4.5 Article

Grapevine phenology and climate change in Georgia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOMETEOROLOGY
卷 61, 期 4, 页码 761-773

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00484-016-1241-9

关键词

Georgia; Grapevine; Phenology; Climate change; Adaptation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While the climate of Western Europe has been deeply affected by the abrupt climate change that took place in the late '1980s of the twentieth century, a similar signal is detected only few years later, in 1994, in Georgia. Grapevine phenology is deeply influenced by climate and this paper aimed to analyze how phenological timing changed before and after the climatic change of 1994. Availability of thermal resources in the two climatic phases for the five altitudinal belts in the 0-1250-m range was analyzed. A phenological dataset gathered in two experimental sites during the period 2012-2014, and a suitable thermal dataset was used to calibrate a phenological model based on the normal approach and able to describe BBCH phenological stages 61 (beginning of flowering), 71 (fruit set), and 81 (veraison). Calibration was performed for four relevant Georgian varieties (Mtsvane Kakhuri, Rkatsiteli, Ojaleshi, and Saperavi). The model validation was performed on an independent 3-year dataset gathered in Gorizia (Italy). Furthermore, in the case of variety Rkatsiteli, the model was applied to the 1974-2013 thermal time series in order to obtain phenological maps of the Georgian territory. Results show that after the climate change of 1994, Rkatsiteli showed an advance, more relevant at higher altitudes where the whole increase of thermal resource was effectively translated in phenological advance. For instance the average advance of veraison was 5.9 days for 250-500 m asl belt and 18.1 days for 750-1000 m asl). On the other hand, at lower altitudes, phenological advance was depleted by superoptimal temperatures. As a final result, some suggestions for the adaptation of viticultural practices to the current climatic phase are provided.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据