Comparison between the volatile chemical profile of two different blends for PDO “Valpolicella Superiore”

The use of rootstock of American origin has been the classic method of fighting against Phylloxera for more than 100 years. For this reason, it is interesting to establish if different rootstock modifies nutrient composition as well as trace elements content that could be important for determining the traceability of the vine products. A survey of four classic rootstocks (110-Richter, SO4, FERCAL and 1103-Paulsen) and four new ones (M1, M2, M3 and M4) provided by Agromillora Iberia. S.L.U., all of them grafted with the Tempranillo variety, has been carried out during 2019. The eight rootstocks were planted in pots of 500 cc, on three soils with very different characteristics from Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). In the month of July, the leaves were collected and dried in a forced air oven for seven days at 40ºC. Then, the samples were prepared for the analysis determination, carried out by X-Ray fluorescence spectrometry. The results obtained showed that in the case of content in mineral elements in leaf, separated by soil type, we can report the importance of few elements such as Si, Fe, Pb and, especially, Sr. The rootstock does not influence the composition of the vine leaf for the studied elements that are the most important in determining the geochemical footprint of the soil. The influence of the soil can be discriminated according to some elements such as Fe, Pb, Si and, especially, Sr.

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

The increasingly frequent heat waves during grape ripening pose challenges for high quality wine grape production. Defoliation is a common practice that can improve the control of diseases in bunches, but also it increases the exposure to sunlight. Grapes exposed to solar radiation reach temperatures over the optimum for berry development and maturation. This makes the development of irrigation and canopy management techniques of great importance to maximize yield and grape quality. A field experiment was carried out during 2021 using Manto negro wine grapes to study the effect of applied irrigation and different light exposure levels on grape quality. Two irrigation treatments were imposed based on the frequency and amount of water doses in a four-block experimental vineyard at Bodega Ribas (Mallorca). Three light exposure treatments were randomly applied in each irrigation plot. The light treatments included exposed clusters from pea size, non-exposed clusters, and shaded clusters after softening. Leaf area index and canopy porosity was estimated every 2 weeks. Midday leaf water potential was measured weekly. Additionally, apparent electrical conductivity was measured between rows to estimate the soil water content variability. Light and temperature sensors were installed at the bunch level to quantify the differences in bunch temperature and light intensity among treatments. The effect of irrigation and cluster light exposure on berry weight, TSS, TA, malic acid, tartaric acid, K+, and pH were analysed at 5 moments along grape ripening. During different heat waves, the natural shading technique decreased the maximum bunch temperature around 10 °C respect to the exposed bunches in both irrigation strategies. The combination of defoliation and shading techniques after softening decreased TSS at harvest and affected most of the quality parameters during the last stages of ripening, showing an interesting technique to delay ripening in warm viticulture areas.

Soil is a reservoir of microorganisms playing important roles in biogeochemical cycles and interacting with plants whether in the rhizosphere or in the root endosphere. The composition of the microbial communities thus impacts the plant health. Rhizodeposits (such as sugar, organic and amino acids, secondary metabolites, dead root cells …) are released by the roots and influence the communities of rhizospheric microorganisms, acting as signaling compounds or carbon sources for microbes. The composition of root exudates varies depending on several factors including genotypes. As most of the cultivated grapevines worldwide are grafted plants, the aim of this study was to explore the influence of rootstock and scion genotypes on the microbial communities of the rhizosphere and the root endosphere. The work was conducted in the GreffAdapt plot (55 rootstocks x 5 scions), in which the 275 combinations have been planted into 3 blocks designed according to the soil resistivity. Samples of roots and rhizosphere of 10 scion x rootstock combinations were first collected in May among the blocks 2 and 3. The quantities of bacteria, fungi and archaea have been assessed in the rhizosphere by quantitative PCR, and by cultivable methods for bacteria and fungi. The communities of bacteria, fungi and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) was analyzed by Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA gene, ITS and 28S rRNA gene, respectively. The level of mycorrhization was also evaluated using black ink coloration of newly formed roots harvested in October. The level of bacteria, fungi and archaea was dependent on rootstock and scion genotypes. A block effect was observed, suggesting that the soil characteristics strongly influenced the microorganisms from the rhizosphere and root endosphere. High-throughput sequencing of the different target genes showed different communities of bacteria, fungi and AMF associated with the scion x rootstock combinations. Finally, all the combinations were naturally mycorrhized. The root mycorrhization intensity was influenced by the rootstock genotype, but not by the scion one. Altogether, these results suggest that both rootstock and scion genotypes influence the rhizosphere and root endophytic microbiomes. It would be interesting to analyze the biochemical composition of the rhizodeposition of these genotypes for a better understanding of the processes involved in the modulation of these microbiomes. Moreover, crossing our data with the plant agronomic characteristics could provide insights into their roles on plant fitness.

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.