin, S.D.; Matthews, M.A.; Di Gaspero, G.; Gambetta, G.A. Water deficits accelerate ripening and induce changes in gene expression regulating flavonoid biosynthesis in grape berries. Planta 2007, 227, 101–112.
    61. Riou, C.; Carbonneau, A.; Becker, N.; Caló, A.; Costacurta, A.; Castro, R.; Pinto, P.A.; Carneiro, L.C.; Lopes, C.; Clímaco, P.; et al. Le Determinisme 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, 1994; p. 319.
    62. Archer, E.; Strauss, H.C. The effect of vine spacing on some physiological aspects of Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Pinot noir). S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 1990, 11, 49–58.
    63. Smart, R.E.; Robinson, J.B.; Due, G.R.; Brien, C.J. Canopy microclimate modification for the cultivar Shiraz.1. Definition of canopy microclimate. Vitis 1985, 24, 17–31.
    64. Morgan, D.C.; Stanley, C.J.; Warrington, I.J. The effects of simulated daylight and shade-light on vegetative and reproductive growth in kiwifruit and grapevine. J. Hortic Sci. 1985, 60, 473–484.
    65. Moutinho-Pereira, J.M.; Correia, C.M.; Goncalves, B.M.; Bacelar, E.A.; Torres-Pereira, J.M. Leaf gas exchange and water relations of grapevines grown in three different conditions. Photosynthetica 2004, 42, 81–86.
    66. Jones, G.V.; White, M.A.; Cooper, O.R.; Storchmann, K.-H. Climate and wine: Quality issues in a warmer world. In Proceedings of the Vineyard Data Quantification Society’s 10th OEonometrics Meeting, Dijon, France, May 2004.
    67. Berli, F.; D’Angelo, J.; Cavagnaro, B.; Bottini, R.; Wuilloud, R.; Silva, M.F. Phenolic composition in grape (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Malbec) ripened with different solar UV-B radiation levels by capillary zone electrophoresis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 2892–2898.
    68. Berli, F.J.; Fanzone, M.; Piccoli, P.; Bottini, R. Solar UV-B and ABA are involved in phenol metabolism of Vitis vinifera L. increasing biosynthesis of berry skin polyphenols. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4874–4884.
    69. Carbonell-Bejerano, P.; Diago, M.P.; Martinez-Abaigar, J.; Martinez-Zapater, J.M.; Tardaguila, J.; Nunez-Olivera, E. Solar ultraviolet radiation is necessary to enhance grapevine fruit ripening transcriptional and phenolic responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2014, 14.
    70. Huglin, P. Nouveau Mode d’évaluation des Possibilités Héliothermiques d’un Milieu Viticole. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie d’Agriculture; Académie d’agriculture de France: Paris, France, 1978.
    71. Molitor, D.; Junk, J.; Evers, D.; Hoffmann, L.; Beyer, M. A high-resolution cumulative degree day-based model to simulate phenological development of grapevine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2014, 65, 72–80.
    72. Tonietto, J.; Carbonneau, A. A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2004, 124, 81–97.