Time stability of visitors’ preferences for preserving the worldwide cultural landscape alto douro wine region

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.

Water deficit is one of the most important effects of climate change able to affect agricultural sectors. In general, it determines a reduction in biomass production, and for some plants, as in the case of grapevine, it can endorse fruit quality. The monitoring and management of plant water stress in the vineyard

One of the major issues for the wine sector is the impact of climate change linked to the increasing temperatures which affects physicochemical parameters of the grape varieties planted in Bordeaux vineyard and consequently, the quality of wine. In some varietals, the attenuation of their fresh fruity character is accompanied by the accentuation of dried-fruit notes [1]. As a new adaptive strategy on climate change, some winegrowers have initiated changes in the Bordeaux blend of vine varieties [2]. This study intends to explore the fruitiness in wines produced from grape varieties adapted to the future climate of Bordeaux. 10 commercial single–varietal wines from 2018 vintage made from the main grape varieties in the Bordeaux region (Cabernet franc, Cabernet-Sauvignon and Merlot) as well as from indigenous grape varieties from the Mediterranean basin, such as Cyprus (Yiannoudin), France (Syrah), Greece (Agiorgitiko and Xinomavro), Portugal (Touriga Nacional) and Spain (Garnacha and Tempranillo), were selected among 19 samples using sensory descriptive analyses. Both sensory and instrumental analyses were coupled, to investigate their fruity aroma expression. For sensory analysis, samples were prepared from wine, using a semi preparative HPLC method which preserves wine aroma and isolates fruity characteristics in 25 specific fractions [3,4]. Fractions of interest with intense fruity aromas were sensorially selected for each wine by a trained panel and mixed with ethanol and microfiltered water to obtain fruity aromatic reconstitutions (FAR) [5]. A free sorting task was applied to categorize FAR according to their similarities or dissimilarities, and different clusters were highlighted. Instrumental analysis of the different FAR and wines demonstrated variations in their molecular composition. Results obtained from sensory and gas chromatography analysis enrich the knowledge of the fruity expression of red wines from “new” grape varieties opening up new perspectives in wine technology, including blending, thus providing new tools for producers.

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.