A few words on grapevine leaf water potential Original language of the article: English.

The majority of vineyards are grown under limiting water supply, with consequences on grapevine physiology, berry growth and composition/quality versus wine styles. Assessing vine water status is crucial to understand vine function and to optimize drought mitigation strategies, such as irrigation. In this regard, the leaf water potential methods, notably predawn and stem water potentials, are relevant for quantifying vine water status and are generally used as references to calibrate others methods and/or for precision irrigation.
Leaf water potential, a tool for vine water status assessment
Amongst the tools available to measure vine water status
Figure 1. Example of a pressure chamber used to measure leaf water potential (photo from A. Deloire, South Africa).

The three leaf water potentials (PLWP, MLWP and SWP)
Pre-dawn leaf, midday leaf and stem water potentials (respectively, PLWP, MLWP and SWP) are measured on detached leaves using a pressure chamber according to the technique described by Scholander (1965)
Figure 2. The leaf water potential is determined from the pressure required to force out the xylem sap from the mesophyll cells of a detached leaf, using a neutral gas. When the xylem sap drop is visible at the petiole surface, it is the end of measurement and the pressure is read on the pressure gauge. The duration of the measurement is a few seconds.

Pre-dawn leaf water potential (PLWP)
The reference method used today for addressing grapevine water status is the measurement of predawn leaf water potential (PLWP; ψplwp), which is performed one to two hours before sunrise, when grapevine water status is at a maximum. Pre-dawn water potential measurements present the advantage of being stable, regardless of climatic conditions, and are closely linked to soil water status in the vicinity of roots. Threshold values for PLWP have been proposed by Carbonneau (1998)
Table 1. Pre-dawn leaf water potential and grapevine water status
Classes |
Predawn leaf water potential (Ψplwp, MPa) |
Level of water constraint or stress |
---|---|---|
1 |
0 MPa ≥ ψplwp ≥ -0.3 MPa |
No water deficit |
2 |
-0.3 MPa > ψplwp ≥ -0.5 MPa |
Mild to moderate water deficit |
3 |
-0.5MPa > ψplwp ≥ -0.8 MPa |
Moderate to severe water deficit |
4 |
< -0.8 MPa |
Severe to high water deficit (=stress) |
Table 2. Threshold values of pre-dawn leaf water potentials (Ψplwp, MPa) and possible consequences for vine functioning. It should be noted that the threshold values can vary amongst different grape cultivars
Ψplwp (MPa) |
Vegetative growth |
Photosynthesis |
Berry growth |
Grape ripening |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 to – 0.3 |
normal |
normal |
normal |
normal |
-0.3 to -0.5 |
reduced |
normal to reduced |
normal to reduced |
normal or stimulated |
-0.5 to -0.8 |
reduced to inhibited |
reduced to inhibited |
reduced to inhibited |
reduced to inhibited |
< -0.8 |
inhibited |
inhibited |
Inhibited |
reduced to inhibited |
Midday leaf water potential (MLWP)
Midday leaf water potential (MLWP) is a measurement of plant water status during the day. It is a method which enables the measurement of a short-term hydric response (for example on an hourly basis) of the vine in reaction to a change in the root water absorption and the leaf transpiration (interaction soil water content x climatic demand x leaf transpiration x cultivar/rootstock). The measurement of midday leaf water potential is not recommended as a decision support aid for irrigation scheduling because it is highly responsive to the fluctuations in the microclimate surrounding the leaves.
Stem water potential (SWP)
Stem water potential (SWP) is measured on leaves that are bagged with both a plastic sheet and aluminium foil for at least 30 minutes before measurement. The bagging of the leaves prevents their transpiration and their water potential reaches equilibrium with the water potential in the stems. Stem water potential measurement is a way of obtaining a more integrative indicator compared with midday leaf water potential, and is less prone to leaf microclimate. However, stem water potential values are highly correlated with climatic demand and the overall plant transpiration flow
Table 3. Stem water potential (measured between 13.30 and 15.30 h), and possible relationship to the level of vine water deficit. The table proposes thresholds for most cultivars and terroir units. However, the recommendations have to be considered in the context of soil type, depth and water content; cultural practices; climate and cultivars.
Class |
SWP (ΨSWP, MPa) |
Level of vine water deficit |
---|---|---|
1 |
≥ -0.6 |
No water deficit |
2 |
-0.7 to -1.1 |
Mild to moderate water deficit |
3 |
-1.2 to -1.6 |
Moderate to severe water deficit (according to cultivar) |
4 |
< -1.6 |
Severe to high water deficit (stress) |
Operational management of vineyard using PLWP and SWP
The recommended vine water status according to phenological stages based on PLWP or SWP are: budburst - flowering: class 1; pea size - véraison: classes 1 to 2; véraison - harvest: classes 1 to 3, depending on the desired yield and style of wine. Class 4 should be avoided, as it may lead to plant and cell damage. For operational management of vineyards using data from water potentials measured by the pressure chamber, several factors must be taken into account, i.e. (a) the diversity and heterogeneity of the plot; (b) the time taken to carry out the measurements (1-2 min per leaf and 4-6 leaves used for an average measurement; the number of measurements per plot is variable according to the heterogeneity of the situation); (c) the size of the vineyard (the time taken to move among plots); (d) the pre-dawn leaf water potentials are carried out just before daybreak which limits the sampling time; and (e) rainfall event the day before the measurement, or extreme temperatures (eg. heat wave) during the day of measurement, are likely to influence leaf water potential results.
Take home message
Leaf and stem water potential are used in many viticultural countries to manage vineyard irrigation and to match irrigation to a specific cultivar. It is a useful method for precision irrigation targeted to save water. PLWP and SWP are key physiological indicators of vine water status and form the basis for the calibration of other decision-support tools (Sap flow sensors, IR thermometer, soil moisture probes…). They are also proven methods to understand vine physiology and berry composition in relation to vine water status. Water availability, which affects vine water status and thus vine functioning-physiology, berry composition and wine style/quality, is the result of soil (type, depth & management) and climate (climatic demand & rainfall). Water availability is thus a crucial abiotic factor in unirrigated wine regions.
The translation of this article into English was offered to you by Moët Hennessy.
NOTES
- Rienth M., Scholasch T., 2019. State-of-the-art of tools and methods to assess vine water status, OENO One, 4, 619-637.
- Carbonneau A. 1998. Qualitative aspects, 258 – 276. In. Proc. XXVIIth World Congress of Vine and Wine, Bratislava. Traité d’irrigation, Tiercelin J.R., Lavoisier Tec et Doc ed., 1011 p.
- Choné X., van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D. &, Gaudillère J.P. 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany, 87 (4), 477-483.
- Van Leeuwen C. & Seguin G. 1994. Incidences de l'alimentation en eau de la vigne, appréciée par l'état hydrique du feuillage, sur le développement de l'appareil végétatif et la maturation du raisin (Vitis vinifera variété Cabernet franc, Saint-Emilion, 1990). J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, 28, (2), 81-110.
- Scholander P. F., Hammel H. T., Brandstreet E. T. & Hemmingsen E. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339-346.
- Carbonneau A. 1998. Qualitative aspects, 258 – 276. In. Proc. XXVIIth World Congress of Vine and Wine, Bratislava. Traité d’irrigation, Tiercelin J.R., Lavoisier Tec et Doc ed., 1011 p.
- Carbonneau A. 1998. Qualitative aspects, 258 – 276. In. Proc. XXVIIth World Congress of Vine and Wine, Bratislava. Traité d’irrigation, Tiercelin J.R., Lavoisier Tec et Doc ed., 1011 p.
- Deloire A., Ojeda H., Zebic O., Bernard N., Hunter J.J, Carbonneau A., 2005. Influence of grapevine water status on the wine style, Le Progrès Agricole et Viticole, 2005, N° 21, 455 – 462.
- Chone X., Van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D. &, Gaudillere J.P. 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany, 87 (4), 477-483.
- Choné X., Van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D. &, Gaudillère J.P. 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany, 87 (4), 477-483.
- Deloire A., Heyns D., 2011. The Leaf Water Potentials: Principles, Method and Thresholds Wineland, 119-121, September 2011.
References
- Rienth M., Scholasch T., 2019. State-of-the-art of tools and methods to assess vine water status, OENO One, 4, 619-637. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2019.53.4.2403
- Carbonneau A. 1998. Qualitative aspects, 258 – 276. In. Proc. XXVIIth World Congress of Vine and Wine, Bratislava. Traité d’irrigation, Tiercelin J.R., Lavoisier Tec et Doc ed., 1011 p.
- Choné X., van Leeuwen C., Dubourdieu D. &, Gaudillère J.P. 2001. Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Annals of Botany, 87 (4), 477-483.
- Deloire A., Heyns D., 2011. The Leaf Water Potentials: Principles, Method and Thresholds Wineland, 119-121, September 2011.
- Van Leeuwen C. & Seguin G. 1994. Incidences de l’alimentation en eau de la vigne, appréciée par l’état hydrique du feuillage, sur le développement de l’appareil végétatif et la maturation du raisin (Vitis vinifera variété Cabernet franc, Saint-Emilion, 1990). J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, 28, (2), 81-110.
- Pellegrino, A., Lebon, E., Voltz, M., Wery, J., 2004. Relationships between plant and soil water status in vine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Soil 266, 129–142.
- Deloire A., Ojeda H., Zebic O., Bernard N., Hunter J.J, Carbonneau A., 2005. Influence of grapevine water status on the wine style, Le Progrès Agricole et Viticole, 2005, N° 21, 455 – 462.
- Scholander P. F., Hammel H. T., Brandstreet E. T. & Hemmingsen E. 1965. Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339-346.
Article statistics
Views: 9317
Downloads
PDF: 562