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.

Choosing the rootstock, the scion variety and the training system best suited to the local soil and climate are the key elements for an economically sustainable production of wine. The choice of the rootstock/scion variety best adapted to the characteristics of the soil is essential but, by changing climatic conditions, ongoing climate change disrupts the fine-tuned local equilibrium. Higher temperatures induce shifts in developmental stages, with on the one hand increasing fears of spring frost damages and, on the other hand, ripening during the warmest periods in summer. Expected higher water demand and longer and more frequent drought events are also major concerns. The genetic control of the phenotypes, by genomic information but also by the epigenetic control of gene expression, offers a lot of opportunities for adapting the plant material to the future. For complex traits, genomic selection is also a promising method for predicting phenotypes. However, ecophysiological modelling is necessary to better anticipate the phenotypes in unexplored climatic conditions Genetic approaches applied on parameters of ecophysiological models rather than raw observed data are more than ever the basis for finding, or building, the ideal varieties of the future.

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Majority of California’s vineyards rely on supplemental irrigation to overcome abiotic stressors. In the context of climate change, increases in growing season temperatures and crop evapotranspiration pose a risk to adaptation of viticulture to climate change. Vineyard cover crops may mitigate soil erosion and preserve water resources; but there is a lack of information on how they contribute to vineyard resiliency under tillage systems. The aim of this study was to identify the optimum combination of cover crop sand tillage without adversely affecting productivity while preserving plant water status. Two experiments in two contrasting climatic regions were conducted with two cover crops, including a permanent short stature grass (P. bulbosa hybrid), barley (Hordeum spp), and resident vegetation under till vs. no-till systems in a Ruby Cabernet (V. vinifera spp.) (Fresno) and a Cabernet Sauvingon (Napa) vineyard. Results indicated that permanent grass under no-till preserved plant available water until E-L stage 17. Consequently, net carbon assimilation of the permanent grass under no-till system was enhanced compared to those with barley and resident vegetation. On the other hand, the barley under no-till system reduced grapevine net carbon assimilation during berry ripening that led to lower content of nonstructural carbohydrates in shoots at dormancy. Components of yield and berry composition including flavonoid profile at either site were not adversely affected by factors studied. Switching to a permanent cover crop under a no-till system also provided a 9% and 3% benefit in cultural practices costs in Fresno and Napa, respectively. The results of this work provides fundamental information to growers in preserving resiliency of vineyard systems in hot and warm climate regions under context of climate change.

As viticulture faces challenges such as climate change or vineyard dieback, the choice of the variety and rootstock becomes more and more crucial. To study rootstock levers in the Bordeaux region, a parcel of Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) was planted with four rootstocks in 2014. Twenty repetitions of each of the following four rootstocks were set up: 101-14 MGt, Nemadex AB, 420A MGt and Gravesac. The number of bunches, yields and pruning weights of the vine shoots were measured individually on 240 vines from 2017 to 2021. Since 2020, nitrogen status assessed by assimilable nitrogen level, hydric status assessed by δ13C and berry maturity were measured on 80 samples taken from 20 repetitions of the four rootstocks. A lower yield was measured for CS grafted onto Nemadex AB due to the lower number of bunches and the lower weight of berries. The differences between the other three rootstocks are small, but CS grafted onto 420A MGt was the most productive. The CS grafted onto Nemadex AB had the lowest pruning weight while 101-14 MGt had the highest. In 2020, δ13C showed a more moderate water stress with 101-14 MGt and 420A MGt than with Nemadex AB. Surprisingly, the Gravesac was under more stress than the 101-14 MGt. The nitrogen status in the berries was better for Nemadex AB but this was perhaps due to the significantly lower weight of the berries.Rootstock 101-14 MGt attained the highest accumulation of sugars in the berries while 420A MGt allows to preserve higher acidity. The parcel is still young which may explain some of the results. These measures must therefore be continued over the next several years to fully assess the effects of these rootstocks on the development of the vines and the quality of the production under new climatic conditions.