Vine nitrogen status and the terroir effect: a study on cv. Doral in the Vaud vineyard (Switzerland)

Understanding the composition of wine and how it is influenced by climate or wine-making practices is a challenging issue. Two approaches are typically used to explore this issue. The first approach uses chemical
fingerprints, which require advanced tools such as high-resolution mass spectrometry and multidimensional chromatography. The second approach is the targeted method, which relies on the widely available 1-D GC/MS, but involves integrating the areas under a few peaks which ends up using only a small fraction of the chromatogram.

During wine conservation in a bottle, the control of oxygen transfer from the outside environment to the wine inside the bottle is a key parameter that determines the wine quality. Many other factors can also influence the evolution of wine during postbottling aging,

Botrytis cinerea, a fungal pathogen commonly known as grey mold, which under specific climatic conditions can develop into a desirable form known as noble rot. In this process the fungus penetrates the grape skin, allowing water evaporation and concentration of sugars and flavors, while profoundly affects the metabolite composition of grapes, leading to the production of unique and desirable compounds in the resulting wines. The result is a unique and complex wine with a luscious sweetness, heightened aromatics, and a distinct character.

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

Several factors like vineyard site, climate, grape variety, ripeness, physical health of the grapes and pest management influence the populations of indigenous yeasts on grapes and later on in spontaneous fermentations.