Establishment of a geodatabase ‘for the characterization of the viticultural “terroirs” of “canton de Vaud” (Switzerland)

Grapevine is grown as a graft since the end of the 19th century. Rootstocks not only provide tolerance to Phylloxera but also ensure the supply of water and mineral nutrients to the scion. Rootstocks are an important mean of adaptation to environmental conditions, because the scion controls the typical features of the grapes and wine. However, among the large diversity of rootstocks worldwide, few of them are commercially used in the vineyard. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which rootstocks modify the mineral composition of the petioles of the scion. Vitis vinifera cvs. Cabernet-Sauvignon, Pinot noir, Syrah and Ugni blanc were grafted onto 55 different rootstock genotypes and planted in a vineyard as three replicates of 5 vines. Petioles were collected in the cluster zone with 6 replicates per combination. Petiolar concentrations of 13 mineral elements (N, P, K, S, Mg, Ca, Na, B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Al) at veraison were determined. Scion, rootstock and the interaction explained the same proportion of the phenotypic variance for most mineral elements. Rootstock genotype showed a significant influence on the petiole mineral element composition. Rootstock effect explained from 7 % for Cu to 25 % for S of the variance. The difference of rootstock conferred mineral status is discussed in relation to vigor and fertility. Rootstocks were also genotyped with 23 microsatellite markers. Data were analysed according to genetic groups in order to determine whether the petiole mineral composition could be related to the genetic parentage of the rootstock. Thanks to a highly powerful design, it is the first time that such a large panel of rootstocks grafted with 4 scions has been studied. These results give the opportunity to better characterize the rootstocks and to enlarge the diversity used in the vineyard.

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.

In response to changes in their environment, grapevines regulate transpiration using various physiological mechanisms that alter conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Expressed as bulk stomatal conductance at the canopy scale, it varies diurnally in response to changes in vapor pressure deficit and net radiation, and over the season to changes in soil water deficits and hydraulic conductivity of both soil and plant. It is necessary to characterize the response of conductance to these variables to better model how vine transpiration also responds to these variables. Furthermore, to be relevant for vineyard-scale modeling, conductance is best characterized using data collected in a vineyard setting. Applying a crop canopy energy flux model developed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, bulk stomatal conductance was estimated using measurements of individual vine sap flow, temperature and humidity within the vine canopy, and estimates of net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy. These measurements were taken on several vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France, using equipment that did not interfere with ongoing vineyard operations. An inverted Penman-Monteith equation was then used to calculate bulk stomatal conductance on 15-minute intervals from July to mid-September 2020. Time-series plots show significant diurnal variation and seasonal decreases in conductance, with overall values similar to those in the literature. Global sensitivity analysis using non-parametric regression found transpiration flux and vapor pressure deficit to be the most important input variables to the calculation of bulk stomatal conductance, with absorbed net radiation and bulk boundary layer conductance being much less important. Conversely, bulk stomatal conductance was one of the most important inputs when calculating vine transpiration, further emphasizing the need for characterizing its response to environmental changes for use in vineyard water use modeling.

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.