Optimization of in vitro establishment of grapevine varieties for fast micropropagation 

In this video recording of the IVES science meeting 2021, Johanna Döring (Hochschule Geisenheim University Department of General and Organic Viticulture, Geisenheim, Germany) speaks about the comparison of integrated, organic and biodynamic viticultural practices. This presentation is based on an original article accessible for free on OENO One.

A trend to reduce chemical inputs in wines exists, especially sulfur dioxide (SO2). This additive is widely used due to its antioxidant, antiseptic and antioxidasic properties. During without sulfites vinification, bioprotection by adding yeast on harvest could be a sulfites alternative. With extension of this wine market, sensory impact linked to sulfites absence and/or sulfites alternative should be evaluated. That’s what this approach proposes to do, focusing on sensory characteristics of wines produced with or without SO2 addition during the winemaking process. METHODS: Wines were elaborated from Merlot grapes of two maturity levels according to three modalities: SO2, without SO2 and bioprotection on harvest (mix of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Metschnikowia pulcherrima). SO2 modality was sulfited throughout the winemaking and aging processes whether other modalities received any addition. After two years of aging, sensory studies were carried out with a specific panel for one month. First, descriptors were generated to differentiate the wines, then panelists were trained on these specific descriptors for five sessions and finally wines sensory profiles were elaborated

Las condiciones heliotérmicas en España son en general favorables a alcanzar una elevada producción de azúcares en las bayas de prácticamente todas las variedades que se cultivan en nuestro país.

Climate strongly affects the geographical distribution of grape varieties, grapevine cultivation techniques and wine organoleptic properties.

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.