Unraveling vineyard site from vintage contributions: Elemental composition of site-specific Pinot noir wines across multiple vintages

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.

With the aim of producing premium wines, it is admitted that moderate environmental stresses may contribute to the accumulation of compounds of interest in grapes. However the ongoing climate change, with the appearance of more limiting conditions of production is a major concern for the wine industry economic. Will it be possible to maintain the vineyards in place, to preserve the current grape varieties and how should we anticipate the adaptation measures to ensure the sustainability of vineyards? In this context, the question of the responses and adaptation of grapevine to abiotic stresses becomes a major scientific issue to tackle. An abiotic stress can be defined as the effect of a specific factor of the physico-chemical environment of the plants (temperature, availability of water and minerals, light, etc.) which reduces growth, and for a crop such as the vine, the yield, the composition of the fruits and the sustainability of the plants. Water stress is in many minds, but a systemic vision is essential for at least two reasons. The first reason is that in natural environments, a single factor is rarely limiting, and plants have to deal with a combination of constraints, as for example heat and drought, both in time and at a given time. The second reason is that plants, including grapevine, have central mechanisms of stress responses, as redox regulatory pathways, that play an important role in adaptation and survival. Here we will review the most recent studies dealing with this issue to provide a better understanding of the grapevine responses to a combination of environmental constraints and of the underlying regulatory pathways, which may be very helpful to design more adapted solutions to cope with climate change.

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.

Wine growing regions have recently faced intense and frequent droughts that have led to substantial economical losses, and the maintenance of grapevine productivity under warmer and drier climate will rely notably on planting drought-resistant cultivars. Given that plant growth and yield depend on water transport efficiency and maintenance of photosynthesis, thus on the preservation of the vascular system integrity during drought, a better understanding of drought-related hydraulic traits that have a significant impact on physiological processes is urgently needed. We have worked towards this end by assessing vulnerability to xylem embolism in 30 grapevine commercial varieties encompassing red and white Vitis vinifera varieties, hybrid varieties characterized by a polygenic resistance for powdery and downy mildew, and commonly used rootstocks. These analyses further allowed a global assessment of wine regions with respect to their varietal diversity and resulting vulnerability to stem embolism. Hybrid cultivars displayed the highest vulnerability to embolism, while rootstocks showed the greatest resistance. Significant variability also arose among Vitis vinifera varieties, with Ψ12 and Ψ50 values ranging from -0.4 to -2.7 MPa and from -1.8 to -3.4 MPa, respectively. Cabernet franc, Chardonnay and Ugni blanc featured among the most vulnerable varieties while Pinot noir, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon ranked among the most resistant. In consequence, wine regions bearing a significant proportion of vulnerable varieties, such as Poitou-Charentes, France and Marlborough, New Zealand, turned out to be at greater risk under drought. These results highlight that grapevine varieties may not respond equally to warmer and drier conditions, outlining the importance to consider hydraulic traits associated with plant drought tolerance into breeding programmes and modeling simulations of grapevine yield maintenance under severe drought. They finally represent a step forward to advise the wine industry about which varieties and regions would have the lowest risk of drought-induced mortality under climate change.

Barolo DOCG is an economically important wine producing region in Northwest Italy. It is a small region of approximately 70 km2 gross area. The topography is very complex with steep sloped hills ranging in elevation from below 200 m to 550 m. Barolo DOCG wine is made exclusively from the Nebbiolo grape. Bioclimatic indexes are often used in viticulture to gain a better understanding of broader climate trends which can be compared temporally and geographically. These indexes are also used for identifying potential phenological timing, growing region suitability, and potential risks associated with expected climatic changes. Understanding how topography influences bioclimatic indexes can help with understanding of mesoscale climate behaviour leading to improved decision making and risk management strategies. The average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, the Cool Night Index, the Huglin Index, and the monthly diurnal range (from July to October) were calculated using data from 45 weather stations within a 40 km radius of the Barolo DOCG growing area between the years 1996 and 2019. Linear and multiple regression models were developed using independent variables (elevation, aspect, slope) extracted from a digital elevation model to identify significant relationships. Bioclimatic indexes were then kriged with external drift using independent variables that showed significant relationships with the bioclimatic index using a 100 m resolution grid. The maximum monthly temperatures and the Huglin Index showed consistent significant negative relationships with elevation in all years. The minimum monthly temperatures showed no relationship with elevation but in some months a small but significant relationship was observed with aspect. Due to the lack of a relationship between minimum monthly temperatures and elevation compared to the significant relationship between maximum monthly temperatures and elevation, monthly diurnal range had a negative relationship with elevation.