Leaf removal to regulate fruit ripening in Cabernet-Sauvignon

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.

In Champagne, the vine adaptation to different climatic and technical changes during these last 20 years can be seen through physiological balance disruptions. These disruptions emphasize the general grapevine decline. Since the 2000s, among other nitrogen stress indicators, the must nitrogen has been decreasing. The combination of restricted mineral fertilizers and herbicide use, the growing variability of spring rainfall, the increasing thermal stress as well as the soil type heterogeneity are only a few underlying factors that trigger loss of physiological balance in the vineyards. It is important to weigh and quantify the impact of these factors on the vine. In order to do so, the Comité Champagne uses two key-tools: networking and modelization. The use of quantitative and harmonized ecophysiological indicators is necessary, especially in large spatial scales such as the Champagne appellation. A working group with different professional structures of Champagne has been launched by the Comité Champagne in order to create a common ecophysiology protocol and thus monitor the vine physiology, yearly, around 100 plots, with various cultural practices and types of soil. The use of crop modelling to follow the vine physiological balance within different pedoclimatic conditions enables to understand the present balance but also predict the possible disruptions to come in future climatic scenarios. The physiological references created each year through the working group, benefit the calibration of the STICS model used in Champagne. In return, the model delivers ecophysiology indicators, on a daily scale and can be used on very different types of soils. This study will present the bottom-up method used to give accurate information on the impacts of soil, climate and cultural practices on vine physiology.

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.

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.