Terroir 2004 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 “Zonation”: interpretation and estimation of “Great zonation” (GZ) following the base methodology of “GRANDE FILIERA” (GF) (Great chain)

“Zonation”: interpretation and estimation of “Great zonation” (GZ) following the base methodology of “GRANDE FILIERA” (GF) (Great chain)

Abstract

[English version below]

Dans des travaux précédents sur le zonage, on a traité de la « Grande Filière », du « terroir », du « territoire », de la «″Terra »″ (« Terre »”), des « Petits zonages ou sub-zonages », du « Grand Zonage », de la qualité (nous en avons classifié plus de quatre-vingt-dix), des « Grands Objectifs » (GO) de l’activité vitivinicole et des moyens utilisés pour les atteindre. Dans le « GRAND ZONAGE » (GZ) nous avons précisé que pour zoner, nous partons des aspects économiques, sociaux et existentiels que représentent du bas vers le haut en filière les « GRANDS OBJECTIFS » (GO) de l’activité vitinicole et donc du zonage et non pas des aspects « techniques » tels que par exemple le sol, le climat, le modèle de vignoble et sa gestion, etc., qui représentent les « MOYENS » pour atteindre les grands objectifs cités ci-dessus (Cargnello G. 1995, 1997, 1999a-b-c-d, 200a-b et 2003a-c-d). Il faut donc souligner que les « grands objectifs » ne doivent pas être confondus, comme c’est souvent le cas dans notre secteur, avec les moyens utilisés pour atteindre ces objectifs. « Zoner » (« Grand Zonage ») en incluant aussi la lecture et l’évaluation de ce zonage, objet de ce travail, en suivant la méthodologie de base de la « GRANDE FILIERE » (GF) signifie donc, entre autre, opérer aussi bien dans la « globalité », de façon équo soutenable solidaire au niveau temps, économique et social et réalistiquement « qualitatif », aussi bien en syntonie (au mieux) avec les 54 descripteurs d’ordre technique économique social existentiel prévus dans la « Grande Filière ».
On exposera dans ce travail la lecture et l’évaluation du zonage d’après ce qui a été exposé ci-dessus. Lecture et évaluation qui à la suite des recherches conduites à l’étranger aussi a suscité un vif intérêt et nous a encouragé à intensifier ces recherches.

In previous papers on zonation we investigated: so called “GRANDE FILIERA” (GF) (“Great chain”), “terroir”, “Terra”, “Small zonations or sub-zonations”, “Great zonation”, qualities (we have classified more than ninety), economy of qualities, as well as “GREAT OBJECTIVES” (GO) of vitivinicultural activity and means utilised for its achievement.
In “GREAT ZONATION” (GZ) we have specified that in order to zonate, it is necessary to start from economic, social and existential aspects which in filiera from below to above represent “GREAT OBJECTIVES” (GO) also of vitivinicultural activity and thus of zonation, and not from “technical” aspects such as soil, climate, vineyard model and its management, etc. which represent “MEANS” for achievements of “great objectives” above mentioned (Cargnello G., 1995, 1997, 1999a-b-c-d-, 2000a-b and 2003a-c-d).
Must be therefore said again that “great objectives” shouldn’t be messed-up, as frequently happens in our branch, with means utilised for achievement of such objectives.
Consequently “Zonating” (“Great Zonation”) comprised between interpretation and estimation of zonation, following the base methodology of “Great Chain” means, among other things, to operate in “globality” and in sustainable equal mode on tempistic, economic-social and realistically “qualitative” level, also in harmony (the best) with listed descriptors.
In the present paper, zonation interpretation and estimation will be treated as explained above. Type of interpretation and estimation that after researches conducted by foreign researches have risen in importance and have stimulated us to intensify our investigations in that sense.

DOI:

Publication date: January 12, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2004

Type: Article

Authors

Giovanni Cargnello (Collaboration de Luciano Pezza)

Directeur SOC Tecniche Colturali – Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticoltura – Via E. De Nicola, 41 – 31015 Conegliano (TV) Italy

Contact the author

Keywords

Zonage, grand zonage, petit zonage vitivinicole, terre, territoire, terroir, qualité, grande filière
zoning, great zonation, little zonation, interpretation, estimation, quality, land, great chain

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2004

Citation

Related articles…

Use of a new, miniaturized, low-cost spectral sensor to estimate and map the vineyard water status from a mobile 

Optimizing the use of water and improving irrigation strategies has become increasingly important in most winegrowing countries due to the consequences of climate change, which are leading to more frequent droughts, heat waves, or alteration of precipitation patterns. Optimized irrigation scheduling can only be based on a reliable knowledge of the vineyard water status.

In this context, this work aims at the development of a novel methodology, using a contactless, miniaturized, low-cost NIR spectral tool to monitor (on-the-go) the vineyard water status variability. On-the-go spectral measurements were acquired in the vineyard using a NIR micro spectrometer, operating in the 900–1900 nm spectral range, from a ground vehicle moving at 3 km/h. Spectral measurements were collected on the northeast side of the canopy across four different dates (July 8th, 14th, 21st and August 12th) during 2021 season in a commercial vineyard (3 ha). Grapevines of Vitis vinifera L. Graciano planted on a VSP trellis were monitored at solar noon using stem water potential (Ψs) as reference indicators of plant water status. In total, 108 measurements of Ψs were taken (27 vines per date).

Calibration and prediction models were performed using Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression. The best prediction models for grapevine water status yielded a determination coefficient of cross-validation (r2cv) of 0.67 and a root mean square error of cross-validation (RMSEcv) of 0.131 MPa. This predictive model was employed to map the spatial variability of the vineyard water status and provided useful, practical information towards the implementation of appropriate irrigation strategies. The outcomes presented in this work show the great potential of this low-cost methodology to assess the vineyard stem water potential and its spatial variability in a commercial vineyard.

Inhibition of Oenococcus oeni during alcoholic fermentation by a selected Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain

The use of selected cultures of the species Lactiplantibacillus plantarum in Oenology has grown in prominence in recent years. While initial applications of this species centred very much around malolactic fermentation (MLF), there is strong evidence to show that certain strains can be harnessed for their bio-protective effects. Unwanted spontaneous MLF during alcoholic fermentation (AF), driven by rogue Oenococcus oeni, is a winemaking deviation that is very difficult to manage when it occurs. This work set out to determine the efficacy of one particular strain of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum(Viniflora® NoVA™ Protect), against this problem in Cabernet Sauvignon must. The work was carried out at commercial scale and in a winery environment and compared the bio-protective culture with the more traditional approach of reducing must pH by the addition of tartaric acid. The combination of both was also investigated. The concentration of both Oenococcus oeni and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum was determined using qPCR. The adventitious Oenococcus oeni showed the most growth during AF in the control wine, whereas in the wines treated with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum a bacteriostatic effect against this species was observed. This effect was comparable to the wines treated with tartaric acid. This has particular commercial relevance for controlling the flora in musts with high pH, or when the addition of tartaric acid is either not permitted or is prohibitive for other reasons.

What are the optimal ranges and thresholds for berry solar radiation for flavonoid biosynthesis?

In wine grape production, canopy management practices are applied to control the source-sink balance and improve the cluster microclimate to enhance berry composition. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal ranges of berry solar radiation exposure (exposure) for upregulation of flavonoid biosynthesis and thresholds for their degradation, to evaluate how canopy management practices such as leaf removal, shoot thinning, and a combination of both affect the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) yield components, berry composition, and flavonoid profile under context of climate change. First experiment assessed changes in the grape flavonoid content driven by four degrees of exposure. In the second experiment, individual grape berries subjected to different exposures were collected from two cultivars (Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot). The third experiment consisted of an experiment with three canopy management treatments (i) LR (removal of 5 to 6 basal leaves), (ii) ST (thinned to 24 shoots per vine), and (iii) LRST (a combination of LR and ST) and an untreated control (UNT). Berry composition, flavonoid content and profiles, and 3-isobutyl 2-methoxypyrazine were monitored during berry ripening. Although increasing canopy porosity through canopy management practices can be helpful for other purposes, this may not be the case of flavonoid compounds when a certain proportion of kaempferol was achieved. Our results revealed different sensitivities to degradation within the flavonoid groups, flavonols being the only monitored group that was upregulated by solar radiation. Within different canopy management practices, the main effects were due to the ST. Under environmental conditions given in this trial, ST and LRST hastened fruit maturity; however, a clear improvement of the flavonoid compounds (i.e., greater anthocyanin) was not observed at harvest. Methoxypyrazine berry content decreased with canopy management practices studied. Although some berry traits were improved (i.e. 2.5° Brix increase in berry total soluble solids) due to canopy management practices (ST), this resulted in a four-fold increase in labor operations cost, two-fold decrease in yield with a 10-fold increase in anthocyanin production cost per hectare that should be assessed together as the climate continues to get hot.

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[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"...

Effects of organic mulches on the soil environment and yield of grapevine

Farming management practices aiming at conserving soil moisture have been developed in arid and semiarid-areas facing water scarcity problems. Organic mulching is an effective method to manipulate the crop-growing microclimate increasing crop yield by controlling soil temperature, and retaining soil moisture by reducing soil evaporation. In this sense, the effectiveness of different organic mulching materials (straw mulch and grapevine pruning debris) applied within the row of a vineyard was evaluated on the soil and on the vine in a Tempranillo vineyard located in La Rioja (Spain). Organic mulches were compared with a traditional bare soil management technique (based on the use of herbicides to avoid weed incidence). Mulching coverages favourably influenced the soil water retention throughout all the grapevine vegetative cycle. However, the soil-moisture variation was not the same under different mulching materials, being the straw mulch (SM) the one that retained more water in comparison with grapevine pruning debris (GPD) based-cover. The changes of soil moisture in the upper surface layer (0–10 cm) were highly dynamic, probably due to water vapour fluxes across the soil-atmospheric interface. However, both, SM and GPD reduced these fluctuations as compared with bare soils. A similar trend occurred with soil temperature. Both organic mulches altered soil temperature in comparison with bare soil by reducing soil temperature in summer and raising it in winter. Moreover, the same buffering effect for the temperature on the covered soil also remains in the deeper layers. To conclude, we could see that organic mulching had a positive impact on soil-moisture storage and soil temperature and the extent of this effect depends on the type of mulching materials. These changes led to higher rates of photosynthesis and stomatal conductivity compared to bare soils, also favouring crop growth and grape yields.