Terroir 1996 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 La caracterización de los moscateles

La caracterización de los moscateles

Abstract

Ya en 1964 GIOVANNI DALMASSO et alii describiendo el Moscato bianco (12) ponían de manifiesto la dificultad realmente ardua en descubrir “si no todas, por lo menos las más importantes variedades que llevan el nombre de Moscateles …. En efecto, estas son tan numerosas que desde los primeros intentos de taxonomía ampelográfica se vió la necesidad de crear un lugar para uno o más grupos de variedades con sabor de moscatel, o, con mayor precisión, con tal aroma”.
Ciertamente el problema existía ya hace muchos años, porque estas variedades con aroma de “moscatel” se conocían desde la antiguedad y por su sabor habían llamado la atención de los cultivadores y de los estudiosos.
Los viñedos que Varrone, Plinio, Columella recuerdan con el nombre de “Apiane”, por la dulzura del fruto buscado por las abejas (abeja = apis en latín), según la opinión común, debían de ser aquellas variedades que más tarde serán llamadas Moscateles. Ya PORTA (28) en “Villae libri XII” editado en Nápoles en el 1584, recuerda, con reminiscencias sobre todo clásicas, muchas variedades con raices antiguas y se vuelve a referir a esta asociación, además de a aquella (menos conocida) del Moscatellone con la Mocatula de los Geoponicos. Pero luego, además, confirma esta presunta derivación la “Naturalis historia” editada en Roterdam en el 1668 y, más adelante, GALLESIO y el “prudentísimo” MOLON (27) que dice — ” Está ya fuera de dudas que las “Apiane” de los antiguos Georgicos correspondían a nuestros Moscateles”- y así hasta Dalmasso (12).
Pero ¿qué eran estas “Apiane”? COLUMELLA (8) distinguía tres tipos pero — decía- “la más fuerte es una, la que tiene las hojas desnudas”. Efectivamente las otras dos … “revestidas de vellosidad, aunque sean iguales por el aspecto de las hojas y de los sarmientos, se diferencian sin embargo por la calidad del vino …”. Eran variedades muy buscadas por el sabor del vino y ya muy famosas (“atque hae pretiosi gustus celeberrime”).
Además del “celeberrime” queremos subrayar aquí el “se diferencian” porque es un indicio ya de clasificación y caracterización.
Desde entonces tenemos que saltar hasta la Edad Media, periodo en el que “Moscati” y “Moscatelli” reaparecen, porque servidos en las mesas de los príncipes y reyes, pero sobre todo porque PIER DE CRESCENZI (13) en su “Trattato” recuerda además de Schiave, Albana, Tribiana, etc., también las uvas de Muscatel. Evidentemente estos vinos eran tan famosos que PAGANINO BONAFE’ (6), en el 1300, sugería el modo de convertir en Moscateles los vinos que no lo eran, añadiendo durante la fermentación “una grancada di fiori de sambuco sechi a l’umbra” (un puñado de flores de saúco secadas a la sombra).
Los escritos y los cultivos de los Moscateles fueron desde entonces numerosísimos y remitimos a un óptimo trabajo de I. EYNARD et alii del 1981 (22) para tener un cuadro realmente completo sobre este tema.
Nos parece oportuno ahora señalar que el sabor de moscatel sirvió a menudo también para la clasificación de las uvas. Es clásica, por ejemplo, la de las Viti Vinifere de ACERBI (1) que para las dos clases: Uvas tintas y Uvas blancas establece dos subclases: con sabor a moscatel y con sabor simple.
Pero es sobre todo en el 1868 MENDOLA (26) quién, precisamente para clasificar el grupo de los Moscateles, propone los tres siguientes subgrupos en función de las características del aroma.

DOI:

Publication date: February 24, 2022

Issue: Terroir 2000 

Type: Article

Authors

A. Calò, A. Costacurta., R. Flamini and N. Milani

Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticultura
Viale XXVIII Aprile, 26 — 31015 Conegliano (Treviso) Italia

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2000

Citation

Related articles…

Impact on leaf morphology of Vitis vinifera L. cvs Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon under Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment (FACE)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has continuously increased since pre-industrial times from 280 ppm in 1750, and is predicted to exceed 700 ppm by the end of 21st century. For most of C3 plant species elevated CO2 (eCO2) improve photosynthetic apparatus results in an increased plant biomass production. To investigate the effects of eCO2 on morphological leaf characteristics the two Vitis vinifera L. cultivars, Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon, grown in the Geisenheim VineyardFACE (Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment) system were used. The FACE site is located at Geisenheim University (49° 59′ N, 7° 57′ E, 94 m above sea level), Germany and was implemented in 2014 comparing future atmospheric CO2-concentrations (eCO2, predicted for the mid-21st century) with current ambient CO2-conditions (aCO2). Experiments were conducted under rain-fed conditions for two consecutive years (2015 and 2016). Six leaves per repetition of the CO2 treatment were sampled in the field and immediately fixed in a FAA solution (ethanol, H2O, formaldehyde and glacial acetic acid). After 24 h leaf samples were transferred and stored in an ethanol solution. Subsequently, leaf tissue was dehydrated using ethanol series and embedded in paraffin. By using a rotary microtomesections of 5 µm were prepared and fixed on microscopic slides. Subsequent the samples were stained using consecutive staining and washing solutions. Afterwards pictures of the leaf cross-sections were taken using a light microscope and consecutive measurements were conducted with an open source image software. Differences found in leaf cross-sections of the two CO2 treatments were detected for the palisade parenchyma. Leaf thickness, upper and lower epidermis and spongy parenchyma remained less affected under eCO2 conditions. The observed results within grapevine leaf tissues can provide first insights to seasonal adaptation strategies of grapevines under future elevated CO2 concentrations.

The rootstock, the neglected player in the scion transpiration even during the night

Water is the main limiting factor for yield in viticulture. Improving drought adaptation in viticulture will be an increasingly important issue under climate change. Genetic variability of water deficit responses in grapevine partly results from the rootstocks, making them an attractive and relevant mean to achieve adaptation without changing the scion genotype. The objective of this work was to characterize the rootstock effect on the diurnal regulation of scion transpiration. A large panel of 55 commercial genotypes were grafted onto Cabernet Sauvignon. Three biological repetitions per genotype were analyzed. Potted plants were phenotyped on a greenhouse balance platform capable of assessing real-time water use and maintaining a targeted water deficit intensity. After a 10 days well-watered baseline period, an increasing water deficit was applied for 10 days, followed by a stable water deficit stress for 7 days. Pruning weight, root and aerial dry weight and transpiration were recorded and the experiment was repeated during two years. Transpiration efficiency (ratio between aerial biomass and transpiration) was calculated and δ13C was measured in leaves for the baseline and stable water deficit periods. A large genetic variability was observed within the panel. The rootstock had a significant impact on nocturnal transpiration which was also strongly and positively correlated with maximum daytime transpiration. The correlations with growth and water use efficiency related traits will be discussed. Transpiration data were also related with VPD and soil water content demonstrating the influence of environmental conditions on transpiration. These results highlighted the role of the rootstock in modulating water deficit responses and give insights for rootstock breeding programs aimed at identifying drought tolerant rootstocks. It was also helpful to better define the mechanisms on which the drought tolerance in grapevine rootstocks is based on.

Soil, vine, climate change – what is observed – what is expected

To evaluate the current and future impact of climate change on Viticulture requires an integrated view on a complex interacting system within the soil-plant-atmospheric continuum under continuous change. Aside of the globally observed increase in temperature in basically all viticulture regions for at least four decades, we observe several clear trends at the regional level in the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Additionally the recently published 6th assessment report of the IPCC (The physical science basis) shows case-dependent further expected shifts in climate patterns which will have substantial impacts on the way we will conduct viticulture in the decades to come.
Looking beyond climate developments, we observe rising temperatures in the upper soil layers which will have an impact on the distribution of microbial populations, the decay rate of organic matter or the storage capacity for carbon, thus affecting the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the viscosity of water in the soil-plant pathway, altering the transport of water. If the upper soil layers dry out faster due to less rainfall and/or increased evapotranspiration driven by higher temperatures, the spectral reflection properties of bare soil change and the transport of latent heat into the fruiting zone is increased putting a higher temperature load on the fruit. Interactions between micro-organisms in the rhizosphere and the grapevine root system are poorly understood but respond to environmental factors (such as increased soil temperatures) and the plant material (rootstock for instance), respectively the cultivation system (for example bio-organic versus conventional). This adds to an extremely complex system to manage in terms of increased resilience, adaptation to and even mitigation of climate change. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, effects on the individual expressions of wines with a given origin, seem highly likely to become more apparent.

Climate change impacts: a multi-stress issue

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

What are the optimal ranges and thresholds for berry solar radiation for flavonoid biosynthesis?

In wine grape production, canopy management practices are applied to control the source-sink balance and improve the cluster microclimate to enhance berry composition. The aim of this study was to identify the optimal ranges of berry solar radiation exposure (exposure) for upregulation of flavonoid biosynthesis and thresholds for their degradation, to evaluate how canopy management practices such as leaf removal, shoot thinning, and a combination of both affect the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) yield components, berry composition, and flavonoid profile under context of climate change. First experiment assessed changes in the grape flavonoid content driven by four degrees of exposure. In the second experiment, individual grape berries subjected to different exposures were collected from two cultivars (Cabernet Sauvignon and Petit Verdot). The third experiment consisted of an experiment with three canopy management treatments (i) LR (removal of 5 to 6 basal leaves), (ii) ST (thinned to 24 shoots per vine), and (iii) LRST (a combination of LR and ST) and an untreated control (UNT). Berry composition, flavonoid content and profiles, and 3-isobutyl 2-methoxypyrazine were monitored during berry ripening. Although increasing canopy porosity through canopy management practices can be helpful for other purposes, this may not be the case of flavonoid compounds when a certain proportion of kaempferol was achieved. Our results revealed different sensitivities to degradation within the flavonoid groups, flavonols being the only monitored group that was upregulated by solar radiation. Within different canopy management practices, the main effects were due to the ST. Under environmental conditions given in this trial, ST and LRST hastened fruit maturity; however, a clear improvement of the flavonoid compounds (i.e., greater anthocyanin) was not observed at harvest. Methoxypyrazine berry content decreased with canopy management practices studied. Although some berry traits were improved (i.e. 2.5° Brix increase in berry total soluble solids) due to canopy management practices (ST), this resulted in a four-fold increase in labor operations cost, two-fold decrease in yield with a 10-fold increase in anthocyanin production cost per hectare that should be assessed together as the climate continues to get hot.