GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 Cabernet-Sauvignon ripening in Chile: follow-up study from 2012 to 2018

Cabernet-Sauvignon ripening in Chile: follow-up study from 2012 to 2018

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study – Temperature is a relevant parameter during vineyard development, affecting vine phenology and grape maturity. Moreover, the climate of the different Chilean valleys influences the varieties cultivated, the ripening period and the final quality of the wines. The use of growing degree days (GDD) is known worldwide for the study of climate in viticulture regions. However, little is known about the evolution of maturity and the sugar loading stop, based on this parameter. GDD, as being independent of the date variable, allows incorporating the effect of climate in the analysis. The present study was aimed to understand the variation between seasons and the effect of temperature in grape maturity and in bioclimatic index. We found correlations that allow predict the behavior of next years, based on growing degree days.

Material and methods – Temperatures were collected from national agro climatic network (AGROMET). Four meteorological stations were consulted depending on the location of the company vineyards. Growing degree days (GDD) were calculated with a base temperature of 10°C from September 1 through March 31. Huglin index, a bioclimatic index of the ripening period, was calculated using daily mean temperature, daily maximum temperature and a day length coefficient of 1, because the vineyard is placed in latitude lower 40°00´. Grape maturity was monitored once a week, recording the sugar concentration and the volume of grapes with Dyostem machine. These data was used to calculate the sugar loading dynamics and the date of sugar loading stop. In average, 145 blocks of Cabernet Sauvignon were measured from four different valleys (Maule valley (M), Curicó valley (C), Maipo Valley (Ma) and Rapel valley (R)).

Results – For the three valleys, the sugar loading stop was beginning at lower GDD for 2015 and 2017, influenced by the higher temperatures in January. But the average potential alcohol was lower in these years, reaching 12.1; 12.3; 13.1 and 11.4 %v/v at 2015 and 12.4; 11.3; 13.5 and 11.9 %v/v at 2017 for M, R, Ma y C respectively. The rate of sugar loading was higher in M and C valley than R and Ma valley for 2015 and 2017, indicating that the high temperatures affect greater R and Ma valley than the other valleys studied. Moreover, in 2017, the dynamics of maturity (mg of sugar per berry) were lower compared with 2015, due to the higher temperatures registered in Cabernet sauvignon blocks in January to April. The maximum temperatures in 2017 were 39.4°C including 13 days with temperatures over 35°C in M valley, 36°C including 7 days with temperatures over 35°C in R, 37°C including 5 days with temperatures over 35°C in Ma valley and 35.7°C including 3 days with temperatures over 35°C in C valley. These temperatures generated a blockage of vines. On the other hand, the year 2014 was the best season, with average potential alcohol at the sugar loading stop of 14.5; 13.6; 14 and 13%v/v for M, R, Ma and C valley. In 2014, the maximum quantity of sugar per berry was higher (250-350 mg of sugar per berry), perhaps because the vines have enough time to load sugars, with lower temperatures from January to April compared with the other years. A year to year comparison of the 4 valleys reveals that the maximum quantity of sugar per berry was decreasing the last three years, from 200-300 mg of sugar per berry in 2012, 2013 and 2015 to 170-260 in 2016, 2017 and 2018 approximately. Analyzing the bioclimatic index, M valley has a warm climate from 2014 onwards; C valley has a warm temperate climate from 2014 onwards and R and Ma valley has a warm climate the last two years. The data of bioclimatic index showed a tendency towards a warm climate. The GDD curves have a polynomic tendency respect to the date. These results could be used to predict GDD for 2019 and a probable date of harvest.

DOI:

Publication date: September 28, 2023

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Poster

Authors

M.Isabel MOENNE1*, Ricardo RODRIGUEZ1, Juan CURY1, Miguel RENCORET1

VSPT Wine Group, Avenida Vitacura 2670 Piso 16, Santiago, Chile

Contact the author

Keywords

grapevine, degree day, Cabernet, Sauvignon, climate, ripening, maturity

Tags

GiESCO | GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Local adaptation tools to ensure the viticultural sustainability in a changing climate

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

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.

Simulating climate change impact on viticultural systems in historical and emergent vineyards

Global climate change affects regional climates and hold implications for wine growing regions worldwide. Although winegrowers are constantly adapting to internal and external factors, it seems relevant to develop tools, which will allow them to better define actual and future agro-climatic potentials. Within this context, we develop a modelling approach, able to simulate the impact of environmental conditions and constraints on vine behaviour and to highlight potential adaptation strategies according to different climate change scenarios. Our modeling approach, named SEVE (Simulating Environmental impacts on Viticultural Ecosystems), provides a generic modeling framework for simulating grapevine growth and berry ripening under different conditions and constraints (slope, aspect, soil type, climate variability…) as well as production strategies and adaptation rules according to climate change scenarios. Each activity is represented by an autonomous agent able to react and adapt its reaction to the variability of environmental constraints. Using this model, we have recently analyzed the evolution of vineyards’ exposure to climatic risks (frost, pathogen risk, heat wave) and the adaptation strategies potentially implemented by the winegrowers. This approach, implemented for two climate change scenarios, has been initiated in France on traditional (Loire Valley) and emerging (Brittany) vineyards. The objective is to identify the time horizons of adaptations and new opportunities in these two regions. Carried out in collaboration with wine growers, this approach aims to better understand the variability of climate change impacts at local scale in the medium and long term.

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.