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

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

The aromatic profile of a wine is the result of volatile molecules present in grapes (varietal or primary aromas) and those produced during the winemaking process of fermentation (secondary aromas) and during wine aging (tertiary aromas).

Vineyard site selection and determination of adapted grape varieties for a site are the most fundamental factors contributing to vineyard success, but can be challenging to ascertain

Fungal chitosan is a polysaccharide made up of glucosamine and N-acetyl-glucosamine and derived from chitin-glucan of Aspergillus niger or Agaricus bisporus. Fungal chitosan has been authorized as an antiseptic agent in wine since 2009 (OIV) and in organic wine in 2018. At the maximum dose of 10g/hl, it was shown to eliminate Brettanomyces bruxellensis, the main spoilage agent in red wines. Fungal chitosan is highly renewable, biocompatible (ADI equivalent to sucrose) and non-allergenic. However, winemakers often prefer to use sulfites (SO2), though sulfites are classified as priority food allergens, than chitosan. Indeed, many conflicting reports exist regarding its efficiency and its side effects towards beneficial wine microorganisms or wine taste. These contradictions could be explained by the heterogeneity of the fungal chitosan lots traded, the diversity of the wines (chemical composition, winemaking process), but also, by the recently highlighted huge genetic diversity prevailing in wine microbial species.

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.