The 1000 grapevine genomes project: Cataloguing Australia’s grapevine germplasm

Grapevine pruning is one of the most important practices in the vineyards. Winegrowers use it to provide the vines the shape needed, or to maintain it once achieved, and also to balance vegetative growth and fruit production. In the last decades, careless pruning has been blamed, among other factors, as responsible of the vineyard decay that is been observed even in young vines. However, to our knowledge, there is a lack of systematic research trying to elucidate to which extent the pruning method used affects plant development or its susceptibility to grapevine trunk diseases (GTD). Within this context, the aim of this work is to study the influence of different pruning method strategies on the development of field-planted young vines.

The market trend heads to food products with less chemical inputs, including in oenology. During the winemaking process, sulfites are commonly use to avoid microbiological contamination and stabilization of the wine thanks to its antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. Nevertheless, this use is not without consequences on human health and environment, leading for example to allergic reaction and pollution. A biological alternative to these sulfites has emerges: the bioprotection.

The foliar application of urea has been shown to be able to satisfy the specific nutritional needs of the vine as well as to increase the nitrogen composition of the must. On the other hand, the use of nanotechnology could be of great interest in viticulture as it would help to slow down the release of urea and protect it against possible degradation. Several studies indicate that cell wall synthesis and remodeling are affected by nitrogen availability.

Vine cane extracts are a valuable byproduct due to their rich content of polyphenols, vitamins, and other beneficial compounds, which can affect and benefit the vine and the grapes. This study aims to evaluate the response of grapevine plants to irrigation with water supplemented with a vine cane extract, both at physiology response and phenolic composition in different parts of the plant (root, trunk, shoot, leaf, and berry).
Cane extract was obtained by macerating crushed pruning residues with warm water (5:1) and pectolytic enzymes. Two-year-old potted plants were irrigated with water (Control) while others were irrigated with cane extracts, either at 1:4 (w/v, cane extract/water; T 1:4) or at 1:8 (w/v, cane extract/water; T 1:8).

Vines require proper light levels, temperature, and water availability, and climate change is modifying these factors, hampering yield and quality. Despite the large diversity of rootstocks, varieties, and clones, we still lack knowledge of their combined effects and potential role in a warmer and dryer future. Therefore, we aim to characterize some of the existing diversity of rootstocks and genotypes and their interaction at the eco-physiological level, combining stomatal conductance (gs) and chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis.