Time stability of visitors’ preferences for preserving the worldwide cultural landscape alto douro wine region

The Earth’s system is undergoing major changes through a wide range of spatial and temporal scales as a response to growing anthropogenic radiative forcing, which is pushing the whole system far beyond its natural variability. Sources of greenhouse gases largely exceed their sinks, thus leading to a strengthened greenhouse effect. More energy is thereby being supplied to the system, with inevitable shifts in climatic patterns and weather regimes. Over the last decades, these modifications have been manifested in the full statistical distributions of the atmospheric variables, with dramatic changes in the frequency and intensity of extremes. Natural hazards, such as severe droughts, floods, forest fires, or heatwaves, are being triggered by extreme atmospheric events worldwide, thus threatening human activities. Viticultculture is not only exposed to changing climates but is also highly vulnerable, as grapevine phenology and physiological development are strongly controlled by atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the assessment of climate change projections for a given region is critical for climate change adaptation and risk reduction in viticulture. By adopting timely and suitable measures, the future sustainability and resiliency of the sector can be fostered. Climate-grapevine chain modelling is an essential tool for better planning and management. However, the accuracy of the resulting projections is limited by many uncertainties that must be duly taken into account when transferring knowledge to stakeholders and decision-makers. Climate-smart viticulture will comprise ensembles of locally tuned strategies, envisioning both adaptation and mitigation, assisted by emerging technologies and decision-support systems.

To evaluate the current and future impact of climate change on Viticulture requires an integrated view on a complex interacting system within the soil-plant-atmospheric continuum under continuous change. Aside of the globally observed increase in temperature in basically all viticulture regions for at least four decades, we observe several clear trends at the regional level in the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Additionally the recently published 6th assessment report of the IPCC (The physical science basis) shows case-dependent further expected shifts in climate patterns which will have substantial impacts on the way we will conduct viticulture in the decades to come.
Looking beyond climate developments, we observe rising temperatures in the upper soil layers which will have an impact on the distribution of microbial populations, the decay rate of organic matter or the storage capacity for carbon, thus affecting the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the viscosity of water in the soil-plant pathway, altering the transport of water. If the upper soil layers dry out faster due to less rainfall and/or increased evapotranspiration driven by higher temperatures, the spectral reflection properties of bare soil change and the transport of latent heat into the fruiting zone is increased putting a higher temperature load on the fruit. Interactions between micro-organisms in the rhizosphere and the grapevine root system are poorly understood but respond to environmental factors (such as increased soil temperatures) and the plant material (rootstock for instance), respectively the cultivation system (for example bio-organic versus conventional). This adds to an extremely complex system to manage in terms of increased resilience, adaptation to and even mitigation of climate change. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, effects on the individual expressions of wines with a given origin, seem highly likely to become more apparent.

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

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.