Under trellis cover crop induces grapevine tolerance to bunch rot

Grapevines are susceptible to freezing damage at temperatures below -5°F during the winter season. Preventing winter injury to grapevines is a major challenge in many grape-producing regions. Conventional methods such as hilling-up soil over graft unions have been developed as winter protection methods for preventing vine loss. However, these practices have drawbacks such as soil erosion, vine damage and crown gall development.

To obtain a quality wine, it is necessary to collect grapes in an optimal state of maturation, so the control of the ripening process is fundamental for the viticulturist.

It is common to find tanks in the winery with wine below their capacity due to wine transfers between tanks of different capacities or the interruption of operations for periods of a few days. This situation implies the existence of an ullage space in the tank with prolonged contact with the wine causing its absorption/oxidation. Oxygen uptake from the air headspace over the wine due to differences in the partial pressure of O2 can be rapid, up to 1.5 mL of O2 per liter of wine in one hour and 100 cm2 of surface area1 and up to saturation after 4 hours.

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 dynamic sequence of physiological events along the three-months of berry development from anthesis to ripe stage has been thoroughly investigated. Most studies were performed on average samples, taking care to crush enough fruits to fairly represent the overall trend of the future harvest. However, phenological stages like 30% caps off (EL25) highlights the asynchronous nature of this population. Consequently, softening, onset of sugar accumulation and coloration were melted by asynchrony in a developmental mumbo jumbo, until their respective timing could be clarified by single berries approaches.