Varietal differences between Shiraz and Cabernet sauvignon wines revealed by yeast metabolism

Choosing the rootstock, the scion variety and the training system best suited to the local soil and climate are the key elements for an economically sustainable production of wine. The choice of the rootstock/scion variety best adapted to the characteristics of the soil is essential but, by changing climatic conditions, ongoing climate change disrupts the fine-tuned local equilibrium. Higher temperatures induce shifts in developmental stages, with on the one hand increasing fears of spring frost damages and, on the other hand, ripening during the warmest periods in summer. Expected higher water demand and longer and more frequent drought events are also major concerns. The genetic control of the phenotypes, by genomic information but also by the epigenetic control of gene expression, offers a lot of opportunities for adapting the plant material to the future. For complex traits, genomic selection is also a promising method for predicting phenotypes. However, ecophysiological modelling is necessary to better anticipate the phenotypes in unexplored climatic conditions Genetic approaches applied on parameters of ecophysiological models rather than raw observed data are more than ever the basis for finding, or building, the ideal varieties of the future.

To evaluate the current and future impact of climate change on Viticulture requires an integrated view on a complex interacting system within the soil-plant-atmospheric continuum under continuous change. Aside of the globally observed increase in temperature in basically all viticulture regions for at least four decades, we observe several clear trends at the regional level in the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Additionally the recently published 6th assessment report of the IPCC (The physical science basis) shows case-dependent further expected shifts in climate patterns which will have substantial impacts on the way we will conduct viticulture in the decades to come.
Looking beyond climate developments, we observe rising temperatures in the upper soil layers which will have an impact on the distribution of microbial populations, the decay rate of organic matter or the storage capacity for carbon, thus affecting the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the viscosity of water in the soil-plant pathway, altering the transport of water. If the upper soil layers dry out faster due to less rainfall and/or increased evapotranspiration driven by higher temperatures, the spectral reflection properties of bare soil change and the transport of latent heat into the fruiting zone is increased putting a higher temperature load on the fruit. Interactions between micro-organisms in the rhizosphere and the grapevine root system are poorly understood but respond to environmental factors (such as increased soil temperatures) and the plant material (rootstock for instance), respectively the cultivation system (for example bio-organic versus conventional). This adds to an extremely complex system to manage in terms of increased resilience, adaptation to and even mitigation of climate change. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, effects on the individual expressions of wines with a given origin, seem highly likely to become more apparent.

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.

Stomatal traits determine grapevine water use, carbon supply, and water stress, which directly impact yield and berry chemistry. Breeding for stomatal traits has the strong potential to improve grapevine performance under future, drier conditions, but the trait values that breeders should target are unknown. We used a functional-structural plant model developed for grapevine (HydroShoot) to determine how stomatal traits impact canopy gas exchange, water potential, and temperature under historical and future conditions in high-quality and hot-climate California wine regions (Napa and the Central Valley). Historical climate (1990-2010) was collected from weather stations and future climate (2079-99) was projected from 4 representative climate models for California, assuming medium- and high-emissions (RCP 4.5 and 8.5). Five trait parameterizations, representing mean and extreme values for the maximum stomatal conductance (gmax) and leaf water potential threshold for stomatal closure (Ψsc), were defined from meta-analyses. Compared to mean trait values, the water-spending extremes (highest gmax or most negative Ysc) had negligible benefits for carbon gain and canopy cooling, but exacerbated vine water use and stress, for both sites and climate scenarios. These traits increased cumulative transpiration by 8 – 17%, changed cumulative carbon gain by -4 – 3%, and reduced minimum water potentials by 10 – 18%. Conversely, the water-saving extremes (lowest gmax or least negative Ψsc) strongly reduced water use and stress, but potentially compromised the carbon supply for ripening. Under RCP 8.5 conditions, these traits reduced transpiration by 22 – 35% and carbon gain by 9 – 16% and increased minimum water potentials by 20 – 28%, compared to mean values. Overall, selecting for more water-saving stomatal traits could improve water-use efficiency and avoid the detrimental effects of highly negative canopy water potentials on yield and quality, but more work is needed to evaluate whether these benefits outweigh the consequences of minor declines in carbon gain for fruit production.

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.