GiESCO 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 GiESCO 9 GiESCO 2019 9 How much does the soil, climate and viticultural practices contribute to the variability of the terroir expression?

How much does the soil, climate and viticultural practices contribute to the variability of the terroir expression?

Abstract

Context and purpose of the study ‐ When considering the application of a systemic approach to assess the intrinsic complexity of agricultural production, the following question immediately arises: how is this synthesis made? In this sense, characterizing the joint effects of environmental factors and viticultural practices on vine functioning represents a key challenge for the correct management of Terroir. In order to provide a response to this challenge, this work assesses the relative importance of the main factors comprised into the Terroir concept: climate (or “Year” effect), “Soil” and the “Source‐sink” relation, on the vegetative development, yield, berry composition and plant sanitary status.

Material and methods ‐ The study was carried out between 2011 and 2014 on six viticultural regions in the south of Uruguay, involving nine vineyards. The cultivar studied was Tannat, which was vertically trellised and north‐south oriented in all vineyards. The year effect refers to climate, which was characterized using solar irradiation and three bioclimatic indices calculated according to the Multicriteria Climatic Classification System. The soil was characterized by digging pits and determining physicochemical properties, in order to determine three textural categories and to define soil depth and water availability. The source‐sink relationship factor referred to the ratio between leaf surface and yield, and included four categories that simulated different vine balances. This factor has been assimilated to a management that winegrowers may potentially achieve through a set of technical operations, such as pruning, shoot thinning, leaf and lateral removal and cluster thinning.
Statistical analyses included a Mixed Model with random effects to determine the relative importance of each factor on the total variability within the dataset.

Results ‐ Our results showed that vegetative growth depends mainly on the “soil” factor followed by the “Year”. Total yield per vine was explained by the “Source‐sink” relationship and the “Year*Source‐sink” interaction, both linked to the rainfall amount occurred during the maturation period. Berry weight was explained by “Year”. Rot incidence was more dependent on the “Year*Source‐sink” interaction, and then on the “Year*Soil” interaction, and on the “Soil” factor.
The synthesis of primary compounds in the berries depended mainly on the “Year” factor and the interaction of “Year*Source‐Sink”. The pH value was explained by the “Year*Soil” interaction. Secondary metabolite concentrations in the berry depended mainly on the “Source‐sink” relationship and the “Year” factor.
This investigation enables the adjustment of technical itineraries for managing this given terroir according to the characteristics of its physical environment and the production target to be achieved.

DOI:

Publication date: June 19, 2020

Issue: GiESCO 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Gerardo ECHEVERRÍA (1), José M. MIRÁS‐AVALOS (2)

(1) Facultad de Agronomía, UDELAR, Garzón 780, 12900 Montevideo, Uruguay
(2) Escola Politécnica Superior de Enxeñaría, USC, Benigno Ledo s/n, 27002 Lugo, España

Contact the author

Keywords

 vineyard soils, viticultural zoning, source‐sink relationships, vine balance, berry composition, mixed model

Tags

GiESCO 2019 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Effects of graft quality on growth and grapevine-water relations

Climate change is challenging viticulture worldwide compromising its sustainability due to warmer temperatures and the increased frequency of extreme events. Grafting Vitis vinifera L.

Climate and the evolving mix of grape varieties in Australia’s wine regions

The purpose of this study is to examine the changing mix of winegrape varieties in Australia so as to address the question: In the light of key climate indicators and predictions of further climate change, how appropriate are the grape varieties currently planted in Australia’s wine regions? To achieve this, regions are classified into zones according to each region’s climate variables, particularly average growing season temperature (GST), leaving aside within-region variations in climates. Five different climatic classifications are reported. Using projections of GSTs for the mid- and late 21st century, the extent to which each region is projected to move from its current zone classification to a warmer one is reported. Also shown is the changing proportion of each of 21 key varieties grown in a GST zone considered to be optimal for premium winegrape production. Together these indicators strengthen earlier suggestions that the mix of varieties may be currently less than ideal in many Australian wine regions, and would become even less so in coming decades if that mix was not altered in the anticipation of climate change. That is, grape varieties in many (especially the warmest) regions will have to keep changing, or wineries will have to seek fruit from higher latitudes or elevations if they wish to retain their current mix of varieties and wine styles.

Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

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.

Influence of a spontaneous cover crop on the vineyard and soil erosion under Mediterranean climate

Sixty five % of the agricultural area of the Basque Country located in the DO Ca Rioja corresponds to vineyards. More than 40% of it has an average slope greater than 10%, which makes it sensitive to erosive processes. Furthermore, it is foreseeable that extreme weather events (storms, hail, extreme heat and cold, etc.) will be favored due to climate change. Cover cropping can mitigate this risk, and therefore the objective of this work is to evaluate the impact that a vegetable cover has on the agronomic behavior of the vineyard, the quality of the grape and soil erosion. For this, a trial has been carried out with a Graciano variety vineyard with a slope between 10% -20% during the years 2020 and 2021. Conventional tillage management in the area has been compared (4-6 passes per year of tillage machinery) versus spontaneous vegetation cover management in the vineyard. This implies not tilling and allowing the grass of the land to colonize the range between the lines of vines, controlling their height through 1-3 mowing passes per year, always trying to affect the surface of the land as little as possible. The vegetative growth, yield and quality of the grape and wine was measured. Furthermore, erosion has been measured using Gerlasch boxes. The yield was lower in the second year of the trial in the cover crop treatment, but erosion was significantly reduced.