The wine country, between landscape and promoting tool. The example of Chinon and Saint-Nicolas-de-Bourgueil vineyards (France)

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Global warming is accelerating grape ripening, leading to unbalanced wines from fruit with high sugar content but poor aroma and colour development. Reducing the size of the photosynthetic apparatus after veraison has been shown to delay technological ripeness in cool climates, but methods have not been tested in areas with high irradiance and temperature where fruit exposure could have disastrous effects on berry composition. In this Cabernet-Sauvignon trial, we compared the application of an antitranspirant (pinolene), to severe canopy topping and above bunch zone leaf removal, all performed at mid-ripening, with an untouched control. We monitored the vines weekly by measuring stem water potential, gas exchange, fruit zone light exposure. We sampled berries to measure berry weight, total soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity, and the anthocyanin profile. At harvest, we assessed yield components, measured carbon isotope discrimination, rated sunburn on clusters, and produced experimental wines. We submitted harvest samples to metabolomic profiling through PFP-Q Exactive MS/MS and wines to sensory analysis. Application of the antitranspirant significantly reduced stomatal conductance and assimilation rate but did not affect the stem water potential. Inversely, leaf removal and topping increased water potential but did not affect leaf gas exchange. The late topping was the only treatment able to decrease sugar content (up to 2Bx), increase titratable acidity and pH, and improve anthocyanin content because of lower degradation of di-hydroxylated forms. Late leaf removal above the bunch zone increased lightning conditions in the canopy and produced the most significant damage on fruits. Yield components were not affected. This work suggests that late-season canopy management can effectively control ripening speeds and improve grapes and wines. Still, the effect on grape exposure in a critical time must be well balanced to avoid problems with the appropriate technique.

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.

The wine industry worldwide faces increasing challenges to achieve sustainable levels of carbon emission mitigation. This project seeks to establish the feasibility of harvesting winter pruned vineyard biomass (PVB) for potential use in carbon footprint reduction, through its use as a renewable biofuel for energy production. In order to make this recommendation, technical issues such as the potential environmental impact, chemical composition and fuel suitability, and logistical challenges of harvesting biomass needs to be understood to compare with the results from similar studies. Of particular interest is the role PVB plays as a carbon source in vineyard soils and what effect annual removal might have on soil carbon sequestration. A preliminary trial was established in the Waite Campus vineyard (University of Adelaide) to test current management strategies. Vines are grown in a Eutrophic, Red Dermosol clay loam soil with well managed midrow swards. A comparison was undertaken of mid-row treatments in two 0.25 Ha blocks (Shiraz and Semillon), including annual cultivation for seed bed preparation, the deliberate exclusion of PVB (25 years) and incorporation of PVB (13 years) at an average of 3.4 and 5.5 Mg/Ha-1 for Shiraz and Semillon respectively. In both 0-10cm and 10-30cm soil core sample depths, combined soil carbon % measures in the desired range of 1.80 to 3.50, were not significantly different between treatments or cultivars and yielded an estimated 42 Mg/ha-1 of sequestered soil carbon. Other key physical and chemical measures were likewise not significantly different between treatments. Preliminary results suggest that in a temperate zone vineyard, managed such as the one used in this study, there is no long term negative impact on soil carbon sequestration through removing PVB. This implies that growers could confidently harvest PVB for use in several end fates including as a bio fuel.

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.