Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Enological, economical, social and viticulture ”terroir” units as fundamental elements of mosaic of “big” zoning

Enological, economical, social and viticulture ”terroir” units as fundamental elements of mosaic of “big” zoning

Abstract

[English version below]

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).

Nous sommes donc arrivés à supposer que pour zoner en viticulture, et non pas seulement en viticulture, il faut partir des considérations : existentielles, sociales, économiques qui représentent les différents échelons des grands objectifs du zonage, en se servant pour les rejoindre des moyens placés en filière suivants : “terroir” vignoble (exemple : variété, clones, écartement, systèmes de conduite, gestion de la végétation, de la production et de la vendange, etc.), cave ( exemple : utilisation des appareillages, technologies et techniques d’innovation, etc.), communication, marketing, etc., comme on l’a prévu dans le “GRAND ZONAGE” (CARGNELLO G., 1996). Pour vérifier la validité de cette “nouvelle” organisation du zonage viti-vinicole, nous avons conduit en Istrie (Croatie) pour une durée de 5 ans des recherches pour établir si le zonage devait descendre uniquement des aspects concernant le “terroir” ou s’il devait descendre des aspects qui partent de considérations d’ordre social et économique et ensuite de celles “techniques” comprenant la cave, le vignoble, le terrain et le climat. Les recherches conduites en Istrie (Croatie) sur les objectifs et sur les moyens cités ci-dessus ont démontré ultérieurement la validité de ce moyen de procéder dans le zonage viti-vinicole. Elles ont démontré par ailleurs que l’incidence du “terroir” à un niveau décisionnel dans le zonage viti-vinicole peut s’amenuiser par rapport aux autres composantes et en être même dépassée, c’est-à-dire que l’on a justement décidé dans certains cas de faire un vignoble dans un terroir non adapté à la viticulture car les “Unités de Culture Viticole, de Transformation, de Valorisation” et les systèmes productifs globaux ont eu une importance fondamentale pour le zonage. Ces recherches seront exposées dans cette communication.

In the any last decade was the large number of research about viticulture zoning. The begin of zoning research was funded on the term and principle of “terroir”. Then, the term “terroir” was divided to “unite de terroir de base”, “unité de système de culture viticole”, “unite o sisteme de transformation e valorizazion” and as the last new segment “sistemi produtivi globali del territorio” (the global productive system of territory). All this new terms, with a respect to social and economical aspects has a unique name of ”.big” zoning (GRANDE ZONAZIONE) (MORLAT R. 1996, CARBONNEAU A., 1996, TOUZARD J.M., CARBONNEAU A., CARGNELLO G., 1998, CARGNELLO G., 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2001, MILOTIC A., CARGNELLO G., PERSURIC G. 1999, PERSURIC G., STAVER M., CARGNELLO G., 2000, MILOTIC A, OPLANIC M., CARGNELLO G., PERSURIC G., 2000).

According quoted annotation for successfully process of viticulture zoning, and not only to viticulture, need to start of next items : existence, social aspects, economic aspects, which present the different stairs in the zoning process. The sequence of next terms, “terroir” – vineyards (for example: variety, clone, training form, canopy management, yield and other) – vine cellar (for example : technology of wine making) – communication – marketing make a important factors to process of “big” zoning.For confirm the quoted “new” hypothesis in the zoning process was done the research in the Istria (Croatia). For needs of research was taken all social and economical aspects and then the different techniques in vine growing and wine making, and the characteristics of soil am climate.The research made in Istria was confirmed the hypothesis of “big” zoning process. This research was confirmed also the importance of “terroir” and in the same moment the importance of lower units “unite de culture viticole de transformation de valorisation” for viticulture production.

DOI:

Publication date: February 15, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2002

Type: Article

Authors

PERSURIC G. (1), CARGNEILO G. (2), GLUIDC D. (1), STA VER M. (1), OPLANIC M. (1)

(1) Istitute for Agriculture and Tourism, C. Hugues 8, 52440 POREC, Croatia (HR)
(2) SOC Tecniche Colturali – lstituto Sperimentale per la Viticoltura, Viale XXVIII Aprile, 26 – 31015 Conegliano (Treviso) Italia

Contact the author

Keywords

Zonage viti-vinicole globale d’innovation Istrie
Viticulture zoning, “big” zoning, Istria, Viticulture

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2002

Citation

Related articles…

Adaptation to soil and climate through the choice of plant material

Choosing the rootstock, the scion variety and the training system best suited to the local soil and climate are the key elements for an economically sustainable production of wine. The choice of the rootstock/scion variety best adapted to the characteristics of the soil is essential but, by changing climatic conditions, ongoing climate change disrupts the fine-tuned local equilibrium. Higher temperatures induce shifts in developmental stages, with on the one hand increasing fears of spring frost damages and, on the other hand, ripening during the warmest periods in summer. Expected higher water demand and longer and more frequent drought events are also major concerns. The genetic control of the phenotypes, by genomic information but also by the epigenetic control of gene expression, offers a lot of opportunities for adapting the plant material to the future. For complex traits, genomic selection is also a promising method for predicting phenotypes. However, ecophysiological modelling is necessary to better anticipate the phenotypes in unexplored climatic conditions Genetic approaches applied on parameters of ecophysiological models rather than raw observed data are more than ever the basis for finding, or building, the ideal varieties of the future.

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.

‘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.

The use of rootstock as a lever in the face of climate change and dieback of vineyard

As viticulture faces challenges such as climate change or vineyard dieback, the choice of the variety and rootstock becomes more and more crucial. To study rootstock levers in the Bordeaux region, a parcel of Cabernet Sauvignon (CS) was planted with four rootstocks in 2014. Twenty repetitions of each of the following four rootstocks were set up: 101-14 MGt, Nemadex AB, 420A MGt and Gravesac. The number of bunches, yields and pruning weights of the vine shoots were measured individually on 240 vines from 2017 to 2021. Since 2020, nitrogen status assessed by assimilable nitrogen level, hydric status assessed by δ13C and berry maturity were measured on 80 samples taken from 20 repetitions of the four rootstocks. A lower yield was measured for CS grafted onto Nemadex AB due to the lower number of bunches and the lower weight of berries. The differences between the other three rootstocks are small, but CS grafted onto 420A MGt was the most productive. The CS grafted onto Nemadex AB had the lowest pruning weight while 101-14 MGt had the highest. In 2020, δ13C showed a more moderate water stress with 101-14 MGt and 420A MGt than with Nemadex AB. Surprisingly, the Gravesac was under more stress than the 101-14 MGt. The nitrogen status in the berries was better for Nemadex AB but this was perhaps due to the significantly lower weight of the berries.Rootstock 101-14 MGt attained the highest accumulation of sugars in the berries while 420A MGt allows to preserve higher acidity. The parcel is still young which may explain some of the results. These measures must therefore be continued over the next several years to fully assess the effects of these rootstocks on the development of the vines and the quality of the production under new climatic conditions.

Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.