Regenerative agricultural winegrowing systems play a role in refining the expression of terroir in the pacific coast region of United States and Canada

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Management of plant-parasitic nematodes is typically focused on preplant fumigation, especially in a vineyard replant scenario. While the data are clear that this practice reduces nematodes immediately after application, which is useful in annually-cropped systems, does it have staying power in perennial cropping systems? The northern root-knot nematode Meloidogyne hapla reduces the overall lifespan and productivity of vineyards, but it does so over a long time period (slow, chronic decline). In two different commercial own-rooted V. vinifera vineyards, both undergoing vineyard replanting, we explored whether preplant fumigation reduced M. hapla densities in soils immediately after application. At one of these locations, we have explored the long-term effect of fumigation by monitoring the site for seven years post fumigation.

According to winemakers, wine experts and sommeliers, aromas of wet stone, mineral, struck match and flint in white wines styles, such as those produced from Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay, are considered to be hallmarks of positive reduction.1,2 In recent years, the production of Chardonnay styles defined by aroma characteristics related to positive reduction has become more desirable among wine experts and consumers. The chemical basis of positive reduction is thought to originate from the concentration of specific volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), including methanethiol (MeSH) imparting mineral and chalk notes,3 and benzenemethanethiol (BMT) responsible for struck match and flint.1,4

Vineyard water availability is one of the most important variables both in plant’s production and wine quality, once it regulates several processes, among which the stomata activity. To avoid water deficit, wine producers introduced artificial irrigation in their vineyard, using a semi-empirical process to calculate water amount.

Malolactic fermentation (MLF)¹, the decarboxylation of L-malic acid into L-lactic acid, is performed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). MLF has a deacidifying effect that may compromise freshness or microbiological stability in wines² and can be inhibited by fumaric acid [E297] (FA). In wine, can be added at a maximum allowable dose of 0.6 g/L³. Its inhibition with FA is being studied as an alternative strategy to minimize added doses of SO₂⁴. In addition, wine yeasts are capable of metabolizing and storing small amounts of FA and during alcoholic fermentation (AF).