Staying hydrated – not easy when it’s hot!

Our research aimed to determine the effect and efficiency of foliar application of urea on the phenolic composition of Tempranillo Blanco grapes. The field experiment was carried out in 2019 and 2020 seasons and the plot was located in D.O.Ca Rioja (North of Spain). The vineyard was Vitis vinifera L. Tempranillo Blanco and grafted on Richter-110 rootstock. The treatments were control (C), whose plants were sprayed with water and three doses of urea: plants were sprayed with urea 3 kg N/ha (U3), 6 kg N/ha (U6) and 9 kg N/ha (U9). The applications were performed in two phenological stages, pre-veraison (Pre) and veraison (Ver). Also, each of the treatments was repeated one week later. Control and treatments were performed in triplicate and arranged in a randomised block design. Grapes were harvested at optimum ripening stage. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to analyse the phenolic composition of the grapes. Finally, the results obtained from the analytical determinations – flavonols, flavanols and non-flavonoid (hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids and stilbenes) – were studied statistically by analysis of variance. The results showed that, in 2019, U6-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased the hydroxybenzoic acid content in grapes, and also all foliar treatments applied at Pre enhanced the stilbene concentration. Moreover, U3-Ver was the only treatment that rose flavonol and stilbene contents in the Tempranillo Blanco grapes. In 2020, all treatments applied at Pre enhanced the flavonol concentration in grapes. Furthermore, U3-Pre and U9-Pre treatments increased stilbene content in grapes. Nevertheless, the hydroxybenzoic acid content was improved by U6-Ver and U9-Ver and besides, hydroxycinnamic acid concentration in grapes was increased by all treatments applied at Ver. In conclusion, the lower and highest dose of urea (U3 and U9), applied at pre-veraison, were the best treatments to improve the Tempranillo Blanco grape phenolic composition.

A gradual decline in vineyards has been observed over the past twenty years worldwide. This might be explained by the climate change, practices change or the increase of dieback diseases. To increase the longevity of vines, we studied the impact of different pruning strategies in four adult and four young vineyards located in France and Spain. In France, vineyards were planted with Cabernet franc on 3309C while Spanish trials were planted with Tempranillo grafted on 110R. Vegetative expression, yield, quality of berries and wood vessels conductivity were measured. The distribution of vegetative expression, yield and berry composition between primary and secondary vegetation were quantified. Finally, tomography was used to evaluate the implication of the treatments on sap flows.
First results show that i) the respectful pruning leads to an increase of 30 to 50% more secondary shoots than the aggressive pruning in France and between 15 and 20% in Spain, ii) there is no major effect on the yield over the first two years following the implementation of the new pruning practices, although the proportion of clusters from suckers is higher on the respectful pruning method. On young vines, the development of the trunk according to a respectful pruning leads to a loss of harvest 2 years after planting. This is due to the removal, on the future trunk, of the green suckers which carrying bunches. This operation carried out in spring rather than during winter pruning, would promote a better leaf / fruit balance when the plant comes into production, and could lead to better hydraulic conduction in the vessels of the trunk. Maintaining these trials for several years will provide more robust data to assess the impact of these practices on the vines over the long term.

[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"...

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.

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.