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

Agriculture, natural resource management and the production and sale of products such as wine are increasingly data-driven activities. Thus, the use of remote and proximal crop and soil sensors to aid management decisions is becoming commonplace and ‘Agtech’ is proliferating commercially; mapping, underpinned by geographical information systems and complex methods of spatial analysis, is widely used. Likewise, the chemical and sensory analysis of wines draws on multivariate statistics; the efficient winery intake of grapes, subsequent production of wines and their delivery to markets relies on logistics; whilst the sales and marketing of wines is increasingly driven by artificial intelligence linked to the recorded purchasing behaviour of consumers. In brief, there is data everywhere!

Opinions will vary on whether these developments are a good thing. Those concerned with the ‘mystique’ of wine, or the historical aspects of terroir and its preservation, may find them confronting. In contrast, they offer an opportunity to those interested in the biophysical elements of terroir, and efforts aimed at better understanding how these impact on vineyard performance and the sensory attributes of resultant wines. At the previous Terroir Congress, we demonstrated the potential of analytical methods used at the within-vineyard scale in the development of Precision Viticulture, in contributing to a quantitative understanding of regional terroir. For this conference, we take this approach forward with examples from contrasting locations in both the northern and southern hemispheres. We show how, by focussing on the vineyards within winegrowing regions, as opposed to all of the land within those regions, we might move towards a more robust terroir zoning than one derived from a mixture of history, thematic mapping, heuristics and the whims of marketers. Aside from providing improved understanding by underpinning terroir with data, such methods should also promote improved management of the entire wine value chain.

The research includes an analysis of the impact of weather conditions on phenological development of the vine and grape quality, through monitoring of four experimental cultivars (Chardonnay, Graševina, Merlot and Plavac mali) over two production years. In each experimental vineyard, which were evenly distributed throughout the regions of Slavonia and The Croatian Danube, Croatian Uplands,

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

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.

Harvesting grapes at adequate maturity is key to the production of high-quality red wines. Enologists and wine makers define several types of maturity, including technical maturity, phenolic maturity and aromatic maturity. Technical maturity and phenolic maturity are relatively well documented in the scientific literature, while articles on aromatic maturity are scarcer. This is surprising, because aromatic maturity is, without a doubt, the most important of the three in determining wine quality and typicity (including terroir expression). Optimal terroir expression can be obtained when the different types of maturity are reached at the same time, or within a short time frame. This is more likely to occur when the ripening takes place under mild temperatures, neither too cool, nor too hot. Aromatic expression in wine can be driven, from low to high maturity, by green, herbal, fresh fruit, ripe fruit, jammy fruit, candied fruit or cooked fruit aromas. Green and cooked fruit aromas are not desirable in red wines, while the levels of other aromatic compounds contribute to the typicity of the wine in relation to its origin. Wines produced in cool climates, or on cool soils in temperate climates, are likely to express herbal or fresh fruit aromas; while wines produced under warm climates, or on warm soils in temperate climates, may express ripe fruit, jammy fruit or candied fruit aromas. Growers can optimize terroir expression through their choice of grapevine variety. Early ripening varieties perform better in cool climates and late ripening varieties in warm climates. Additionally, maturity can be advanced or delayed by different canopy management practices or training systems.