Simgi® platform as a tool for the study of wine active compounds in the  gastrointestinal tract

Purpose of this research is to quantitatively assess the mineral component of vineyard soils, with particular attention to the mineralogical analysis of clays, which represent an element of high importance in the vineyard culture as well as in general agriculture. An X-ray diffraction (XRD) / thermogravimetric (TG) multi-technique analytical approach was developed, tested on soil samples taken from vineyards around the world. This codified analytical procedure was necessary to obtain precise qualitative and quantitative mineralogical data, globally comparable to distinguish the geopedological identity of the vineyards. Soil samples from vineyards of various locations were analysed, in very different geological conditions. The bulk-rock quantitative phase analysis (QPA) was obtained by the Rietveld method while the detailed composition of the clay-sized fraction was determined by modelling of the oriented X-ray diffraction patterns. The research provided a precise classification of the mineral component of soils, distinguishing the mineral phases of the clays and the so-called mixed-layer clay minerals. We found that the content in mixed layers can be directly correlated with the water retention and the cation exchange capacity ​​of the soil, while the presence of other clayey minerals and phyllosilicates in this research did not affect this CEC parameter, which codes the fertility level of the soils. The study demonstrates that terroir, in particular soils formed in complex or very different geological conditions, can only be effectively interpreted by properly analysing its mineral phases, in particular the mixed-layer clay component. These are characteristic abiotic ecological indicators, which may have specific eco-physiological influences on the plant.

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

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.

There is an urgent need in viticulture to adopt alternative herbicide-free soil management strategies to mitigate climate change, increase biodiversity, reduce plant protection products and improve soil quality while minimizing detrimental effects on grapevine’s stress tolerance and fruit quality. To propose sustainable solutions, adapted to different pedoclimatic conditions in Switzerland, we developed a multidisciplinary 4-year project, started in 2020. Objectives of the project are to a) evaluate the impact of green covers (spontaneous flora, winter cover crop and permanent ground cover) on environmental and agronomic parameters and b) develop subsequently innovative strategies for different viticultural contexts of Switzerland. The project is divided into 3 phases: 1) diagnosis, 2) on-farm and 3) on-station experiments. Phase 1) consisted in an assessment of 30 commercial vineyards all over Switzerland, where growers already use different herbicide-free soil management strategies. The most promising practices identified in this exploratory phase will be replicated in commercial vineyards across Switzerland (“on-farm”) as well as in a classical randomized block design in an experimental plot (“on-station”). For phase 1), measurements consisted in evaluation of soil status (compaction, structure, roots development), soil microbial diversity (metagenomics), plant diversity and biomass, vine physiology (water stress, vigor, leaf nitrogen) and berry quality (acidity, sugar, available nitrogen). Interestingly, the permanent ground cover resulted in a higher Shannon index thus a higher biodiversity as compared to the other itineraries. The winter cover crop increased vine nitrogen and vigor while deteriorating soil quality, leaving the soil more exposed and compacted likely due to more frequent tillage. The spontaneous flora led to higher berry sugar accumulation, less nitrogen and higher malic acid concentration putatively due to a higher water retention of the flora in a particularly wet vintage. Phases 2) and 3) are required to confirm those tendencies, over the 3 next vintages and different climatic conditions.

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.