Teran grape quality influenced by different irrigation treatments

The importance of the non-Saccharomyces yeasts (NSY) in winemaking has been extensively reviewed in the past for their aromatic or bioprotective capacity while, recently their antioxidant/antiradical potential has emerged under winemaking conditions. In the literature the antioxidant potential of NSY was solely explored through their capacity to improve glutathione (GSH) content during alcoholic fermen- tation [1], while more and more studies pointed out the activity of the non-glutathione soluble fraction released by yeasts [2].

Consumer expectations are increasingly shifting towards “residue-free wines.” However, from an analytical standpoint, “zero” does not exist. Laboratories often use the quantification limits of analysis methods to signify ‘zero.’ Improved techniques now allow for the quantification of levels that were previously undetectable. This is why we prefer to use the term “unquantifiable residue” rather than “absence of residues.”

The crossings of three wild Vitis species are commonly used as rootstocks in wine production worldwide. Factors such as disease resistance and vigor are most important for their selection.
With climate change extending drought conditions and water limitations, the selection of rootstocks conferring increased tolerance to drought takes on greater importance. Therefore, identifying Vitis species with improved drought tolerance and incorporating them into breeding programs could contribute to more resilient rootstocks under water limiting conditions. Furthermore, those species serve as a valuable resource to increase genetic variability of rootstocks. We hypothesize that species native to drier habitats will exhibit superior physiological performance under drought stress.

The wine industry is increasingly focused on carbon accounting due to consumer’s demand and the industry’s goal of reducing carbon emissions.

The interest in understanding the water balance of terrestrial plants under drought has led to the creation of the isohydric/anisohydric terminology. The classification was related to an implication-driven framework, where isohydric plants maintain a constant and high leaf water potential through an early and intense closure of their stomata, hence risking carbon starvation. In contrast, anisohydric plants drop their leaf water potential to low values as soil drought is establishing due to insensitive stomata and thus risk mortality through hydraulic failure, albeit maximizing carbon intake. When applied to grapevines, this framework has been elusive, yielding discrepancies in the classification of different wine grape varieties around the world.