Zonazione dell’area viticola doc durello

Mediterranean viticulture is increasingly exposed to more frequent extreme conditions such as heat waves. These extreme events co-occur with low soil water content, high air vapor pressure deficit and high solar radiant energy fluxes and result in leaf and berry sunburn, lower yield, and berry quality, which is a major constraint for the sustainability of the sector. Grape growers must find ways to proper and effectively manage heat waves and extreme canopy and berry temperatures. Irrigation to keep soil moisture levels and enable adequate plant turgor, and convective and evaporative cooling emerged as a key tool to overcome this major challenge. The effects of irrigation on soil and plant water status are easily quantifiable but the impact of irrigation on soil and canopy temperature and on heat convection from soil to cluster zone remain less characterized. Therefore, a more detailed quantification of vineyard heat fluxes is highly relevant to better understand and implement strategies to limit the effects of extreme weather events on grapevine leaf and berry physiology and vineyards performance. Low-cost sensor technologies emerge as an opportunity to improve monitoring and support decision making in viticulture. However, validation of low-cost sensors is mandatory for practical applicability. A two-year study was carried in a vineyard in Alentejo, south of Portugal, using low-cost thermal cameras (FLIR One, 80×60 pixels and FLIR C5, 160×120 pixels, 8-14 µm, FLIR systems, USA) and pocket thermohygrometers (Extech RHT30, EXTECH instruments, USA) to monitor grapevine and soil temperatures. Preliminary results show that low-cost cameras can detect severe water stress and support the evaluation of vertical canopy temperature variability, providing information on soil surface temperature. All these thermal parameters can be relevant for soil and crop management and be used in decision support systems.

The microbial composition of the soil is an important factor to consider in viticulture, since its influence on the “terroir” and on the organoleptic properties of the wine have been demonstrated. Different agronomic techniques have the potential to modify the composition and functionality of the soil microbial community. Maintaining green covers is known to increase soil microbial diversity. The direct application of inoculum of beneficial microorganisms to the soil has also been used to increase their abundance. However, the environmental conditions of each site seem to have a determining weight in the result of these practices. In this study, we compared the effect on the microbial community of a cover crop with legumes in autumn and the inoculation of grapevines with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseae in the previous spring. The study has been carried out in a vineyard in Binissalem, Mallorca, Spain. After applying the treatments, we will analyze the soil microbial communities using the data obtained from Illumina amplification of soil DNA from the 16S and ITS regions to analyze bacteria and fungi community, respectively. In addition, we will record the physicochemical characteristics of the soil at each sampling point. The result showed that agronomic management, in the short term, has less influence than soil characteristics on the composition of the soil microbiome. With these results, we can conclude that in a vineyard, agricultural techniques should focus on improving the characteristics of the soil to improve the biodiversity of the soil microbiota.

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

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.

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.