IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Exploring the influence of terroir on the sensorial and aroma profiles of wines – An application to red wines from AOC Corbières

Exploring the influence of terroir on the sensorial and aroma profiles of wines – An application to red wines from AOC Corbières

Abstract

The aromatic profile of a wine is the result of volatile molecules present in grapes (varietal or primary aromas) and those produced during the winemaking process of fermentation (secondary aromas) and during wine aging (tertiary aromas). Depending on their concentrations and interactions with other molecules, aromatic compounds contribute, to different extents, to the final bouquet of the wines. The analysis of the profile of volatile compounds of a wine can help exploring the chemical link between the product and the terroir from which it originates. Indeed, when referring to the concept of terroir, grape variety expression in wine results from an interaction between the place (climate, soil) and the people (tradition, viticultural practices and winemaking) [2,3]. These parameters can influence the final concentration of aromas, thus contributing to the overall sensory perception. To explore the influence of “terroir” factors on the aromatic and sensory profile of wines, red wines from the AOC Corbières were subjected to a global aromatic and sensory analysis. The aim is to identify the “molecular markers” that can characterise the different wines and to assess whether these markers are related to each other and explained by their area of origin. The aromatic profile was evaluated by HS-SPME-GC-MS and the sensory analysis was performed by a QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) profile method.  The terroir and winemaking parameters (type of winemaking, yeast, blending) were considered and multifactorial analysis were performed to link these data to the aromatic and/or sensory profiles. Statistical analysis highlight differences either between the samples and the study areas. Differences in the aroma profile were mainly attributed to some fermentative (e.g. acetate and ethyl esters) and varietal (e.g. terpenols and C13-norisoprenoids) aromas. Sensory analysis showed significant differences between samples on some quality descriptors (e.g. cooked red fruit). New interpretation leads are being explored to connect these first results to future experiments.The aromatic profile of a wine is the result of volatile molecules present in grapes (varietal or primary aromas) and those produced during the winemaking process of fermentation (secondary aromas) and during wine aging (tertiary aromas). Depending on their concentrations and interactions with other molecules, aromatic compounds contribute, to different extents, to the final bouquet of the wines. The analysis of the profile of volatile compounds of a wine can help exploring the chemical link between the product and the terroir from which it originates. Indeed, when referring to the concept of terroir, grape variety expression in wine results from an interaction between the place (climate, soil) and the people (tradition, viticultural practices and winemaking) [2,3]. These parameters can influence the final concentration of aromas, thus contributing to the overall sensory perception. To explore the influence of “terroir” factors on the aromatic and sensory profile of wines, red wines from the AOC Corbières were subjected to a global aromatic and sensory analysis. The aim is to identify the “molecular markers” that can characterise the different wines and to assess whether these markers are related to each other and explained by their area of origin. The aromatic profile was evaluated by HS-SPME-GC-MS and the sensory analysis was performed by a QDA (Quantitative Descriptive Analysis) profile method.  The terroir and winemaking parameters (type of winemaking, yeast, blending) were considered and multifactorial analysis were performed to link these data to the aromatic and/or sensory profiles. Statistical analysis highlight differences either between the samples and the study areas. Differences in the aroma profile were mainly attributed to some fermentative (e.g. acetate and ethyl esters) and varietal (e.g. terpenols and C13-norisoprenoids) aromas. Sensory analysis showed significant differences between samples on some quality descriptors (e.g. cooked red fruit). New interpretation leads are being explored to connect these first results to future experiments.

References

[1] Falqué, E., Fernandez, E., & Dubourdieu, D. (2001). Differentiation of white wines by their aromatic index. Talanta, 54, 271–281.
[2] Kustos, M., Gambetta, J., Jeffery, D.W., Heymann, H., Goodman, S., & Bastiana, S.E.P. (2020). A matter of place: Sensory and chemical characterisation of fine Australian Chardonnay and Shiraz wines of provenance. Food Research International, 130, 2-11.
[3] Vaudour, E. (2002). The quality of grapes and wine in relation to geography: Notions of terroir at various scales. Journal of Wine Research, 13(2), 117–141.

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Argentero Alice1, Caille Soline1, Nolleau Valérie1, Godet Teddy1, Verneuil Catherine2, Mouls Laetitia1 and Rigou Peggy1

1UMR SPO, Univ Montpellier, INRAE, Institut Agro
2Syndicat Général de l’AOC Corbières

List of affiliations ¹ ² ³

Contact the author

Keywords

Terroir, molecular marker, Aroma compounds, HS-SPME-GC-MS, Sensorial analysis

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

A spatial explicit inventory of EU wine protected designation of origin to support decision making in a changing climate

Winemaking areas recognized as protected designations of origin (PDOs) shape important economic, environmental and cultural values that are tied to closely defined geographic locations. To preserve wine products and wine-growing practices adopted in different PDOs these areas are strictly regulated by legal specifications. However, quality viticulture is increasingly under pressure from climate change, which is altering the local conditions of many winegrowing areas. Therefore, maintaining traditional wine products will require the adoption of tailored adaptation strategies, including possible changes in the legal regulation of protected wines. To this end, it is necessary to have a comprehensive knowledge on PDOs including their extension, products and allowed practices. While there have been efforts to build databases that summarize the characteristics for individual wine PDO areas and to quantify the related effects of climate change, much information is still included only in the official documentation of the EU geographical indication register and has never been collected in a comprehensive manner. With this study we aim at filling this gap by building a spatial inventory of European wine PDOs that supports decision making in viticulture in the context of climate change. To map and characterize European wine PDOs, we analysed their legal documents and extracted relevant information useful for climate change adaptation. The output consists of a comprehensive geographical dataset that identifies the boundaries of all 1200 European wine PDOs at unprecedented spatial resolution and includes a set of legally binding regulations, such as authorized vine varieties, maximum yields and planting density. The inventory will allow researchers to analyse the impacts of climate change on European wine PDOs and support decision makers in developing tailored adaptation strategies. This includes, among others, the evaluation of new vineyard site selection, the expansion of cultivated varieties or the authorization of irrigation in vineyards.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

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.

Comparison of imputation methods in long and varied phenological series. Application to the Conegliano dataset, including observations from 1964 over 400 grape varieties

A large varietal collection including over 1700 varieties was maintained in Conegliano, ITA, since the 1950s. Phenological data on a subset of 400 grape varieties including wine grapes, table grapes, and raisins were acquired at bud break, flowering, veraison, and ripening since 1964. Despite the efforts in maintaining and acquiring data over such an extensive collection, the data set has varying degrees of missing cases depending on the variety and the year. This is ubiquitous in phenology datasets with significant size and length. In this work, we evaluated four state-of-the-art methods to estimate missing values in this phenological series: k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN), Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (mice), MissForest, and Bidirectional Recurrent Imputation for Time Series (BRITS). For each phenological stage, we evaluated the performance of the methods in two ways. 1) On the full dataset, we randomly hold-out 10% of the true values for use as a test set and repeated the process 1000 times (Monte Carlo cross-validation). 2) On a reduced and almost complete subset of varieties, we varied the percentage of missing values from 10% to 70% by random deletion. In all cases, we evaluated the performance on the original values using normalized root mean squared error. For the full dataset we also obtained performance statistics by variety and by year. MissForest provided average errors of 17% (3 days) at budbreak, 14% (4 days) at flowering, 14.5% (7 days) at veraison, and 17% (3 days) at maturity. We completed the imputations of the Conegliano dataset, one of the world’s most extensive and varied phenological time series and a steppingstone for future climate change studies in grapes. The dataset is now ready for further analysis, and a rigorous evaluation of imputation errors is included.

Use of multispectral satellite for monitoring vine water status in mediterranean areas

The development of new generations of multispectral satellites such as Sentinel-2 opens possibilities as to vine water status assessment (Cohen et al., 2019). Based on a three years field campaign, a model of Stem Water Potential (SWP) estimation on vine using four satellite bands in Red, Red-Edge, NIR and SWIR domains was developed (Laroche-Pinel et al., 2021). The model relies on SWP field measures done using a pressure chamber (Scholander et al., 1965), which is a common, robust and precise method to assess vine water status (Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2008). The model was mainly developed from from SWP measures on Syrah N (Laroche Pinel E., 2021).

A large scale monitoring was organized in different vineyards in the Mediterranean region in 2021. 10 varieties amongst the most represented in this area were monitored (Cabernet sauvignon N, Chardonnay B, Cinsault N, Grenache N, Merlot N, Mourvèdre N, Sauvignon B, Syrah N, Vermentino B, Viognier B). The model was used to produce water status maps from Sentinel-2 images, starting from the beginning of June (fruit set) up to September (harvest). The average estimated SWP for each vine was compared to actual field SWP measures done by wine growers or technicians during usual monitoring of irrigation programs. The correlations between mean estimated SWP and mean measured SWP were at the same level than expected by the model. (Laroche Pinel, 2021) The general SWP kinetics were comparable. The estimated SWP would have led to same irrigation decisions concerning the date of first irrigation in comparison with measured SWP.

Acevedo-Opazo, C., Tisseyre, B., Ojeda, H., Ortega-Farias, S., Guillaume, S. (2008). Is it possible to assess the spatial variability of vine water status? OENO One, 42(4), 203.
Cohen, Y., Gogumalla, P., Bahat, I., Netzer, Y., Ben-Gal, A., Lenski, I., … Helman, D. (2019). Can time series of multispectral satellite images be used to estimate stem water potential in vineyards? In Precision agriculture ’19, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 445–451.
Laroche-Pinel, E., Duthoit, S., Albughdadi, M., Costard, A. D., Rousseau, J., Chéret, V., & Clenet, H. (2021). Towards vine water status monitoring on a large scale using sentinel-2 images. remote sensing, 13(9), 1837.
Laroche-Pinel,E. (2021). Suivi du statut hydrique de la vigne par télédétection hyper et multispectrale. Thèse INP Toulouse, France.
Scholander, P.F., Bradstreet, E.D., Hemmingsen, E.A., & Hammel, H.T. (1965). Sap pressure in vascular plants: Negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science, 148(3668), 339–346.