Functional characterisation of genetic elements regulating bunch morphology in grapevine

Redacted.

Different types of trellis systems determine different canopy spatial distributions, allowing greater or lesser shoot density in order to maximize the efficiency of light interception and productivity.

In recent years, consumer awareness for consuming healthy and environmental sustainability products has considerably increased [1]. In an ever-changing and highly competitive environment such as the wine sector, production of wines without sulfites, or biodynamic, organic or vegan wines, has experienced an important increase to meet the new needs of consumers [2,3]. Beyond these categories of regulated products, a new concept has emerged: natural wines (NW), for which there is not an established definition or legal regulation. Rather, producers have a personal idea of naturalness under the premise of applying minimal intervention from grape to wine production [4]. In this context, it is hypothesized that self-defined natural wines are different from conventional wines (CW) in their sensory and chemical profile. The predicament of natural wine is based on anecdotic declarations and assumes that minimal intervention guarantees the production of wines with organoleptic properties able to express the “terroir” and thus promote wine diversity, plurality and sensory typicity against the risk of standardization of CW.

The Barossa zone is arguably one of the most well-recognised wine producing regions in Australia and internationally; known mainly for the production of its distinct Shiraz wines. However, within the broad Barossa geographical delimitation, a variation in terroir can be perceived and is expressed as sensorial and chemical profile differences between wines. This study aimed to explore the sub-division classification across the Barossa region using chemical and sensory measurements. Shiraz grapes from 4 different vintages and different vineyards across the Barossa (2018, n = 69; 2019, n = 72; 2020, n = 79; 2021, n = 64) were harvested and made using a standardised small lot winemaking procedure. The analysis involved a sensory descriptive analysis with a highly trained panel and chemical measurement including basic chemistry (e.g. pH, TA, alcohol content, total SO2), phenolic composition, volatile compounds, metals, proline, and polysaccharides. The datasets were combined and analysed through an unsupervised, clustering analysis. Firstly, each vintage was considered separately to investigate any vintage to vintage variation. The datasets were then combined and analysed as a whole. The number of sub-divisions based on the measurements were identified and characterised with their sensory and chemical profile and some consistencies were seen between the vintages. Preliminary analysis of the sensory results showed that in most vintages, two major groups could be identified characterised with one group showing a fruit-forward profile and another displaying savoury and cooked vegetables characters. The exploration of distinct profiles arising from the Barossa wine producing region will provide producers with valuable information about the regional potential of their wine assisting with tools to increase their target market and reputation. This study will also provide a robust and comprehensive basis to determine the distinctive terroir characteristics which exist within the Barossa wine producing region.

Cultivation of a few number of clones is causing the loss of vineyard biodiversity, resulting in the disappearance of biotypes that could be of interest to face future challenges,