Characterizing the molecular basis of the differences in aromatic precursors found in commercial clones of Vitis vinifera cv. Tannat

Climate change results in increasing water stress due to co-effects of rising evapotranspiration (ET) and decreased precipitation over the past 65 years (Spinoni et al. 2019).

Row orientation is a critical long-term viticulture practice, which may have a determining effect on grape and wine quality as well as cost efficiency on a specific terroir selected for cultivation.

Water is the main limiting factor for yield in viticulture. Improving drought adaptation in viticulture will be an increasingly important issue under climate change. Genetic variability of water deficit responses in grapevine partly results from the rootstocks, making them an attractive and relevant mean to achieve adaptation without changing the scion genotype. The objective of this work was to characterize the rootstock effect on the diurnal regulation of scion transpiration. A large panel of 55 commercial genotypes were grafted onto Cabernet Sauvignon. Three biological repetitions per genotype were analyzed. Potted plants were phenotyped on a greenhouse balance platform capable of assessing real-time water use and maintaining a targeted water deficit intensity. After a 10 days well-watered baseline period, an increasing water deficit was applied for 10 days, followed by a stable water deficit stress for 7 days. Pruning weight, root and aerial dry weight and transpiration were recorded and the experiment was repeated during two years. Transpiration efficiency (ratio between aerial biomass and transpiration) was calculated and δ13C was measured in leaves for the baseline and stable water deficit periods. A large genetic variability was observed within the panel. The rootstock had a significant impact on nocturnal transpiration which was also strongly and positively correlated with maximum daytime transpiration. The correlations with growth and water use efficiency related traits will be discussed. Transpiration data were also related with VPD and soil water content demonstrating the influence of environmental conditions on transpiration. These results highlighted the role of the rootstock in modulating water deficit responses and give insights for rootstock breeding programs aimed at identifying drought tolerant rootstocks. It was also helpful to better define the mechanisms on which the drought tolerance in grapevine rootstocks is based on.

Today, the concept of precision vine management (or site-specific viticulture) has a great relevance. It is based on the practice of a different management in relation to the different features of the crop site. In this way, all practices should be adapted to the land spatial variability and should be linked to the real needs of vines.

The main objective of this study was to establish if beet sugar produces a different concentration of “fruity” volatile aroma compounds (VOCs), compared to cane sugar when used for second alcoholic fermentation of Auxerrois sparkling wines. Auxerrois base wine from the 2020 vintage was separated into two lots; half was fermented with cane sugar and half with beet sugar (both sucrose products and tested for sugar purity). These sugars were used in yeast acclimation (IOC 2007), and base wines for the second fermentation (12 bottles each). Base wines were manually bottled at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) research winery. The standard chemical analysis took place at intervals of 0, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks post-bottling. Acidity and pH measurements were carried out by an auto-titrator. Residual Sugar (g/L) (glucose (g/L), fructose (g/L)), YAN (mg N/L), malic acid, and acetic acid (g/L) were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. parameters were analyzed by Megazyme assay kits. Alcohol (% v/v) was assessed by GC-FID. VOC analysis of base wines, finished sparkling wines, as well as the two sugars in model sparkling wine solutions, was carried out by GC-MS. VOCs included ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl-2-methylbutyrate, ethyl-3-methylbutyrate, ethyl 2-methyl propanoate, ethyl 2- hydroxy propanoate, 1-hexanol, 2-phenylethan-1-ol, ethyl acetate, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate.