The relationship between enzyme treatment and polysaccharide extraction in wine making, and subsequent sensory effects in Cabernet Sauvignon wines

Terroir is not only a geographical site, but it is a more complex concept able to express the “collective knowledge of the interactions” between the environment and the vines mediated through human action and “providing distinctive characteristics” to the final product (OIV 2010). It is often treated and accepted as a “black box”, in which the relationships between wine and its origin have not been clearly explained. Nevertheless, it is well known that terroir expression is strongly dependent on the physical environment, and in particular on the interaction between soil-plant and atmosphere system, which influences the grapevine responses, grapes composition and wine quality. The Terroir studying and mapping are based on viticultural zoning procedures, obtained with different levels of know-how, at different spatial and temporal scales, empiricism and complexity in the description of involved bio-physical processes, and integrating or not the multidisciplinary nature of the terroir. The scientific understanding of the mechanisms ruling both the vineyard variability and the quality of grapes is one of the most important scientific focuses of terroir research. In fact, this know-how is crucial for supporting the analysis of climate change impacts on terroir resilience, identifying new promised lands for viticulture, and driving vineyard management toward a target oenological goal. In this contribution, an overview of the last findings in terroir studies and approaches will be shown with special attention to the terroir resilience analysis to climate change, facing the use and abuse of terroir concept and new technology able to support it and identifying the terroir zones.

The Languedoc-Roussillon wineries are facing a decline in wine yields particularly PGI yields due to many factors. Climate change is just ones, but is expected to increase in the future. There is also structurally a large heterogeneity of yield profiles among terroirs, varieties and strategies. This work investigates the link between yield, competitiveness and resilience to explore how resilient winegrowers have been in the recent past. To this end two approaches have been combined; (i) an accountancy database analysis at estate scale and (ii) municipality level competitiveness analysis. A new resilience indicator that characterizes the capacity of an estate to absorb yield variation is also defined. The FADN database between 2000 and 2018 of ex-Languedoc-Roussillon (France) and other data are used to analyse the current situation and the past evolution of competitiveness and resilience by type of estate (type of farm: PGI and/or PDO & type of commercialization: bulk and/or bottles). The net margin, which defines competitiveness, is not correlated to yield for all types but depends on the type of commercialization and the level of specialisation. The resilience indicator shows that the net margin of estates specialized in PGI is particularly sensitive to yield declines. We also show that price evolutions seem to compensate the effect of yield losses for the majority of types. Municipality scale analysis shows the links between local pedoclimate, yield, commercialization strategies and price. Overlapping a PDO with a PGI does not always increase a municipality’s PGI competitiveness. It is difficult to make links between causes and effects due to the complexity of the wine production system. Production diversification may be a solution. Resorting to the two level of analysis helps resolving the data gap that is necessary to explore the links between yield and economic performance of the wine estates in the long term.

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.

Global warming is accelerating grape ripening, leading to unbalanced wines from fruit with high sugar content but poor aroma and colour development. Reducing the size of the photosynthetic apparatus after veraison has been shown to delay technological ripeness in cool climates, but methods have not been tested in areas with high irradiance and temperature where fruit exposure could have disastrous effects on berry composition. In this Cabernet-Sauvignon trial, we compared the application of an antitranspirant (pinolene), to severe canopy topping and above bunch zone leaf removal, all performed at mid-ripening, with an untouched control. We monitored the vines weekly by measuring stem water potential, gas exchange, fruit zone light exposure. We sampled berries to measure berry weight, total soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity, and the anthocyanin profile. At harvest, we assessed yield components, measured carbon isotope discrimination, rated sunburn on clusters, and produced experimental wines. We submitted harvest samples to metabolomic profiling through PFP-Q Exactive MS/MS and wines to sensory analysis. Application of the antitranspirant significantly reduced stomatal conductance and assimilation rate but did not affect the stem water potential. Inversely, leaf removal and topping increased water potential but did not affect leaf gas exchange. The late topping was the only treatment able to decrease sugar content (up to 2Bx), increase titratable acidity and pH, and improve anthocyanin content because of lower degradation of di-hydroxylated forms. Late leaf removal above the bunch zone increased lightning conditions in the canopy and produced the most significant damage on fruits. Yield components were not affected. This work suggests that late-season canopy management can effectively control ripening speeds and improve grapes and wines. Still, the effect on grape exposure in a critical time must be well balanced to avoid problems with the appropriate technique.

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.