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…

Climate change impacts: a multi-stress issue

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

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.

Better understand the soil wet bulb formation with subsurface or aerial drip irrigation in viticulture

The gradual change in rainfall patterns experienced in the south of France vineyards, especially around the Mediterranean sea, means that the vines are increasingly subject to summer drought. The winegrowers developped the use of irrigation techniques to ensure the maintenance of competitive yields in the production of wines under Protected Geographical Indication label. In practice, drip irrigation pipes can be installed above the ground or buried into the soil as well as at different distances from the vine row. The objective of this study was to examine the profiles of the wet bulbs of the soil obtained from two drip irrigation systems : aerial drip located under the vine row and subsurface drip placed in the middle of the inter-row. This experiment took place over two consecutive seasons (2020-2021) on a 3.4 ha Viognier plot in the Mediterranean region (PGI Oc, France) on sandy clay soil. The annual rainfalls were less than 400 mm. Soil water content probes were installed at different depths (20 – 40 – 60 – 80 cm) and at different lateralities from the vine row (30 – 60 – 90 – 120 cm) to control the formation of the soil wet bulb during irrigation. The mapping and the analysis of the data allowed a better understanding and differentiation of the water percolation when irrigating with subsurface or aerial drip. For the same amount of water and without differences of vine water status, it is shown that in a subsurface drip irrigation situation, the size of the wet bulb formed is larger than in aerial drip irrigation system.

Optimizing stomatal traits for future climates

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.

Different soil types and relief influence the quality of Merlot grapes in a relatively small area in the Vipava Valley (Slovenia) in relation to the vine water status

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…