Measured effects of elevated temperature on vine phenology, yield, berry and wine attributes

Measured effects of elevated temperature on vine phenology, yield, berry and wine attributes Victor Sadras, Martin Moran & Paul Petrie South Australian R&D Institute, Treasury Wine Estates Funded by Grape and Wine R&D Corporation State NRM Program Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Vintage 2030 - Melbourne, 19 th June 2013

Aims Methods, data sources and reliability Measured effects of elevated temperature on: time of harvest yield berry traits juice and wine attributes

Papers retrieved searching temperature + grapevine (Web of Science) 160 Number of publications 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Number of citations 1400 1050 700 350 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 0 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year

Effect of temperature on vines and wines: indirect vs direct methods Indirect methods comparison between regions, vintages, row orientation large confounded effects Direct methods side-by-side experimental comparison of treatments involving different temperatures large to small confounded effects

Sadras & Petrie 2011 Austr J Grape Wine Res 17, 199 Regional or seasonal comparisons confound temperature with radiation, humidity, etc (+ soil, + management) Indirect methods cannot prove cause and effect Regional classification as a function of temperature is ok for marketing but is an oversimplification

Large scale open-top heating systems (9 vines per rep x 3 reps + buffers) Passive, daytime +2 to 4 o C Active/Passive, day & night +2 o C Experiments 1 and 2 Experiment 3

Temperature (ºC) 30 20 10 0 1/10/10 10/10/10 19/10/10 28/10/10 40 30 20 10 1/1/11 10/1/11 19/1/11 28/1/11 30 20 10 1/3/11 10/3/11 19/3/11 28/3/11 20 10 Spring control heated 1/10/10 10/10/10 19/10/10 28/10/10 Summer 1/1/11 10/1/11 19/1/11 28/1/11 Autumn 1/3/11 10/3/11 19/3/11 28/3/11 Winter 4 3 2 1 0 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 3 2 1 0 1.5 1.0 0.5 Vapor pressure deficit (kpa) Design Criteria 1. Reproduces the daily and seasonal cycles of temperature and vapour pressure deficit. 2. Does not increase relative humidity, hence allowing for increased vapour pressure deficit. 3. Minimises biologically important secondary effects. 4. Has structural strength to withstand the weather (particularly wind) to ensure a reasonable longevity. 5. Allows for number and size of replicates required for statistical resolution and viticultural needs, including sufficient fruit for meaningful wine production. 0 1/6/11 10/6/11 19/6/11 28/6/11 1/6/11 10/6/11 19/6/11 28/6/11 Date 0.0

Probing for experimental artefacts

Malic acid (mg g fwt -1 ) Sweetman et al (unpublished) 25 20 15 10 5 Control Heated 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0 50 100 150 Time after anthesis (d) 0 500 1000 1500 2000 Thermal time after anthesis ( o C d)

100 control Living tissue (%) 90 80 70 60 heated 50 20 40 60 80 100 120 Days after anthesis 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 Thermal time after anthesis ( o Cd) Bondada et al 2013 Austr J Grape Wine Res 19: 97

Experiments Exp 1 2 temperatures (high, control) x 4 varieties x 3 seasons Exp 2 (Shiraz) 2 temperatures x 2 fruit loads (thinned, control) x 2 seasons Exp 3 (Shiraz) 2 temperatures x 2 water regimes (irrigated, deficit) x 2 seasons

experiments explored a good range of Barossa seasonal variation Temperature ( o C) 35 30 25 20 15 2009 2010 2011 2012 10 th 90 th 10 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR Month

Traits Phenology Yield and components Pruning weight and components Starch reserves in trunk and roots Stomatal conductance, density and size Photosynthesis Leaf chlorophyll Pre-dawn and mid-day leaf water potential Canopy and bunch temperature Sap flow Berry: dynamics of TA, ph, TSS and anthocyanins Berry progression of cell death Sensory traits in berries and wines

divergent parallel convergent Phenological stage heated control Time (d) Temperature effect (heated - control) divergent parallel convergent Phenological stage in control 20

nonlinear thermal effect on grapevine phenology lag-phase to onset of rapid sugar accumulation active sugar accumulation in fruit 6 Temperature effect ( o Brix) 4 2 0-2 0 10 20 30 Shiraz, Exp. 1, irrigated 2010-11 Shiraz, Exp. 1, deficit 2010-11 Shiraz, Exp. 2, unthinned 2010-11 Shiraz, Exp. 2, thinned 2010-11 Cab Franc, Exp. 3 2010-11 Chardonnay, Exp. 3 2010-11 Semillon, Exp. 3 2010-11 Shiraz, Exp. 3 2010-11 Shiraz, Exp. 1, irrigated 2011-12 Shiraz, Exp. 1, deficit 2011-12 Shiraz, Exp. 2, unthinned 2011-12 Shiraz, Exp. 2, thinned 2011-12 Cab Franc, Exp. 3 2011-12 Chardonnay, Exp. 3 2011-12 Semillon, Exp. 3 2011-12 Shiraz Exp. 3 2011-12 7.6 ± 0.37 Developmental stage in control ( o Brix) Sadras & Moran 2013 Agric Forest Meteorol 173:107 21

smaller than expected effect of temperature on maturity (21.6 o Brix) Experiments Approx 3 d o C -1 Indirect methods 6.6 ± 0.92 d o C -1 (Petrie and Sadras 2008) 8 d o C -1 (Tomasi et al 2011) 9.8 ± 0.94 d o C -1 (Sadras and Petrie 2011) Sadras & Moran 2013 Agric Forest Meteorol 173:107

asymmetric effect of warming on yield 46% reduction to 177% increase Yield heated (kg per vine) 12 8 4 0 y= x 0 4 8 12 Yield control (kg per vine) Cab Franc 2010 Cab Franc 2011 Cab Franc 2012 Chardonnay 2010 Chardonnay 2011 Chardonnay 2012 Semillon 2010 Semillon 2011 Semillon 2012 Shiraz 2010 Shiraz 2011 Shiraz 2012 Shiraz, thinned 2011 Shiraz, unthinned 2011 Shiraz, thinned 2012 Shiraz, unthinned 2012 Shiraz, irigated 2011 Shiraz, deficit 2011 Shiraz, irrigated 2012 Shiraz, deficit 2012 exp. 1 exp. 2 exp. 3 Sadras & Moran 2013 Agric Forest Meteorol 173:116

2 Temperature effect on yield (%) (a) 200 150 100 50 0 no temperature effect significant interaction significant temperature effect -50 r 2 = 0.92 P < 0.0001-100 -50 0 50 100 Residuals (%) 40 20 0-20 -40-4 Temperature effect on bunch number (%)

Temperature effect on bunch number (%) Temperature effect on bunch number (%) 120 r 2 = 0.32 P = 0.03 80 40 0-40 (c) 0 40 80 120 Bunch number in control (vine -1 )

elevated temperature reduced starch concentration in trunk Starch concentration in heated (%) 25 (a) root 15 (b) trunk 20 15 10 5 0 y = x P = 0.32 0 5 10 15 20 25 10 5 0 y = x 0 5 10 15 Starch concentration in control (%) P = 0.0005 Sadras & Moran 2013 Agric Forest Meteorol 173:116

leaves formed under high temperature had larger stomata Frequency (%) 30 20 10 control (n = 1025) heated (n = 886) P < 0.0001 0 0 10 20 30 40 Stomata lenght ( m) Sadras et al. 2012 Agric Forest Meteorol 165:35

temperature effect on TA and ph is strongly dependent on variety Vintage Variety TA (g L -1 ) ph control heated control heated 2010 Semillon 6.4 ±0.12 5.1 ±0.39 3.11 ±0.0167 3.30 ±0.0780 Chardonnay 4.9 ±0.16 3.9 ±0.12 3.52 ±0.0567 3.80 ±0.0285 Shiraz 5.7 ±0.35 7.5 ±0.41 3.44 ±0.0458 3.40 ±0.0318 Cab Franc 5.3 ±0.15 4.3 ±0.10 3.66 ±0.0088 3.85 ±0.0384 2011 Semillon 4.9 ±0.18 5.7 ±0.69 3.37 ±0.0318 3.54 ±0.0361 Chardonnay 5.3 ±0.20 4.5 ±0.17 3.57 ±0.0265 3.82 ±0.0713 Shiraz 7.2 ±0.10 6.7 ±0.18 3.37 ±0.0231 3.43 ±0.0463 Cab Franc 6.6 ±0.06 6.0 ±0.16 3.50 ±0.0120 3.65 ±0.0208 Source of variation variety (V) 0.0001 0.0001 temperature (T) 0.0185 0.0001 season (S) 0.0011 0.3320 V x T 0.0010 0.0008 V x S 0.0002 0.0001 T x S 0.7135 0.9675 V x T x S 0.0001 0.5544 Sadras et al. 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 19, 107

Phenotypic plasticity allows for complex variety x environment interaction Trait high plasticity low plasticity Environment

text-book expected increase in ph and reduction in TA with high temperature is an oversimplification Titatrable acidity (g L -1 ) 9 6 (a) Cabernet Franc Chardonnay Plastic b 2.9 0.21 P < 0.0001 b 1.6 0.35 P < 0.001 3 5.0 5.5 6.0 (b) Semillon Shiraz Non-plastic 5.0 5.5 6.0 Titratable acidity environmental mean (g L -1 ) b = 0 P = 0.72 b = 0 P = 0.82 Sadras et al. 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 19, 107

text-book expected increase in ph and reduction in TA with high temperature is an oversimplification ph 4.0 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 Cabernet Franc Chardonnay Semillon Plastic b 1.7 0.28 P < 0.0001 b 0.9 0.42 P < 0.06 b 1.4 0.51 P < 0.02 (c) 3.0 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 (d) Shiraz Non-plastic b = 0 P = 0.92 3.4 3.5 3.6 ph environmental mean Sadras et al. 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 19, 107

trait decoupling Thermal decoupling is the consequence of differential responses of related traits. Balanced fruit Decoupled fruit Sugars Anthocyanins ph TA Flavour compounds temperature TA Sugars Anthocyanins ph Flavour compounds

elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars in Shiraz and Cab franc 3 Anthocyanins (mg g -1 ) 2 1 n = 300 Exp. 1, 2010 Exp. 1, 2011 Exp. 2, 2011 Exp. 3, 2011 R 2 = 0.88 P < 0.0001 0 phase 1 phase 2 0 10 20 30 Total soluble solids ( o Brix) Sadras & Moran 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 18, 115

elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars 3 0.10 Anthocyanins (mg g -1 ) 2 1 0 Residuals (mg g -1 ) 0.05 0.00-0.05-0.10 control P < 0.0001 heated 0 10 20 30 Total soluble solids ( o Brix) R 2 = 0.76 P < 0.0001 n = 268 control heated Sadras & Moran 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 18, 115

elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars by delaying pigment development in a brix scale Anthocyanins (mg/g) 1.5 Exp. 3, Shiraz 1.0 0.5 0.0 control heated 5 10 15 20 25 TSS ( o Brix)

water deficit partially restored the anthocyanin : sugar balance 1.5 Antocyanins (mg/g) 1.0 0.5 0.0 10 15 20 25 Total soluble solids ( o Brix) fully irrigated water deficit Sadras & Moran 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 18, 115

temperature decoupled sensory berry traits Cabernet Franc 2010 skin herebaceus aromas skin fruity aromas skin tannic intensity berry colour berry softness control heated skin desintegration berry stalk removal skin astringency pulp acidity skin acidity pulp detachment seed tannic intensity** pulp fruity aromas seed flavours* seed crushability* seed colour*** pulp herbaceus aromas pulp juiciness pulp sweetness seed astringency Sadras et al. 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 19, 95

strong variety x season x temperature effect on wine sensory traits 2010 vintage 1.0 Semillon more intense trait in controls 0.5 0.0 no temperature effect Score -0.5-1.0 1.0 0.5 green leaf *** * rich mouth feel ** ripe flavours Shiraz more intense trait in heated treatment 1.0 Cabernet Franc 0.5 0.0 0.0-0.5-0.5-1.0 berry floral ripe flavours *** cooked fruit -1.0 green leaf lighter palate tannin structure varietal character Wine attribute Sadras et al. 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 19, 107

Conclusions

In a warmer Barossa Nonlinear effect on phenology Smaller than expected effect on maturity (3 days per o C) Asymmetric effect on yield mediated by bunch number 46% reduction to 177% increase Apparent depletion of starch in trunks? Larger, more open stomata; leaf transpiration and photosynthesis per unit leaf area Variety-dependent responses (ph, TA) Decoupling of berry traits and wine attributes

Can we shift phenology and restore berry and wine balance with late pruning? By Paul Petrie, this meeting

A window into hotter and drier futures: questions, comments, report: victor.sadras@sa.gov.au phenological shifts and adaptive practices Final Report to Grape and Wine Research & Development Corporation Project Number: SAR 0901 1 July 2009 30 June 2012 Victor Sadras, Martin Moran and Paul Petrie December 2012 Thank you