Clone performance under different environmental conditions in California

[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"...

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

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.

Water deficit is one of the most important effects of climate change able to affect agricultural sectors. In general, it determines a reduction in biomass production, and for some plants, as in the case of grapevine, it can endorse fruit quality. The monitoring and management of plant water stress 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.