Intra-varietal diversity in cv. ‘Tempranillo Tinto’: phenological stages

Vineyards are strongly exposed to fungal diseases, attacks from insects and competition with weeds. Most treatments used on grape vines contain synthetic active substances, which may be transferred to the wine. Such pesticides have a negative image because many active substances are potential health hazards. A specific oenological treatment allowing the reduction of pesticide residues in wine based on activated vegetable fibres (AVF) is under examination by the International Organisation for Vine and Wine. This technique works efficiently and alters the wine only little (Lempereur et al. 2014).

Aim: Downy mildew is a crucial disease in viticulture. In-field evaluation of downy mildew has been classically based on visual inspection of leaves and fruit. Nevertheless, non-invasive sensing technologies could be used for disease detection in grapevine. The aim of this study was to assess downy mildew severity in grapevine leaves using machine vision.

Botanist Andreas Raphael Wolny collected a grapevine herbarium from 1812-1824 in Sremski Karlovci (wine region of Vojvodina, Serbia), which represents local cultivated grapevine diversity before the introduction of grape phylloxera in the region. The herbarium comprises over 100 samples organized into two subcollections based on berry colour (red and white varieties), totaling 47 different grape varieties. The objective of this study was to investigate the historical varietal assortment of Balkan and Pannonian winegrowing areas with long viticulture traditions.

In a context of reducing herbicide use, the most part of French vineyards are developing permanent grass cover crops on inter-rows alleys, while under the row chemical weeding remains the general case. The setting up of a controlled grass cover crop under the vine row could be a complementary alternative to mechanical weeding – which one is very restrictive – interesting from a technical and economical point of view. The present study aimed at assessing agronomic impacts of grass cover crop under the row in different climatic conditions and production objectives.

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.