Determination of the maturity status of white grape berries (Vitis vinifera L. cv Chenin) through physical measurements

Monitoring vine water status is a major challenge for vineyard management because it influences both yield and harvest quality. It is also a challenge at the territorial scale for identifying periods of high water restriction or zones regularly impacted by water stress. This information is of major importance for defining collective strategies, anticipating harvest logistic or applying for irrigation authorisation. At this spatial scale, existing tools and methods for monitoring vine water status are few and often require strong assumptions (e.g. water balance model). This paper proposes to consider a collaborative collection of observations by winegrowers and wine industry stakeholders (crowdsourcing) as an interesting alternative. Indeed, it allows the collection of a large number of field observations while pooling the collection effort. However, the feasibility of such a project and its interest in monitoring vine water status at regional scale has never been tested.

The objective of this article is to explore the possibility of making a regional map of vine water status based on crowdsourcing observations. It is based on the study of the free mobile application ApeX-Vigne, which allows the collection of observations about vine shoot growth. This information is easy to collect and can be considered, under certain conditions, as a proxy for vine water status. This article presents the first results obtained from the nearly 18,000 observations collected by winegrowers and wine industry stakeholders during 2019, 2020 and 2021 seasons. It presents the vine shoot growth maps obtained at regional scale and their evolution over the three vintages studied. It also proposes an analysis of the factors that favoured the number of observations collected and those that favoured their quality. These results open up new perspectives for monitoring vine water status at a regional scale but above they provide references for other crowdsourcing projects in viticulture.

The favorable effect of symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been known and studied since the 60s. Nowadays, many companies took the chance to start promoting and selling commercial inoculants of AMF, in order to be used as biofertilizers and encourage sustainable biological agriculture. However, the positive effect of these commercial biofertilizers on plant growth is not always demonstrated, especially under field conditions. In this study, we used a commercial inoculum on newly planted grapevines of a local cultivar grafted on a common rootstock R110. We followed the physiological status of vines, growth and productivity and functional biodiversity of soil bacteria during the first and second years of 20 inoculated with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseaeAMF at field planting time and 20 non-inoculated control plants. All the parameters measured showed a neutral to negative effect on plant growth and production. The inoculated plants always presented lower values of photosynthesis, growth and grape production, although in some cases the differences did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, the inoculation supposed an increase of the bacterial functional diversity, although the differences were not statistically significant either. Several studies show that the effect of inoculation with AMF is context-dependent. The non-favorable effects are probably due to inoculation ineffectiveness under complex field conditions and/or that, under certain conditions, AMF presence may be a parasitic association. This puts into question the effectiveness of its application in the field. Therefore, it is recommended to only resort to this type of biofertilizer when the cultivation conditions require it (e.g., very low previous microbial diversity, foreseeable stress due to drought, salinity, or lack of nutrients) and not as a general fertilization practice.

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

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 objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.