Influence of mixed fermentations with Starmerella bacillaris and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on malolactic fermentation by Lactobacillus plantarum and Oenococcus oeni in wines

OTA occurrence in wine is well-documented, with higher levels typically found in red (< 0.01-7.63 μg/l), followed by rose (0.01-2.40 μg/l) and white wine (<0.01-1.72 μg/l). Incidence rates are nOTAble, with studies showing OTA present in 53% of 521 red wines, 69% of 98 rose, and 61% of 301 white wines analysed. In europe, wine is estimated to be the second source of OTA intake after cereals. Since 2006, the maximum allowable limit for OTA in wine is 2 μg/l, according to regulation (ec) no. 1881/2006.

Dans le cadre de TerclimPro 2025, Elisa Marguerit a présenté un article IVES Technical Reviews. Retrouvez la présentation ci-dessous ainsi que l’article associé : https://ives-technicalreviews.eu/article/view/8387

Wine is not just a beverage; it represents an entire ecosystem in winemaking regions and is deeply linked to economic, social, and environmental factors.

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.

In this video recording of the IVES science meeting 2021, Alice Maria Correia Vilela (University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal) speaks about bio-modulating wine acidity: the role of non-Saccharomyces yeasts. This presentation is based on an original article accessible for free on IVES Technical Reviews.