Ampelography –> Genetics –> ? Varieties –> Clones –> ?

How much difference does clone make to flavor, and where do we draw the line between important and unimportant differences? The line might really be between interesting and uninteresting differences; any difference is important if we choose to make it so. I’ve written on Palate Press this month about variety, clone, and treating pinot gris like pinot noir, which provokes an unsettling argument about what differences are important differences.

Before the global phylloxera crisis in the late 19th century, precisely identifying varieties was less crucial from a viticultural standpoint, bottles didn’t routinely carry variety information until the mid-20th c., and many from the Old World still don’t. But where variety is the way consumers make purchase decisions, some now go a step further and heralding specific clones, at least on websites and to wine writers.

We have reasonably fixed definitions for what constitutes a variety and a clone. A variety is the unique progeny resulting from a fertilized egg involving genetic reassortment between the DNA of two parents. A clone is a variant of a variety resulting from small genetic changes (usually spontaneous changes from random mutations) involving just those genes, not full-on mixing. Fine.

But those definitions are essentially arbitrary, or at least they could be otherwise. The technology we have defines how we can define a species, or a variety, or a clone. Clones are only clones when those genetic changes produce some big, obvious physical change that a grower will notice and decide she likes enough to cut and reproduce. Most genetic changes aren’t like that. Most probably don’t result in any important change to grape quality, but there’s likely a whole category of mutations that affect ripeness, phenols, canopy development, or whatever that go unnoticed — because they’re not big and obvious, maybe because they deal with invisible chemicals — but that affect quality parameters we care about.

We’re developing precision viticulture techniques that map vineyards at a sub-block and perhaps even individual vine level for differences in development and quality. As genetic testing becomes easier, precision vit could easily include genetically typing individual vines. Purchased stock should fit the known genetic profile of a known and loved clone bought from a certified facility, but older vineyards are going to be full of endless numbers of new…clones? Do we call them clones when they’ve not been selected and propagated?

The resolution at which we can define species — actually, let’s make it simpler and just say define differences — changes with the technology we have to do so. So we moved from ampelography to Mendel to DNA sequencing to the Robinson, Harding, and Vouillamoz tome outlining the genetic relationships of darn near most grape varieties on the planet. A splendid article from 1938 outlining principles for doing ampelography — distinguishing grape varieties by their physical characteristics — observes that botanical and horticultural classifications of grape varieties are different. The botanists want to describe family relationships, the horticulturists to create practical guides for distinguishing varieties, so we have the genetic tree and the field identification guide. Different purposes, different resolutions, different differences called out as important.

Resolution isn’t about “natural” differences. It’s about the degree of difference we decide is important. I’ve tasted pretty profound differences amongst different clones from the same vineyard when they’ve been vinified separately and before they’re blended together. They’re striking. They’re wonderful. My little wine writer soul wants to proclaim over new-found differences. Those differences seem important. But in older mixed-planting vineyards full of whatever happened to be around at the time, harvested and made all together as a “field blend,” variety may not even be all that important.

On the one hand, people like Matt Kramer have been urging growers (of pinot noir in particular) to plant lots of different clones as a prayer against the curse of boring wine. And researchers looking to natural grape genetic diversity for breedable salvation from Pierce’s Disease, powdery mildew, and other expensive threats caution against limiting and losing living genetic pools that could be irreplaceable in our time of future need. And yet, if those researchers succeed, growers will have first one, maybe eventually a handful of clones carrying those disease resistance genes that they’ll want (or be pressured to) plant.

As many winemakers tell me that they don’t want to talk about clones and wish people would stop asking about them as want to talk about little else; I suspect that there’s a poetry competition for odes to chardonnay “Mendoza” and pinot noir “Abel” running somewhere in New Zealand. It’s part of your story or it’s not. Great. But we can say the same thing about variety, and maybe all of this consumer interest in genetic differences is merely a fad. A century from now we could be talking about micro-clones, or about clades, or about specific genes a vine does or doesn’t carry, or about famous vineyards planted with an especially successful mix. Wine evolution, made possible with the support of genetics, but brought to you by the eddies of our changing attention spans.

5 thoughts on “Ampelography –> Genetics –> ? Varieties –> Clones –> ?

  1. Well we have 11 pinot noir clones on our property near Geelong Australia and I can tell you for sure they may be cousins, but boy are they different in texture and aromatics. Matt Kramer is right with this varietal. Clonal blending enhances every aspect of the wine experience. Our problem is not all 11 clones reach phenolic ripeness or even bother to produce from season to season. One we were going to pull out (Morillon) suddenly decided to produce. I guess fear drives, even amongst vines?

    • That’s much of why I find clones so interesting. They ARE often strikingly different. So when do we decide that a difference is worth caring about? When do we bottle separately, or pick separately, or talk about something separately, or conceptually think about “pinot noir” versus a specific clone of pinot noir, or do we conceptually think about pinot as one big group that comes in different colors?

  2. I believe you are using the word clone with a somewhat skewed meaning. When two genotypes mix sexually (like in cross-pollination between 2 varieties) a new genotype is produced with very diferent characteristics from its progeny, even if some of them may be common. If you leave it at that, you have a new variety and a new genotype, but no clone. If, however, you break a cane from that new plant and root it, it will grow to become a second plant that is closely identical to the one it came from: this is asexual reproduction and is the mainstream way Man has been replicating vines. Now you have not one but two clones because both plants are genetically identical. I stress identical as very minute genetic changes (mutations) occur in cell divisions as the new plant grows, but unless they are very relevant for the use it’s made of it (like berry color, as you very well pointed out) they will remain silent and hidden. If however, you let a few thousand years go by with men replicating and propagating more and more plants from that original plant and from the ones that were subsequently replicated, you will eventually grow an intravarietal diversity that will be very relevant in term of agronomic and enological differences. That’s what happens with Pinot Noir (an ancestral variety) and what does not happen with, say, Alicante-Bouschet, a relatively young man-made cross of Petit Bouschet and Grenache. In Portugal, we have been researching extensively the degree of diversity within our native ancestral varieties from which we collected thousands of genotypes from vineyards all across the country. By studying these varieties under very specific experimental designs in the field, we have a measure of their variability which not only supplies knowledge on what to select for a given purpose but also predicts how much will we gain when compared with the unselected variety or with a given clone. But we also get information on what stability we may expect against different environmental conditions and what genotypes are more and less stable towards environment. The problem with most commercially available genotypes (clones) worldwide from mainstream varieties is that they were mainly selected for their sanitary quality and not really their agronomic and enological characters. This makes them very unstable in terms of behaviour if you change the environmental conditions where they were tested in the first place, even if their sanitary status towards most quarantine diseases is indeed stable.

    • I’m not sure that I’m quite clear on the clone(you)-clone(me) distinction you’re making, but it seems that you’re saying that there are as many clones as there are individual plants in that any vegetatively propagated plant may have tiny genetic differences from others. Am I misunderstanding? I see how this definition accurately describes the genetic situation, but I haven’t gotten the idea that that’s how the word is colloquially used in the industry community. Do you think it’s the case that industry practitioners and researchers in grape genetics use the term differently?

  3. Pingback: Wine’s genetic diversity: Thank goodness we’re not coffee | The Wineoscope

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *