Terroir 2010 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Long-term vineyard sustainability index

Long-term vineyard sustainability index

Abstract

The impact of viticulture on soil can be determined by comparing the biophysical properties that represent soil health at a particular site and depth with those same properties in soil considered to represent the ‘pre-vineyard’ state (the headland). Information gathered by this method shows the changes in soil properties following the change to viticulture depend on individual vineyard management and environment. Relative changes can be used for comparisons within regions. Our research took place over three years on soils of vineyards of different ages and under different management, in both the Awatere and the Wairau Valleys in Marlborough, New Zealand. Soil properties investigated were: pH (optimal value 5.5-7.0); organic carbon (OC, 3-5%); carbon/nitrogen ratio (C/N,10-20); bulk density (BD, 0.9-1.3 t/m3); macro-porosity (MP, 8-30%); microbial biomass (MB-C, g C/m2 in 15 cm of soil); basal respiration (BR-C, 1.5-4.5 g CO2-C/m2/day), respiration quotient (qCO2, 0.5-1.5 mg CO2-C/g MB-C) and kg carbon/m2 for 15 cm of soil (4.5-9.0 kg-C). Objective descriptions of vineyard soil quality would assist growers to apply and monitor sustainable vineyard management practices. This data set indicates changes in sustainability that can be expected after a change of land-use to grape growing.
Under average vineyard management, soil carbon declined rapidly during the first few years but reached a plateau after two or more years. Soil depth was shown to be influential, with soils below 15 cm much less affected by land use changes, but scoring lower for all soil carbon parameters (except for qCO2). Soils at this depth also scored lower for soil physical properties; they generally had a very high BD, low MP and low pH. These trends for the 15-30 cm layer are typical soil properties – they don’t imply that soil depth is a factor in sustainability indices per se.
The high variability and generally reduced levels of under-vine soil carbon compared with headland soil carbon, suggest the need to increase vineyard soil carbon content and thereby potentially sequestrate carbon.

DOI:

Publication date: December 3, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2010

Type: Article

Authors

Marc Greven (1), Victoria Raw (1), Colin Gray (2), Markus Deurer (3), Bruce West (1), Claire Grose (1)

(1) The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, Marlborough, PO Box 845, Blenheim 7240,
New Zealand
(2) Marlborough District Council, 15 Seymour Street, Blenheim 7201, New Zealand
(3) The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, Private Bag 11600, Palmerston North 4442,
New Zealand

Contact the author

Keywords

vineyard, grape, soil biophysical properties, organic carbon, microbial biomass, basal respiration, macro-porosity

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2010

Citation

Related articles…

Impact of climate change on the viticultural climate of the Protected Designation of Origin “Jumilla” (SE Spain)

Protected Designation of Origin “Jumilla” (PDO Jumilla) is located in the Spanish provinces of Albacete and Murcia, in the South-eastern part of the Iberian Peninsula, where most of the models predict a severe impact of climate change in next decades. PDO Jumilla covers an area of 247,054 hectares, of which more than 22,000 hectares

Late frost protection in Champagne

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Better understand the soil wet bulb formation with subsurface or aerial drip irrigation in viticulture

The gradual change in rainfall patterns experienced in the south of France vineyards, especially around the Mediterranean sea, means that the vines are increasingly subject to summer drought. The winegrowers developped the use of irrigation techniques to ensure the maintenance of competitive yields in the production of wines under Protected Geographical Indication label. In practice, drip irrigation pipes can be installed above the ground or buried into the soil as well as at different distances from the vine row. The objective of this study was to examine the profiles of the wet bulbs of the soil obtained from two drip irrigation systems : aerial drip located under the vine row and subsurface drip placed in the middle of the inter-row. This experiment took place over two consecutive seasons (2020-2021) on a 3.4 ha Viognier plot in the Mediterranean region (PGI Oc, France) on sandy clay soil. The annual rainfalls were less than 400 mm. Soil water content probes were installed at different depths (20 – 40 – 60 – 80 cm) and at different lateralities from the vine row (30 – 60 – 90 – 120 cm) to control the formation of the soil wet bulb during irrigation. The mapping and the analysis of the data allowed a better understanding and differentiation of the water percolation when irrigating with subsurface or aerial drip. For the same amount of water and without differences of vine water status, it is shown that in a subsurface drip irrigation situation, the size of the wet bulb formed is larger than in aerial drip irrigation system.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

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.

Grapevine yield-gap: identification of environmental limitations by soil and climate zoning in Languedoc-Roussillon region (south of France)

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.