A generic method to analyze vine water deficit continuously

Vineyards harbor a myriad of microorganisms that interact with each other and with the grapevines. Some microorganisms are plant pathogens, such as the oomycete Plasmopara viticola that causes grapevine downy mildew. Others, such as plant growth promoting bacteria and disease biocontrol agents, have a positive influence on vine health. The present study aims to (1) investigate whether vine-based culture media increase the cultivability of the grapevine microbiota, in comparison to standard culture media and (2) identify and isolate bacterial taxa naturally present in grapevine leaves and significantly more abundant in plots showing low susceptibility to downy mildew.

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.

According to the algorithm “A step back towards the future 4.1C”, (Cargnello,1986a, 1987d, 1988a.b, 1991, 1993, 1994b, 1995, 1999a.e, 2000b, 2007c, 2008a, 2009d, 2013; and according to the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, 2003 2015, 2017), the historical, applied philosophy and productive analysis connected to the innovations and to the “Certification of the Universal Holistic MetaEthical Sustainability 4.1C” “indexed new global production model 4.1C” has always been fundamental, especially for the “Prosecco Territory” and for the “Prosecco Wine” to design and implement their synergistic future “Sustainable and Certificable 4.1CC” according to the principles of the “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” by the GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc, Cargnello et Carbonneau, 2007, 2018), and of the Conegliano Campus 5.1C. (Cargnello, lc). Nowadays, people think that Prosecco is a wine from the Veneto Region (from Conegliano and Valdobbiadene in particular), while it comes from Friuli‐Venezia Giulia Region (in North Eastern Italy, such as Veneto) more precisely from “Prosecco” in the Municipality of Trieste (TS‐Italy), as documented in 1382 and in 1548, when Pier Andrea Mattioli, described “that ancient wine, which is born in Prosecco”, as a wine with the following characteristics “thin, clear, shiny, golden, odorous and pleasant to taste». In 1888 at the “Wine Fair” of Trieste there were the “Sparkling wine Prosecco” by Giovanni Balanc, by Giuseppe Klampferer and that one by Marino Luxa. In the 19th century, many expressed their appreciation for the “Prosecco” of Trieste. In order to implement intra and extra territorial and cross‐border relations, as well as, the “Certification of: Products, Companies, Territory, Bio‐MétaÉthique District 4.1C” of Prosecco, a series of activities and researches were conducted in 8 companies: 5 in the “Territory of Prosecco” (TS) in which the principles of “Charter of Sustainable Viticulture BIO‐MetaEthics 4.1CC” of GiESCO (Carbonneau and Cargnello, lc) have been successfully applied. In particolar: 1‐ new and original “Sustainable 4.1C global production model” developed also to prevent the problems caused by wild boar, roe deer, and birds while safeguarding their “psychophysical wellness”, as well as the “psychophysical wellness 4.1C” of the macro and micro flora and fauna, of the biodiversity, of the landscape, etc. (Cargnello, lc), 1.2‐ chemical weed control and “Non MetaEthics 4.1C” processing with the total grass growing of the ground without or with mowing, better if it is manual to protect grass, air and soil, 2‐ recovery of “Historic”: land, vineyards, vines, biodiversity, landscapes, productions, products, … , 3‐ production of the famous “Prosekar, also rosé, of Prosecco” and “Prosecco di Prosecco”, according to “A step back towards the future 4.1C” 4‐ to offer a deserved psychophysical well‐being to the “Prosecco Territory” and entrepreneurs. 

Each grapevine variety has a specific water use regulation response under drought, and it is still unclear whether this regulation results from innate genotypic behavior (iso- and anisohydric), or is a response to environmental factors, namely recurrent water stress priming effects. In the present work, we explored the influence of the field-grown genotypes’ drought memory in the drought-response phenotype of their vegetative progenies, in Trincadeira (isohydric) and Castelão (anisohydric) varieties under a drought event followed by recovery in a glasshouse. Cuttings from both cultivars subjected to full irrigation (FI) and non-irrigation (NI) treatments for 5 consecutive years were used.

Pressing has a relevant impact on the characteristics of the must and subsequently on white wines produced [1]. Therefore, the adequate management of pressing can lead to the desired extraction of phenols and other grape compounds (i.e. Organic acids), aromas and their precursors, allowing the production of balanced wines [2]. This aspect is especially important to sparkling wine where the acidity and pH, and the content of phenols affect its longevity and the expected sensory character.