Polyphenol targeted and untargeted metabolomics on rosé wines : impact of protein fining on polyphenolic composition and color

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.

Root system architecture (RSA) is important for soil exploration and edaphic resources acquisition by the plant, and thus contributes largely to its productivity and adaptation to environmental stresses, particularly soil water deficit. In grafted grapevine, while the degree of drought tolerance induced by the rootstock has been well documented in the vineyard, information about the underlying physiological processes, particularly at the root level, is scarce, due to the inherent difficulties in observing large root systems in situ. The objectives of this study were to determine genetic differences in the root architectural traits and their relationships to water uptake in two Vitis rootstocks genotypes (RGM, 140Ru) differing in their adaptation to drought. Young rootstocks grafted upon the Riesling variety were transplanted into cylindrical tubes and in 2D rhizotrons under two conditions, well watered and moderate water stress. Root traits were analyzed by digital imaging and the amount of transpired water was measured gravimetrically twice a week. Root phenotyping after 30 days reveal substantial variation in RSA traits between genotypes despite similar total root mass; the drought-tolerant 140Ru showed higher root length density in the deep layer, while the drought-sensitive RGM was characterised by shallow-angled root system development with more basal roots and a larger proportion of fine roots in the upper half of the tube. Water deficit affected canopy size and shoot mass to a greater extent than root development and architectural-related traits for both 140Ru and RGM, suggesting vertical distribution of roots was controlled by genotype rather than plasticity to soil water regime. The deeper root system of 140Ru as compared to RGM correlated with greater daily water uptake and sustained stomata opening under water-limited conditions but had little effect on above-ground growth. Our results highlight that grapevine rootstocks have constitutively distinct RSA phenotypes and that, in the context of climate change, those that develop an extensive root network at depth may provide a desirable advantage to the plant in coping with reduced water resources.

Vitis vinifera L. ‘Gewürztraminer’ is a historical grape variety of Alto Adige (Südtirol), Italy, which is widely grown in the area of Tramin an der Weinstraße, but is also grown globally. It produces highly aromatic wines that are strongly influenced by the terroir of the vineyard sites where they are grown. This study looked at musts and young wines from ‘Gewürztraminer’ grapes harvested in seven distinct vineyards near Tramin and then processed at Cantina di Termeno, minimizing winemaking protocol variability. Samples were profiled using bidimensional gas chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography coupled to electrochemical detection, and near-IR spectrometry. The data were subjected to Principle Component Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis. Sensory discriminant testing was undertaken using the sorting method with a semi-trained panel, and the data were processed using Multidimensional Scaling. Seven must/wine pairs could be distinguished based on their untargeted volatilome profiles and on sensory evaluation. As expected, there were greater differences in the volatile compounds between the wines than between the musts. The wines from vineyards 4 and 5 were nonetheless quite homogenous in terms of chemical and sensory analyses, as were the wines from vineyards 1 and 3. For the phenolic profile, differences were noted between the musts and wines of vineyards 2, 3, and 4, but the musts from vineyards 5 and 7 were similar. Sensory analysis showed the wines from vineyards 6 and 7 to be distinct from the rest. These results reinforce that the composition of ‘Gewürztraminer’ musts and wines is strongly determined by vineyard site, even in a small geographic area with high variability of the terroir (soil and microclimate), and that these differences are apparent in the flavours and aromas of the finished wines. Further confirmation would require a larger sample of wines, preferably from several vintages.

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

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.