GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 Climate change 9 Impacts on water availability for vitiviniculture worldwide using different potential evapotranspiration methods

Impacts on water availability for vitiviniculture worldwide using different potential evapotranspiration methods

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study ‐ Beyond the sole warming globally perceived and monitored, climate change impacts water availability. Increasing heatwaves frequency observed during the last decades and projected for the 21st century certainly result (or will result)in more water deficit stress for grapevine. Change in water availability throughout the season depends on the balance between precipitation and evapotranspiration. The latter is seldom assessed through potential evapotranspiration (ET0) calculated with empirical formulae relying on air temperature only. This study compares the changes in water availability estimates for viticulture using such formulae in comparison to the reference Penman‐ Monteith approach.

Material and methods – Monthly interpolated minimum and maximum temperature, precipitation and Penman‐Monteith (PM) ET0 data for land surfaces worldwide were collected from the CRU TS4.01 gridded dataset, from 1971 to 2017. Other ET0estimates were produced using the Thornthwaite (T) and the Hargreaves (H) temperature‐based as well as the Modified Hargreaves (M) temperature‐and‐ rainfall‐based methods. PM, T, H, M ET0 data were used to calculate the dryness index (DI), a monthly water balance‐based index for viticulture. Changes between the periods 1971‐2000 (HIST) and 2001‐ 2017 (PRES) in potential evapotranspiration and in DI were compared for each of the 4 ET0calculation methods. The changes were analyzed in wine producing regions using the vineyard geodatabase v1.2.3, a shapefile referencing 691 wine producing regions worldwide.

Results – All 4 methods compute an average increase (from HIST to PRES) in ET0 of about 20 mm during the grapevine growing season, i.e. April to September (October to March) for the northern (southern) hemisphere. The change (PRES ‐ HIST) differ substantially in space, according to the method used. For instance, a decrease in ET0 is shown in southwestern and central North America when using PM method, while T method indicates a weak to moderate raise in ET0 in these regions. Changes in dryness index th st from the late 20 to the early 21 century are large and highly variable in space: from ‐65 mm to +62 mm (0.05 and 0.95 percentiles), according to the location and to the ET0 calculation method. DI also strongly varies in space, but results are less sensitive to ET0 calculation method. PM shows a decrease in DI (PRES ‐ HIST) down to ‐75 mm in most regions but Australia, central Europe and Italy. While PM, H and M methods indicate a clear decrease of DI in France, Portugal and Spain, T method suggests an increase in DI in the northern part of France and in most of Spain. It is concluded that (1) ET0 has risen and contributed to DI decrease in many wine regions worldwide and (2) using T empirical method to derive ET0 from temperature can lead to different conclusions concerning changes in water availability for viticulture

DOI:

Publication date: June 19, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Benjamin BOIS

CRC,UMR Biogeosciences (6282 CNRS/uB), Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 6 Boulevard Gabriel, 21000 Dijon, France

Contact the author

Keywords

potential evapotranspiration, viticulture, climate change, temperature‐based methods, dryness

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Differential responses of red and white grape cultivars trained to a single trellis system – the VSP

Commercial grape production relies on training grapevine cultivars onto a variety of trellis systems. Training allows for well-lit leaves and clusters, maximizing fruit quality in addition to facilitating cultivation, harvesting, and diseases control. Although grapevines can be trained onto an infinite variety of trellis systems, most red and white cultivars are trained to the standard VSP (Vertical Shoot Positioning) system. However, red and white cultivars respond differently to VSP in fruit composition and growth characteristics, which are yet to be fully understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of the VSP trellis system on fruit composition of three red, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Syrah, and three white, Chardonnay, Riesling, and Gewurztraminer cultivars grown under uniform growing conditions in the same vineyard. All cultivars were monitored for maturity and harvested at their physiologically maximum possible sugar concentration to compare various fruit quality attributes such as Brix, pH, TA, malic and tartaric acids, glucose and fructose, potassium, YAN, and phenolic compounds including total anthocyanins, anthocyanin profile, and tannins. A distinct pattern in fruit composition was observed in each cultivar. In regards to growth characteristics, Syrah grew vigorously with the highest cluster weight. Although all cultivars developed pyriform seeds, the seed size and weight varied among all cultivars. Also varied were mesocarp cell viability, brush morphology, and cane structure. This knowledge of the canopy architectural characteristics assessed by the widely employed fruit compositional attributes and growth characteristics will aid the growers in better management of the vines in varied situations.

‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (Vitis vinifera L.) berry skin flavonol and anthocyanin composition is affected by trellis systems and applied water amounts

Trellis systems are selected in wine grape vineyards to mainly maximize vineyard yield and maintain berry quality. This study was conducted in 2020 and 2021 to evaluate six commonly utilized trellis systems including a vertical shoot positioning (VSP), two relaxed VSPs (VSP60 and VSP80), a single high wire (SH), a high quadrilateral (HQ), and a guyot (GY), combined with three levels of irrigation regimes based on different crop evapotranspiration (ETc) replacements, including a 25% ETc, 50% ETc, and 100% ETc. The results indicated SH yielded the most fruits and accumulated the most total soluble solids (TSS) at harvest in 2020, however, it showed the lowest TSS in the second season. In 2020, SH and HQ showed higher concentrations in most of the anthocyanin derivatives compared to the VSPs. Similar comparisons were noticed in 2021 as well. SH and HQ also accumulated more flavonols in both years compared to other trellis systems. Overall, this study provides information on the efficacy of trellis systems on grapevine yield and berry flavonoid accumulation in a currently warming climate.

Variety and climatic effects on quality scores in the Western US winegrowing regions

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

Impact of changes in pruning practices on vine growth and yield

A gradual decline in vineyards has been observed over the past twenty years worldwide. This might be explained by the climate change, practices change or the increase of dieback diseases. To increase the longevity of vines, we studied the impact of different pruning strategies in four adult and four young vineyards located in France and Spain. In France, vineyards were planted with Cabernet franc on 3309C while Spanish trials were planted with Tempranillo grafted on 110R. Vegetative expression, yield, quality of berries and wood vessels conductivity were measured. The distribution of vegetative expression, yield and berry composition between primary and secondary vegetation were quantified. Finally, tomography was used to evaluate the implication of the treatments on sap flows.
First results show that i) the respectful pruning leads to an increase of 30 to 50% more secondary shoots than the aggressive pruning in France and between 15 and 20% in Spain, ii) there is no major effect on the yield over the first two years following the implementation of the new pruning practices, although the proportion of clusters from suckers is higher on the respectful pruning method. On young vines, the development of the trunk according to a respectful pruning leads to a loss of harvest 2 years after planting. This is due to the removal, on the future trunk, of the green suckers which carrying bunches. This operation carried out in spring rather than during winter pruning, would promote a better leaf / fruit balance when the plant comes into production, and could lead to better hydraulic conduction in the vessels of the trunk. Maintaining these trials for several years will provide more robust data to assess the impact of these practices on the vines over the 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.