GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Temperature variability assessment at vineyard scale: control of data accuracy and data processing protocol

Temperature variability assessment at vineyard scale: control of data accuracy and data processing protocol

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – Climatic variability studies at fine scale have been developed in recent years with the reduction of material cost and the development of competitive miniaturized sensors. This work is forming part the LIFE-ADVICLIM project, of which one of the objectives is to model spatial temperature variability at vineyard scale. In the Bordeaux pilot site, a large network of data loggers has been set up to record temperature close to the vine canopy. The reduced distance between plant foliage and measurement equipment raises specific issues and leads to an increased rate of outliers compared to data retrieved from classical weather stations. Some of these were detected during data analysis, but others could not be easily identified. The present study aims to address the issue of data quality control and provide recommendations for data processing in climatic studies at fine scale.
Material and methods – Temperature variability at vineyard scale was assessed from a network of 90 temperature stations set up in Saint-Emilion, Pomerol, and their satellite appellations. In order to test the accuracy of the measurement, 2 temperature sensors T1 and T2 (Tinytag talk 2, Gemini UK) have been connected to each temperature station and programmed to record hourly minimum and maximum temperature. The accuracy given by the constructor for this material is 0.4°C. The difference between the 2 sensors for each temperature station was analyzed during the 2017 campaign and compared. A classical meteorological station installed in Saint-Emilion (Meteo France) provided the information on climatic condition in the pilot site. A temperature station was also set up next to this meteorological station to assess both the impact of canopy and the type of material on temperature. Raw temperature data and bioclimatic indices like Winkler index were analyzed.
Results – Differences exceeding material accuracy have been detected over the whole network for several locations and dates. Average of differences is higher for maximum temperature than minimum when the whole year is taken into account. Differences can change Winkler index up to 106 degree.days for the same temperature station. Seasonal effect was observed for minimum and maximum temperature with higher differences between T1 and T2 during the winter.
Significant difference on maximum temperature was observed between data from the classical meteorological station and temperature recorded by the neighboring data logger installed in the canopy. Temperature recorded by temperature station is 1 to 4 °C warmer because the solar shield is less ventilated. A seasonal effect was observed, with higher difference recorded during the summer, which induced significant differences between calculated degree days. To eliminate confusion between degree days recorded by these 2 systems, a “Canopy Winkler Index” was created for the Winkler Index constructed with the temperature station, located inside the canopy.
Careful data processing is needed to obtain accurate temperatures from miniaturized temperature station located inside the canopy. Installation of 2 sensors for each temperature station is recommended to control and detect outliers. An automatic data processing system is under development to detect and replace outliers.

DOI:

Publication date: March 11, 2024

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

Théo PETITJEAN1*, Laure de RESSEGUIER1, Hervé QUENOL², Cornelis van LEEUWEN1

1 EGFV, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, 
² LETG-Rennes, CNRS-UMR 6554, Université Rennes-2, Place Recteur H. Le Moal, 35043 Rennes cedex, France

Contact the author

Keywords

Fine scale, Temperature variability, Temperature stations, Data accuracy, Data processing , Vineyards

Tags

GiESCO | GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

THE ROLE OF CELL WALL POLYSACCHARIDES IN THE EXTRACTION OF ANTHOCYANINS AND TANNINS: RESULTS, PERSPECTIVES OF A MORE POSITIVE CONTRIBUTION

The composition of grape berry cell walls was studied on two grape varieties, two years and two maturation levels at the same time as the extraction of anthocyanins and tannins. The chemical composition of skins, seeds, and pulps, focused on polyphenols and polysaccharides, was compared to the chemical composition in polyphenols after extraction from the skins in model solutions or after wine making of the berries. Polyphenols were mainly characterized by UPLC-MS and HPLC-SEC. Polysaccharides were characterized by analysis of the neutral sugar compositions, and also by the CoMPP (comprehensive micropolymer profiling) analysis, a new method which targets the functional groups of cell wall polysaccharides.

Evaluation of state of vineyards and characterization of vineyard sites of the integrated area of Tokaj Kereskedőház ltd. in Tokaj region

The Tokaj Kereskedőház Ltd. is the only state owned winery in Hungary. The company is integrating grapes for wine production from 1100 hectares of vineyard, which consist of 3500 parcels with average size of 0,3 hectares, owned by about 500 families of the region. The vineyards are unevenly spread in total 27 village of Tokaj region.

From the current probabilistic approach to a deterministic production process, a clear step towards digital transformation in the wine sector

Currently, to consistently ensure the maintenance of a wine-style while benefiting from the utmost rigor made possible by the winemaking process, the composition of the wine blend is made using sensory control. This is performed after the wine is made with no real possibility of deterministic intervention.

Monitoring grapevine water status using Landsat 8 images: a two-year case study in a Merlot vineyard

Viticulture needs for spatial and temporal information are increasing to improve vineyard management, especially concerning water efficiency. Remote sensing, particularly from satellites, can be a powerful tool to assess vineyard characteristics such as vigor or water status in space-time. In this study, we use Landsat 8, an American Earth observation satellite with six bands from the visible (VIS) to the Short-Wave Infrared (SWIR) domains with 30m spatial resolution and two thermal bands with 100m spatial resolution.

Differences in the chemical composition and “fruity” aromas of Auxerrois sparkling wines from the use of cane and beet sugar during wine production.

The main objective of this study was to establish if beet sugar produces a different concentration of “fruity” volatile aroma compounds (VOCs), compared to cane sugar when used for second alcoholic fermentation of Auxerrois sparkling wines. Auxerrois base wine from the 2020 vintage was separated into two lots; half was fermented with cane sugar and half with beet sugar (both sucrose products and tested for sugar purity). These sugars were used in yeast acclimation (IOC 2007), and base wines for the second fermentation (12 bottles each). Base wines were manually bottled at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) research winery. The standard chemical analysis took place at intervals of 0, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-bottling. Acidity and pH measurements were carried out by an auto-titrator. Residual Sugar (g/L) (glucose (g/L), fructose (g/L)), YAN (mg N/L), malic acid, and acetic acid (g/L) were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. parameters were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. Alcohol (% v/v) was assessed by GC-FID. VOC analysis of base wines, finished sparkling wines, as well as the two sugars in model sparkling wine solutions, was carried out by GC-MS. VOCs included ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl-2-methylbutyrate, ethyl-3-methylbutyrate, ethyl 2-methyl propanoate, ethyl 2- hydroxy propanoate, 1-hexanol, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate.