The impact of differences in soil texture within a vineyard on vine development and wine quality

Viticultural management regimes influence the soil elemental profile of a vineyard, determining the microbial community distribution, insect life, and plant biochemistry and physiology

The study aims to address the issue of resilience to climate change in viticulture through the adoption of the expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) approach.

The wine industry faces the consumer’s increasing demand for a sustainable and environmentally-friendly production [1]. This demand has been shared and boosted by the European Union within the European Green Deal in the Farm to Fork strategy that aims to reduce a 50% the pesticide utilisation in farming systems. Among the agronomical approaches so far proposed, the use of mould resitant hybrid varieties -based on crossings of Vitis vinifera with other Vitis spp [2]- with a high tolerance to the attack of vine patogens is gaining the vinegrowers attention and the production area is continuously increasing

he use of high-power ultrasound (US) is proving of great interest to the oenological industry due to its effects in the improvement of wine organoleptic characteristics, especially in terms of color [1, 2].

Late spring frost is a major challenge for various winegrowing regions across the world, its occurrence often leading to important yield losses and/or plant failure. Despite a significant increase in minimum temperatures worldwide, the spatial and temporal evolution of spring frost risk under a warmer climate remains largely uncertain. Recent projections of spring frost risk for viticulture in Europe throughout the 21st century show that its evolution strongly depends on the model approach used to simulate budburst. Furthermore, the frost damage modelling methods used in these projections are usually not assessed through comparison to field observations and/or frost damage reports.
The present study aims at comparing frost risk projections simulated using six spring frost models based on two approaches: a) models considering a fixed damage threshold after the predicted budburst date (e.g BRIN, Smoothed-Utah, Growing Degree Days, Fenovitis) and b) models considering a dynamic frost sensitivity threshold based on the predicted grapevine winter/spring dehardening process (e.g. Ferguson model). The capability of each model to simulate an actual frost event for the Vitis vinifera cv. Chadonnay B was previously assessed by comparing simulated cold thermal stress to reports of events with frost damage in Chablis, the northernmost winegrowing region of Burgundy. Models exhibited scores of κ > 0.65 when reproducing the frost/non-frost damage years and an accuracy ranging from 0.82 to 0.90.
Spring frost risk projections throughout the 21st century were performed for all winegrowing subregions of Bourgogne-Franche-Comté under two CMIP5 concentration pathways (4.5 and 8.5) using statistically downscaled 8×8 km daily air temperature and humidity of 13 climate models. Contrasting results with region-specific spring frost risk trends were observed. Three out of five models show a decrease in the frequency of frost years across the whole study area while the other two show an increase that is more or less pronounced depending on winegrowing subregion. Our findings indicate that the lack of accuracy in grapevine budburst and dehardening models makes climate projections of spring frost risk highly uncertain for grapevine cultivation regions.