3.9 Review

WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FOR SUSTAINABLE VITICULTURE AND OENOLOGY IN SOUTH PORTUGAL - A REVIEW

期刊

CIENCIA E TECNICA VITIVINICOLA
卷 35, 期 1, 页码 1-15

出版社

ESTACAO VITIVINICOLA NACIONAL
DOI: 10.1051/ctv/20203501001

关键词

Irrigated viticulture; sustainable water use; water metrics; water scarcity; wastewater reuse

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e Tecnologia (Portugal) [UID/AGR/04129/2013]
  2. EU project NEFERTITI (EU Horizon 2020), Network 8 - Water Use Efficiency [772705]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessing sustainability of the wine industry requires improved characterization of its environmental impacts, namely in terms of water use. Therefore, quantification of water inputs and wastewater (WW) outputs is needed to highlight inefficiencies in wine production and related consequences for the environment. Water use and WW generation in irrigated viticulture and oenology remains insufficiently quantified for dry Mediterranean regions (e.g. South Portugal). This paper is focused on wine production under warm and dry climate conditions in the winegrowing region of Alentejo (South Portugal). This region experiences increasingly dry conditions, while the irrigated area keeps expanding, which puts exacerbates the pressure on existing local and regional water resources. Additionally, more erratic variation in climate conditions and the tendency for increasingly extreme climate events (e.g. heat waves) pose more challenges to Alentejo's wine sector. We conclude that quantitative information on water use and management is not always easy to obtain or access, which hinders improved strategies and/or policies for water use at farm, winery and region-level. Up-to-date statistics and robust metrics can help to better characterize water use and WW flows for Alentejo's wine region, while optimizing management in vineyards and wineries, in companies and region-wide. The paper is focused on a Farm-Winery scenario, which is the most common in South Portugal's wine sector.

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

3.9
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