Les sols du cru de Bonnezeaux, Thouarcé, Anjou, France

In recent years, the increase in temperature and the changes in rainfall distribution caused by climate change are affecting vine and grape physiology and are consequently impacting wine composition and quality (Schultz, 2000; Jones et al., 2005).

Grape seeds account for around 5% of the weight of the whole grape berry, representing approximately 40%-50% of the solid by-products that the different wine industries generate during the winemaking process.

Berry Shrivel (BS, Traubenwelke) is a sugar accumulation disorder of grapevine of unknown causes, having a great negative impact on grape quality and incalculable risks for yield losses, and for which no reliable curative practices are available.

Grapevine resilience to climate change has become one of the most pressing topics in the Viticulture & Enology field. Vineyard health demands understanding the mechanisms that explain the direct and indirect interactions between environmental stressors. The current climate change scenario, where drought and heat-wave are more frequent and intense, strongly demands improving our knowledge of environmental stresses. During a heatwave, the ambient temperature rises above the plant’s average tolerance threshold and, generally, above 35 oC plant’s adaptation to heat stress is activated.

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.