Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Report on the work carried out by the zoning group of the O.I.V.

Report on the work carried out by the zoning group of the O.I.V.

Abstract

[English version below]

La création officielle du groupe Experts Zonage Vitivinicole à l’O.I.V., qui s’inscrit dans la Commission Viticulture, est récente. Le Professeur Mario FREGONI en assure la présidence depuis 1998, assisté du vice-président et du secrétaire général Mario FALCETTI. Ils ont été confirmés dans leurs fonctions lors des sessions de mars 2001. Actuellement, le groupe d’experts Zonage Vitivinicole de l’O.I.V. se compose de 40 délégués, représentant 18 pays membres. La mise en place de ce groupe a tout d’abord été initiée par l’Instituto Agrario de San Michele (Italie) et l’Unité de Recherches Vigne et Vin du Centre INRA d’Angers (France). Une collaboration entre les chercheurs s’est installée très tôt, dès 1987. Puis, celle-ci a été très largement encouragée lors de contacts établis par le Chargé de Mission de l’Ambassade R.S.A. en France, au près des diverses équipes qui travaillent sur le sujet (San Michele, Angers, Piacenza, Milan, Madrid), ainsi qu’avec la Direction Générale de l’Institut National des Appellations d’Origine de France. Tous les échanges ont conduit au 1er Colloque International sur les Terroirs Viticoles à Angers en 1996 avec une organisation bicéphale (URVV Angers et ISVV Montpellier). Une enquête de l’O.I.V. sur les travaux de zonage vitivinicole a été réalisée en 1997 et 1998 et les résultats restitués en 1999. Elle fait ressortir le nombre important d’études entreprises dans le monde, en France surtout, mais également en Italie. Trois congrès ont suivi : Sienne en 1998, Tenerife en 2000 et Avignon en 2002. Une des principales résolutions a été exprimée lors des conclusions du dernier congrès à Tenerife. Elle suggère de créer des groupes nationaux ayant pour objectif de faire le point, par pays, sur les dossiers “terroirs” et de réfléchir sur les méthodologies employées. Le souci majeur est de faire ressortir les éléments du milieu naturel qui concourent à l’originalité des vins d’une région, afin d’en expliciter les effets. L’objectif à atteindre est bien de préciser pour une région viticole donnée, les facteurs naturels qui génèrent « l’authenticité » par une prise en compte rationnelle de la variabilité induite par le couple génotype x milieu. De ce fait, la notion de «Terroir» devient un élément clé, mais il doit être précisé.

The official establishment of the group of experts of distribution in zones of OIV Vitiviniculture which arises from the Commission of vine growing – is recent. The professor Mario FREGONI is its present since 1998, and he has been re-elected during March 2001 meetings assisted of vice-president and company secretary Mario FALCETTI. Nowadays, the OIV Vitiviniculture Zoning Expert Group is composed by 40 delegates, representing 18 member countries. The creation of this group has been initiated by the Instituto Agrario of San Michele (Italy) and Unité de Recherches Vigne et Vin of INRA centre of Angers (France). Collaboration between the researchers has been installed since 1987. The responsible of the Embassy of R.S.A. in France has been establishing contacts with the several teams (San Michele, Angers, Piacenza, Milan, Madrid) that work on the matter and with the General Direction of Institut National des Appellations d’Origine (INAO), France. All the exchanges have led to the, First International conference on the Terroir at Angers in 1996, organized by URVV Angers and ISVV Montpellier. An OIV enquiry on the vitiviniculture zoning works was realized in 97 and 98 and the results published in 99. It shows the important number of undertaken studies in the world, especially in France, but also in Italy. Three congresses followed: Siena in 1998, Tenerife in 2000 and Avignon in 2002. One of the main resolutions approved at the end of the last meeting, Tenerife 2000, suggests creating national groups with the objective to define, per country, the «Terroir » files and to reflect upon the used methodologies. The major issue is to show the elements of the natural environment that contributes to the originality of the wines of a region as to show its influences. The aim is to describe for a specific viticultural region the natural factors that generate the « authenticity » through taking rationally into account the variability induced by interaction between genotype and environment. As such, the notion of «Terroir » becomes a key element, but needs to be précised.

DOI:

Publication date: February 15, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2002

Type: Article

Authors

ASSELIN Christian

INRA UVV – 42 rue Georges Morel – 49070 BEAUCOUZE

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2002

Citation

Related articles…

‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (Vitis vinifera L.) berry skin flavonol and anthocyanin composition is affected by trellis systems and applied water amounts

Trellis systems are selected in wine grape vineyards to mainly maximize vineyard yield and maintain berry quality. This study was conducted in 2020 and 2021 to evaluate six commonly utilized trellis systems including a vertical shoot positioning (VSP), two relaxed VSPs (VSP60 and VSP80), a single high wire (SH), a high quadrilateral (HQ), and a guyot (GY), combined with three levels of irrigation regimes based on different crop evapotranspiration (ETc) replacements, including a 25% ETc, 50% ETc, and 100% ETc. The results indicated SH yielded the most fruits and accumulated the most total soluble solids (TSS) at harvest in 2020, however, it showed the lowest TSS in the second season. In 2020, SH and HQ showed higher concentrations in most of the anthocyanin derivatives compared to the VSPs. Similar comparisons were noticed in 2021 as well. SH and HQ also accumulated more flavonols in both years compared to other trellis systems. Overall, this study provides information on the efficacy of trellis systems on grapevine yield and berry flavonoid accumulation in a currently warming climate.

Frost risk projections in a changing climate are highly sensitive in time and space to frost modelling approaches

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports.
The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90.
Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.

The concept of terroir: what place for microbiota?

Microbes play key roles on crop nutrient availability via biogeochemical cycles, rhizosphere interactions with roots as well as on plant growth and health. Recent advances in technologies, such as High Throughput Sequencing Techniques, allowed to gain deeper insight on the structure of bacterial and fungal communities associated with soil, rhizosphere and plant phyllosphere. Over the past 10 years, numerous scientific studies have been carried out on the microbial component of the vineyard. Whether the soil or grape compartments have been taken into account, many studies agree on the evidence of regional delineations of microbial communities, that may contribute to regional wine characteristics and typicity. Some authors proposed the term “microbial terroir” including “yeast terroir” for grapes to describe the connection between microbial biogeography and regional wine characteristics. Many factors are involved in terroir including climate, soil, cultivar and human practices as well as their interactions. Studies considering “microbial terroir” greatly contributed to improve our knowledge on factors that shape the vineyard microbial structure and diversity. However, the potential impact of “microbial terroir” on wine composition has yet not received strong scientific evidence and many questions remain to be addressed, related to the functional characterization of the microbial community and its impact on plant physiology and grape composition, the origins and interannual stability of vineyard microbiota, as well as their impact on wine sensorial attributes. The presentation will give an overview on the role of microbiota as a terroir component and will highlight future perspectives and challenges on this key subject for the wine industry.

The rootstock, the neglected player in the scion transpiration even during the night

Water is the main limiting factor for yield in viticulture. Improving drought adaptation in viticulture will be an increasingly important issue under climate change. Genetic variability of water deficit responses in grapevine partly results from the rootstocks, making them an attractive and relevant mean to achieve adaptation without changing the scion genotype. The objective of this work was to characterize the rootstock effect on the diurnal regulation of scion transpiration. A large panel of 55 commercial genotypes were grafted onto Cabernet Sauvignon. Three biological repetitions per genotype were analyzed. Potted plants were phenotyped on a greenhouse balance platform capable of assessing real-time water use and maintaining a targeted water deficit intensity. After a 10 days well-watered baseline period, an increasing water deficit was applied for 10 days, followed by a stable water deficit stress for 7 days. Pruning weight, root and aerial dry weight and transpiration were recorded and the experiment was repeated during two years. Transpiration efficiency (ratio between aerial biomass and transpiration) was calculated and δ13C was measured in leaves for the baseline and stable water deficit periods. A large genetic variability was observed within the panel. The rootstock had a significant impact on nocturnal transpiration which was also strongly and positively correlated with maximum daytime transpiration. The correlations with growth and water use efficiency related traits will be discussed. Transpiration data were also related with VPD and soil water content demonstrating the influence of environmental conditions on transpiration. These results highlighted the role of the rootstock in modulating water deficit responses and give insights for rootstock breeding programs aimed at identifying drought tolerant rootstocks. It was also helpful to better define the mechanisms on which the drought tolerance in grapevine rootstocks is based on.

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.