Vine response to compost addition on a sandy-loam soil in the north-east of italy. Effects on root system, vegetative growth, yield and grape quality of Cabernet-Sauvignon cv

The Languedoc-Roussillon wineries are facing a decline in wine yields particularly PGI yields due to many factors. Climate change is just ones, but is expected to increase in the future. There is also structurally a large heterogeneity of yield profiles among terroirs, varieties and strategies. This work investigates the link between yield, competitiveness and resilience to explore how resilient winegrowers have been in the recent past. To this end two approaches have been combined; (i) an accountancy database analysis at estate scale and (ii) municipality level competitiveness analysis. A new resilience indicator that characterizes the capacity of an estate to absorb yield variation is also defined. The FADN database between 2000 and 2018 of ex-Languedoc-Roussillon (France) and other data are used to analyse the current situation and the past evolution of competitiveness and resilience by type of estate (type of farm: PGI and/or PDO & type of commercialization: bulk and/or bottles). The net margin, which defines competitiveness, is not correlated to yield for all types but depends on the type of commercialization and the level of specialisation. The resilience indicator shows that the net margin of estates specialized in PGI is particularly sensitive to yield declines. We also show that price evolutions seem to compensate the effect of yield losses for the majority of types. Municipality scale analysis shows the links between local pedoclimate, yield, commercialization strategies and price. Overlapping a PDO with a PGI does not always increase a municipality’s PGI competitiveness. It is difficult to make links between causes and effects due to the complexity of the wine production system. Production diversification may be a solution. Resorting to the two level of analysis helps resolving the data gap that is necessary to explore the links between yield and economic performance of the wine estates in the long term.

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…

Climate change is challenging viticulture worldwide compromising its sustainability due to warmer temperatures and the increased frequency of extreme events. Grafting Vitis vinifera L.

The Earth’s system is undergoing major changes through a wide range of spatial and temporal scales as a response to growing anthropogenic radiative forcing, which is pushing the whole system far beyond its natural variability. Sources of greenhouse gases largely exceed their sinks, thus leading to a strengthened greenhouse effect. More energy is thereby being supplied to the system, with inevitable shifts in climatic patterns and weather regimes. Over the last decades, these modifications have been manifested in the full statistical distributions of the atmospheric variables, with dramatic changes in the frequency and intensity of extremes. Natural hazards, such as severe droughts, floods, forest fires, or heatwaves, are being triggered by extreme atmospheric events worldwide, thus threatening human activities. Viticultculture is not only exposed to changing climates but is also highly vulnerable, as grapevine phenology and physiological development are strongly controlled by atmospheric conditions. Therefore, the assessment of climate change projections for a given region is critical for climate change adaptation and risk reduction in viticulture. By adopting timely and suitable measures, the future sustainability and resiliency of the sector can be fostered. Climate-grapevine chain modelling is an essential tool for better planning and management. However, the accuracy of the resulting projections is limited by many uncertainties that must be duly taken into account when transferring knowledge to stakeholders and decision-makers. Climate-smart viticulture will comprise ensembles of locally tuned strategies, envisioning both adaptation and mitigation, assisted by emerging technologies and decision-support systems.

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.