Day: October 8, 2010

Spatial Analysis of Climate in Winegrape-growing Regions in Australia

/ Matt Artz

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, Volume 16, Number 3, October 2010 , pp. 389-404(16)

Hall, A.; Jones, G.V.

“Temperature-based indices are commonly used to indicate long-term suitability of climate for commercially viable winegrape production of different grapevine cultivars, but their calculation has been inconsistent and often inconsiderate of within-region spatial variability. This paper (i) investigates and quantifies differences between four such indices; and (ii) quantifies the within-region spatial variability for each Australian wine region. Methods and Results:

“Four commonly used indices describing winegrape growing suitability were calculated for each Australian geographic indication (GI) using temperature data from 1971 to 2000. Within-region spatial variability was determined for each index using a geographic information system. The sets of indices were compared with each other using first- and second-order polynomial regression. Heat-sum temperature indices were strongly related to the simple measure of mean growing season temperature, but variation resulted in some differences between indices. Conclusion:

“Temperature regime differences between the same region pairs varied depending upon which index was employed. Spatial variability of the climate indices within some regions led to significant overlap with other regions; knowledge of the climate distribution provides a better understanding of the range of cultivar suitability within each region. Significance of the Study:

“Within-region spatial variability and the use of different indices over inconsistent time periods to describe temperature regimes have, before now, made comparisons of climates between viticulture regions difficult. Consistent calculations of indices, and quantification of spatial variability, enabled comparisons of Australian GIs to be made both within Australia and with American Viticultural Areas in the western United States.”

Coastal Construction Trends in Response to Coastal Erosion: An Opportunity for Adaptation

/ Matt Artz

Journal of Coastal Conservation,online first, 2010

Ariana Marshall, Larry Robinson, and Marcia Allen Owens

“In Florida, more than half of the state’s sandy beach coastlines are designated as critical erosion areas by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP 2008). At the same time, the economic contribution of coastal construction is being confounded by the fiscal peril facing Florida (Bird in Ann Geomorph 57:1–9, 1985, Pew Center on the States 2009, U.S BEA 2009). It is therefore an opportune time for an evaluation of coastal erosion policy response which specifically addresses coastal construction. Furthermore in Florida, an increasing coastal population requiring the provision of structural development necessitates an improved understanding of how legislative intent which avoids the cumulative impacts of development is translated through quantified policy response. This study characterizes how coastal development trends in Florida have responded to critical erosion designation. Using spatial and temporal analysis of coastal construction permitting data from 1987 to 2007, three coastal counties in northwest Florida were selected for this study. This selection was based on proximity to the designated ecologically sensitive Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve (ANERR). This study has indicated that clusters of development have not been reduced or redirected by critical erosion designation in certain areas of the study counties. Therefore this study has implications for the regulatory framework governing coastal development permitting in Florida, which is of timely relevance for sea-level rise adaptation.”