Investigation on harvesting period choices for correct interpretation of experimental results

By dissecting the root system architecture (RSA) into its underpinning components (e.g. root emission, axial growth, radial growth, branching, root direction or tropism) and identifying the relationships between them, functional-structural 3D root models are promising tools for analyzing the diversity and complexity of root system phenotypes with Genotype × Environment interactions. The model parameters are assumed to be synthetic traits, less influenced by the environment, and consequently with less polygenic architectures than the integrative RSA traits they drive. Root models can serve as a basis for in silico development of root system ideotypes by highlighting the developmental processes and parameters that most likely influence RSA fitness.

The bioprotection of musts or grapes is a strategy for limiting sulfiting during winemaking and more specifically at pre-fermentative step. The most preconized yeasts in bioprotection mainly belong to Metschnikowia pulcherrima and Torulaspora delbrueckii species. While previous studies have demonstrated that bioprotectant non-Saccharomyces strains were able to protect musts and wines against microbial spoilage as well as sulfites, they cannot protect must against oxidation which appears to be the main limit of this practice.

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

For a long time environment was known as one of the most important factors to characterize the quality of wines but at the same time it appears very difficult to distinguish inside the “terroir” the role of the single factor. These remarks partially explain why methods for viticultural evaluation are often quite different (Amerine et al., 1944; Antoniazzi et al., 1986; Asselin et al., 1987; Astruc et al., 1980; Bonfils, 1977; Boselli, 1991; Colugnati, 1990; Costantinescu, 1967; Costantini et al., 1987; Dutt et al., 1981; Falcetti et al., 1992; Fregoni et al., 1992; Hidalgo, 1980; Intrieri et al., 1988; Laville, 1990; Morlat et al., 1991; Scienza et al., 1990; Shubert et al., 1987; Turri et al., 1991).

Sustainable viticulture and winemaking continue to represent huge challenges, where a better knowledge about the functional role of biodiversity in the vineyard ecosystems is required.