Terroir 2008 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Vineyard soil mapping to optimise wine quality: from ‘terroir’ characterisation to vineyard management

Vineyard soil mapping to optimise wine quality: from ‘terroir’ characterisation to vineyard management

Abstract

In this study, a soil mapping methodology at subplot level (scale 1:5000) for vineyard soils was developed. The aim of this mapping method was to establish mapping units, which could be used as basic units for ‘terroir’ characterisation and vineyard management (precision viticulture). The developed methodology applied most of the criteria of the Soil Inventory of Catalonia and the Soil Survey Manual of the Department of Agriculture of United States, at very-detailed scale. The suitability of soil maps as a tool for definition of ‘terroir’ units and management units are discussed, according to our experiences. The method followed allowed good soil type discrimination at vineyard subplot level, differentiating zones with distinct soil properties important to vineyard development. However, the variability within the soil mapping unit could not be ascertained by this method. Significant differences in grape quality were found between distinct soil mapping units. Moreover, the application of variable rates of fertilizer at vine subplot level was possible using thematic maps calculated from soil maps, by means of Geographic Information Systems. 

DOI:

Publication date: December 8, 2021

Issue: Terroir 2008

Type: Article

Authors

Josep Miquel UBALDE (1), Xavier SORT (1), Rosa Maria POCH (2) and Miquel PORTA (1)

(1) Dept. of Viticulture, Miguel Torres Winery, Miquel Torres i Carbó 6, 08720 Vilafranca del Penedès, Spain
(2) Dept. of Environment and Soil Science, University of Lleida, Rovira Roure 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain 

Contact the author

Keywords

soil mapping, viticultural zoning, terroir unit, management unit, precision viticulture

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terroir 2008

Citation

Related articles…

CONVOLUTIONAL NEURAL NETWORK TO PREDICT GENETIC GROUP AND SULFUR TOLERANCE OF BRETTANOMYCES BRUXELLENSIS

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.20.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Non-Saccharomyces yeast nitrogen consumption and metabolite production during wine fermentation

Over the last decade, the use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in the winemaking process has been re-assessed and accepted by winemakers. These yeasts can be used to achieve specific objectives such as lowering the ethanol content, preventing wine spoilage and increasing the production of specific aroma compounds. Since these species are unable to complete alcoholic fermentation, strategies of co- and sequential inoculation of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been developed. However, when mixed starter cultures are used, several parameters (e.g. strain yeast, inoculation timing and nutrient competitions) impact the growth of the individual yeasts, the fermentation kinetics and the metabolites/aroma production. In particular, competition for nitrogen compounds could have a major impact, potentially leading to sluggish fermentation when the yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) availability is low. Moreover, many aroma compounds produced by the yeasts are directly produced and influenced by nitrogen metabolism such as higher alcohols, acetate esters and ethyl esters which participate in the organoleptic complexity of wine.

Quantifying water use diversity across grapevine rootstock-scion combinations

Vines require proper light levels, temperature, and water availability, and climate change is modifying these factors, hampering yield and quality. Despite the large diversity of rootstocks, varieties, and clones, we still lack knowledge of their combined effects and potential role in a warmer and dryer future. Therefore, we aim to characterize some of the existing diversity of rootstocks and genotypes and their interaction at the eco-physiological level, combining stomatal conductance (gs) and chlorophyll a fluorescence analysis.

Impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels on the odor threshold of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtalene (petrol off-flavor) and role of berry size and Riesling clones

1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtelene (TDN) evokes the odor of “petrol” in wine, especially in the variety Riesling. Increasing UV-radiation due to climate change intensifies formation of carotenoids in the berry skins and an increase of TDN-precursors1. Exploring new viticultural and oenological strategies to limit TDN formation in the future requires precise knowledge of TDN thresholds in different matrices. Thresholds reported in the literature vary substantially between 2 µg/L up to 20 µg/L2,3,4 due to the use of different methods. As Riesling grapes are used for very different wine styles such as dry, sweet or sparkling wines, it is essential to study the impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels.

Mechanization of pre-flowering leaf removal under the temperate-climate conditions of Switzerland

Grapevine leaf removal (LR) in the cluster area is typically done between fruit set and cluster closure to create an unfavorable microclimate for fungal diseases, such as Botrytis cinerea and powdery mildew. Grape growers are now turning their attention to pre-flowering LR, which has additional benefits under certain conditions. When applied before flowering, LR strongly affects fruit set and thus the number of berries per cluster. It is therefore a good yield control tool, replacing time-consuming manual cluster thinning (Poni et al. 2006). It also improves berry structure, that is, skin thickness, skin-to-pulp ratio, and berry composition (total soluble solids, titratable acidity, and polyphenols) (Palliotti et al. 2012; Komm and Moyer 2015). By exacerbating competition for assimilates between reproductive and vegetative organs, pre-flowering LR also poses some risks. Excessive yield loss at the same year’s harvest due to a too low fruit set rate is the main concern: intensive pre-flowering LR (100% of the cluster area) can induce up to 50% yield loss in potted vines (Poni et al. 2005). Other parameters, such as cool climatic conditions during flowering, also affect fruit set rate and make it difficult to predict potential yield at harvest. Repeated and overly intensive preflowering LR can have repercussions over time and induce a decline in bud fruiting and plant vigor (Risco et al. 2014).