Terroir 2020 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Relationships between vineyard soil physiochemical properties and under-vine soil cover as potential drivers of terroir in the Barossa

Relationships between vineyard soil physiochemical properties and under-vine soil cover as potential drivers of terroir in the Barossa

Abstract

Aims: Soils are an intrinsic feature of the landscape and have influenced culturally and economically important terroir delineation in many wine-producing regions of the world. Soil physiochemical properties govern a wide array of ecosystem services, and can therefore affect grapevine health and fruit development. These physiochemical properties can reflect a combination of factors, including geology and environmental conditions, as well as soil management. In order to evaluate to what extent each of these factors contribute to the soil-driven aspect of terroir, this study examines soil properties and under-vine soil cover of twenty-four vineyard sites located in six sub-regions within the Barossa Geographical Indication (GI) Zone in South Australia. The aims of this study are to investigate relationships between soil properties and soil management as potential features that shape sub-regional variation in terroir characteristics that may eventuate in the development of smaller, distinctive sub-regional GI’s within the Barossa GI Zone.

Methods and Results: Soil samples were collected from the under-vine rows of twenty-four vineyard sites, with four sites located in each of the six Barossa sub-regions of Central Grounds, Southern Grounds, Northern Grounds, Western Ridge, Eastern Ridge and Eden Valley. Soil physiochemical properties such as texture (% sand, % silt, and % clay), total carbon (TC), total nitrogen (TN), plant-available (Colwell) phosphorus (P), pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and gravimetric water content (GWC) were measured at each site. Under-vine soil cover at each vineyard site was then assessed by using 1m2 quadrat surveys to categorise the under-vine zone based on the dominant plant species (perennial grasses or broadleaf weeds) or soil cover (bare soil or mulch). Results indicated that the Eden Valley had lower P than the Eastern Ridge and lower % clay than the Eastern Ridge and Central Grounds. The other measured soil properties were not different between the sub-regions. Under-vine floor cover did not play a significant role in shaping the measured soil properties in this study, instead it appears that soil texture was the main driver that explains these relationships. 

Conclusions:

Sub-regional variation in soil properties in the Barossa GI Zone was most strongly influenced by soil texture, which was variable at the sub-regional level in most of the sub-regions, however differences were found between the Eden Valley, Central Grounds and Eastern Ridge with the latter two sub-regions being characterised by soils with higher clay contents. Plant-available P was lowest in the Eden Valley, which could be explained by the higher sand content and therefore higher P leachability of soils in this sub-region. Under-vine soil cover did not have any effects on soil physiochemical properties between the vineyard sites, also likely because of the variability of soil texture between sites. The next steps in this study are to characterise the structure of soil microbial communities (i.e. microbiomes) in these six sub-regions to gain insight on how soil biogeography changes over an Australian wine-producing landscape. 

Significance and Impact of the Study: This study provides insights as to the main drivers of soil sub-regional variation in the Barossa GI Zone and indicates that soils are highly variable even at the sub-regional level. 

DOI:

Publication date: March 17, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2020

Type: Video

Authors

Merek Kesser*, Timothy Cavagnaro, Roberta De Bei and Cassandra Collins

School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia

Contact the author

Keywords

Terroir, sub-regions, soil physiochemistry, under-vine soil cover

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2020

Citation

Related articles…

A spatial explicit inventory of EU wine protected designation of origin to support decision making in a changing climate

Winemaking areas recognized as protected designations of origin (PDOs) shape important economic, environmental and cultural values that are tied to closely defined geographic locations. To preserve wine products and wine-growing practices adopted in different PDOs these areas are strictly regulated by legal specifications. However, quality viticulture is increasingly under pressure from climate change, which is altering the local conditions of many winegrowing areas. Therefore, maintaining traditional wine products will require the adoption of tailored adaptation strategies, including possible changes in the legal regulation of protected wines. To this end, it is necessary to have a comprehensive knowledge on PDOs including their extension, products and allowed practices. While there have been efforts to build databases that summarize the characteristics for individual wine PDO areas and to quantify the related effects of climate change, much information is still included only in the official documentation of the EU geographical indication register and has never been collected in a comprehensive manner. With this study we aim at filling this gap by building a spatial inventory of European wine PDOs that supports decision making in viticulture in the context of climate change. To map and characterize European wine PDOs, we analysed their legal documents and extracted relevant information useful for climate change adaptation. The output consists of a comprehensive geographical dataset that identifies the boundaries of all 1200 European wine PDOs at unprecedented spatial resolution and includes a set of legally binding regulations, such as authorized vine varieties, maximum yields and planting density. The inventory will allow researchers to analyse the impacts of climate change on European wine PDOs and support decision makers in developing tailored adaptation strategies. This includes, among others, the evaluation of new vineyard site selection, the expansion of cultivated varieties or the authorization of irrigation in vineyards.

Influence of agronomic practices in soil water content in mid-mountain vineyards

In the context of LIFE project MIDMACC (LIFE18 CCA/ES/001099), several pilots have been installed in vineyards in mid mountain areas of Catalonia (NE Spain) to test well stablished agronomic practices to increase the adaptation of Mediterranean mid mountain to climate change. Soil water content (SWC) at three different depths (15, 30 and 45cm) was measured in continuum from August 2020. One pilot (WC) included a well-established green cover (GC), a new GC (NC) and a conventional soil management (CM, tilling+herbicides). NC presented an intermediate state between WC and CM, responding similarly to CM in autumn but quickly reaching similar SWC to WC, then following the same evolution till next spring, with CM presenting lower values along autumn and winter. Then vegetation activation decreased SWC in all plots, (much slower in CM, lacking GC). Sensibility to spring rains is again intermediate for NC, which joins SWC evolution of CM by the end of spring till next autumn. It is expected that NC will resemble WC more and more as its GC develops. In the pilot combining vine training (VSP vs Gobelet) and hillside management (slope vs terrace), no clear pattern could be related with these conditions. However, both terraces seem to be more sensitive to spring rains. A third pilot included new vineyards (7 and 1 year old). In the new vineyard (N), higher canopy development, a spontaneous green cover and row straw resulted in a slower SWC dynamic, not so sensitive to rains but conserving more soil water in spring and most of summer, even with presumably a higher water extraction by vines. In the newest vineyard (VN) the deepest sensor is still sensitive to rain events all over the year and SWC is always highest at this depth, revealing small water capture by vines.

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.

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

The modification of cultural practices in grapevine cv. Syrah, does it modify the characteristics of the musts?

The work shows the results of a year of experimentation (2020) in a Syrah variety vineyard in La Roda (Castilla-La Mancha, Spain). The trial approach was on a randomized block design with two factors: Irrigation (I) and Pruning (P).
Irrigation schedules were adjusted to apply amounts close to 1,500 m3/ha. With this provision, 2 different irrigation treatments were proposed: I1) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to post-harvest (providing at least 20 % of the total amount of irrigation water to be provided post-harvest); I2) Start of irrigation from pea-sized grape to harvest (usual irrigation practice in the study area). Pruning was proposed with two treatments, one at the end of January (P1), which is pruning on a conventional date; and P2) pruning carried out at the beginning of budding. In total, 4 repetitions were designed with 4 elementary plots, each one of them representing one of the proposed treatments (I1P1; I1P2; I2P1; I2P2). In total, 16 plots were worked on and each elementary plot consisted of 30 strains, distributed in 3 lines.
The productive response was evaluated with the yield results of the harvest harvested at 23 ºBrix. The qualitative response was measured in the musts through the indices of technological (acidity, pH and potassium) and phenolic maturity and aromatic compounds in free and glycosylated fractions. The treatments tested had, in general, an effect on the different variables analyzed.