measured effects of elevated temperature on vine … · victor sadras, martin moran & paul...

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

Vintage 2030 - Melbourne, 19th June 2013

Funded by

Grape and Wine R&D Corporation

State NRM Program

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Methods, data sources and reliability

Measured effects of elevated temperature on:

time of harvest

yield

berry traits

juice and wine attributes

Aims

Papers retrieved searching

“temperature” + “grapevine” (Web of Science)

Year

1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Num

ber

of

public

ations

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1940

1960

1980

2000

2020

Nu

mb

er

of

cita

tio

ns

0

350

700

1050

1400

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

Effect of temperature on vines and wines: indirect vs direct methods

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

Sadras & Petrie 2011 Austr J Grape Wine Res 17, 199

Large scale open-top heating systems (9 vines per rep x 3 reps + buffers)

Passive, daytime +2 to 4 oC Active/Passive, day & night +2 oC

Experiments 1 and 2 Experiment 3

Spring

1/10/10 10/10/10 19/10/10 28/10/10

0

1

2

3

4control

heated

1/1/11 10/1/11 19/1/11 28/1/11

0

2

4

6

8

10

1/3/11 10/3/11 19/3/11 28/3/11

Va

po

r pre

ssu

re d

efic

it (kP

a)

0

1

2

3

4

Date

1/6/11 10/6/11 19/6/11 28/6/11

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1/10/10 10/10/10 19/10/10 28/10/10

0

10

20

30

Summer

1/1/11 10/1/11 19/1/11 28/1/11

10

20

30

40

Autumn

1/3/11 10/3/11 19/3/11 28/3/11

Te

mp

era

ture

(ºC

)

10

20

30

Winter

1/6/11 10/6/11 19/6/11 28/6/11

0

10

20

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.

Design Criteria

Probing for

experimental artefacts

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 50 100 150

Control

Heated

0

5

10

15

20

25

0 500 1000 1500 2000 Mali

c a

cid

(m

g g

fw

t-1)

Time after anthesis

(d)

Thermal time after anthesis

(oC d)

Sweetman et al (unpublished)

Days after anthesis

20 40 60 80 100 120

Liv

ing tis

sue (

%)

50

60

70

80

90

100

Thermal time after anthesis (oCd)

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

control

heated

Bondada et al 2013 Austr J Grape Wine Res 19: 97

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

experiments explored a good range of Barossa seasonal variation

Month

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR

Tem

pera

ture

(oC

)

10

15

20

25

30

352009

2010

2011

2012

10th

90th

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

20

Time (d)

Phenolo

gic

al sta

ge

heated

controlT

em

pera

ture

effect (h

eate

d -

contr

ol)

Phenological stage in control

divergent parallel convergent

divergent parallel convergent

Developmental stage in control (oBrix)

0 10 20 30

Tem

pera

ture

eff

ect

(oB

rix)

-2

0

2

4

6

7.6 ± 0.37

Shiraz, Exp. 1, irrigated 2010-11Shiraz, Exp. 1, deficit 2010-11Shiraz, Exp. 2, unthinned 2010-11Shiraz, Exp. 2, thinned 2010-11Cab Franc, Exp. 3 2010-11Chardonnay, Exp. 3 2010-11Semillon, Exp. 3 2010-11

Shiraz, Exp. 1, irrigated 2011-12Shiraz, Exp. 1, deficit 2011-12Shiraz, Exp. 2, unthinned 2011-12Shiraz, Exp. 2, thinned 2011-12Cab Franc, Exp. 3 2011-12Chardonnay, Exp. 3 2011-12Semillon, Exp. 3 2011-12Shiraz Exp. 3 2011-12

Shiraz, Exp. 3 2010-11

lag-phase to onsetof rapid sugar accumulation

active sugar accumulation in fruit

21

nonlinear thermal effect on grapevine phenology

Sadras & Moran 2013 Agric Forest Meteorol 173:107

Experiments Approx 3 d oC-1

Indirect methods 6.6 ± 0.92 d oC-1 (Petrie and Sadras 2008)

8 d oC-1 (Tomasi et al 2011)

9.8 ± 0.94 d oC-1 (Sadras and Petrie 2011)

smaller than expected effect of temperature on maturity (21.6 oBrix)


Traits


asymmetric effect of warming on yield 46% reduction to 177% increase

Yield control (kg per vine)

0 4 8 12

Yie

ld h

eate

d (

kg p

er

vin

e)

0

4

8

12

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

y= x


(a)

Temperature effect on bunch number (%)

-50 0 50 100

Tem

pera

ture

eff

ect

on

yie

ld (

%)

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

no temperature effect

significant interaction

significant temperature effect

r2 = 0.92

P < 0.0001

(b)

Temperature effect on berries per bunch (%)

-40 -20 0 20 40 60

Resid

uals

(%

)

-40

-20

0

20

40

r2 = 0.28

P = 0.01

(c)

Bunch number in control (vine-1

)

0 40 80 120

Tem

pera

ture

eff

ect

on

bu

nch

nu

mb

er

(%)

-40

0

40

80

120 r2 = 0.32

P = 0.03

(a) root

Starch concentration in control (%)

0 5 10 15 20 25

Sta

rch

con

cen

tration

in

heate

d (

%)

0

5

10

15

20

25 (b) trunk

0 5 10 15

0

5

10

15

P = 0.0005P = 0.32

y = xy = x

elevated temperature reduced starch concentration in trunk


Stomata lenght ( m)

0 10 20 30 40

Fre

qu

en

cy (

%)

0

10

20

30control (n = 1025)

heated (n = 886)

P < 0.0001

leaves formed under high temperature had larger stomata

Sadras et al. 2012 Agric Forest Meteorol 165:35

Traits


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

Environment

Trai

t

high plasticity

low plasticity

text-book expected increase in pH and reduction in TA with high temperature is an oversimplification

5.0 5.5 6.0Tit

atr

ab

le a

cid

ity (

g L

-1)

3

6

9Cabernet Franc

Chardonnay

Titratable acidity environmental mean (g L-1

)

5.0 5.5 6.0

Semillon

Shiraz

Plastic Non-plastic

0.351.6b

0.212.9b

P < 0.0001

P < 0.001

b = 0

P = 0.72

b = 0

P = 0.82

(b)

(a)


Plastic Non-plastic

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

pH

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0Cabernet Franc

Chardonnay

Semillon

0.511.4b

0.420.9b

0.281.7b

P < 0.0001

P < 0.06

P < 0.02

3.4 3.5 3.6

Shiraz

b = 0

P = 0.92

pH environmental mean

(c) (d)

text-book expected increase in pH and reduction in TA with high temperature is an oversimplification


trait decoupling

Thermal decoupling is the consequence of differential responses of related traits.

Sugars Anthocyanins pH TA Flavour compounds

Balanced fruit

Sugars Anthocyanins pH TA Flavour compounds

Decoupled fruit

temperature

elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars in Shiraz and Cab franc

0 10 20 30

Anth

ocyanin

s (

mg g

-1)

0

1

2

3

Exp. 1, 2010

Exp. 1, 2011

Exp. 2, 2011

Exp. 3, 2011

n = 300

R2

= 0.88P < 0.0001

phase 1 phase 2

Total soluble solids (oBrix)

Sadras & Moran 2012 Austr J Grape & Wine Res 18, 115

elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars


0 10 20 30

0

1

2

3

control

heated

n = 268

R2

= 0.76P < 0.0001

P < 0.0001

control heated

Re

sid

ua

ls (

mg

g-1

)

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

An

thocya

nin

s (

mg

g-1

)


elevated temperature decoupled anthocyanins and sugars by delaying pigment development in a brix scale

Exp. 3, Shiraz

5 10 15 20 25

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

control

heated

An

tho

cyan

ins

(mg

/g)

TSS (oBrix)

water deficit partially restored the anthocyanin : sugar balance


10 15 20 25

An

toc

ya

nin

s (

mg

/g)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

fully irrigated

water deficit


temperature decoupled sensory berry traits

Cabernet Franc 2010 control

heated

berry colour

berry softness

berry stalk removal

pulp acidity

pulp detachment

pulp fruity aromas

pulp herbaceus aromas

pulp juiciness

pulp sweetnessseed

astringency

seed colour***

seed crushability*

seed flavours*

seed tannic intensity**

skin acidity

skin astringency

skin desintegration

skin

fruity aromas

skin

herebaceus

aromas

skin tannic

intensity


strong variety x season x temperature effect on wine sensory traits

Shiraz

berry

flora

l

ripe

flavo

urs

cook

ed fr

uit

Sc

ore

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

gree

n leaf

rich

mou

th fe

el

ripe

flavo

urs

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Cabernet Franc

Wine attribute

gree

n leaf

light

er p

alat

e

tann

in stru

ctur

e

varie

tal c

hara

cter

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

Semillonmore intense trait in controls

more intense trait in heated treatment

no temperature effect

**

***

2010 vintage

*** *


Conclusions

In a warmer Barossa

Nonlinear effect on phenology

Smaller than expected effect on maturity (3 days per oC)

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:

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

questions, comments, report: [email protected]

Thank you

measured effects of elevated temperature on vine … · victor sadras, martin moran & paul...

Documents