Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Avoiding frost damage in grapevines by application of various protective substances Cover
Open Access
|Dec 2025

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1:

Temperature profile of a frost regimen applied in the incubation chamber, the red line is the air temperature while the blue line is the sensor temperature at the object in °C
Temperature profile of a frost regimen applied in the incubation chamber, the red line is the air temperature while the blue line is the sensor temperature at the object in °C

Fig. 2:

Grapevine cuttings exposed to frost conditions outdoor with a minimum temperature of −4 °C and the reaction of the shoots (leaves)
Grapevine cuttings exposed to frost conditions outdoor with a minimum temperature of −4 °C and the reaction of the shoots (leaves)

Fig. 3:

Frequency of damaged (1), necrotized (2) and healthy (3) grapevine shoots after treatment with Cropaid (C), urea (H) and in the untreated control (K)
Frequency of damaged (1), necrotized (2) and healthy (3) grapevine shoots after treatment with Cropaid (C), urea (H) and in the untreated control (K)

Fig. 4:

Comparison of frost damage control (C), Megafol application (M) and Agros-3 application (A) by the frequency of damaged shoots
Comparison of frost damage control (C), Megafol application (M) and Agros-3 application (A) by the frequency of damaged shoots

The difference between Urea (U; 2%) and both the control (C) and Cropaid (K; 0,5%) was significant

Var. 1Var. 2difference of mean valuestandard deviationSignificanceconfidenceinterval
KC−0,047620,256140,981−0,66320,5679
U−,95238*0,25614<0,001−1,5679−0,3368

CK0,047620,256140,981−0,56790,6632
U−,90476*0,256140,002−1,5203−0,2892

UK,95238*0,25614<0,0010,33681,5679
C,90476*0,256140,0020,28921,5203

Results of treatment with different substances and following frost exposition

TissueSubstance (concentration)Application frequencyIncubationControl - healthyControl - damagedTreated-healthyTreated-damaged
GV cuttingsSuperfifty (2%)2xshort2442
GV cuttingsVeganofluid (3%)2xlong0606
GV cuttingsUrea (2%)2xlong1542

Substances used in the protection trials with information about the supplier and the used concentration

Substance or productsupplierconcentrations
Agros-3Deygest, ES0,5%, 1%, 2%
CutisanBiohelp, AT1%
HortisulAgrando, DE1%, 2%
Prev BBiohelp, AT0,2%, 0,3%
SuperfiftyBiohelp, AT1%, 2%
Zn ChelateRaiffeisen LH, AT1%
Baking sodaKotanyi, AT1%, 2%
Basfoliar AktivBASF, DE0,5%, 1%, 2,5%, 5%
CocanaBiohelp, AT0,5%, 1%
CropAidCropaid Int. Limited, UK0,3%, 0,5%
Fertileader VitalTimac Agro, FR1%, 2%
Fruit LimeSchneider, Verblasetechnik, DE1%
Fuguran ProgressCertis, DE1%
Genol AntifreezeRaiffeisen warehouse1%
KHPO4Merck, DE1%, 2%
KumarCertis, DE1%, 2%
MegafolSyngentha, DE1%, 2%, 2,5%
Myco Sin VinBiohelp, AT1%, 2%
PK FitHechenbichler, AT0,5%, 1%
Potassium Water GlassPottasol, Biohelp, AT0,5%, 0,7%, 1%
PrestopBiohelp, AT0,50%
Radam Extra 250Kwizda Agro AT0,1%, 0,5%, 1%, 1,5%
Regalis® PlusBASF, DE0,10%
Sojall VitanaSOJALL Pro Natura GmbH1%, 2%
Syneco AF5Syneco, Milano IT1%, 1,5%, 2%
UreaRoth, AT1%, 2%
VeganofluidVeganosol GmbH, DE3%, 4%, 5%

Results of treatment with Megafol 2% and following frost exposition

TissueSubstance (concentration)Application frequencyIncubationControl - healthyControl - damagedTreated-healthyTreated-damaged
GV cuttingsMegafol (2%)2xshort2433
GV cuttingsMegafol (2%)2xlong2442
GV cuttingsMegafol (2%)2xlong3324

Results of treatment with Cropaid and following frost exposition

TissueSubstance (concentration)Application frequencyIncubationControl - healthyControl - damagedTreated-healthyTreated-damaged
GV cuttingsCropaid (0,5%)2xshort4224
GV cuttingsCropaid (0,5%)2xlong2442
GV cuttingsCropaid (0,5%)2xlong2451

Incidence and severity of frost damage on shoots at a vineyard in Krems_ Statistical analysis was done with Kruskal Wallis Test_ Different superscript letters represent significant differences_

Frost damageIncidence (%)Severity (%)
Control8.0b5.9b
Megafol3.5a2.3a
Agros-323.8c11.5c
p-value< 0.001< 0.001

Results gained by incubation with the frost chamber after a twice spray treatment_ The differences were not significant_ Number of pots for each classification_

TissueSubstance (concentration)Application frequencyIncubationControl - healthyControl - damagedTreated-healthyTreated-damaged
ZW cuttingsNaHCO3 (1%)2xshort2442
GV cuttingsUrea (1%)2xlong1533
GV cuttingsSyneco AF5 (1%)2xlong2433

Results of grapevine cuttings treated with a combination of Zn chelate and urea

TissueSubstance (concentration)Application frequencyIncubationControl - healthyControl - damagedTreated-healthyTreated-damaged
GV cuttingsUrea (2%)2xlong2442
GV cuttingsZn chelate (1%) - urea (2%)2xlong2442
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/mittklbg-2025-0010 | Journal eISSN: 3061-063X | Journal ISSN: 3061-0621
Language: English
Page range: 141 - 153
Submitted on: Apr 29, 2025
|
Published on: Dec 26, 2025
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2025 Ferdinand Regner, Christian Redl, Erich Ferschel, Ida Brandstätter, published by High School and Federal Office of Viticulture and Pomology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.