Effects of different organic amendments on soil, vine, grape and wine, in a long-term field experiment in Chinon vineyard (France)

Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration has continuously increased since pre-industrial times from 280 ppm in 1750, and is predicted to exceed 700 ppm by the end of 21st century. For most of C3 plant species elevated CO2 (eCO2) improve photosynthetic apparatus results in an increased plant biomass production. To investigate the effects of eCO2 on morphological leaf characteristics the two Vitis vinifera L. cultivars, Riesling and Cabernet Sauvignon, grown in the Geisenheim VineyardFACE (Free Air Carbon dioxide Enrichment) system were used. The FACE site is located at Geisenheim University (49° 59′ N, 7° 57′ E, 94 m above sea level), Germany and was implemented in 2014 comparing future atmospheric CO2-concentrations (eCO2, predicted for the mid-21st century) with current ambient CO2-conditions (aCO2). Experiments were conducted under rain-fed conditions for two consecutive years (2015 and 2016). Six leaves per repetition of the CO2 treatment were sampled in the field and immediately fixed in a FAA solution (ethanol, H2O, formaldehyde and glacial acetic acid). After 24 h leaf samples were transferred and stored in an ethanol solution. Subsequently, leaf tissue was dehydrated using ethanol series and embedded in paraffin. By using a rotary microtomesections of 5 µm were prepared and fixed on microscopic slides. Subsequent the samples were stained using consecutive staining and washing solutions. Afterwards pictures of the leaf cross-sections were taken using a light microscope and consecutive measurements were conducted with an open source image software. Differences found in leaf cross-sections of the two CO2 treatments were detected for the palisade parenchyma. Leaf thickness, upper and lower epidermis and spongy parenchyma remained less affected under eCO2 conditions. The observed results within grapevine leaf tissues can provide first insights to seasonal adaptation strategies of grapevines under future elevated CO2 concentrations.

Vitis champinii cultivars Ramsey and Dog-ridge are main choices for rootstocks to adapt viticulture in semi-arid and arid regions thanks to their distinctive tolerance to drought and salinity. However, genetic studies on non-vinifera rootstocks have heavily relied on the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) reference genome, which difficulted the assessment of the genetic variation between rootstock species and grapevines. In the present study, this limitation is addressed by introducing a novo phased genome assembly and annotation of Vitis champinii. This new Vitis champinii genome was employed as reference for mapping RNA-seq reads from the same species under drought and salt stresses, and for comparison the same reads were also mapped to the Vitis vinifera PN40024.V4 reference genome. A significant increase in alignment rate was gained when mapping Vitis champinii RNA-seq reads to its own genome, compared to the Vitis vinifera PN40024.V4 reference genome, thus revealing the expression levels of genes specific to Vitis champinii. Moreover, differences in coding sequences were observed in ortholog genes between Vitis champinii and Vitis vinifera, which therefore challenges previous differential expression analyses performed between contrasting Vitis genotypes on the same gene from the Vitis vinifera genome. Genes with possible implications in drought and salt tolerance have been identified across the genome of Vitis champinii, and the same genomic data can potentially guide the discovery of candidate genes specific from Vitis champinii for other traits of interest, therefore becoming a valuable resource for rootstock breeding designs, specially towards increased drought and salinity due to climate change.

In Champagne, the vine adaptation to different climatic and technical changes during these last 20 years can be seen through physiological balance disruptions. These disruptions emphasize the general grapevine decline. Since the 2000s, among other nitrogen stress indicators, the must nitrogen has been decreasing. The combination of restricted mineral fertilizers and herbicide use, the growing variability of spring rainfall, the increasing thermal stress as well as the soil type heterogeneity are only a few underlying factors that trigger loss of physiological balance in the vineyards. It is important to weigh and quantify the impact of these factors on the vine. In order to do so, the Comité Champagne uses two key-tools: networking and modelization. The use of quantitative and harmonized ecophysiological indicators is necessary, especially in large spatial scales such as the Champagne appellation. A working group with different professional structures of Champagne has been launched by the Comité Champagne in order to create a common ecophysiology protocol and thus monitor the vine physiology, yearly, around 100 plots, with various cultural practices and types of soil. The use of crop modelling to follow the vine physiological balance within different pedoclimatic conditions enables to understand the present balance but also predict the possible disruptions to come in future climatic scenarios. The physiological references created each year through the working group, benefit the calibration of the STICS model used in Champagne. In return, the model delivers ecophysiology indicators, on a daily scale and can be used on very different types of soils. This study will present the bottom-up method used to give accurate information on the impacts of soil, climate and cultural practices on vine physiology.

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.

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.