Viticultural zoning applications at the detailed scale of a cooperative winery: terroirs in St­hilaire-d’Ozilhan (AOC Côtes-du-Rhône)

Climate change impacts regional and local climates, which in turn affects the world’s wine regions. In the short term, these modifications rises issues about maintaining quality and style of wine, and in a longer term about the suitability of grape varieties and the sustainability of traditional wine regions. Thus, adaptation to climate change represents a major challenge for viticulture. In this context, island and coastal vineyards could become coveted areas due to their specific climatic conditions. In regions subject to warming, the proximity of the sea can moderate extremes temperatures, which could be an advantage for wine. However, coastal and island areas are particular prized spaces and subject to multiple pressures that make the establishment or extension of viticulture complex. In this perspective, it seems relevant to assess the potentialities of coastal and island areas for viticulture. This contribution will present a spatial optimization model that tends to characterize most suitable agroclimatic patterns in historical or emerging vineyards according to different scenarios. Thanks to an in-depth bibliography a global inventory of coastal and insular vineyards on a worldwide scale has been realized. Relevant criteria have been identified to describe the specificities of these vineyards. They are used as input data in the optimization process, which will optimize some objectives and spatial aspects. According to a predefined scenario, the objectives are set in three main categories associated with climatic characteristics, vineyards characteristics and management strategies. At the end of this optimization process, a series of maps presents the different spatial configurations that maximize the scenario objectives.

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.

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.

Commercial grape production relies on training grapevine cultivars onto a variety of trellis systems. Training allows for well-lit leaves and clusters, maximizing fruit quality in addition to facilitating cultivation, harvesting, and diseases control. Although grapevines can be trained onto an infinite variety of trellis systems, most red and white cultivars are trained to the standard VSP (Vertical Shoot Positioning) system. However, red and white cultivars respond differently to VSP in fruit composition and growth characteristics, which are yet to be fully understood. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of the VSP trellis system on fruit composition of three red, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Syrah, and three white, Chardonnay, Riesling, and Gewurztraminer cultivars grown under uniform growing conditions in the same vineyard. All cultivars were monitored for maturity and harvested at their physiologically maximum possible sugar concentration to compare various fruit quality attributes such as Brix, pH, TA, malic and tartaric acids, glucose and fructose, potassium, YAN, and phenolic compounds including total anthocyanins, anthocyanin profile, and tannins. A distinct pattern in fruit composition was observed in each cultivar. In regards to growth characteristics, Syrah grew vigorously with the highest cluster weight. Although all cultivars developed pyriform seeds, the seed size and weight varied among all cultivars. Also varied were mesocarp cell viability, brush morphology, and cane structure. This knowledge of the canopy architectural characteristics assessed by the widely employed fruit compositional attributes and growth characteristics will aid the growers in better management of the vines in varied situations.

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.