Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Revisión de estudios sobre suelos vitícolas de las tierras del Jerez

Revisión de estudios sobre suelos vitícolas de las tierras del Jerez

Abstract

Dada la importancia de los suelos y de los substratos geológicos en la zonificación vitivinícola, los autores realizan una revisión de estudios sobre las formaciones más importantes en la D.O. Jerez-Xérès-Sherry y Manzanilla-Sanlúcar de Barrameda.
En el concepto de Pago vitícola (PEMARTÍN, 1965; Paneque et al., 1996 a, b, c; González GordOn, 1990; García de LujÁn, 1997) se destaca la singularidad del tipo o clase de suelo, subsuelo y substrato geológico que, conjuntamente con otras circunstancias ambientales, participan e intervienen en su delimitación (Suter y Palacios, 1857), caracterización y funcionamiento (Carbonel y BRAVO, 1820; EchegarAy, 1852; BARBADILLO, 1996).
El marco o región del Jerez y de la Manzanilla representa una de las regiones vitinícolas más antiguas de la Península Ibérica (Sáez fernández, 1995; Hidalgo, 1999). Los suelos citados por Columela como más importantes para el cultivo de la vid (cretosi, sabulosi y palustres) tienen distinta importancia en la calidad del viñedo y del vino, como se manifiesta por algunos autores citados, y especialmente por Boutelou (1807), Fernández Bobadilla (1949), García del Barrio (1972, 1979, 1988) y García de LujÁn (1997). Suelos calizos, silíceos y otros se citan en el Estudio Agrobiológico de la Provincia de Cádiz (CEBAC, 1963) y en el Mapa del INIA (1971), con la descripción morfológica de sus horizontes, la situación en el terreno y la caracterización analítica de los mismos, etc. Sin duda alguna, distintos Calcisols (CL), Cambisols (CB), Vertisols (VR), Leptosols (LP) y otros Grupos de suelos (ISRIC, ISSS, FAO, 1998); y lustrillos, polvillejos y barros rojos sobre albarizas (García del Barrio, 1979) y otros tipos de rocas (GAVALA laborde, 1959; IGME, 1977, 1988), muestran la diversidad de formaciones edafogeológicas en el viñedo del Jerez.

DOI:

Publication date: February 24, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2000

Type: Article

Authors

PANEQUE, G. (1), ROCA, M. (2), PANEQUE, P. (1), PARDO, C. (2), ALDECOA, J. (2)

(1) Departamento de Cristalografía, Mineralogía y Química Agrícola. Facultad de Química. Universidad de Sevilla
(2) Laboratorio de Edafología y Climatología. Escuela Universitaria de Ingeniería Técnica Agrícola. Cortijo de Cuarto. Diputación de Sevilla

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2000

Citation

Related articles…

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

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.

Short-term relationships between climate and grapevine trunk diseases in southern French vineyards

[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"...

Influence of weather and climatic conditions on the viticultural production in Croatia

The research includes an analysis of the impact of weather conditions on phenological development of the vine and grape quality, through monitoring of four experimental cultivars (Chardonnay, Graševina, Merlot and Plavac mali) over two production years. In each experimental vineyard, which were evenly distributed throughout the regions of Slavonia and The Croatian Danube, Croatian Uplands,

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

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.