Integrative grape to wine metabolite analyses to study the vineyard “memory” of wine

The microbial composition of the soil is an important factor to consider in viticulture, since its influence on the “terroir” and on the organoleptic properties of the wine have been demonstrated. Different agronomic techniques have the potential to modify the composition and functionality of the soil microbial community. Maintaining green covers is known to increase soil microbial diversity. The direct application of inoculum of beneficial microorganisms to the soil has also been used to increase their abundance. However, the environmental conditions of each site seem to have a determining weight in the result of these practices. In this study, we compared the effect on the microbial community of a cover crop with legumes in autumn and the inoculation of grapevines with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseae in the previous spring. The study has been carried out in a vineyard in Binissalem, Mallorca, Spain. After applying the treatments, we will analyze the soil microbial communities using the data obtained from Illumina amplification of soil DNA from the 16S and ITS regions to analyze bacteria and fungi community, respectively. In addition, we will record the physicochemical characteristics of the soil at each sampling point. The result showed that agronomic management, in the short term, has less influence than soil characteristics on the composition of the soil microbiome. With these results, we can conclude that in a vineyard, agricultural techniques should focus on improving the characteristics of the soil to improve the biodiversity of the soil microbiota.

In the last decades, climate change required already adaptation of vineyard management. Increase in temperature and unexpected weather events cause changes in all phenological stages requiring new management tools. For example, defoliation can be a useful tool to reduce the sugar content in the berries creating differences in the wine profiles. In a ten-year field experiment using Riesling (Vitis vinifera L, planted 1986, Geisenheim, Germany), various mechanical defoliation strategies and different intensities were trialed until 2016 before the vineyard was uprooted. Wood was sampled from the plant compartments root, trunk, cordon and shoot for analyses of physicochemical properties (e.g. lignin and element content, pH, diameter), nonstructural carbohydrates and the microbial communities. The aim of the study was to investigate the influence of reduced canopy leaf area on the sink-source allocation into different compartments and potential changes of the fungal and prokaryotic wood-inhabiting community using a metabarcoding approach. Severe summer pruning (SSP) of the canopy and mechanical defoliation (MDC) above the bunch zone decreased the leaf area by 50% compared to control (C). SSP reduced the photosynthetic capacity, which resulted in an altered source-sink allocation and carbohydrate storage. With lower leaf area, less carbohydrates are allocated. This for example resulted in a decreased trunk diameter. Further, it affected the composition of the grapevine wood microbiota. SSP and MDC management changed significantly the prokaryotic community composition in wood of the root samples, but had no effect in other compartments. In general, this study found strong compartment and less management effects of the microbial community composition and associated physicochemical properties. The highest microbial diversities were identified in the wood of the trunk, and several species were recorded the first time in grapevine.

Mediterranean viticulture is increasingly exposed to more frequent extreme conditions such as heat waves. These extreme events co-occur with low soil water content, high air vapor pressure deficit and high solar radiant energy fluxes and result in leaf and berry sunburn, lower yield, and berry quality, which is a major constraint for the sustainability of the sector. Grape growers must find ways to proper and effectively manage heat waves and extreme canopy and berry temperatures. Irrigation to keep soil moisture levels and enable adequate plant turgor, and convective and evaporative cooling emerged as a key tool to overcome this major challenge. The effects of irrigation on soil and plant water status are easily quantifiable but the impact of irrigation on soil and canopy temperature and on heat convection from soil to cluster zone remain less characterized. Therefore, a more detailed quantification of vineyard heat fluxes is highly relevant to better understand and implement strategies to limit the effects of extreme weather events on grapevine leaf and berry physiology and vineyards performance. Low-cost sensor technologies emerge as an opportunity to improve monitoring and support decision making in viticulture. However, validation of low-cost sensors is mandatory for practical applicability. A two-year study was carried in a vineyard in Alentejo, south of Portugal, using low-cost thermal cameras (FLIR One, 80×60 pixels and FLIR C5, 160×120 pixels, 8-14 µm, FLIR systems, USA) and pocket thermohygrometers (Extech RHT30, EXTECH instruments, USA) to monitor grapevine and soil temperatures. Preliminary results show that low-cost cameras can detect severe water stress and support the evaluation of vertical canopy temperature variability, providing information on soil surface temperature. All these thermal parameters can be relevant for soil and crop management and be used in decision support systems.

Effects of climate change on viticulture systems and winemaking processes are being felt across the world. The IPCC 6thAssessment Report concluded widespread and rapid changes have occurred, the scale of recent changes being unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years. These changes will continue under all emission scenarios considered, including increases in frequency and intensity of hot extremes, heatwaves, heavy precipitation and droughts. Wine companies need tools and models allowing to peer into the future and identify the moment for intervention and measures for mitigation and/or avoidance. Previously, we presented conceptual guidelines for a 5-stage framework for defining adaptation strategies for wine businesses. That framework allows for direct comparison of different solutions to mitigate perceived climate change risks. Recent global climatic evolution and multiple reports of severe events since then (smoke taint, heatwave and droughts, frost, hail and floods, rising sea levels) imply urgency in providing effective tools to tackle the multiple perceived risks. A coordinated drive towards a higher level of resilience is therefore required. Recent publications such as the Australian Wine Future Climate Atlas and results from projects such as H2020 MED-GOLD inform on expected climate change impacts to the wine sector, foreseeing the climate to expect at regional and vineyard scale in coming decades. We present examples of practical application of the Climate Change Adaptation Framework (CCAF) to impacts affecting wine production in two wine regions: Barossa (Australia) and Douro (Portugal). We demonstrate feasibility of the framework for climate adaptation from available data and tools to estimate historical climate-induced profitability loss, to project it in the future and to identify critical moments when disruptions may occur if timely measures are not implemented. Finally, we discuss adaptation measures and respective timeframes for successful mitigation of disruptive risk while enhancing resilience of wine systems.

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.