Effect of topography on vine evapotranspiration and water status in hillside vineyards

[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"...

There is increasing scientific consensus that climate changeis the underlying cause of the prolonged dry and hot conditions that have increased the risk of extreme fire weather in many countries around the world. In December 2019, a bushfire event occurred in the Adelaide Hills, South Australia where 25,000 hectares were burnt and in vineyards and surrounding areas various degrees of scorching and infrastructure damage occurred. The ability to coordinate and plan recovery after a fire event relies on robust and timely data. The current practice for measuring the scale and distribution of fire damage is to walk or drive the vineyard and score individual vines based on visual observation. The process is time consuming, subjective, or semi-quantitative at best. After the December 2019 fires, it took many months to access properties and estimate the area of vineyard damaged. This study compares the rapid assessment and mapping of fire damage using high-resolution satellite imagery with more traditional ground based measures. Satellite imagery tracking vineyard recovery in the season following the bushfire is being correlated to field assessments of vineyard productivity such as canopy health and development, fertility and carbohydrate storage. Canopy health in the seasons following the fires correlated to the severity of the initial fire damage. Severely damaged vines had reduced canopy growth, were infertile or had very low fertility as well as lower carbohydrate levels in buds and canes during dormancy, which reduced productivity in the seasons following the bushfire event. In contrast, vines that received minor damage were able to recover within 1-2 years. Tools that rapidly and affordably capture the extent and severity of damage over large vineyard area will allow producers, government and industry bodies to manage decisions in relation to fire recovery planning, coordination and delivery, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of their response.

The wine industry worldwide faces increasing challenges to achieve sustainable levels of carbon emission mitigation. This project seeks to establish the feasibility of harvesting winter pruned vineyard biomass (PVB) for potential use in carbon footprint reduction, through its use as a renewable biofuel for energy production. In order to make this recommendation, technical issues such as the potential environmental impact, chemical composition and fuel suitability, and logistical challenges of harvesting biomass needs to be understood to compare with the results from similar studies. Of particular interest is the role PVB plays as a carbon source in vineyard soils and what effect annual removal might have on soil carbon sequestration. A preliminary trial was established in the Waite Campus vineyard (University of Adelaide) to test current management strategies. Vines are grown in a Eutrophic, Red Dermosol clay loam soil with well managed midrow swards. A comparison was undertaken of mid-row treatments in two 0.25 Ha blocks (Shiraz and Semillon), including annual cultivation for seed bed preparation, the deliberate exclusion of PVB (25 years) and incorporation of PVB (13 years) at an average of 3.4 and 5.5 Mg/Ha-1 for Shiraz and Semillon respectively. In both 0-10cm and 10-30cm soil core sample depths, combined soil carbon % measures in the desired range of 1.80 to 3.50, were not significantly different between treatments or cultivars and yielded an estimated 42 Mg/ha-1 of sequestered soil carbon. Other key physical and chemical measures were likewise not significantly different between treatments. Preliminary results suggest that in a temperate zone vineyard, managed such as the one used in this study, there is no long term negative impact on soil carbon sequestration through removing PVB. This implies that growers could confidently harvest PVB for use in several end fates including as a bio fuel.

In response to changes in their environment, grapevines regulate transpiration using various physiological mechanisms that alter conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Expressed as bulk stomatal conductance at the canopy scale, it varies diurnally in response to changes in vapor pressure deficit and net radiation, and over the season to changes in soil water deficits and hydraulic conductivity of both soil and plant. It is necessary to characterize the response of conductance to these variables to better model how vine transpiration also responds to these variables. Furthermore, to be relevant for vineyard-scale modeling, conductance is best characterized using data collected in a vineyard setting. Applying a crop canopy energy flux model developed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, bulk stomatal conductance was estimated using measurements of individual vine sap flow, temperature and humidity within the vine canopy, and estimates of net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy. These measurements were taken on several vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France, using equipment that did not interfere with ongoing vineyard operations. An inverted Penman-Monteith equation was then used to calculate bulk stomatal conductance on 15-minute intervals from July to mid-September 2020. Time-series plots show significant diurnal variation and seasonal decreases in conductance, with overall values similar to those in the literature. Global sensitivity analysis using non-parametric regression found transpiration flux and vapor pressure deficit to be the most important input variables to the calculation of bulk stomatal conductance, with absorbed net radiation and bulk boundary layer conductance being much less important. Conversely, bulk stomatal conductance was one of the most important inputs when calculating vine transpiration, further emphasizing the need for characterizing its response to environmental changes for use in vineyard water use modeling.

Because terroir and cultivar are drivers of wine quality, is essential to investigate theirs effects on polyphenolic profile before promoting the implantation of a red minority variety in a specific area. This work, included in MINORVIN project, focuses in the polyphenolic profile of 7 red grapevines minority varieties of Vitis vinifera L. (Morate, Sanguina, Santafe, Terriza Tinta Jeromo Tortozona Tinta) and Tempranillo) from six typical viticulture Spanish areas: Aragón (A1), Cataluña (A2), Castilla la Mancha (A3), Castilla –León (A4), Madrid (A5) and Navarra (A6) of 2020 season. Polyphenolic substances were extracted from grapes. 35 compounds were identified and quantified (mg subtance/kg fresh berry) by HPLC and grouped in anthocyanins (ANT) flavanols (FLAVA), flavonols (FLAVO), hydroxycinnamic (AH), benzoic (BA) acids and stilbenes (ST). Antioxidant activity (AA, mmol TE /g fresh berry) was determined by DPPH method. The results were submitted to a two-way ANOVA to investigate the influence of variety, area and their interaction for each polyphenolic family and cluster analysis was used to construct hierarchical dendrograms, searching the natural groupings among the samples. Sanguina (A3) had the most of total polyphenols while Tempranillo (A5) those of ANT. Sanguina (A2) and (A3) reached the highest values of FLAVO, FLAVA and AA. These two last samples had also the maximum of AA. The effect cultivar and area were significant for all polyphenolic families analyzed. A high variability due to variety (>50%) was observed in FLAVA and the maximum value of variability due to growing area was detected in AA (86.41%), ANT and FLAVO (51%); the interaction variety*zone was significant only for ANT, FLAVO, EST and AA. Finally, dendrograms presented five cluster: i) Sanguina (A2); ii) Sanguina (A3); iii) Tempranillo (A5); iv) Tempranillo (A3); Terriza (A3,A5), Morate (A5,A6); v) Santafé (A1,A6); Tortozona tinta (A1,A3,A6); Tinta Jeromo (A3,A4).