The effect of terroir zoning on pomological, chemical and aromatic composition of Muscat d’Alexandrie grapevine variety cultivated in Tunisia

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.

The aim of this work was to analyze the phenology variability of Tempranillo and Chardonnay cultivars, related to the climatic characteristics in La Mancha Designation of Origin, and their potential changes under climate change scenarios. Phenological dates referred to budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest were analyzed for the period 2000-2019. The weather conditions at daily time scale, recorded during the same period, were also evaluated. The thermal requirements to reach each of these phenological stages were calculated and expressed as the GDD accumulated from DOY=60. Changes in phenology were projected by 2050 and 2070 taking into account those values and the projected temperatures and precipitation, simulated under two Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios –RCP4.5 and RCP8.5– using an ensemble of models. The average phenological dates during the period under study were, April 16th ± 6.6 days and April 5th ± 6.0 days for budbreak, May 31st ± 6.0 days and May 27th ± 5.3 days for flowering, July 26th ± 5.6 days and July 25th ± 5.8 days for veraison, and Ago 23rd ± 10.8 days and Ago 17th ± 9.0 days for harvest, respectively, for Tempranillo and Chardonnay. The projected changes in temperature imply an average change in the maximum growing season (April-August) temperatures of 1.2 and 1.9°C by 2050, and 1.6 and 2.6°C by 2070, under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios, respectively. A reduction in precipitation is predicted, which vary between 15% for 2050 under RCP4.5 scenario and up to 30% by 2070 under RCP8.5. The advance of the phenological dates for 2050, could be of 6, 7, 7, and 8 days for Tempranillo and 4, 6, 6 and 9 days for Chardonnay, respectively for budbreak, flowering, veraison and harvest under the RCP4.5 scenario. Under the RCP8.5 emission scenario, the advance could be up to 30% higher.

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

The research includes an analysis of the impact of weather conditions on phenological development of the vine and grape quality, through monitoring of four experimental cultivars (Chardonnay, Graševina, Merlot and Plavac mali) over two production years. In each experimental vineyard, which were evenly distributed throughout the regions of Slavonia and The Croatian Danube, Croatian Uplands,

Agriculture, natural resource management and the production and sale of products such as wine are increasingly data-driven activities. Thus, the use of remote and proximal crop and soil sensors to aid management decisions is becoming commonplace and ‘Agtech’ is proliferating commercially; mapping, underpinned by geographical information systems and complex methods of spatial analysis, is widely used. Likewise, the chemical and sensory analysis of wines draws on multivariate statistics; the efficient winery intake of grapes, subsequent production of wines and their delivery to markets relies on logistics; whilst the sales and marketing of wines is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence linked to the recorded purchasing behaviour of consumers. In brief, there is data everywhere!

Opinions will vary on whether these developments are a good thing. Those concerned with the ‘mystique’ of wine, or the historical aspects of terroir and its preservation, may find them confronting. In contrast, they offer an opportunity to those interested in the biophysical elements of terroir, and efforts aimed at better understanding how these impact on vineyard performance and the sensory attributes of resultant wines. At the previous Terroir Congress, we demonstrated the potential of analytical methods used at the within-vineyard scale in the development of Precision Viticulture, in contributing to a quantitative understanding of regional terroir. For this conference, we take this approach forward with examples from contrasting locations in both the northern and southern hemispheres. We show how, by focussing on the vineyards within winegrowing regions, as opposed to all of the land within those regions, we might move towards a more robust terroir zoning than one derived from a mixture of history, thematic mapping, heuristics and the whims of marketers. Aside from providing improved understanding by underpinning terroir with data, such methods should also promote improved management of the entire wine value chain.