Soil functional characteristics for qualitative Sangiovese wine production in Tuscany (Italy)

Nel 2007 è stata avviata una ricerca nell’areale di produzione del Franciacorta DOCG che ha riguardato un ampio numero di vigneti di Chardonnay con riferimento ai quali sono stati acquisite

Nous savons tous très bien qu’on a assisté au cours de ces dix dernières années à une éclosion soudaine de recherches sur le zonage viti-vinicole qui, à partir par exemple du modèle du concept de “terroir”, se sont de plus en plus enrichies en passant aux “Unités ou Systèmes de Transformation” (UTTE) et “Valorisation” (UTCE) pour terminer avec les “Systèmes productifs globaux du Territoire” (UTB) comprenant en filière les aspects existentiels (UTBES), sociaux (UTBSO) et économiques (UTBEC) hypothisés dans le “GRANDE ZONAZIONE: Grand zonage” (MORLAT R., 1996, CARBONNEAU A., 1996, TOUZARD J.M. 1998, CARBONNEAU A., CARGNELLO G., 1996, 1998, CARGNELLO G., 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, -MILOTIC A., CARGNELLO G., PERSURIC G., 1999, PERSURIC G., STAYER M., CARGNELLO G., 2000, MILOTIC A., OPLANIC M., CARGNELLO G., PERSURIC G., 2000).

It seems implausible that the geographical development of the vineyards could have been affected by a shift in the positions of the Earth’continents

Soil is important in the carbon cycle and the dynamics of greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4 and N2O). Key soil characteristics, such as organic matter content, texture, structure, pH and microbial activity, play a determining role in GHG emissions[1]. The objective of the study is to delimit different types of soil, with different soil management and to be able to verify the differences in CO2, CH4 and N2O emissions. The study was carried out in a vineyard of Bodegas Campo Viejo in Logroño (La Rioja), whose plant material is Vitis vinifera L. cv. Tempranillo.

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.