Hierarchy of the interactions between physical and biological parameters intervening in the Pyrenean Gascon foothill vineyard

Effects of climate change on viticulture systems and winemaking processes are being felt across the world. The IPCC 6thAssessment Report concluded widespread and rapid changes have occurred, the scale of recent changes being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. These changes will continue under all emission scenarios considered, including increases in frequency and intensity of hot extremes, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts. Wine companies need tools and models allowing to peer into the future and identify the moment for intervention and measures for mitigation and/or avoidance. Previously, we presented conceptual guidelines for a 5-stage framework for defining adaptation strategies for wine businesses. That framework allows for direct comparison of different solutions to mitigate perceived climate change risks. Recent global climatic evolution and multiple reports of severe events since then (smoke taint, heatwave and droughts, frost, hail and floods, rising sea levels) imply urgency in providing effective tools to tackle the multiple perceived risks. A coordinated drive towards a higher level of resilience is therefore required. Recent publications such as the Australian Wine Future Climate Atlas and results from projects such as H2020 MED-GOLD inform on expected climate change impacts to the wine sector, foreseeing the climate to expect at regional and vineyard scale in coming decades. We present examples of practical application of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework (CCAF) to impacts affecting wine production in two wine regions: Barossa (Australia) and Douro (Portugal). We demonstrate feasibility of the framework for climate adaptation from available data and tools to estimate historical climate-induced profitability loss, to project it in the future and to identify critical moments when disruptions may occur if timely measures are not implemented. Finally, we discuss adaptation measures and respective timeframes for successful mitigation of disruptive risk while enhancing resilience of wine systems.

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

Using viticultural and enological techniques to increase aromatics in white wine is a prized yet challenging technique for commercial wine producers. Equally difficult are challenges encountered in hastening phenolic maturity and thereby increasing color intensity in red wines. The ability to alter organoleptic and visual properties of wines plays a decisive role in vintages in which grapes are not able to reach full maturity, which is seen increasingly more often as a result of climate change. A new, yeast-based product on the viticultural market may give the opportunity to increase sensory properties of finished wines. Manufacturer packaging claims these yeast derivatives intensify wine aromas of white grape varieties, as well as improve phenolic ripeness of red varieties, but the effects of this application have been little researched until now. The current study applied the yeast derivative, according to the manufacture’s instructions, to the leaves of both neutral and aromatic white wine varieties, as well as on structured red wine varieties. Chemical parameters and volatile aromatics were analyzed in grape musts and finished wines, and all wines were subjected to sensory analysis by a tasting panel. Collective results of all analyses showed that the application of the yeast derivative in the vineyard showed no effect across all varieties examined, and did not intensify white wine aromatics, nor improve phenolic ripeness and color intensity in red wine.

This study assessed the suitability of grapevine growing in three DOs (Empordà, Pla de Bages and Penedès) of Catalonia (NE Spain) over the 21st century. For this purpose, an estimation of water needs and agroclimatic and phenological indicators was made. Climate change impacts were estimated at 1 km pixel resolution using temperature and precipitation projections from several general circulation models (GCM) and two climate change scenarios: RCP 4.5 (stabilization scenario) and RCP 8.5 (worst-case scenario). Potential crop evapotranspiration (following FAO procedure) and a daily water balance considering soil water holding capacity were used to estimate actual evapotranspiration of vines and, finally, water needs. Dynamics would be similar in the three DOs studied although the magnitude of impact differs. Water needs would be 2 and 3 times greater (ranging from 0 to more than 1500 m3/ha) than current water needs at both climate change scenarios. Moreover, blooming date would advance from 3 to 6 weeks, harvest date from 1 to 2.5 months, resulting in growing cycles from 10 to 80 days shorter. It should also be noted that frost risk would decrease from 6 to 76%, the number of days with temperatures above 30ºC during ripening would rise from 48 to 500% and tropical nights (minimum temperature >20ºC) at ripening would increase from 28 to 150%, depending on the scenario and the DOs. The impacts of climate change in the three DOs could result in significant limitations for grapevine cultivation and wine production if adaptive strategies are not applied. This result could serve as a basis for the design of specific and particular adaptation strategies to improve and maintain vineyards in the DOs studied and could be extrapolated to similar DOs and regions.

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.