Biotic interactions: case of grapevine cultivars – the fungal pathogen Neofusicoccum parvum – biocontrol agents 

Caffeic acid (CA) is an antioxidant of great importance in the food sector, such as wine, where it acts as a marker of wine ageing, as well as in the health sector due to its antioxidant properties and beneficial effects including the prevention of inflammation, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and diabetes.

Aim: In this work, we have optimized a robust methodology for investigating possible correlations between the phytochemical profile of wine and the terroir (including the climate), considering the specific wine-growing area. In particular, the untargeted metabolomic and sensorial profiles of Gutturnio DOC commercial wines (both still and “frizzante” types) from different production areas in the Piacenza province were determined. The geographical areas taken into consideration for this study consisted in Val Tidone, Val Nure and Val d’Arda.

Each grapevine variety has a specific water use regulation response under drought, and it is still unclear whether this regulation results from innate genotypic behavior (iso- and anisohydric), or is a response to environmental factors, namely recurrent water stress priming effects. In the present work, we explored the influence of the field-grown genotypes’ drought memory in the drought-response phenotype of their vegetative progenies, in Trincadeira (isohydric) and Castelão (anisohydric) varieties under a drought event followed by recovery in a glasshouse. Cuttings from both cultivars subjected to full irrigation (FI) and non-irrigation (NI) treatments for 5 consecutive years were used.

EU countries are in the top 16 of the world’s wine producers. To respond to a public health concern, caused by SO2 excessive exposure

For a long time environment was known as one of the most important factors to characterize the quality of wines but at the same time it appears very difficult to distinguish inside the “terroir” the role of the single factor. These remarks partially explain why methods for viticultural evaluation are often quite different (Amerine et al., 1944; Antoniazzi et al., 1986; Asselin et al., 1987; Astruc et al., 1980; Bonfils, 1977; Boselli, 1991; Colugnati, 1990; Costantinescu, 1967; Costantini et al., 1987; Dutt et al., 1981; Falcetti et al., 1992; Fregoni et al., 1992; Hidalgo, 1980; Intrieri et al., 1988; Laville, 1990; Morlat et al., 1991; Scienza et al., 1990; Shubert et al., 1987; Turri et al., 1991).