Introduction

The world's wine growing regions are experiencing rapid climate change. Jones et al. (2005) reported on climate data from 1950-1999 and found that wine growing regions in Europe and the United States had experienced significant increases in growing season temperatures. This continues to be the case, with Schultz and Jones (2010) reporting that temperatures in French, German and Swiss wine growing regions are continuing to rise. Camps and Ramos (2012) state that in the Penedes wine region of Northern Spain, maximum temperatures have increased and rainfall has decreased in the period 1999–2009. Likewise, Australia is also experiencing the effects of climate change with 2019 reported as the hottest and driest year since records began in 1910. The area-averaged mean temperature for 2019 was 1.52&nbsp°C above the 1961–1990 average, while mean maximum temperatures were 2.09&nbsp°C above average and mean minimum temperatures were 0.95&nbsp°C above average. It was also the driest year on record, with a nationally averaged rainfall of 277.6&nbspmm, which is 40&nbsp% below the 1961–1990 average (Australian Bureau of Meterology, 2020). This far exceeds the previously reported increase in average temperatures, which has been approximately 1&nbsp°C since the middle of the 20^th Century (Webb, 2011).

The changes in climate have made viticulture more challenging in many regions of the world. For example, Keller (2010) and Webb et al. (2013) report of advancement in phenological development, particularly in hot years, which results in earlier harvest dates at higher temperatures and higher grape sugar concentration. This is partly due to warming climates, but it is also due to drought conditions and reduced water availability. Jarvis et al. (2017) state that wine grape maturity is occurring earlier due to the warming climate. This creates the effect known as ‘vintage/harvest compression', whereby different varieties ripen at the same time, placing great pressure on winery resources and logistics. Cook and Wolkovich (2016) report that harvest dates are occurring earlier in France and Switzerland, and Krieger et al. (2011) state that increases in winter temperatures since the 1980's has caused harvest dates in Burgundy to be earlier. Jones and Goodrich (2008) and Diffenbaugh et al. (2011) concurred when describing very similar warming climate scenarios in the Napa Valley and other wine growing regions of the United States of America. Hotter and drier growing conditions in Spain have also resulted in reduced yields (Camps and Ramos, 2012).

Ongoing climate change and a further reduction in average rainfall is expected over the coming decades (Johnson et al., 2018). For example, it is predicted that by 2030 most coastal regions in Australia will experience an increase in average temperatures of 0.7-0.9&nbsp°C and 1-1.2&nbsp°C inland. Annual rainfall is also predicted to decrease by 2.5 to 5&nbsp% in most regions of Australia. Studies by van Leeuwen et al. (2013) and van Leeuwen et al. (2019) conclude that wine growing regions in France and Germany will not dramatically decrease over the next 30 years. However, Hannah et al. (2013) and Remenyi et al. (2019) disagree and demonstrate that in marginal wine growing regions, such as Australia, New Zealand, North and South America and South Africa, the suitability for growing grapes will decline more rapidly. It is therefore imperative for wine producers in warm to hot growing regions around the world to develop strategies to mitigate and adapt to these changes in climate.

The eastern Mediterranean island of Cyprus is reported to have a more than 5,500-year history of wine production (Chrysargyris et al., 2018b). The region is also gradually and steadily becoming hotter and drier due to climate change (Evans, 2008; Lelieveld et al., 2016). There are more than 10 indigenous grape varieties from Cyprus and many of them are very well adapted to drought, having been hand selected for their resistance to heat and drought by farmers for millennia (Fraga et al., 2016; Patakas et al., 2005). These Cypriot varieties therefore require less water and fertiliser inputs when compared to other non-indigenous varieties and show great promise for adaptation to climate change (Litskas et al., 2017).

The Cypriot climate scenario is very similar to other warm/hot climate grape growing regions and as such, these indigenous Cypriot varieties may form a suitable strategy to assist in mitigating the climate change effects. Consumers in Australia have demonstrated that they like the wines made from these varieties and rate them similarly to Australian wines made from French varieties, further supporting the case for their potential use in other warm/hot regions (Copper et al., 2019).

To date, very little has been published on the performance of indigenous Cypriot varieties. Chrysargyris et al. (2018a) and Chrysargyris et al. (2018b) have investigated the short-term effects of light and moderate drought and heat stress on the physiological and biochemical stress markers in Maratheftiko. Chrysargyris et al. (2018b) have evaluated the effect of tillage and irrigation on yield and quality characteristics of Maratheftiko. More recently, Constantinou et al. (2019) evaluated the effect of leaf removal at veraison on the metabolites of fresh and dehydrated grapes of Mavro and Xynisteri. However, to the best of our knowledge, very little information has been reported in the literature on fundamental performance metrics for these varieties.

The aims of this study were to (1) formulate a baseline understanding of the performance of the indigenous Cypriot white grape Xynisteri and the red grape Maratheftiko and (2) compare these varieties to Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc grown in a Cypriot vineyard.

Materials and Methods

2. Measurements

2.1. Climate

Climate data for the region was supplied by the Cypriot Department of Meteorology (Republic of Cyprus Department of Meterology, 2019) and was collected from the nearest weather station at the Agriculture Research Institute in Saittas (Latitude 34⁰52’N, Longitude 32⁰55’E, at a distance of between 11 and16&nbspkm from the vineyard sites). Mean January Temperature (MJT) and Growing Degree Days (GDD) were calculated for the three seasons studied, as well as the long-term average (1955-2017) (Table 2).

Table 2. MJT and GDD for three seasons

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Year	MJT (⁰C)	GDD	Total rain (mm)
Long-term average	26.1	2535	735
2017	28.5	2441	481
2018	27.3	2649	941
2019	26.8	2409	1105

Rainfall was highly variable over the three seasons. In 2017, total rainfall was 481&nbspmm compared with the long-term average of 735&nbspmm. In 2018, the total rainfall was 941&nbspmm, with large falls recorded in January, May, June and December of that year. In 2019, the total rainfall was 370&nbspmm above the long-term average with large falls recorded in January, February, March, June, August and December (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Mean daily temperature and rainfall per month for the three seasons studied compared to the long-term average.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

Rainfall for each year is indicated by vertical lines; black line long term average, dark grey line 2017, medium grey line 2018, light grey line 2019. Temperature is indicated with a symbol and a horizontal line connecting symbols: black circle (●) long term average, dark grey square (■) 2017, medium grey upward pointing triangle (▲) 2018, light grey downward pointing triangle (▼) 2019.

2.2. Vine performance measurements

Vine performance measurements, such as shoot number, bunch number, bunches per shoot, shoot length, leaves per shoot, shoot diameter (at fourth internode), bunch length, bunch width, bunch weight and internode length (at fourth internode), were taken at flowering for all three seasons to avoid any concerns associated with tip pruning by the commercial vineyards. All the vines in the study were pruned to approximately 30 buds per vine. Fruit weight per vine was recorded in 2017 and 2018 for the four vineyards; however, in 2019 only preharvest volume was available. Internode lengths were not available for the 2017 season.

2.3. Physiology measurements

In 2017 and 2018, physiology measurements were taken at flowering (EL-21), veraison (EL-35) and harvest (EL-38) (Coombe and Dry 1988). While in 2019, measurements were taken at flowering (EL-21), pea-sized berry formation (EL-30), veraison (El-35), mid-veraison (EL-36) and at harvest (El-38). In 2019, Sauvignon blanc only received three periods of analysis and Shiraz only four, due to their earlier harvest date compared to Xynisteri and Maratheftiko.

A Skye SKPM1400 series Plant Moisture Vessel (Skye Instruments Ltd, Llandrindod Wells Powys, LD1 6DF, UK) was used to measure leaf water potential as described by Meron et al. (1987). Midday leaf water potential was measured between 12:00 and 14:00 on one fully expanded and undamaged leaf chosen from the mid-upper part of the canopy from every vine. The leaf was collected from the midday sunlit side of the canopy.

Leaves were covered with a Ziplock aluminium foil-coated plastic bag for 60 min before the measurement, in order to allow leaf water potential to equilibrate (Begg and Turner, 1970). After the equilibration period, the leaves were cut with a sharp blade and the stem water potential was measured. A maximum of 60 seconds elapsed between cutting the leaves and the measurements. The same pressure chamber operator performed all the measurements with the goal of standardising the interpretation of the moment sap emerged from the petiole (De Bei et al., 2011).

Leaf stomatal conductance (g) was measured using a diffusion porometer (AP4, 2000 Delta-T Leaf Porometer Devices, Cambridge, UK). The porometer head was placed onto the required leaf and measurements were taken, which were recorded after three consecutive readings

Chlorophyll content was measured as described by Marquard and Tipton (1987) using a SPAD 502 Meter 2900 (Minolta Japan). Chlorophyll concentration per area was determined utilising radiation in the red and near-infrared wavelengths to derive a numerical value of chlorophyll in the leaf (Gonçalves et al., 2009). Leaves were selected at the 4th node along the shoot and an average of three readings was recorded for each leaf.

2.4. Stomatal density

Stomatal density was determined by selecting leaves from seven varieties using a modified method described by Hilu and Randall (1984). Nail-polish imprints were made by applying nail-polish to the abaxial side of the leaf and allowing it to dry. Adhesive tape was placed over the area covered by nail polish and pressed down firmly. The adhesive tape was peeled from the leaf, mounted on a dry microscope slide, and viewed under a light microscope. Images were acquired on a Zeiss Axiophot Fluorescent Microscope equipped with a metric ocular 20× objective. Stomata number was counted in three different regions of each leaf and mean number per mm² calculated. The seven varieties sampled were Xynisteri, Maratheftiko, Shiraz, Sauvignon blanc, Semillon, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Chardonnay. The varieties chosen for this assessment were to be used for benchmarking Xynisteri and Maratheftiko when all grown in the same environment. Samples were taken from different vineyards over the 3-year period and mean values for each variety determined.

2.5. Statistical analysis

Data sorting and preparation was conducted with Microsoft Excel 2010 and analysed by one-way ANOVA using the statistical package XLSTAT (version 2019.4.2, Addinsoft SARL, Paris, France). Figures were prepared using GraphPad Prism 8.0.0 (224) for Windows (GraphPad Software, La Jolla California USA).

Results and Discussion

2. Vine performance measures

Vine performance measures for all varieties across the three seasons are summarised in Table 4. Xynisteri had the highest shoot number and yield per hectare, as well as the largest bunch volume or bunch weights, compared to Maratheftiko and the other varieties for all three seasons of this study. In 2019, the number of Xynisteri leaves per shoot was higher than for other varieties. Fruitfulness (bunch number per shoot; Dry et al., 2010) was generally lower in Xynisteri than Maratheftiko and both Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc in 2019. In 2019, Maratheftiko had a larger bunch volume and overall yield than Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc.

Table 4. Vine performance measures recorded during 2017, 2018 and 2019 seasons.

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

&nbsp	Shoot No.	Bunch	Bunch	Shoot Length	Leaves per shoot	Shoot diam	Bunch length	Bunch width	Internode length	Yield per vine (kg)	Average bunch weight at harvest (g)	Bunch length at harvest (cm)	Bunch width at harvest (cm)	Bunch volume at harvest (cm3)
2017
ZX	23.5a	30.0a	1.3b	116.2b	17.5a	1.0a	19.2a	8.7a	na	5.0a	166.6a	na	na	na
EX	20.4a	19.4b	1.0c	122.2b	20.2a	0.9bc	18.4a	6.7ab	na	2.5b	128.8b	na	na	na
MB	11.12b	21.6ab	1.9a	164.1a	18.0a	1.4a	15.4b	8.6a	na	1.7c	78.7c	na	na	na
MT	10.7b	18.7b	1.8a	124.8b	17.3a	1.2ab	12.6b	5.8b	na	1.6c	85.6c	na	na	na
Pr&nbsp>&nbspF	<&nbsp0.0001	0.003	<&nbsp0.0001	0.003	0.13	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	0.002		<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001
2018
ZX	19.3a	18.8ab	1.1c	124.4a	17.3a	0.6bc	15.5b	6.3b	7.3a	4.6a	244.7a	na	na	na
EX	15.5ab	17.2ab	1.4b	115.6a	18.1a	0.5c	19.8a	9.0a	8.1a	2.9b	168.6b	na	na	na
MB	10.4c	14.6b	1.7a	143.4a	16.1a	1.0a	13.3b	7.0b	9.5a	1.8c	123.3c	na	na	na
MT	12.3bc	20.8a	1.0c	140.8a	17.1a	0.7b	12.8b	6.3b	8.9a	2.5b	120.2b	na	na	na
Pr&nbsp>&nbspF	<&nbsp0.0001	0.04	<&nbsp0.0001	0.47	0.59	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	0.12	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001
2019
VX	30.5a	24.8a	0.8b	162.9ab	61.4a	0.9a	17.7a	9.7a	9.2b	na	na	20.9a	12.5a	871.3a
VM	20.6c	22.8a	1.1a	184.5a	25.1c	0.9a	13.8b	10.1a	13.5a	na	na	19.0a	11.4b	648.5b
VShz	24.3b	23.8a	1.0a	158.5bc	34.0c	0.5b	17.2a	5.8b	8.1b	na	na	19.9a	7.5c	295.3c
VSB	22.1bc	23.6a	1.1a	141.7c	46.5b	0.8a	10.5c	5.7b	9.1b	na	na	13.4b	7.6c	208.1c
Pr&nbsp>&nbspF	<&nbsp0.0001	0.67	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	&nbsp	&nbsp	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001	<&nbsp0.0001

ZX, EX, VX-Xynisteri, MB, MT, VM-Maratheftiko, VShz-Shiraz, VSB-Sauvignon blanc

Different letters next to the measures indicate significant differences (p&nbsp<&nbsp0.05), measures with the same letters are not statistically significant different.

Shoot number can be very difficult to compare as it depends on the pruning method applied. However, the vines in the study compared favourably with the literature, with shoot numbers per vine ranging from 10.4 (MT 2017) to 30.5 (VX 2019) see Table 4. This may suggest that Xynisteri has better bud viability than Maratheftiko, thus producing more shoots. While Maratheftiko had less shoots, they tended to be longer and with greater diameter, suggesting that the two varieties partition their reserves differently. This concurs with Miller et al. (1996) researching Chambourcin, who found that vines with more shoots had greater leaf area, shoot length and leaf number per vine, but vines with fewer shoots had longer shoots, larger leaves, and greater leaf area and leaf number per shoot. When researching Shiraz/Syrah and Cabernet-Sauvignon stem starch reserves, Rustioni et al. (2019) demonstrated that water stress reduced the stem starch storage in Syrah, but Cabernet-Sauvignon was not affected. It is therefore possible that Xynisteri and Maratheftiko are more similar to Cabernet-Sauvignon than Shiraz in how they respond to drought conditions; that is, their mechanism for carbon assimilation and partitioning. This possibility requires further investigation.

Bunch number per shoot varied from 0.8 for Xynisteri (VX) in 2019 to 1.9 for Maratheftiko (MB) in 2017. Bunches per shoot in 2019 for all four varieties were similar and relatively low at 0.8-1.1. Xynisteri, however, was the lowest at 0.8. The bunch per shoot for all three seasons is nevertheless comparable with other studies: Freeman and Kliewer (1983) report non-irrigated Carignane with 1.5 bunches per shoot, while Guilpart et al. (2014) report Shiraz vines with between 1.3 and 2 bunches per shoot in their three-year study. In all three seasons, Xynisteri was less fruitful than Maratheftiko; that is, it had less bunches per shoot, but the bunches from Xynisteri tended to be larger. Xynisteri was also less fruitful than both Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc when grown in the same vineyard under the same environmental conditions. Further investigation is required to understand the reasons for such fertility differences between varieties.

Bunch number per vine in the study varied between seasons and varieties, ranging from 15.5 for MB to 30 for ZX in 2017. Bunch numbers for Xynisteri and Maratheftiko were similar to Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc in 2019; however, Xynisteri and Maratheftiko bunches were larger than the French varieties. In their study on the classification of reproductive performance of ten wine grape varieties grown on trellis in Australia, Dry et al. (2010) report that Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc averaged 28.5 bunches per metre of cordon. This was similar to the 2019 trial with Shiraz 23.8 and Sauvignon blanc 23.6 bunches per metre of cordon.

Bunch weights for 2017 and 2018 were calculated using fruit weight per vine and bunches per shoot. Bunch sizes and yields per vine were lower in 2017 compared to 2018; this may have been due to the large difference in rainfall between these two seasons. Bunch weights ranged from 78.7&nbspg for Maratheftiko (MB) in 2017 to 244.7&nbspg for Xynisteri (ZX) in 2018. Xynisteri bunch weights were greater than Maratheftiko in all cases. Bunch weights were not available in 2019, but bunch volumes were calculated and Xynisteri (VX) had the largest volume (871.3&nbspcm³), followed by Maratheftiko (VM) (648.5 cm³), Shiraz (VShz) (295.3&nbspcm³) and Sauvignon blanc (VSB) (208.1&nbspcm³) (bunch weights and yields were estimated using the vineyard owners' overall yield data for 2019, Table 7). The volume difference for Xynisteri and Maratheftiko was comparable to their weight difference in 2017 and 2018. Dry et al. (2010) also reported that Shiraz bunches were larger than Sauvignon blanc. This also demonstrates how much larger the two Cypriot varieties are when compared to both Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc grown under the same conditions.

The yield per hectare was estimated using vine density for each of the studied vineyards (Table 5). In 2017 and 2018, the Xynisteri vineyard, ZX, had greater yield per hectare than both Maratheftiko vineyards and the other Xynisteri vineyard. This is comparable to other non-irrigated studies with Guilpart et al. (2014) reporting yields of between 7.2 and 18.4 tonnes per hectare for non-irrigated and trellised Shiraz grown in southern France. While the region has similar annual rainfall to the test sites (750&nbspmm), MJT of 22.6 is much lower and the planting density is similar (3333&nbspvines/hectare). The lower MJT in France may be advantageous for higher yields when compared to the MJT of Cyprus. Intrigliolo and Castel (2009) investigating Tempranillo in Spain found that non-irrigated, trellised vines produced yields of between 4.5 and 14.1 tonnes per hectare over five years. This region, however, has less average rainfall (450&nbspmm) and a lower MJT of 22.9, as well as a much lower planting density of 1666 vines per hectare. This would suggest that Xynisteri is capable of greater yields at a higher MJT when compared to other varieties grown in Western Europe with lower MJT and less dense vine spacing. Considering that the Cypriot vineyards are non-irrigated, the yields achieved in the hot environment are very promising and worth investigating in other hot climate regions of the world.

Table 5. Yield estimates tonne/hectare

View popup Expand inline Collapse inline

Season	EX	ZX	MB	MT	VX	VM	VShz	VSB
2017	5.6	10.9	4.3	5.3
2018	6.6	11.3	4.5	8
2019	&nbsp	&nbsp	&nbsp	&nbsp	16.9	11	8.1	6.5

ZX, EX, VX-Xynisteri. MB, MT, VM-Maratheftiko, VShz- Shiraz, VSB-Sauvignon blanc.

Shoot length ranged from a minimum of 115.5&nbspcm for EX in 2018 to a maximum of 184.5&nbspcm for MB in 2019. Maratheftiko shoot length and diameter were greater than for the other varieties in the study. Shavrukov et al. (2004) studied Chardonnay, Riesling, Exotic and Sultana and they reported shoot lengths ranging from 96.1&nbspcm for Riesling to 113.3&nbspcm for Sultana. Smart and Robinson (1991) state that there are no ideal values for shoot growth rate as it is highly variable and can depend on the variety and climate. Internode length ranged from 7.3&nbspcm for Xynisteri (ZX) in 2018 to 13.5&nbspcm for Maratheftiko (VM) in 2019. Utilising Smart and Robinson (1991) guidelines, this classifies Xynisteri and Maratheftiko as being moderate high vigour varieties when grown under these environmental conditions.

Bunch (inflorescence) length ranged from 10.45&nbspcm for VSB in 2019 to 19.8&nbspcm for EX in 2018. This compares with the study by Shavrukov et al. (2004), with inflorescence lengths ranging from 7.33&nbspcm for Riesling to 27&nbspcm for Exotic. Xynisteri and Maratheftiko bunches were larger and less compact than those of Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc. Both Maratheftiko and Xynisteri bunches have loose bunch architecture (Figure 2), which potentially has the advantage of reducing the risk of bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea) as reported by Molitor et al. (2014) in their study of Pinot gris and Riesling.

Internode length ranged from 7.3&nbspcm for Xynisteri (ZX) in 2018 and 13.5&nbspcm for Maratheftiko (VM) in 2019. Utilising Smart and Robinson (1991) guidelines, this classifies Xynisteri and Maratheftiko as being high vigour varieties when grown under these environmental conditions.

Overall, these results indicate that Xynisteri and Maratheftiko produce greater yields, bigger bunches and longer shoots than Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc in a hot climate. Beis and Patakas (2010) investigated indigenous Greek varieties Mavrodafni and Savatiano in Agrinio, Western Greece. Savatiano, a white variety, originating from a more arid environment was found to be more adapted to drought, while the red variety Mavrodafni was more sensitive to water stress. Agrinio has a climate more similar to Cyprus than other western European countries with an MJT of 25.9, but with more rainfall. They concluded that these two indigenous grapevine varieties may have evolved different drought adaptation strategies. They suggest that Savatiano may regulate stomatal closure more efficiently, while Mavrodafni displays greater chemical signalling (via nitric oxide in catalase up-regulation) (Beis and Patakas, 2010). These strategies may also warrant investigation for the Cypriot varieties in future studies.

Figure 2. Loose bunch architecture of Xynisteri (left) and Maratheftiko (right).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

3. Physiology measurements

3.1. Stem water potential (SWP)

Differences in midday leaf water potential were observed between varieties in all three seasons and at all sampling dates. Xynisteri (ZX) had the highest SWP in 2017 and 2018 (Figures 3a and 3b), while Xynisteri (VX) had the highest SWP in 2019, followed by Maratheftiko (VM), Shiraz (VShz) and Sauvignon blanc (VSB). Leaf water potential measurements concluded early for Sauvignon blanc (early August) and Shiraz (late August) in 2019, because of the earlier harvest (Figure 3c).

Viticulturists commonly use SWP to determine when to irrigate vines. Girona et al. (2006) defined SWP irrigation thresholds of -0.8&nbspMPa for well-irrigated vines, -1.2&nbspMPa for moderately stressed vines, and -1.5&nbspMPa for severely stressed conditions. ZX had the highest SWP in 2017 and 2018 at all time points. Xynisteri also had the highest SWP in 2019 followed by VM, VShz and VSB. The poorest performing variety was VSB, ranging from -0.54 in early June to -0.99 in early August prior to harvest (VX at the same time was -0.8). At all times during the study, none of the Xynisteri or the Maratheftiko had an SWP below -1.2, thus they were only classed as moderately stressed according to the Girona et al. (2006) classification. These two varieties were also the last to be harvested in all three seasons: Maratheftiko in late September and Xynisteri in late September to early October.

Gonçalves et al. (2009) grew Touriga Franca in Portugal in the seasons 2004, 2005 and 2006, and they reported a mean midday SWP of -1.16 at veraison and between -1.33 and -1.56 at ripeness/harvest. Theodorou et al. (2013) studied dry grown Shiraz, Grenache, Xinomavro and Agiorgitiko in Greece in 2012 and reported mean SWP for non-irrigated vines as -2.10 for Grenache, -1.75 for Shiraz, -1.52 for Xinomavro and -1.56 for Agiorgitiko. The SWP results produced by non-irrigated Xynisteri and Maratheftiko were more similar to the results achieved by other studies using deficit irrigation (Koundouras et al., 2009), in which 150&nbspmm of irrigation during the growing season was applied and SWP values of between -0.91 and -0.98 were obtained, as well as values ranging from -1.28 to -1.39 in non-irrigated vines. Theodorou et al. (2019) used deficit irrigation (50&nbsp% of evapotranspiration) and observed a SWP of between -1.18 and -1.21. The results from these studies, however, also showed that fully irrigated vines produce better SWP relative to non-irrigated Xynisteri and Maratheftiko.

It can therefore be suggested that in a dry grown environment, Xynisteri and Maratheftiko are potentially more capable of maintaining adequate SWP during the growing season, and late in the growing season long after Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc have been harvested.

Figure 3. Relationship between midday stem water potential measurements (MPa) versus days of year (DOY).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

(a) season 2017 ;

(b) season 2018, black circle (●) Maratheftiko Trellis (MT), dark grey square (■) Maratheftiko Bush (MB), light grey upward pointing triangle (▲) Xynisteri Z (ZX), medium grey downward pointing triangle (▼) Xynisteri E (EX) ;

(c) season 2019, black hexagon (⬣) Xynisteri (VX), black star (★) Maratheftiko (VM), dark grey spade (♠) Sauvignon blanc (VSB), Light grey diamond (♦) Shiraz (VShz). Statistically significant values are represented by: ns = not significant, *&nbspsignificant at P&nbsp<&nbsp0.05.

3.2. Leaf stomatal conductance (SC)

Tomás et al. (2014) state that SC is commonly used to estimate the leaf Water Use Efficiency (WUE) of vines, as well as whole plant WUE. However, they also report that whole plant WUE estimates have discrepancies when attempting to scale up from leaf SC. In the present study all varieties exhibited a decreased rate of conductance throughout the season, as is to be expected with decreasing soil moisture throughout the summer season. Chaves et al. (2010) suggest that dramatic reductions in plant carbon assimilation may occur due to a severe decline in photosynthesis in Mediterranean environments, where temperatures and water deficits increase in parallel from spring to summer. However, in the present study, SC increased for Xynisteri in July of 2019. This may have been due to a large amount of rain (106&nbspmm) that occurred in late June a few days prior to the scheduled testing. Overall mean SC ranged from 40.4&nbspmmol/m²/s for EX prior to harvest in late September 2017 and 435&nbspmmol/m²/s for ZX at flowering in early June 2018. These variations could be explained by the weather extremes across the three seasons. The driest season, 2017, had a total annual rainfall 146&nbspmm below the long-term average, while in 2018, May and June received 259.4&nbspmm of rain, which is 204.8&nbspmm above the long-term average for those two months. In 2019, Maratheftiko showed the greatest resilience in terms of maintaining SC: mean SC ranged from 363&nbspmmol/m²/s in early June to&nbsp194 mmol/m²/s in late September. Meanwhile, Xynisteri ranged from 303&nbspmmol/m²/s in early July to 121&nbspmmol/m²/s in late September. Shiraz performed in a similar way to Xynisteri with SC ranging from 362&nbspmmol/m²/s in early June to 188&nbspmmol/m2/s in late August. Mean SC for Sauvignon blanc ranged from 272&nbspmmol/m²/s in early June to 182&nbspmmol/m²/s in early August.

The SC values from the study are comparable with the literature. Tomás et al. (2014) reported the mean SC for 74 varieties ranging from 40&nbspmmol/m²/s for a white grape from Greece called Rosaki, to more than 600&nbspmmol/m²/s for the Iranian table grape, Sefid Bidaneh cv (Aslanpour et al., 2019). For non-irrigated Cabernet-Sauvignon grown in Greece, Koundouras et al. (2009) report an SC of 120 to 400&nbspmmol/m²/s. In Portugal, Touriga Franca vines had an SC ranging from 103.5 to 784.6&nbspmmol/m²/s during the period of ripeness to harvest (Gonçalves et al., 2009), and in August (at harvest) when vines had overripe fruit, Semillon and Muscat blanc had an SC ranging from 230.2 to 347.4&nbspmmol/m²/s (Dinis et al., 2014). Studying Shiraz, Grenache, Xinomavro and Agiorgitiko in Greece, Theodorou et al. (2019) reported non-irrigated vines as having a mean SC of 40&nbspmmol/m²/s for Grenache, 50&nbspmmol/m²/s for Agiorgitiko, 90&nbspmmol/m²/s for Shiraz and 150&nbspmmol/m²/s for Xinomavro. As in the case of LWP, the results of SC for Xynisteri and Maratheftiko were more closely comparable to the results of deficit irrigation trials (Koundouras et al., 2009; Theodorou et al., 2019), but not as favourable as fully irrigated trials.

While SC is very dependent on soil water content/status, and therefore affected by the climate of the particular season, we can conclude that all the Xynisteri and Maratheftiko vineyards were able to maintain SC across the growing period from early June to late September for all three seasons. In contrast, relative to the indigenous varieties, Shiraz and particularly Sauvignon blanc SC were impacted more severely throughout the 2019 season.

Figure 4. Stomatal conductance measurements at midday (mmol/m2/s) versus days of year (DOY).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

(a) season 2017 ;

(b) season 2018, black circle (●) Maratheftiko Trellis (MT), dark grey square (■) Maratheftiko Bush (MB), light grey upward pointing triangle (▲) Xynisteri Z (ZX), medium grey downward pointing triangle (▼) Xynisteri E (EX) ;

(c) season 2019, black hexagon (⬣) Xynisteri (VX), black star (★) Maratheftiko (VM), dark grey spade (♠) Sauvignon blanc (VSB), Light grey diamond (♦) Shiraz (VShz). Statistically significant values represented by: ns = not significant, *&nbspsignificant at P&nbsp<&nbsp0.05.

3.3. Chlorophyll Content

Steele et al. (2008) state that SPAD readings are adequately sensitive at around 35 (approximately 300&nbspmg/m²) and their research demonstrated that grapevine leaves can have SPAD values of between 7 and 44 (63 to 576&nbspmg/mm²). Taskos et al. (2014) concur with this, stating that SPAD meters were useful in assessing chlorophyll content and nitrogen in grape leaves; however, their results varied depending on variety, vineyard, phenology and canopy structure.

In July and August 2017, and for all time points in 2018, Maratheftiko had greater chlorophyll content than Xynisteri (Figure 5a and b); while in June and July 2019, Maratheftiko had greater chlorophyll content in June and July than Xynisteri, Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz (Figure 5c). All measures values corresponded to the limits found by Steele et al. (2008) and Brunetto et al. (2012). Therefore, as chlorophyll concentration has been positively correlated with the rate of photosynthesis in other varieties (Lebon et al., 2005), these findings suggest that Maratheftiko may have a greater photosynthetic capacity than the other plants.

Soil types in the wine growing regions of Cyprus are high in chalk, limestone and gypsum, thus having high calcium levels (Ladegaard-Pedersen et al., 2020). Sabir et al. (2014) report that highly cultivated soil with high calcium levels can have a high pH, which in turn leads to a decrease in chlorophyll content. The fact that Maratheftiko, and to a lesser extent Xynisteri, have a higher chlorophyll content than Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc in such high calcium soils could indicate that they have adapted to cope with these soil types, therefore producing abundant chlorophyll for photosynthesis. For example, Cambrollé et al. (2014) demonstrated that a wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera&nbspssp.&nbspsylvestris) was highly tolerant to lime stress and they determined that the exposure to very high calcium carbonate levels (60&nbsp%) induced nutrient imbalances and significantly inhibited photosynthetic function. This caused an overall reduction in carbon gain, high mortality, and a drastic reduction in the growth of the surviving plants. However, high to moderate (40- to 20&nbsp%) levels of calcium carbonate did not greatly affect the concentrations of iron, nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium in plant tissues. In addition, plant growth and photosynthetic function were also not drastically affected with these treatments. Future studies of Maratheftiko in particular, could explore this possibility further.

Figure 5. SPAD reading at midday for chlorophyll content versus days of year (DOY).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

(a) season 2017 ;

(b) season 2018, black circle (●) Maratheftiko Trellis (MT), dark grey square (■) Maratheftiko Bush (MB), light grey upward pointing triangle (▲) Xynisteri Z (ZX), medium grey downward pointing triangle (▼) Xynisteri E (EX) ;

(c) season 2019, black hexagon (⬣) Xynisteri (VX), black star (★) Maratheftiko (VM), dark grey spade (♠) Sauvignon blanc (VSB), Light grey diamond (♦) Shiraz (VShz). Statistically significant values represented by: ns-not significant, *&nbspsignificant at P&nbsp<&nbsp0.05.

Conclusion

From the data presented it can be concluded that the indigenous Cypriot varieties Maratheftiko and, in particular, Xynisteri are well adapted to a hot climate, continuing to perform well as the climate becomes hotter. Xynisteri and Maratheftiko achieve budburst earlier and are ready for harvest later than Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc, which could be advantageous for reducing harvest compression in hot climates and for promoting better wine quality.

Xynisteri had the greatest stomatal density, more shoots, more leaves, bigger bunches, higher yields, the highest leaf water potential at harvest and stomatal conductance equal to Maratheftiko, while both had greater stomatal conductance than Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc. Maratheftiko had the longest shoots and the largest shoot diameter, as well as the greatest chlorophyll content out of all four varieties. Xynisteri and Maratheftiko are classed as moderate to high vigour varieties. The higher yields and vigorous growth without irrigation of these Cypriot varieties indicate that they have potential to outperform other varieties in hot viticulture regions.

The purpose of this study was to provide a baseline understanding of the performance of Xynisteri and Maratheftiko, in comparison to each other and to Shiraz and Sauvignon blanc. This study has highlighted several positive aspects of Xynisteri and Maratheftiko performance, which warrant further investigation for their use in hot dry climates elsewhere and in comparison with other drought tolerant wine grape varieties.

A limitation of the study was that the vineyards were not all in precisely the same location, and there may be possible influences from other factors, such as the training system applied and soil water holding capacity. Therefore, the results are somewhat indicative and must be viewed with a degree of caution. Further studies utilising these four varieties under controlled conditions are currently being undertaken to eliminate the possibility of these confounding influences.

Acknowledgements

This project is supported through a University of Adelaide scholarship and funding from Wine Australia. Wine Australia is supported by Australian grape growers and winemakers with matched funds from the Australian Government. Authors gratefully acknowledge support from Dr Roberta De Bei for her assistance in taking measurements, Cypriot vineyard owners for allowing their vineyards to be studied, as well as Marleen Zambartas-Brouwer, Marcos Zambartas, Andreas Markantonis and Sophocles Vlassides. We would like to thank Natalia Kataiftsi, Marie Tabar, Morphee Besseau, Jade Godmuse and Apostolis Grigoriou for their additional assistance and vineyard information.

References

• Aslanpour, M., Baneh, H. D., Tehranifar, A., & Shoor, M. (2019). Evaluating the absorption rate of macro and microelements in the leaf of grape sefid bidaneh cv. under drought conditions. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 10(4), 515-525. https://doi.org/10.14456/ITJEMAST.2019.49
• Australian Bureau of Meterology (2020). Canberra, Australia, Australian Government http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
• Begg, J. E., & Turner, N. C. (1970). Water potential gradients in field tobacco. Plant Physiology, 46(2), 343-346. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.46.2.343
• Beis, A., & Patakas, A. (2010). Differences in stomatal responses and root to shoot signalling between two grapevine varieties subjected to drought. Functional Plant Biology, 37(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP09034
• Beis, A., & Patakas, A. (2015). Differential physiological and biochemical responses to drought in grapevines subjected to partial root drying and deficit irrigation. European Journal of Agronomy, 62, 90-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2014.10.001
• Boso, S., Gago, P., Alonso-Villaverde, V., Santiago, J. L., Mendez, J., Pazos, I., & Martínez, M. C. (2011). Variability at the electron microscopic level in leaves of members of the genus Vitis. Scientia Horticulturae, 128(3), 228 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.01.022
• Brunetto, G., Trentin, G., Ceretta, C. A., Girotto, E., Lorensini, F., Miotto, A., Moser, G. R. Z., & Melo, G. W. (2012). Use of the SPAD-502 in Estimating Nitrogen Content in Leaves and Grape Yield in Grapevines in Soils with Different Texture. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 03(11), 1546 1561. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2012.311187
• Cambrollé, J., García, J. L., Figueroa, M. E., & Cantos, M. (2014). Physiological responses to soil lime in wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera ssp. Ò). Environmental and Experimental Botany, 105, 25 31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.04.004
• Cameron, W., Petrie, P. R., Barlow, E. W. R., Patrick, C. J., Howell, K., & Fuentes, S. (2020). Advancement of grape maturity: comparison between contrasting cultivars and regions. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 26(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12414
• Camps, J. O., & Ramos, M. C. (2012). Grape harvest and yield responses to inter-annual changes in temperature and precipitation in an area of north-east Spain with a Mediterranean climate. International Journal of Biometeorology, 56(5), 853-864. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-011-0489-3
• Chaves, M. M., Zarrouk, O., Francisco, R., Costa, J. M., Santos, T., Regalado, A. P., Rodrigues, M. L., & Lopes, C. M. (2010). Grapevine under deficit irrigation : hints from physiological and molecular data. Annals of Botany, 105(5), 661 676. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcq030
• Chrysargyris, A., Xylia, P., Antoniou, O., & Tzortzakis, N. (2018a). Climate change due to heat and drought stress can alter the physiology of Maratheftiko local Cyprian grapevine variety. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 9(4), 715 727. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2018.226
• Chrysargyris, A., Xylia, P., Litskas, V., Mandoulaki, A., Antoniou, D., Boyias, T., Stavrinides, M., & Tzortzakis, N. (2018b). Drought stress and soil management practices in grapevines in Cyprus under the threat of climate change. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 9(4), 703 714. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2018.135
• Constantinou, S., Gómez‐Caravaca, A. M., Goulas, V., Fernandez‐Gutierrez, A., Koundouras, S., & Manganaris, G. A. (2019). Leaf removal at veraison stage differentially affects qualitative attributes and bioactive composition of fresh and dehydrated grapes of two indigenous Cypriot cultivars. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 99(3), 1342-1350. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.9309
• Cook, B. I., & Wolkovich, E. M. (2016). Climate change decouples drought from early wine grape harvests in France. Nature Climate Change, 6(7), 715 719. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2960
• Coombe, B. G., & Dry, P. R. (1988). Chapter 7, Phenology. Viticulture. Volume 1, Resources in Australia. Australian Industrial Publishers.
• Copper, A. W., Johnson, T. E., Danner, L., Bastian, S. E., & Collins, C. (2019). Preliminary sensory and chemical profiling of Cypriot wines made from indigenous grape varieties Xynisteri, Maratheftiko and Giannoudhi and acceptability to Australian consumers: This article is published in cooperation with the 21th GIESCO International Meeting, June 23-28 2019, Thessaloniki, Greece. Guests editors: Stefanos Koundouras and Laurent Torregrosa. OENO One, 53(2): 253-273. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.2.2423
• De Bei, R., Cozzolino, D., Sullivan, W., Cynkar, W., Fuentes, S., Dambergs, R., ... & Tyerman, S. (2011). Non‐destructive measurement of grapevine water potential using near infrared spectroscopy. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17(1), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00117.x
• Diffenbaugh, N. S., White, M. A., Jones, G. V., & Ashfaq, M. (2011). Climate adaptation wedges : a case study of premium wine in the western United States. Environmental Research Letters, 6(2), 024024. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/6/2/024024
• Dinis, L.-T., Correia, C. M., Ferreira, H. F., Gonçalves, B., Gonçalves, I., Coutinho, J. F., Ferreira, M. I., Malheiro, A. C., & Moutinho-Pereira, J. (2014). Physiological and biochemical responses of Semillon and Muscat Blanc à Petits Grains winegrapes grown under Mediterranean climate. Scientia Horticulturae, 175, 128 138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.06.007
• Dry, P. R., Longbottom, M. L., McLoughlin, S., Johnson, T. E., & Collins, C. (2010). Classification of reproductive performance of ten winegrape varieties. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16, 47 55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00085.x
• Eris, A., & Soylu, A. (2015). Stomatal density in various Turkish grape cultivars. VITIS-Journal of Grapevine Research, 29, 382. https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.1990.29.special-issue.382-389
• Evans, J. P. (2008). 21st century climate change in the Middle East. Climatic Change, 92(3 4), 417 432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9438-5
• Fraga, H., García de Cortázar Atauri, I., Malheiro, A. C., & Santos, J. A. (2016). Modelling climate change impacts on viticultural yield, phenology and stress conditions in Europe. Global Change Biology, 22(11), 3774 3788. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13382
• Freeman, B. M., & Kliewer, W. M. (1983). Effect of irrigation, crop level and potassium fertilization on Carignane vines. II. Grape and wine quality. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 34(3), 197-207. https://www.ajevonline.org/content/34/3/197.short
• Galat Giorgi, E., Sadras, V. O., Keller, M., & Perez Peña, J. (2019). Interactive effects of high temperature and water deficit on Malbec grapevines. Australian journal of grape and wine research, 25(3), 345-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12398
• Gerzon, E., Biton, I., Yaniv, Y., Zemach, H., Netzer, Y., Schwartz, A., Fait, A., & Ben-Ari, G. (2015). Grapevine anatomy as a possible determinant of isohydric or anisohydric behavior. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 66(3), 340 347. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2015.14090
• Girona, J., Mata, M., del Campo, J., Arbonés, A., Bartra, E., & Marsal, J. (2006). The use of midday leaf water potential for scheduling deficit irrigation in vineyards. Irrigation Science, 24(2), 115 127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-005-0015-7
• Gómez-del-Campo, M., Baeza, P., Ruiz, C., & Lissarrague, J. R. (2015). Water-stress induced physiological changes in leaves of four container-grown grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). VITIS-Journal of Grapevine Research, 43(3), 99. https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2004.43.99-105
• Gonçalves, B., Falco, V. ́, Moutinho-Pereira, J. ́., Bacelar, E., Peixoto, F., & Correia, C. (2009). Effects of Elevated CO2on Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) : Volatile Composition, Phenolic Content, and in Vitro Antioxidant Activity of Red Wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57(1), 265 273. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf8020199
• Guilpart, N., Metay, A., & Gary, C. (2014). Grapevine bud fertility and number of berries per bunch are determined by water and nitrogen stress around flowering in the previous year. European Journal of Agronomy, 54, 9-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.11.002
• Hall, A., & Jones, G. V. (2010). Spatial analysis of climate in winegrape‐growing regions in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16(3), 389-404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00100.x
• Hannah, L., Roehrdanz, P. R., Ikegami, M., Shepard, A. V., Shaw, M. R., Tabor, G., ... & Hijmans, R. J. (2013). Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(17), 6907-6912. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210127110
• Hilu, K. W., & Randall, J. L. (1984). Convenient method for studying grass leaf epidermis. Taxon, 33(3), 413-415. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1996-8175.1984.tb03896.x
• Hopper, D. W., Ghan, R., & Cramer, G. R. (2014). A rapid dehydration leaf assay reveals stomatal response differences in grapevine genotypes. Horticulture research, 1(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/hortres.2014.2
• Intrigliolo, D. S., & Castel, J. R. (2009). Response of grapevine cv. ‘Tempranillo’ to timing and amount of irrigation: water relations, vine growth, yield and berry and wine composition. Irrigation Science, 28(2), 113 125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00271-009-0164-1
• Jarvis, C., Barlow, E., Darbyshire, R., Eckard, R., & Goodwin, I. (2017). Relationship between viticultural climatic indices and grape maturity in Australia. International Journal of Biometeorology, 61(10), 1849 1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-017-1370-9
• Jarvis, C., Darbyshire, R., Goodwin, I., Barlow, E. W. R., & Eckard, R. (2018). Advancement of winegrape maturity continuing for winegrowing regions in Australia with variable evidence of compression of the harvest period. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 25(1), 101 108. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12373
• Johnson, Z., Chikamoto, Y., Luo, J.-J., & Mochizuki, T. (2018). Ocean Impacts on Australian Interannual to Decadal Precipitation Variability. Climate, 6(3), 61. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli6030061
• Jones, G. V., & Goodrich, G. B. (2008). Influence of climate variability on wine regions in the western USA and on wine quality in the Napa Valley. Climate Research, 35, 241 254. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00708
• Jones, G. V., White, M. A., Cooper, O. R., & Storchmann, K. (2005). Climate Change and Global Wine Quality. Climatic Change, 73(3), 319 343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-4704-2
• Keller, M. (2010). Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment : a climate change primer for viticulturists. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16, 56 69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00077.x
• Koundouras, S., Hatzidimitriou, E., Karamolegkou, M., Dimopoulou, E., Kallithraka, S., Tsialtas, J. T., Zioziou, E., Nikolaou, N., & Kotseridis, Y. (2009). Irrigation and Rootstock Effects on the Phenolic Concentration and Aroma Potential of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 57(17), 7805 7813. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf901063a
• Krieger, M., Lohmann, G., & Laepple, T. (2011). Seasonal climate impacts on the grape harvest date in Burgundy (France). Climate of the Past, 7(2), 425 435. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-7-425-2011
• Ladegaard-Pedersen, P., Achilleos, M., Dörflinger, G., Frei, R., Kristiansen, K., & Frei, K. M. (2020). A strontium isotope baseline of Cyprus. Assessing the use of soil leachates, plants, groundwater and surface water as proxies for the local range of bioavailable strontium isotope composition. Science of The Total Environment, 708, 134714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134714
• Lebon, G., Brun, O., Magne, C., & Clement, C. (2005). Photosynthesis of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) inflorescence. Tree Physiology, 25(5), 633 639. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/25.5.633
• Lelieveld, J., Proestos, Y., Hadjinicolaou, P., Tanarhte, M., Tyrlis, E., & Zittis, G. (2016). Strongly increasing heat extremes in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the 21st century. Climatic Change, 137(1 2), 245 260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1665-6
• Litskas, V. D., Irakleous, T., Tzortzakis, N., & Stavrinides, M. C. (2017). Determining the carbon footprint of indigenous and introduced grape varieties through Life Cycle Assessment using the island of Cyprus as a case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 418 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.057
• Marquard, R. D., & Tipton, J. L. (1987). Relationship between extractable chlorophyll and an in situ method to estimate leaf greenness. HortScience, 22(6).
• Meron, M., Grimes, D. W., Phene, C. J., & Davis, K. R. (1987). Pressure chamber procedures for leaf water potential measurements of cotton. Irrigation Science, 8(3), 215 222. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00259382
• Miller, D. P., Howell, G. S., & Flore, J. A. (1996). Influence of shoot number and crop load on potted Chambourcin grapevines. I. Morphology and dry matter partitioning. American journal of enology and viticulture, 47(4), 380-388. https://www.ajevonline.org/content/47/4/380
• Molitor, D., Baron, N., Sauerwein, T., André, C. M., Kicherer, A., Döring, J., Stoll, M., Beyer, M., Hoffmann, L., & Evers, D. (2014). Postponing First Shoot Topping Reduces Grape Cluster Compactness and Delays Bunch Rot Epidemic. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 66(2), 164 176. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2014.14052
• Monteiro, A., Teixeira, G., Santos, C., & Lopes, C. M. (2018). Leaf morphoanatomy of four red grapevine cultivars grown under the same terroir. E3S Web of Conferences, 50, 01038. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20185001038
• Palliotti, A., Cartechini, A., & Ferranti, F. (2000). Morpho-anatomical and physiological characteristics of primary and lateral shoot leaves of Cabernet Franc and Trebbiano Toscano grapevines under two irradiance regimes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 51(2), 122-130. https://www.ajevonline.org/content/51/2/122
• Patakas, A., Noitsakis, B., & Chouzouri, A. (2005). Optimization of irrigation water use in grapevines using the relationship between transpiration and plant water status. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 106(2 3), 253 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2004.10.013
• Remenyi, T. A., Rollins, D. A., Love, P. T., Earl, N. O., Bindoff, N. L., & Harris, R. M. B. (2019). Australia’s Wine Future—A Climate Atlas, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania. ISBN: 978-1-922352-06-4 (electronic).
• Republic of Cyprus Department of Meterology (2019). Meterological Reports from http://www.moa.gov.cy/moa/ms/ms.nsf/DMLclimet_reports_en/DMLclimet_reports_en?opendocument
• Rienth, M., Torregrosa, L., Luchaire, N., Chatbanyong, R., Lecourieux, D., Kelly, M. T., & Romieu, C. (2014). Day and night heat stress trigger different transcriptomic responses in green and ripening grapevine (vitis vinifera) fruit. BMC Plant Biology, 14(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-14-108
• Rogiers, S. Y., Greer, D. H., Hutton, R. J., & Landsberg, J. J. (2009). Does night-time transpiration contribute to anisohydric behaviour in a Vitis vinifera cultivar ? Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(13), 3751 3763. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erp217
• Rogiers, S. Y., Hardie, W. J., & Smith, J. P. (2011). Stomatal density of grapevine leaves (Vitis vinifera L.) responds to soil temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 17(2), 147 152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00124.x
• Rogiers, S. Y., Holzapfel, B. P., & Smith, J. P. (2011). Sugar accumulation in roots of two grape varieties with contrasting response to water stress. Annals of Applied Biology, 159(3), 399 413. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00505.x
• Rustioni, L., Herrera, J. C., Failla, O., Peterlunger, E., & Sivilotti, P. (2019). Stem starch reserves studied by on-solid reactions coupled with reflectance detections in water stressed grapevines. Vitis 58(1), 47-51. http:// doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2019.58.47-51
• Sabir, A., Yazar, K., Sabir, F., Kara, Z., Yazici, M. A., & Goksu, N. (2014). Vine growth, yield, berry quality attributes and leaf nutrient content of grapevines as influenced by seaweed extract (Ascophyllum nodosum) and nanosize fertilizer pulverizations. Scientia Horticulturae, 175, 1 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.05.021
• Schultz, H. R., & Jones, G. V. (2010). Climate Induced Historic and Future Changes in Viticulture. Journal of Wine Research, 21(2 3), 137 145. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571264.2010.530098
• Shavrukov, Y. N., Dry, I. B., & Thomas, M. R. (2004). Inflorescence and bunch architecture development in Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 10(2), 116 124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2004.tb00014.x
• Smart, R., & Robinson, M. (1991). Sunlight into wine: a handbook for winegrape canopy management. Underdale, SA, Winetitles. ISBN : 1875130101. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19930320999
• Soar, C. J., Dry, P. R., & Loveys, B. R. (2006). Scion photosynthesis and leaf gas exchange in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz: mediation of rootstock effects via xylem sap ABA. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 12(2), 82-96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2006.tb00047.x
• Steele, M. R., Gitelson, A. A., & Rundquist, D. C. (2008). A comparison of two techniques for nondestructive measurement of chlorophyll content in grapevine leaves. Agronomy Journal, 100(3), agj2agronj20070254n. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2007.0254n
• Taskos, D. G., Koundouras, S., Stamatiadis, S., Zioziou, E., Nikolaou, N., Karakioulakis, K., & Theodorou, N. (2014). Using active canopy sensors and chlorophyll meters to estimate grapevine nitrogen status and productivity. Precision Agriculture, 16(1), 77 98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-014-9363-8
• Teixeira, G., Monteiro, A., Santos, C., & Lopes, C. M. (2018). Leaf morphoanatomy traits in white grapevine cultivars with distinct geographical origin. Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola, 33(1), 90 101. https://doi.org/10.1051/ctv/20183301090
• Theodorou, N., Koundouras, S., Zioziou, E., & Nikolaou, N. (2013). Responses of leaf stomatal density and anatomy to water deficit in four winegrape cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). In AMPELOS 2013–3rd International Symposium on Trends in World Vitiviniculture Development Conference. http://ampelos2013.conferences.gr/ampelos2013-proceedings.html
• Theodorou, N., Nikolaou, N., Zioziou, E., Kyraleou, M., Kallithraka, S., Kotseridis, Y., & Koundouras, S. (2019). Anthocyanin content and composition in four red winegrape cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) under variable irrigation: Anthocyanin content and composition under variable irrigation. OENO One, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.1.2366
• Tomás, M., Medrano, H., Escalona, J. M., Martorell, S., Pou, A., Ribas-Carbó, M., & Flexas, J. (2014). Variability of water use efficiency in grapevines. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 103, 148 157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2013.09.003
• van Leeuwen, C., Destrac-Irvine A., Dubernet, M., Duchêne, E., Gowdy, M., Marguerit, E., Pieri, P., Parker, A., de Rességuier, L., & Ollat, N. (2019). An Update on the Impact of Climate Change in Viticulture and Potential Adaptations. Agronomy, 9(9), 514. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090514
• van Leeuwen, C., Schultz, H. R., Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Duchene, E., Ollat, N., Pieri, P., Bois, B., Goutouly, J.-P., Quenol, H., Touzard, J.-M., Malheiro, A. C., Bavaresco, L., & Delrot, S. (2013). Why climate change will not dramatically decrease viticultural suitability in main wine-producing areas by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(33), E3051 E3052. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1307927110
• Webb, L. B. (2011). Adaptation of the Australian Wine Industry to Climate Change - Opportunities and Vulnerabilities. G. a. W. R. a. D. Corporation. Melbourne Australia, University of Melbourne and CSIRO.
• Webb, L. B., Watterson, I., Bhend, J., Whetton, P. H., & Barlow, E. W. R. (2013). Global climate analogues for winegrowing regions in future periods : projections of temperature and precipitation. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 19(3), 331 341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12045
• Webb, L. B., Whetton, P. H., & Barlow, E. W. R. (2008). Modelling the relationship between climate, winegrape price and winegrape quality in Australia. Climate Research, 36, 89 98. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr00739
• Wolkovich, E. M., Burge, D. O., Walker, M. A., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). Phenological diversity provides opportunities for climate change adaptation in winegrapes. Journal of Ecology, 105(4), 905 912. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12786
• Xu, Z., & Zhou, G. (2008). Responses of leaf stomatal density to water status and its relationship with photosynthesis in a grass. Journal of Experimental Botany, 59(12), 3317 3325. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ern185