Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Soil Microbial Communities and Wine Terroir: Research Gaps and Data Needs

Altmetrics

Downloads

119

Views

99

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

26 June 2024

Posted:

26 June 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Microbes found in soil can have a significant impact on the taste and quality of wine, also referred to as wine terroir. To date, wine terroir has been thought to be associated with physical and chemical characteristics of the soil. However, there is a fragmented understanding of the contribution of vineyard soil microbes to wine terroir. Additionally, vineyards can play an important role in carbon sequestration, since the promotion of healthy soil and microbial communities directly impact greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. We review 24 studies that explore the role of soil microbial communities in vineyards and their influence on grapevine health, grape composition, and wine quality. Studies spanning 2015 to 2018 laid a foundation by exploring soil microbial biogeography in vineyards, vineyard management effects, and the reservoir function of soil microbes for grape-associated microbiota. On the other hand, studies spanning 2019 to 2023 appear to have a more specific and targeted approach, delving into the relationships between soil microbes and grape metabolites, the microbial distribution at different soil depths, and microbial influences on wine flavor and composition. Next, we identify research gaps and make recommendations for future work. Specifically, most of the studies utilize targeted sequencing (16S, 26S, ITS) which only reveals community composition. Utilizing high-throughput omics approaches such as shotgun sequencing (to infer function) and transcriptomics (for actual function) is vital to determine the specific mechanisms by which soil microbes influence grape chemistry. Going forward, understanding long-term effects of vineyard management practices and climate change on soil microbiology, grapevine trunk diseases, and the role of bacteriophages in vineyard soil and wine making would be a fruitful investigation. Overall, the studies presented shed light on the importance of soil microbiomes and their interactions with grapevines in shaping wine production. However, there are still many aspects of this complex ecosystem that require further exploration and understanding to support sustainable viticulture and enhance wine quality.
Keywords: 
Subject: Environmental and Earth Sciences  -   Soil Science

Introduction:

The concept of terroir in wine refers to the unique combination of environmental factors, including soil, climate, topography, and human practices, that influence the characteristics of grapes and, ultimately, the flavor and quality of wine (Guzzon et al 2023, Leeuwen et al 2004). While terroir is traditionally associated with macro-level factors such as climate, topography, physical and chemical soil characteristics, recent research has highlighted the role of microbiota, specifically grapevine-associated microbial communities, in potentially shaping the terroir effect (Di et al 2019, Belda et al 2017).
Grapevines host a diverse array of microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts, and fungi, both on the surface of the grapes, within the grapevine itself and the bulk soil (Gilbert et al 2014, Bokulich et al 2014). These microbial communities can vary significantly between vineyards, regions, and even individual vines (Griggs et al 2021). They play a crucial role in vineyard ecology, interacting with the plant and influencing its growth (Wagner et al 2014), health, and the development of grapes. For example, grape-associated yeast community is a vital component of the vine-wine system contributing to terroir (Chalvantzi et al 2021). Additionally, the diversity and proportion of yeast species change with the grape's maturation stage. As grapes begin to ripen, they are predominantly inhabited by basidiomycetous yeasts (Barata et al 2012). As maturation continues, these initial colonizers are replaced by ascomycetous species that exhibit oxidative or weak fermentative properties, including Hanseniaspora, Metschnikowia, Pichia, and Candida (Barata et al 2012). Notably, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the primary yeast responsible for wine fermentation, is infrequently observed. In contrast, overmatured, damaged, or botrytised grapes favor the growth of yeasts with robust fermentative characteristics and others like Pichia, Zygoascus hellenicus, Zygosaccharomyces, and Torulaspora (Nisiotou et al 2007; Nisiotou and Nychas, 2007; Barata et al 2012).
The microbiota associated with grapevines can influence terroir in several ways based on which they can be classified into three categories:
Soil microbiota: Soil is an essential component of terroir, and the microbial communities within the soil can impact vine health and grape characteristics. Microbes in the soil interact with the vine's root system, affecting nutrient availability, water uptake, and overall vine physiology. Links to the production of metabolites that influence grapevine metabolism and flavor compounds in the grapes is suggested in some literature but not conclusive (Martins et al 2013, Zhou et al 2020, Zarraonaindia et al 2015). Additionally, knowledge concerning variability within and between vineyards and regions and their contribution to wine terroir is still fragmented.
Epiphytic microbiota: The microorganisms present on the grape, leaf and bark surfaces are the epiphytic microbiota. To date, literature suggest that the composition of epiphytic microbiota can be influenced by vineyard management practices, such as the use of pesticides or fungicides (Martins et al 2013, Bokulich et al 2016, Guzzon et al 2023). The extent to which epiphytic microbiota can affect the fermentation process and contribute to the sensory attributes of the resulting wine is largely unknown. Recent research has begun to indicate that yeasts and bacteria on grape skins can influence the initiation and progression of fermentation, leading to different flavor profiles (Sancho-Galan et al 2021).
Endophytic microbiota: Endophytes are microorganisms that live within the tissues of grapevines. These microbes can have various effects on the vine, including enhancing nutrient uptake, modulating the plant's immune system, and producing bioactive compounds. The presence and diversity of endophytic microbiota can vary between grape varieties and vineyard sites, contributing to the unique terroir expression as suggested by Compant et al (2011), Pacifico et al (2019) and Hamaoka et al (2022), to name a few.
Among the studies to date on the influence of microbial communities on wine terroir, the contribution of the soil microbiome remains inconclusive and least scientifically explored. To address this gap, we review the current state of knowledge of soil microbiota contribution to terroir expression. We present research gaps and highlight future areas of research that warrant attention. For the purpose of this paper, we focus on literature that specifically looks at microbial communities in the soil.
Understanding the influence of soil microbial communities on wine production is crucial. In addition, it is important to explore how microbial biogeography and activity might respond to climate changes. By studying the complex interactions between soil microorganisms, and the environment, we can gain valuable insights into the role of soil microbiota in shaping terroir. This knowledge allows us to comprehend how soil microbial communities contribute to the unique characteristics and flavors found in wines, ultimately helping us manage and manipulate these communities to enhance desired terroir traits or preserve the distinctiveness of specific terroirs. Therefore, in addition to reviewing the literature on soil microbiota in vineyards, we also discuss vine management practices including disease and topics of interest such as phages and their likely relationship with soil microbiota and wine terroir.

Current State of Knowledge on the Microbiota Contribution to Terroir Expression:

We ran a pubmed literature search with the keywords ‘soil’, ‘microbial communities’, and ‘wine terroir’, resulting in 24 studies between 2015 and 2023 (Table 1) and five review papers (Belda et al 2017, Liu et al 2019, Alexandre et al 2020, Cobos et al 2022, Wei et al 2022). There are other studies that focus on grapevine microbiomes in plant parts and not the bulk soil. These were not considered for the purpose of this study.
The concept of ‘terroir’ is intriguing. Despite the surge in literature in the last decade, further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which soil microbes influence grape chemistry and how this can be leveraged to enhance wine quality. Additionally, exploring microbial network dynamics in vineyard soils and understanding how these interactions affect plant health and wine quality could be a fruitful area of investigation.
Earlier studies from 2015 to 2018 (Burns et al 2015, Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2015, Zarraonaindia et al 2015, Burns et al 2016, Castenada & Barbosa 2017, Mezzasalma et al 2017, Hendgen et al 2018, Chou et al 2018, Wei et al 2018 and Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2018) laid a foundation by exploring soil microbial biogeography in vineyards, vineyard management effects, and the reservoir function of soil microbes for grape-associated microbiota. For instance, Zarronaindia et al (2015) mentions that belowground bacterial communities differed significantly from those aboveground, and yet the communities associated with leaves, flowers, and grapes shared a greater proportion of taxa with soil communities than with each other, suggesting that soil may serve as a bacterial reservoir. Mezzasalma et al 2017 shared that grape microbiome could be influenced by farming practices and climate conditions. This was deduced by observing microbes present at harvest, and prior to fermentation. However, later studies (2019 onwards) appear to have a more specific and targeted approach, delving into the relationships between soil microbes and grape metabolites, the microbial distribution at different soil depths, and microbial influences on wine flavor and composition.
Concerning bacterial populations, twelve studies found Proteobacteria to be the most dominant phylum present (Aguilar et al 2020, Burns et al 2015, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Gupta et al 2019, Hendgen et al 2018, Liang et al 2019, Liu et al 2020, Rivas et al 2021, Torres et al 2021, Wei et al 2018, and Zarraonaindia et al 2015), majority of which also found Actinobacteria to be present in high abundance. Ten studies noted Acidobacteria to be present in high abundance (Aguilar et al 2020, Burns et al 2015, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Gupta et al 2019, Hendgen et al 2018, Liang et al 2019, Liu et al 2020, Rivas et al 2021, and Zarraonaindia et al 2015), while eight studies identified the presence of Bacteroidetes in high abundance (Aguilar et al 2020, Burns et al 2015, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Hendgen et al 2018, Liu et al 2020, Wei et al 2018, and Zarraonaindia et al 2015). Gemmatimonadetes was noted in six studies, though not as dominant as the aforementioned phyla (Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Gupta et al 2019, Hendgen et al 2018, Liu et al 2020, and Torres et al 2021), seven studies identified Firmicutes as one of the present phyla (Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Hendgen et al 2018, Liang et al 2019, Liu et al 2020, Rivas et al 2021, Wei et al 2018, and Zarraonaindia et al 2015), and ten studies identified Planctomycetes in a mix of high, medium, and low abundance (Aguilar et al 2020, Burns et al 2015, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gobbi et al 2022, Gupta et al 2019, Hendgen et al 2018, Rivas et al 2021, Torres et al 2021, Wei et al 2018, Zarraonaindia et al 2015).
Commonly observed fungal phyla were Ascomycota, Basidiomycota, Chytridiomycota, Mucoromycota and Clomeromycota. Nine studies found Ascomycota in high abundance and in some cases the most abundant. (Aguilar et al 2020, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gupta et al 2019, Hedgens et al 2018, Liang et al 2019, Liu et al 2020, Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2018, Torres et al 2021, Wei et al 2018, and Yan et al 2022). Basidiomycota was observed in 9 studies although in high, medium, and low abundance (Aguilar et al 2020, Casteñada & Barbosa 2017, Gupta et al 2019, Hedgens et al 2018, Liang et al 2019, Liu et al 2020, Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2018, Torres et al 2021, Wei et al 2018, and Yan et al 2022). Chytridiomycota and Mucoromycota were observed but not as dominant as the other phyla Basidiomycota and Ascomycota (Liu et al 2020, Wei et al 2018, and Yan et al 2022, Aguilar et al 2020, Hedgens et al 2018). Glomeromycota, was observed but in low abundance (Aguilar et al 2020, Gupta et al 2019, Liu et al 2020).
Among the reviews that came up, Belda et al (2017) highlights the underestimated role of the soil microbiome in wine production. The study reveals that the soil-associated microbiota significantly influences soil chemistry, grapevine health, and the final sensory properties of wines, calling for a deeper understanding of these crucial interactions for precision enology practices. Liu et al (2019) emphasizes the role of microbial biogeography, shaped by geographical, climatic, and viticultural factors, as a new perspective to enhance regional characteristics and optimize wine production by managing the present microbes. Relevant to the current study, a review (Alexandre et al 2020) highlights that the role of region-specific microbial communities (microbial terroir) in defining wine characteristics is still debated, requiring further research for a clearer understanding. Cobos et al (2022) discusses how the grapevine microbiome offers potential sources for new and promising biocontrol agents that could serve as effective tools in controlling grapevine trunk diseases. Lastly, Wei et al (2022) discusses the benefits of mimicking natural ecological cultivation to enhance microbial diversity, and sustainability in large-scale natural wine practices.
Together, these studies contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the complex interactions between soil microbiomes, grapevines, and the production of high-quality wine. However, there are still many aspects of this complex ecosystem that require further exploration and understanding to support sustainable viticulture and enhance wine quality. For the purpose of this review, we discuss vineyard management, diseases, phages and next-generation sequencing as topics that are important drivers of our knowledge of the changing landscape of soil microbes in vineyards.

Long-Term Effects of Vineyard Management:

Vineyard management is a critical aspect of the overall health and productivity of vineyards. Its decisions have both short-term and long-term effects on the ecosystem. The long-term effects are significant, with soil health being a key concern (Giffard et al 2022). Vineyard managers use techniques like cover cropping, composting, and organic fertilizers to maintain soil health, which not only ensures grapevines' long-term viability but also contributes to the sustainability of the vineyard ecosystem. Therefore, understanding the long-term impacts of these practices can be instrumental in developing sustainable and environmentally friendly viticultural methods.
Several studies have touched upon the topic of long-term field experiments involving different management practices (Table 1). However, to fully grasp the implications of various agricultural approaches on soil biodiversity and vineyard microbiomes, further research is warranted. Investigating the effects of climate change on microbial community dynamics, their functional roles, and their implications for wine production can help prepare the wine industry for potential challenges (Rivas et al 2021). Notably, one of the few papers that discusses soil diversity impacts through climatic condition changes was Rivas et al (2021). The study indicates a consistent set of microorganisms in both soil and wine, from various phyla, that remain steady over multiple vintage years from Argentina.
In addition to investigating long-term effects, comparative studies spanning different viticultural regions worldwide can offer valuable insights (Tofalo 2021). Specifically, soil tilling in viticulture is likely to have significant implications on nutrient and soil organic carbon content with correlations to the microbial community composition and associated function (Smith et al 2016). Yet, the impact of this practice on soil microbial abundance, richness and its link to wine terroir remains unexplored. Notably, studies report highly variable results on the number of unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in tilled vs. no-till fields (Andrade et al 2002, Buckley & Schmidt 2003, Jangid et al 2011). Such cross-regional analyses have the potential to reveal both common patterns and unique characteristics associated with specific wine-producing areas.
Moreover, there is significant promise in leveraging advancements in precision viticulture (Ferro & Catania 2023) for targeted microbial management in vineyards. The integration of cutting-edge technologies into viticulture can optimize soil microbial communities, bolster grapevine health, and elevate overall wine quality. Delving into the potential of precision viticulture to influence the dynamics of vineyard microbiomes can lead to innovative practices that maximize wine production efficiency while maintaining environmental sustainability. Multispectral, hyperspectral and thermal sensing are among the most widely used sensors for vineyard monitoring over the last two decades. Vineyard canopy images are also used extensively as alternatives to more destructive techniques to measure soluble solids content, and anthocyanin content, both measures of grape quality (Loggenberg et al 2018). Such images would be vital in predicting an impending poor harvest following severe environmental stress such as drought or heavy precipitation events.

Grapevine Trunk Diseases:

Grapevine trunk diseases remain a significant threat to the wine industry (Kenfaoui et al 2022). The most common microorganisms that grapevines tend to be most susceptible to are Plasmopara viticola (downy mildew), Elsinoe ampelina (anthracnose), Guignardia bidwellii (black rot), Erysiphe neator (powdery mildew). However, confusion remains concerning the cause, and progression of the disease, many of which result in serious infections, loss of yield or quality. Interestingly, recent research (Li et al 2023) has demonstrated associations between belowground microbiota Fusarium spp. and exacerbating progression of grapevine trunk disease. In-depth studies are needed to decipher the interactions between the host grapevine and the diverse fungal communities, some of which may act as opportunistic pathogens under specific conditions. Such insights can aid in devising targeted strategies for disease management and prevention. Another particularly intriguing area of research is the role of both asymptomatic and symptomatic grapevines in harboring pathogenic fungi. Understanding the differences in microbial communities between these two states can shed light on the mechanisms underlying the progression of trunk diseases (Fall et al 2023).

Bacteriophages for Bacterial Community Regulation and Pathogenic Inactivation in Soil:

In winemaking, the soil’s microbial diversity, including bacteriophages, can indirectly influence grape chemistry by affecting nutrient availability, water stress, and overall grapevine health (Mao et al 2019). Bacteriophages are viruses that infect and replicate within bacterial cells, and they are abundant in various environments, including vineyards and wineries. Bacterial communities in the soil play crucial roles in nutrient cycling, plant health, and grapevine interactions. Bacteriophages can selectively target specific bacterial species, altering the microbial composition and dynamics in the soil, including pathogen inactivation (Mao et al 2019). Braga et al (2020) demonstrated that changes in phage pressure could likely impact soil bacterial community composition and diversity with important implications for soil functions. Indeed, changes in soil microbiomes may lead to variations in grape metabolite composition, impacting the grapes’ flavor and aroma compounds. The field of bacteriophages in wine is still relatively new (Chaib et al 2022), and more research is needed to fully understand their role in their interactions with bacterial communities, and their impact on wine characteristics.

Next-Generation Sequencing: Gaps and Research Needs

To identify and quantify the microorganisms present in the soil (Table 1), several studies have opted to use next-generation sequencing. Among the studies we reviewed, 16 focused on amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, which is widely used in molecular biology and microbiology for the identification and classification of microorganisms, particularly bacteria and archaea. 12 papers focused on sequencing the ITS regions and their subregions, and 2 papers used 26S rDNA. ITS and 26S rDNA are used widely to characterize eukaryotic organisms. Relevant to wine making, yeast communities were of interest to these papers. Only 2 studies utilized shotgun sequencing, that analyze entire genomes and complex microbial communities without the need for prior knowledge of specific DNA regions.
Although targeted sequencing (16S rRNA, ITS and 26S rDNA) can reveal insights into the microbial community composition, shotgun sequencing offers a broader picture of the entire genome, making it suitable for functional information as well. However, the information obtained from shotgun sequencing (also sometimes referred to as whole genome sequencing) can only lead to inferences about function. On the other hand, transcriptomics provides insights into the active metabolic pathways and biological processes occurring in the soil, giving a more dynamic view of microbial activity than just analyzing the microbial composition. To our knowledge, there are no studies that have utilized transcriptomics to investigate the actual function of soil microbial communities in vineyard settings.
Metagenomics and transcriptomics of soil microbial communities in vineyards offers a powerful tool for gaining functional insights into soil microbiomes, supporting sustainable vineyard management, and contributing to the production of high-quality wines with a distinct terroir. Firstly, it helps in predicting the roles of microorganisms in nutrient cycling, organic matter decomposition, and other essential processes for vineyard health (Zarik et al 2016). Secondly, transcriptomics helps in monitoring how soil microbial communities respond to changes in environmental factors, such as climate, soil management practices, and agricultural inputs (Stewart et al 2011). Thirdly, this type of analysis can help identify specific microbial species or groups that play essential roles in promoting soil health, enhancing nutrient availability, and protecting grapevines from diseases. Such beneficial microbes can be targeted for potential use as biofertilizers or biocontrol agents. Lastly, such methods helps in understanding how soil microbes contribute to the regional identity of wines (terroir), which is essential for promoting authenticity and quality (Nwachukwu & Babalola 2022).

Conclusion

The influence of soil microbial communities on grapevine-associated microbiota is an area of active research and ongoing exploration. While there is growing evidence supporting the significance of soil microbial influence on grapevines and their associated microbiota, aspects of this interaction remain subject to debate and further investigation. For example, Zarraonaindia et al (2015) focused on the spatial and temporal dynamics of bacterial communities associated with grapevine organs (leaves, flowers, grapes, and roots) and soils. The study explored factors like vine cultivar, edaphic parameters, vine developmental stage, and vineyard that influence the microbial communities, but it did not directly address the influence of soil on grape microbiota. On the other hand, Chou et al (2018) investigated the impact of under-vine soil management practices (herbicide application, soil cultivation, and natural vegetation) on the microbiomes of soil and grapes in a Riesling vineyard. The study showed that soil management practices influenced the soil microbiome but did not have corresponding changes in the grape-associated microbiome, suggesting that other vineyard management practices or environmental factors may be more influential in shaping the grape microbiota. To further understand the specific mechanisms by which soil microbial communities influence grapevine associated microbiota, next-generation sequencing methodologies (-omics) is needed to characterize the function and genes involved.

Funding

College of Science and Engineering, Department of Biology, San Francisco State University- Anand Lab Seed Fund.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Biology and College of Science & Engineering at San Francisco State University, and the team at the Neely Vineyard in
Portola Valley, CA for their support.

References

  1. Agustí-Brisach, C., and Armengol, J. 2013. Black-foot disease of grapevine: an update on taxonomy, epidemiology and management strategies. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 52:245-261.
  2. Andrade, D. S. , Colozzi-Filho, A. , & Giller, K. E. (2002). The soil microbial community and soil tillage In El Titi A. (Ed.), Soil Tillage in Agroecosystems (p. 51). CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL USA.
  3. Araújo da Silva, M., Correia, K. C., Barbosa, M. A. G., Câmara, M. P. S., Gramaje, D., and Michereff, S. J. 2017. Characterization of Phaeoacremonium isolates associated with Petri disease of table grape in Northeastern Brazil, with description of Phaeoacremonium nordesticola sp. Nov. Eur. J. Plant Pathol.179:695-709.
  4. Barata A., Malfeito-Ferreira M., Loureiro V. (2012). The microbial ecology of wine grape berries. Int. J. Food Microbiol.153, 243–259.
  5. Belda I, Zarraonaindia I, Perisin M, Palacios A, Acedo A (2017) From vineyard soil to wine fermentation: microbiome approximations to explain the “terroir” concept. Front Microbiol 8:821.
  6. Bokulich NA, Ohta M, Richardson PM, Mills DA. 2013. Monitoring seasonal changes in winery-resident microbiota. PloS One 8:e66437. [CrossRef]
  7. Bokulich NA, Thorngate JH, Richardson PM, Mills DA (2014) Microbial biogeography of wine grapes is conditioned by cultivar, vintage, and climate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:E139–E148.
  8. Bokulich NA, Collins TS, Masarweh C, Allen G, Heymann H, Ebeler SE, Mills DA. Associations among Wine Grape Microbiome, Metabolome, and Fermentation Behavior Suggest Microbial Contribution to Regional Wine Characteristics. mBio.2016 Jun 14;7(3):e00631-16. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  9. Braga, L.P.P., Spor, A., Kot, W. et al. (2020) Impact of phages on soil bacterial communities and nitrogen availability under different assembly scenarios. Microbiome 8, 52. [CrossRef]
  10. Buckley DH, Schmidt TM (2003) Diversity and dynamics of microbial communities in soils from agro-ecosystems. Environmental Microbiology, 5, 441-452.
  11. Burns KL, Kluepfel DA, Strauss SL, Bokulich NA, Cantu D, Steenwerth KL (2015) Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by geographic features. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 91: 232-247.
  12. Burns KL, Bokulich NA, Cantu D, Greenhut RF, Kluepfel DA, O’Geen AT, Strauss SL, Steenwerth KL (2016). Vineyard soil bacterial diversity and composition revealed by 16S rRNA genes: Differentiation by vineyard management. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 103: 337-348.
  13. Carlucci, A., Cibelli, F., Lops, F., Phillips, A. J. L., Ciccarone, C., and Raimondo, M. L. 2015a. Pleurostomophora richardsiae associated with trunk diseases of grapevines in southern Italy. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 54:109-123.
  14. Castañeda LE, Barbosa O. Metagenomic analysis exploring taxonomic and functional diversity of soil microbial communities in Chilean vineyards and surrounding native forests. PeerJ. 2017 Mar 30;5:e3098. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  15. Chaib A, Philippe C, Joamanjaka F, Barchi Y, Oviedo-Hernandez F, Claisse O, Le Marrec C (2022) Phage-host interactions as a driver of population dynamics during wine fermentation: Betting on underdogs. International Journal of food microbiology.383. [CrossRef]
  16. Chalvantzi I, Banilas G, Tassou C, Nisiotou A. Biogeographical Regionalization of Wine Yeast Communities in Greece and Environmental Drivers of Species Distribution at a Local Scale. Front Microbiol. 2021 Jun 30;12:705001. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  17. Chou, MY., Vanden Heuvel, J., Bell, T.H. et al. Vineyard under-vine floor management alters soil microbial composition, while the fruit microbiome shows no corresponding shifts. Sci Rep 8, 11039 (2018). [CrossRef]
  18. Cloete, M., Fischer, M., Mostert, L., and Halleen, F. 2015. Hymenochaetales associated with esca-related wood rots on grapevine with a special emphasis on the status of esca in South African vineyards. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 54:299-312.
  19. Compant S, Mitter B, Colli-Mull JG, Gangl H, Sessitsch A. Endophytes of grapevine flowers, berries, and seeds: identification of cultivable bacteria, comparison with other plant parts, and visualization of niches of colonization. Microb Ecol. 2011 Jul;62(1):188-97. Epub 2011 May 31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Cordero-Bueso G, Moraga J, Ríos-Carrasco M, Ruiz-Muñoz M, Cantoral JM. Bacteriophages as an Up-and-Coming Alternative to the Use of Sulfur Dioxide in Winemaking. Front Microbiol. 2020 Jan 23;10:2931. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Darriaut R, Tran J, Martins G, Ollat N, Masneuf-Pomarede I, Lauvergeat V (2023) In grapevine decline, microbiomes are affected differently in symptomatic and asymptomatic soils. Applied Soil Ecology (183): 104767.
  22. Di L, Zhang P, Chen D, Howell K (2019) From the vineyard to the winery: how microbial ecology drives regional distinctiveness of wine. Front Microbiol 10:2679.
  23. Fall ML, Poursalavati A, Sidibe A, Xu D, Lemoyne P, Martins GS, Javaran VJ, Moffett P, Odile C (2023). From asymptomatic to symptomatic: multiomics profiling of the temporal response of grapevine viral-mixed infection. bioRxiv. [CrossRef]
  24. Ferro MV, Catania P (2023) Technologies and Innovative Methods for Precision Viticulture: A Comprehensive Review. Horticulturae: 9, 399. [CrossRef]
  25. Geiger A, Karacsony Z, Golen R, Vaczy KZ, Gemi J (2014). The Compositional Turnover of Grapevine-Associated Plant Pathogenic Fungal Communities Is Greater Among Intraindividual Microhabitats and Terroirs than Among Healthy and Esca-Diseased Plants. Ecology and Epidemiology. [CrossRef]
  26. Giffard B, Winter S, Guidoni S, Nicolai A, Castaldini M, et al.. (2022) Vineyard Management and Its Impacts on Soil Biodiversity, Functions, and Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 10, ⟨10.3389/fevo.2022.850272⟩. ⟨hal-03760474⟩.
  27. Gilbert JA, Van Der Lelie D, Zarraonaindia I (2014) Microbial terroir for wine grapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:5–6.
  28. Gobbi, A., Acedo, A., Imam, N. et al. A global microbiome survey of vineyard soils highlights the microbial dimension of viticultural terroirs. Commun Biol 5, 241 (2022). [CrossRef]
  29. Gramaje D, Urbez-Torres JR, Sosnowski MR (2018) Managing grapevine trunk diseases with respect to etiology and epidemiology: current strategies and future prospects. Plant Disease 102:12-39.
  30. Gramaje, D., Baumgartner, K., Halleen, F., Mostert, L., Sosnowski, M. R., Úrbez-Torres, J. R., and Armengol, J. 2016. Fungal trunk diseases: a problem beyond grapevines? Plant Pathol. 65:355-356.
  31. Gramaje, D., and Armengol, J. 2011. Fungal trunk pathogens in the grapevine propagation process: potential inoculum sources, detection, identification, and management strategies. Plant Dis.95:1040-1055.
  32. Griggs RG, Steenwerth KL, Mills DA, Cantu D, Bokulich NA. Sources and Assembly of Microbial Communities in Vineyards as a Functional Component of Winegrowing. Front Microbiol. 2021 Apr 13;12:673810. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gupta VVSR, Bramley RGV, Greenfield P, Yu J, Herderich MJ (2019) Vineyard Soil Microbiome Composition Related to Rotundone Concentration in Australian Cool Climate ‘Peppery’ Shiraz Grapes. Front. Microbiol., Sec. Terrestrial Microbiology Volume 10. [CrossRef]
  34. Guzzon, R., Bertoldi, D., Roman, T. et al. Spatial and Seasonal Structure of Bacterial Communities Within Alpine Vineyards: Trentino as a Case Study. Microb Ecol 85, 108–120 (2023). [CrossRef]
  35. Hamaoka, K., Aoki, Y., Takahashi, S. et al. Diversity of endophytic bacterial microbiota in grapevine shoot xylems varies depending on wine grape-growing region, cultivar, and shoot growth stage. Sci Rep 12, 15772 (2022). [CrossRef]
  36. Hejing Yan, Chao Ge, Jiefang Zhou, and Jun Li. 2022. Diversity of soil fungi in the vineyards of Changli region in China. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 68(5): 341-352. [CrossRef]
  37. Hendgen, M., Hoppe, B., Döring, J. et al. (2018) Effects of different management regimes on microbial biodiversity in vineyard soils. Sci Rep 8, 9393. [CrossRef]
  38. Jangid, K., Williams, M. A., Franzluebbers, A. J., Schmidt, T. M., Coleman, D. C., & Whitman, W. B. (2011). Land-use history has a stronger impact on soil microbial community composition than aboveground vegetation and soil properties. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 43, 2184–2193.
  39. Kenfaoui J, Radouane N, Mennani M, Tahiri A, El Ghadraoui L, Belabess Z, Fontaine F, El Hamss H, Amiri S, Lahlali R, Barka EA. A Panoramic View on Grapevine Trunk Diseases Threats: Case of Eutypa Dieback, Botryosphaeria Dieback, and Esca Disease. J Fungi (Basel). 2022 Jun 1;8(6):595. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Knight, S., Klaere, S., Fedrizzi, B., and Goddard, M. R. (2015). Regional microbial signatures positively correlate with differential wine phenotypes: evidence for a microbial aspect to terroir. Sci. Rep. 5:14233. [CrossRef]
  41. Larsen, S., Albanese, D., Stegen, J. et al. Distinct and Temporally Stable Assembly Mechanisms Shape Bacterial and Fungal Communities in Vineyard Soils. Microb Ecol 86, 337–349 (2023). [CrossRef]
  42. Li Y, Li X, Zhang W, Zhang J, Wang H, Peng J, Wang X, Yan J. Belowground microbiota analysis indicates that Fusarium spp. exacerbate grapevine trunk disease. Environ Microbiome. 2023 Apr 3;18(1):29. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  43. Liang H, Wang X, Yan J, Luo L (2019) Characterizing the Intra-Vineyard Variation of Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities Front. Microbiol. Sec. Terrestrial Microbiology 10. [CrossRef]
  44. Liu D, Chen Q, Zhang P, Chen D, Howell KS. The Fungal Microbiome Is an Important Component of Vineyard Ecosystems and Correlates with Regional Distinctiveness of Wine. mSphere. 2020 Aug 12;5(4):e00534-20. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  45. Loggenberg K, Strever A, Greyling B, Poona N (2018) Modelling Water Stress in a Shiraz Vineyard Using Hyperspectral Imaging and Machine Learning. Remote Sens. 10, 202.
  46. Martins, G., Lauga, B., Miot-Sertier, C., Mercier, A., Lonvaud, A., Soulas, M. L., …Masneuf-Pomarède, I. (2013). Characterization of Epiphytic Bacterial Communities from Grapes, Leaves, Bark and Soil of Grapevine Plants Grown, and Their Relations. PloS ONE, 8(8). [CrossRef]
  47. Mezzasalma V, Sandionigi A, Bruni I, Bruno A, Lovicu G, Casiraghi M, et al. (2017) Grape microbiome as a reliable and persistent signature of field origin and environmental conditions in Cannonau wine production. PloS ONE 12(9): e0184615. [CrossRef]
  48. Morrison-Whittle, P., Goddard, M. Quantifying the relative roles of selective and neutral processes in defining eukaryotic microbial communities. ISME J 9, 2003–2011 (2015). [CrossRef]
  49. Morrison-Whittle, P., Goddard, M (2017) From vineyard to winery: a source map of microbial diversity driving wine fermentation. Environmental Microbiology. [CrossRef]
  50. Nanetti E, Palladino G, Scicchitano D, Trapella G, Cinti N, Fabbrini M, Cozzi A, Accetta G, Tassini C, Iannaccone L, Candela M, Rampelli S. Composition and biodiversity of soil and root-associated microbiome in Vitis viniferacultivar Lambrusco distinguish the microbial terroir of the Lambrusco DOC protected designation of origin area on a local scale. Front Microbiol. 2023 Feb 22;14:1108036. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nisiotou A., A., Nychas G. J. E. (2007). Yeast populations residing on healthy or botrytis-infected grapes from a vineyard in Greece. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 2765–2768.
  52. Nisiotou A., A., Spiropoulos A. E., Nychas G. J. E. (2007). Yeast community structures and dynamics in healthy and botrytis-affected grape must fermentations. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 6705–6713.
  53. Nwachukwu BC, Babalola OO (2022) Metagenomics: A tool for exploring key microbiome with the potentials for improving sustainable agriculture. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. Sec. Urban Agriculture. Vol 6. [CrossRef]
  54. Oyuela Aguilar M, Gobbi A, Browne PD, Ellegaard-Jensen L, Hansen LH, Semorile L, et al. (2020) Influence of vintage, geographic location and cultivar on the structure of microbial communities associated with the grapevine rhizosphere in vineyards of San Juan Province, Argentina. PloS ONE 15(12): e0243848. [CrossRef]
  55. Pacifico D, Squartini A, Crucitti D, Barizza E, Lo Schiavo F, Muresu R, Carimi F, Zottini M. The Role of the Endophytic Microbiome in the Grapevine Response to Environmental Triggers. Front Plant Sci. 2019 Oct 9;10:1256. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Ramirez R, Lopez-Pinero A, Velazquez R, Munoz A, Regodon JA (2020) Analysing the vineyard soil as a natural reservoir for wine yeasts. Food Research International 129. [CrossRef]
  57. Regecová I, Semjon B, Jevinová P, Očenáš P, Výrostková J, Šuľáková L, Nosková E, Marcinčák S, Bartkovský M. Detection of Microbiota during the Fermentation Process of Wine in Relation to the Biogenic Amine Content. Foods. 2022 Oct 2;11(19):3061. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Rivas GA, Guillade AC, Semorile LC, Delfederico L. Influence of Climate on Soil and Wine Bacterial Diversity on a Vineyard in a Non-traditional Wine Region in Argentina. Front Microbiol. 2021 Aug 12;12:726384. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Sancho-Galan P, Amores-Arrocha A, Jimenez-Cantizano A, Palacios V (2021) Influence of the presence of grape skins during white wine alcoholic fermentation. Agronomy 11(3): 452.
  60. Smith CR, Blair PL, Boyd C, Cody B, Hazel A, Hedrick A, Kathuria H, Khurana P, Kramer B, Muterspaw K, Peck C, Sells E, Skinner J, Tegeler C, Wolfe Z (2016). Microbial community responses to soil tillage and crop rotation in a corn/soybean agroecosystem. Ecol Evol 6(22):8075-8084. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Stefanini I, Albanese D, Cavazza A, Franciosi E, De Filippo C, Donati C, Cavalieri D. 2016. Dynamic changes in microbiota and mycobiota during spontaneous ‘Vino Santo Trentino’ fermentation. Microb Biotechnol 9:195–208. [CrossRef]
  62. Stewart, F.J., Sharma, A.K., Bryant, J.A. et al. Community transcriptomics reveals universal patterns of protein sequence conservation in natural microbial communities. Genome Biol 12, R26 (2011). [CrossRef]
  63. Teixeira RJS, Gomes S, Malheiro V, Pereira L, Fernandes JR, Mendes-Ferreira A, Gomes MEP, Martins-Lopes P. A Multidisciplinary Fingerprinting Approach for Authenticity and Geographical Traceability of Portuguese Wines. Foods. 2021;10(5):1044. [CrossRef]
  64. Tofalo, R. Microbial Dynamics in Wine Production. Microorganisms. 2021 Mar 28;9(4):700. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Torres N, Yu R, Kurtural SK. Inoculation with Mycorrhizal Fungi and Irrigation Management Shape the Bacterial and Fungal Communities and Networks in Vineyard Soils. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(6):1273. [CrossRef]
  66. Van Leeuwen C, Friant P, Chone X, Tregoat O (2004) Influence of climate, soil, and cultivar on terroir. Am J Enol Vitic 55:207–217.
  67. Vitulo N, Lemos WJF, Calgaro M, Confalone M, Felis GE, Zapparoli G, Nardi T (2019) Bark and grape microbiome of Vitis vinifera: influence of geographic patterns and agronomic management on bacterial diversity. Front Microbiol. [CrossRef]
  68. Wagner M., R., Lundberg D. S., Coleman-Derr D., Tringe S. G., Dangl J. L., Mitchell-Olds T. (2014). Natural soil microbes alter flowering phenology and the intensity of selection on flowering time in a wild Arabidopsis relative. Ecol. Lett. 17, 717–726.
  69. Wei Y-j, Wu Y, Yan Y-z, Zou W, Xue J, Ma W-r, et al. (2018) High-throughput sequencing of microbial community diversity in soil, grapes, leaves, grape juice and wine of grapevine from China. PLoS ONE 13(3): e0193097. [CrossRef]
  70. Ye M, Sun M, Huang D, Zhang Z, Zhang H, Zhang S, Hu F, Jiang X, Jiao W. A review of bacteriophage therapy for pathogenic bacteria inactivation in the soil environment. Environ Int. 2019 Aug;129:488-496. Epub 2019 May 31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Zarik, L., Meddich, A., Hijri, M., Hafidi, M., Ouhammou, A., Ouahmane, L., et al. (2016). Use of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to improve the drought tolerance of Cupressus atlantica G. C.R. Biol. 339, 185–196. [CrossRef]
  72. Zarraonaindia, I., Owens, S. M., Weisenhorn, P., West, K., Hampton-Marcell, J., Lax, S., … Gilbert, J. A. (2015). The Soil Microbiome Influences Grapevine-Associated Microbiota. MBio. [CrossRef]
  73. Zhou J, Cavagnaro TR, De Bei R, Nelson TM, Stephen JR, Metcalfe A, Gilliham M, Breen J, Collins C, López CMR. Wine Terroir and the Soil Bacteria: An Amplicon Sequencing-Based Assessment of the Barossa Valley and Its Sub-Regions. Front Microbiol. 2021 Jan 7;11:597944. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. List of studies on soil microbial communities in vineyards.
Table 1. List of studies on soil microbial communities in vineyards.
Year Source Methodology
2015 Burns et al 2015 16S rRNA
Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2015 26S rDNA
Zarraonaindia et al 2015 16S rRNA & shotgun metagenomics
2016 Burns et al 2016 16S rRNA
2017 Castenada & Barbosa 2017 shotgun metagenomics
Mezzasalma et al 2017 16S rRNA & ITS
2018 Hendgen et al 2018 16S rRNA & ITS
Chou et al 2018 16S rRNA
Wei et al 2018 16S rRNA & ITS
Morrison-Whittle & Goddard 2018 26S rDNA
2019 Gupta et al 2019 16S rRNA & ITS
Liang et al 2019 16S rRNA
2020 Ramirez et al 2020 16S rDNA
Liu et al 2020 16S rRNA & ITS
Aguilar et al 2020 16S rRNA, ITS1, ITS2
2021 Teixeira et al 2021 DNA-based assays to detect Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) on three genes of the anthocyanin pathway (UFGT, F3H and LDOX)
Rivas et al 2021 16S rRNA
Torres et al 2021 16S rRNA & ITS1
2022 Yan et al 2022 ITS1
Geiger et al 2022 ITS2, ITS4
Gobbi et al 2022 16S rRNA & ITS
Regecova et al 2022 ITS
2023 Larsen et al 2023 16S rRNA & ITS1
Nanetti et al 2023 16S rRNA
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated