Early detection project – make a GTD infection visible without disease symptoms

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.

Winegrowing regions recognized as protected designations of origin (PDOs) are closely tied to well defined geographic locations with a specific set of pedoclimatic attributes and strictly regulated by legal specifications. However, climate change is increasingly threatening these regions by changing local conditions and altering winegrowing processes. The vulnerability to these changes is largely heterogenous across different winegrowing regions because it is determined by individual characteristics of each region, including the capacity to adapt to new climatic conditions and the sensitivity to climate change, which depend not only on natural, but also socioeconomic and legal factors. Accurate vulnerability assessments therefore need to combine information about adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with projected exposure to new climatic conditions. However, most existing studies focus on specific impacts neglecting important interactions between the different factors that determine climate change vulnerability. Here, we present the first comprehensive vulnerability assessment of European wine PDOs that spatially combines multiple indicators of adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with high-resolution climate projections. We found that the climate change vulnerability of PDO areas largely depends on the complex interactions between physical and socioeconomic factors. Homogenous topographic conditions and a narrow varietal spectrum increase climate change vulnerability, while the skills and education of farmers, together with a good economic situation, decrease their vulnerability. Assessments of climate change consequences therefore need to consider multiple variables as well as their interrelations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the expected impacts of climate change on European PDOs. Our results provide the first vulnerability assessment for European winegrowing regions at high spatiotemporal resolution that includes multiple factors related to climate exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity on the level of single winegrowing regions. They will therefore help to identify hot spots of climate change vulnerability among European PDOs and efficiently direct adaptation strategies.

The OIV[i] defines terroir as a concept referring to an area in which collective knowledge of the interactions between the physical and biological environment (soil, topography, climate, landscape characteristics and biodiversity features) and vitivinicultural practices develops, providing distinctive wine characteristics. Those are perceptible in the taste of wine, which drives consumer preference and, therefore, wine’s value in the marketplace. Geographical indications (GI) are recognized regulatory constructs formalizing and protecting the nexus between wine taste and the terroir generating it. Despite considering updates, GIs do not consider the nexus as a dynamic one and do not anticipate change, namely of climate. Being climate a fundamental feature of terroir, it strongly impacts wine characteristics, such as taste. According to IPCC[ii], many widespread, rapid and unprecedented changes of climate occurred, some being irreversible over hundreds to thousands of years. Climatic shifts and atmospheric-driven extreme events have been widely reported worldwide. Recent climatic trends are projected to strengthen in upcoming decades, whereas extremes are expected to increase in frequency and intensity, forcing wines away from GI definitions. Geographical shifts of viticultural suitability are projected, often moving into regions and countries different from current ones. Some authors propose adaptation in viticulture, winemaking and product innovation. We show evidence of climate changing wine characteristics in the Douro valley, home of 270-year-old Port GI. We discuss herein resist or adapt stances for when climate changes the nexus between terroir and wine characteristics. Using the MED-GOLD[iii] dashboard, a tool allowing for easy visual navigation of past and future climates, we demonstrate how policymakers can identify future moments, throughout the 21st century under different emission scenarios, when GI specifications will likely need updates (e.g., boundaries, varieties) to reduce climate-change impacts.

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports.
The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90.
Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.

As viticulture faces challenges such as climate change or vineyard dieback, the choice of the variety and rootstock becomes more and more crucial. To study rootstock levers in the Bordeaux region, a parcel of Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) was planted with four rootstocks in 2014. Twenty repetitions of each of the following four rootstocks were set up: 101-14 MGt, Nemadex AB, 420A MGt and Gravesac. The number of bunches, yields and pruning weights of the vine shoots were measured individually on 240 vines from 2017 to 2021. Since 2020, nitrogen status assessed by assimilable nitrogen level, hydric status assessed by δ13C and berry maturity were measured on 80 samples taken from 20 repetitions of the four rootstocks. A lower yield was measured for CS grafted onto Nemadex AB due to the lower number of bunches and the lower weight of berries. The differences between the other three rootstocks are small, but CS grafted onto 420A MGt was the most productive. The CS grafted onto Nemadex AB had the lowest pruning weight while 101-14 MGt had the highest. In 2020, δ13C showed a more moderate water stress with 101-14 MGt and 420A MGt than with Nemadex AB. Surprisingly, the Gravesac was under more stress than the 101-14 MGt. The nitrogen status in the berries was better for Nemadex AB but this was perhaps due to the significantly lower weight of the berries.Rootstock 101-14 MGt attained the highest accumulation of sugars in the berries while 420A MGt allows to preserve higher acidity. The parcel is still young which may explain some of the results. These measures must therefore be continued over the next several years to fully assess the effects of these rootstocks on the development of the vines and the quality of the production under new climatic conditions.