Influence of cork density upon cork stopper resiliency after opening a sparkling wine bottle

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Global climate change affects regional climates and hold implications for wine growing regions worldwide. Although winegrowers are constantly adapting to internal and external factors, it seems relevant to develop tools, which will allow them to better define actual and future agro-climatic potentials. Within this context, we develop a modelling approach, able to simulate the impact of environmental conditions and constraints on vine behaviour and to highlight potential adaptation strategies according to different climate change scenarios. Our modeling approach, named SEVE (Simulating Environmental impacts on Viticultural Ecosystems), provides a generic modeling framework for simulating grapevine growth and berry ripening under different conditions and constraints (slope, aspect, soil type, climate variability…) as well as production strategies and adaptation rules according to climate change scenarios. Each activity is represented by an autonomous agent able to react and adapt its reaction to the variability of environmental constraints. Using this model, we have recently analyzed the evolution of vineyards’ exposure to climatic risks (frost, pathogen risk, heat wave) and the adaptation strategies potentially implemented by the winegrowers. This approach, implemented for two climate change scenarios, has been initiated in France on traditional (Loire Valley) and emerging (Brittany) vineyards. The objective is to identify the time horizons of adaptations and new opportunities in these two regions. Carried out in collaboration with wine growers, this approach aims to better understand the variability of climate change impacts at local scale in the medium and long term.

Climate change impacts regional and local climates, which in turn affects the world’s wine regions. In the short term, these modifications rises issues about maintaining quality and style of wine, and in a longer term about the suitability of grape varieties and the sustainability of traditional wine regions. Thus, adaptation to climate change represents a major challenge for viticulture. In this context, island and coastal vineyards could become coveted areas due to their specific climatic conditions. In regions subject to warming, the proximity of the sea can moderate extremes temperatures, which could be an advantage for wine. However, coastal and island areas are particular prized spaces and subject to multiple pressures that make the establishment or extension of viticulture complex.
In this perspective, it seems relevant to assess the potentialities of coastal and island areas for viticulture. This contribution will present a spatial optimization model that tends to characterize most suitable agroclimatic patterns in historical or emerging vineyards according to different scenarios. Thanks to an in-depth bibliography a global inventory of coastal and insular vineyards on a worldwide scale has been realized. Relevant criteria have been identified to describe the specificities of these vineyards. They are used as input data in the optimization process, which will optimize some objectives and spatial aspects. According to a predefined scenario, the objectives are set in three main categories associated with climatic characteristics, vineyards characteristics and management strategies. At the end of this optimization process, a series of maps presents the different spatial configurations that maximize the scenario objectives.

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

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.