Comportement hydrique des sols viticoles et leur influence sur le terroir

The wine industry, a key sector for the European Union’s economy, exhibits significant energy consumption, amounting to approximately 1,750 million kWh annually within this geographic context, with major contributions from Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal (Fuentes Pila et al., 2015).

Two treatments were studied in vines of cv. Tempranillo blanco (Vitis vinifera L.) during the 2012-2018 period in an experimental plot located in Rincón de Soto (La Rioja, Spain). Rainfed treatment (R0) was compared with respect to an irrigation treatment (R2) equivalent to 30% of the crop evapotranspiration (ET0) from fruitset to harvest phenological stages. Pre-veraison irrigation ranged from 43 (2014) to 66 mm/m2 (2018) while post-veraison irrigation ranged from 37 (2017) to 115 mm/m2 (2012).The normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) was assessed by measures of reflectance, nutrients were determined by analysis of petioles sampled at veraison, grape production was determined at harvest as well as renewable wood weight was assessed at pruning time.

There is a growing trend on the transition from conventional to agroecological management of vineyards. However, the impact of practices, such as reduced-tillage, organic fertilization and cover crops, is not well-understood regarding the soil microbial diversity, and its relationship with the soil physicochemical properties in the subsurface depth near the rooting zone. Soil bacterial diversity is an important contributor towards plant health, productivity and response to environmental stresses. A field experiment was conducted by sampling subsurface soil bacterial community (NGS and qPCR) near to the root zone of Macabeu and Xarel·lo vineyards, located at the Penedes. 3 organic (ECO) and 3 conventional (CON) vineyards, with more than 10 years of respective management were sampled (n=5 each plot). ECO practices did not affect bacterial and fungal abundance but increased significantly the ammonium oxidizing bacteria and alpha-diversity (Inv.Simpson). Interestingly beta-diversity was significantly affected by the management strategy. ANOSIM-tests revealed a significative effect of the management (ecological vs conventional) and plot, on the soil microbial structure (ASV abundance). Main phyla depicted were Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria and Acidobacteria, whose relative abundances were not affected by the management. EdgeR assay revealed a significant increase of Cyanobacteria and decrease of Gemmatimonadetes and Firmicutes phyla in ECO. Interestingly, the grapevine variety was not correlated with the soil microbial community structure. Mantel-test revealed an important correlation (Spearman) of some physicochemical parameters with the soil microbiota structure, in order of importance: texture, EC, pH Ca/Mg, Mg/P, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+, SO42-, and OM. N-NH4 and NTK, which were higher in the ECO managed soils, did not correlated significantly with the soil microbiome population. The results revealed the importance of combining a deep physicochemical characterization of each replicate with the microbial diversity assessment to gain better insights on the relationship between soil microbiome and vineyard management.

AIM: High pressure technologies represent a promising alternative to thermal treatments for improving quality and safety of liquid foods.

In a scenario of changing climate conditions, grapevine is significantly affected at multiple levels. Advancements in phenology and berry ripening, however, are the major dynamics of the generalized increase in average temperature and evaporative demand, negatively affecting berry quality and productivity. The aim of this work was to unravel the underlying mechanisms of bunch-zone auxin application (NAA; 1-Naphthaleneacetic acid) and source-limiting canopy management approaches in delaying berry ripening. In randomized block design experiments, control vines were compared to vines treated with NAA, subjected to apical-to-bunch defoliation or antitranspirant application (n=10-to-42 plants per treatment).