Cultivation forms and viticulture models adapting to adverse “environmental” conditions

One cultivar could produce distinct wines with typical properties and qualities different depending on its cultivated and its mesoclimatic conditions.

Throughout centuries of anthropocentric breeding, plants have been selectively bred to enhance their quality traits and yield, often overlooking the importance of neglected attributes, like those involved in the interactions with beneficial microorganisms. This phenomenon led to an alteration in the distribution of photosynthetic products, shifting from defence mechanisms to growth, commonly described as ‘domestication syndrome’. Addressing the losses stemming from this condition is imperative just as unravelling the concealed communication between grapevines and beneficial microorganisms.

Aim: Through machine-learning modelling of plant water status from environmental characteristics, this work aims to develop a model able to predict grape phenolic composition in space and time to guide selective harvest decisions at the estate scale.

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.

This paper follows the one presented by Saayman at the International Symposium on Landscapes of Vines and Wines in the Loire Valley during July 2003. Where Saayman’s paper described the heritage and development of South African vineyard landscapes, this one focuses on how the landscape is used to assist in decision-making concerning the most important long term practices.