Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 The origin and the discovery of “terroir”

The origin and the discovery of “terroir”

Abstract

Le mot “terroir” dérive du latin “terra”, mais déjà les Romains l’indiquaient comme “locus” ou”loci”, c’est-à-dire un lieu ayant le “genius”destiné à la production d’un produit d’excellente qualité. Les Égyptiens, les Juifs, les Grecs et les Romains employèrent les premiers le nom du lieu d’origine pour indiquer le vin sur le “pittacium” en argile qui était apposé sur les amphores en terre cuite qui contenaient le vin. De cette façon naquit la dénomination d’origine. Les peuples anciens de la Méditerranée n’ont pas utilisé le nom des variétés de vigne pour distinguer les différentes typologies de vin, mais leur lieu d’origine.
Les Grecs anciens, déjà à l’époque de Homère, choisissaient pour les vignes les terroirs qui permettaient la vie aux plantes du maquis méditerranéen, puisqu’ils étaient surs que le climat de ces lieux permettraient aux baies de mûrir parfaitement et de fournir des vins très corsés, fort structurés, riches en sucre et en alcool, mais pauvres en acides et en arômes facilement oxydables. Ce furent les anciens Romains qui en partant de la ”Provincia” de la Gaule transalpine remontèrent le Rhône, le Rhin, la Moselle, le Danube, et d’autres fleuves, en rependant la vigne dans le nord de l’Europe et en créant ce que l’on peut appeler la “viticulture fluviale”, qui s’oppose à la viticulture méditerranéenne pour la production de vins plus légers de corps, moins alcooliques, plus aromatiques, plus acides etc … Les Romains démontrèrent que la vigne peut mûrir même dans des climats plus septentrionaux, où les Grecs n’osèrent pas s’engager, en atteignant la limite septentrionale de culture du vignoble dans l’hémisphère Nord, c’est à dire jusqu’à 50° de latitude Nord.
Le premier exemple de délimitation géographique et territoriale nous vient de Pline (N.H., livre 14, chapitre V) qui avait étudié de façon approfondie le plus ancien cru Romain, c’est-à­-dire le Falernum.
Dans le premier siècle après J.-C., Pline décrit ainsi la zone de production du Falernum : “toute cette zone de la Campania qui s’étend en rive gauche du pont Campanus à la colonie urbaine de Silla est pleine de collines à vignobles très renommés à cause du très généreux vin qui prend le nom du village Falerne.”
C’est encore Plinius qui précise “à la gauche du pont commence la campagne de Falerne”.
Le pont cité existe encore sur le fleuve Liri et il lie l’ancienne Sineussa à la mer.
Son nom comme le dit Pline dérive du pays Falernum.
Le “genius loci” a été encore confirmé pendant le moyen-âge et pendant les époques historiques suivantes, jusqu’au moment où des règlements et des lois ont établi les premières délimitations de ces lieux. Plus tard, après la découverte de l’Amérique, la viticulture du nouveau Monde se développa, comprenant les Etats Unis, le Canada, l’Australie, la Nouvelle Zélande, l’Afrique du Sud et toute l’Amérique Latine, des pays qui, récemment, ont découvert l’importance du terroir.
Dans l’hémisphère sud, la vigne trouve sa limite de culture à 45° environ de latitude sud.
En 1700 fut délimitée par un document officiel (décret) la zone de production du Tokay Hongrois, suivie par celle du Chianti (1716) et celle du Porto (1755).
L’essence du terroir fut toutefois amplifiée en 1855 à Bordeaux avec la publication de la liste des “crus”. En effet, le “cru” est produit par un terroir ayant le “genius loci ” pour un vin d’excellente qualité. On fait remonter l’origine du terme “cru” à deux mots différents. Normalement on le définit comme participe passé du verbe “croître”, c’est-à-dire crû sur un terroir spécifique, mais, selon l’interprétation de certains latinistes d’anciennes abbayes françaises, cela signifie également “cru”, c’est-à-dire considéré comme “célèbre”, ayant une renommée auprès des consommateurs. C’est justement à travers les “crus” que les Français ont inventé le terme terroir, désormais utilisé dans tout le monde de la viticulture.

DOI:

Publication date: February 16, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2002 

Type: Article

Authors

M.FREGONI

Université Catholique – Piacenza (Italie)
Via E. Parmense, 84
29100 PIACENZA – Italie

Keywords

Histoire, Terroir, Appellation d’origine contrôlé

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2002

Citation

Related articles…

Effects of graft quality on growth and grapevine-water relations

Climate change is challenging viticulture worldwide compromising its sustainability due to warmer temperatures and the increased frequency of extreme events. Grafting Vitis vinifera L.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

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.

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.

Optimizing stomatal traits for future climates

Stomatal traits determine grapevine water use, carbon supply, and water stress, which directly impact yield and berry chemistry. Breeding for stomatal traits has the strong potential to improve grapevine performance under future, drier conditions, but the trait values that breeders should target are unknown. We used a functional-structural plant model developed for grapevine (HydroShoot) to determine how stomatal traits impact canopy gas exchange, water potential, and temperature under historical and future conditions in high-quality and hot-climate California wine regions (Napa and the Central Valley). Historical climate (1990-2010) was collected from weather stations and future climate (2079-99) was projected from 4 representative climate models for California, assuming medium- and high-emissions (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Five trait parameterizations, representing mean and extreme values for the maximum stomatal conductance (gmax) and leaf water potential threshold for stomatal closure (Ψsc), were defined from meta-analyses. Compared to mean trait values, the water-spending extremes (highest gmax or most negative Ysc) had negligible benefits for carbon gain and canopy cooling, but exacerbated vine water use and stress, for both sites and climate scenarios. These traits increased cumulative transpiration by 8 – 17%, changed cumulative carbon gain by -4 – 3%, and reduced minimum water potentials by 10 – 18%. Conversely, the water-saving extremes (lowest gmax or least negative Ψsc) strongly reduced water use and stress, but potentially compromised the carbon supply for ripening. Under RCP 8.5 conditions, these traits reduced transpiration by 22 – 35% and carbon gain by 9 – 16% and increased minimum water potentials by 20 – 28%, compared to mean values. Overall, selecting for more water-saving stomatal traits could improve water-use efficiency and avoid the detrimental effects of highly negative canopy water potentials on yield and quality, but more work is needed to evaluate whether these benefits outweigh the consequences of minor declines in carbon gain for fruit production.

Grapevine yield estimation in a context of climate change: the GraY model

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.