Terroir 2016 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Talking about terroir

Talking about terroir

Abstract

When talking about terroir, scientists and lay wine tasters, very much including wine journalists and wine growers, too often talk past one another.

“Terroir” may be among the most irritatingly vague and slippery words in the wine growers’ and wine critic’s vocabulary, but scientists, too, seem conspicuously unwilling to render this notion more precise; and if a shared and mutually useful concept cannot be achieved, how can we reach genuine agreement or disagreement in our claims about terroir, let alone address or mitigate one another’s perplexity?

Moreover, it often appears as if parties to alleged explications of terroir fail even to agree on the phenomenon that demands explanation. Wine tasters are frustrated with scientists who make no attempt to account for but instead treat as implausible or debunk claims for organoleptic experience of wine as varying with regularity and predictability depending on site and soil type. Entire books have been written about vineyard geology under the rubric of terroir without accounting for how rocks might actually influence taste. Specialists often advise on where best to plant wine grapes seemingly oblivious that “best” can make sense only if location somehow ultimately influences taste. Yet scientists can be forgiven their frustration with and dismissals of utterly implausible pictures that wine tasters have painted for themselves about how soil and site might influence taste.

Examples will be offered of some common conceptual pitfalls into which both scientists and laity stumble when discussing “terroir.” Treating this term as by its nature evaluative undermines attempts to define site potential; treating it as encompassing anything that might impinge on the eventual character of wine including viticultural and cellar practices renders it so all-encompassing that it fails to mark any significant distinction. Positing something called “minerality in wine” trades on equivocation and conceptual muddle.

It will be proposed that “terroir” be defined as those constraints placed on (or opportunities afforded) a vintner and the eventual flavors of his or her wine by the location in which that wine was grown. Several senses of terroir influence consistent with that definition will be explicated, each differing in scope and in the role assigned to grape variety and vine genetics. It will be argued that the notion of wine as exhibiting terroir character and tasters’ ability to discern characteristics causally associated with site are neither more nor less problematic than the analogous notion of vintage character or its identification as predicated on the influence of weather on vine metabolism, fruit maturation and ultimately flavor. It will be suggested that much more scientific research should be devoted to measuring how much or how little such ability tasters can develop, as opposed to imagine themselves possessing, because this will circumscribe investigations into how site influences flavor and determine how relevant place is to pedigree.

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2020

Issue: Terroir 2016

Type: Article

Authors

David Schildknecht

Wine Writer, The Wine Advocate and other wine publications, USA

Contact the author

Keywords

Touriga Nacional; Touriga Franca; Climate Change; Summer Stress; Douro Region; Morpho Anatomy; Biochemistry

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Terroir traceability in grapes, musts and wine: results of research on Gewürztraminer and Sauvignon Blanc grape varieties in northern Italy

In the study of terroir, a separate analysis of its many component factors can be of great help in accurately identifying a vineyard’s natural elements that impact wine quality and typicity. This research used a dedicated pluri-disciplinary approach to investigate the ecological characteristics, including geology and geographical features, of 14 vineyards that produce Gewürztraminer and Sauvignon Blanc cultivars in the alpine Alto Adige DOC wine region. Both the geopedological method using Vineyards Geological Identity (VGI) and the new Solar Radiaton Identity (SRI) topoclimatic classification method were used to provide analytical measurements and qualitative/quantitative characterisations. In addition, wide-ranging targeted and untargeted oenological and chemical analyses were carried out on grapes, musts and wines to correlate the soils’ geomineral and physical conditions with the biochemical properties of their fruits and wines. The research identified strong correlations between vineyard geo-identity and wine biofingerprint, confirming a mineral traceability of strontium rubidium ratio and some minerals distinctive to the local geology, such as K, Ca, Ag, Ba and Mn.  The study also discovered that particular geomineral and physical soil conditions of the studied vineyards are related to the different amount of amino acids, primary varietal aromas and polyphenols found in grapes, musts and wines. The research confirmed that winemaking technologies support oenological quality, although in some cases, human practices can overpower certain characteristic elements in wine, erasing the typical imprint left by the vineyards’ natural terroir, which becomes less traceable. Terroir abiotic ecological factors and vineyard identity can be classified in detail using the new VGI and SRI analysis methods to discover interrelationships between geo-pedological and topoclimatic conditions that impact wine quality. These methods are also helpful in identifying which ecological elements are exclusive to a particular vineyard or wine sub-region.

Characterization of variety-specific changes in bulk stomatal conductance in response to changes in atmospheric demand and drought stress

In wine growing regions around the world, climate change has the potential to affect vine transpiration and overall vineyard water use due to related changes in atmospheric demand and soil water deficits. Grapevines control their transpiration in response to a changing environment by regulating conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Most vineyard water use models currently estimate vine transpiration by applying generic crop coefficients to estimates of reference evapotranspiration, but this does not account for changes in vine conductance associated with water stress, nor differences thought to exist between varieties. The response of bulk stomatal conductance to daily weather variability and seasonal drought stress was studied on Cabernet-Sauvignon, Merlot, Tempranillo, Ugni blanc, and Semillon vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France. Whole vine sap flow, temperature and humidity in the vine canopy, and net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy were measured on 15-minute intervals from early July through mid-September 2020, together with periodic measurement of leaf area, canopy porosity, and predawn leaf water potential. From this data, bulk stomatal conductance was calculated on 15-minute intervals, and multiple regression analysis was performed to identify key variables and their relative effect on conductance. Attention was focused on addressing multicollinearity and time-dependency in the explanatory variables and developing regression models that were readily interpretable. Variability of vapor pressure deficit over the day, and predawn water potential over the season explained much of the variability in conductance, with relative differences in response coefficients observed across the five varieties. By characterizing this conductance response, the dynamics of vine transpiration can be better parameterized in vineyard water use modeling of current and future climate scenarios.

Spatial variability of temperature is linked to grape composition variability in the Saint-Emilion winegrowing area

Elevated temperature during the grape maturation period is a major threat for grape quality and thus wine quality. Therefore, characterizing the grape composition response to temperature at a larger scale would represent a crucial step towards adaptation to climate change. In response to changes in temperature, various physiological mechanisms regulate grape composition. Primary and secondary metabolisms are both involved in this response, with well-known effects, for example on anthocyanins, and lesser known effects, for example on aromas or aroma precursors. At the field scale or at the regional scale, however, numerous environmental or plant-specific factors intervene to make the effects of temperature difficult to distinguish from overall variability. In this study, it was attempted to overcome this difficulty by selecting well-characterized situations with differing temperatures.
A long-term study of air temperature variability across several Merlot vineyards in the Saint-Emilion and Pomerol wine producing area found significant temperature differences and gradients at various time scales linked to environmental factors. From this study area, a few sites were selected with similar age, soil and training system conditions, and with repeated and contrasted temperature differences during the maturation period. The average temperature difference during the maturation period was about 2°C between cooler and warmer sites, a difference similar to that expected under future climate change scenarios. In close vicinity to the temperature sensors at each site, grape berries were sampled at different times until full maturity during 2019 and 2020. Also, berries from bunches on either side of the row were analyzed separately, allowing an investigation of bunch exposure effect associated with the coupling of berry temperature and solar radiation. Four replicates of pooled berries for each time – site – bunch exposure combination were obtained and analyzed for biochemical composition. Analyses of variance of the biochemical composition data collected at different sampling times reveal significant effects associated with temperature, site, and bunch azimuth. For instance, anthocyanins in grape skins are clearly influenced by temperature and solar radiation exposure, with up to 30% reduction in warmer conditions.

Extreme canopy management for vineyard adaptation to climate change: is it a good idea?

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.

Effect of the commercial inoculum of arbuscular mycorrhiza in the establishment of a commercial vineyard of the cultivar “Manto negro

The favorable effect of symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been known and studied since the 60s. Nowadays, many companies took the chance to start promoting and selling commercial inoculants of AMF, in order to be used as biofertilizers and encourage sustainable biological agriculture. However, the positive effect of these commercial biofertilizers on plant growth is not always demonstrated, especially under field conditions. In this study, we used a commercial inoculum on newly planted grapevines of a local cultivar grafted on a common rootstock R110. We followed the physiological status of vines, growth and productivity and functional biodiversity of soil bacteria during the first and second years of 20 inoculated with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseaeAMF at field planting time and 20 non-inoculated control plants. All the parameters measured showed a neutral to negative effect on plant growth and production. The inoculated plants always presented lower values of photosynthesis, growth and grape production, although in some cases the differences did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, the inoculation supposed an increase of the bacterial functional diversity, although the differences were not statistically significant either. Several studies show that the effect of inoculation with AMF is context-dependent. The non-favorable effects are probably due to inoculation ineffectiveness under complex field conditions and/or that, under certain conditions, AMF presence may be a parasitic association. This puts into question the effectiveness of its application in the field. Therefore, it is recommended to only resort to this type of biofertilizer when the cultivation conditions require it (e.g., very low previous microbial diversity, foreseeable stress due to drought, salinity, or lack of nutrients) and not as a general fertilization practice.