Enological potential of red grapes: cultivars and geographic origin of vineyards

Several trunk diseases cause decline and premature dieback of grapevines. In vineyards, these pathogens gain entry into plants through unprotected wounds. Wounds are also frequently infected during the propagation stages. The pathogens survive in infected plants in a latent form and cause disease in older grapevines or in plants that are

Changes in bioclimatic indices in wine-growing region of Serbia are analyzed under the RCP 8.5 IPCC scenario.

A partir des recherches conduites sur la caractérisation des terroirs viticoles par des chercheurs de l’Unité de Recherches Vigne et Vin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) du Centre INRA d’Angers, Terre des Sciences, le Centre de Culture Scientifique et Technique d’Angers (CCSTA) a mis au point un parcours de découverte d’une journée dans le vignoble angevin avec une approche pluridisciplinaire.

Phenolic composition is essential to wine quality (Cleary et al., 2015; Bindon et al., 2020; Niimi et al., 2020) and its assessment is a strong industrial need to quality management.

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.