Plant and Soil (2006) 281:37–54
Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s11104-005-3768-0

Characterization of viticultural terroirs using a simple field model

based on soil depth I. Validation of the water supply regime, phenology
and vine vigour, in the Anjou vineyard (France)

Fabrice Bodin & René Morlat1

Centre INRA d’Angers – Unite´ Vigne et Vin, 42, rue Georges Morel, BP 60057, 49071, Beaucouze, France.
1
Corresponding author*

Received 26 January 2005. Accepted in revised form 4 October 2005

Key words: earliness, field soil model, soil depth, soil weathering, vigour, vine, water supply regime

Abstract
The soil and climate in which grapes are grown play a major role in the vine behaviour, grape quality and
wine sensory characteristics. In France, these factors are often integrated in the concept of ‘‘Terroir’’, which
is a topic of growing interest in wine producing countries. The application of this concept requires a
scientific approach of the ‘‘Terroir climatic and pedoclimatic components’’ to achieve a rigorous zoning of
vineyards. In this paper, results concerning the testing of a method developed in the Anjou vineyard
(France) to characterize viticultural terroirs, are presented and discussed. This method uses a field soil
model based on the type of parent rock, the depth and the clay richness of soil, mainly in connection with
the weathering level of the parent rock. For each geological stage and each type of rock, this easy-to-use
model makes it possible to identify three types of soil named: Weakly Weathered Rock (WWR), Moder-
ately Weathered Rock (MWR) and Strongly Weathered Rock (SWR). Each terroir unit obtained by this
method can represent a ‘‘functional’’ unit of vine, from the ecophysiological and environmental point of
view. To verify this hypothesis, experimental plots planted with Chenin and Cabernet Franc varieties were
studied over three consecutive seasons (2000–2002). The main results on vine water supply, burst, and
timing of veraison show significant differences, in particular between WWR and SWR. However no sig-
nificant differences in pruning weight were observed, probably because of high rainfall during all three
growing seasons.

Introduction 1999; Morlat, 1989; Seguin, 1983; Tesic et al.,

2001). Several studies have shown that physical
The notion of terroir includes climatic, topo- and climatic factors explain most of the terroir
graphical, geological and pedological criteria, tra- effect on grape and wine (Conradie et al., 2002;
ditional vine varieties and the skill of the vine Morlat, 1998; Schwarz, 1997; Van Leeuwen
growers. Carey (2001) described terroir as ‘a et al., 2004). The vine water supply conditions,
complex of natural environmental factors, which early budburst potential, and potential vine vig-
cannot easily be modified by the producer’. The our, appeared as major contributing variables
influence of environmental factors on the compo- (Morlat, 2001).
sition and quality of grapes has been demon- Numerous studies have been carried out on
strated by several authors (Boselli et al., 1996; the effect of water supply on vine functioning
Hoppman and Schaller, 1996; Koundouras et al., and grape quality (Creasy and Lombard, 1993,
Jones and Davis, 2000; Koundouras et al., 1999;
* E-mail: [email protected] Ojeda et al., 1999, 2002). In the Bordeaux
38

vineyard it was shown (Seguin, 1979; Van Leeu- potentially a series of soils at different stages of
wen and Seguin, 1994) that regular, but moder- evolution. With regard to this series of soils, the
ate, water supply contributes to the best grape field soil model enables three kinds of soil type
ripening (Carbonneau, 1986). On the contrary, to be distinguished according to the degree of
severe water stress is fatal to the quality of grape weathering of the parent rock: Weakly Weath-
and wine (Morlat et al., 1992). ered Rock (WWR), Moderately Weathered Rock
Vine earliness strongly influences the quality (MWR) and Strongly Weathered Rock (SWR),
of berries, in cool climates, as shown by Barbeau with a profile depth and clay content increasing
et al. (1998) and Tesic et al. (2001). It is due to sense in the WWR < MWR < SWR.
both the temperature component of climate and Each terroir unit obtained by this method
soil (Morlat, 2001; Tesic et al., 2001; Wahl, represents a ‘functional’ vine unit with its own
1988), and is also influenced by the vigour con- ecophysiological and environmental conditions.
ferred to the vine by the soil (Morlat, 2001; Van Thus, in WWR, the vegetative cycle tends to be
Leeuwen et al., 2003). It is linked directly with precocious because water supply conditions tend
texture, structure and soil water content (Cellier to be limiting while the vigour potential of the
et al., 1996). Moisture content is correlated with soil is also low. On the contrary, in SWR, the
soil temperature (Tesic et al., 2001). vegetative cycle earliness is weaker, but the water
The potential of the soil to support vigorous availability and the potential of vigour are higher.
growth can be estimated by measuring pruning Finally, in MWR, conditions should be interme-
weight. Soil water reserves and chemical fertility diate (Figure 1).
influence vine vigour positively (Branas, 1974; The aim of the present study was to verify
Tesic et al., 2001). The rootstock variety also hypotheses concerning the response of vine plan-
plays a major role (Pouget and Delas, 1989). ted in the three previous soil types and to ana-
The level of each of these variables in combi- lyse their effects on the composition and quality
nation will influence the composition of berries of grapes. In this first part, the effects on vine
(Choné et al., 2001; Morlat et al., 2001; Tomasi water supply, vine vegetative earliness and vine
et al., 1999;). However, the effect of every vari- vigour, will be examined.
able is modulated by the climatic conditions of
the year.
Numerous studies on the characterization and Materials and methods
mapping of viticultural terroirs have been carried
out during the last 20 years (Vaudour, 2002). The study was carried out in the AOC Anjou
The rigorous use of the notion of terroir by vine vineyard in the Loire Valley (France), (4721¢ N;
growers requires a reliable characterization method. 040¢ W). The area in which the various BTUs
Morlat (1989) regarded a vineyard area as a set were studied and mapped represents approxi-
of small natural environments, called Terroir Ba- mately 40,000 ha. The Anjou vineyard is located
sic Unit (BTU). Each unit is defined by three in the south part of the ‘Massif Armoricain’
associated components: a geological component, which is mainly composed of eruptive and meta-
a pedological component and a landscape com- morphic rocks from the Precambrian and Pri-
ponent. The geological component is the first key mary Era.
for identifying and mapping BTUs. It includes In our study two experiments were carried
the type of parent rock of the soil and the geo- out during 3 consecutive years (2000, 2001,
logic stage it belongs to. The second component 2002), with Chenin and Cabernet Franc vines
concerns the soil, whose large variability is the grafted on SO4 rootstock, that were 15–20 years
main problem to solve in the identification of old at the start of the trial. The five most com-
BTU. For this purpose, an easy-to-use field soil mon BTUs have been studied, by means of 3
model (Morlat et al., 2001) based on soil depth replicates by BTU.
and average clay content, mainly tied to the de- Experiment 1. A network including 15 plots
gree of weathering of the parent rock, was devel- planted with Chenin (clone 220) was established.
oped. It assumes that for every type of parent BTUs studied were: Weakly Weathered Rock
rock belonging to a given geologic stage, there is (WWR1), Moderately Weathered Rock (MWR1)
 39

Figure 1. Hypothesis on the behaviour of the vine in every environment of the field soil model.

Table 1. Experimental design of the study

Grapevine cultivar Parent rock ‘Métagrauwacke’ (R1) ‘Spilite’ (R1) ‘Schiste’ (R3)
Soil (degree of weathering)

Chenin Weak (WWR) 3 plots 3 plots 3 plots

Medium (MWR) 3 plots 0 0
Strong (SWR) 3 plots 0 0
Cabernet Weak (WWR) 3 plots 0 0
Franc Strong (SWR) 3 plots 0 0

and Strongly Weathered Rock (SWR1) on ‘méta- bicide treatments were applied to maintain the
grauwacke’ (schistose metasandstone) of Briove- soil clean, rows were N–S oriented.
rian; Weakly Weathered Rock (WWR2) on Climatic conditions (air temperature, air
‘spilite’ (volcanic rock) of Ordovician–Devonian, humidity, rainfall, wind speed, potential evapo-
and Weakly Weathered Rock (WWR3) on schist transpiration, solar radiation) were recorded in 7
of Ordovician–Devonian (Table 1). sites distributed on the whole network. For that
Experiment 2. A network of 6 plots planted with purpose, automatic weather stations (Cimel En-
Cabernet franc (clone 214) was also established. erco 404, Paris) were installed.
BTUs studied were: Weakly Weathered Rock In March 2001, samples of soil from each
(WWR1) and Strongly Weathered Rock (SWR1) vine plot were collected at three depths (0–0.3 m;
on ‘métagrauwacke’ (schistose metasandstone) of 0.3–0.5 m; 0.5–1 m). Each layer comprised six
Brioverian (Table 1). samples collected with an auger, and was sub-
In every plot, 30 vines distributed on 2 non- jected to chemical analyses. Particle size distribu-
consecutive rows were selected for measurements tion, pH (1:2.5), organic C (Anne method), total
and berry sampling. nitrogen (Kjeldahl method), available P (Dyer
In experimental plots, vines of 15–20 years of method), extractable Ca, K, Mg and Mn by ex-
age were managed according to the traditional change with neutral N ammonium acetate, and
local training system (vertical shoot positioning, CEC (Metson method) were measured. Free iron
Guyot pruning, 4500–5000 plants ha)1) and her- was analysed by the Mehra–Jackson method and
40

total iron was extracted by hydrofluoric acid and sugars was well suited for the estimation of mean
analysed by ICP-AES. soil water capacity and vine water supply rate
The moisture of soil in March 2001 was con- during berry maturation. The carbon measured
sidered as representative of the field capacity. To was accumulated from current photosynthesis
determine the amount of water stored by the soil (Davies and Robinson, 1996). Vine budburst
at field capacity, soil weight was measured before stage, flowering stage and veraison stage were re-
and after drying in forced-air ovens at 105 C for corded visually using the Baggiolini scale (1952).
168 h. Soil water content at permanent wilting Observations were made on 30 control vines in
point was determined according to Baize (2000). each plot, and were used to determine the aver-
Between June and September, the water status age date of mid-budburst which corresponds to
of vine was studied by measuring the leaf pre- 50% of buds reaching the C stage, and also the
dawn water potential with a pressure chamber average date of mid-bloom (50% of flowered
(Scholander et al., 1965) on freshly cut, healthy, clusters) and finally the mid-veraison (50% of
primary leaves from six plants of each experi- berries with anthocyanin accumulation in the
mental plot. In the absence of transpiration, the skin) only on Cabernet Franc red vine.
leaf water potential was assumed to be in bal- Vine plots were compared phenologically
ance with the soil water potential in the active compared using the precocity indices developed
root layer. This balance is generally reached at by Barbeau et al., (1998) for Cabernet Franc in
the end of night (Katerji et al., 1983; Klepper, the Loire Valley, France. Index for precocity of
1968; Steinardt et al., 1981). It represents rather flowering (IPF) for plot j is calculated as:
accurately the conditions of water supply of a
IPFj ¼ 100
½1 þ ðFm  fj Þ=fm Þ;
plant and depends on the intensity of soil drying
that is exploited by the root system. where Fm is the mean mid-flowering date of the
The d13C in berry sugars at maturity was also plots studied and Fj the mid-flowering date of
measured. It has been shown that d13C was a plot j. Index for precocity of veraison is
good indicator of the vine water supply during calculated similarly to IPF from Vm (mean mid-
grape ripening (Gaudillère et al., 2002; Van veraison date) and Vj (mid-veraison date for plot
Leeuwen et al., 2001). The carbon of the CO2 is j). Index for precocity of the vine vegetative cycle
naturally present under several isotopes among (IPCY) is calculated as:
which the 12C and the 13C. Plants preferentially
take up 12C, photosynthesis, being faster with IPCYj ¼ IPfj þ 100
½ðVm  Fm Þ
12
C than with the heavier 13C. However, under  ðVj  Fj Þ=ðVm  Fm Þ
water stress conditions, stomata tend to close, so
that gas exchanges slow down and discriminating In February of each year, the pruning wood of
capacities of the plant enzymes are weakened. each of the thirty control vines in each plot was
Consequently, the plant absorbs more 13C than collected. Results were expressed as wood weight
in absence of water stress. Generally, d13C values dried at 105 C.
vary from )20 (severe water stress) to )30& All results were subjected to an ANOVA
(without water stress) with a smaller significant analysis carried out with the software Statbox
difference of 0.2 (Gaudillère and Van Leeuwen, (Grimmer Soft) and the averages were compared
1999). For d13C measurements, 50 berries were by means of the Newman and Keuls test at the
randomly sampled just before harvest, in each risk of 5% error (Falissard, 2002).
experimental plot. Berry juice was obtained by
pressing and filtration. Carbon isotope content
was measured using a continuous flow isotope Results
ratio mass spectrometer (Europa Scientific Ltd.,
Crewe, UK). Climate
Each year, measurements of leaf water poten-
tial, predawn, were used to determine vine water Averaged cumulated values obtained over the
status during the whole of the period between vine vegetative cycle (Table 2) were calculated
flowering and harvest, whereas d13C of berry from the automatic weather station records. Over
 41
Table 2. Climatic data obtained over the vine vegetative cycle (05/04–15/10) (means and standard deviations)
P P P P
Years Rainfall (mm) Temperature >10 C {C} global radiation (MJ m)2) Evapo-transpiration (mm)

2000 419.70 ± 36.80 3045.30 ± 16.00 3391.40 ± 401.20 732.30 ± 71.60

2001 425.40 ± 11.40 2985.90 ± 41.60 3593.00 ± 48.10 811.50 ± 41.20
2002 361.90 ± 19.50 2878.50 ± 20.20 3645.00 ± 36.20 851.10 ± 15.70
1997–1999 mean 286.70 3076.10 3525.00 659.60

the 3 years studied, rainfall was higher than the experimental plots. The soil CEC was signifi-
mean calculated between 1979 and 1999 (+26 to cantly higher in SWR1 than in the other soils, in
46%). The sum of growing degree days (GDD, deep horizons. The geologic system seems to play
T-10 C) was always lower than the average. The a role in CEC variations. Indeed, in WWR2 and
cumulated global radiation was lower than the WWR3 CEC was higher than in WWR1. The
average in 2000 ()3.8%) and higher in 2001 and free iron/total iron ratio was significantly lower
2002 (+2 and 3.4%). Potential Evapotranspira- (0.43) in WWR1 than in MWR1 and SWR1
tion (PET), in each of the 3 years, was higher (0.71–0.78). This ratio was higher in WWR3 than
than the average (from 11% in 2000 to 29% in in WWR2 and WWR1.
2002).
Water supply conditions of grapevine
Physical and chemical analyses of soils
Measures of predawn leaf water potential (wleaf)
Analysis of the particle size distribution of the
Strong seasonal influences affected the compari-
soils showed that in 0–0.3 m and 0.3–0.5 m lay-
son of leaf water potential (Figure 2a and b). In
ers, the content of soil fraction <2 mm was sig-
2001, wleaf showed no difference between different
nificantly greater in the SWR1 soil type than in
soils and different grapevine varieties. In 2000
the WWR1 and (Table 3). The MWR1 soil had a
and 2002, Chenin plots in WWR1 experienced
particle size distribution that was intermediate
a water constraint significantly greater (wleaf
between that of the W- and S- is WR1 soils. In
values between )0.61 to )0.85 MPa) than in
the 0.5 to 1 m horizon of the SWR1, the soil
SWR1 ()0.32 to )0.36 MPa) (Figure 2a). MWR1
particles with diameter <2 mm were lower in
showed a rather strong variability in 2000 and
abundance than in WWR1. Table 3
thus could not be differentiated from the other
In WWR1, soil has a sand content and a clay
soil types. In 2002, wleaf measures were signifi-
percentage significantly higher and lower respec-
cantly different in the three soil types, with inter-
tively than those of MWR1 and SWR1. SWR1
mediate values ()0.40 MPa) for MWR1. Also,
had the highest loam and clay contents. Finally,
vines growing on WWR1 and WWR3 experi-
soils on WWR2 and WWR3 had higher clay
enced more severe soil water deficits than those
content than those developed on WWR1.
growing on WWR2. However the intra-BTU var-
In topsoil, the moisture content at field capac-
iability was lower in 2002 than in 2000. In 2002,
ity increased between WWR1 and SWR1. In
the Cabernet Franc variety showed a higher wa-
other horizons, moisture content was significantly
ter constraint in WWR1 than in SWR1 but there
lower in all WWR than in SWR, with the excep-
was no difference in 2000 (Figure 2b).
tion of WWR3, while MWR was intermediate.
Amounts of organic matter in soil of most
plots were comparable (13.8–16.5&) except in the Measures of d13C sugars in berries
case of WWR3 where it was significantly higher The intensity of the water constraint measured
(21.8&). The nitrogen content followed a pattern by this method during grape ripening was weak
similar to that of the organic matter content. to moderate, with d13C ranging between )29
In each soil layer, the pH, available P, and and )24& (Figure 3a and b). For both varie-
exchangeable Ca, K and Mg contents were ties and years, the vines planted in WWR
similar and not statistically different between experienced a significantly greater water deficit
Table 3. Physical and chemical data of soil horizons from various Terroir Basic Units (means and standard deviations)
42
Geological formation Metagrauwacke from Brioverian

Terroir Basic Unit WWR1 Chenin WWR1 Cabernet Franc MWR1 Chenin SWR1 Chenin SWRI Cabernet Franc
(TBU)
Horizon 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 50–100 cm 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 50–100 cm 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 50–100 cm
b a ab a a a a a a b a a
Soil fraction <2 mm 577 ± 91 663 ± 26.5 681 ± 124 691 ± 9.6 738 ± 66 727 ± 119 863 ± 67.1 754 ± 100 702 ± 153.4 700 ± 119 751 ± 72 744 ± 55.4 633 ± 24b
(g kg)1)
Clay (g kg)1) 112.7 ± 23.0c 110.2 ± 10.3c 154.7 ± 23.7b 159.3 ± 33.0cd 164.7 ± 27.3b 262.1 ± 39.5b 303.9 ± 36.3a 203.3 ± 26.0b 209.0 ± 30.1bc 323 ± 69.2a 164.0 ± 16.0b 213.1 ± 40.9bc 307 ± 76.0a
Loam (g kg)1) 390.6 ± 1.75b 392.2 ± 9.15a 421.8 ± 16.8ab 432.3 ± 7.2a 401.6 ± 47.6ab 384.3 ± 59.2a 417.4 ± 44.0a 429.6 ± 48.5ab 424.5 ± 39.6a 408.2 ± 40.5a 482.5 ± 82.8a 474.3 ± 73.6a 432.3 ± 75.9a
Sand (g kg)1) 506.5 ± 23.9a 508.5 ± 16.2a 434.0 ± 27.1ab 420.7 ± 28.5abc 442.7 ± 21.0ab 369 ± 95.8bc 293.6 ± 63.9d 377.7 ± 25.9b 381.2 ± 19.8bc 291.6 ± 51.2d 361.9 ± 66.4b 325.9 ± 36.4c 283.5 ± 26.0d
Moisture content at field 144.5 ± 16.5c 145 ± 7.5d 159.8 ± 14.0abc 191.0 ± 26.2ab 170.2 ± 1.5ab 189 ± 14.0ab 196.7 ± 5.8a 178.2 ± 8.5ab 172 ± 13.1bcd 208.9 ± 22.4a 178.0 ± 9.8ab 178.1 ± 4.2bc 214.8 ± 30.2a
capacity (g kg)1)
Organic matter (g kg)1) 13.7 ± 1.8b – 13.8 ± 2.4b – 16.5 ± 1.84b – – 13.75 ± 0.86b – – 14.5 ± 1.7b – –
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.77 ± 0.15b – 0.71 ± 0.1b – 0.79 ± 0.09b – – 0.72 ± 0.03b – – 0.79 ± 0.09b – –
(g kg)1)
b ab a ab b
C/N 10.6 ± 1.1 – 11.3 ± 0.9 – 12.2 ± 0.19 – – 11.2 ± 1.2 – – 10.7 ± 0.4 – –
pH Water (1/2.5) 6.5 ± 0.6a 6.4 ± 0.8ab 7.0 ± 0.45a 6.8 ± 0.55a 6.0 ± 0.1a 5.0 ± 0.1bc 4.6 ± 0.5c 6.8 ± 1.2a 6.2 ± 1.2ab 5.0 ± 0.04bc 7.3 ± 0.5a 7.2 ± 0.8a 6.5 ± 0.8ab
)1 a a a a a
P2O5 Dyer (g kg ) 0.19 ± 0.06 – 0.21 ± 0.03 – 0.15 ± 0.05 – – 0.52 ± 0.4 – – 0.22 ± 0.17 – –
CEC (cmol+ kg)1) 7.42 ± 1.13b 7.14 ± 0.52b 7.73 ± 1.13b 7.87 ± 1.05b 7.58 ± 2.21b 8.09 ± 1.87b 6.8 ± 3.6b 8.01 ± 0.42b 7.71 ± 0.77b 12.6 ± 1.9ab 7.68 ± 1.03b 7.87 ± 1.31b 13.2 ± 4.2a
CaO exch (g kg)1) 1.92 ± 1.02a 1.82 ± 1.37a 1.13 ± 0.61a 1.69 ± 1.39a 1.13 ± 0.12a 1.28 ± 1.00a 1.30 ± 1.14a 4.04 ± 3.36a 3.35 ± 3.01a 2.75 ± 1.51a 3.26 ± 2.19a 3.06 ± 1.95a 4.09 ± 1.85a
K2O exch (g kg)1) 0.16 ± 0.02ab 0.12 ± 0.04a 0.09 ± 0.02b 0.08 ± 0.01a 0.16 ± 0.05ab 0.13 ± 0.07a 0.12 ± 0.02a 0.17 ± 0.01ab 0.11 ± 0.03a 0.13 ± 0.03a 0.22 ± 0.06a 0.15 ± 0.03a 0.12 ± 0.05a
MgO exch (g kg)1) 0.17 ± 0.05a 0.08 ± 0.07b 0.23 ± 0.08a 0.18 ± 0.07b 0.16 ± 0.01a 0.30 ± 0.08ab 0.37 ± 0.24ab 0.29 ± 0.11a 0.25 ± 0.04b 0.44 ± 0.13ab 0.16 ± 0.04a 0.17 ± 0.01b 0.50 ± 0.08ab
b ab a a a a a
Free Iron/Total Iron – 0.43 ± 0.09 – 0.57 ± 0.08 – 0.75 ± 0.07 0.78 ± 0.10 – 0.71 ± 0.02 0.64 ± 0.11 – 0.67 ± 0.1 0.63 ± 0.07a

Geological formation Green schists from Ordovician–Devonian Spilite from Ordovician–Devonian

Terror Basic Unit (TBU) WWR3 Chenin WWR2 Chenin

Horizon 0–30 cm 30–50 cm 0–30 cm 30–50 cm

Soil fraction <2 mm (g kg)1) 594 ± 64b 660 ± 11.4a 570 ± 63.8b 737 ± 41.4a
Clay (g kg)1) 274.3 ± 36.5a 357.0 ± 57.7a 169.7 ± 9.8b 174.0 ± 29.3cd
Loam (g kg)1) 300.2 ± 5.0c 297.1 ± 13.8b 379.7 ± 32.2b 396.0 ± 9.5a
Sand (g kg)1) 435.7 ± 40.6ab 363.5 ± 46.2bc 466.7 ± 44.3a 448.0 ± 31.7ab
Moisture content at field capacity (g kg)1) 181.7 ± 12.5a 212 ± 4.5a 153.6 ± 15.5bc 155.9 ± 19.6cd
Organic matter (g.kg)1) 21.8 ± 1.7a – 16.3 ± 6.35b –
Kjeldahl Nitrogen (g kg)1) 1.47 ± 0.11a – 0.82 ± 0.33b –
C/N 8.7 ± 0.3c – 11.6 ± 0.2ab –
pH Water (1/2.5) 6.9 ± 0.5a 6.6 ± 0.8a 6.5 ± 0.9a 6.2 ± 0.7ab
P2O5 Dyer (g kg)1) 0.46 ± 0.47a – 0.58 ± 0.23a –
CEC (cmol+ kg)1) 11.39 ± 0.43a 11.26 ± 1.4a 11.49 ± 2.43a 10.69 ± 0.65a
CaO exch (g kg)1) 3.19 ± 0.89a 3.31 ± 0.91a 3.19 ± 1.51a 2.18 ± 0.64a
K2O exch (g kg)1) 0.25 ± 0.13a 0.20 ± 0.10a 0.19 ± 0.02ab 0.15 ± 0.01a
MgO exch (g kg)1) 0.27 ± 0.06a 0.28 ± 0.07ab 0.31 ± 0.11a 0.63 ± 0.27a
Free Iron/Total Iron – 0.68 ± 0.01a – 0.39 ± 0.12

a „ b „ c at the risk level of 5%. Averages were compared for each horizon, except for deep layers where the 30–50cm and 50–100cm horizons were regrouped.
 43

Figure 2. (a) Minimum predawn leaf water potential measured on Chenin variety in 5 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate
standard deviations of means; a „ b „ c „ d at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR
for Weakly Weathered Rock, MWR for Moderately Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Méta-
grauwacke’ of Brioverian, 2 for ‘Spilite’ of Ordovician and 3 for Schists of Ordovician. (b) Minimum predawn leaf water potential
measured on Cabernet Franc variety in 2 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard deviations of means; a „ b at the
probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly
Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.

history than those in SWR. Results obtained soil types. We noted a significant increase in
with the Chenin planted in MWR1, were not the water constraint undergone by the vine
significantly different from those obtained in during grape maturation, with d13C mean val-
SWR1 in 2000 and 2001. But in 2002, there ues of )26.7& in WWR1, )27.8& in MWR1
were significant differences between the three and )28.8& in SWR1.
44

Figure 3. (a) d13C measured on Chenin variety in 5 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard deviations of means;
a „ b „ c at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered Rock,
MWR for Moderately Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian, 2 for ‘Spi-
lite’ of Ordovician and 3 for Schists of Ordovician. (b) d13C measured on Cabernet Franc in 2 different BTUs. On the graph, bars
indicate standard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR
for Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.

d13C determinations of Chenin berries showed Phenology of grapevine

that water constraint was significantly higher in
WWR1 than in WWR2, regardless of year. A In 2000, budburst was later than in 2001 and
strong variability characterized WWR3 (Figure 3a). 2002 (Figure 4a and b), except in WWR where
 45

Figure 4. (a) Dates of mid-budburst observed on Chenin variety in 5 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard devia-
tions of means; a „ b „ c at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weath-
ered Rock, MWR for Moderately Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian,
2 for ‘Spilite’ of Ordovician and 3 for Schists of Ordovician. (b) Dates of mid-budburst observed on Cabernet Franc in 2 different
BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001,
and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.

the date of mid-budburst was relatively un- earlier than in SWR1, whereas MWR1 had an
changed over the 3 years. With the Chenin intermediate behaviour. There was no signifi-
variety, budburst in WWR1 was significantly cant difference between WWR1, WWR2 and
46

WWR3. Similar results were obtained with the differences between WWR1 and SWR1
Cabernet Franc variety. were highly significant. In WWR1 dates of mid-
In 2001, the mid-budburst of Chenin grape- veraison of Cabernet Franc grapevine were ear-
vine was significantly earlier in WWR1 than in lier than in SWR1.
SWR1, but the magnitude of differences was low- The IPCY index of Barbeau et al. (1998) was
er than in 2000 (Figure 4a and b). The mean calculated for the Cabernet Franc variety. Re-
date of mid-budbreak in MWR1 was close to the sults clearly show that the vine vegetative cycle
one in WWR1. We also observed a significantly was significantly earlier in WWR1 than in
earlier budburst in WWR2 than in WWR1, SWR1, over the three consecutive years (Fig-
WWR3 being intermediate. Mid-budburst dates ure 7). There was no difference between WWR1,
of Cabernet Franc showed no significant differ- WWR2 and WWR3.
ences between WWR1 and SWR1.
In 2002, the mid-budburst of Chenin vari-
Vine vigour
ety was significantly earlier in WWR1 than in
SWR1, with similar date differences as in 2001
In the case of Chenin grapevines, pruning wood
(Figure 4a and b). MWR1 showed a vine behav-
weight obtained over the three consecutive years
iour close to that observed in SWR1. We noted
showed a high variability within each BTU. On
no significant differences between WWR1,
‘Métagrauwacke’ parent rock, there was no sig-
WWR2 and WWR3.
nificant difference between different types of soils
In the case of Cabernet Franc, vines planted
(WWR1, MWR1and SWR1) (Figure 8a). How-
in WWR1 had a significantly earlier budburst
ever, in WWR1, the vine tended to produce a les-
than in SWR1 (Figure 4a and b).
ser pruning wood weight than in SWR1. In 2002,
Vines growing in WWR had a budburst ear-
the vine from SWR1 produced a significantly
lier than in SWR1, whatever the grape variety
higher pruning wood weight than in WWR3.
and year.
With Cabernet Franc, the pruning wood weight
Flowering took place at the similar dates in
tended to be lowest in WWR1 (Figure 8a and b).
all plots in 2000 (Figure 5a and b). We did not
observe significant differences between WWR1
and SWR1 in the case of Cabernet Franc, in
spite of a tendency to an earlier bloom in Discussion
WWR1.
Chenin flowered later in 2001 than in the Results of soil analyses showed that the values of
other years; it was significantly earlier in WWR1 several variables changed according to the types
and MWR1 than in SWR1. No significant differ- of soil defined by the model. The significant in-
ences in dates of mid-bloom appeared between crease in clay and silt contents observed between
WWR1, WWR2 and WWR3. There was no sig- WWR1 and SWR1 is consistent with the degree
nificant difference between WWR1 and SWR1 in of pedological weathering, on which the model is
Cabernet Franc. based in part. Free Iron/total Iron ratio is strongly
In 2002, the vines bloomed earlier than in indicative of the pedological weathering stage and
2000 and 2001, excepted in SWR1. We did not increases in the WWR1 < MWR1 < SWR direc-
observe significant differences between WWR1 tion, because it is positively correlated with the
and SWR1, due to the strong intravariability of weathering level of minerals containing iron
dates, but the vine bloom was earlier in MWR1. (Baize, 2000; Guggenberger et al., 1998) In vari-
Flowering of vine in WWR2 was also signifi- ous WWR, the clay content of soil also varies
cantly earlier than in WWR1. No significant according to the mineralogy of the parent rock. It
difference was noted with the Cabernet Franc is higher on ‘spilite’ and green schists of
variety. Ordovician-Devonian formations than on ‘méta-
With regard to the dates of mid-veraison of grauwacke’ of the Brioverian era because in the
Cabernet Franc vines, we did not observe signifi- latter formation quantities of weatherable miner-
cant differences between WWR1 and SWR1 in als (feldspars and ferromagnesian minerals) are
2000 (Figure 6). In contrast, in 2001 and 2002 weaker than in the former (Morlat, 2001). Soil
 47

Figure 5. (a) Dates of mid-flowering observed on Chenin variety in 5 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard devia-
tions of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered
Rock, MWR for Moderately Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian, 2 for
‘Spilite’ of Ordovician and 3 for Schists of Ordovician. (b) Dates of mid-flowering observed on Cabernet Franc in 2 different BTUs.
On the graph, bars indicate standard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3
for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.

moisture percentage at field capacity is largely We also calculated the useful soil water
connected to the clay content of soil, and in- reserve (UWR), from 0 to 1200 mm in depth,
creases significantly from WWR1 to SWR1. according to the following formula (Baize, 2000):
48

H¼N

UWR ¼ R½ðw1  w2Þ
ð100  hÞ
E
q

H¼1
where UWR is the useful water reserve of soil
(mm), w1 the Soil moisture percentage at field
capacity (%), w2 the soil moisture percentage at
permanent wilting point (%), h the content of
coarse elements with diameter >2 mm (%), E the
Thickness of each soil horizon (mm), q the soil
bulk density, H the soil horizon number.
On «Métagrauwacke» parent rock, UWR
were 42 ± 11.1 mm in WWR1, 100 ± 26.8 mm
in MWR1 and reached 153 ± 15.9 mm in
SWR1. In WWR2 and WWR3, UWR was
36 ± 12.0 mm and 49 ± 10.0 mm, respectively.
Soil properties have a profound influence on
root distribution and also control infiltration and
water storage. Two main factors condition the
Figure 6. a. Dates of mid-veraison observed on Cabernet useable soil water reserve: the depth of exploit-
Franc in 2 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate stan- able soil which modulates the size of the water
dard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of reservoir and the soil texture, particularly the
5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for
Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered clay content which influences positively the soil
Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian. water holding capacity (Bruand et al., 1988;

Figure 7. Index of precocity of the cycle (IPCY) calculated on Cabernet Franc in 2 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate
standard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly
Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.
 49

Figure 8. (a) Weight of wood annually pruned on Chenin variety in 5 different BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard devia-
tions of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001, and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered
Rock, MWR for Moderately Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian, 2 for
‘Spilite’ of Ordovician and 3 for Schists of Ordovician. (b) Weight of wood annually pruned on Cabernet Franc in 2 different
BTUs. On the graph, bars indicate standard deviations of means; a „ b at the probability level of 5%, with 1 for 2000, 2 for 2001,
and 3 for 2002. WWR for Weakly Weathered Rock, SWR for Strongly Weathered Rock; and 1 for ‘Métagrauwacke’ of Brioverian.

Bigorre et al., 2000). According to Smart and sands to 160 mm m)1 for clays. With a soil depth
Coombe (1983), the range of available moisture exploitable by roots equal or greater than
per unit soil depth varies from 30 mm m)1 for 1200 mm and the highest clay content (325& from
50

500 to 1000 mm depth), SWR1 has the largest ing to earlier studies on drought tolerance of
available water reserve. On the other hand, grapevine varieties, Chenin cultivar seems less
WWR1 with both an average depth of only resistant to water stress than Cabernet Franc,
500 mm and a clay content of 110& from 300 to which explains its lower d13C values (Düring and
600 mm in depth, shows the lowest water storage Scienza, 1980; Schultz, 1997). We can note that
capacity, and furthermore the subsoil is little the d13C in sugars is a good integrated indicator
exploitable by roots. of vine water status to discriminate different
Data for predawn leaf water potential and Terroir Basic Units.
d13C of berry sugars showed that the water con- The water constraint was stronger in 2000
straint was stronger in WWR1 than in SWR1, than in 2001 and 2002; however the rainfall mea-
even for years with higher rainfall than average, sured on the whole vegetative cycle indicates that
whereas MWR1, similar to that of SWR. The re- year 2000 was rainier than 2002, whereas year
sults obtained verify the hypotheses made about 2002 showed the weakest water constraint mea-
vine water supply according to the different types sured by d13C. This behaviour seems surprising
of soil described by the model. We can easily ex- but is explained by the rainfall distribution
plain the presence of a stronger water constraint through the vegetative cycle (Figure 9). So, over
in WWR1, even in a rainy year, by a useful wa- the veraison – harvest period (weeks 30–42),
ter reserve much lower than in MWR1 and rainfall was 151 mm in 2000 vs. 218 mm in
SWR1 soils. Concerning various types of parent 2002. Finally, differences in water availability for
rocks, the water constraint was always stronger grapevine between years, soils and grape varieties
in WWR1 than in WWR2, but WWR3 was more were clearly and consistently reflected in sugar
or less stressful (2000 and 2001) than WWR1 d13C measured at harvest.
depending on the year. Soils derived from the A significant correlation ranging across soils,
weathering of Ordovician–Devonian green schists years and grape varieties was found between
(WWR3), present the highest clay and total d13C measured in sugar of ripe berries and plant
nitrogen contents (Table 2). Consequently, dur- water status measured by minimum predawn leaf
ing rainy springs, the vine develops a substantial water potential (Figure 10). This result is in
above-ground biomass that consumes a large accordance with those of Gaudillère et al. (2002).
part of the useful soil water reserve which is For Chenin and Cabernet Franc varieties the
close to that of WWR1. Then, as in 2002, if a mid-budburst, and for Cabernet Franc, the mid-
drying period follows a rainy spring, a severe veraison, were always earlier in WWR1 than in
plant water stress is likely to occur. So, the vine SWR1. In MWR1 this behaviour varied accord-
behaviour in WWR3 depends highly on seasonal ing to the year: close to that of WWR1 in 2001,
variation in climatic conditions. or to that of SWR1 in 2002, or intermediate in
According to the previous results, the Chenin 2000. In MWR1 the effect of the climatic year
variety presents wider variations in sugar d13C seems very strong. It can be related to the de-
between WWR1 and SWR1, than Cabernet crease of the sum of GDD temperatures in 2002,
Franc. It seems thus that the Chenin white vari- which would allow differences of pedoclimate to
ety has a stronger response to water stress varia- be more clearly expressed between types of soil.
tions than the Cabernet Franc red variety. The date of bloom depends on the air tempera-
Variability for d13C was studied by Gaudillère ture (Carbonneau et al., 1992). This phenological
et al. (2002) on a large set of 31 grapevine stage is not very useful to discriminate between
varieties, in Bordeaux vineyard over four grow- different types of soil because it is often faster
ing seasons (1997 to 2000). A significant varietal than either budburst or veraison. So, no signifi-
effect on d13C in sugars was shown. For the same cant difference appeared between the three soil
growing conditions, Cabernet Franc had a higher types, because the sums of GDD temperatures
d13C value ()22.5&) than Chenin ()24.5&) that were equivalent. With the Cabernet Franc vari-
were classified in the group with the lowest d13C ety, values of the Precocity Cycle Index (IPCY)
values. These two varieties showed different d13C of Barbeau et al. (1998) show significant differ-
values, indicating a significant variability of the ences between WWR1 and SWR1 (Figure 7).
stomatal control in Vitis vinifera species. Accord- The difference was greatest in 2002 (102.1 in
 51

Figure 9. Average rainfall over the period of the vine vegetative cycle (05/04–15/10), during the 3 years of the study.

Figure 10. Relationships between minimum predawn leaf water potential and d13C for Chenin and Cabernet Franc varieties, all
years mixed (R2, significant at 99% confidence level).

WWR1 vs. 97.9 in SWR1) a year which the sum particular soils cannot be explained by the sum
of GDD temperatures was the lowest of the of GDD air temperatures which vary only weakly
3 years (Table 2). Consequently, differences in from one plot to another (less than 1.5%). So,
the timing of key phonological stages, between the vine earliness at the time of budburst can be
52

related to the soil temperature in the active influence the vine planted in various BTUs. The
rooting zone (Morlat et al., 2001; Tesic et al., main results obtained on vine phenology, vine
2001). It has been shown that the activity of water regime and vine vigour enabled us to read-
roots influences the first phases of bud develop- ily differentiate the extreme soils, WWR1 and
ment (Battistuta et al., 1996; Bertamini et al., SWR1. Thus, in numerous vineyards with soils
1996; Barbeau et al., 1998). Several authors (Cel- deriving from weathering of one or several par-
lier et al., 1996; De Kochko and Curmi, 1985), ent rocks, the field soil model presented in this
have noted that the soil temperature is widely re- study is relevant to characterize viticultural terr-
lated to the soil moisture, because of the strong oirs. In the second part of this article, we will
calorific capacity of water. Thus, budburst in discuss the consequences on the berry composi-
WWR1 soil could be largely explained by a low- tion and aromatic typicity of the grape.
er water reserve (42 mm) than in SWR1
(153 mm). In MWR1, vine behaviour at the bud-
burst stage will depend largely on climatic condi- Reference:
tions of the previous winter. When the winter is
wet (2001 and 2002), the vine behaviour is close Baggiolini M 1952 Les stades repères dans le développement de
to that observed in SWR1. A strong vigour of la vigne. Revue Romande d’Agriculture et de Viticulture 8,
4–6.
vine also decreases the budburst earliness (Ber-
Baize D 2000 Guide des analyses en pédologie. 2 éditionINRA
nard, 1980). Nitrogen and carbon reserves can éditions, Paris 257 pp.
also influence the budburst earliness (Ndung’u Barbeau G, Asselin C and Morlat R 1998 Estimation du
et al., 1997). potentiel viticole des terroirs en Val de Loire selon un indice
de précocité du cycle de la vigne. Bulletin de l’OIV. 805–806,
As regards the vigour of the vine, it was 247–262.
assumed that the weight of annually pruned Battistutta F, Colugnati G, Bregant F, Celotti E, and Zironi R
wood would increase in the WWR1 > 1996 Adaptation of Chardonnay clones to different regional
MWR1 > SWR1 direction, but results showing environments in Friuli (northeastern Italy). Proceedings for
the Fourth International Symposium on Cool Climate
a strong variability in every BTU could only Enology & Viticulture, Rochester, NY, 16–20 July 1996,
partially verify this hypothesis. Nevertheless a (1) 28–31.
tendency to a stronger vigour in SWR1 than in Bernard C 1980 Contribution à l’étude de la biologie et des
WWR1 was observed. However, the rainfall méristèmes des Vitacées Thèse de Doctorat de l’Académie de
Montpellier. 320 p.
higher than average over the 3 years of study can Bertamini M, Ponchia G, and Scrinzi M 1996 Environmental
explain these results. Vines planted in WWR1 effects on yield, growth and grape composition of Sauvignon
were not subjected to a water constraint sufficient Blanc in Alpine viticulture of Trentino (N.E. Italy). Pro-
to limit the above-ground biomass, whereas vines ceedings for the Fourth International Symposium on Cool
Climate Enology & Viticulture, Rochester, NY, 16–20 July
in SWR1 experienced a constraint due to the 1996, (1) 16–22.
presence of a water table in rainy springs. These Bigorre F, Tessier D and Pedro G 2000 Contribution des argiles
conditions would have favoured vigour in et des matières organiques à la rétention de l’eau dans les
sols. Signification et rôle fondamental de la capacité
WWR1 and conversely would have decreased
d’échange en cations. Compte Rendu de l’Académie des
vigour in SWR1. Indeed, results show a tendency Sciences 330, 245–250.
to an increase in pruning wood weight between Boselli M, Coletta C, Moio L, Monaco A, and Scaglione G
WWR1 and SWR1 which persists with the 1996 Etude préliminaire des influences pédoclimatiques sur
les caractéristiques quali-quantitatives du cépage Aglianico
decrease in rainfall over the vegetative cycle dans une zone de la province de Benevento – Italie. Actes du
(Figures 8a and 8b). 1er Colloque International sur les Terroirs Viticoles – Angers
– 17 au 18 juillet 1996. 403–407.
Branas J 1974 Viticulture Imprimerie Déhan-Montpellier. 356p.
Bruand A, Tessier D and Baize D 1988 Contribution à l’étude
Conclusion des propriétés de rétention en eau des sols argileux:
importance de la prise en compte de l’organisation de la
The aim of our work was to study the response phase argileuse. Compte Rendu de l’Académie des Sciences
of grapevine planted in different BTUs defined 307, 1937–1941.
Carbonneau A 1986 Stress modérés sur feuillage induits par le
by a field soil model based on the soil depth and système de conduite et régulation photosynthétique de la
the level of weathering of soil. The present study vigne. In Symposium Physiologie de la vigne, OIV, Bor-
confirms several hypotheses on soils factors that deaux. pp. 378–385.
 53
Carbonneau A, Riou C, Guyon D, Riom J and Schneider C Morlat R 1998 Les relations entre le terroir, la vigne et le vin
1992 , 225. Compte Rendu de l’Académie d’Agriculture de France. pp.
Cellier P, Jacquet A, Bautrais P, Morlat R, and Delanchy P, 19–32.
1996 Modélisation du régime thermique des sols de vignoble Morlat R 2001 Terroirs viticoles : étude et valorisation.
du val de Loire: relations avec des variables utilisables pour Chaintré: Oenoplurimédia, 118 p.
la caractérisation des terroirs Actes du 1 Colloque interna- Morlat R, Penavayre M, Jacquet A, Asselin C and Lemaitre C
tional sur les terroirs viticoles, Angers (France), pp. 26–32. 1992 Influence des terroirs sur le fonctionnement hydrique et
Chone X, Van Leeuwen C, Chery P and Ribereau-Gayon P la photosynthèse de la vigne, en millésime exceptionnelle-
2001 Terroir influence on water status and nitrogen status of ment sec (1990) Conséquence sur la maturation du raisin.
non-irrigated Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera) Vegetative Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin 26–
development, must and wine composition (example of a 4, 197–220.
Médoc top estate vineyard, Saint Julien area, Bordeaux, Morlat R, Barbeau G, and Asselin C 2001 Facteurs naturels et
1997). S. Afr. J. Enol. Viticult. 22–1, 8–15. humains des terroirs viticoles français: méthode d’étude et de
Creasy G L and Lombard P B 1993 Vine water stress and valorisation. Etudes et Recherches des Systèmes Agraires et
peduncle girdling effects on pre and post-veraison grape du Développement 32, 111–127.
berry growth and deformability. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 44–2, Ndung’u C K, Shimizu M, Okamoto G and Hirano K 1997
193–197. Absicic acid, carbohydrates, and nitrogen contents of Kyoho
Davies C and Robinson S P 1996 Sugar accumulation in grape grapevines in relation to budbreak induction by water stress.
berries. Cloning in two putative vacuole invertase cDNAs American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 48 (1), 115–120.
and their expression in grape vine tissues. Plant Physiol. 111, Ojeda H, Lebon E, Romieu C, Carbonneau A, Andary C and
275–283. Deloire A 1999 Relations entre le stress hydrique et la
De Kochko P and Curmi P 1985 Porosité et comportement croissance des baies de Vitis vinifera L cv Syrah Evolution
thermique des sols d’un vignoble d’Anjou. Science du Sol. 3, des phénols. Compte rendu des 11 journées GESCO, Sicile
169–174. 1, 185–192.
Düring H and Scienza A 1980 Drought resistance of some Vitis Ojeda H, Andary C, Kraeva E, Carbonneau A and Deloire A
species and cultivars. In 3rd International Symposium on 2002 Influence of pre- and postveraison water deficit on
Grape Breeding. Ed. HP Olmo. pp. 179–190. University of synthesis and concentration of skin phenolic compounds
California, Davis, USA. during berry growth of Vitis vinifera cv Shiraz. Am. J. Enol.
Falissard B, 2002 Comprendre et utiliser les statistiques dans les Viticult. 53–4, 261–267.
sciences de la vie. 2 édition. Paris: Masson. Collection Pouget R and Delas J 1989 Le choix des porte-greffes de la
« Evaluation et Statistique ». 328 p. vigne pour une production de qualité. Journal International
Gaudillère J P, Van Leeuwen C and Ollat N 2002 Carbon des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin. Hors série.
isotope composition of sugars in grapevine, an integrated Salette J 1997 La typicité: une notion nouvelle au service du
indicator of vineyard water status. J. Exp. Bot. 53–369, 757– produit, de ceux qui l’élaborent et de ceux qui le consom-
763. ment en l’appréciant. Revue des Oenologues 85, 11–13.
Guggenberger G, Baumler R and Zeck W 1998 Weathering of Scholander P F, Hammel H T, Hemingsen E A and Bradstreet
soils developed in eolian material overlying glacial deposits E D 1965 Sap pressure in vascular plants. Science 148, 339–
in Eastern Nepal. Soil Sci. 163, 4, 325–337. 346.
Hoppmann D and Schaller K 1996 Characterization of Schultz H R 1997 Physiological mechanisms of water use
vineyard sites for quality wine production using meteoro- efficiency in grapevine under drought conditions. In 5th
logical, soil chemical and physical data. Actes du 1er international Symposium on Grapevine Physiology. Ed. BA
Colloque International sur les Terroirs Viticoles – Angers – Bravdo. pp. 115–136. ISHS, Jerusalem, Israel.
17 au 18 juillet 1996. 264–269. Schwarz R 1997 Predicting wine quality from terrain charac-
Jones G V and Davis R E 2000 Climate influences on grapevine teristics by regression trees. Cybergeo 35, 8.
phenology, grape composition, and wine production and Seguin G 1979 L’alimentation en eau de la vigne dans les sols
quality for Bordeaux, France. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 51, 3, du Haut-Médoc. Connaissance de la Vigne et du Vin 2, 93–
249–261. 141.
Katterji N, Hallaire M, Perrier A and Durand R 1983 Transfert Seguin G 1983 Influence des terroirs viticoles sur la constitution
hydrique dans le végétal I – Modélisation à l’échelle du et la qualité des vendanges. Bulletin de l’OIV 56, 3–18.
couvert végétal en conditions naturelles. Oecol. Plant. 4, 11– Smart R E and Coombe B G 1983 Water relations of grape-
26. vines. In Water deficits, plant growth. Ed. T T Koslowski.
Klepper B 1968 Diurnal pattern of water potential in woody Vol VII, pp. 137–196. Additional Woody Crop Plants.
plants. Plant Physiol. 43, 1931–1934. Academic Press. New York.
Koundouras S, Van Leeuwen C, Seguin G and Glories Y 1999 Steinhardt R, Ehlers W and Van Der Ploeg R R 1981 Analysis
Influence de l’alimentation en eau sur la croissance de la of soil water uptake from a drying loess soil by an oat crop
vigne, la maturation des raisins et les caractéristiques des using a simulation model Irrigation. Sciences 2, 237–258.
vins en zone méditerranéenne (exemple de Némée, Grèce, Tesic D, Wooley D J, Hewett E W and Martin D J 2001
cépage Saint-Georges, 1997). Journal International des Environmental effects on cv Cabernet Sauvignon grown in
Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin 33, 4, 149–160. Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand 1 – Phenology and characteri-
Morlat R 1989 Le terroir viticole : contribution à l’étude de sa sation of viticultural environments Australian. J. Grape
caractérisation et de son influence sur les vins Application Wine Res. 8, 15–26.
aux vignobles rouges de la moyenne vallée de la Loire Thèse Tomasi D, Calo A, Biscaro S, Vettorello G, Panero L and
Doc. Etat, bordeaux II. DiStefano R 1999 Influence des caractéristiques physiques
54
du sol sur le développement de la vigne, dans la composition vigne et son incidence sur la maturation du raisin. Bulletin de
polyphénolique et anthocyanique des raisins et la qualité du l’OIV 76 867–868, 367–379.
vin de Cabernet Sauvignon. Bulletin de l’O.I.V 819–820, Van Leeuwen C, Friant P H, Chone X, Tregoat O, Koundouras
321–335. S and Dubourdieu D 2004 The influences of climate, soil and
Van Leeuwen C and Seguin G 1994 Influences de l’alimentation cultivar on terroir. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 55–3, 207–217.
en eau de la vigne appréciée par l’état hydrique du feuillage, Vaudour E 2002 The Quality of Grapes and Wine in Relation
sur le développement de l’appareil végétatif et la maturation to Geography: Notions of Terroir at Various Scales. J. Wine
du raisin (Vitis vinifera variété Cabernet franc, Saint Emilion Res. 13–2, 117–141.
1990). Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Wahl K 1988 Climate and soil effects on grapevine and wine :
Vin 28–2, 81–110. the situation on the northern border of viticulture – the
Van Leeuwen C, Gaudillère J P and Tregoat O 2001 L’éval- example Franconia. In Proceedings of the Second Interna-
uation du régime hydrique de la vigne à partir du rapport tional Symposium for Cool Climate Viticulture and Oenol-
isotopique 13C/12C L’intérêt de sa mesure sur les sucres du ogy. Eds. R E Smart, R J Thornton, S B Rodriguez, and J E
moût à maturité. Journal International des Sciences de la Young. pp. 1–5. Auckland, NZ.
Vigne et du Vin 35–4, 195–205.
Van leeuwen C, Tregoat O, Chone X, Jaeck M-E, Rabusseau S Section editor: P. J. Gregory
and Gaudillère JP 2003 Le suivi du regime hydrique de la