Q-NMR measurements: quantitative analysis of wine composition applied to Bordeaux red wines authenticity control

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

Root system architecture (RSA) is important for soil exploration and edaphic resources acquisition by the plant, and thus contributes largely to its productivity and adaptation to environmental stresses, particularly soil water deficit. In grafted grapevine, while the degree of drought tolerance induced by the rootstock has been well documented in the vineyard, information about the underlying physiological processes, particularly at the root level, is scarce, due to the inherent difficulties in observing large root systems in situ. The objectives of this study were to determine genetic differences in the root architectural traits and their relationships to water uptake in two Vitis rootstocks genotypes (RGM, 140Ru) differing in their adaptation to drought. Young rootstocks grafted upon the Riesling variety were transplanted into cylindrical tubes and in 2D rhizotrons under two conditions, well watered and moderate water stress. Root traits were analyzed by digital imaging and the amount of transpired water was measured gravimetrically twice a week. Root phenotyping after 30 days reveal substantial variation in RSA traits between genotypes despite similar total root mass; the drought-tolerant 140Ru showed higher root length density in the deep layer, while the drought-sensitive RGM was characterised by shallow-angled root system development with more basal roots and a larger proportion of fine roots in the upper half of the tube. Water deficit affected canopy size and shoot mass to a greater extent than root development and architectural-related traits for both 140Ru and RGM, suggesting vertical distribution of roots was controlled by genotype rather than plasticity to soil water regime. The deeper root system of 140Ru as compared to RGM correlated with greater daily water uptake and sustained stomata opening under water-limited conditions but had little effect on above-ground growth. Our results highlight that grapevine rootstocks have constitutively distinct RSA phenotypes and that, in the context of climate change, those that develop an extensive root network at depth may provide a desirable advantage to the plant in coping with reduced water resources.

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

The favorable effect of symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been known and studied since the 60s. Nowadays, many companies took the chance to start promoting and selling commercial inoculants of AMF, in order to be used as biofertilizers and encourage sustainable biological agriculture. However, the positive effect of these commercial biofertilizers on plant growth is not always demonstrated, especially under field conditions. In this study, we used a commercial inoculum on newly planted grapevines of a local cultivar grafted on a common rootstock R110. We followed the physiological status of vines, growth and productivity and functional biodiversity of soil bacteria during the first and second years of 20 inoculated with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseaeAMF at field planting time and 20 non-inoculated control plants. All the parameters measured showed a neutral to negative effect on plant growth and production. The inoculated plants always presented lower values of photosynthesis, growth and grape production, although in some cases the differences did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, the inoculation supposed an increase of the bacterial functional diversity, although the differences were not statistically significant either. Several studies show that the effect of inoculation with AMF is context-dependent. The non-favorable effects are probably due to inoculation ineffectiveness under complex field conditions and/or that, under certain conditions, AMF presence may be a parasitic association. This puts into question the effectiveness of its application in the field. Therefore, it is recommended to only resort to this type of biofertilizer when the cultivation conditions require it (e.g., very low previous microbial diversity, foreseeable stress due to drought, salinity, or lack of nutrients) and not as a general fertilization practice.