Vineyard Landscape in Vale dos Vinhedos: Pressure and Protection

In recent years, developing more efficient and sustainable viticulture management has been essential due to the impact of climate change in semiarid regions. For this reason, the use of recycled organic mulching (ROM) in the vineyard has become an interesting strategy to cope with water stress, isolated soil from extreme temperatures and improving soil humidity, control the presence of weeds and therefore reduce the inputs of herbicides and improve soil fertility. This work aimed to analyse the effect of three different organic mulches [straw (S), grape pruning debris (GPD) and spent mushroom compost (SMC)] and two traditional soil management techniques [herbicide (H) and interrow (IN)] on weed coverage and the spontaneous plant communities’ presence. Data sampling was collected throughout the vine vegetative cycle of 2021 in La Rioja, Spain. The different soil management techniques had a clear effect on weed coverage and his development during the vine vegetative cycle. SMC and H were the treatments with the highest and the lowest coverage percentage, respectively. IN had a delayed weed emergence at the beginning of the vine vegetative cycle, but finally it reached maximum values nearby SMC. GPD and S had similar effects on weed emergence, reaching 25-30% of the maximum coverage values. A total of 29 herbaceous species were identified during the vegetative cycle, some of them very isolated and occasional. Principal component analysis (PCAs) showed a good association between spontaneous species and treatments, furthermore, specific species-treatment associations were found. Moreover, three clear groups of herbaceous communities were identified by cluster analysis. This study provides interesting information about the effect of different alternative soil management on herbaceous plant coverage and weed species communities which could contribute to making more sustainable viticulture.

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

Copper (Cu) is widely and historically used in viticulture as a fungicide against mildew. Cu has a strong affinity for soil organic matter and accumulates in topsoil horizons. Thus, Cu may negatively affect soil organisms and plants, consequently reducing soil fertility and productivity. The Bordeaux vineyards have the largest vineyard surfaces (26%) within French controlled appellation and a great proportion of French wine production (around 5 million hl per year). Considering the local context of vineyard surfaces decreasing (vine uprooting) and possible new crop plantation, the issue of Cu potential toxicity rises. Therefore, the aims of this work are firstly to evaluate the Cu contamination in vineyard soils of Bordeaux, secondly to produce a risk assessment map for new vine or crop plantation. We used soil analyses from several local studies to build a database with 4496 soil horizon samples. The database was enhanced by means of pedotransfer functions in order to estimate the bioaccessible (EDTA-extractable) Cu in soils of samples without measurements. From this database, 1797 georeferenced samples with CuEDTA concentrations in the topsoil (0-50 cm depth) were used for kriging interpolation in order to produce the spatial distribution map of CuEDTA in vineyard soils. Then, the spatial distribution of Cu was crossed with vine uprooting surfaces and municipality boundaries. CuEDTAconcentrations ranged from 0.52 to 459 mg/kg and showed clear anomalies. Our results from spatial analysis showed that almost 50% of vineyard soil surfaces have CuEDTA concentrations higher than 30 mg/kg (moderate risk for new plantation) and 20% with concentrations higher than 50 mg/kg (high risk for new plantation). A decision-support map based on municipalities was realised to provide a simple tool to stakeholders concerned by land use management.

The development of new generations of multispectral satellites such as Sentinel-2 opens possibilities as to vine water status assessment (Cohen et al., 2019). Based on a three years field campaign, a model of Stem Water Potential (SWP) estimation on vine using four satellite bands in Red, Red-Edge, NIR and SWIR domains was developed (Laroche-Pinel et al., 2021). The model relies on SWP field measures done using a pressure chamber (Scholander et al., 1965), which is a common, robust and precise method to assess vine water status (Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2008). The model was mainly developed from from SWP measures on Syrah N (Laroche Pinel E., 2021).

A large scale monitoring was organized in different vineyards in the Mediterranean region in 2021. 10 varieties amongst the most represented in this area were monitored (Cabernet sauvignon N, Chardonnay B, Cinsault N, Grenache N, Merlot N, Mourvèdre N, Sauvignon B, Syrah N, Vermentino B, Viognier B). The model was used to produce water status maps from Sentinel-2 images, starting from the beginning of June (fruit set) up to September (harvest). The average estimated SWP for each vine was compared to actual field SWP measures done by wine growers or technicians during usual monitoring of irrigation programs. The correlations between mean estimated SWP and mean measured SWP were at the same level than expected by the model. (Laroche Pinel, 2021) The general SWP kinetics were comparable. The estimated SWP would have led to same irrigation decisions concerning the date of first irrigation in comparison with measured SWP.

Acevedo-Opazo, C., Tisseyre, B., Ojeda, H., Ortega-Farias, S., Guillaume, S. (2008). Is it possible to assess the spatial variability of vine water status? OENO One, 42(4), 203.
Cohen, Y., Gogumalla, P., Bahat, I., Netzer, Y., Ben-Gal, A., Lenski, I., … Helman, D. (2019). Can time series of multispectral satellite images be used to estimate stem water potential in vineyards? In Precision agriculture ’19, The Netherlands: Wageningen Academic Publishers, pp. 445–451.
Laroche-Pinel, E., Duthoit, S., Albughdadi, M., Costard, A. D., Rousseau, J., Chéret, V., & Clenet, H. (2021). Towards vine water status monitoring on a large scale using sentinel-2 images. remote sensing, 13(9), 1837.
Laroche-Pinel,E. (2021). Suivi du statut hydrique de la vigne par télédétection hyper et multispectrale. Thèse INP Toulouse, France.
Scholander, P.F., Bradstreet, E.D., Hemmingsen, E.A., & Hammel, H.T. (1965). Sap pressure in vascular plants: Negative hydrostatic pressure can be measured in plants. Science, 148(3668), 339–346.