The role of vine trunk height in delaying grape ripening: insights for viticultural adaptation strategies

Aim: To quantify the extent to which national mixes of wine grape varieties (in terms of vineyard bearing area) have become more or less diversified, and ‘internationalized’, since wine globalization accelerated from the 1990s.

The technique of crossing, whether free or controlled, has always been a source of variability allowing the selection of new varieties with improved fitness.

The ongoing climate change results in increasing mean air temperature, which is manifested by weather extremes or sudden changes between drought and local heavy rainfalls. These changing conditions are especially challenging for the established grapevine varieties growing under cool climate conditions due to an increased biotic infection pressure. Thus, the scope of most grapevine breeding programs is the selection of mildew fungus-resistant and climatic adapted grapevines with balanced, healthy yield and outstanding wine quality. Since no resistances or candidate genes have yet been described for Botrytis bunch rot (BBR), physical-mechanical traits like berry size and thick, impermeable berry cuticles phenotyped with high-throughput sensors represent novel effective parameters to predict BBR.

Following anecdotal evidence of unwanted ‘tropical’ character in red wines resulting from vineyard interventions and a subsequent yeast trial observing higher ‘red fruit’ character correlated with higher thiol concentrations, the role of polyfunctional thiols in commercial Australian red wines was investigated.
First, trials into the known tropical thiol modulation technique of foliar applications of sulfur and urea were conducted in parallel on Chardonnay and Shiraz.1 The Chardonnay wines showed expected results with elevated concentrations of 3-sulfanylhexanol (3-SH) and 3-sulfanylhexyl acetate (3-SHA), whereas the Shiraz wines lacked 3-SHA. Furthermore, the Shiraz wines were described as ‘drain’ (known as ‘reductive’ aroma character) during sensory evaluation although they did not contain thiols traditionally associated with ‘reductive’ thiols (H2S, methanethiol etc.).

With 0.3 to 0.7 kg CO2eq per 0.75 L wine, the glass bottle is the main contributor to the carbon footprint of a bottle of wine.