Soil or geology? And what’s the difference? Some observations from the New World

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising continuously since the industrial revolution, affecting crop physiology, yield and quality of harvest products, and grapevine is no exception [1]. Most of previously reported studies used potted plants in controlled environments, and explored grapevine response to relatively high CO2 levels, 700 ppm or more. The vineyardFACE, established in Geisenheim in 2012, uses a free air carbon dioxide enrichment (FACE) system to simulate a moderate (ambient +20%) increase in atmospheric CO2 in a vineyard planted with cvs. Cabernet-Sauvignon and Riesling grafted on rootstock 161-49 Couderc and SO4, respectively.

Un peu d’histoire pour nous efforcer de mettre le sujet des appellations dans un contexte général. Six cents ans avant Jésus-Christ, le Côte du Rhône était plantée en vignes peu après l’arrivée des Grecs

Nowadays there are many challenges facing both winegrowers and workers, in other agricultural practices, related to the growing demand for food products, the safety and quality of these products, and the preservation of the environment…

In response to changes in their environment, grapevines regulate transpiration using various physiological mechanisms that alter conductance of water through the soil-plant-atmosphere continuum. Expressed as bulk stomatal conductance at the canopy scale, it varies diurnally in response to changes in vapor pressure deficit and net radiation, and over the season to changes in soil water deficits and hydraulic conductivity of both soil and plant. It is necessary to characterize the response of conductance to these variables to better model how vine transpiration also responds to these variables. Furthermore, to be relevant for vineyard-scale modeling, conductance is best characterized using data collected in a vineyard setting. Applying a crop canopy energy flux model developed by Shuttleworth and Wallace, bulk stomatal conductance was estimated using measurements of individual vine sap flow, temperature and humidity within the vine canopy, and estimates of net radiation absorbed by the vine canopy. These measurements were taken on several vines in a non-irrigated vineyard in Bordeaux France, using equipment that did not interfere with ongoing vineyard operations. An inverted Penman-Monteith equation was then used to calculate bulk stomatal conductance on 15-minute intervals from July to mid-September 2020. Time-series plots show significant diurnal variation and seasonal decreases in conductance, with overall values similar to those in the literature. Global sensitivity analysis using non-parametric regression found transpiration flux and vapor pressure deficit to be the most important input variables to the calculation of bulk stomatal conductance, with absorbed net radiation and bulk boundary layer conductance being much less important. Conversely, bulk stomatal conductance was one of the most important inputs when calculating vine transpiration, further emphasizing the need for characterizing its response to environmental changes for use in vineyard water use modeling.

The presence of acetic acid bacteria in wine can lead to the appearance of acetic acid at concentrations above the perception threshold, causing the wine rejection by the consumer. During the winemaking process, avoiding the presence of acetic acid bacteria is very difficult, as there is always a residual population accompanying the wine[1], and the problem arises with the significant development of these microorganisms that metabolizes large amounts of acetic acid.
The concern of wineries to control the presence of acetic acid bacteria in wines during their conservation is due to the absence of simple and effective analyses that allow the detection of these microorganisms in the initial stages.