Identification of key-odorants in Sauternes Wines

Among the different strategies to cope with the negative impacts of climate change on viticulture, the exploitation of genetic diversity is one of the most promising to adapt to new conditions and maintain wine production and quality. One of the biggest concerns in the context of climate change is to improve water use efficiency (WUE). In this way, the use of genotypes that present a better response to drought and high WUE is a key issue. In this work, physiological performance analysis was conducted to compare the water deficit stress (WDS) responses of local and widespread grapevines cultivars. Leaf gas exchange, water use efficiency (WUE) at different levels (leaf and long-term WUE (∆13C)), leaf osmotic adjustment and other water relations parameters were determined in plants under well-watered and WDS conditions alongside assessment of the levels of foliar hormones concentrations. Results denote that local cultivars displayed better physiological performance under WDS as compared to the widely-distributed ones. he results corroborate the hypothesis that better stomatal control allows increasing leaf WUE under drought as occurred in the local Callet cv.; but the minority local cultivar Escursac cv. showed high WUE under both treatments. In this case, high WUE can be related to maintaining higher photosynthetic activity under drought. The different mechanisms underlying the better performance under WDS and high WUE of minority local cultivars are discussed.

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

With contemporary climate change, cultivated Vitis vinifera L. is at risk as climate is a critical component in defining ecologically fitted plant materiel. While winegrowers can draw on the rich diversity among grapevine varieties to limit expected impacts (Morales-Castilla et al., 2020), replacing a signature variety that has created a sense of local distinctiveness may lead to several challenges. In order to sustain wine identity in uncertain climate outcomes, the study of intra-varietal diversity is important to reflect the adaptive and evolutionary potential of current cultivated varieties. The aim of this ongoing study is to understand to what extent can intra-varietal diversity be a climate change adaptation solution. With a focus on early (Sauvignon blanc, Riesling, Grolleau, Pinot noir) to moderate late (Chenin, Petit Verdot, Cabernet franc) ripening varieties, data was collected for flowering and veraison for the various studied accessions (from conservatory plots) and clones. For these phenological growing stages, heat requirements were established using nearby weather stations (adapted from the GFV model, Parker et al., 2013) and model performances were verified. Climate change projections were then integrated to predict the future behaviour of the intra-varietal diversity. Study findings highlight the strong phenotypic diversity of studied varieties and the importance of diversification to enhance climate change resilience. While model performances may require improvements, this study is the first step towards quantifying heat requirements of different clones and how they can provide adaptation solutions for winegrowers to sustain local wine identity in a global changing climate. As genetic diversity is an ongoing process through point mutations and epigenetic adaptations, perspective work is to explore clonal data from a wide variety of geographic locations.

The use of selected cultures of the species Lactiplantibacillus plantarum in Oenology has grown in prominence in recent years. While initial applications of this species centred very much around malolactic fermentation (MLF), there is strong evidence to show that certain strains can be harnessed for their bio-protective effects. Unwanted spontaneous MLF during alcoholic fermentation (AF), driven by rogue Oenococcus oeni, is a winemaking deviation that is very difficult to manage when it occurs. This work set out to determine the efficacy of one particular strain of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum(Viniflora® NoVA™ Protect), against this problem in Cabernet Sauvignon must. The work was carried out at commercial scale and in a winery environment and compared the bio-protective culture with the more traditional approach of reducing must pH by the addition of tartaric acid. The combination of both was also investigated. The concentration of both Oenococcus oeni and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum was determined using qPCR. The adventitious Oenococcus oeni showed the most growth during AF in the control wine, whereas in the wines treated with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum a bacteriostatic effect against this species was observed. This effect was comparable to the wines treated with tartaric acid. This has particular commercial relevance for controlling the flora in musts with high pH, or when the addition of tartaric acid is either not permitted or is prohibitive for other reasons.

The favorable effect of symbiosis with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) has been known and studied since the 60s. Nowadays, many companies took the chance to start promoting and selling commercial inoculants of AMF, in order to be used as biofertilizers and encourage sustainable biological agriculture. However, the positive effect of these commercial biofertilizers on plant growth is not always demonstrated, especially under field conditions. In this study, we used a commercial inoculum on newly planted grapevines of a local cultivar grafted on a common rootstock R110. We followed the physiological status of vines, growth and productivity and functional biodiversity of soil bacteria during the first and second years of 20 inoculated with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseaeAMF at field planting time and 20 non-inoculated control plants. All the parameters measured showed a neutral to negative effect on plant growth and production. The inoculated plants always presented lower values of photosynthesis, growth and grape production, although in some cases the differences did not reach statistical significance. On the contrary, the inoculation supposed an increase of the bacterial functional diversity, although the differences were not statistically significant either. Several studies show that the effect of inoculation with AMF is context-dependent. The non-favorable effects are probably due to inoculation ineffectiveness under complex field conditions and/or that, under certain conditions, AMF presence may be a parasitic association. This puts into question the effectiveness of its application in the field. Therefore, it is recommended to only resort to this type of biofertilizer when the cultivation conditions require it (e.g., very low previous microbial diversity, foreseeable stress due to drought, salinity, or lack of nutrients) and not as a general fertilization practice.