Estudio de fertilidad en variedades blancas en Castilla-la Mancha

This study aims to create an updated, agile viticultural climate index (similar to the Winkler Index) by performing in-depth analyses of current and historical data from industry partners in several major winegrowing regions. The Winkler Index was developed in the early twentieth century based on analysis of various grape-growing regions in California. The index uses heat accumulation (i.e. Growing Degree Days) throughout the growing season to determine which grape varieties are best suited to each region. As viticultural regions are increasingly subject to the complexity and uncertainty of a changing climate, a more rigorous, agile model is needed to aid grape growers in determining which cultivars to plant where. For the first phase of this study, 21 industry partners throughout Napa Valley shared historical phenology, harvest, viticultural practice, and weather data related to their Cabernet sauvignon vineyard blocks. To complement this data, berry samples were collected throughout the 2021 growing season from 50 vineyard blocks located throughout 16 American Viticultural Areas that were then analyzed for basic berry chemistry and phenolics. These blocks have been mapped using a Geographic Information System (GIS), enabling analysis of altitude, vineyard row orientation, slope, and remotely sensed climate data. Sampling sites were also chosen based on their proximity to a weather station. By analyzing historical data from industry partners and data specifically collected for this study, it is possible to identify key parameters for further analysis. Initial results indicate extreme variability at a high spatial resolution not currently accounted for in modern viticultural climate indices and suggest that viticultural practices play a major role. Using the structure of data collection and analyses developed for the first phase, this project will soon be expanded to other wine regions globally, while continuing data collection in Napa Valley.

[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"...

One of the main consequences of global warming is the rise of the mean temperature. Thus, the heat summation by the plants begins sooner in the early spring, and by cumulating growing degree-days, phenological development tends to happen earlier. However, spring frost is still a recurrent phenomenon causing serious damages to buds and therefore, threatening the harvests of the winegrowers. The wind machine is a solution to protect fruit crops against spring frost that is increasingly used. It is composed of a 10-m mast with a blowing fan at its peak. By tapping into the strength of the nocturnal thermal inversion, it sweeps the crop by propelling warm air above to the ground. Thus, stratification is momentarily suppressed. Furthermore, the continuous action of the machine, alone or in synergy, or the addition of a heater allow the bud to be bathed in a warmer environment. Also, the punctual action of the tower’s warm gust reaches the bud directly at each rotation period. All these actions allow the bud to continuously warm up, but with different intensities and over a different period. Although there is evidence of the effectiveness of the wind machines, the thermal transfers involved in those mechanisms raise questions about their true nature. Field measurements based on ultrasonic anemometers and fast responding thermocouples complemented by laboratory measurements on a reduced scale model allow to characterize both the airflow produced by the wind machine and the local temperature in its vicinity. Those experiments were realized in the vineyard of Quincy, in the framework of the SICTAG project. In the future paper, we will detail the aeraulic characterization of the wind machine and the thermal effects resulting from it and we will focus on how the wind machine warms up the local atmosphere and enables to reduce the freezing risk.

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.

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.