# Adaptation to climate change by determining grapevine cultivar differences using temperature-based phenology models

Amber K Parker, I. García de Cortázar-Atauri, Michael C T Trought, Agnès

Destrac, Rob Agnew, Andrew Sturman, Cornelis van Leeuwen

► To cite this version:

Amber K Parker, I. García de Cortázar-Atauri, Michael C T Trought, Agnès Destrac, Rob Agnew, et al.. Adaptation to climate change by determining grapevine cultivar differences using temperature-based phenology models. OENO One, 2020, 54 (4), pp.955 - 974. 10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.4.3861. hal-03301668

HAL Id: hal-03301668

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03301668

Submitted on 27 Jul 2021

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Adaptation to climate change by determining grapevine cultivar differences using temperature-based phenology models

Amber K. Parker<fnref n="1" />, Iñaki García de Cortázar-Atauri<fnref n="2" />, Michael C.T. Trought<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="3" />, Agnès Destrac<fnref n="4" />, Rob Agnew<fnref n="3" />, Andrew Sturman<fnref n="5" /> and Cornelis van Leeuwen<fnref n="4" />

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

XIIIth International Terroir Congress
17-18 November 2020
Virtual Congress | Adelaide, Australia

This article is published in cooperation with the XIII<sup>th</sup> International Terroir Congress

November 17-18 2020, Adelaide, Australia - Guest editors: Cassandra Collins and Roberta De Bei

## ABSTRACT

Grapevine phenology is advancing with increased temperatures associated with climate change. This may result in higher fruit sugar concentrations at harvest and/or earlier compressed harvests and changes in the synchrony of sugar with other fruit metabolites. One adaptation strategy that growers may use to maintain typicity of wine style is to change cultivars. This approach may enable fruit to develop under temperature conditions similar to those typically associated with that wine style. We demonstrate that Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) and the Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) models can be implemented as a means of testing the suitability of alternative cultivars as an adaptation strategy to climate change.

Previous viticulture temperature-based models were reviewed and compared with the GFV and GSR models. The results from the original GFV and GSR models were combined to evaluate the classification of the 20 most represented cultivars. The GFV and GSR models were tested for three new historic and contrasting datasets: 31 cultivars in the VitAdapt collection, Bordeaux; Chardonnay, Champagne; and Sauvignon blanc, Marlborough. Errors of predictions were less than a week for flowering and véraison, and within 7-10 days for the time to reach relevant target sugar concentrations for these datasets. Future GFV and GSR projections for Chardonnay resulted in an advance at a rate of one to two days per decade for flowering and véraison, and two to five days per decade for time to 170 g/L sugar concentration for RCP 4.5 and 8.5 respectively.

Therefore, the GFV and GSR models are highly accurate and easy-to-use temperature-based phenological models for predicting flowering, véraison and time to target sugar concentrations when tested under new conditions. The models can be applied for characterising new cultivars, and assessing thermal time to flowering, véraison and different sugar targets. They can be used to assess cultivar performance in winegrowing areas worldwide under current or future climate conditions. The classifications therefore enable growers and researchers to compare the phenology of cultivars in a region today and to consider adaptation options: selecting later ripening cultivars or choosing alternative sites in the context of climate change.

## KEYWORDS

grapevine, phenology, flowering, véraison, sugar, temperature, model, climate change, adaptation, classification

<footnote n="1">¹Department of Wine, Food and Molecular Biosciences, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²INRAE, US 1116 AGROCLIM, F-84914 Avignon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd, Marlborough Research Centre, PO Box 845, Blenheim 7240, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴EGFV, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, INRAE, Université de Bordeaux, ISVV, Chemin de Leysotte, 33883, Villenave d'Ornon, France</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵School of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand</footnote>

<footnote>*corresponding author: amber.parker@lincoln.ac.nz</footnote>
## INTRODUCTION

Phenology has been identified as the key biological indicator of climate change (Menzel *et al.*, 2006) and an essential biodiversity variable (Pereira *et al.*, 2013), not only for the grapevine, but also for species worldwide. Grapevine phenology and harvest dates have been reported to have advanced worldwide in response to increasing temperatures due to climate change (Duchêne and Schneider, 2005; Petrie and Sadras, 2008; Webb *et al.*, 2007; Webb *et al.*, 2012). With earlier ripening, increased sugar concentrations have been observed at harvest and compressed harvests, as well as at early harvests to maintain target sugar concentrations (Jones and Davis, 2000; Duchêne and Schneider, 2005; Petrie and Sadras, 2008; Webb *et al.*, 2007; Webb *et al.*, 2012; van Leeuwen and Darriet, 2016). Due to advances in phenology and sugar accumulation, changes in synchrony between fruit development and other metabolites occur (Sadras and Moran, 2012). This can lead to unbalanced berry composition (e.g., sugar concentrations too high, acidity too low, and aromatic expression dominated by cooked fruit aromas) (van Leeuwen and Seguin, 2006; van Leeuwen *et al.*, 2019), and changes in wine style. To avoid this scenario, adaptation strategies that manipulate ripening to retain balance in primary and secondary metabolites need to be considered. In some cases, this may mean changing to later ripening cultivars (van Leeuwen *et al.*, 2019).

Historically, climate suitability was assessed via bioclimatic indices such as the Huglin Index or the Winkler Index (Amerine and Winkler, 1944; Huglin, 1978). While these indices are very useful for characterising the general climate of a given region, and for determining suitability for grapevine production, they do not accurately reflect the plant response to temperatures. In contrast, grapevine phenological models better represent plant response to the thermal environment, predicting the time of a phenological event based on air temperature, the key environmental factor driving phenology (Webb *et al.*, 2007; Parker *et al.*, 2011; Morales-Castilla *et al.*, 2020). Different grapevine cultivars have different temperature requirements to reach key phenological stages; earlier developing cultivars have lower temperature requirements compared with later ripening cultivars for the appearance of key phenological events. Therefore, understanding the temperature requirements of different cultivars using temperature-based phenological modelling can provide us with information about cultivar

suitability to changing temperatures. This ultimately enables growers to adapt to climate change by changing to cultivars that may be more suited to future warmer conditions.

In order to understand potential cultivar phenology differences in response to temperature, it is necessary to develop and apply phenological models to characterise key phenological stages. The Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) model was developed to characterise a wide range of cultivars based on the thermal times at which flowering and véraison occur; 95 and 104 grapevine cultivars for flowering and véraison respectively, have been characterised using this model (Parker *et al.*, 2011; Parker *et al.*, 2013). The GFV model is a linear model that starts accumulating thermal time from the 60th day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere (base temperature of 0 °C) until the appearance of the phenological stage (50 % flowering or véraison). Recently, the Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) model was developed (Parker *et al.*, 2020) which characterises the thermal time to six different target sugar concentrations (170, 180, 190, 200, 210, 220 g/L) for 65 cultivars. This temperature-based model starts on the 91st day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, or on 1 April (base temperature of 0 °C) (Parker *et al.*, 2020).

A few studies have investigated the application of these models to new sites under current climate conditions and future climate scenarios, or to cultivars not currently characterised by the model. Cuccia *et al.* (2014) used the GFV model to predict the time of véraison for Pinot noir in the Burgundy region for future conditions with temperature increases of up to +5 °C. Parker *et al.* (2014b) and Parker *et al.* (2015b) conducted some preliminary evaluations of GFV model performance for Sauvignon blanc flowering in the Marlborough region, New Zealand, reporting predictions varying by 0-10 days between different sites. van Leeuwen *et al.* (2019) predicted the date of harvest at target sugar concentrations for Merlot, Cabernet-Sauvignon, Cabernet franc and Sauvignon blanc in Bordeaux for the periods 1951-1980 and 1981-2010, and found that the GSR model accurately predicted the time of sugar targets compared with the historical observations. They also used this model to predict the suitability of these cultivars to retain current ripening windows into the future, and found that Merlot and Sauvignon blanc would ripen earlier than the desired ripening window by 2050, with a + 1°C temperature increase over this period.
Wang *et al.* (2020) obtained good results using the GFV model for Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet franc and Chardonnay, across five regions in China: Changli, Laixi, Shangri-La, Xiaxian and Yanqi. The authors found that the practice of burying vines in the soil created a systematic bias in GFV predictions of flowering, although this effect was partially eliminated at véraison. However, this study had few data points and further evaluation may be required. Recently, de Rességuier *et al.* (2020) and Verdugo-Vásquez *et al.* (2019) used the GFV model to characterise phenology at the site scale. Since their development, testing of both models at new sites for historic and future predictions has been limited to the above studies. Similarly, the models have not been tested against other cultivar collections, which may include cultivars not previously characterised by the two models.

In this study, we carried out a review of bioclimatic indices and phenological models developed and tested for the grapevine, demonstrating the interest in and prevalence of the different modelling approaches. The application of the GFV

and GSR models was evaluated for three new historic and contrasting datasets: the VitAdapt cultivar collection in Bordeaux, where up to 31 cultivars have been monitored for phenology and sugar accumulation; a long-term historic dataset from Champagne (1961-2019); and a dataset from the Southern Hemisphere for Sauvignon blanc, Marlborough. Future projections were also generated for Chardonnay at Champagne (RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios). We demonstrate through these applications that the GFV and GSR models are highly accurate and easy-to-use for flowering, véraison and harvest date/target sugar concentration predictions for a wide range of cultivars, for both long term past climate data and future projections, and that they can be used successfully to assess how ‘early’ or ‘late’ cultivars may be for these key stages.

## MATERIALS AND METHODS

### 1. Review of relevant literature

The objective of this review was to evaluate temperature-based approaches to characterising and understanding differences in grapevine

<table><caption>TABLE 1. Search terms applied to the WoS database.</caption><thead><tr><th>Search number</th><th>Combined searches</th><th>Search terms</th><th>Number of publications retrieved</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND phenolog*)</td><td>444</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND classification AND phenolog*)</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND bioclimat*)</td><td>62</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND phenolog* AND model*)</td><td>299</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND cultivar* AND temperature* AND phenolog*)</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND variet* AND temperature* AND phenolog*)</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND cultivar* AND phenolog* AND model*)</td><td>61</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND variet* AND phenolog* AND model*)</td><td>89</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>5 & 6 (OR)</td><td></td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>7 or 8 (OR)</td><td></td><td>132</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND bioclimat* AND temperature* AND model*)</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND variet* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model*)</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND cultivar* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model*)</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>12&13 (OR)</td><td></td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND bioclimat* AND phenolog* AND model* AND classification AND variet*)</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND bioclimat* AND model* AND classification AND cultivar*)</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model* AND classification AND variet*)</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td></td><td>TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model* AND classification AND cultivar*)</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>17 & 18 (OR)</td><td></td><td>9<sup>2</sup></td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote n="1">¹TS = Topic search; the use of the search truncation “*” enables the following terms to be considered: grape* = grape, grapevine, grapes, cultivar* = cultivar, cultivars, variet* = variety, varieties, bioclimat* = bioclimate, bioclimatic, phenolog* = phenology, phenological, model* = model, models, temperature* = temperature, temperatures.
²Comparison of searches 17 and 18 confirmed that search 19 is a small subset of 14.</footnote>
cultivar, and to compare them with the GFV and GSR model approaches. Specific inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed literature indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database (date of search: 18/06/2020 for searches 1-3, 7, 9-19; 18/08/2020 for searches 4, 7-8, 10), published between 1980 and 2020, with all languages and all document types considered. Each search was by "topic"; Table 1 summarises the WoS search queries. It was assumed that this search process covered the most relevant journal-based publications on temperature-based approaches to characterising and understanding differences in grapevine cultivar. Searches 1-3 covered publications on the broad topic, which did not provide information at the cultivar/variety level and were therefore not assessed as being relevant. The 20 most cited articles and the 20 most recent articles from searches 9, 14, and 19 were evaluated for their relevance, and those deemed relevant were evaluated for their temperature-based approach used to understand and characterise cultivar differences.

## 2. Evaluation of the parameterisations of the top 20 cultivars characterised by the GFV and GSR models

The 20 cultivars with the greatest number of data from Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020) across the three stages (50 % flowering, 50 % véraison for GFV, and the target sugar concentration of 190 g/L for GSR) were evaluated for relative timing of stages, order of classification and size of confidence intervals. The target of 190 g/L was chosen to accommodate both early and late ripening cultivars (as early ripening cultivars often did not have greater target sugar concentrations). *F*\* values (thermal summations for GFV or GSR models) and confidence intervals (CIs) correspond to those reported in Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020).

## 3. Validation of the GFV and GSR models with independent databases

The VitAdapt cultivar collection in Bordeaux contains 52 cultivars. Only those for which GFV and GSR parameterisations were available (Parker *et al.*, 2013; Parker *et al.*, 2020) and for which observations were made were included in the analysis. For the GSR model, the 2012-2014 period was omitted due to its use in the GSR model calibration in Parker *et al.* (2020). The data available corresponded to 31 cultivars for 50 % flowering and véraison (period 2012-2017) and for sugar data (period 2015-2017). The average

flowering, véraison and sugar concentration dates were obtained from four replicates of 10 vines. Sugar data were collected as follows. At each sampling date, 60 berries were manually sampled from each replicate and each cultivar, and juice was extracted by pressing the berries between two metal blades (Bagmixer 400W - Interscience, France) and then filtered (Lateral BagFilter - Interscience, France) before being centrifuged at 20 °C for 10 minutes at 10,000 rpm. The juice samples (12 mL) were then analysed by Fourier Transform InfraRed Spectroscopy (FTIR), using a WineScan™ analyser according to the method "Must" provided and calibrated by the manufacturer (FOSS, 92000 Nanterre, France). Each sample was analysed twice. The WineScan™ was previously calibrated with an electronic refractometer (Digital Refractometer, Ningbo Gamry Optical Instrument Co., Ltd.) as specified in Destrac *et al.* (2015). Meteorological data were obtained from the INRAE monitoring station located at less than 100 m from the experimental site and at the same altitude. Cultivars in this collection were characterised according to time to flowering and véraison (using the GFV model, individual cultivar *F*\* values found in Parker *et al.*, 2013) and time to 190 g/L sugar concentrations (using the GSR model, individual cultivar *F*\* values found in Parker *et al.*, 2020).

Flowering was assessed twice a week at each inflorescence position along a single cane (usually 10 buds) of four 2-caned pruned Sauvignon blanc vines at the Oyster Bay site, Marlborough, New Zealand for the 2004/05 to the 2019/20 growing seasons. Dates of 50 % flowering were determined for each season, and 32 berry samples were obtained weekly from each of the four vines at the site. Véraison was assessed according to berry softness of the weekly 32 berry samples for the seasons from 2005/06 to 2010/2011, and to time to reach the target of 8°Brix from 2011/12 onwards (as determined by the softness-soluble solids correlation described in Parker, 2012). Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured in the juice from the weekly 32 berry samples, and the time to target TSS of 8°Brix (and to an equivalence of 200 g/L target sugar concentration for maturity) was determined. Although 210 g/L is closer to the desired industry target for TSS at harvest (Trought and Bramley, 2011), 200 g/L was chosen as this was obtained in all years of the dataset (not all years reached 210 g/L). Meteorological data were collected from an automated weather station located 0.87 km from the site of observations. Flowering, véraison and time to 200 g/L
sugar concentration were predicted using the F* values for Sauvignon blanc (flowering = 1282, véraison = 2528, GFV model in Parker et al., 2013; time to 200 g/L sugar = 2820, GSR model in Parker et al., 2020) and available temperature data. Yield data were also collected at the site for the same period.

Average flowering and harvest dates for the Champagne region were extracted from the ONERC website (for methodology and results, see: https://www.ecologique-solidaire.gouv.fr/impacts-du-changement-climatique-agriculture-et-foret). The Epernay weather station was selected to model flowering and time to target sugar concentrations in Champagne, because this station is located in the centre of the Champagne production region. Chardonnay flowering dates (F* = 1217, GFV model in Parker et al., 2013) and dates of attaining a target sugar concentration of 170 g/L were predicted using the available temperature data. This sugar target is the approximate sugar concentration at which Chardonnay is harvested in Champagne (F* value = 2723, GSR model in Parker et al., 2020). F* values were chosen for Chardonnay as this variety represents approximately 1/3 of the planted area (the other varieties being Meunier and Pinot noir) and is well distributed over the entire production area. F* values for flowering and 170 g/L sugar target for Pinot noir are very close to those of Chardonnay, while Meunier is a slightly earlier cultivar (Parker et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2020). The predicted dates were then compared with general flowering and harvest dates from the ONERC website data.

Model efficiency (EF, equation 1, Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970), root mean square error (RMSE, equation 2), and mean bias error (MBE, equation 3) were assessed for the whole dataset of each of the three sites, while RMSE and MBE were calculated for validation for each cultivar in the VitAdapt collection and for Sauvignon blanc in Marlborough, and Chardonnay in Champagne.

$$EF = 1 - \left( \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (S_i - O_i)^2}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (O_i - \bar{O})^2} \right) \quad (1)$$

$$RMSE = \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (S_i - O_i)^2}{n}} \quad (2)$$

$$MBE = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} S_i - O_i}{n} \quad (3)$$

where Oᵢ is the observed value, Sᵢ is the predicted value, Ū is the mean observed value, and n is the number of observations.

## 4. Future projections for flowering and time to 170 g/L sugar concentration in Champagne under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 emission scenarios

Yearly dates of 50 % flowering and the time to 170 g/L target sugar concentrations were predicted for the period 2020-2100 from climate model predictions based on the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 emission scenarios. We used the climatic data generated by the ALADIN-Climat v5 Regional Climate Model (CNRM) (12-km resolution) for the CMIP5 experiment downscaled to an 8-km resolution using a quantile-quantile method (http://www.drias-climat.fr/). Daily mean, minimum and maximum temperatures for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios were used.

# RESULTS

## 1. Review of relevant literature

The web search produced 444 publications containing grape*, temperature* and phenology*, of which 203 also included the terms variety/varieties or cultivar/cultivars (Table 1). Ninety percent of the total number of publications were published after 2008. Only nine publications which addressed the complete topic of temperature, phenology model, and variety/cultivar classification were obtained (Search 19 in Table 1), of which six were considered relevant. By contrast, when the term “classification” was omitted, 88 publications considered grape, cultivar/variety, temperature, phenology and model (Search 14 in Table 1). Out of these 88 publications, 90 % were published after 2008. Overall, there were fewer articles specifically addressing bioclimat* in the search (Searches 3, 11, 15 and 16 in Table 1), and only two publications where bioclimat* (i.e., bioclimatic approaches with a classification) were considered (Search 15 in Table 1). Table 2 summarises the key phenology and bioclimatic approaches found in the 20 most recent and 20 most cited publications for searches 9, 14 and 19. Few key bioclimatic indices were used in these studies. Specific approaches were developed for budburst, notably to take into account chill units (Table 2).

However, four different modelling/temperature-based approaches were tested for flowering and véraison, and likewise four different approaches
<table><caption>TABLE 2. Modelling and temperature-based approaches characterising cultivar differences from relevant literature obtained from the 20 most recent and 20 most cited publications.</caption><thead><tr><th>Search number¹</th><th>Model/ temperature-based approach</th><th>Phenophase/ fixed start date</th><th>Stage(s)</th><th>Number of cultivars characterised</th><th>Publication</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>9, 14,19</td><td>BRIN²</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Budburst</td><td>10</td><td>Garcia de Cortázar-Atauri et al. (2009)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 14</td><td>Dynamic model</td><td>Phenophase</td><td>Budburst</td><td>23</td><td>Ferguson et al. (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Photoperiod + Chill and heat requirements</td><td></td><td>Budburst</td><td>2</td><td>Camargo-Alvarez et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Uniforc³ (non-linear forcing)</td><td>Phenophase</td><td>Budburst</td><td>1</td><td>Prats-Llinas et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>VineLOGIC</td><td>Unknown<br>Phenophase</td><td>Budburst<br>Harvest</td><td>2</td><td>Webb et al. (2007)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Average temperatures at set time periods</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Budburst<br>Flowering<br>Véraison<br>Harvest</td><td>18</td><td>Tomasi et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 19</td><td>Statistical models of climate over fixed periods</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Budburst<br>Flowering<br>Véraison</td><td>16</td><td>Fraga et al. (2016)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 14</td><td>GFV⁴ (form of GDD)⁵</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Flowering<br>Véraison</td><td>11<br>11</td><td>Parker et al. (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 14, 19</td><td>GFV⁴ (form of GDD)⁵</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Flowering<br>Véraison</td><td>95<br>104</td><td>Parker et al. (2013)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>GFV⁴<br>GSR⁶</td><td></td><td>Flowering<br>Véraison<br>Maturity</td><td>1</td><td>Ramos and Martinez de Toda (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Single triangulation</td><td>Phenophase</td><td>Flowering<br>Véraison<br>Maturity<br>(sugar/soluble solids concentration)</td><td>1</td><td>Prats-Llinas et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>GDD⁵ (Fixed period of time Sept-Oct)</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Maturity (target sugar concentration)</td><td>23</td><td>Cameron et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9,19</td><td>GSR⁶ (form of GDD⁵)</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Maturity<br>(target sugar concentration)</td><td>65</td><td>Parker et al. (2020)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 14</td><td>Huglin Index<br>(Huglin, 1978)</td><td>Fixed<br>Phenophase<br>Phenophase</td><td>Budburst<br>Flowering<br>Véraison</td><td>14</td><td>Duchêne et al. (2010)</td></tr><tr><td>9, 14</td><td>GST⁷</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Maturity (sugar/soluble solids concentration)</td><td>7</td><td>Webb et al. (2012)</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Daily average temperature</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Onset of maturity (assessed by sugar/soluble solids concentration)<br>Maturity (sugar/soluble solids concentration)</td><td>3</td><td>Sadras and Petrie (2011)</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Range of climate variables (80 predictors tested)</td><td>Fixed</td><td>Budburst<br>Flowering<br>Véraison</td><td>7</td><td>Urhausen et al. (2011)</td></tr></tbody></table>

¹Search 9: TS = (grape* AND cultivar* AND temperature* AND phenolog*) or TS = (grape* AND variet* AND temperature* AND phenolog*); Search 14: TS = (grape* AND variet* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model*) or TS = (grape* AND cultivar* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model*); Search 19: TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model* AND classification AND variet*) OR TS = (grape* AND temperature* AND phenolog* AND model* AND classification AND cultivar*).

²The BRIN model combines the Bidabe model for chill units (Bidabe, 1965a, b) and the Richardson model for forcing/heat units (Richardson *et al.*, 1974).

³Uniforc in Chuine (2000).

⁴GFV: Grapevine Flowering Véraison.

⁵GDD: Growing Degree Days.

⁶GSR: Grapevine Sugar Ripeness.

⁷GST: Growing Season Temperature.
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 1.** TOP 20 cultivars common to the historical databases for the Grapevine Flowering Véraison and Grapevine Sugar Ripeness models.</figcaption></figure>

for measuring maturity (Table 2). The GFV and GSR models have been used to characterise the greatest number of cultivars to date (Table 2).

**2. Comparison of classification orders of cultivars for the GFV and GSR models based on original datasets**

In the original datasets of Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020), eight cultivars (Merlot, Pinot noir, Grenache, Cabernet-Sauvignon, Gamay, Syrah, Chardonnay, Cabernet franc) were in the top 10 cultivars in terms of number of observations for the stages of flowering, véraison and time to 190 g/L sugar concentration.

For the top 20 cultivars, when ranked in terms of the smallest thermal time (F*) to the largest thermal time to reach 190 g/L of sugar by the GSR model, the order was different to that of earliest to latest flowering, and likewise to that of earliest to latest véraison. In general, early véraison cultivars reached the 190 g/L target sugar concentration early, and late véraison cultivars reached this target late. However, the mid-range cultivars for the time to 190 g/L sugar concentration experienced variation in the order of timing when comparing véraison with time to 190 g/L sugar; for example, Chardonnay véraison was earlier than that of Merlot, but the time to 190 g/L sugar concentration was very similar for both,

and Grenache, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Syrah displayed vastly different timings for véraison, but reached 190 g/L sugar at a similar time. When comparing the order of time to 190 g/L sugar concentration to the flowering and véraison order, nine cultivars changed their order by greater than five places for two or three of the phenological stages (Table 3). All confidence intervals were less than 150 degree days for flowering and véraison for these cultivars, except véraison for Chenin, for which the CI was > 350 degree days (Figure 1), where five out of the six years had differences in observations and predictions of more than six days, and the *EF* was -1.56. Fourteen cultivars had CIs of < 150 degree days (excluding Semillon, Chenin, Colombard, Petit verdot, Sangiovese and Carignan) for the time to target sugar concentration of 190 g/L, and only Chenin exceeded 300 degree days (Figure 1).

**3. Validation of the GFV and GSR models using independent databases**

**3.1. VitAdapt cultivar collection, Bordeaux, France**

*EF* values for all three stages indicated that the models performed better than when just using the average of the dates alone - with values of *EF* > 0.5 being considered to indicate sufficient model quality - and the average error of prediction
<table><caption>**TABLE 3.** Cultivars with order changes greater than five places within the top 20 classification for the stages flowering (determined by the Grapevine Flowering Véraison model, GFV), véraison (GFV model), or time to 190 g/L sugar (determined by the Grapevine Sugar Ripeness model).</caption><thead><tr><th>Cultivar</th><th>Flowering classification position</th><th>Véraison classification position</th><th>190 g/L sugar classification position</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Merlot</td><td>11</td><td>11</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>Chardonnay</td><td>2</td><td>8</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>Pinot gris</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Semillon</td><td>19</td><td>7</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Grenache</td><td>12</td><td>19</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td>Cabernet-Sauvignon</td><td>18</td><td>12</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Colombard</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><td>Petit verdot</td><td>7</td><td>20</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>Cinsaut</td><td>10</td><td>14</td><td>17</td></tr></tbody></table>

Numbers in *italics* indicate similar positions for two out of the three stages for each cultivar.

<table><caption>**TABLE 4.** Validation of Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) and Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) models for three different data sources.</caption><thead><tr><th>Site</th><th>Multiple cultivars<fnref n="1" />, VitAdapt site, Bordeaux, France (2012-2017 GFV, 2015-2017 GSR)</th><th>Sauvignon blanc, Oyster Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand (2004-2020)</th><th>Epernay, Champagne, France (1961-2019)<fnref n="3" /></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>50 % Flowering</td><td>0.55</td><td>-1.04</td><td>0.48</td></tr><tr><td>EF 50 % Véraison</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.30</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Target sugar concentration<fnref n="2" /></td><td>0.48</td><td>-0.10</td><td>0.63</td></tr><tr><td>50 % Flowering</td><td>4.70</td><td>6.67</td><td>6.83</td></tr><tr><td>RMSE 50 % Véraison</td><td>5.07</td><td>4.67</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Target sugar concentration<fnref n="2" /></td><td>6.52</td><td>9.67</td><td>7.12</td></tr><tr><td>50 % Flowering</td><td>-1.21</td><td>-5.50</td><td>-4.05</td></tr><tr><td>MBE 50 % Véraison</td><td>-1.66</td><td>1.80</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Target sugar concentration<fnref n="2" /></td><td>3.18</td><td>-2.40</td><td>-3.17</td></tr><tr><td>50 % Flowering</td><td>6 (173 observations)</td><td>16 (2004/05 to 2019/20)</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>n 50 % Véraison</td><td>6 (181 observations)</td><td>15 (2005/06 to 2019/20)</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Target sugar concentration<fnref n="2" /></td><td>3 (89 observations)</td><td>16 (2004/05 to 2019/20)</td><td>58</td></tr></tbody></table>

EF = model efficiency, RMSE = root mean square error, MBE = mean bias error; n = number of years where observations were recorded and predictions generated.

<footnote n="1">¹ 31 cultivars were analysed.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² 190 g/L for VitAdapt site, Bordeaux, France; 200 g/L for Oyster Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand; 170 g/L for Epernay, Champagne, France, using the cultivar Chardonnay.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Flowering dates were the average of the region; the GSR model predicted 170 g/L sugar, whereas the observed data was in the form of harvest dates; no véraison data were available for this site.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 2.** Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) and Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) model classifications for cultivars in the VitAdapt collection for a) 2015, b) 2016 and c) 2017. Only cultivars for which all three stages were modelled in at least one year are shown.</figcaption></figure>

(RMSE) was less than a week for all three stages (Table 4). MBEs indicated that 50% flowering and véraison overall were predicted earlier than the observations, and the reverse was true for time to 190 g/L sugar concentration (Table 4).

The assessment of model performance for individual cultivars indicated that 94%, 87% and 70% of the cultivars had average errors of prediction of a week or less (RMSE) for flowering, véraison and time to 190 g/L sugar respectively, with most cultivars with less than 10 days for all three stages (100% for flowering and véraison, 94% for the time to 190 g/L sugar concentration) (Table 5). MBE values for individual varieties were in the ranges -6.58 to 2.98 (flowering), 7.77 to 5.43 (véraison) and -7.33 to 9.67 (time to 190 g/L sugar

concentration) (Table 5). Of these values, 61% of the cultivar predictions for flowering were earlier than the observations. For 76% of the cultivars, véraison was predicted before the observation, but only 19% predictions for the time to 190 g/L target sugar concentration were before the observations (Table 5). For four out of the six seasons analysed, the difference between predicted and observed values varied in a non-systematic way per cultivar for flowering.

The exceptions were for flowering in 2013, when predictions were earlier than observations for all cultivars, and in 2017, when predictions were later than observations. For véraison there were no systematic differences in yearly predictions and observations, except in 2013 when predictions
<table><caption>TABLE 5. Performance of Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) and Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) models for individual cultivars in the VitAdapt collection.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Cultivar</th><th colspan="3">Flowering</th><th colspan="3">Véraison</th><th colspan="3">190 g/L sugar</th></tr><tr><th>RMSE</th><th>MBE</th><th>n</th><th>RMSE</th><th>MBE</th><th>n</th><th>RMSE</th><th>MBE</th><th>n</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Alvarinho</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>10.66</td><td>9.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Arinarnoa</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.17</td><td>6</td><td>4.62</td><td>0.26</td><td>6</td><td>9.33</td><td>-4.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Cabernet franc</td><td>4.96</td><td>-3.12</td><td>6</td><td>5.96</td><td>-5.22</td><td>6</td><td>5.07</td><td>-4.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Cabernet-Sauvignon</td><td>3.62</td><td>-0.35</td><td>6</td><td>3.52</td><td>-2.40</td><td>6</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Carignan</td><td>6.33</td><td>-5.67</td><td>5</td><td>7.09</td><td>-5.31</td><td>6</td><td>4.80</td><td>-1.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Carmenère</td><td>4.89</td><td>-3.74</td><td>6</td><td>5.19</td><td>-3.53</td><td>6</td><td>1.15</td><td>0.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Chardonnay</td><td>3.98</td><td>0.93</td><td>6</td><td>4.15</td><td>0.68</td><td>6</td><td>9.26</td><td>8.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Chasselas</td><td>4.69</td><td>2.98</td><td>6</td><td>6.09</td><td>5.43</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Chenin</td><td>3.76</td><td>-0.54</td><td>6</td><td>6.09</td><td>3.80</td><td>6</td><td>7.35</td><td>7.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Colombard</td><td>2.95</td><td>1.85</td><td>3</td><td>3.82</td><td>1.01</td><td>4</td><td>4.24</td><td>4.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Cornalin</td><td>2.96</td><td>-0.50</td><td>6</td><td>1.39</td><td>-1.04</td><td>5</td><td>4.32</td><td>4.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Cot (= Malbec)</td><td>4.23</td><td>0.54</td><td>6</td><td>3.65</td><td>-0.72</td><td>6</td><td>9.04</td><td>9.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Gamay</td><td>3.73</td><td>-1.50</td><td>6</td><td>5.34</td><td>-3.76</td><td>6</td><td>3.11</td><td>1.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Garnacha tinta (= Grenache)</td><td>5.50</td><td>-3.35</td><td>6</td><td>4.73</td><td>-2.72</td><td>6</td><td>4.76</td><td>3.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Hibernal</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>8.64</td><td>8.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Liliorila</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>5.20</td><td>4.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Marselan</td><td>4.48</td><td>1.62</td><td>6</td><td>4.54</td><td>-3.04</td><td>6</td><td>6.45</td><td>6.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Merlot</td><td>3.43</td><td>-0.34</td><td>6</td><td>3.81</td><td>-2.00</td><td>6</td><td>3.00</td><td>1.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Mourvèdre</td><td>6.26</td><td>-3.03</td><td>6</td><td>4.83</td><td>-2.38</td><td>6</td><td>1.00</td><td>0.00</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Muscadelle</td><td>4.78</td><td>1.60</td><td>6</td><td>4.78</td><td>-2.86</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Petit verdot</td><td>6.26</td><td>-4.40</td><td>6</td><td>6.45</td><td>-4.76</td><td>6</td><td>2.52</td><td>-0.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Petite Arvine</td><td>3.53</td><td>-0.62</td><td>6</td><td>4.16</td><td>-1.64</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Pinot noir</td><td>4.19</td><td>-1.03</td><td>6</td><td>5.05</td><td>-1.92</td><td>6</td><td>9.76</td><td>8.67</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Riesling</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.61</td><td>6</td><td>4.35</td><td>-3.00</td><td>6</td><td>3.00</td><td>3.00</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Roussanne</td><td>7.91</td><td>-6.54</td><td>6</td><td>3.32</td><td>-1.37</td><td>6</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Sangiovese</td><td>3.52</td><td>0.06</td><td>6</td><td>4.05</td><td>-2.41</td><td>6</td><td>13.29</td><td>-7.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Saperavi</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>7.14</td><td>5.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Sauvignon blanc</td><td>3.47</td><td>-0.57</td><td>6</td><td>3.64</td><td>-1.50</td><td>6</td><td>5.51</td><td>4.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Semillon</td><td>4.16</td><td>0.47</td><td>6</td><td>3.75</td><td>-2.12</td><td>6</td><td>1.58</td><td>1.50</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Syrah</td><td>2.38</td><td>0.45</td><td>3</td><td>5.32</td><td>-3.29</td><td>5</td><td>4.83</td><td>4.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Tannat</td><td>3.61</td><td>2.42</td><td>3</td><td>8.00</td><td>4.90</td><td>6</td><td>6.14</td><td>3.00</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Tempranillo</td><td>7.62</td><td>-6.56</td><td>6</td><td>7.23</td><td>-5.65</td><td>6</td><td>2.92</td><td>2.50</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>Touriga Nacional</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>6.93</td><td>6.67</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Ugni blanc</td><td>4.86</td><td>-1.09</td><td>6</td><td>3.48</td><td>2.31</td><td>6</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Viognier</td><td>4.27</td><td>-2.69</td><td>6</td><td>3.44</td><td>0.28</td><td>6</td><td>4.24</td><td>1.33</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Xinomavro</td><td>4.25</td><td>-3.06</td><td>3</td><td>8.49</td><td>-7.77</td><td>5</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

RMSE = root mean square error, MBE = mean bias error, n = number of observations. Positive MBE values mean predictions are earlier than observations.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 3.** Validation of the Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) model time to flowering and véraison and the Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) model for the time to 200 g/L sugar concentration for Sauvignon blanc at Oyster Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand.</figcaption></figure>

Note that within a season flowering occurs in the calendar year preceding that of véraison or harvest.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 4.** Duration from 8 to 20.7°Brix for Sauvignon blanc as a function of yield per vine at Oyster Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand.</figcaption></figure>

R² = 0.40.

were earlier than observations. In 2015, however, predictions were later than observations for the time to 190 g/L sugar. For the three years when there were common data for all cultivars and stages (2015-2017), the difference between observed and predicted values for each stage was, on average, as follows: flowering: 2 (2015), 2.5 (2016), and 5.9 days (2017) with a range of 0-10 days (for all 3 years); véraison: 4.1 (2015), 1.9 (2016), and 2.7 days (2017) with a range of 0-13 days

(for all 3 years); time to 190 g/L sugar: 3.6 (2015), 3.7 (2016) and 6.7 days (2017) with a range of 0-23 days (for all 3 years) (Figure 2).

## 3.2. Sauvignon blanc at Oyster Bay, Marlborough, New Zealand

The error of prediction (RMSE) was less than one week for flowering and véraison and 9.67 days for time to 200 g/L sugar concentrations for Sauvignon blanc at the Oyster Bay site in
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**FIGURE 5.** Validation of flowering date predicted by the Grapevine Flowering Véraison (GFV) model and time to 170 g/L sugar concentration predicted by the Grapevine Sugar Ripeness (GSR) model for Chardonnay in Champagne, with future projections of flowering and time to 170 g/L sugar concentration for RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5.</figcaption></figure>

Marlborough (Table 4). Flowering and target sugar concentrations were in general predicted earlier than observed; conversely, véraison was predicted later than observed (MBE values, Table 4). The *EF* for véraison was 0.3, while the *EF* values for flowering and the time to 200 g/L sugar concentrations were negative (-1.04 and -0.10), indicating that the average value of the observed time to 200 g/L was a better predictor than the model for the dataset used (2004/05 season to 2019/20, Table 4). There were large differences in predicted and observed values for both stages in 2005/06, with smaller differences between observations, which contributed to the low *EF* (Figure 3). Except for 2005/06, all the seasons with large differences between predicted and observed values had higher yields, which was associated with slower ripening rates (Table 4 and Figure 4).

**3.3. General flowering and harvest dates for Champagne, France**

When comparing the general flowering and harvest dates with those simulated by the GFV and GSR models for Chardonnay in Champagne, France, the error of prediction (*RMSE*) was less than, or equal to, one week for flowering and the time to 170 g/L sugar concentration (Table 4). In the 58 years for which both predicted and observed values were evaluated, more than 70% of the years had a difference of less than one week

between the observed and predicted dates for both flowering and time to 170 g/L sugar concentration (Figure 5), resulting in model efficiencies of 0.48 and 0.63 respectively (Table 4 and Figure 5). Overall, predictions were earlier than observations for both stages (MBE values in Table 4 and Figure 5).

**4. Future projections for flowering dates and time to 170 g/L sugar concentration in Champagne under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 emission scenarios**

For the period 2020-2100, flowering dates were projected to advance at a rate of almost 0.1 days/year for RCP 4.5 (i.e., one day per decade, $y = -0.0981x + 367.13$) and 0.22 days/year for RCP 8.5 (i.e., two days per decade, $y = -0.2209x + 617.41$) (Figure 5). The time to reach the target sugar concentration of 170 g/L was predicted to advance at a faster rate of 0.2 days/year (i.e., two days per decade, $y = -0.2142x + 692.7$) than flowering dates for the same period for RCP 4.5. Likewise, the projected time to 170 g/L under RCP 8.5 advanced at faster rate of 0.49 days/year (i.e., five days per decade, $y = -0.4901x + 1253.8$) than the RCP 4.5 scenario projections (Figure 5).

**DISCUSSION**

The highest wine quality is obtained when grapes ripen neither too early, nor too late in the season (van Leeuwen and Seguin, 2006). Excessively
early ripening results in grapes with extreme
sugar levels (leading to excessive alcohol in
the resulting wines) and which are too low in
organic acids (leading to wines lacking freshness).
Ripening which is too delayed relative to the
desired ripening window for a given region,
variety or wine style, may result in unripe grapes
and acidic wines marked by green flavours (van
Leeuwen and Seguin, 2006; Pons et al., 2017).
Grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) have a
wide range of heat requirements for reaching
specific phenological stages or sugar target
levels. The GFV and GSR models can be used to
predict if a given cultivar will reach subsequent
phenological stages and sugar ripeness within the
ideal timeframe under current and future climatic
conditions (Parker et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2020).
Furthermore, because the GSR model uses an
objective measure of the time to reach target sugar
concentrations, it can also accommodate different
wine styles for which sugar concentrations are of
importance (e.g., sparkling wines and low alcohol
wine styles). The extensive evaluation of the GFV
and GSR models in this research has demonstrated
that models are useful tools to assess whether a
given cultivar is adapted to a specific site, and if it
will be suitable in future climatic conditions.

# 1. Evaluation of temperature-based approaches to characterise and understand cultivar differences for the grapevine

Even though only a few cultivars were
often considered, the extensive literature
review highlighted a range of temperature-
based approaches to understanding cultivar
differences. However, several studies providing
important approaches and knowledge regarding
the application of phenology modelling for
characterising small numbers of cultivars were not
highlighted in the review (e.g., Moncur et al., 1989;
Molitor et al., 2014; Molitor et al., 2020; Morales-
Castilla et al., 2020). Apart from the approaches
using the GFV and GSR models, many statistical
assessments of cultivar differences in the top 20
cited or recent publications have been based on
coarse climatic timeframes (e.g., often using
monthly data), which cannot be directly related
to the date of appearance of the key phenological
stages (Sadras and Petrie 2011; Tomasi et al.,
2011; Webb et al., 2012; Fraga et al., 2016).
Such approaches are therefore unable to directly
represent plant response to temperature.

Of the 20 most recent and cited references, there
were models which used fixed start dates, and
others that used the previous phenological stage

from which to predict the phenological stage of
interest (the phenophase approach). A few studies
have implemented phenophase approaches for
different cultivars without a classification objective
(García de Cortázar-Atauri et al., 2010; Molitor
et al., 2014; Molitor et al., 2020; Morales-Castilla
et al., 2020). This enables specific cultivar models
to be developed and predictions to be based on
previous phenological stages rather than on fixed
start dates, the limitation of the latter being that
start dates are not always synchronous with plant
development. However, it was not possible to use
a phenophase approach with the GFV and GSR
models, as it would not have enabled a classification
to be generated (as the start time would have
differed for each cultivar). Furthermore, in the case
of cultivars with little data, using GFV and GSR
models that have been successfully developed
for application to a wide range of cultivars, sites
and years, would enable the characterisation of
less represented cultivars, for which it would be
difficult to create phenophase models.

Some previous well-known classifications were
not detected during the comprehensive literature
search, which is likely due to the absence of
modelling approaches, or to the source of
the classification not being within the search
configuration (e.g., dates or resources in the
database). Key omitted classifications that have
previously contributed to our understanding of
cultivar differences in phenology include: the
classification of 26 cultivars into nine groups based
on the Huglin index for the time to 200 g/L sugar
concentration by Huglin (1978); the classification
of 114 cultivars based on the timing of budbreak,
bloom and onset of véraison at the UC Davis
site (McIntyre et al., 1982); the classification of
budburst and leaf appearance for 10 cultivars by
Moncur using a temperature-based experimental
model development approach (Moncur et al.,
1989); Boursiquot et al. (1995) classification of
2168 cultivars for maturity via tasting of berries
in the field; Jones's (2006) suitability index which
grouped cultivars according to maturity relative to
average growing season temperatures (Northern
Hemisphere Apr-Oct; Southern Hemisphere
Oct-Apr); and Gladstones (2011) classification
of 138 cultivars into nine maturity groupings
based on Biological Effective Degree Days (heat
accumulation defined by temperature thresholds
of 10 and 19 °C adjusted for latitude). While many
of these maturity groupings are useful, some do
not incorporate temperature-based approaches
and often do not specifically characterise the
individual cultivar thermal summations as
characterised for the GFV and GSR models, but
rather group the cultivars. Therefore, compared
to the other classifications in the literature, the
GFV and GSR classifications (Parker *et al.*, 2013;
Parker *et al.*, 2020) go beyond broad groupings
of cultivars. These classifications currently
provide the most detailed individual cultivar
parameterisations, which is a useful resource
for understanding cultivar differences for new
cultivars in a region or site, especially where few
data or information is available.

The search term ‘bioclimat*’ may not have picked
up all articles in this research area, potentially due to
the use of the specific names of bioclimate indices
rather than the terms ‘bioclimate/bioclimatic’. The
search excluded studies that addressed zoning/
general climate suitability, which do not take
into account the plant response to temperature.
However, these approaches, which were under-
represented in the literature search results, still
provide a useful and valuable methodology for
investigating the suitability of areas for grape
production, particularly in the context of climate
change (e.g., recent work Santos *et al.*, 2019).
Combining bioclimatic indices and phenological
models could provide a more comprehensive
assessment of the suitability of sites and cultivars
in future studies.

## 2. Application of the GFV and GSR models for assessing new sites and cultivars

The application of the GFV and GSR models
to three new situations – the VitAdapt cultivar
collection, Chardonnay data from Champagne,
and Sauvignon blanc data from Marlborough –
highlighted that these models are easy-to-use and
sufficiently accurate from a commercial perspective
when applied to new sites. The VitAdapt results
indicated that the parameterisations established
in Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020)
performed well, with overall errors of prediction
(RMSEs) of generally less than one week for
flowering and véraison, and less than 10 days
for time to 190 g/L sugar concentration. There
were few seasonal trends in predictions, except
for a bias in the 2013 season with predictions
earlier than observations, which may be partially
attributed to delayed budburst (i.e., delayed start
of phenological development relative to the start
date of the GFV calculation). Model performances
were poorer in 2013, because of unfavourable
meteorological conditions during flowering
inducing fertilisation problems, as well as the cool
and rainy weather during grape ripening causing
some issues with Botrytis.

The analysis of the VitAdapt cultivar collection
also highlighted specific cultivars for which
the models' performance was more variable.
Carmenère, Roussanne, Tempranillo and
Xinomavro generally had big differences between
predicted and observed values for flowering and
véraison (> 5 days). The classifications in Parker
et al. (2013) showed that confidence intervals (CI)
were large (> 350) for Roussanne and Xinomavro
for flowering and véraison, while CI values were
large for Tempranillo and Roussanne (> 350) for
the 190 g/L sugar concentration in Parker et al.
(2020). However, these three cultivars had few
data points in the original classifications, and
the detailed analysis of the 2015-2017 period
highlighted that the overall (all cultivar) average
yearly differences between predictions and
observations were low (often as low as 2-3 days).
Given that the overall model performance was
satisfactory across all cultivars, this indicates that
the F* characterisations for flowering, véraison
and time to reach target sugar concentration for
both GFV and GSR models could be improved for
these specific cultivars in the future.

Errors of prediction were generally larger for the
time to 190 g/L sugar than flowering and véraison
for the whole dataset, and for individual cultivar
data from the VitAdapt site. This can be attributed
to fewer years being evaluated (only 2015-2017
for 190 g/L sugar), and also to the fact that other
factors, such as water deficit (van Leeuwen
et al., 2009), leaf area to fruit weight ratios (Parker
et al., 2014a; Parker et al., 2014c; Parker et al.,
2015a), and clonal differences (van Leeuwen
et al., 2013), may have contributed to the variation
in ripening rates, and therefore to the time to reach
target sugar concentrations. The GSR analysis
for Sauvignon blanc in Marlborough highlights
this point with increased yields being generally
associated with longer ripening periods. The
GFV and GSR models proved highly accurate
when used on long term past climate data
(the Champagne simulation), which provides the
opportunity to simulate phenology of existing
cultivars in given regions based on meteorological
data, with the proviso that the original cultivar
calibrations (Parker et al., 2013; Parker et al.,
2020) indicate high EFs and low RMSEs. This is a
useful approach to characterising trends over time
when observations may not always be available.

The application to Sauvignon blanc in
Marlborough indicated good performance for
all stages as assessed by RMSE, but yield and
climate drivers (cool seasons, high rainfall and
low sunshine hours) may have led to reduced model performance as assessed by *EF*. This was notably the case for 2017/18, when predictions were substantially earlier than observations for the time to reach 200g/L sugar concentration, and rainfall was 236 % of the long-term average for the period Jan-March, a season which also had the lowest total solar energy (89.5 % of the long-term average, LTA). The 2009/10 and 2010/11 seasons were also cooler with delayed phenology relative to the LTAs, and high yields. 2005/06 observations were earlier than predictions for véraison and harvest, and this was the earliest year on record for phenological stages (budburst six days earlier than the LTA, flowering six days earlier than the LTA, and time to véraison 13 days earlier than the LTA). Therefore, while the application of both models led to small errors in predictions, errors may be larger for certain years; it is thus also important to investigate where and why these occur, in particular in later phenological stages, in order to define potential limits of model application in given locations.

The analysis of the ranking of classifications of the most represented cultivars in the historical database indicated that, while cultivars generally stay in broad groups of ‘early’, ‘medium’ and ‘late’ for various stages, the specific sequence of cultivars may change over the various stages of phenology. For example, Grenache, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Syrah displayed vastly different timings for véraison using the historic dataset from Parker *et al.* (2013), but reached 190 g/L sugar at a similar time based on the historical dataset from Parker *et al.* (2020). This also confirms recent research by Molitor *et al.* (2020), who found that for the seven cultivars tested in their study, the order of cultivars varied depending on the phenological stage. Within a site, as in the case of the VitAdapt collection, most cultivars remained within five places within the classification rankings across the various stages (2015-2017). Notably though, the order for véraison did not match that of the time to target sugar concentration for either the historical dataset or the VitAdapt collection. Potential reasons for this are: véraison is observed subjectively in the field, whereas the sugar concentrations are measured on berries in the laboratory so that scales of measurement and the nature of the measurements differ; maturity is associated with cultivar dependent rates of soluble solids accumulation as a result of changes in water dynamics in berries (Sadras *et al.*, 2008); and, as mentioned earlier, other environmental and

management factors may have slightly different consequences for ripening rates for different cultivars.

### 3. Application of the GFV and GSR models for cultivar choice in the context of climate change

Coupling GFV and GSR models with future climate change projections can be useful to determine when cultivars that are traditionally grown in a given area will no longer be adaptable in the future. The results for Champagne under RCP 4.5 indicate that while flowering and ripening may potentially advance by up to 5 and 10 days respectively by the end of the century, this would not necessarily mean that Chardonnay would no longer be suitable for the region. However, ripening projections under RCP 8.5 indicate that Chardonnay may no longer be suitable. van Leeuwen *et al.* (2019) stated that Merlot and Sauvignon blanc would no longer be suitable in Bordeaux (based on defining a desired ripening period) by 2050, based on a + 1°C temperature increase. Therefore, it is important to apply phenological models in combination with climate projections at specific locations and to specific cultivars, as not all locations or cultivars will have equivalent outcomes. The coupling of different climate models and RCP scenarios may result in different outcomes, although recent research have shown that trends remain more or less constant among climate models for the same RCP scenarios (Marjou and García de Cortázar-Atauri, 2019; Morales-Castilla *et al.*, 2020). However, as climate models and RCP projections continue to evolve, we may need to consider different models and projection pathways in the future, or adjust our prior evaluations. Furthermore, when considering adaptation for potential wine styles, such as Champagne, other key factors, such as the impact of elevated temperatures on acidity, need to be taken into account. Understanding the effect of changes in more than just sugar concentrations on wine style and typicity will be crucial for determining cultivar suitability in the future; for example, Sadras and Moran (2012) demonstrated that anthocyanin and sugar evolution during ripening became asynchronous under elevated temperatures, and Sadras *et al.* (2013) demonstrated that grapes exposed to elevated temperatures had variable changes in pH and acidity depending on cultivars, as well as cultivar-specific changes in aroma, flavour and mouthfeel of the resulting wines.
The GFV and GSR models are simple in application (linear in form, with a base temperature of 0 °C). However, extremely elevated temperatures in the context of climate change could have a negative impact on plant development, causing decreased rates of development, which can be captured in non-linear models such as the Wang-Engel model (Wang and Engel, 1998). This latter model was tested during the GSR model development, and with other non-linear models (UniFORC) (Chuine, 2000) during the GFV and GSR model development, and it was found that most non-linear models did not improve predictions in the context of those studies. The exception was that the sigmoid model performed just as well as the GSR, and hence a classification based on this model is also presented in Parker *et al.* (2020). Such non-linear models have been successfully applied elsewhere for predicting grapevine phenology (García de Cortázar-Atauri *et al.*, 2010; Cuccia *et al.*, 2014; Molitor *et al.*, 2014; Molitor *et al.*, 2020; Morales-Castilla *et al.*, 2020; Prats-Llinas *et al.*, 2020). Furthermore, as the GFV and GSR models have fixed start dates, if budburst advances substantially in the future, this may change projections, which is negated if using a previous phenological stage for a start date. Only Cuccia *et al.* (2014) have compared a non-linear model (Wang-Engel) with the linear GFV model in the context of climate change, finding few differences between the two models when tested for +5 °C for Pinot noir véraison in Burgundy. However, when considering future projections of Pinot noir in other regions, they demonstrated there were differences in the predicted time of véraison of Pinot noir provided by GFV and the Wang-Engel model under +5° conditions in the Cagliari and Seville regions, but not in Dijon and Carcassonne. This indicates that under warmer conditions, such as those projected for Cagliari and Seville, it may become important to consider temperature caps or non-linear models that integrate negative impacts of temperature on phenology. However, extreme temperatures that require non-linear modelling approaches may not arise in all current growing regions (e.g., the cooler area of Dijon). Therefore, the type of phenological model suitable for future climate change studies warrants further investigation when considering the specific environmental conditions of a site or region under future climate conditions, and model complexity and fit should always be considered in model choice.

Finally, as phenology can be influenced by environmental events, as well as temperature and management methods, it is important to consider the impacts of current local adaptation initiatives on long term observations. If producers are already manipulating vines during the growing season in attempts to mitigate advances in phenology, then observations from commercial data may be confounded by these adaptation practices. This highlights the importance of continuing phenological observations and records at research sites such as the VitAdapt site, as well as controlling management for research blocks established at commercial sites. However, it will be important to capture changes in cultural practices in the future, as growers take action to adapt to climate change using a range of measures, if we are to further our understanding of the effects of grower adaptation practices, including cultivar change.

## 4. Future perspectives

Key areas already highlighted for future research include: partnering bioclimate and cultivar phenology for suitability studies in the context of climate change; integrating the influence of other environmental and management practice moderations on phenological responses into current and future cultivar modelling; more in-depth modelling of other berry compositional parameters to evaluate cultivar suitability; and further investigation of the temperature conditions under which capped/non-linear models need to be applied. In addition to these points, downscaling the development or application of existing phenological models is of great interest for adaptation to climate change. de Rességuier *et al.* (2020) demonstrated that using the GFV model they were able to characterise and map sub-regional differences in the timing of flowering and véraison for Merlot within St Emilion (19 233 ha). Verdugo-Vásquez *et al.* (2019) also demonstrated that high resolution information of phenology variability is obtainable and can be modelled using phenological modelling approaches such as GFV. At the VitAdapt site used in this study, it will be possible to investigate in more detail within-site variability and associated predictions of replicates and vines within the block. An issue raised in our study is that some cultivars in the original classifications in Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020) had few observations. While the original classifications present preliminary characterisations of thermal time in relation to the key phenological events, there is an opportunity to improve the *F*\* characterisation for cultivars
with low data representation, as more data become available. This will potentially confirm current positions in classifications, or lead to some amendments. While the classifications in Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020) and Section 4.1 cover a wide range of cultivars, many of the estimated 1100 different cultivars planted today (Wolkovich *et al.*, 2017) have not been characterised by GFV, GSR or any other phenological model. This represents a vast and interesting opportunity to investigate more cultivar choices as an adaptation strategy in response to future climate change.

## CONCLUSIONS

The GFV and GSR models are highly accurate and easy-to-use temperature-based phenological models for predicting flowering, véraison and time to reach target sugar concentrations for a wide range of cultivars. They can be applied for the characterisation of new cultivars, or for the assessment of cultivar performance in current or future areas. By combining these models with climate change projections, it is possible to evaluate whether current cultivars within a growing area are suited to future adaptation, or whether cultivar change is required. By continuing to characterise new cultivars, or by improving the characterisation of cultivars with fewer data points in the original classifications, an even more extensive classification of the timing of phenology and ripeness of different cultivars can continue to be developed. This will enable growers and researchers to compare the phenology of cultivars in a region today and to adapt to climate change via appropriate cultivar choice.

**Acknowledgements:** The authors would like to acknowledge all data providers, co-authors, funders and collaborators in the original work by Parker *et al.* (2013) and Parker *et al.* (2020). The authors acknowledge The Experimental Unit UE 1442 Vigne Bordeaux for managing the VitAdapt experimental site at INRAE Bordeaux, where data were collected for this project, the French National Research Agency (ANR) in the framework of the Investments for the future Programme, within the cluster of excellence COTE (ANR-10-LABX-45), and the Conseil Interprofessionnel des Vins de Bordeaux (CIVB). The authors acknowledge Agroclim unit (INRAE) for providing data from their web service SICLIMA, and TEMPO French Network (tempo.pheno.fr) for providing access to different phenological data resources in their portal (data.pheno.fr).

The authors appreciated the funding and provision of data for the Oyster Bay site, involving Plant & Food Research, New Zealand Winegrowers, Quality New Zealand Wines (UOAX0404), and staff of the wine company involved in data collection. The authors acknowledge the analysis of the Oyster Bay data under The Precision Grape Yield Analyser (GYA) science research programme led by Lincoln Agritech Limited with project partners of Lincoln University, University of Canterbury, Plant and Food Research and CSIRO. The programme receives major funding from Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) through an Endeavour programme (LVLX1601) The GYA project also acknowledges the financial support provided through the Bragato Research Institute (BRI).

## REFERENCES

Amerine, M. A., & Winkler, A. J. (1944). *Composition and quality of musts and wines of California grapes*. University of California Berkeley.

Bidabe, B. (1965a). Contrôle de l'époque de floraison du pommier par une nouvelle conception de l'action des températures. *Comptes Rendus de l'Académie d'Agriculture de France*, 49, 934-945.

Bidabe, B. (1965b). L'action des températures sur l'évolution des bourgeons de l'entrée en dormance à la floraison. *Congr. Pom.* (96 sess) Paris.

Boursiquot, J. M., Dessup, M., & Rennes, C. (1995). Distribution des principaux caractères phénologiques, agronomiques et technologiques chez *Vitis vinifera* L. *Vitis*, 34, 31-35.

Camargo-Alvarez, H., Salazar-Gutierrez, M., Keller, M., & Hoogenboom, G. (2020). Modeling the effect of temperature on bud dormancy of grapevine. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 280, 107782. 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107782.

Cameron, W., Petrie, P. R., Barlow, E. W. R., Patrick, C. J., Howell, K., & Fuentes, S. (2020). Advancement of grape maturity: comparison between contrasting cultivars and regions. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 26, 53-67. doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12414.

Chuine, I. (2000). A unified model for budburst of trees. *Journal of Theoretical Biology*, 207, 337-347.

Cuccia, C., Bois, B., Richard, Y., Parker, A. K., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., van Leeuwen, C., & Castel, T. (2014). Phenological model performance to warmer conditions: application to Pinot noir in Burgundy. *Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin*, 48, 169-178.

Destrac, A., Flutre, T., Renaud, C., Morin, E., Durand, L., Delrot, S. & van Leeuwen, C. (2015). Phenotyping berries from the grapevine *Vitis vinifera* L.
by means of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy.
*OENO 2015*, Bordeaux, 29 June – 1 July 2015, 641-644.

de Rességuier, L., Mary, S., Le Roux, R., Petitjean, T., Quénol, H., & van Leeuwen, C. (2020). Temperature Variability at Local Scale in the Bordeaux Area. *Relations With Environmental Factors and Impact on Vine Phenology*. *Frontiers in Plant Science*, *11*, 515. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00515.

Duchêne, E., Huard, F., Dumas, V., Schneider, C., & Merdinoglu, D. (2010). The challenge of adapting grapevine varieties to climate change. *Climate Research*, *41*, 193-204.

Duchêne, E., & Schneider, C. (2005). Grapevine and climatic changes: a glance at the situation in Alsace. *Agronomy for Sustainable Development*, *25*, 93-9.

Ferguson, J. C., Moyer, M. M., Mills, L. J., Hoogenboom, G., & Keller, M. (2014). Modeling Dormant Bud Cold Hardiness and Budbreak in Twenty-Three Vitis Genotypes Reveals Variation by Region of Origin. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, *65*, 59-71.

Fraga, H., Santos, J. A., Moutinho-Pereira, J., Carlos, C., Silvestre, J., Eiras-Dias, J., Mota, T., & Malheiro, A. C. (2016). Statistical modelling of grapevine phenology in Portuguese wine regions: observed trends and climate change projections. *Journal of Agricultural Science*, *154*, 795-811.

García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Brisson, N., & Gaudillere J. P. (2009). Performance of several models for predicting budburst date of grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.). *International Journal of Biometeorology*, *53*, 317-326.

García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Chuine, I., Donatelli, M., Parker, A., & van Leeuwen, C. (2010). A curvilinear process-based phenological model to study impact of climatic change on grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.). *Proceedings of Agro 2010: the 11th ESA Congress*, 907-908.

Gladstones, J. (2011). *Wine, terroir and Climate Change*. Wakefield Press, Kent Town.

Huglin, P. (1978). Nouveau mode d'évaluation des possibilités hélio thermiques d'un milieu viticole. *Comptes rendus des Séances de l'Académie d'Agriculture de France*, 64, 1117-1126.

Jones, G. (2006). *Climate and terroir: Impacts of climate variability and change on wine*. Fine Wine and Terroir—The Geoscience Perspective. In: Macqueen, R. W., Meinert, L. D. (Eds.) *Geoscience Canada*, St John's, pp. 1–14.

Jones, G. V., & Davis, R. E. (2000). Climate influences on grapevine phenology, grape composition, and wine production and quality for Bordeaux, France. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, *51*, 249-261.

Marjou, M., García de Cortázar-Atauri I. (2019). Analyse climatique passée et future des terres viticoles sur le secteur Ventoux. Rapport INRA. 94pp. DOI: 10.15454/1.5586048305359907E12.

McIntyre, G. N., Lider, L. A., & Ferrari, N. L. (1982). The chronological classification of grapevine phenology. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, *33*, 80-85.

Menzel, A., Sparks, T. H., Estrella, N., Koch, E., Aasa, A., Ahas, R., Alm-Kübler, K., Bissolli, P., Braslavská, O., Briede, A., Chmielewski, F. M., Crepinsek, Z., Curnel, Y., Dahl, Å., Defila, C., Donnelly, A., Filella, Y., Jatczak, K., Måge, F., Mestre, A., Nordli, Ø., Peñuelas, J., Pirinen, P., Remišová, V., Scheifinger, H., Striz, M., Susnik, A., Van Vliet, A. J. H., Wielgolaski, F.-E., Zach, S., & Zust, A. (2006). European phenological response to climate change matches the warming pattern. *Global Change Biology*, *12*, 1969–1976.

Molitor, D, Fraga, H., & Junk, J. (2020). UniPhen – a unified high resolution model approach to simulate the phenological development of a broad range of grape cultivars as well as a potential new bioclimatic indicator. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 291108024. doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.108024.

Molitor, D., Junk, J., Evers, D., Hoffman, L., & Beyer, M. (2014). A high resolution cumulative degree day based model to simulate the phenological development of grapevine. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, *65*, 72-80.

Moncur, M. W., Rattigan, K., Mackenzie, D. H., & McIntyre, G. N. (1989). Base temperatures for budbreak and leaf appearance of grapevines. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, *40*, 21-26.

Morales-Castilla, I., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Cook, B. I., Lacombe, T., Parker, A., van Leeuwen, C., Nicholas, K. A., & Wolkovich, E. M (2020). Diversity buffers wine growing regions from climate change losses. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 117, 2864-2869. doi:10.1073/pnas.1906731117.

Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models part i- a discussion of principles. *Journal of Hydrology*, *10*, 282-290.

Parker, A. (2012). *Modelling phenology and maturation of the grapevine Vitis vinifera L.: varietal differences and the role of leaf area to fruit weight ratio manipulations*, (Doctor of Philosophy, Plant Science). Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand

Parker, A., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Chuine, I., Barbeau, G., Bois, B., Boursiquot, J-M., Cahurel, J-Y., Claverie, M., Dufourcq, T., Geny, L., Guimberteau, G., Hofmann, R., Jacquet, O., Lacombe, T., Monamy, C., Ojeda, H., Panigai, L., Payan, J-C., Rodriquez-Lovelle, B., Rouchaud, E., Schneider, C., Spring, J-L., Storchi, P., Tomasi, D., Trambouze, W., Trought, M., & van Leeuwen, C. (2013). Classification of varieties for their timing of flowering and veraison using a modelling
approach. A case study for the grapevine species *Vitis vinifera* L. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 180, 249-264. doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2013.06.005.

Parker, A. K., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Gény, L., Spring, J-L., Destrac, A., Schultz, H., Molitor, D., Lacombe, T., Graça, A., Monamy, C., Stoll, M., Storchi, P., Trought, M. C. T., Hofmann, R. W., & van Leeuwen, C. (2020). Temperature-based grapevine sugar ripeness modelling for a wide range of *Vitis vinifera* L. cultivars. *Agricultural and Forest Meteorology*, 285-286, 107902. doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2020.107902.

Parker, A., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., van Leeuwen, C., & Chuine, I. (2011). General phenological model to characterise the timing of flowering and veraison of *Vitis vinifera* L. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 17, 206-216. doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00140.x.

Parker, A. K., Hofmann, R.W., van Leeuwen, C., McLachlan, A. R. G., & Trought M. C. T. (2014a). Leaf area to fruit mass ratio determines the time of veraison in Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir grapevines. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 20, 422-431.

Parker, A. K., Hofmann, R. W., van Leeuwen, C., McLachlan, A. R. G., & Trought, M. C. T. (2015a). Manipulating the leaf area to fruit mass ratio alters the synchrony of total soluble solids accumulation and titratable acidity of grapevines: implications for modelling fruit development. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 21, 266-276.

Parker, A. K., Schulmann, T., Sturman, A., Agnew, R., Zawar-reza, P., Katurji, M., Gendig, E & Trought, M. (2014b). Grapevine phenology of the Marlborough region, New Zealand. In: *10th International Terroir Congress*, 105-109. Tokaj, Hungary.

Parker, A. K., Schulmann, T., Sturman, A., Agnew, R. A., Zawar-Reza, P., Katurji, M., Gendig, E & Trought, M. (2015b). Understanding flowering of Sauvignon blanc in the Marlborough region, New Zealand, using high-resolution weather forecasting and the grapevine flowering veraison model. In: *19th International Meeting of Viticulture GiESCO*, 271-276. Pech Rouge, Montpellier, France

Parker, A. K., Trought, M. C. T., Hofmann R. W., McLachlan, A. R. G., & van Leeuwen, C. (2014c). The influence of two methods of crop removal at different leaf areas on maturation of Sauvignon blanc (*Vitis vinifera* L.) *Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin*, 4, 43-50.

Pereira, H. M., Ferrier, S., Walters, M., Geller, G. N., Jongman, R. H. G., Scholes, R. J., Bruford, M. W., Brummitt, N., Butchart, S. H. M., Cardoso, A. C. (2013). Essential biodiversity variables. *Science*, 339, 277-278.

Petrie P. R., & Sadras, V.O. (2008) Advancement of grapevine maturity in Australia between 1993 and 2006: putative causes, magnitude of trends and viticultural consequences. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 14, 33-45.

Pons, A., Allamy, L., Schüttler, A., Rauhut, D., Thibon, C., Darriet, P. (2017). What is the expected impact of climate change on wine aroma compounds and their precursors in grape? *OENO-One* 51, 141-146.

Prats-Llinas, M.T., Nieto, H., DeJong, T.M., Girona, J., & Marsal, J. (2020). Using forced regrowth to manipulate Chardonnay grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.) development to evaluate phenological stage responses to temperature. *Scientia Horticulturae*, 262, 109065. 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.109065.

Ramos, M. C., & de Toda, F. M. (2020). Variability in the potential effects of climate change on phenology and on grape composition of Tempranillo in three zones of the Rioja DOCa (Spain). *European Journal of Agronomy*, 115, 126014. 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126014.

Richardson, E. A., Seeley, S. D., & Walker, D. R. (1974). A model for estimating the completion of rest for “Redhaven” and “Elberta” peach trees. *HortScience*, 9, 331-332.

Sadras, V. O., Collins, M. & Soar, C. J. (2008). Modelling variety-dependent dynamics of soluble solids and water in berries of *Vitis vinifera*. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 14, 250-259.

Sadras, V. O., & Moran, M. A. (2012). Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in berries of Shiraz and Cabernet Franc. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 18, 115-122.

Sadras, V. O., & Petrie, P. R. (2011). Climate shifts in south-eastern Australia: early maturity of Chardonnay, Shiraz and Cabernet Sauvignon is associated with early onset rather than faster ripening. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 17, 199-205.

Sadras, V. O., Petrie, P. R., & Moran, M. A. (2013). Effects of elevated temperature in grapevine. ii Juice pH, titratable acidity and wine sensory attributes. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 19, 107-115.

Santos, M., Fonseca, A., Fraga, H., Jones, G. V., & Santos, J. A. (2019). Bioclimatic conditions of the Portuguese wine denominations of origin under changing climates. *International Journal of Biometeorology*, 40, 927-941. doi.org/10.1002/joc.6248.

Tomasi, D., Jones, G., Giust, M., Lovat, L. & Gaiotti, F. (2011). Grapevine phenology and climate change: phenology and trends in the Veneto region of Italy for 1964 – 2009. *American Journal of Enology and Viticulture*, 62, 329-339.

Trought M. C. T., & Bramley R. G. V. (2011). Vineyard variability in Marlborough, New Zealand: characterising spatial and temporal changes in fruit composition and
juice quality in the vineyard. *Australian Journal Grape and Wine Research*, 17, 77-89. doi:10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00120.x.

Urhausen, S., Brienen, S., Kapala, A., & Simmer, C. (2011). Climatic conditions and their impact on viticulture in the Upper Moselle region. *Climatic Change*, 109, 349-373.

van Leeuwen, C., & Darriet, P. (2016). The Impact of Climate Change on Viticulture and Wine Quality. *Journal of Wine Economics*, 11, 150-167.

van Leeuwen, C., Destrac-Irvine, A., Dubernet, M., Duchêne, E., Gowdy, M., Marguerit, E., Pieri, P., Parker, A. K., de Rességuier, L., & Ollat, N. (2019). An update on impacts of climate change in viticulture and potential adaptations. *Agronomy*, 9, 514. doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090514.

van Leeuwen, C., & Seguin, G. (2006). The Concept of Terroir in Viticulture. *Journal of Wine Research*, 17, 1-10.

van Leeuwen, C., Roby, J-P., Alonso-Villavedre, V., & Gindro, K. (2013). Impact of clonal variability in *Vitis vinifera* Cabernet franc on grape composition, wine quality, leaf blade stilbene content and downy mildew resistance. *Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry*, 61, 19-24. dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf304687c.

van Leeuwen, C., Tregoat, O., Choné, X., Bois, B., Pernet, D., & Gaudillère, J-P. (2009). Vine water status is a key factor in grape ripening and vintage quality

for red Bordeaux wine. How can it be assessed for vineyard management purposes? *Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin*, 43, 121-134.

Verdugo-Vásquez, N., Acevedo-Opazo, C., Valdés-Gómez, H., Ingram, B., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., & Tisseyre, B. (2019). Towards an empirical model to estimate the spatial variability of grapevine phenology at the within field scale. *Precision Agriculture*. doi.org/10.1007/s11119-019-09657-7.

Wang, E., & Engel, T. (1998). Simulation of phenological development of wheat crops. *Agricultural Systems*, 58, 1-24.

Wang, X., Li, H., & García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., I. (2020). Assessing grapevine phenological models under Chinese climatic conditions. *OENO-One*, 54,189-197. doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2020.54.3.3195.

Webb, L. B., Whetton, P. H., & Barlow, E. W. R. (2007). Modelled impact of future climate change on the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. *Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research*, 13, 165-175.

Webb, L. B., Whetton P. H., Bhend, J., Darbyshire, R., Briggs, P. R., & Barlow, W. R. (2012). Earlier wine-grape ripening driven by climate warming and drying and management practices. *Nature Climate Change*, 21, 259-264.

Wolkovich, E. M., Burge, D. O., Walker, M. A., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). Phenological diversity provides opportunities for climate change adaptation in winegrapes. *Journal of Ecology*, 105, 905-912.