What is the best soil for Sangiovese quality wine?

Water deficit and salinity are increasingly affecting the viticulture and wine industry. These two stresses are intimately related; understanding the physiological and metabolic responses of grapevines to water deficit, salinity and combined stress is critical for developing strategies to mitigate the nega- tive impacts of these stresses on wine grape production. These strategies can include selecting more tolerant grapevine cultivars and graft combinations, improving irrigation management, and using soil amendments to reduce the effects of salinity. For this purpose, understanding the response of grape- vine metabolism to altered water balance and salinity is of pivotal importance.

Development of the indigenous microflora is not insignificant on the wine quality. S. cerevisiae indigenous strains are low tolerant to ethanol.

Context and purpose of the study. Conventional viticulture relies heavily on synthetic inputs (fertilizers, pesticides), as well as mechanization to manage pests, weeds, and diseases and maximize yields.

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients.

This project aims on monitoring the plant development and comparison of the effects of various training systems on vine fertility and physiological processes.