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

Depuis le début des années 90, les vignerons des Caves Coopératives de l’Appellation “Côtes du Rhône” se sont penchés, au sein des structures de réflexion du Syndicat Général, sur deux axes de réflexion:
– Détermination des critères de sélection et de rémunération différenciée des apports de vendange;
– Organisation des sélections de vendanges sur la base des terroirs afin d’augmenter quantitativement le potentiel de sélection au sein de l’unité de production.

In winemaking, the use of wood products alternative to barrels, has become a useful tool for the achievement of numerous oenological objectives, including the fast release of desirable volatile and polyphenolic compounds, colour stabilization, and important economic advantages if compared to the traditional barrel production. Among a huge array of variables, the wood format, the vinification protocol, especially the moment of the infusion of the woods and the exposed surface area of the alternative woods are of relevant significance, since they may influence the speed and intensity of the aroma transfer from the wood to the wine defining different sensory profiles.

In wine growing regions around the world, climate change has the potential to affect vine transpiration and overall vineyard water use due to related changes in atmospheric demand and soil water deficits. Grapevines control their transpiration in response to a changing environment by regulating conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Most vineyard water use models currently estimate vine transpiration by applying generic crop coefficients to estimates of reference evapotranspiration, but this does not account for changes in vine conductance associated with water stress, nor differences thought to exist between varieties. The response of bulk stomatal conductance to daily weather variability and seasonal drought stress was studied on Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Tempranillo, Ugni blanc, and Semillon vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France. Whole vine sap flow, temperature and humidity in the vine canopy, and net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy were measured on 15-minute intervals from early July through mid-September 2020, together with periodic measurement of leaf area, canopy porosity, and predawn leaf water potential. From this data, bulk stomatal conductance was calculated on 15-minute intervals, and multiple regression analysis was performed to identify key variables and their relative effect on conductance. Attention was focused on addressing multicollinearity and time-dependency in the explanatory variables and developing regression models that were readily interpretable. Variability of vapor pressure deficit over the day, and predawn water potential over the season explained much of the variability in conductance, with relative differences in response coefficients observed across the five varieties. By characterizing this conductance response, the dynamics of vine transpiration can be better parameterized in vineyard water use modeling of current and future climate scenarios.

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.