Dating back to the early domestication period of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.), expansion of human activity led to the creation of thousands of modern day genotypes that serve multiple purposes such as table and wine consumption. They also encompass a strong phenotypic diversity. Presently, viticulture faces various challenges, which include threatening climatic change scenarios and an historical track record of genetic erosion. Paritularly with regards to wine varieties, there is a pressing need to characterize the extant genetic diversity of modern varieties, as a means to delvier knowledge-based solutions under a rapidly evolving scenario, that may enable improved yields and profiles, resistance to pathogens, and increased resilience to climate change.

During the tasting of a fine, old wine, the aromas generated in the glass are intertwined in an intimate, complex manner, expressing the fragrance of the aging bouquet. This aging bouquet, which develops during bottle storage through a complex transformation process, may result in a broad palette of nuances. Among these, undergrowth, truffle, toasted, spicy, licorice, fresh red- and black-berry fruit and mint descriptors were recently identified as features of its olfactory representation for red Bordeaux wines. Although a targeted chemical approach focusing on volatile sulfur compounds revealed the role played by dimethyl sulfide, 2-furanmethanethiol, and 3-sulfanylhexanol as molecular markers of the typicality of the wine aging bouquet of red Bordeaux wines, its chemical transcription has only partially been elucidated.

The Institut Français De La Vigne Et Du Vin (IFV) is conducting many experiments on innovative winegrowing practices, which are emerging in companies in the sector, or which are still at the R&D stage for agricultural suppliers. The purpose of these practices may be to reduce environmental impact, to adapt vineyards to climate change, or to achieve other technical, economic or social aims. Whatever the objective, it is necessary to verify the relevance of these new practices, and in particular their environmental relevance, i.e. That at the very least, the changes in practices do not increase the environmental impact of the technical itineraries.

I performed my PhD in grapevine physiology under the supervision of Dr. H. Medrano, standing in the vineyards from pre-dawn to sunrise during many hot, wet and sunny days with my colleagues J.M.E. and J.B. I also spent many days and nights facing ticks year-round working in Mediterranean macchias with J.Gu. and M.M. Later I was able to supervise PhD students on grapevines – like A.P. and M.T. – and on Mediterranean vegetation – like J.Gal. With the incorporation to the group of M.R.-C. ‘the puzzle’ was completed and, combining the aforementioned studies, we could conclude (more than 20 years ago) things like: (1) stomatal conductance is the best proxy for ‘water stress’ in studies on photosynthesis; (2) steady-state chlorophyll fluorescence retrieves photosynthesis under saturating light; (3) photoinhibition is not a major photosynthetic limitation under water stress; (4) mesophyll conductance instead is; and (5) mesophyll conductance is a major driver of leaf water use efficiency.

Grapevine faces multiple biotic and/or abiotic stresses, which are interrelated. Depending on their incidence, they can have a negative impact on the development and production of the plant, but also on its longevity, leading to vine dieback. One of the consequences of vine dieback on production is the increased replacement rate of dead or missing vines within a parcel.