Cultivars and rootstocks of grapevines for the production of fine winter wines in a subtropical climate

ABSTRACT

Excessive summer rainfall can impair grape ripening and wine quality in subtropical regions. Double pruning management offers an alternative by enabling grape production in the first half of the year, with harvest during drier months. This study evaluated the performance of five Vitis vinifera cultivars (‘Marsanne,’ ‘Marselan,’ ‘Touriga Nacional,’ ‘Muscat Petit Grain,’ and ‘Syrah’) grafted onto the rootstocks IAC 766 and 1103 Paulsen for the production of fine winter wines under a subtropical climate. Vines were trained using a vertical shoot positioning system without irrigation, and assessments were conducted over two growing seasons. Productive and chemical parameters of the grapes were measured. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance, and means were compared with the Scott-Knott’s test (p < 0.05). The IAC 766 rootstock promoted higher vigor without reducing must quality. ‘Touriga Nacional’ showed excessive vigor and low bud fertility, highlighting the need for careful canopy management. Overall, ‘Marselan,’ ‘Syrah,’ ‘Marsanne,’ and ‘Muscat Petit Grain’ demonstrated good potential for winter wine production.

Key words
Vitis vinifera ; double pruning; winter viticulture; off-season production

INTRODUCTION

Viticulture has become increasingly important globally due to its economic, social, and cultural relevance, particularly in wine production (Montes Ninaquispe et al. 2024). In Brazil, vineyard expansion into tropical and subtropical regions offers opportunities for production diversification but introduces challenges related to local climatic conditions (Gonçalves et al. 2022).

In many subtropical regions, summer rainfall coincides with grape ripening, promoting fungal diseases, berry cracking, and dilution of soluble solids, which compromise fruit quality and wine standardization (Modina et al. 2023, Roxinol et al. 2023, Ji et al. 2024).

Double pruning, involving two annual pruning operations, has been proposed to overcome these limitations. The first pruning in winter induces vegetative growth without fruiting, while the second one in summer promotes fertile shoots for a winter crop, allowing ripening under lower rainfall and milder temperatures (Amorim et al. 2005, Maniero et al. 2025). This strategy improves grape quality, reduces disease incidence, balances sugar and acidity, increases phenolic compounds, and optimizes harvest scheduling (Ferrara et al. 2022, Maniero et al. 2025).

However, double pruning affects vine physiological balance, requiring careful vigor control and nutritional management. Rootstock choice is critical, as it influences vegetative growth, yield, and fruit quality. In Brazil, IAC 766 is highly vigorous, whereas 1103 Paulsen shows moderate vigor and drought tolerance (Tecchio et al. 2022, Almeida et al. 2025). Interactions between rootstocks and cultivars can affect leaf water potential, bud fertility, chlorophyll content, and yield (Simonetti et al. 2021).

Thus, studies evaluating cultivar × rootstock performance under subtropical conditions are essential to identify materials suitable for winter wine production. This study aimed to assess the performance of five Vitis vinifera cultivars grafted onto IAC 766 and 1103 Paulsen for fine winter wine production in a subtropical climate.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was carried out at the experimental field of the Department of Agriculture, Universidade Federal de Lavras, Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brazil (21°14’S, 45°00’W; 910 m altitude). The regional climate is classified as Cwa (humid subtropical with dry winters) according to Köppen, with mean annual temperature of 19.4°C, annual rainfall of 1,529.7 mm, and relative humidity of 76.2%.

Five-year-old vines were used, spaced 2.5 m × 0.8 m. The experimental design was a randomized complete block design in a 5 × 2 factorial scheme, with five V. vinifera cultivars (‘Touriga Nacional,’ ‘Marselan,’ ‘Marsanne,’ ‘Muscat Petit Grain,’ and ‘Syrah’) grafted onto two rootstocks (‘1103 Paulsen’ - V. berlandieri × V. rupestris and ‘IAC 766 Campinas’ - 106-8 Mgt × V. caribaea), and 10 plants per treatment.

Vines were trained to a bilateral cordon with vertical shoot positioning trellis and managed under rainfed conditions. Double pruning was adopted (Amorim et al. 2005): a formative pruning in September induced vegetative growth without fruiting, and a production pruning in January left three buds per spur. Hydrogen cyanamide (Dormex^®, 5% v/v) was applied to synchronize budbreak. Vineyard management followed standard viticultural practices.

Berry ripening was monitored by measuring total soluble solids content using a digital refractometer. Six berries per block, from each cultivar, were sampled every 48 hours, starting near the berry ripening point. Readings were taken early in the morning. The harvest point was established when the sampled berries showed levels above 20° Brix. All cultivars were harvested on the same date.

The dry mass of pruned shoots was determined after drying at 50°C to constant weight. Bud fertility was estimated as the ratio of effective clusters to total shoots. At harvest, yield components (number and mass of clusters, berries per cluster, berry mass, and diameter) were evaluated in four plants per treatment.

Must from 100 berries per treatment was analyzed for soluble solids (SS), titratable acidity (TA), and pH. SS was measured with a digital refractometer and expressed in °Brix. TA was determined by titration with 0.1 N NaOH and expressed as g.L^-1 tartaric acid. pH was measured using a calibrated digital pH meter.

Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), and means were compared by the Scott–Knott’s test (p < 0.05) using SISVAR software (Ferreira 2011).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 1 shows that, in both evaluation cycles, grapevines grafted onto the rootstock IAC 766 exhibited greater vegetative vigor. A higher average pruning weight of shoots was recorded during winter pruning compared to vines grafted onto 1103 P.

Table 1
Average cane mass and bud fertility: ratio between inflorescences and number of shoots of five grapevine cultivars grafted onto two rootstocks, evaluated ever two seasons in subtropical region.

Cultivar	Average cane mass (g per plant)*
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	232 ± 0.2 bA	128 ± 0.4 bB		250 ± 0.3 bA	193 ± 0.7 aB
‘Marselan’	150 ± 0.1 cA	127 ± 0.6 bA		154 ± 0.5 cA	177 ± 0.5 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	281 ± 0.8 aA	178 ± 0.7 aB		292 ± 0.5 aA	219 ± 0.4 aB
‘Syrah’	232 ± 0.7 bA	130 ± 0.8 bB		239 ± 0.4 bA	161 ± 0.3 bB
‘Touriga N’	343 ± 1.0 aA	301 ± 1.2 aB		356 ± 0.7 aA	295 ± 0.6 aB
CV (%)	24.53			21.42
Cultivar	Bud fertility
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	0.21 ± 0.1 cA	0.22 ± 0.1 cA		1.23 ± 0.1 bA	0.78 ± 0.5 bB
‘Marselan’	1.86 ± 0.1 aA	1.42 ± 0.1 aA		1.62 ± 0.2 aA	1.47 ± 0.5 aA
‘M. P. Grain’	0.77 ± 0.2 bA	0.59 ± 0.2 bA		1.11 ± 0.3 bA	1.03 ± 0.4 bA
‘Syrah’	0.81 ± 0.2 bA	0.61 ± 0.2 bA		1.32 ± 0.3 bA	1.22 ± 0.3 bA
‘Touriga N’	0.38 ± 0.3 cA	0.32 ± 0.2 cA		0.52 ± 0.3 cB	0.90 ± 0.2 bA
CV (%)	24.1			23.4

• ^*
  The averages followed by the same lowercase letter in the column and uppercase letter in the row within each variable belong to the same group by the Scott-Knott’s test (p < 0.05); CV: coeficiente of variation.

The cultivars ‘Touriga Nacional’ and ‘Muscat Petit Grain’ showed the highest shoot masses, indicating greater vegetative growth. In contrast, ‘Marsanne’ and ‘Syrah’ had lower performance on 1103 P in the second cycle, while ‘Marselan’ displayed more consistent values across both rootstocks (Table 1).

Regarding bud fertility, the effect of rootstock was less pronounced, with only specific differences observed, such as better performance of ‘Marsanne’ on IAC 766 and ‘Touriga Nacional’ on 1103 P in the second cycle (Table 1). Among cultivars, ‘Marselan’ showed the highest bud fertility indices on both rootstocks and cycles, standing out for its productive potential (Table 1). Conversely, ‘Touriga Nacional’ and ‘Marsanne’ generally showed lower fertility, especially in the first cycle (Table 1).

The greater vegetative vigor observed in cultivars grafted onto the IAC 766 rootstock is likely due to the higher vigor conferred by this hybrid, derived from Vitis caribaea, which is known to enhance growth in tropical rootstocks (Gobetti et al. 2024). This effect may result from the greater efficiency of IAC 766 in absorbing and translocating water and nutrients, as well as its more aggressive root system, promoting shoot development in cultivars such as ‘Touriga Nacional’ and ‘Muscat Petit Grain’ (Domingues Neto et al. 2024, 2025). In contrast, the 1103 P rootstock, despite its drought tolerance and capacity to moderate vegetative growth under high humidity (Bianchi et al. 2023), may have limited shoot biomass accumulation in this study.

Bud fertility appeared to be predominantly influenced by the scion genotype rather than the rootstock (Oliveira et al. 2023). ‘Marselan’ exhibited the highest bud fertility across rootstocks and cycles, reflecting a balance between vegetative and reproductive growth that favors floral bud induction (Monteiro et al. 2021, Maniero et al. 2025). Conversely, ‘Touriga Nacional’ and ‘Marsanne’ showed lower bud fertility, potentially due to excessive vegetative growth or intrinsic phenological traits (Kamila et al. 2024). Environmental conditions, such as mild temperatures and light availability during floral induction, may further interact with rootstock and scion behavior (Domingues Neto et al. 2024).

In terms of productive parameters (Table 2), the number of clusters per plant was higher in ‘Marsanne’ and ‘Marselan’ cultivars grafted onto IAC 766, particularly in the second cycle. ‘Touriga Nacional’ maintained low cluster numbers in nearly all combinations, especially in second cycle (Table 2), which, along with its low bud fertility, explains its poor productivity (Table 1). IAC 766 promoted more clusters in some cultivars (‘Marsanne’ and ‘Marselan’), particularly in the second cycle, by favoring balanced growth, fertile shoot emission, and reserve accumulation (Domingues Neto et al. 2025).

Table 2
Number of clusters per plant, average cluster mass (g), and yield per plant (kg) of five grape cultivars grafted onto two rootstocks, across two evaluation cycles in the subtropical region.

Cultivar	Number of clusters per plant*
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	15 ± 0.2 bA	16 ± 0.2 bA		22 ± 1.3 bA	16 ± 1.3 bB
‘Marselan’	34 ± 1.1 aA	23 ± 1.1 aB		34 ± 1.6 aA	24 ± 1.1 aB
‘M. P. Grain’	12 ± 1.0 bA	9 ± 0.3 cA		17 ± 1.3 bA	16 ± 1.2 bA
‘Syrah’	12 ± 1.3 bA	15 ± 1.0 bA		21 ± 1.1 bA	18 ± 1.3 bA
‘Touriga N’	10 ± 0.9 bA	9 ± 0.6 cA		11 ± 0.2 cA	12 ± 0.9 cA
CV (%)	22.7			21.8
Cultivar	Average cluster mass (g)
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	222.3 ± 3.2 aA	177.3 ± 4.1 aB		351.1 ± 9.8 aA	212.2 ± 3.5 aB
‘Marselan’	174.6 ± 9.2 bA	159.6 ± 9.3 aA		193.8 ± 9.3 bA	165.2 ± 7.4 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	139.1 ± 8.5 bA	135.3 ± 8.6 bA		224.4 ± 7.5 bA	182.3 ± 6.2 bA
‘Syrah’	133.2 ± 7.4 bA	124.3 ± 5.6 bA		142.6 ± 8.6 bA	166.0 ± 8.4 bA
‘Touriga N’	50.2 ± 6.9 cA	40.7 ± 3.2 cA		54.2 ± 4.5 cA	81.8 ± 6.2 cA
CV (%)	29.5			25.5
Cultivar	Yield per plant (kg·planta-1)
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	1.4 ± 0.2 bA	1.2 ± 0.2 bA		3.0 ± 0.3 aA	2.4 ± 0.2 aB
‘Marselan’	3.5 ± 0.3 aA	1.9 ± 0.2 aB		3.1 ± 0.2 aA	2.1 ± 0.1 aB
‘M. P. Grain’	1.7 ± 0.3 bA	1.4 ± 0.3 bA		2.5 ± 0.2 bA	2.2 ± 0.2 aA
‘Syrah’	1.6 ± 0.3 bA	1.6 ± 0.2 aA		2.9 ± 0.3 aA	2.6 ± 0.2 aA
‘Touriga N’	0.8 ± 0.2 cA	0.6 ± 0.1 cA		1.0 ± 0.1 cA	0.9 ± 0.1 bA
CV (%)	21.9			24.5

• ^*
  The averages followed by the same lowercase letter in the column and uppercase letter in the row within each variable belong to the same group by the Scott-Knott’s test (p < 0.05); CV: coefficient of variation.

Regarding average cluster mass (Table 2), ‘Marsanne’ showed the highest averages across the cycles. The cultivars ‘Marselan,’ ‘Muscat Petit Grain,’ and ‘Syrah’ had relatively stable cluster masses with no significant differences between rootstocks or cycles, demonstrating consistency in their productive potential. ‘Touriga Nacional,’ however, had lower results compared to the other cultivars (Table 2).

Average cluster weight was more dependent on cultivar than rootstock, with consistency across cycles, highlighting the importance of selecting suitable scion/rootstock combinations. Pre- and post-pruning soil and climatic conditions influenced yield components. High precipitation and cloudiness during early phenological stages in the first cycle reduced pollination and berry number, affecting carbohydrate partitioning and potentially causing basal bud necrosis (Monteiro et al. 2021, Kamila et al. 2024).

Yield per plant largely reflected the number of clusters, with ‘Marselan’ being the most productive cultivar in both cycles, mainly in IAC 766 rootstock. ‘Marsanne’ showed good performance in the second cycle when grafted onto IAC 766, while ‘Touriga Nacional’ once again had the lowest performance (Table 2).

These results suggest that the rootstock IAC 766 can enhance the productive performance of cultivars with higher vigor and good reproductive capacity, such as ‘Marselan’ and ‘Marsanne,’ whereas more sensitive or low-fertility cultivars, like ‘Touriga Nacional,’ show limited performance even under favorable conditions.

The average number of berries per cluster varied depending on the harvest season (Table 3). The rootstock influenced this variable only for the cultivar ‘Marsanne,’ which showed higher values in the first cycle when grafted onto 1103 P. However, in the second cycle, this trend reversed, with an increase in berry number in the same cultivar grafted onto IAC 766 (Table 3).

Table 3
Average number of berries per cluster, berry diameter, and average berry mass of five cultivars grafted onto two rootstocks, across two evaluation cycles in the subtropical region.

Cultivar	Number of berries per cluster*
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	46.0 ± 0.9 bB	129.2 ± 5.3 aA		245.1 ± 4.5 aA	116.4 ± 9.9 bB
‘Marselan’	171.9 ± 1.6 aA	173.8 ± 9.2 aA		199.1 ± 4.3 aA	155.4 ± 8.6 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	77.2 ± 4.2 bA	84.3 ± 1.9 bA		121.1 ± 4.2 bA	145.2 ± 6.5 bA
‘Syrah’	78.8 ± 1.8 bA	89.8 ± 1.6 bA		279.7 ± 8.3 aA	240.2 ± 8.2 aA
‘Touriga N’	37.1 ± 3.5 bA	29.3 ± 3.2 cA		66.4 ± 5.1 bA	64.0 ± 3.2 bA
CV (%)	25.67			23.86
Cultivar	Average berry diameter (mm)
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	12.7 ± 2.2 bA	11.0 ± 0.7 bB		11.0 ± 2.1 bA	10.7 ± 1.0 bA
‘Marselan’	11.0 ± 0.9 bA	10.5 ± 0.4 bB		11.3 ± 1.6 bA	10.8 ± 1.8 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	15.0 ± 0.8 aA	14.5 ± 0.5 aB		14.3 ± 1.8 aA	13.8 ± 1.6 aA
‘Syrah’	14.5 ± 0.6 aA	13.7 ± 0.8 aB		13.7 ± 1.0 aA	11.8 ± 1.4 bB
‘Touriga N’	14.6 ± 1.2 aA	13.6 ± 0.6 aB		12.5 ± 1.2 bA	12.6 ± 1.2 aA
CV (%)	11.39			4.38
Cultivar	Average berry mass (g)
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	1.5 ± 0.1 bA	1.6 ± 0.1 aA		1.6 ± 0.2 bA	1.4 ± 0.2 bA
‘Marselan’	1.2 ± 0.4 bA	0.9 ± 0.2 bA		1.0 ± 0.1 bA	0.9 ± 0.1 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	2.5 ± 0.2 aA	2.3 ± 0.3 aA		2.5 ± 0.4 aA	2.3 ± 0.3 aA
‘Syrah’	2.3 ± 0.3 aA	2.0 ± 0.4 aA		1.9 ± 0.3 aA	1.3 ± 0.1 bA
‘Touriga N’	2.4 ± 0.1 aA	2.0 ± 0.3 aA		1.4 ± 0.2 bA	1.4 ± 0.4 bA
CV (%)	17.38			10.92

• ^*
  The averages followed by the same lowercase letter in the column and uppercase letter in the row within each variable belong to the same group by the Scott-Knott’s test (p < 0.05); CV: coefficient of variation.

Cultivar responses also varied. In the first cycle, ‘Marselan’ had the highest average number of berries per cluster (Table 3). In the second cycle, berry number increased in cultivars grafted onto IAC 766, with the highest averages in ‘Syrah’ and ‘Marsanne,’ followed by ‘Marselan.’ On 1103 P, in the second cycle, only ‘Syrah’ maintained a higher average than the other cultivars.

In both harvest cycles, ‘Marselan’ and ‘Marsanne’ produced lighter berries compared to the other cultivars, while the highest berry mass was observed in ‘Muscat Petit Grain,’ a characteristic intrinsic to this cultivar (Table 3).

Berry mass differed among cultivars but not rootstocks. Heavier berries in the first cycle likely resulted from fewer berries per cluster, favoring enlargement (Friedel et al. 2016). Such parameters are relevant for must yield and wine quality, as smaller berries enhance phenolic extraction (Barros et al. 2019). Rainfall and source:sink ratio also influenced berry size and must dilution (Martinez et al. 2017).

Across both evaluation periods, SS content ranged from 20 to 24 °Brix, with interactions depending on the rootstock used and the cycle (Table 4). In the first cycle, higher SS concentrations were observed in cultivars grafted onto IAC 766, whereas in the second cycle, overall averages were higher on 1103 P.

Table 4
Mean levels of soluble solids, pH, and titratable acidity (g·L^-1 of tartaric acid) at the time of harvest of fruits from five grape cultivars grafted onto two rootstocks, across two evaluation cycles in the subtropical region.

Cultivar	Soluble solids (SS) °Brix*
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	24.0 ± 0.2 aA	24.5 ± 0.3 aA		21.8 ± 0.2 bB	23.9 ± 0.2 aA
‘Marselan’	23.8 ± 0.3 aA	24.2 ± 0.2 aA		23.2 ± 0.1 aA	23.9 ± 0.2 aA
‘M. P. Grain’	24.4 ± 0.2 aA	22.4 ± 0.1 bB		23.9 ± 0.3 aA	23.2 ± 0.3 aA
‘Syrah’	23.0 ± 0.1 bA	20.1 ± 0.1 bB		21.7 ± 0.1 bA	21.3 ± 0.1 aA
‘Touriga N’	21.0 ± 0.2 bA	21.3 ± 0.2 bA		21.0 ± 0.1 bB	22.7 ± 0.3 aA
CV (%)	6.48			5.53
Cultivar	pH
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	3.4 ± 0.1 bB	3.6 ± 0.1 aA		3.1 ± 0.1 bA	3.4 ± 0.3 bA
‘Marselan’	3.4 ± 0.4 bA	3.5 ± 0.2 aA		3.2 ± 0.2 bA	3.2 ± 0.2 bA
‘M. P. Grain’	3.6 ± 0.3 aA	3.4 ± 0.5 bB		3.5 ± 0.4 aA	3.6 ± 0.4 aA
‘Syrah’	3.4 ± 0.2 bB	3.6 ± 0.5 aA		3.6 ± 0.2 aA	3.4 ± 0.2 bA
‘Touriga N’	3.6 ± 0.1 aA	3.6 aA		3.6 aA	3.7 aA
CV (%)	2.91			6.41
Cultivar	Titratable acidity (g·L1 of tartaric acid)
	First cycle			Second cycle
	IAC 766	1103 P		IAC 766	1103 P
‘Marsanne’	5.1 ± 0.2 aA	6.3 ± 0.4 aA		6.9 ± 0.2 aA	6.6 ± 0.5 bA
‘Marselan’	6.2 ± 0.2 aA	5.7 ± 0.3 aB		8.2 ± 0.2 aA	8.9 ± 0.4 aA
‘M. P. Grain’	7.3 ± 0.3 aA	5.7 ± 0.1 aB		6.3 ± 0.1 aA	5.6 ± 0.3 bA
‘Syrah’	6.0 ± 0.4 aA	4.8± 0.2 aB		7.1 ± 0.3 aA	6.3 ± 0.2 bA
‘Touriga N’	5.9 aA	6.6 aA		9.0 aA	7.9 aB
CV (%)	14.68			15.2

• ^*
  The averages followed by the same lowercase letter in the column and uppercase letter in the row within each variable belong to the same group by the Scott-Knott’s test (p < 0.05); CV: coefficient of variation.

For pH, values ranged from 3.1 to 3.7. In the first cycle, pH values were higher, especially in grapes grafted onto 1103 P (Table 4). In contrast, TA values were lower in the first cycle, ranging from 4.8 to 7.3 g.L^-1. In the second cycle, higher acidity values were recorded, ranging from 5.6 to 9 g.L^-1.

All cultivars recorded SS between 20.1 and 24.5 °Brix, suitable for winter cycle winemaking. pH ranged from 3.1 to 3.7, with higher values in grapes grafted onto 1103 P, consistent with its known effect on potassium uptake and acid neutralization (Chen et al. 2024). TA ranged 4.8–9 g/L, generally within the optimal range for wine grapes (Vicente et al. 2022).

Overall, cultivar traits exerted a stronger influence than rootstock on bud fertility, cluster weight, berry mass, and must quality. IAC 766 consistently enhanced vegetative vigor and, in some cultivars, improved reproductive performance, whereas 1103 P moderated growth and slightly increased must pH. These findings underscore the importance of matching scion and rootstock for optimal balance between vegetative growth and grape production.

CONCLUSION

Under double pruning management, the cultivars ‘Marselan,’ ‘Syrah,’ ‘Marsanne,’ and ‘Muscat Petit Grain’ showed potential for producing high-quality grapes in subtropical regions. The vigor provided by the IAC 766 rootstock was sufficient for most cultivars and did not compromise their productivity. Adjusting pruning height may further improve the yield performance of ‘Touriga Nacional.’

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Not applicable.

• How to cite:
  Aragão, A. R., Peche, P. M., Ribeiro, C. H. M., Silva, A. D. and Pio, R. (2026). Cultivars and rootstocks of grapevines for the production of fine winter wines in a subtropical climate. Bragantia, 85, e20250281. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20250281
• FUNDING
  Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  Finance Code 001
  Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  Grant No. 406577/2022-6
• DECLARATION OF USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TOOLS
  The authors declare that no artificial intelligence tools were used in the preparation, writing, data analysis, or review of this manuscript.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All dataset were generated and analyzed in the current study.

REFERENCES

• Almeida, M. H. S., Tecchio, M. A., Santana, B. S. N., Domingues, N. F. J., Contreras, S. C. A. P., Alonso, J. C. and Souza, S. M. (2025). Phenological development, thermal requirement, and quality of ‘BRS Núbia’ (Vitis vinifera L. × Vitis labrusca L.) grapes on different rootstocks. Horticulturae, 11, 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11050466
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11050466
• Amorim, D. A. D., Favero, A. C. and Regina, M. D. A. (2005). Produção extemporânea da videira, cultivar Syrah, nas condições do sul de Minas Gerais. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 27, 327-331. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452005000200036
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452005000200036
• Barros, M. I. L. F., Mello, L. L., Frölech, D. B., Manica-Berto, R. and Costa, V. B. (2019). Características físico-químicas de uva ‘Marselan’ sob raleio de cachos na Serra do Sudeste-RS. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Agrárias, 14, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v14i1a5622
  » https://doi.org/10.5039/agraria.v14i1a5622
• Bianchi, D., Ricciardi, V., Pozzoli, C., Grossi, D., Caramanico, L., Pindo, M. and Lorenzis, G. (2023). Physiological and transcriptomic evaluation of drought effect on own-rooted and grafted grapevine rootstock (1103P and 101-14MGt). Plants, 12, 1080. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051080
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051080
• Chen, Y., Howell, K., Chen, D., Clingeleffer, P. and Zhang, P. (2024). Rootstocks for grapevines now and into the future: selection of rootstocks based on drought tolerance, soil nutrient availability, and soil pH. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1, 6704238. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6704238
  » https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6704238
• Domingues Neto, F. J., Tecchio, M. A., Borges, C. V., Rodrigues, J. D., Ono, E. O., Lima, G. P. P. and Leonel, M. (2024). Yield performance and quality assessment of Brazilian hybrid grapes influenced by rootstocks and training systems. Horticulturae, 10, 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10090909
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10090909
• Domingues Neto, F. J., Tecchio, M. A., Pimentel Junior, A., Monteiro, H. S. A., Moura-Furlan, M. F., Hernandes, J. L. and Rodrigues, J. D. (2025). Effects of rootstock and training system on photosynthesis, biochemical responses, and yield in Vitis labrusca under subtropical climate conditions. Horticulturae, 11, 589. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11060589
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11060589
• Ferrara, G., Magarelli, A., Palasciano, M., Coletta, A., Crupi, P., Tarantino, A. and Mazzeo, A. (2022). Effects of different winter pruning times on table grape vines performance and starch reserves to face climate changes. Scientia Horticulturae, 305, 111385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111385
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111385
• Ferreira, D. F. (2011). Sisvar: um sistema computacional de análise estatística. Ciência e Agrotecnologia, 35, 1039-1042. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542011000600001
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1413-70542011000600001
• Friedel, M., Sorrentino, V., Blank, M. and Schüttler, A. (2016). Influence of berry diameter and colour on some determinants of wine composition of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22, 215-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12210
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12210
• Gobetti, R. C. R., Suchoronczek, A., Pertille, R. H., Grigolo, C. R., Feldberg, N. P. and Citadin, I. (2024). Survival, biomass, and oxidative stress associated with the compatibility of different scion/rootstock combinations of grapevine. Bragantia, 83, e20240085. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20240085
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20240085
• Gonçalves, M. G. M., Brant, L. A. C., Mota, R. V., Peregrino, I., Souza, C. R., Albuquerque Regina, M. and Menezes, M. D. (2022). GIS and fuzzy logics in establishing new potential areas for winter wines (Syrah cv.) cultivation in tropical conditions of southeastern Brazil. Applied Geography, 141, 102680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102680
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2022.102680
• Ji, T., Altieri, V., Salotti, I., Li, M. and Rossi, V. (2024). Role of rain in the spore dispersal of fungal pathogens associated with grapevine trunk diseases. Plant Disease, 108, 1041-1052. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-23-0403-RE
  » https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-03-23-0403-RE
• Kamila, S., Widodo, W. D., Santosa, E. and Suhartanto, M. R. (2024). Flowering and fruiting phenology in two varieties of grapes (Vitis vinifera) in tropical regions, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 25. https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d251158
  » https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d251158
• Maniero, C. R., Tecchio, M. A., Monteiro, H. S. A., Sánchez, C. A. P. C., Pereira, G. E., Oliveira, J. B. and Santos, P. V. (2025). Phenological performance, thermal demand, and qualitative potential of wine grape cultivars under double pruning. Agriculture, 15, 1241. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15121241
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15121241
• Martinez, E. A., Ribeiro, V. G., Vilar, P. F. I., Von Hausen, L. J. O. and Bezerra, E. D. (2017). Evaluation of nitrogen monitoring, bud fertility and Thompson Seedless grapevine production on different rootstocks. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 39, e-950. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452017950
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452017950
• Modina, D., Cola, G., Bianchi, D., Bolognini, M., Manchini, S., Foianini, I. and Brancadoro, L. (2023). Alpine viticulture and climate change: environmental resources and limitations for grapevine ripening in Valtellina, Italy. Plants, 12, 2068. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12112068
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12112068
• Monteiro, A. L., Malheiro, A. C. and Bacelar, E. A. (2021). Morphology, physiology and analysis techniques of grapevine bud fruitfulness: A review. Agriculture, 11, 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020127
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020127
• Montes Ninaquispe, J. C., Vasquez Huatay, K. C., Ludeña Jugo, D. A., Pantaleón Santa María, A. L., Farías Rodríguez, J. C., Suárez Santa Cruz, F. and Arbulú-Ballesteros, M. A. (2024). Market diversification and competitiveness of fresh grape exports in Peru. Sustainability, 16, 2528. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062528
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su16062528
• Oliveira, C. R. S. D., Silva, F. B. D., Felinto Filho, E. F., Mendonça Junior, A. F. D., Ulisses, C. and Leão, P. C. D. S. (2023). The influence of rootstock on vigor and bud fertility of ‘BRS Tainá’ grape in the São Francisco Valley. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 45, e-103. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452023103
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452023103
• Roxinol, M. I., Martins, M. R., Barroso, J. M. and Rato, A. E. (2023). Wine grapes ripening: A review on climate effect and analytical approach to increase wine quality. Applied Biosciences, 2, 347-372. https://doi.org/10.3390/applbiosci2030023
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/applbiosci2030023
• Simonetti, L. M., Sousa, M. C., Moura, M. F., Nunes, J. G. D. S., Diamante, M. S., Silva, M. B. D. and Tecchio, M. A. (2021). The influence of different training systems and rootstocks on ‘Sauvignon Blanc’ grapes. Bragantia, 80, e2021. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20200411
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20200411
• Tecchio, M. A., Silva, M. J. R. D., Sanchez, C. A. P. C., Callili, D., Vedoato, B. T. F., Hernandes, J. L. and Moura, M. F. (2022). Yield performance and quality of wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) grafted onto different rootstocks under subtropical conditions. Bragantia, 81, e1622. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20210214
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.20210214
• Vicente, J., Baran, Y., Navascués, E., Santos, A., Calderón, F., Marquinha, D. and Benito, S. (2022). Biological management of acidity in wine industry: A review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 375, 109726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109726
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109726

Edited by

• Section Editor:
  Alberto Cargnelutti Filho https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8608-9960

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  22 Dec 2025
• Accepted
  27 Apr 2026