A fine-scale approach to map bioclimatic indices using and comparing dynamical and geostatistical methods

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.

In viticulture, a warming climate can have a very significant impact on grapevine development and therefore on the quality and characteristics of wines across different spatial scales, ranging from global to local. In order to adapt wine-growing to climate change, global climate models can be used to define future scenarios, but only at the scale of major wine regions. Despite the huge progress made over the last ten years in terms of the spatial resolution of climate models (now downscaled to a few square kilometres), they are not yet sufficiently precise to account for the local climate variability associated with such parameters as local topography, in spite of these parameters being decisive for vine and wine characteristics. This study describes a method to downscale future climate scenarios to vineyard scale. Networks of data loggers have been used to collect air temperature at canopy level in the Waipara winegrowing region (New Zealand) over five growing seasons. These measurements allow the creation of fine-scale geostatistical models and maps of temperature (at 100 m resolution) for the growing season. In order to model climate change at pilot site scale, these geostatistical models have been combined with regional climate change predictions for the periods 2031-2050 and 2081-2100 based on the RCP8.5 climate change scenario. The integration of local climate variability with regionalized climate change simulations allows assessment of the impacts of climate change at the vineyard scale. The improved knowledge gained using this methodology results from the increased horizontal resolution that better addresses the concerns of winegrowers. The results provide the local winegrowers with information necessary to understand current processes, as well as historical and future viticulture trends at the scale of their site, thereby facilitating decisions about future response strategies.

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.

Since the arrival of Phyloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifolia) in Europe at the end of the 19th century, grafting has become essential to cultivate Vitis vinifera. Today, grafting provides not only resistance to this aphid, but it used to adapt the cultivars according to the type of soil, environment, or grape production requirements by using a panel of rootstocks. As part of vineyard decline, it is often mentioned the importance of producing quality grafted grapevine to improve vineyard longevity, but, to our knowledge, no study has been able to demonstrate that grafting has a role in this context. However, some scion/rootstock combinations are considered as incompatible due to poor graft union formation and subsequently high plant mortality soon after grafting. In a context of climate change where the creation of new cultivars and rootstocks is at the centre of research, the ability of new cultivars to be grafted is therefore essential. The early identification of graft incompatibility could allow the selection of non-viable plants before planting and would have a beneficial impact on research and development in the nursery sector. For this reason, our studies have focused on the identification of metabolic and transcriptomic markers of poor grafting success during the first days/week after grafting; we have identified some correlations between some specialized metabolites, especially stilbenes, and grafting success, as well as an accumulation of some amino acids in the incompatible combination. The study of the metabolome and the transcriptome allowed us to understand and characterise the processes involved during graft union formation.

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.