One of the main consequences of global warming is the rise of the mean temperature. Thus, the heat summation by the plants begins sooner in the early spring, and by cumulating growing degree-days, phenological development tends to happen earlier. However, spring frost is still a recurrent phenomenon causing serious damages to buds and therefore, threatening the harvests of the winegrowers. The wind machine is a solution to protect fruit crops against spring frost that is increasingly used. It is composed of a 10-m mast with a blowing fan at its peak. By tapping into the strength of the nocturnal thermal inversion, it sweeps the crop by propelling warm air above to the ground. Thus, stratification is momentarily suppressed. Furthermore, the continuous action of the machine, alone or in synergy, or the addition of a heater allow the bud to be bathed in a warmer environment. Also, the punctual action of the tower’s warm gust reaches the bud directly at each rotation period. All these actions allow the bud to continuously warm up, but with different intensities and over a different period. Although there is evidence of the effectiveness of the wind machines, the thermal transfers involved in those mechanisms raise questions about their true nature. Field measurements based on ultrasonic anemometers and fast responding thermocouples complemented by laboratory measurements on a reduced scale model allow to characterize both the airflow produced by the wind machine and the local temperature in its vicinity. Those experiments were realized in the vineyard of Quincy, in the framework of the SICTAG project. In the future paper, we will detail the aeraulic characterization of the wind machine and the thermal effects resulting from it and we will focus on how the wind machine warms up the local atmosphere and enables to reduce the freezing risk.

Climate change challenges differently wine growing systems, depending on their biophysical, sociological and economic features. Therefore, there is a need to locally design and evaluate adaptation strategies combining several technical options, and considering the local opportunities and constraints (e.g. water access, wine typicity). The case study took place in a typical and heterogeneous Mediterranean vineyard of 1,500 ha in the South of France. We developed a participatory modeling approach to (1) conceptualize local climate change issues and design spatially explicit adaptation strategies with stakeholders, (2) numerically evaluate their effects on phenology, yield and irrigation needs under the high-emissions climate change scenario RCP 8.5, and (3) collectively discuss simulation results. We organized five sets of workshops, with in-between modeling phases. A process-based model was developed that allowed to evaluate the effects of six technical options (late varieties, irrigation, water saving by reducing canopy size, adjusting cover cropping, reducing density, and shading) with various distributions in the watershed, as well as vineyard relocation. Overall, we co-designed three adaptation strategies. Delay harvest strategy with late varieties showed little effects on decreasing air temperature during ripening. Water constraint limitation strategy would compensate for production losses if disruptive adaptations (e.g. reduced density) were adopted, and more land got access to irrigation. Relocation strategy would foster high premium wine production in the constrained mountainous areas where grapevine is less impacted by climate change. This research shows that a spatial distribution of technical changes gives room for adaptation to climate change, and that the collaboration with local stakeholders is a key to the identification of relevant adaptation. Further research should explore the potential of adaptation strategies based on soil quality improvement and on water stress tolerant varieties.

Most European vineyards are managed under rainfed conditions, where seasonal water deficit has become increasingly important. The flowering-veraison phenophase represents an important period for vine response to water stress, which is seldomly thoroughly evaluated. Therefore, we aim to quantify the flowering-veraison water stress levels using Crop Water Stress Indicator (CWSI) over 1986–2015 for important European wine regions, and to assess the respective potential Yield Lose Rate (YLR). Additionally, we also investigate whether an advanced flowering-veraison phase may help alleviating the water stress with improved yield. A process-based grapevine model STICS is employed, which has been extensively calibrated for flowering and veraison stages using observed data at 38 locations with 10 different grapevine varieties. Subsequently, the model is being implemented at the regional level, considering site-specific calibration results and gridded climate and soil datasets. The findings suggest wine regions with stronger flowering-veraison CWSI tend to have higher potential YLR. However, contrasting patterns are found between wine regions in France-Germany-Luxembourg and Italy-Portugal-Spain. The former tends to have slight-to-moderate drought conditions (CWSI<0.5) and a negligible-to-moderate YLR (<30%), whereas the latter possesses severe-to-extreme CWSI (>0.5) and substantial YLR (>40%). Wine regions prone to a high drought risk (CWSI>0.75) are also identified, which are concentrated in southern Mediterranean Europe. An advanced flowering-veraison phase may have benefited from cooler temperatures and a higher fraction of spring precipitation in wine regions of Italy-Portugal-Spain, resulting in alleviated CWSI and moderate reductions of YLR. For those of France-Germany-Luxembourg, this can have reduced flowering-veraison precipitation, but prevalent alleviations of YLR are also found, possibly because of shifted phase towards a cooler growing season with reduced evaporative demands. Overall, such a retrospective analysis might provide new insights towards better management of seasonal water deficit for conventionally vulnerable Mediterranean wine regions, but also for relatively cooler and wetter Central European regions.

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.

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.