Terroir 2010 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Terroir characterization from cv. Merlot and Sauvignon plots follow-up within the scope of wine-production : “Vins de Pays Charentais” in the Cognac eaux-de-vie vineyard area

Terroir characterization from cv. Merlot and Sauvignon plots follow-up within the scope of wine-production : “Vins de Pays Charentais” in the Cognac eaux-de-vie vineyard area

Abstract

[English version below]

Dans les études des terroirs, il est souvent délicat d’établir des zonages et de mesurer les effets de l’environnement sur les vins. Avec plus d’un million d’hectares dans l’aire d’appellation délimitée, le terroir du célèbre vignoble de Cognac est bien connu pour ces eaux-de-vie et ainsi divisé en 6 crus.
Cette étude vise à décrire le terroir des Vins de Pays Charentais (VPC) produits dans le vignoble Cognaçais. Les principaux cépages spécifiquement destinés à la production de VPC (Merlot et Sauvignon blanc) ont été étudiés en collectant de nombreuses données sur 5 millésimes et 35 parcelles représentant la diversité agro-pédo-climatique de la région. Comme souvent dans les essais au champ les expérimentateurs ont été confrontés à de multiples facteurs croisés et de nombreux paramètres ont été suivis. A ce stade, peu de données climatiques ont été introduites et les données de dégustation n’ont pas été incluses.
Une expertise préliminaire a permis de sélectionner certaines variables, classées en 4 groupes distincts : données climatiques et pédologiques, matériel végétal, phénologie et vinification.
L’analyse statistique exploratoire a fait ressortir certaines variables influentes, par exemple l’ère géologique et le type de sol, qui distinguent des unités cohérentes d’un point de vue géographique notamment les îles de Ré et d’Oléron. Le comportement des vignes VPC est ensuite étudié sur chacune de ces unités afin de définir ces terroirs viticoles.
Les groupes de parcelles destinées à la production de vin semblent concorder pour une bonne part aux crus des eaux de vie de Cognac même si le cépage et le type de produit diffèrent. Ces résultats vont permettre de réfléchir sur différents moyens d’optimiser l’effet terroir par les pratiques des producteurs de VPC sur les différents terroirs.

Zoning and understanding the effects of the environment expressed in vine products has always been a difficult work to start off with terroir. Thus, with more than one million hectares in the delimited appellation area, the famous Cognac vineyard terroir is well-known for eaux-de-vie and divided in 6 vintages areas since the beginning of the 20th century.
This project aims at describing the terroir for wines named “Vins de Pays Charentais” (VPC) produced in the Cognac vineyard. Main cultivars specifically used to produce VPC (Merlot and Sauvignon Blanc) were studied by collecting a set of data, using 6 years and 35 plots to represent the diversity of environmental and cultural situations in the area. As often in field trials, experimenters were confronted with many crossed factors and numerous variables were measured. At this stage, only few climatic data is available. A preliminary expertise allowed to choose some of the variables sorted in 4 distinctive groups : soil and climate data, plant material, vine cycle and grapes and then wine-making process. Tasting data was not taken into account regarding as its robustness.
The statistical exploratory analysis brought out some influential variables, as for example geological era and soil type, that clearly segregate coherent geographic units, notably Ré and Oléron islands which are breaking away. From then on, to define various “wine-terroirs” these clusters should each correspond to consistent VPC grapevine behavior and wines.
Most climatic data still has to be crossed with the plots groups sorted, but the clusters of wine producing plots already appears to tally, at least partly, Cognac firewater vineyards classification even if cultivars and type of product differ. These results allow to consider various means to optimize terroir effect by VPC winegrowers’ practices on each plot, depending on its cluster.

DOI:

Publication date: December 3, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2010

Type: Article

Authors

BERNARD F.M. (1), PREYS S. (2), GIRARD M. (3) & MORNET L. (4)

(1) IFV, Institut Français de la Vigne et du vin, 15 Rue Pierre Viala, 16130, Segonzac, France
(2) Ondalys, 385 Avenue des Baronnes, 34730, Prades-Le-Lez, France
(3) Chambre d’Agriculture de Charente-Maritime, 3 Boulevard Vladimir, 17100, Saintes, France
(4) Chambre d’Agriculture de Charente, 25 Rue de Cagouillet, 16100, Cognac, France

Contact the author

Keywords

Vins de Pays Charentais, Merlot, Sauvignon, Terroir viticole, Sol, Millésime
Vins de Pays Charentais, Merlot, Sauvignon, Wine-terroir, Soil, Vintage

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2010

Citation

Related articles…

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[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"...

Assessing the climate change vulnerability of European winegrowing regions by combining exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity indicators

Winegrowing regions recognized as protected designations of origin (PDOs) are closely tied to well defined geographic locations with a specific set of pedoclimatic attributes and strictly regulated by legal specifications. However, climate change is increasingly threatening these regions by changing local conditions and altering winegrowing processes. The vulnerability to these changes is largely heterogenous across different winegrowing regions because it is determined by individual characteristics of each region, including the capacity to adapt to new climatic conditions and the sensitivity to climate change, which depend not only on natural, but also socioeconomic and legal factors. Accurate vulnerability assessments therefore need to combine information about adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with projected exposure to new climatic conditions. However, most existing studies focus on specific impacts neglecting important interactions between the different factors that determine climate change vulnerability. Here, we present the first comprehensive vulnerability assessment of European wine PDOs that spatially combines multiple indicators of adaptive capacity and climate change sensitivity with high-resolution climate projections. We found that the climate change vulnerability of PDO areas largely depends on the complex interactions between physical and socioeconomic factors. Homogenous topographic conditions and a narrow varietal spectrum increase climate change vulnerability, while the skills and education of farmers, together with a good economic situation, decrease their vulnerability. Assessments of climate change consequences therefore need to consider multiple variables as well as their interrelations to provide a comprehensive understanding of the expected impacts of climate change on European PDOs. Our results provide the first vulnerability assessment for European winegrowing regions at high spatiotemporal resolution that includes multiple factors related to climate exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity on the level of single winegrowing regions. They will therefore help to identify hot spots of climate change vulnerability among European PDOs and efficiently direct adaptation strategies.

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.

Traditional agroforestry vineyards, sources of inspiration for the agroecological transition of viticulture

A unique “terroir” can be found in southern Bolivia, which combines the specific features of climate, topography and altitude of high valleys, with the management of grapevines staked on trees. It is one of the rare remnants of agroforestry viticulture. A survey was carried out among 29 grapegrowers in three valleys, to characterize the structure and management of these vineyards, and identify the services they expect from trees. Farms were small (2.2 ha on average) and 85% of vineyards were less than 1 ha. Viticulture was associated with vegetable, fruit and fodder production, sometimes in the same fields. Molle trees were found in all plots, together with one or two other native tree species. Traditional grapevine varieties such as Negra Criolla, Moscatel de Alejandría and Vicchoqueña were grown with a large range of densities from 1550 to 9500 vines ha-1. From 18 to 30% of them were staked on trees, with 1.2 to 4.9 vines per tree. The management of these vineyards (irrigation, fertilization and grapevine protection) was described, the most particular technical operation being the coordinated pruning of trees and grapevines. Three types of management could be identified in the three valleys. Grapegrowers had a clear idea of the ecosystem services they expected from trees in their vineyards. The main one was protection against climate hazards (hail, frost, flood). Then they expected benefits in terms of pest and disease control, improvement of soil fertility and resulting yield. At last, some producers claimed that tree-staking was quicker and cheaper than conventional trellising. It can be hypothesized then that agroforestry is a promising technique for the agroecological transition of viticulture. Its contribution to the “terroir” of the high valleys of southern Bolivia and its link with the specificities of the wines and spirits produced there remain to be explored.

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.