Petiole phosphorus concentration is controlled by the rootstock genetic background in grapevine: is this a key for understanding rootstock conferred vigour?

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

Currently, the main goal of agriculture is to promote the resilience of agricultural systems in a sustainable way through the improvement of use efficiency of farm resources, increasing crop yield and quality under climate change conditions. This last is expected to drastically modify plant growth, with possible negative effects, especially in arid and semi-arid regions of Europe on the viticultural sector. In this context, the monitoring of spatial behavior of grapevine during the growing season represents an opportunity to improve the plant management, winegrowers’ incomes, and to preserve the environmental health, but it has additional costs for the farmer. Nowadays, UAS equipped with a VIS-NIR multispectral camera (blue, green, red, red-edge, and NIR) represents a good and relatively cheap solution to assess plant status spatial information (by means of a limited set of spectral vegetation indices), representing important support in precision agriculture management during the growing season. While differences between UAS-based multispectral imagery and point-based spectroscopy are well discussed in the literature, their impact on plant status estimation by vegetation indices is not completely investigated in depth. The aim of this study was to assess the performance level of UAS-based multispectral (5 bands across 450-800nm spectral region with a spatial resolution of 5cm) imagery, reconstructed high-resolution satellite (Sentinel-2A) multispectral imagery (13 bands across 400-2500 nm with spatial resolution of <2 m) through Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) approach, and point-based field spectroscopy (collecting 600 wavelengths across 400-1000 nm spectral region with a surface footprint of 1-2 cm) in a plant status estimation application, and then, using Bayesian regularization artificial neural network for leaf chlorophyll content (LCC) and plant water status (LWP) prediction. The test site is a Greco vineyard of southern Italy, where detailed and precise records on soil and atmosphere systems, in-vivo plant monitoring of eco-physiological parameters have been conducted.

Effects of climate change on viticulture systems and winemaking processes are being felt across the world. The IPCC 6thAssessment Report concluded widespread and rapid changes have occurred, the scale of recent changes being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. These changes will continue under all emission scenarios considered, including increases in frequency and intensity of hot extremes, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts. Wine companies need tools and models allowing to peer into the future and identify the moment for intervention and measures for mitigation and/or avoidance. Previously, we presented conceptual guidelines for a 5-stage framework for defining adaptation strategies for wine businesses. That framework allows for direct comparison of different solutions to mitigate perceived climate change risks. Recent global climatic evolution and multiple reports of severe events since then (smoke taint, heatwave and droughts, frost, hail and floods, rising sea levels) imply urgency in providing effective tools to tackle the multiple perceived risks. A coordinated drive towards a higher level of resilience is therefore required. Recent publications such as the Australian Wine Future Climate Atlas and results from projects such as H2020 MED-GOLD inform on expected climate change impacts to the wine sector, foreseeing the climate to expect at regional and vineyard scale in coming decades. We present examples of practical application of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework (CCAF) to impacts affecting wine production in two wine regions: Barossa (Australia) and Douro (Portugal). We demonstrate feasibility of the framework for climate adaptation from available data and tools to estimate historical climate-induced profitability loss, to project it in the future and to identify critical moments when disruptions may occur if timely measures are not implemented. Finally, we discuss adaptation measures and respective timeframes for successful mitigation of disruptive risk while enhancing resilience of wine systems.

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.

The purpose of this study is to examine the changing mix of winegrape varieties in Australia so as to address the question: In the light of key climate indicators and predictions of further climate change, how appropriate are the grape varieties currently planted in Australia’s wine regions? To achieve this, regions are classified into zones according to each region’s climate variables, particularly average growing season temperature (GST), leaving aside within-region variations in climates. Five different climatic classifications are reported. Using projections of GSTs for the mid- and late 21st century, the extent to which each region is projected to move from its current zone classification to a warmer one is reported. Also shown is the changing proportion of each of 21 key varieties grown in a GST zone considered to be optimal for premium winegrape production. Together these indicators strengthen earlier suggestions that the mix of varieties may be currently less than ideal in many Australian wine regions, and would become even less so in coming decades if that mix was not altered in the anticipation of climate change. That is, grape varieties in many (especially the warmest) regions will have to keep changing, or wineries will have to seek fruit from higher latitudes or elevations if they wish to retain their current mix of varieties and wine styles.