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

Context and Purpose of the Study. The use of herbicides and mechanical soil tillage, particularly on steep slopes, poses significant ecological challenges, including soil compaction and erosion.

Grapevine trunk diseases including Eutypa dieback are a major factor in the decline of vineyards and may lead to loss of productivity, reduced income, and premature reworking or replanting. Several studies have yielded results indicating that vines may be more likely to express symptoms of vascular disease if their health is already compromised by stress. In Australia and many other wine-growing regions it is a common practice for canes to be wrapped tightly around the cordon wire during the establishment of permanent cordon arms. It is likely that this practice may have a negative effect on health and longevity, as older cordons that have been trained in this manner often display signs of decay and dieback, with the wire often visibly embedded within the wood of the cordon. It is possible that adopting a training method which avoids constriction of the vasculature of the cordon may help to limit the onset of vascular disease symptom expression. A survey was conducted during the spring of two consecutive growing seasons on vineyards in South Australia displaying symptoms of Eutypa lata infection when symptomless shoots were 50–100 cm long. Vines were assessed as follows: (i) the proportion of cordon exhibiting dieback was rated using a 0–100% scale; (ii) the proportion of canopy exhibiting foliar symptoms of Eutypa dieback was rated using a 0–100% scale; (iii) the severity of strangulation was rated using a 0–4 point scale. Images were also taken of each vine for the purpose of measuring plant area index (PAI) using the VitiCanopy App. The goal of the survey was to determine if and to what extent any correlation exists between severity of strangulation and cordon dieback, in addition to Eutypa dieback foliar symptom expression.

Wine by-products valorisation by green chemistry methods: Impact of the extraction process on the structure, functionalities and activity of the extracted molecules

According to the algorithm “A step back towards the future 4.1C”, (Cargnello,1986a, 1987d, 1988a.b, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995, 1999a.e, 2000b, 2007c, 2008a, 2009d, 2013; and according to the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, 2003 2015, 2017), the historical, applied philosophy and productive analysis connected to the innovations and to the “Certification of the Universal Holistic MetaEthical Sustainability 4.1C” “indexed new global production model 4.1C” has always been fundamental, especially for the “Prosecco Territory” and for the “Prosecco Wine” to design and implement their synergistic future “Sustainable and Certificable 4.1CC” according to the principles of the “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” by the GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc, Cargnello et Carbonneau, 2007, 2018), and of the Conegliano Campus 5.1C. (Cargnello, lc). Nowadays, people think that Prosecco is a wine from the Veneto Region (from Conegliano and Valdobbiadene in particular), while it comes from Friuli‐Venezia Giulia Region (in North Eastern Italy, such as Veneto) more precisely from “Prosecco” in the Municipality of Trieste (TS‐Italy), as documented in 1382 and in 1548, when Pier Andrea Mattioli, described “that ancient wine, which is born in Prosecco”, as a wine with the following characteristics “thin, clear, shiny, golden, odorous and pleasant to taste». In 1888 at the “Wine Fair” of Trieste there were the “Sparkling wine Prosecco” by Giovanni Balanc, by Giuseppe Klampferer and that one by Marino Luxa. In the 19th century, many expressed their appreciation for the “Prosecco” of Trieste. In order to implement intra and extra territorial and cross‐border relations, as well as, the “Certification of: Products, Companies, Territory, Bio‐MétaÉthique District 4.1C” of Prosecco, a series of activities and researches were conducted in 8 companies: 5 in the “Territory of Prosecco” (TS) in which the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc) have been successfully applied. In particolar: 1‐ new and original “Sustainable 4.1C global production model” developed also to prevent the problems caused by wild boar, roe deer, and birds while safeguarding their “psychophysical wellness”, as well as the “psychophysical wellness 4.1C” of the macro and micro flora and fauna, of the biodiversity, of the landscape, etc. (Cargnello, lc), 1.2‐ chemical weed control and “Non MetaEthics 4.1C” processing with the total grass growing of the ground without or with mowing, better if it is manual to protect grass, air and soil, 2‐ recovery of “Historic”: land, vineyards, vines, biodiversity, landscapes, productions, products, … , 3‐ production of the famous “Prosekar, also rosé, of Prosecco” and “Prosecco di Prosecco”, according to “A step back towards the future 4.1C” 4‐ to offer a deserved psychophysical well‐being to the “Prosecco Territory” and entrepreneurs. 

The sustainability of viticulture in response to climate change has been addressed mainly considering agronomic impacts, such as water management and diseases, either separately or together.
In grapevines, there is strong evidence that different genotypes respond differently to biotic and abiotic stresses. A screening was conducted on various local cultivars in response to drought and Neofusicoum parvum infection aiming to evaluate their susceptibility to abiotic stress and resistance to fungal diseases.