Climate and mesoclimate zonification in the Miño valley (Galicia, NW Spain)

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

One of the major issues for the wine sector is the impact of climate change linked to the increasing temperatures which affects physicochemical parameters of the grape varieties planted in Bordeaux vineyard and consequently, the quality of wine. In some varietals, the attenuation of their fresh fruity character is accompanied by the accentuation of dried-fruit notes [1]. As a new adaptive strategy on climate change, some winegrowers have initiated changes in the Bordeaux blend of vine varieties [2]. This study intends to explore the fruitiness in wines produced from grape varieties adapted to the future climate of Bordeaux. 10 commercial single–varietal wines from 2018 vintage made from the main grape varieties in the Bordeaux region (Cabernet franc, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Merlot) as well as from indigenous grape varieties from the Mediterranean basin, such as Cyprus (Yiannoudin), France (Syrah), Greece (Agiorgitiko and Xinomavro), Portugal (Touriga Nacional) and Spain (Garnacha and Tempranillo), were selected among 19 samples using sensory descriptive analyses. Both sensory and instrumental analyses were coupled, to investigate their fruity aroma expression. For sensory analysis, samples were prepared from wine, using a semi preparative HPLC method which preserves wine aroma and isolates fruity characteristics in 25 specific fractions [3,4]. Fractions of interest with intense fruity aromas were sensorially selected for each wine by a trained panel and mixed with ethanol and microfiltered water to obtain fruity aromatic reconstitutions (FAR) [5]. A free sorting task was applied to categorize FAR according to their similarities or dissimilarities, and different clusters were highlighted. Instrumental analysis of the different FAR and wines demonstrated variations in their molecular composition. Results obtained from sensory and gas chromatography analysis enrich the knowledge of the fruity expression of red wines from “new” grape varieties opening up new perspectives in wine technology, including blending, thus providing new tools for producers.

Current climate change is increasing inter- and intra-annual variability in atmospheric conditions leading to grapevine phenological shifts as well altered grape ripening and composition at ripeness. This study aims to (i) detect weather anomalies within a long-term time series, (ii) model grape ripening revealing altered traits in time to target specific ripeness thresholds for four Vitis vinifera cultivars, and (iii) establish empirical relationships between ripening and weather anomalies with forecasting purposes. The Day of the Year (DOY) to reach specific grape ripeness targets was determined from time series of sugar concentrations, total acidity and pH collected from a private company in the period 2009-2021 in North-Eastern Italy. Non-linear models for the DOY to reach the specified ripeness thresholds were assessed for model efficiency (EF) and error of prediction (RMSE) in four grapevine cultivars (Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, Glera and Garganega). For each vintage and cultivar, advances or delays in DOY to target specified ripeness thresholds were assessed with respect to the average ripening dynamics. Long-term meteorological series monitored at ground weather station by means of hourly air temperature and rainfall data were analyzed. Climate statistics were obtained and for each time period (month, bimester, quarter and year) weather anomalies were identified. A linear regression analysis was performed to assess a possible correlation that may exist between ripening and weather anomalies. For each cultivar, ripeness advances or delays expressed in number of days to target the specific ripening threshold were assessed in relation to registered weather anomalies and the specific reference time period in the vintage. Precipitation of the warmest month and spring quarter are key to understanding the effect of climate change on sugar ripeness. Minimum temperatures of May-June bimester and maximum temperatures of spring quarter best correlate with altered total acidity evolution and pH increment during the ripening process, respectively.