Multisensory experiential wine marketing

[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 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.

In a collective marketing strategy, the Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) can be used as a quality indicator. To highlight terroir specificities, it is useful to know how the wines are positioned on the local, national or international market from a sensory point of view. This is especially true for a comparison of varietal wines (e.g. Sauvignon blanc). We focus on the case of two closed Loire Valley PDO (France): Quincy and Reuilly. Three distinct tastings were organized. Firstly, at the local level comparing the 2 PDO (11 and 9 wines, 17 professional assessors); secondly at a regional level adding 3 closed PDO: Menetou-Salon, Sancerre and Pouilly-Fumé (3 wines per PDO, 16 assessors) and thirdly at an international level comparing these 5 PDO with Sauvignon Blanc wines coming from South Africa, New Zealand and Chile (1 to 3 wines per PDO, 19 assessors). All the wines were from the 2019 vintage and were considered to have a traditional elaboration process without contact with oak. A sensory descriptive analysis was performed using an aroma wheel allowing to combine a Check-All-That-Apply methodology, often used in sensory benchmarking, with a hierarchical structuration of the attributes. The aim is to facilitate data acquisition in a professional context without common training, to consider the hierarchical relationships among the attributes during the data analysis and to be able to characterize wines with a large range of sensorial variability. We use univariate, multivariate and clustering analyses. Similarities and differences between Quincy and Reuilly PDO wines and other Sauvignon blanc wines were identified. Specific attributes can distinguish the two PDO and different proximities exist with other local PDO, while clear differences were observed compared to international wines. Our study contributes to propose and discuss a method to do a wine sensory benchmarking highlighting sensory specificities linked to origin.

Our research aimed to determine the effect and efficiency of foliar application of urea on the phenolic composition of Tempranillo Blanco grapes. The field experiment was carried out in 2019 and 2020 seasons and the plot was located in D.O.Ca Rioja (North of Spain). The vineyard was Vitis vinifera L. Tempranillo Blanco and grafted on Richter-110 rootstock. The treatments were control (C), whose plants were sprayed with water and three doses of urea: plants were sprayed with urea 3 kg N/ha (U3), 6 kg N/ha (U6) and 9 kg N/ha (U9). The applications were performed in two phenological stages, pre-veraison (Pre) and veraison (Ver). Also, each of the treatments was repeated one week later. Control and treatments were performed in triplicate and arranged in a randomised block design. Grapes were harvested at optimum ripening stage. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to analyse the phenolic composition of the grapes. Finally, the results obtained from the analytical determinations – flavonols, flavanols and non-flavonoid (hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids and stilbenes) – were studied statistically by analysis of variance. The results showed that, in 2019, U6-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased the hydroxybenzoic acid content in grapes, and also all foliar treatments applied at Pre enhanced the stilbene concentration. Moreover, U3-Ver was the only treatment that rose flavonol and stilbene contents in the Tempranillo Blanco grapes. In 2020, all treatments applied at Pre enhanced the flavonol concentration in grapes. Furthermore, U3-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased stilbene content in grapes. Nevertheless, the hydroxybenzoic acid content was improved by U6-Ver and U9-Ver and besides, hydroxycinnamic acid concentration in grapes was increased by all treatments applied at Ver. In conclusion, the lower and highest dose of urea (U3 and U9), applied at pre-veraison, were the best treatments to improve the Tempranillo Blanco grape phenolic composition.

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.