Grapegrowing soils

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

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.

The development of fertigation could be a possible solution to adapt PGI Côtes de Gascogne (south-western France) wine production to climate change. The goal would be to limit the negative effects of water stress on yield performance expectation (around 15 tons per hectare) and to make the use of fertilizers more efficient. This study aimed to compare the effects of three strategies of water and minerals supply on grapes and wines qualities. Two fertigation practices were compared to a rainfed control which is the current standard of the local grape growing production. The fertilizers (nitrogen and potassium) were (i) fully brought by irrigation pipe during the season, (ii) partially brought by irrigation pipe and partially on the soil or (iii) fully brought on the soil at the beginning of the season for the non-irrigated control (local standard). The trial was run on cv. Colombard trained on spur pruned with vertical shoot positioning system on a sandy-silty-clay soil over the 2020 vintage which was particularly hot for the region. Moderate to strong water deficit appeared during the growing period of the berries and held on after veraison. Irrigation strategies allowed for maintaining grapevine without water deficit and being significantly different from the control water status. Grapevine with fully or partial fertigation strategies produced 25% more yield mainly due to the increase of the bunch weight. Also, the fully fertigation showed the best ratio between yield and maturity and brought 30% less of fertilizers (both nitrogen and potassium) than the two other strategies. Finally, the analysis of aromatic compounds in Colombard wines, varietal thiols family, showed the same level of concentrations for the 3 treatments, confirming that the yield performance did not impact the aromatic potential in this trial.

A large varietal collection including over 1700 varieties was maintained in Conegliano, ITA, since the 1950s. Phenological data on a subset of 400 grape varieties including wine grapes, table grapes, and raisins were acquired at bud break, flowering, veraison, and ripening since 1964. Despite the efforts in maintaining and acquiring data over such an extensive collection, the data set has varying degrees of missing cases depending on the variety and the year. This is ubiquitous in phenology datasets with significant size and length. In this work, we evaluated four state-of-the-art methods to estimate missing values in this phenological series: k-Nearest Neighbour (kNN), Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (mice), MissForest, and Bidirectional Recurrent Imputation for Time Series (BRITS). For each phenological stage, we evaluated the performance of the methods in two ways. 1) On the full dataset, we randomly hold-out 10% of the true values for use as a test set and repeated the process 1000 times (Monte Carlo cross-validation). 2) On a reduced and almost complete subset of varieties, we varied the percentage of missing values from 10% to 70% by random deletion. In all cases, we evaluated the performance on the original values using normalized root mean squared error. For the full dataset we also obtained performance statistics by variety and by year. MissForest provided average errors of 17% (3 days) at budbreak, 14% (4 days) at flowering, 14.5% (7 days) at veraison, and 17% (3 days) at maturity. We completed the imputations of the Conegliano dataset, one of the world’s most extensive and varied phenological time series and a steppingstone for future climate change studies in grapes. The dataset is now ready for further analysis, and a rigorous evaluation of imputation errors is included.

Because terroir and cultivar are drivers of wine quality, is essential to investigate theirs effects on polyphenolic profile before promoting the implantation of a red minority variety in a specific area. This work, included in MINORVIN project, focuses in the polyphenolic profile of 7 red grapevines minority varieties of Vitis vinifera L. (Morate, Sanguina, Santafe, Terriza Tinta Jeromo Tortozona Tinta) and Tempranillo) from six typical viticulture Spanish areas: Aragón (A1), Cataluña (A2), Castilla la Mancha (A3), Castilla –León (A4), Madrid (A5) and Navarra (A6) of 2020 season. Polyphenolic substances were extracted from grapes. 35 compounds were identified and quantified (mg subtance/kg fresh berry) by HPLC and grouped in anthocyanins (ANT) flavanols (FLAVA), flavonols (FLAVO), hydroxycinnamic (AH), benzoic (BA) acids and stilbenes (ST). Antioxidant activity (AA, mmol TE /g fresh berry) was determined by DPPH method. The results were submitted to a two-way ANOVA to investigate the influence of variety, area and their interaction for each polyphenolic family and cluster analysis was used to construct hierarchical dendrograms, searching the natural groupings among the samples. Sanguina (A3) had the most of total polyphenols while Tempranillo (A5) those of ANT. Sanguina (A2) and (A3) reached the highest values of FLAVO, FLAVA and AA. These two last samples had also the maximum of AA. The effect cultivar and area were significant for all polyphenolic families analyzed. A high variability due to variety (>50%) was observed in FLAVA and the maximum value of variability due to growing area was detected in AA (86.41%), ANT and FLAVO (51%); the interaction variety*zone was significant only for ANT, FLAVO, EST and AA. Finally, dendrograms presented five cluster: i) Sanguina (A2); ii) Sanguina (A3); iii) Tempranillo (A5); iv) Tempranillo (A3); Terriza (A3,A5), Morate (A5,A6); v) Santafé (A1,A6); Tortozona tinta (A1,A3,A6); Tinta Jeromo (A3,A4).