The myth of the universal rootstock revisited: assessment of the importance of interactions between scion and rootstock

Grapevine is grown as a graft since the end of the 19th century. Rootstocks not only provide tolerance to Phylloxera but also ensure the supply of water and mineral nutrients to the scion. Rootstocks are an important mean of adaptation to environmental conditions, because the scion controls the typical features of the grapes and wine. However, among the large diversity of rootstocks worldwide, few of them are commercially used in the vineyard. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which rootstocks modify the mineral composition of the petioles of the scion. Vitis vinifera cvs. Cabernet-Sauvignon, Pinot noir, Syrah and Ugni blanc were grafted onto 55 different rootstock genotypes and planted in a vineyard as three replicates of 5 vines. Petioles were collected in the cluster zone with 6 replicates per combination. Petiolar concentrations of 13 mineral elements (N, P, K, S, Mg, Ca, Na, B, Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, Al) at veraison were determined. Scion, rootstock and the interaction explained the same proportion of the phenotypic variance for most mineral elements. Rootstock genotype showed a significant influence on the petiole mineral element composition. Rootstock effect explained from 7 % for Cu to 25 % for S of the variance. The difference of rootstock conferred mineral status is discussed in relation to vigor and fertility. Rootstocks were also genotyped with 23 microsatellite markers. Data were analysed according to genetic groups in order to determine whether the petiole mineral composition could be related to the genetic parentage of the rootstock. Thanks to a highly powerful design, it is the first time that such a large panel of rootstocks grafted with 4 scions has been studied. These results give the opportunity to better characterize the rootstocks and to enlarge the diversity used in the vineyard.

The wine sector is of great relevance and tradition in Mediterranean countries, however, it may be most susceptible to climate change. In recent years, wine production is facing changes worldwide, both at environmental as well as commercial levels, due to global warming and the shift in consumers’ preferences. Wine growers and wine makers are in search of solutions that allow to face these new challenges. One of the most promising initiatives in the long term is the introduction of new plant materials, specifically intraspecific hybridizations between premium varieties that may improve traditional germplasm in its adaptation to climate change. These inter-varietal crosses have the potential to generate quality wines, whilst maintaining the regional typicity, and constitute an attractive alternative for the consumer due to their sensory attributes. In this study, we have evaluated wines from 29 intraspecific Garnacha x Tempranillo hybrids in two different locations, with the aim to assess their oenological potential and sensory attributes. Thirteen of the selections were white and 16 were red. Microvinifications were conducted with two or three replications depending on grape availability. Conventional oenological parameters were determined for all wines. The sensory evaluation and hedonic scores were given by five experts. Red selections obtained higher quality scores than white ones. Among the white selections with higher quality scores, GT-41 Varea and GT-159 Varea outstand, due to their high total acidity and high malic acid content. Regarding red selections, GT-57 Varea and GT-57 UR were perceived as higher in quality, highlighted for their moderate alcoholic and high anthocyanin content. Our results indicate that intraspecific hybridization may be a powerful tool for adapting traditional cultivars to climate change in Rioja.

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.

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 work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.