Résistance stomatique et caractérisation hydrique des terroirs viticoles

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.

[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"...

The Fruška Gora mountain is a traditional wine-growing region in Serbia situated in the Pannonian Basin. Due to such a position, the vicinity of the Danube River and the presence of concave configuration, it is suitable for grape production. This paper provides analyses of spatial variations in meteorological parameters and grape juice quality within Fruška Gora wine region over three consecutive vintages (2018-2020). The examined period can be defined as warm with cool nights during September (AVG 18,9°C; GDD 1918°C; CI 12°CF) and with the presence of mesoclimatic variability. The East part of the study area was somewhat drier and hotter compared to other parts of the region. The analyses of grape must samples (190 in total) of five cultivars (Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc and Grašac (Welschriesling)) commonly grown across the region (19 sites), were performed using Fourier Transform Infrared Technology (FTIR). Among all cultivars, Sauvignon blanc was harvested first in the East area (DOY=246±5, GDD at harvest=1552±74, 22.2±0.7 °Brix), while the latest harvest was recorded for Cabernet-Sauvignon in the West (DOY=283±5, GDD at harvest=1936±187, 23.4±1.0 °Brix ). Both the red and white cultivars had higher acidity and YAN in the grape must if the vines were grown in the North and East compared to South and West areas. According to PCA analysis, Grašac showed the lowest variation in grape must chemical composition. Thus, the results confirm that Grašac is the most stable cultivar in Fruška Gora. All monitored cultivars reached technological fruit ripeness by the end of the growing season. However, it was difficult to reach full ripeness of red cultivars, mostly beacuse of uncoupling of technolocical and phenolic ripeness. Thus, Cabernet-Sauvignon had higher variations in GDD sums at harvest compared to other cultivars, which probably increased variations in grape must quality.

[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"...

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports.
The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90.
Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.