On the relationship between climate and “terroir” at different spatial scales: the input of new methodological tools

In this video recording of the IVES science meeting 2024, Stéphane La Guerche (Œnoppia, Paris, France) speaks about wine labelling with the list of ingredients: context, consumer’s perception and future challenges. This presentation is based on an original article accessible for free on IVES Technical Reviews.

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.

AIM. Wine yeast lees constitute a winemaking by-product that, unlike grape skins and seeds, are not sufficiently exploited to add value to the winemaking sector, as their treatment and disposal generally represents a cost for wineries [1].

The climatic component is one of the elements of the zoning of viticultural potential, alongside the geological and pedological components (Morlat, 1989; Lebon et al , 1993). Many climatic indices have thus been defined to estimate the potential for wine production at the scale of a region or a country (Carbonneau et al ., 1992). The main climatic variables used are temperature and radiation. We note in particular the indices of Branas, Huglin and Ribereau-Gayon (Huglin, 1986). However, few studies have been undertaken on the spatial variability of microclimatic conditions at the scale of a vineyard, a valley, or even a municipality.

Multi-mineral wine profiling and artificial intelligence: implementing the signatures of each wine to train algorithms to meet the new challenges facing the wine industry. Although their quantity is minimal, minerals are essential elements in the composition of every wine. Their presence is the result of complex interactions between factors such as soil, vines, climate, topography, and viticultural practices, all influenced by the terroir. Each stage of the winemaking process also contributes to shaping the unique mineral and taste profile of each wine, giving each cuvée its distinctive characteristics.