Vignobles sur les pentes en Bourgogne : l’aube d’un nouveau modèle de l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge

Spatial variability of vine productivity in winegrapes is important to characterise as both yield and quality are relevant for the production of different wine styles and products. The objectives were to understand how patterns of variability of Cabernet Sauvignon fruit composition changed over time and space, how these patterns could be characterised with indirect measurements, and how spatial patterns of the variation in fruit compositional attributes can aid in improving management. Prior to the 2017 vintage, 125 data vines were distributed across each of four vineyards in the Lodi American Viticultural Area (AVA) of California. Each data vine was sampled at commercial harvest in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Yield components and fruit composition were measured at harvest for each data vine, and maps of yield and fruit composition were produced for eight ‘objective measures of fruit quality’: total anthocyanins, polymeric tannins, quercetin glycosides, malic acid, yeast assimilable nitrogen, β-damascenone, C6 alcohols and aldehydes, and 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine. Patterns of variation in anthocyanins and phenolic compounds were found to be most stable over time. Given this relative stability, management decisions focused on fruit quality could be based on zonal descriptions of anthocyanins or phenolics to increase profitability in some vineyards. In each vineyard, dormant season pruning weights and soil cores were collected at each location, elevation and soil apparent electrical conductivity surveys were completed, and remotely sensed imagery was captured by fixed wing aircraft and two satellite platforms at major phenological stages. The data collected were used to develop relationships among biophysical data, soil, imagery, and fruit composition. The standardised and aggregated samples from four vineyards over three seasons were included in the estimation of ‘common variograms’ to assess how this technique could aid growers in producing geostatistically rigorous maps of fruit composition variability without cumbersome, single season sampling efforts.

In wine growing regions around the world, climate change has the potential to affect vine transpiration and overall vineyard water use due to related changes in atmospheric demand and soil water deficits. Grapevines control their transpiration in response to a changing environment by regulating conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Most vineyard water use models currently estimate vine transpiration by applying generic crop coefficients to estimates of reference evapotranspiration, but this does not account for changes in vine conductance associated with water stress, nor differences thought to exist between varieties. The response of bulk stomatal conductance to daily weather variability and seasonal drought stress was studied on Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Tempranillo, Ugni blanc, and Semillon vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France. Whole vine sap flow, temperature and humidity in the vine canopy, and net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy were measured on 15-minute intervals from early July through mid-September 2020, together with periodic measurement of leaf area, canopy porosity, and predawn leaf water potential. From this data, bulk stomatal conductance was calculated on 15-minute intervals, and multiple regression analysis was performed to identify key variables and their relative effect on conductance. Attention was focused on addressing multicollinearity and time-dependency in the explanatory variables and developing regression models that were readily interpretable. Variability of vapor pressure deficit over the day, and predawn water potential over the season explained much of the variability in conductance, with relative differences in response coefficients observed across the five varieties. By characterizing this conductance response, the dynamics of vine transpiration can be better parameterized in vineyard water use modeling of current and future climate scenarios.

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

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.

Climate change represents a major challenge for the French wine industry. Climatic conditions in French vineyards have already changed and will continue to evolve. One of the notable effects on grapevine is the advancing growing season. The aim of this study is to characterise the evolution of agroclimatic indicators (Huglin index, number of hot days, mean temperature, cumulative rainfall and number of rainy days during the growing season) at French wine-growing regions scale between 1980 and 2019 using gridded data (8 km resolution, SAFRAN) and for the middle of the 21th century (2046-2065) with 21 GCMs statistically debiased and downscaled at 8 km. A set of three phenological models were used to simulate the budburst (BRIN, Smoothed-Utah), flowering, veraison and theoretical maturity (GFV and GSR) stages for two grape varieties (Chardonnay and Cabernet-Sauvignon) over the whole period studied. All the French wine-growing regions show an increase in both temperatures during the growing season and Huglin index. This increase is accompanied by an advance in the simulated flowering (+3 to +9 days), veraison (+6 to +13 days) and theoretical maturity (+6 to +16 days) stages, which are more noticeable in the north-eastern part of France. The climate projections unanimously show, for all the GCMs considered, a clear increase in the Huglin index (+662 to 771 °C.days compared to the 1980-1999 period) and in the number of hot days (+5.6 to 22.6 days) in all the wine regions studied. Regarding rainfall, the expected evolution remains very uncertain due to the heterogeneity of the climates simulated by the 21 models. Only 4 regions out of 21 have a significant decrease in the number of rainy days during the growing season. The two budburst models show a strong divergence in the evolution of this stage with an average difference of 18 days between the two models on all grapevine regions. The theoretical maturity is the most impacted stage with a potential advance between 40 and 23 days according to wine-growing regions.