Sviluppo vegetativo del Nebbiolo nell’area di produzione del Barolo DOCG: influenza sulla qualita’ della produzione

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.

There is currently a trend towards the production of wines with low alcohol content. To achieve this, grapes with low sugar content must be used. There are techniques at the vineyard level that can delay ripening and avoid excessive sugar accumulation without, a priori, affecting the final polyphenol content. Postveraison shoot trimming (PVST) is experimentally evaluated for these purposes, but its impact under Uruguayan climatic conditions with high interannual variability is not known. The aim of this work is to assess the PVST in Tannat and Merlot cultivars and their impact on yield components, plant balance and berry primary composition. In this study, two commercial vineyards of 10 years old Tannat and Merlot (grafted on SO4) at Canelones Department were selected. During the 2020-201 growing season, grapevines were submitted to PVST when grapes reached 15º Brix. In a randomized block, trimmed (T) and control (C) plants were evaluated with three repetitions each cultivar. Evaluation of the evolution of primary berry composition during ripening, measurement of yield components and plant balance were performed. For both cultivars, PVST did not affect yield components. Merlot reached 5.4 kg per plant and Tannat 7.1 kg, with not statistical significance between treatments. However, statistical differences were observed in terms of plant balance. In Merlot Ravaz Index reached a difference of 5.3 (12.0 in T and 6.7 in C) meanwhile Tannat reached 3.5 of statistical difference (13.7 in T and 10.2 in C). The tendency to imbalance for the treated plants had an impact on the final grape composition. Merlot grapes showed statistical difference in final total acidity (0.3 g of difference between treatments) while treatments impact final sugar content on Tannat grapes (10.0 g of difference between treatments). Further studies are needed to assess the impact of different canopy management techniques in our conditions.

Since the 1980s global regime shift, grape growers have been steadily adapting to a changing climate. These adaptations have preserved the region-climate-cultivar rapports that have established the global trade of wine with lucrative economic benefits since the middle of 17th century. The advent of using fractions of crop and actual evapotranspiration replacement in vineyards with the use of supplemental irrigation has furthered the adaptation of wine grape cultivation. The shift in trellis systems, as well as pruning methods from positioned shoot systems to sprawling canopies, as well as adapting the bearing surface from head-trained, cane-pruned to cordon-trained, spur-pruned systems have also aided in the adaptation of grapevine to warmer temperatures. In warm climates, the use of shade cloth or over-head shade films not only have aided in arresting the damage of heat waves, but also identified opportunities to reduce the evapotranspiration from vineyards, reducing environmental footprint of vineyard. Our increase in knowledge on how best to understand the response of grapevine to climate change was aided with the identification of solar radiation exposure biomarker that is now used for phenotyping cultivars in their adaptability to harsh environments. Using fruit-based metrics such as sugar-flavonoid relationships were shown to be better indicators of losses in berry integrity associated with a warming climate, rather than solely focusing on region-climate-cultivar rapports. The resilience of wine grape was further enhanced by exploitation of rootstock × scion combinations that can resist untoward droughts and warm temperatures by making more resilient grapevine combinations. Our understanding of soil-plant-atmosphere continuum in the vineyard has increased within the last 50 years in such a manner that growers are able to use no-till systems with the aid of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi inoculation with permanent cover cropping making the vineyard more resilient to droughts and heat waves. In premium wine grape regions viticulture has successfully adapted to a rapidly changing climate thus far, but berry based metrics are raising a concern that we may be approaching a tipping point.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.