Acta Physiologiae Plantarum

, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 395–403

Effects of Open-Top Chambers on physiological and yield attributes of field grown grapevines

  • José M. Moutinho-Pereira
  • Eunice A. Bacelar
  • Berta Gonçalves
  • Helena F. Ferreira
  • João F. Coutinho
  • Carlos M. Correia
Original Paper


Touriga Franca grapevines were grown in Open-Top Chamber (OTC) and in outside plot (Exterior) for 3 years (2004–2006) to investigate the impact of these structures on climatic conditions and, consequently, on physiological and yield attributes. In general, CO2 assimilation, stomatal conductance, carbohydrate concentration, maximum bulk modulus of elasticity, palisade parenchyma thickness, leaf mass per unit area and values of red/far-red ratio transmitted by leaves were lower, whereas intrinsic water use efficiency, SPAD-readings and osmotic potential at full turgor were higher in OTC leaves. However, OTC did not affect leaf water potential, maximum PSII photochemical efficiency, stomatal density and soluble proteins concentration. Also, there were no significant differences in C, P, Ca and Fe between treatments. Meanwhile, N and Mg were higher, whereas K concentration was lower in OTC leaves. The environmental conditions inside OTC provided a significant reduction in yield and Ravaz index of 2004, mainly due to a decrease in clusters weight. Regarding the vegetative growth parameters, OTC did not influence the pruning weight, but in 2006 the weight/shoot was significantly lower in OTC vines. In conclusion, the use OTC facility to study the impact of CO2 enrichment was very expedite, but the extrapolation of results to the open-field environment must be prudent due to the OTC effect.


Grapevine Leaf anatomy Nutrient content Open-Top Chamber Photosynthesis Pruning mass Vitis vinifera L. Yield 


  1. Ackerson RC (1981) Osmoregulation in cotton in response to water stress. II. Leaf carbohydrate status in relation to osmotic adjustment. Plant Physiol 67:489–493CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aranda I, Pardo F, Gil L, Pardos JA (2004) Anatomical basis of the change in leaf mass per area and nitrogen investment with relative irradiance within the canopy of eight temperate tree species. Acta Oecol 25:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayala-Silva T, Beyl CA (2005) Changes in spectral reflectance of wheat leaves in response to specific macronutrient deficiency. Adv Space Res 35(2):305–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bacelar E, Santos DL, Moutinho-Pereira JM, Gonçalves B, Ferreira H, Correia C (2006) Immediate responses and adaptative strategies of three olive cultivars under contrasting water availability regimes. Changes on structure and chemical composition of foliage and oxidative damage. Plant Sci 170:596–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bacelar EA, Santos DL, Moutinho-Pereira JM, Lopes JI, Gonçalves B, Ferreira H, Correia C (2007) Physiological behaviour, oxidative damage and antioxidative protection of olive trees grown under different irrigation regimes. Plant Soil 292:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beerling DJ, Chaloner WG (1993) The impact of atmospheric CO2 and temperature change on stomatal density: observations from Quercus robur Lammas leaves. Ann Bot 71:231–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bindi M, Fibbi L, Lanini M, Miglietta F (2001a) Free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): I. Development and testing of the system for CO2 enrichment. Eur J Agron 14:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bindi M, Fibbi L, Miglieta F (2001b) Free air CO2 enrichment (FACE) of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): II. Growth and quality of grape and wine in response to elevated CO2 concentrations. Eur J Agron 14:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bindi M, Hacour A, Vandermeiren K, Craigon J, Ojanperä K, Selldén G, Högy P, Finnan J, Fibbi L (2002) Chlorophyll concentration of potatoes grown under elevated carbon dioxide and/or ozone concentrations. Eur J Agron 17:319–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowman WD, Roberts SW (1985) Seasonal changes in tissue elasticity in chaparral shrubs. Physiol Plant 65:233–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Coutinho JF, Magalhães NP, Ahlrichs JL (1984) Nutrition en magnesium, potassium et calcium dans les vignobles sur sols acides de la vallée du Douro. Prog Agric Vitic 101(5):128–135Google Scholar
  13. Daughtry CS, Walthall CL, Kim MS, Brown de Colstoun E, McMurtrey JE III (2000) Estimating corn leaf chlorophyll concentration from leaf and canopy reflectance. Remote Sens Environ 74:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dijkstra P (1989) Cause and effect of differences in specific leaf area. In: Lambers H, Cambridge ML, Konings H, Pons TL (eds) Causes and consequences of variation in growth rate and productivity of higher plants. SPB Academic, The Hague, pp 125–140Google Scholar
  15. Downton WJ, Grant WJ, Loveys BR (1987) Diurnal changes in the photosynthesis of field-grown grape vines. New Phytol 105:71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake BG, Peresta GJ (1993) Open top chambers for studies of the long-term effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on wetland and forest ecosystem processes. In: Schultze ED, Mooney HA (eds) Design and execution of experiments on CO2 enrichment, E. Guyot SA, Brussels, pp 273–289Google Scholar
  17. Düring H (1994) Photosynthesis of ungrafted and grafted grapevines: effects of rootstock genotype and plant age. Am J Enol Vitic 45(3):297–299Google Scholar
  18. Fangmeier A, Temmerman L, Black C, Persson K, Vorne V (2002) Effects of elevated CO2 and/or ozone on nutrient concentrations and nutrient uptake of potatoes. Eur J Agron 17:353–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flexas J, Escalona JM, Medrano H (1998) Down-regulation of photosynthesis by drought under field conditions in grapevine leaves. Aust J Plant Physiol 25:893–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flexas J, Bota J, Escalona J, Sampol B, Medrano H (2002) Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines under field conditions: an evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations. Funct Plant Biol 29:461–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gonçalves B, Correia C, Silva AP, Bacelar E, Santos A, Moutinho-Pereira JM (2008) Leaf structure and function of sweet cherry tree (Prunus avium L.) cultivars with open and dense canopies. Sci Hortic 116:381–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gonçalves B, Falco V, Moutinho-Pereira JM, Bacelar E, Peixoto F, Correia C (2009) Effects of elevated CO2 on grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): volatile composition, phenolic content and in vitro antioxidant activity of red wine. J Agric Food Chem 57:265–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Iacono F, Buccella A, Peterlunger E (1998) Water stress and rootstock influence on leaf gas exchange of grafted and ungrafted grapevines. Sci Hortic 75:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Irigoyen JJ, Emerich DW, Sánchez-Díaz M (1992) Water stress induced changes in concentrations of proline and total soluble sugars in nodulated alfalfa (Medicago sativa) plants. Physiol Plant 84:55–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Katerji N, Hallaire M (1984) Les grandeurs de réference utilisable dans l’étude de l’alimentation en can des cultures. Agronomic 4:999–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Le Roux X, Walcroft AS, Daudet FA, Sinoquet H, Chaves MM, Rodrigues A, Osório L (2001) Photosynthetic light acclimation in peach leaves: importance of changes in mass:area ratio, nitrogen concentration, and leaf nitrogen partitioning. Tree Physiol 21:377–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Leadley PW, Drake BG (1993) Open top chambers for exposing plant canopies to elevated CO2 concentration and for measuring net gas exchange. Plant Ecol 104–105:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leidi EO, López M, Gorham J, Gutiérrez JC (1999) Variation in carbon isotope discrimination and other traits related to drought tolerance in upland cotton cultivars under dryland conditions. Field Crops Res 61:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mills HA, Benton Jones J Jr (1996) Plant analysis handbook II. MicroMacro Publishing Inc, Athens, USAGoogle Scholar
  31. Morgan JM (1992) Osmotic components and properties associated with genotypic differences in osmoregulation in wheat. Aust J Plant Physiol 19:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moutinho-Pereira JM, Correia C, Gonçalves B, Bacelar E, Torres-Pereira JM (2004) Leaf gas-exchange and water relations of grapevines grown in three different conditions. Photosynthetica 42(1):81–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Moutinho-Pereira JM, Magalhães N, Gonçalves B, Bacelar E, Brito M, Correia C (2007) Gas exchange and water relations of three Vitis vinifera L. cultivars growing under Mediterranean climate. Photosynthetica 45(2):202–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Munoz FJ, Dopico B, Labrador E (1993) Effect of osmotic stress on the growth of epicotyls of Cicer arietinum in relation to changes in cell wall composition. Physiol Plant 87:552–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Netto AT, Campostrini E, Oliveira EC, Bressan-Smith RE (2005) Photosynthetic pigments, nitrogen, chlorophyll a fluorescence and SPAD-502 readings in coffee leaves. Sci Hortic 104:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Norris TS, Bailey BJ, Lees M, Young P (1996) Design of a controlled-ventilation open-top chamber for climate change research. J Agric Eng Res 64:279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Öquist G, Wass R (1988) A portable, microprocessor operated instrument for measuring chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics in stress physiology. Physiol Plant 73:211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Osaki M, Shinano T, Tadano T (1991) Redistribution of carbon and nitrogen compounds from the shoot to the harvesting organs during maturation in field crops. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 37:117–128Google Scholar
  39. Osmond CB (1994) What is photoinhibition? Some insights from comparisons of shade and sun plants. In: Baker NR, Bowyer JR (eds) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis: from molecular mechanisms to the field. BIOS Scientific Publishers Ltd, Oxford, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  40. Patakas A, Noitsakis B (2001) Leaf age effects on solute accumulation in water-stressed grapevines. J Plant Physiol 158:63–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Patakas A, Nikolaou N, Zioziou E, Radoglou K, Noitsakis B (2002) The role of organic solute and ion accumulation in osmotic adjustment in drought-stressed grapevines. Plant Sci 163:361–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poni S, Intrieri C (2001) Grapevine photosynthesis: effects linked to light radiation and leaf age. Adv Hortic Sci 15(1–4):5–15Google Scholar
  43. Reich PB, Ellsworth DS, Walters MB (2000) Specific leaf area regulates photosynthesis-nitrogen relations: global evidence from within and across species and functional groups. Funct Ecol 14:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rodrigues ML, Chaves MM, Wendler R, David MM, Quick WP, Leegood RC, Stitt M, Pereira JS (1993) Osmotic adjustment in water stressed grapevine leaves in relation to carbon assimilation. Aust J Plant Physiol 20:309–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sanders GE, Clark AG, Colls JJ (1991) The influence of open-top chambers on the growth and development of field bean. New Phytol 117:439–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schultz HR (2000) Climate change and viticulture: a European perspective on climatology, carbon dioxide and UV-B effects. Aust J Grape Wine Res 6:2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Souza RP, Machado EC, Silva JA, Lagôa AM, Silveira JA (2004) Photosynthetic gas exchange, chlorophyll fluorescence and some associated metabolic changes in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) during water stress and recovery. Environ Exp Bot 51:45–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Terashima I (1992) Anatomy of non-uniform leaf photosynthesis. Photosynth Res 31:195–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Turner NC, Jones MM (1980) Turgor maintenance by osmotic adjustment: a review and evaluation. In: Turner NC, Kramer PJ (eds) Adaptation of plants to water and high temperature stress. Wiley, New York, pp 87–103Google Scholar
  50. Tyree MT, Hammel HT (1972) The measurement of the turgor pressure and the water relations of plants by the pressure-bomb technique. J Exp Bot 23:267–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. von Caemmerer S, Farquhar GD (1981) Some relationships between the biochemistry of photosynthesis and the gas exchange of leaves. Planta 153:376–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • José M. Moutinho-Pereira
    • 1
  • Eunice A. Bacelar
    • 1
  • Berta Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Helena F. Ferreira
    • 1
  • João F. Coutinho
    • 2
  • Carlos M. Correia
    • 1
  1. 1.CITAB, Centre for the Research and Technology of Agro-Environment and Biological SciencesUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto DouroVila RealPortugal
  2. 2.Centre of ChemistryUniversity of Trás-os-Montes e Alto DouroVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations