Evaluating alternatives to cold stabilization in wineries: the use of carboximethyl cellulose, potassium polyaspartate, electrodialysis and ion exchange resins – the results after one year in the bottle

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

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.

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.

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.