# How can grapevine genetics contribute to the adaptation to climate change ?

Eric Duchêne

► To cite this version:

Eric Duchêne. How can grapevine genetics contribute to the adaptation to climate change?. OENO One, 2016, 50 (3), pp.113-124. 10.20870/oeno-one.2016.50.3.98 . hal-01602470

HAL Id: hal-01602470

https://hal.science/hal-01602470

Submitted on 27 May 2020

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
HOW CAN GRAPEVINE GENETICS CONTRIBUTE
TO THE ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE?

Éric DUCHÊNE

INRA, UMR 1131 Santé de la Vigne et Qualité du Vin, 28, rue de Herrlisheim, BP20507,
68021 Colmar cedex, France

Université de Strasbourg, UMR 1131 Santé de la Vigne et Qualité du Vin,
28, rue de Herrlisheim, BP20507, 68021 Colmar cedex, France

**Abstract**

Climate change is modifying the environmental conditions in all the vineyards across the world. The expected effects on grape and wine production can be positive in some grape growing regions, but under warmer or dryer conditions the volume and quality of the wines produced can be impaired. Adaptation to new climatic conditions includes changes in the cultivation areas, changes in the vineyard or cellar practices, and use of new rootstock × scion combinations. In this article, we provide an overview of the possible effects of climate change on grapevine physiology and berry quality and we describe the more important traits and the genetic variability that can be used in the adaptation process. We also present the modern techniques that can be used by researchers to identify the links between genomic information and behaviors in the field. Finally, we discuss the existing opportunities in the present grapevine collections and the strategies that can be used by breeders to create new varieties.

**Keywords:** grapevine, climate change, adaptation, genetic variability

manuscript received 11th January 2016 - revised manuscript received 16th February 2016
# INTRODUCTION

There is no doubt that climatic conditions have changed all around the world during the past decades, and simulations with different scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) show that the observed tendencies will continue during the present century (IPCC, 2013). Agricultural production in general is very responsive to environmental conditions, and destabilization of grape and wine production due to climate change can have not only significant direct impacts on farmers’ incomes (Moriondo et al., 2011; Webb et al., 2008) and employment in the wine industry, but also indirect impacts on land use, landscapes, tourism activities and rural life in numerous regions.

Because CO₂ is the elementary molecule at the origin of plant biomass, the expected increase in atmospheric CO₂ concentration can have direct effects on the physiology of the plants. However, the most studied effects of this increase are the possible impacts on climatic conditions. The Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts an increase of temperatures across the globe (IPCC, 2013) and changes in precipitations, with more contrasts between wet and dry areas and wet and dry seasons, and more extreme precipitation events (IPCC, 2013). The last IPCC report predicts specific regional changes but does not confirm a general tendency of increased drought risks.

Adaptation of the grape and wine industry to climatic changes can be envisaged by moving cultivation areas (Malheiro et al., 2010) and by changing the profiles of the wines produced. Here, we will consider that a successful adaptation to climate change will be for a present grape growing area to produce the same type of wine, with the same volumes, in the future.

This goal can be achieved by changes in the vineyard or cellar practices (Duchêne et al., 2014b; Keller, 2010) or by local changes in the location of the vineyards using the existing small-scale variability (Bonnefoy et al., 2013). Here, we will focus on how can grapevine genetics help in the adaptation process.

Before describing the genetic variability and how it can be used, an overview of the expected effects of climatic changes on grapevine is necessary.

## EXPECTED EFFECTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE

### 1. A shift in developmental stages

The first effect of climate change is an advance of developmental stages, observed worldwide (Duchêne and Schneider, 2005; Jones and Davis, 2000; Petrie and Sadras, 2008; Ramos et al., 2008). The link between grapevine phenology and temperatures is so close that it has been used, on the one hand, to assess temperatures from the past centuries (Chuine et al., 2004) and, on the other hand, to propose models for predicting developmental stages in the future (Duchêne et al., 2010; Fila et al., 2014; Webb et al., 2007). These models forecast an advance of two to three weeks by 2050 when compared to the last 30 years (Duchêne et al., 2010; Moriondo et al., 2011; Webb et al., 2007). With empirical models, Barnuud et al. (2014b) show that the shift in the dates when sugar content reaches 22°Brix will be greater in cool than in warm regions in Australia.

As a consequence of earlier véraison dates, berry ripening will occur earlier in summer, under higher temperatures, and this can have a significant impact on berry quality.

### 2. Effects on grape and wine quality

High temperatures accelerate the decrease of grape acidity, mainly because of a faster degradation of malic acid (Buttrose et al., 1971; Kliewer, 1971; Sweetman et al., 2014). The comparison between different grape growing regions (Barnuud et al., 2014b) or vintages (Duchêne et al., 2014a; Neethling et al., 2012) confirms this result. Varieties whose berries contain high quantities of tartaric acid should be less sensitive to climate change (Shiraishi, 1995) because the quantity of tartaric acid per berry is stable during berry ripening (DeBolt et al., 2008).

An increase of sugar content in berries or alcohol content in wines during the past decades was frequently reported (Alston et al., 2011; Duchêne and Schneider, 2005; Neethling et al., 2012). Although the role of changes in management techniques can be discussed, early dates of véraison and better ripening conditions have a key role in this increase. Harvesting earlier is not an appropriate solution because grapes would not have the correct phenolic maturity (Palliotti et al., 2013; Sadras and Moran, 2012).

High temperatures also impair the accumulation of anthocyanins in the berries (Kliewer, 1970; Mori et al., 2007; Teixeira et al., 2013), but increasing solar radiation can have opposite effects (Teixeira et al., 2013). There are indirect results showing that increasing temperatures are generally unfavorable to wine quality (Jones et al., 2005; Moriondo et al.,
2011; Tonietto and Carbonneau, 2004), but until now, there are no convincing data on the effects of high temperatures on aroma compounds. Bureau *et al.* (2000) studied the effects of light on aroma compounds by comparing bunches exposed to the sun, bunches shaded by leaves and bunches shaded by black cloths. They quantified molecules of the terpenol family that participate in muscat-like aromas. The highest terpenol content was observed in the naturally shaded bunches and the lowest in the artificially shaded bunches. The authors suggested that these differences could be related to a modification of the red/far red radiation ratio and/or to the temperatures recorded around the bunches. This is in agreement with findings from Reynolds and Wardle (1993) showing that cool growing sites were more favorable to terpenol accumulation that warm growing sites.

Climate change is primarily the result of an increase of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. In Free Air CO₂ Enrichment (FACE) experiments, elevated CO₂ concentrations had little effect on the concentrations of primary metabolites of the berries, *i.e.* sugars and acids (Bindi *et al.*, 2001; Gonçalves *et al.*, 2009). However, Gonçalves *et al.* (2009) showed that elevated CO₂ concentrations can modify the profile of secondary metabolites in wines.

### 3. Uncertainties about yield

Besides effects on grape quality, climate change can have quantitative effects on grape production. Increasing concentrations of CO₂ and higher radiation levels are expected to increase biomass production (Bindi *et al.*, 2001; Garcia de Cortazar Atauri, 2006; Moutinho-Pereira *et al.*, 2009). However, the expected increase in total biomass might be limited in the future by rainfall distribution and water availability, especially at the end of the growth cycle (Garcia de Cortazar Atauri, 2006). The effects of climate change on fruit biomass, *i.e.* yield, are more difficult to anticipate. Using statistical models, Santos *et al.* (2011) state that climate change should benefit grape yield in the Douro region in Portugal, whereas Lobell *et al.* (2006) in California anticipate a decrease, more pronounced for table grapes than for wine grapes. With mechanistic models, conclusions are very dependent on the regions studied (Garcia de Cortazar Atauri, 2006) and the climatic datasets used (Bindi *et al.*, 1996). The overall tendency in the South of France and Italy is a decrease in yield potential in the future (Bindi *et al.*, 1996; Garcia de Cortazar Atauri, 2006; Moriondo *et al.*, 2011).

The number of flowers determines an upper limit for the final number of berries per plant or per m² (Duchêne *et al.*, 2001). This variable depends, on the one hand, on the number of flowers per inflorescence and, on the other hand, on the number of inflorescences per shoot. Climate change can affect both variables. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that the higher the temperatures around budburst, the lower the number of flowers per inflorescence (Keller *et al.*, 2010; Petrie and Clingeleffer, 2005; Pouget, 1981). Frost damage around budburst can also reduce the number of inflorescences, but Molitor *et al.* (2014) demonstrated that, in Luxembourg, the risk of frost around budburst should decrease in the future.

High temperatures and high light intensity during the floral initiation process can increase the number of inflorescences (Buttrose, 1970), but a water deficit during this period can have strong opposite effects (Buttrose, 1974; Matthews and Anderson, 1989). Water deficits also negatively affect berry weight, especially when applied before véraison (Intrigliolo *et al.*, 2012; Niculcea *et al.*, 2014). In addition to the effect of water deficit, Guilpart *et al.* (2014) showed that nitrogen availability around flowering is also a driver of grape fertility in the following growing season. It is possible that decreasing soil humidity due to climate change can reduce soil nitrogen mineralization and consequently indirectly affect bud fertility.

The role of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on the number of flowers has not been investigated yet. It is likely to be positive because bud fertility increases with vine vigor (Huglin and Schneider, 1998), which is higher under elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (Bindi *et al.*, 2001).

It is difficult to forecast the consequences of climate change on grape yields because of the numerous yield components and climatic factors, including CO₂ concentrations, that are playing a role. However, the main concern, coming more from expert opinions than from crop modeling (Pieri and Lebon, 2014), is that yields will be limited by water availability, especially in summer.

The frequency of extreme events (heat waves, heavy precipitations) is expected to increase with the global temperature increase (IPCC, 2013). This qualitative information is difficult to integrate in an adaptation approach, but it is necessary to keep it in mind.

Several authors have attempted to predict the evolution of pests and diseases in the future (Bregaglio *et al.*, 2013; Caffarra *et al.*, 2012; Caubel *et al.*, 2014; Pugliese *et al.*, 2010; Salinari *et al.*, 2014).
2006). The conclusions depend on the models and scenarios used. The tolerance/resistance of grapevine varieties to pests and diseases will not be discussed here.

## HOW TO USE THE GENETIC VARIABILITY?

Evidence of wine making dates back approximately 5000 years (McGovern *et al.*, 1996). Humans have domesticated the wild species *Vitis vinifera sylvestris* to obtain hermaphrodite plants producing numerous large, sweet berries (This *et al.*, 2006). Thanks to the use of molecular markers, the history of grapevine evolution is now well described (Bacilieri *et al.*, 2013; Lacombe *et al.*, 2013). In this respect, 12314 different accessions of *Vitis vinifera* are referenced in the Vitis International Variety Catalogue (http://www.vivc.de, February 2016). They are resulting from two main sources of genetic variation: mutations and sexual reproduction.

Grapevine plants are reproduced by vegetative propagation. New features can appear spontaneously in a bud after accidental modifications in the DNA, which is the physical support of genetic information, during the process of cell division. These modifications include mutations at a single base (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism, SNP), insertion or deletion of short DNA fragments, and insertion of transposable elements (large DNA fragments). These natural and spontaneous events do not always have significant effects, but when they do, the new plant can bear interesting traits: white color, muscat-like aroma or erect habit for example. This emergence of genetic variability is still going on and leads to «clonal variation»: within a variety, slightly different plants can be identified and their characteristics transmitted by vegetative propagation. The mutations sometimes affect only some of the cell layers of plant tissues, creating what is called «chimeras» (Pelsy, 2010). Pinot gris (Hocquigny *et al.*, 2004) and Pinot meunier (Franks *et al.*, 2002) are examples of chimeric grapevine genotypes.

The existing clone collections can be explored to detect any phenotypic variation that could be useful in the adaptation to climate change.

The other major source of genetic and phenotypic variation is sexual reproduction. The grapevine genome is highly heterozygous (Adam-Blondon *et al.*, 2004), which means that a cross between two different varieties will produce an infinite number of different offspring. Many famous cultivars such as Cabernet-Sauvignon (Bowers and Meredith, 1997), Chardonnay (Bowers *et al.*, 1999) or Merlot (Boursiquot *et al.*, 2009) are descendants of other

known varieties. The extent of parentage among grapevine cultivars is surprisingly high. Studying the relationship among 2344 unique genotypes of the INRA «Domaine de Vassal» grape germplasm repository with molecular markers, Lacombe *et al.* (2013) identified only 276 genotypes without direct relationship with any other genotype in the collection, but could reveal the complete parentage of 828 cultivars. This indicates that sexual reproduction, due to chance or controlled by man, is a major driver of genetic diversity in cultivated grapevine.

Researchers use different methods to detect the relationships between the genetic information on chromosomes and the features of grapevine plants. The first one, from an historical point of view, is used for all kind of living organisms such as yeasts, plants or animals. The principle is to create genetic variations through sexual reproduction: crossing two parents, chosen for some traits of interest, generates hundreds of individuals. The genetic information of all the individuals of the progeny is revealed by the use of molecular markers. The number of molecular markers can vary from hundreds to thousands with modern techniques (Barba *et al.*, 2014). In parallel, some traits of agronomical or enological interest are measured on the same plants and statistical methods are used to detect the relationships between the presence of some alleles at a precise locus and the trait of interest. When allelic variations in a chromosomal region are correlated with variations of a trait of interest, this region is described as a «Quantitative Trait Locus» or QTL.

QTL detection has been extensively used in grapevine (review by Martinez-Zapater *et al.*, 2010) for traits such as resistance to fungal diseases (Bellin *et al.*, 2009; Blasi *et al.*, 2011), aroma content of berries (Battilana *et al.*, 2009; Duchêne *et al.*, 2009) or the timing of developmental stages (Duchêne *et al.*, 2012b). The availability of the grapevine whole genome sequence (Jaillon *et al.*, 2007) is very useful for identifying the genes involved in the variations of the trait of interest.

Another method is to characterize the genome and a trait of interest for a large population of unrelated grapevine genotypes. The basic idea is the same as for QTL detection: finding associations between DNA information and the values of a trait of interest. This method, named «Genome Wide Association» genetics, has been successfully used for the detection of alleles linked to the aroma (Emanuelli *et al.*, 2010) or anthocyanin content in grapevine berries (Fournier-Level *et al.*, 2009).
Considering the numerous studies providing
statistical relationships between allelic and
phenotypic variations, there are only few examples of
direct causal links between a DNA sequence and a
trait of agronomical or enological interest (Battilana
et al., 2011; Feechan et al., 2013; Kobayashi et al.,
2004; Mejia et al., 2011).

Once a strong link is found between a variation in the
DNA and a variation in a trait of interest (even if it is
only statistical), breeders can use this knowledge for
creating new grapevine varieties. Molecular markers
are used to select the plantlets bearing the desired
alleles. The number of molecular markers used will
depend on the number of traits under selection and
the genetic architecture of the trait. For example, for
selecting a genotype with a muscat-like aroma (high
linalool content), two specific alleles, one from
chromosome 5 and one from chromosome 10, are
necessary (Duchêne et al., 2012a; Duchêne et al.,
2009).

Currently, QTLs and markers related to disease
resistance are routinely used in Marker-Assisted
Selection (MAS) programs (Eibach *et al.*, 2007; Riaz
*et al.*, 2009).

Breeding programs are currently more oriented
towards tolerance to disease than adaptation to
climate change. There is, however, increasing
information on the genetic determinism of traits
playing a role in the adaptation to climate change.

GENETIC VARIABILITY FOR THE
ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

In addition to changing cultivation zones and training
systems, using different or even new genotypes, for
both scion and rootstock, is a potentially powerful
means of adaptation. Finding scion × rootstock
× training system combinations able to produce
commercial-quality wine is a reasonable goal in many
grape growing areas. It is, however, difficult to
guarantee that the volume of production will be the
same as today.

1. Phenology

The first intuitive idea is to use clones or varieties
ripening later than those presently used. The
variability of flowering and véraison time among
existing genotypes is well described (Parker *et al.*,
2013), and we have models using climatic data that
are able to predict the developmental stages in the
future (see Fila *et al.*, 2014 for example). Numerous
QTLs for phenology have been identified (Costantini
et al., 2008; Duchêne et al., 2012b; Fechter et al.,

2014; Grzeskowiak *et al.*, 2013), and this information
can be used to test the adaptation of virtual genotypes
in different grape growing areas for the future.
However, we have shown that it is likely impossible
in the future, even with late ripening varieties, to find
the same cool ripening conditions that we experience
today (Duchêne *et al.*, 2010). Indeed, there is a
continuously increasing gap between the «cool
ripening period», shifting later and later in fall, and
the onset of ripening, shifting towards the warmest
period of summer. This analysis does not apply when
ripening already starts in present days before the
peak of high temperatures in summer. We should pay
as much attention to the ability of genotypes to
maintain some required characteristics under warm
conditions as to phenological stages.

2. Water use

The crop Water Use Efficiency (WUE) is a key
parameter of the adaptation to the expected dryer
summers in the future. There are many ways to
define this parameter (see Flexas et al., 2010 for a
review). From a practical point of view, which can be
the one of vine growers, it is the amount of water
needed to produce one kilogram of mature grapes.
There are many studies on the more efficient
management techniques to maximize the WUE
(Flexas et al., 2010). WUE will also depend on the
scions and rootstocks used, as well as on the timing
of water availability. WUE can be studied at different
scales within a plant (Flexas et al., 2010) and through
different physiological processes (Flexas et al., 2010;
Tomás et al., 2014).

There are many studies comparing the behaviors of
different grapevine genotypes under water restriction,
and classifications have been proposed (Bota *et al.*,
2001; Gaudillère *et al.*, 2002; Tomás *et al.*, 2014).
The understanding of the genetic determinism of
traits relevant for water stress tolerance is, however,
still limited, the first difficulty being to choose a
relevant trait to study.

Classification under isohydric or anisohydric is one
the methods proposed for describing cultivar
behavior under water restriction (Schultz, 2003).
Isohydric cultivars are characterized by a high
capacity to maintain a high leaf water potential
during the day, while the leaf water potential of
anisohydric cultivars in the same conditions will drop
significantly. The genetic basis for this trait was
recently studied through a QTL approach on 186
genotypes, progeny from a reciprocal cross between
Syrah and Grenache (Coupel-Ledru et al., 2014). The
authors identified many QTLs for traits such as
specific transpiration rate, specific hydraulic conductance, and minimal daytime leaf water potential. The percentage of total variations explained by these QTLs was, however, low and the degree of independence of the genetic determinism of these traits was quite unexpected. Finding the best combination of alleles from different loci, leading to the optimal behavior under water restriction in the field, will require further progress in crop modeling (Tardieu, 2003).

There is also a large variability among rootstocks regarding tolerance to water stress, from 110 R (tolerant) to Riparia Gloire de Montpellier (not tolerant) (review by Serra *et al.*, 2014). Marguerit *et al.* (2012) have detected many QTLs related to transpiration rate, Δ¹³C values in leaves, transpiration efficiency, and water extraction capacity by studying the responses of Cabernet-Sauvignon plants grafted on 138 genotypes from a Cabernet-Sauvignon × *Vitis riparia* cv. Gloire de Montpellier cross. This study showed that scion transpiration rate and its acclimation to water deficit was controlled by the rootstock. Rootstocks can then also be genetically improved for tolerance to water stress by breeding.

### 3. Berry quality

A high variability in berry sugar content can be found when comparing genotypes on the same date (Duchêne *et al.*, 2012c) or, conversely, on the date when the sugar content reaches a given value

(Costantini *et al.*, 2008). However, these values depend, on the one hand, on the climatic conditions between véraison and harvest and, on the other hand, on the fruit to leaf ratio of the plants. We have shown in progeny from a Riesling × Gewurztraminer cross that when taking into account the genetic variability for véraison dates and fruit to leaf ratio, the residual genetic variability for sugar metabolism was low (Duchêne *et al.*, 2012c). Nevertheless, classical breeding has already created varieties with low sugar content producing wines with no more than 10-11% alcohol (Escudier, 2009). Possible driving factors can be a high fruit to leaf ratio, late véraison dates or berry physiology. The actual genetic variability for sugar metabolism, and the underlying QTLs, remains to be explored.

Higher temperatures during ripening are responsible for a faster decrease of berry acidity, due to the degradation of malic acid (Sweetman *et al.*, 2014) but tartaric acid concentration in berries is far less sensitive to high temperatures than malic acid concentration (Kliewer, 1971). Indeed, the quantity of tartaric acid per berry is generally constant throughout berry ripening (DeBolt *et al.*, 2008). Grapevine varieties with a high tartaric/malic ratio should be better adapted to warmer climatic conditions. As shown in Figure 1, there is a genetic variability for the tartaric/malic ratio in grapevine genotypes (Duchêne *et al.*, 2014a; Shiraishi, 1995). QTLs for pH and tartaric acid concentration have

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1** – Variability of the ratio between tartaric acid concentration and the sum of malic and tartaric acid concentrations in progeny from a Riesling × Gewurztraminer cross (120 genotypes).</figcaption></figure>

Means of data from 2006 to 2009. Organic acid concentrations were measured 230 degree-days (dd) after véraison for each genotype in the INRA experimental vineyard in Bergheim (Duchêne *et al.*, 2014a).
already been detected (Chen et al., 2015; Houel et al., 2015; Viana et al., 2013), which opens the gate for breeding varieties able to keep a correct level of acidity under warmer conditions.

Regarding secondary metabolites, the decrease in anthocyanin content under high temperatures is certainly not equivalent for all the varieties (Barnuud et al., 2014a; Kliewer and Torres, 1972). Understanding the genetic variability behind the profiles of phenolic compounds (Fournier-Level et al., 2009; Huang et al., 2012) can be of great help to breed new varieties whose color would be less affected by high temperatures. Up to now, there is no information on the possible different reactions of aromatic varieties to high temperatures.

## CONCLUSION

Climate change will significantly modify the environmental conditions in most, if not all, the vineyards in the world. The impacts on wine production will depend on the region and the type of wine produced, but they will not always be negative: a warmer climate is an assurance to harvest ripe grapes every year and it will offer new opportunities for some currently cool grape growing regions.

The main risks are, on the one hand, a decrease of yields due to water scarcity and, on the other hand, the production of unbalanced wines with high alcohol content and low acidity. The consequences of new climatic conditions on the final concentrations of secondary metabolites (phenolic compounds, aromas) in wines are uneasy to anticipate. For anthocyanins for example, the positive effects of increasing solar radiation can, at least partly, counterbalance the negative effects of increasing temperatures. The possibility to delay harvest dates can also compensate for a lack of anthocyanin synthesis. Because several factors impacting grape anthocyanins will be modified simultaneously, their final concentrations at harvest in future conditions are very difficult to predict. If vine growers are able to better control the sugar content and the acidity of the grapes in the future, they will have more degrees of freedom for choosing the harvest date when the balance between sugars, acidity and aromas or anthocyanins is optimal.

Vineyard management techniques and cellar practices can be modified in the short term. New training systems need to be developed and experimented first, and could be implemented in the middle term.

Adaptation of planting material can take place at several levels. Clone collections already exist and

finding new clones for a given variety with higher acidity or lower sugar content can be achieved quite rapidly. A good point for clonal selection is that new clones can be cultivated without modifications of the regulation rules in the existing grape growing regions, including vineyards under registered designations of origin. The weak point is that the extent of genetic variability found in these collections might be too restricted to meet the challenges. In other words, the existing clonal variability can be useful in the short term, possibly in the middle term, but certainly not in the long term.

The next strategy is to test already existing varieties. Grapevine is already cultivated in warm regions and there are thousands of cultivars available in the genetic resource collections around the world. Except for grape growing regions already at the warm limit of the grape cultivation area, it should be possible to find scion × rootstock combinations able to grow in most of the present grape growing regions. Finding the appropriate combination from both an agronomical and enological point of view is, however, a goal for the middle term. The acceptance of new varieties will be all the more easy as the typicity of wines will be preserved.

In the long term, the ultimate goal is to breed new varieties. This can be necessary if no scion × rootstock combination gives satisfactory agronomical results or if the requirements for wine typicity are not met. Despite increasing knowledge of the genetic determinism of traits related to phenology, water use and berry quality, we are still lacking ideotypes. In other words, the objectives for breeders are not straightforward. Even with efficient breeding techniques, it takes about 10 years between obtaining a seed and releasing a variety, and even longer for this variety to be cultivated on significant surfaces. Certainly for the first time in human history of breeding, the environmental conditions can change between the time varieties are evaluated and the time wine growers use them. There is a need to anticipate the behavior of genotypes in new environmental conditions. This requires not only reliable models for predicting future climatic conditions but also crop models able to integrate allelic variations and responses to environmental data. Using such models, breeders would be able to identify the best combinations of alleles for a given set of climatic conditions before starting a breeding program using all modern techniques for revealing the genetic information in progenies.

Climate change is likely to modify wine production in many parts of the world. As of today, grapevine
genetic diversity allows grapevine cultivation and
wine production in a wide range of environmental
conditions across the world. In the future, the existing
variability can be used, or extended by sexual
reproduction, to provide solutions for adapting
grapevine production to climate change.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam-Blondon A.F., Roux C., Claux D., Butterlin G.,
Merdinoglu D. and This P., 2004. Mapping 245 SSR
markers on the *Vitis vinifera* genome: a tool for grape
genetics. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **109**, 1017-1027.

Alston J.M., Fuller K.B., Lapsley J.T. and Soleas G., 2011. Too much of a good thing? Causes and consequences of increases in sugar content of California wine grapes. *J. Wine Econ.* **6**, 135-159.

Bacilieri R., Lacombe T., Le Cunff L., Di Vecchi-Staraz M., Laucou V., Genna B., Peros J.P., This P. and Boursiquot J.M., 2013. Genetic structure in cultivated grapevines is linked to geography and human selection. *BMC Plant Biol.* **13**, 25.

Barba P., Cadle-Davidson L., Harriman J., Glaubitz J.C., Brooks S., Hyma K. and Reisch B., 2014. Grapevine powdery mildew resistance and susceptibility loci identified on a high-resolution SNP map. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **127**, 73-84.

Barnuud N.N., Zerihun A., Gibberd M. and Bates B., 2014a. Berry composition and climate: responses and empirical models. *Int. J. Biometeorol.* **58**, 1207-1223.

Barnuud N.N., Zerihun A., Mpelasoka F., Gibberd M. and Bates B., 2014b. Responses of grape berry anthocyanin and titratable acidity to the projected climate change across the Western Australian wine regions. *Int. J. Biometeorol.* **58**, 1279-1293.

Battilana J., Costantini L., Emanuelli F., Sevini F., Segala C., Moser S., Velasco R., Versini G. and Grando M.S., 2009. The 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate synthase gene co-localizes with a major QTL affecting monoterpene content in grapevine. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **118**, 653-669.

Battilana J., Emanuelli F., Gambino G., Gribaud I., Gasperi F., Boss P.K. and Grando M.S., 2011. Functional effect of grapevine 1-deoxy-D-xylulose 5-phosphate synthase substitution K284N on Muscat flavour formation. *J. Exp. Bot.* **62**, 5497-5508.

Bellin D., Peressotti E., Merdinoglu D., Wiedemann-Merdinoglu S., Adam-Blondon A.F., Cipriani G., Morgante M., Testolin R. and Di Gaspero G., 2009. Resistance to *Plasmopara viticola* in grapevine 'Bianca' is controlled by a major dominant gene causing localised necrosis at the infection site. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **120**, 163-176.

Bindi M., Fibbi L., Gozzini B., Orlandini S. and Miglietta F., 1996. Modelling the impact of future climate scenarios on yield and yield variability of grapevine. *Clim. Res.* **7**, 213-224.

Bindi M., Fibbi L. and Miglietta F., 2001. Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE) of grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.): II. Growth and quality of grape and wine in response to elevated CO2 concentrations. *Eur. J. Agron.* **14**, 145-155.

Blasi P., Blanc S., Wiedemann-Merdinoglu S., Prado E., Rühl E.H., Mestre P. and Merdinoglu D., 2011. Construction of a reference linkage map of *Vitis amurensis* and genetic mapping of *Rpv8*, a locus conferring resistance to grapevine downy mildew. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **123**, 43-53.

Bonnefoy C., Quenol H., Bonnardot V., Barbeau G., Madelin M., Planchon O. and Neethling E., 2013. Temporal and spatial analyses of temperature in a French wine-producing area: the Loire Valley. *Int. J. Climatol.* **33**, 1849-1862.

Bota J., Flexas J. and Medrano H., 2001. Genetic variability of photosynthesis and water use in Balearic grapevine cultivars. *Ann. Appl. Biol.* **138**, 353-361.

Boursiquot J.M., Lacombe T., Laucou V., Julliard S., Perrin F.X., Lanier N., Legrand D., Meredith C. and This P., 2009. Parentage of Merlot and related winegrape cultivars of southwestern France: discovery of the missing link. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **15**, 144-155.

Bowers J.E. and Meredith C.P., 1997. The parentage of a classic wine grape, Cabernet Sauvignon. *Nature Genet.* **16**, 84-87.

Bowers J., Boursiquot J.M., This P., Chu K., Johansson H. and Meredith C., 1999. Historical genetics: the parentage of chardonnay, gamay, and other wine grapes of northeastern France. *Science* **285**, 1562-1565.

Bregaglio S., Donatelli M. and Confalonieri R., 2013. Fungal infections of rice, wheat, and grape in Europe in 2030–2050. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* **33**, 767-776.

Bureau S.M., Razungles A.J. and Baumes R.L., 2000. The aroma of Muscat of Frontignan grapes: effect of the light environment of vine or bunch on volatiles and glycoconjugates. *J. Sci. Food Agric.* **80**, 2012-2020.

Buttrose M.S., 1970. Fruitfulness in grape-vines: the response of different cultivars to light, temperature and daylength. *Vitis* **9**, 121-125.

Buttrose M.S., Hale C.R. and Kliewer W.M., 1971. Effect of temperature on the composition of «Cabernet-Sauvignon» berries. *Am. J. Enol. Vitic.* **22**, 71-75.

Buttrose M.S., 1974. Fruitfulness in grapevine: effects of water stress. *Vitis* **12**, 299-305.

Caffarra A., Rinaldi M., Eccel E., Rossi V. and Pertot I., 2012. Modelling the impact of climate change on the interaction between grapevine and its pests and pathogens: European grapevine moth and powdery mildew. *Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.* **148**, 89-101.
Caubel J., Launay M., Garcia de Cortazar Atauri I., Ripoche D., Huard F., Buis S. and Brisson N., 2014. A new integrated approach to assess the impacts of climate change on grapevine fungal diseases: the coupled MILA_STICS model. *J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, Special Laccave*, 43-52.

Chen J., Wang N., Fang L.-C., Liang Z.-C., Li S.-H. and Wu B.-H., 2015. Construction of a high-density genetic map and QTLs mapping for sugars and acids in grape berries. *BMC Plant Biol.* **15**, 28.

Chuine I., Yiou P., Viovy N., Seguin B., Daux V. and Le Roy Ladurie E., 2004. Historical phenology: grape ripening as a past climate indicator. *Nature* **432**, 289-290.

Costantini L., Battilana J., Lamaj F., Fanizza G. and Grando M.S., 2008. Berry and phenology-related traits in grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.): from quantitative trait loci to underlying genes. *BMC Plant Biol.* **8**, 38.

Coupel-Ledru A., Lebon E., Christophe A., Doligez A., Cabrera-Bosquet L., Pechier P., Hamard P., This P. and Simonneau T., 2014. Genetic variation in a grapevine progeny (*Vitis vinifera* L. cvs GrenachexSyrah) reveals inconsistencies between maintenance of daytime leaf water potential and response of transpiration rate under drought. *J. Exp. Bot.* **65**, 6205-6218.

DeBolt S., Ristic R., Iland P.G. and Ford C.M., 2008. Altered light interception reduces grape berry weight and modulates organic acid biosynthesis during development. *HortScience* **43**, 957-961.

Duchêne E., Meluc D., Panigai L., Langellier F., Monamy C. and Schneider C., 2001. Élaboration du nombre de baies par m² pour le Pinot noir et le Chardonnay en Alsace, Bourgogne et Champagne. *J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin* **35**, 215-224.

Duchêne E. and Schneider C., 2005. Grapevine and climatic changes: a glance at the situation in Alsace. *Agron. Sustain. Dev.* **25**, 93-99.

Duchêne E., Butterlin G., Claudel P., Dumas V., Jaegli N. and Merdinoglu D., 2009. A grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.) deoxy-d-xylulose synthase gene colocates with a major quantitative trait loci for terpenol content. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **118**, 541-552.

Duchêne E., Huard F., Dumas V., Schneider C. and Merdinoglu D., 2010. The challenge of adapting grapevine varieties to climate change. *Clim. Res.* **41**, 193-204.

Duchêne E., Arnold G., Butterlin G., Claudel P., Dumas V., Jaegli N., Hugueney P. and Merdinoglu D., 2012a. Genetic determinism of geraniol and linalool concentrations in grapevine berries, pp. 192-195. *In: Oeno 2011, Actes de Colloques du 9ème Symposium International d'Œnologie de Bordeaux*. Université Bordeaux Segalen, Dunod, Paris.

Duchêne E., Butterlin G., Dumas V. and Merdinoglu D., 2012b. Towards the adaptation of grapevine varieties to climate change: QTLs and candidate genes for developmental stages. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **124**, 623-635.

Duchêne E., Dumas V., Jaegli N. and Merdinoglu D., 2012c. Deciphering the ability of different grapevine genotypes to accumulate sugar in berries. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **18**, 319-328.

Duchêne E., Dumas V., Jaegli N. and Merdinoglu D., 2014a. Genetic variability of descriptors for grapevine berry acidity in Riesling, Gewürztraminer and their progeny. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **20**, 91-99.

Duchêne E., Huard F. and Pieri P., 2014b. Grapevine and climate change: what adaptations of plant material and training systems should we anticipate? *J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, Special Laccave*, 61-69.

Eibach R., Zyprian E., Welter L. and Töpfer R., 2007. The use of molecular markers for pyramiding resistance genes in grapevine breeding. *Vitis* **46**, 120-124.

Emanuelli F., Battilana J., Costantini L., Le Cunff L., Boursiquot J.M., This P. and Grando M.S., 2010. A candidate gene association study on muscat flavor in grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.). *BMC Plant Biol.* **10**, 241.

Escudier J.L., 2009. Vins de qualité à teneur réduite en alcool, pp. 55-59. *In: Colloque de clôture du programme national de recherche en alimentation et nutrition humaine*. Agence Nationale de la Recherche, Paris.

Fechter I., Hausmann L., Zyprian E., Daum M., Holtgräwe D., Weisshaar B. and Töpfer R., 2014. QTL analysis of flowering time and ripening traits suggests an impact of a genomic region on linkage group 1 in *Vitis. Theor. Appl. Genet.* **127**, 1857-1872.

Feechan A., Anderson C., Torregrosa L., Jermakow A., Mestre P., Wiedemann-Merdinoglu S., Merdinoglu D., Walker A.R., Cadle-Davidson L., Reisch B., Aubourg S., Bentahar N., Shrestha B., Bouquet A., Adam-Blondon A.F., Thomas M.R. and Dry I.B., 2013. Genetic dissection of a TIR-NB-LRR locus from the wild North American grapevine species *Muscadinia rotundifolia* identifies paralogous genes conferring resistance to major fungal and oomycete pathogens in cultivated grapevine. *Plant J.* **76**, 661-674.

Fila G., Gardiman M., Belvini P., Meggio F. and Pitacco A., 2014. A comparison of different modelling solutions for studying grapevine phenology under present and future climate scenarios. *Agric. Forest Meteorol.* **195-196**, 192-205.

Flexas J., Galmés J., Gallé A., Gulías J., Pou A., Ribas-Carbo M., Tomàs M. and Medrano H., 2010. Improving water use efficiency in grapevines: potential physiological targets for biotechnological improvement. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **16**, 106-121.
Fournier-Level A., Le Cunff L., Gomez C., Doligez A., Ageorges A., Roux C., Bertrand Y., Souquet J.M., Cheynier V. and This P., 2009. Quantitative genetic bases of anthocyanin variation in grape (*Vitis vinifera* L. ssp *sativa*) berry: a quantitative trait locus to quantitative trait nucleotide integrated study. *Genetics* **183**, 1127-1139.

Franks T., Botta R. and Thomas M.R., 2002. Chimerism in grapevines: implications for cultivar identity, ancestry and genetic improvement. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **104**, 192-199.

Garcia de Cortazar Atauri I., 2006. Adaptation du modèle STICS à la vigne (*Vitis vinifera* L.). Utilisation dans le cadre d'une étude d'impact du changement climatique à l'échelle de la France. *Thèse de doctorat*. Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Montpellier, France.

Gaudillère J.-P., van Leeuwen C. and Ollat N., 2002. Carbon isotope composition of sugars in grapevine, an integrated indicator of vineyard water status. *J. Exp. Bot.* **53**, 757-763.

Gonçalves B., Falco V., Moutinho-Pereira J., Bacelar E., Peixoto F. and Correia C., 2009. Effects of elevated CO₂ on grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.): volatile composition, phenolic content, and in vitro antioxidant activity of red wine. *J. Agric. Food Chem.* **57**, 265-273.

Grzeskowiak L., Costantini L., Lorenzi S. and Grando M.S., 2013. Candidate loci for phenology and fruitfulness contributing to the phenotypic variability observed in grapevine. *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **126**, 2763-2776.

Guilpart N., Metay A. and Gary C., 2014. Grapevine bud fertility and number of berries per bunch are determined by water and nitrogen stress around flowering in the previous year. *Eur. J. Agron.* **54**, 9-20.

Hocquigny S., Pelsy F., Dumas V., Kindt S., Heloir M.C. and Merdinoglu D., 2004. Diversification within grapevine cultivars goes through chimeric states. *Genome* **47**, 579-589.

Houel C., Chatbanyong R., Doligez A., Rienth M., Foria S., Luchaire N., Roux C., Adiveze A., Lopez G., Farnos M., Pellegrino A., This P., Romieu C. and Torregrosa L., 2015. Identification of stable QTLs for vegetative and reproductive traits in the microvine (*Vitis vinifera* L.) using the 18 K Infinium chip. *BMC Plant Biol.* **15**, 205.

Huang Y.F., Doligez A., Fournier-Level A., Le Cunff L., Bertrand Y., Canaguier A., Morel C., Miralles V., Veran F., Souquet J.M., Cheynier V., Terrier N. and This P., 2012. Dissecting genetic architecture of grape proanthocyanidin composition through quantitative trait locus mapping. *BMC Plant Biol.* **12**, 30.

Huglin P. and Schneider C., 1998. *Biologie et Écologie de la Vigne*. Lavoisier, Paris.

Intrigliolo D.S., Pérez D., Risco D., Yeves A. and Castel J.R., 2012. Yield components and grape composition responses to seasonal water deficits in Tempranillo grapevines. *Irrig. Sci.* **30**, 339-349.

IPCC, 2013. Summary for policymakers. *In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change*. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

Jaillon O., Aury J.M., Noel B., Policriti A., Clepet C., Casagrande A., Choisne N., Aubourg S., Vitulo N., Jubin C., Vezzi A., Legeai F., Huguency P., Dasilva C., Horner D., Mica E., Jublot D., Poulain J., Bruyere C., Billault A., Segurens B., Gouyvenoux M., Ugarte E., Cattonaro F., Anthouard V., Vico V., Del Fabbro C., Alaux M., Di Gaspero G., Dumas V., Felice N., Paillard S., Juman I., Moroldo M., Scalabrin S., Canaguier A., Le Clainche I., Malacrida G., Durand E., Pesole G., Laucou V., Chatelet P., Merdinoglu D., Delledonne M., Pezzotti M., Lecharny A., Scarpelli C., Artiguenave F., Pe M.E., Valle G., Morgante M., Caboche M., Adam-Blondon A.F., Weissenbach J., Quetier F. and Wincker P., 2007. The grapevine genome sequence suggests ancestral hexaploidization in major angiosperm phyla. *Nature* **449**, 463-468.

Jones G.V. and Davis R.E., 2000. Climate influences on grapevine phenology, grape composition, and wine production and quality for Bordeaux, France. *Am. J. Enol. Vitic.* **51**, 249-261.

Jones G.V., White M.A., Cooper O.R. and Storchmann K., 2005. Climate change and global wine quality. *Clim. Change* **73**, 319-343.

Keller M., 2010. Managing grapevines to optimise fruit development in a challenging environment: a climate change primer for viticulturists. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **16**, 56-69.

Keller M., Tarara J.M. and Mills L.J., 2010. Spring temperatures alter reproductive development in grapevines. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **16**, 445-454.

Kliewer W.M., 1970. Effect of day temperature and light intensity on coloration of *Vitis vinifera* L. grapes. *J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.* **95**, 693-697.

Kliewer W.M., 1971. Effect of day temperature and light intensity on concentration of malic and tartaric acids in *Vitis vinifera* L. grapes. *J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci.* **96**, 372-377.

Kliewer W.M. and Torres R.E., 1972. Effect of controlled day and night temperatures on grape coloration. *Am. J. Enol. Vitic.* **23**, 71-77.

Kobayashi S., Goto-Yamamoto N. and Hirochika H., 2004. Retrotransposon-induced mutations in grape skin color. *Science* **304**, 982.
Lacombe T., Boursiquot J.M., Laucou V., Di Vecchi-Staraz M., Peros J.P. and This P., 2013. Large-scale parentage analysis in an extended set of grapevine cultivars (*Vitis vinifera* L.). *Theor. Appl. Genet.* **126**, 401-414.

Lobell D.B., Field C.B., Cahill K.N. and Bonfils C., 2006. Impacts of future climate change on California perennial crop yields: model projections with climate and crop uncertainties. *Agric. Forest Meteorol.* **141**, 208-218.

Malheiro A.C., Santos J.A., Fraga H. and Pinto J.G., 2010. Climate change scenarios applied to viticultural zoning in Europe. *Clim. Res.* **43**, 163-177.

Marguerit E., Brendel O., Lebon E., van Leeuwen C. and Ollat N., 2012. Rootstock control of scion transpiration and its acclimation to water deficit are controlled by different genes. *New Phytol.* **194**, 416-429.

Martinez-Zapater J.M., Carmona M.J., Diaz-Riquelme J., Fernandez L. and Lijavetzky D., 2010. Grapevine genetics after the genome sequence: challenges and limitations. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **16**, 33-46.

Matthews M.A. and Anderson M.M., 1989. Reproductive development in grape (*Vitis vinifera* L.): responses to seasonal water deficit. *Am. J. Enol. Vitic.* **40**, 52-60.

McGovern P.E., Glusker D.L., Exner L.J. and Voigt M.M., 1996. Neolithic resinated wine. *Nature* **381**, 480-481.

Mejia N., Soto B., Guerrero M., Casanueva X., Houel C., de los Angeles Miccono M., Ramos R., Le Cunff L., Boursiquot J.M., Hinrichsen P. and Adam-Blondon A.F., 2011. Molecular, genetic and transcriptional evidence for a role of *VvAGL11* in stenospermocarpic seedlessness in grapevine. *BMC Plant Biol.* **11**, 57.

Molitor D., Caffarra A., Sinigoj P., Pertot I., Hoffmann L. and Junk J., 2014. Late frost damage risk for viticulture under future climate conditions: a case study for the Luxembourgish winegrowing region. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **20**, 160-168.

Mori K., Goto-Yamamoto N., Kitayama M. and Hashizume K., 2007. Loss of anthocyanins in red-wine grape under high temperature. *J. Exp. Bot.* **58**, 1935-1945.

Moriondo M., Bindi M., Fagarazzi C., Ferrise R. and Trombi G., 2011. Framework for high-resolution climate change impact assessment on grapevines at a regional scale. *Reg. Environ. Change* **11**, 553-567.

Moutinho-Pereira J., Goncalves B., Bacelar E., Boaventura Cunha J., Coutinho J. and Correia C.M., 2009. Effects of elevated CO₂ on grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.): physiological and yield attributes. *Vitis* **48**, 159-165.

Neethling E., Barbeau G., Bonnefoy C. and Quenol H., 2012. Change in climate and berry composition for grapevine varieties cultivated in the Loire Valley. *Clim. Res.* **53**, 89-101.

Niculcea M., López J., Sánchez-Díaz M. and Carmen Antolín M., 2014. Involvement of berry hormonal content in the response to pre- and post-veraison water deficit in different grapevine (*Vitis vinifera* L.) cultivars. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **20**, 281-291.

Palliotti A., Panara F., Silvestroni O., Lanari V., Sabbatini P., Howell G.S., Gatti M. and Poni S., 2013. Influence of mechanical postveraison leaf removal apical to the cluster zone on delay of fruit ripening in Sangiovese (*Vitis vinifera* L.) grapevines. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **19**, 369-377.

Parker A., de Cortázar-Atauri I.G., Chuine I., Barbeau G., Bois B., Boursiquot J.-M., Cahurel J.-Y., Claverie M., Dufourcq T., Gény L., Guimberteau G., Hofmann R.W., Jacquet O., Lacombe T., Monamy C., Ojeda H., Panigai L., Payan J.-C., Lovelle B.R., Rouchaud E., Schneider C., Spring J. L., Storchi P., Tomasi D., Trambouze W., Trought M. and 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. *Agric. Forest Meteorol.* **180**, 249-264.

Pelsy F., 2010. Molecular and cellular mechanisms of diversity within grapevine varieties. *Heredity* **104**, 331-340.

Petrie P.R. and Clingeleffer P.R., 2005. Effects of temperature and light (before and after budburst) on inflorescence morphology and flower number of Chardonnay grapevines (*Vitis vinifera* L.). *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **11**, 59-65.

Petrie P.R. and Sadras V.O., 2008. Advancement of grapevine maturity in Australia between 1993 and 2006: putative causes, magnitude of trends and viticultural consequences. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **14**, 33-45.

Pieri P. and Lebon E., 2014. Modelling the future impacts of climate change on French vineyards. *J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin, Special Laccave*, 33-41.

Pouget R., 1981. Action de la température sur la différenciation des inflorescences et des fleurs durant les phases de pré-débourrement et de post-débourrement des bourgeons latents de la vigne. *Connaissance Vigne Vin* **15**, 65-79.

Pugliese M., Gullino M.L. and Garibaldi A., 2010. Effects of elevated CO₂ and temperature on interactions of grapevine and powdery mildew: first results under phytotron conditions. *J. Plant Dis. Prot.* **117**, 9-14.

Ramos M.C., Jones G.V. and Martinez-Casasnovas J.A., 2008. Structure and trends in climate parameters affecting winegrape production in northeast Spain. *Clim. Res.* **38**, 1-15.

Reynolds A.G. and Wardle D.A., 1993. Significance of viticultural and enological practices on monoterpene flavorants of British Columbia-grown *Vitis vinifera* berries and juices. *Vitic. Enol. Sci.* **48**, 194-202.
Riaz S., Tenscher A.C., Graziani R., Krivanek A.F., Ramming D.W. and Walker M.A., 2009. Using marker-assisted selection to breed Pierce's disease-resistant grapes. *Am. J. Enol. Vitic.* **60**, 199-207.

Sadras V.O. and Moran M.A., 2012. Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in berries of Shiraz and Cabernet Franc. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **18**, 115-122.

Salinari F., Giosue S., Tubiello F.N., Rettori A., Rossi V., Spanna F., Rosenzweig C. and Gullino M.L., 2006. Downy mildew (*Plasmopara viticola*) epidemics on grapevine under climate change. *Glob. Change Biol.* **12**, 1299-1307.

Santos J.A., Malheiro A.C., Karremann M.K. and Pinto J.G., 2011. Statistical modelling of grapevine yield in the Port Wine region under present and future climate conditions. *Int. J. Biometeorol.* **55**, 119-131.

Schultz H.R., 2003. Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown *Vitis vinifera* L. cultivars during drought. *Plant Cell Environ.* **26**, 1393-1405.

Serra I., Strever A., Myburgh P.A. and Deloire A., 2014. Review: the interaction between rootstocks and cultivars (*Vitis vinifera* L.) to enhance drought tolerance in grapevine. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **20**, 1-14.

Shiraishi M., 1995. Proposed descriptors for organic acids to evaluate grape germplasm. *Euphytica* **81**, 13-20.

Sweetman C., Sadras V.O., Hancock R.D., Soole K.L. and Ford C.M., 2014. Metabolic effects of elevated temperature on organic acid degradation in ripening *Vitis vinifera* fruit. *J. Exp. Bot.* **65**, 5975-5988.

Tardieu F., 2003. Virtual plants: modelling as a tool for the genomics of tolerance to water deficit. *Trends Plant Sci.* **8**, 9-14.

Teixeira A., Eiras-Dias J., Castellarin S.D. and Geros H., 2013. Berry phenolics of grapevine under challenging environments. *Int. J. Mol. Sci.* **14**, 18711-18739.

This P., Lacombe T. and Thomas M.R., 2006. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. *Trends Genet.* **22**, 511-519.

Tomás M., Medrano H., Escalona J.M., Martorell S., Pou A., Ribas-Carbó M. and Flexas J., 2014. Variability of water use efficiency in grapevines. *Environ. Exp. Bot.* **103**, 148-157.

Tonietto J. and Carbonneau A., 2004. A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide. *Agric. Forest Meteorol.* **124**, 81-97.

Viana A.P., Riaz S. and Walker M.A., 2013. Genetic dissection of agronomic traits within a segregating population of breeding table grapes. *Genet. Mol. Res.* **12**, 951-964.

Webb L.B., Whetton P.H. and Barlow E.W.R., 2007. Modelled impact of future climate change on the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. *Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.* **13**, 165-175.

Webb L.B., Whetton P.H. and Barlow E.W.R., 2008. Climate change and winegrape quality in Australia. *Clim. Res.* **36**, 99-111.