Viticulture & Enology Extension News – Fall 2026

What’s The Scoop on Soil Microbiology in WA Vineyards?

By Elizabeth C. Gillispie, WSU Prosser IAREC

Introduction

Wine grape growers are increasingly interested in the role of soil microbiology in grape production, wine quality, and building healthy soils in their vineyards. These microorganisms, which include fungi, bacteria, protists, and archaea, are critical to nutrient cycling and can alter nutrient availability (Fig. 1). For example, research has shown that arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in vineyard soil can improve nutrient uptake in wine grape plants (1). These fungi were found to increase soil water uptake in other plants, suggesting they may also contribute to water uptake in grapes (2,3). Other microorganisms decompose soil organic matter (SOM). During this process, they use soil organic carbon (SOC) from SOM to produce energy and biomass. Additionally, soil microbes produce organic acids that can help dissolve soil minerals, making additional nutrients more available for plant uptake. A good example of this in vineyard systems is ammonification, where nitrogen is converted to ammonium, a plant-available form of nitrogen, when microbes break down proteins and other nitrogen-containing compounds in SOM.

This relationship between soil microbial communities, SOM, and SOC can be complicated but is important. Practices that build SOM and SOC support microbial activity, facilitate nutrient cycling, and promote processes essential to vineyard soil health and vine productivity. Therefore, vineyard floor management practices can impact this relationship. Reduced tillage, use of organic (and in some cases synthetic) fertilizers, and reduced use of pesticides have been shown to have a positive effect on soil biology and SOM / SOC (4). Understanding the microbial community size and composition within the soil, as well as the relationships between SOM / SOC, soil microbial biomass, microbial diversity, and soil depth, will allow growers to make better informed management decisions to improve soil health, grape production, and wine quality.

Current Ways to Measure Microbial Activity and Communities

There are several ways to measure soil microbial community size, composition, and activity, but not all are necessarily user-friendly for growers. Table 1 below breaks down various types of measurements that can be performed, what they measure, potential limitations, and the estimated cost that is generally associated with these measurements.

Measurement	What it measures	How it is measured	What it tells growers	Key limitation	Approx. cost/sample
Soil respiration / CO₂ burst	Microbial activity and decomposition (5)	Measures CO₂ released by microbes during a controlled incubation after soil rewetting	Indicates how actively the microbial community is decomposing SOM/SOC and cycling nutrients	Strongly influenced by soil moisture, temperature, recent residue inputs, and incubation conditions	$12-$40
Potentially mineralizable nitrogen (PMN)	Microbial N-cycling activity and potential N supply (5, 6)	Soil is incubated under controlled conditions and the amount of mineral N released is measured	Estimates the soil’s potential to convert organic N into plant-available forms	Represents potential under laboratory conditions rather than exact field N supply	$40+
Microbial biomass C and N	Size of the living microbial pool (7)	Laboratory methods (chloroform fumigation) estimate the amount of C and/or N contained in living microbial biomass	Indicates how much living microbial biomass is present in the soil	Biomass does not necessarily indicate how active the microbial community is	$60-$100
PLFA analysis	Living microbial biomass and broad community composition (8)	Phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA) from microbial cell membranes are extracted and used as biomarkers for broad microbial groups	Provides information on total microbial biomass and relative abundance of groups such as bacteria and fungi	Identifies broad groups rather than specific species and does not directly measure activity	$90-$100
DNA sequencing / microbiome analysis	Microbial diversity and taxonomic community composition (9)	DNA is extracted from soil and microbial genetic markers are sequenced and identified	Provides detailed information on which microbial groups are present and how communities differ across soils or management practices	Presence of DNA does not necessarily mean an organism is metabolically active	$20 – $1,750 depending on target
Visual biological indicators	General biological condition and habitat (5)	Field observations include roots, residue decomposition, fungal growth, earthworms, and other soil organisms	Provides a low-cost indication of biological activity and soil habitat condition	Does not directly quantify microbial biomass, activity, or diversity	Free – very low

Understanding Microbial Distribution and Relationship with Soil Carbon in Vineyard Soils

The Washington Soil Health Initiative (WaSHI) long-term agroecological research and extension (LTARE) vineyard site, located in Prosser, WA, utilizes phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA) analysis to better understand microbial diversity and biomass in the soil. Despite the limitations, PLFA analysis provides a balance of information both on microbial community size and, to a lesser extent, microbial community composition. This information can be used by growers who are looking to increase the size of their vineyard soil microbial community.

Soil organic carbon (SOC) tends to decrease with depth in soils due to plant residue and organic amendments, such as compost, being deposited at the surface. Based on results from the WaSHI LTARE vineyard site (10), soil microbial biomass is typically found near the soil surface (Fig. 2A), where SOC is most abundant. Like SOC, microbial biomass decreases with depth. Although SOC and microbial biomass are positively related in the top six inches of our soil, their relationship weakens with depth. In the LTARE soils, both microbial biomass and the number of distinct PLFAs, a proxy for diversity, are greatest in the top six inches of the soil then decease with depth (5). Microbial biomass and the number of distinct PLFAs are positively related at all depths (Fig. 2B). Therefore, building soil carbon helps build microbial biomass and diversity, which can help promote nutrient cycling and availability to plants.

What Can You Do to Build Soil Organic Matter / Carbon and Microbial Biomass in Your Vineyard?

Building SOM and SOC in your vineyard, particularly within the first six inches of the under-vine area, is important for establishing a thriving microbial community. A few known ways to adequately build SOC in vineyard soils are described below:

• Mulches. Various mulches can increase surface SOC and help retain soil moisture, both of which can improve soil microbial biomass. Examples of mulches include paper, straw, or wood chips.
• Composted organic amendments. Microbes are critical to the compost production process; therefore, composted organic amendments are generally loaded with them. These amendments can also be good sources of critical plant nutrients. Examples of composted organic amendments include manure, grape pomace, green-wase (i.e. yard waste), and vermicompost.
• Living cover crops. Planting or maintaining cover crops under-vine keeps living roots in the soil that provide a habitat for microbes, while also producing exudates that microbes feed on. They can also protect the soil surface from erosion and fixate nitrogen within the soil. However, they can also compete with young vines and soil microbes for water, so plan accordingly. Examples of living cover crops include perennial grasses, legumes, and native flowering broadleaf species.
• Reduce under-vine soil disturbance. Frequent disturbance of the under-vine soil can destroy soil structure and cause short bursts of high microbial activity that can reduce SOC over time. Reducing under-vine disturbance promotes better soil structure, protects soil fungal networks, and protects SOM. Examples of under-vine disturbance include tillage/cultivation, discing, and hilling / de-hilling.

Conclusion

Soils host a diverse array of microbial life, many of which are critical to nutrient cycling and availability in vineyards; building soil organic carbon within the first six inches of the under-vine soil can help these microbial communities thrive. A variety of methods are available to characterize microbial community activity, size, and composition. Selecting the right method will depend on your budget and what information is important for your management decisions. Regardless of the method used to characterize the microbial community in your soil, most microbial life lives in the top six inches of your soil. Vineyard floor management practices that increase soil organic carbon, including using compost for fertilization or cover cropping, provide food and habitat for many beneficial soil microbes. If preserving and growing your microbial community is a priority in your vineyard, consider adjusting your management practices, particularly in the under-vine area, to incorporate activities that build soil organic carbon.

References

1. Schreiner, R.P., 2005. Mycorrhizas and mineral acquisition in grapevines. In Proceedings of the Soil Environment and Vine Mineral Nutrition Symposium (pp. 49-60). American Society of Enology and Viticulture, Davis, CA.
2. Kakouridis, A. et al. 2022. Routes to roots: direct evidence of water transport by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to host plants. New Phytologist, 236: 210-221.
3. Schreiner, R.P., Tarara, J.M. and Smithyman, R.P. 2007. Deficit irrigation promotes arbuscular colonization of fine roots by mycorrhizal fungi in grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) in an arid climate. Mycorrhiza, 17: 551-562.
4. Giffard et. al. 2022. Vineyard Management and Its Impacts on Soil Biodiversity, Functions, and Ecosystem Services. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. 10: 850272.
5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2015. Biological indicators and soil functions. (pdf)
6. Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Online: Using potentially mineralisable nitrogen to measure soil health. Accessed September 2026.
7. Rice, C. W., Moorman, T. B., & Beare, M. 1997. Role of microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen in soil quality. In J. W. Doran & A. J. Jones (Eds.), Methods for assessing soil quality (SSSA Special Publication No. 49). Soil Science Society of America.

Funding Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the Washington Soil Health Initiative,  Washington State Grape and Wine Research Program, and USDA-ARS project # 2072-30500-001-000D.

What Drives Vine Vigor and Can We Manage It by Controlling Nitrogen Supply?

By Navneet Kaur and Markus Keller, WSU Prosser IAREC; Geraldine Diverres New Mexico State University

One of the common issues growers notice in a vineyard is variability in vine vigor, i.e., vines of very different sizes growing only a few rows apart or even within the same row. Some vines develop large, dense canopies and produce more fruit, while neighboring vines remain smaller and less productive. This variability can affect the uniformity of fruit development and quality at harvest. These vigor differences can be driven by various factors, mainly soil water availability, subsurface water availability, nutrient availability, etc.

Nitrogen (N) is an essential nutrient for vine growth and productivity. Too little N can reduce yield and fruit quality and may contribute to low yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), potentially affecting fermentation. On the other hand, excessive N availability can increase vegetative growth and the risk of N losses to the environment contaminating groundwater and streams.

Because vigorous vines have larger canopies, it is reasonable to expect that they may have greater nutrient requirements. On the flip side, it might be possible to control vigor by controlling the N supply.

We tested this hypothesis in a Riesling vineyard in eastern Washington (WSU-IAREC Roza vineyard Prosser, Fig. 1) where vines showed distinct high- and low-vigor zones associated with differences in soil and subsurface water availability. Our objective was to determine whether N fertilization affected growth, yield, and berry composition differently in high- and low-vigor vines, and whether we can manage vigor differences across the vineyard.

Putting the Question to the Test

We selected Riesling vines representing two distinct vigor zones: high vigor and low vigor. Within each vigor zone, vines received either no additional N or an annual rate of 30 lbs N / acre, resulting in four treatment combinations. The experiment included four replicated blocks for all treatment combinations.

We monitored vine growth, yield and yield components, berry composition, soil moisture, leaf water potential, and other plant responses during the study. For this article, however, we focus on the measurements most directly relevant to vineyard productivity and N management:

• canopy growth
• yield
• berry composition, and YAN

Nitrogen Did Not Alter Vine Growth

The clearest pattern from the study was the strong difference between high- and low-vigor zones (Fig. 2). Vines in the high-vigor zone consistently developed substantially larger canopies than vines in the low-vigor zone. Pruning weight, an indicator of canopy size, was 117% greater in high-vigor vines. Yield per vine was also 36% greater in high-vigor vines. This greater yield was associated with 11% more clusters per vine and 24% greater cluster weight. In contrast, increasing N from 0 to 30 lbs / acre did not increase canopy size or shoot length. Similarly, N fertilization did not affect yield.

These results were somewhat unexpected. We initially hypothesized that differences in vigor caused by soil water availability would result in differences in N demand, with high-vigor vines requiring more N. We also expected additional N to stimulate growth in low-vigor vines and potentially reduce the difference between high- and low-vigor vines. Instead, the large differences in vine growth and yield persisted regardless of whether vines received additional N. In other words, adding N did not make the low-vigor vines catch up with the high-vigor vines or make the high-vigor vines even bigger. Clearly, water availability, not N availability, was the dominant factor driving vine vigor.

High-Vigor Vines Produced More Fruit, but There Were Trade-Offs

Higher vigor resulted in greater productivity, but more growth and yield did not necessarily translate into more desirable fruit characteristics (Fig. 3). High-vigor vines produced larger clusters and greater overall yield, but these clusters were also more compact and thus more prone to sour rot. Berry weight and several aspects of berry composition were primarily associated with vine vigor rather than N fertilization.

The fruit from high-vigor vines also had lower total soluble solids (TSS) than the fruit from low-vigor vines. It appears that the high-vigor vines invested more resources in shoot and fruit growth at the expense of fruit ripening. This is important from a production perspective because greater yield and canopy growth can come with consequences for fruit ripening and disease management. High-vigor vines, regardless on N status, produced more vegetative growth and more fruit, but their greater vigor also created management challenges.

Nitrogen Supply Increased YAN

Nitrogen fertilization did not impact vine growth, yield, and fruit TSS. Does this mean N was not important? Not necessarily. One of the more interesting findings from the study was that fruit YAN responded to both vine vigor and N fertilization. The effect of N on YAN became more apparent in the later years of the study. Although adding 30 lbs N / acre did not increase canopy size or yield, it did increase the nitrogen status of the harvested fruit.

This suggests that the response of grapevines to N fertilization may not always be immediately visible as increased vegetative growth or yield. In our study, the stronger effect on YAN in the later years raises the possibility that N management may require a longer time frame to produce significant changes in some vine or fruit characteristics. Our results therefore indicate that while N was not the main factor driving the large differences in growth and yield between the vigor zones in this vineyard, it nevertheless influenced fruit composition with consequences for winemaking.

So, Was it Water or Nitrogen that Was Driving the Differences in Vine Growth and Yield?

Our study indicates vigor associated with water availability as the main driver of the differences in vine growth and yield, rather than N fertilization. Even within each of the two vigor zones, N supply at a modest rate of 30 lbs /acre did not alter growth and yield formation.

The high- and low-vigor zones occurred in a vineyard with differences in soil and subsurface water availability. Additional N did not mitigate the difference in vigor. High-vigor vines continued to produce larger canopies and greater yields, while low-vigor vines remained comparatively small and less productive. This finding has an important implication for vineyard management: A vigorous vine is not necessarily a nitrogen-hungry vine. If water availability is the main driver of vigor differences, changing N supply alone may not be enough to correct differences in vine vigor. Irrigation or changes in other management practices, such as cover cropping or plant spacing, would likely be more promising targets to overcome limitations on growth and productivity.

What Does this Mean for Grape Growers?

Our results suggest several considerations for managing variable vineyards. First, identify the cause of vigor differences before increasing N supply.

Differences in vine size may result from several interacting factors, including plant spacing, water availability, soil characteristics, cover cropping (or “weed” control), elevation, and nutrient availability. Before using N fertilization as a tool to modify vigor, it is worth determining whether N is actually limiting growth.

Second, don’t assume that high-vigor vines require more N simply because they are bigger. In our study, high-vigor vines had much larger canopies and greater yields, but increasing N supply did not further increase canopy size or yield.

Third, consider productivity and fruit composition together. High-vigor vines produced more fruit, but they also showed differences in berry composition and greater susceptibility to sour rot. Managing vigor is therefore not simply about maximizing yield but achieving an appropriate balance between vegetative growth, crop load, fruit ripening, and disease risk.

Finally, consider the longer-term response to N. The increasing effect of N on YAN in the later years suggests that some responses to nutrient management may take time to develop. Continued monitoring may therefore provide a better assessment of N management than a single season of measurements.

The Bottom Line

In this Riesling vineyard, vine vigor associated with differences in soil water availability had a much stronger influence on canopy size and yield than N fertilization. Adding 30 lbs N/acre did not significantly affect shoot growth, canopy size, or yield compared with no N addition. Nitrogen supply did, however, enhance YAN, particularly in the later years of the study.

These findings suggest that before reaching for the fertilizer spreader to manage vine vigor, growers should first ask: What is driving the vigor differences in my vineyard in the first place? For our vineyard, the answer appears to be more closely associated with water availability than with N fertilization. Understanding the underlying source of vineyard variability may therefore be just as important as deciding how much fertilizer to apply.

Funding Acknowledgement

This research was funded by WSDA Specialty Crop Block Grant Program and Washington State Grape and Wine Research Program.

Crop Insurance Reminders for Grape Growers

By USDA – Risk Management Agency

USDA’s Risk Management Agency (RMA) reminds grape growers that the sales closing date for Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) Grape Coverage and the Fire Insurance Protection-Smoke Index (FIP-SI) is Nov. 20, 2026, in Washington.

Multi-Peril Crop Insurance (MPCI) for Grapes

Grapes are insurable in Washington if you have a share in the crop and the grapes are grown for wine, juice, raisins, or canning. The grapes also need to be in the fourth growing season after being set out or the third growing season after bench grafting or field grafting in accordance with the county’s Special Provisions. The grapes also must produce an average of at least two tons of grapes per acre in at least one of the three crop years immediately preceding the insured crop year.

The grape policy is available in the following Washington counties for the 2027 crop year:

• Adams
• Benton
• Chelan
• Clark
• Douglas
• Franklin
• Grant
• Island
• Kitsap
• Kittitas
• Klickitat
• Mason
• Okanogan
• Pierce
• San Juan
• Skagit
• Skamania
• Walla Walla
• Yakima

For crops, types, or practices not insurable in a county, consult a crop insurance agent about the availability of coverage through a written agreement.

Fire Insurance Protection – Smoke Index (FIP-SI)

The Fire Insurance Protection-Smoke Index (FIP-SI) covers a portion of the deductible of the Grape Crop Provisions when the insured county experiences a minimum number of Smoke Events.

A smoke event is the occurrence of heavy smoke density in a county during a 24-hour interval. Heavy smoke density will be determined using Hazard Mapping System data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

FIP-SI is available for grapes grown in California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington and insured under the Grape Crop Provisions in those counties with grape actuarial documents.

The insurance period for FIP-SI begins on June 1 and ends November 10.

FIP-SI provides protection against widespread smoke loss in a county when the number of smoke events meet or exceed the County Loss Trigger, which is currently set at 13 smoke events. Triggered counties will be determined after the end of the insurance period. The total indemnity payment is determined by the cumulative number of smoke events. An insured is not required to file a notice of loss to receive an indemnity payment for FIP-SI.

Resources and more information about FIP-SI can be found on the RMA FIP-SI webpage, including informational videos, a fact sheet, frequently asked questions and the FIP-SI Map Viewer, which shows current and historical smoke data by county.

More Information

RMA secures the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America through Federal crop insurance and risk management education programs. RMA provides policies for more than 130 crops and is constantly working to adjust and create new policies based on producer needs and feedback.

Contact a crop insurance agent to see how Federal crop insurance can meet the specific needs of your operation. Crop insurance is sold and delivered solely through private crop insurance agents. A list of crop insurance agents is available online at the RMA Agent Locator. Producers can learn more about crop insurance and the modern farm safety net at RMA website or by contacting their RMA Regional Office. RMA’s Basics for Beginners provides information for those new to crop insurance.

Washington State Grape and Wine Research Program Funded Projects, 2026-2027

By Julie Tarara, Washington State Wine Commission Research Program Manager

In the spring edition of VEEN, we introduced the Washington State Grape and Wine Research Program (WSGWRP), which annually funds viticulture and enology research projects that meet the priorities of the Washington wine industry. A panel of grape growers and winemakers reviews project proposals and makes funding recommendations that are then approved by the Washington State Wine Commission Board of Directors. This year, over $655,000 was awarded. Below is a list of funded projects that began on July 1, 2026.

Funded Projects

Assessment of Risk to Grape and Wine Quality from Smoke Exposure (year 2 of 3)

Scientist: Tom Collins, WSU V&E

Award: $61,389

Synopsis: Smoke exposure from wildfires continues to negatively affect growers and winemakers in Washington. This project will study the use of kaolin clay as a barrier spray to mitigate smoke in the vineyard. It also will continue the investigation of phenolic compounds in fruit that is exposed to smoke at different stages of berry development (for example: fruit set, pre-veraison, post-veraison). This project has leveraged funding from USDA-Agricultural Research Service for collaborative work in the three West Coast states.

Research Winemaking (year 2 of 5)

Project Title: Managing Tannins in the Winery (year 2 of 3)

Scientist: Jim Harbertson, WSU V&E

Award: $176,813 (total)

Synopsis: Multiple projects from the WSGWRP require research wines to be made to understand how vineyard or winemaking treatments influence wine composition and quality. Other work will evaluate the origins of off-aroma formation and how changes in tannins over time affect sensory perception of wine. Tannins are chemically modified during wine aging by sulfur dioxide (reduction), glutathione (reduction), and acetaldehyde (oxidation).  

Grapevine Cold Hardiness Evaluation as a Service for Grape Growers (year 3 of 5); Irrigation Approaches to Prepare Vines for Winter (year 3 of 4); and Support for Vineyard Maintenance for Wine Grape Research (year 7 of 5)

Scientist: Markus Keller, WSU V&E

Award: $167,801 (total)

Synopsis: For more than 30 years, WSU has evaluated cold hardiness of dormant grapevine buds and canes as a service to Washington’s grape growers. Because winegrapes continually adjust their cold hardiness over the course of the winter, this service feeds data into cold hardiness models that are hosted on WSU’s AgWeatherNet. On a separate key topic, irrigation for grapevine winter survival has received very little research attention. Outstanding questions include: does late-season irrigation impact vine cold acclimation? When should vines be rewatered in fall, and how much water should be applied? Vines left without a fall “water-up” could be vulnerable to root damage from cold winter temperatures, and to uneven budbreak and loss of yield potential because of insufficient spring soil moisture. Excessive ‘hang time’ might compromise the grower’s ability to fully irrigate before water is shut off.

Defining Sour Rot Timing and Management Options for Washington Winegrape Growers (year 1 of 3)

Scientist: Michelle Moyer, WSU V&E

Award: $93,680

Synopsis: Production of high-yielding white wine grapes typically relies on management practices that encourage larger, denser canopies and larger berries. These practices and vine growth characteristics, while stylistically important for white wine production, also increase the risk of harvest rots. In eastern Washington, sour rot is the most common harvest rot. Effective control of sour rot is difficult due to its often “random” appearance, and the need to control all three components of the disease: yeasts, bacteria, and fruit flies. This project has leveraged funding from the Washington Commission on Integrated Pest Management and WSDA’s Specialty Crop Block Grant program.

Building Evidence-based Knowledge for Managing Leafroll Disease in Vineyards (year 3 of 3)

Scientist: Naidu Rayapati, WSU Plant Pathology

Award: $90,088

Synopsis: Epidemics of grapevine leafroll disease (GLD) continue to be a major threat for the sustainability of the grape and wine industry in Washington. The magnitude of the threat from GLD makes it important to implement effective strategies to mitigate economic losses to growers. Previous research discovered that infected vines of the variety Sangiovese display no apparent disease symptoms. The vine-virus relationship in this situation is unknown, and as such we do not know whether asymptomatic Sangiovese vines serve as a reservoir of the virus that causes GLD. Virus reservoirs allow grape mealybugs to spread the virus to healthy neighboring vineyards.

Establishing a Vineyard to Study Effects of Traditional and Novel Viticultural Practices on Soil Health Metrics (year 5 of 5)

Scientist: Devin Rippner, USDA-Agricultural Research Service

Award: $45,136

Synopsis: The goal of this project is to establish a long-term research experiment to investigate the role of vineyard management practices on soil health metrics. Soil health is a popular concept that seeks to incorporate soil biology into soil management practices. The research vineyard is being used to study the effects of mowing, cover cropping, compost use, and alternative irrigation strategies on soil health. For long-term sustainability, we need to understand the effects of these practices on the success of vineyard establishment; on vigor in young vines; and later, on grape quality and vine health. This project has leveraged funding from the Washington Soil Health Initiative and from USDA-Agricultural Research Service.

Validating Online Phenology Model for Grape Mealybug and Revisiting Delayed Dormant Control of Mealybugs (year 1 of 3)

Scientist: Doug Walsh, WSU Entomology

Award: $18,195

Synopsis: This project will test and validate a phenology model that was developed using data from previous studies on the mating flights of grape mealybugs (GMB) in Washington. Understanding the GMB life cycle enables growers to apply insecticides during the 1st-instar crawler stage, when the vector is at its most vulnerable. This project has leveraged funding from the Washington Commission on Integrated Pest Management.

West Coast Smoke Exposure Task Force Outreach and Communications

Project Lead: Natalie Collins, California Association of Winegrape Growers, for the West Coast Smoke Exposure Task Force

Award: $2,693

Synopsis: The West Coast Smoke Exposure Task Force (WCSETF) is a working group comprised of leading wine and grape state associations on the West Coast. The WCSETF’s communications working group, with support from USDA-Agricultural Research Service, created a website to serve as the hub of information to house and disseminate research updates and other information for stakeholders to better understand and manage exposure to wildfire smoke. Funding from USDA-ARS for communications and outreach has yet to be renewed. This stop-gap support will allow WCSETF to continue sharing newsletters, research bulletins, and maintain the website. This project is co-funded by Washington State Wine Commission, Oregon Wine Board, and American Vineyard Foundation (California).

Curious about how the wine industry’s priorities are set? All industry members are encouraged to participate in the next annual survey of grape and wine research priorities, which will be released in January, 2027. The annual review of research proposals is held in February and is open to all members of the Washington wine industry. Stay tuned for announcements coming this winter.

2026 WAVE Presentation Recordings

WAVE stands for Washington Advances in Viticulture and Enology, a seminar series open to industry members

WAVEx refers to the short-form, free WAVE webinars.

WAVEx 2026 Recordings

• Sulfur Phytotoxicity | Dr. Michelle Moyer, WSU
• Heat Stress Mitigation | Dr. Markus Keller and Dr. Lav Khot, WSU
• Preparing for Drought: Does it Make Sense to Drop Fruit? | Dr. Charles Obiero, WSU

WAVE 2026 : The State of Smoke Science: Breakthroughs and Lessons

Washington State Wine Commission and WSU joined forces in April to bring together the “who’s who” of smoke exposure research in the US for a 1-day seminar that was held on the WSU TriCities campus.

Watch the “The State of Smoke Science: Breakthroughs and Lessons” recordings