ISI Document Delivery No.: 627FH Times Cited: 1 Cited Reference Count: 59 Cited References: AALTONEN J, 2001, EUR J ENV ENG GEOPHY, V6, P33 Acevedo-Opazo C, 2008, PRECIS AGRIC, V9, P285, DOI 10.1007/s11119-008-9073-1 ALVES F, 2006, 6 INT TERR C, P280 ANGLADE I, 1991, ETUDE BIOCLIMATIQUE ARCHER E, 1989, South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture, V10, P49 ATTIA F, 2007, THESIS INPT TOULOUSE Benderitter Y., 1999, EUR J ENV ENG GEOPHY, V4, P37 Besson A, 2004, SOIL TILL RES, V79, P239, DOI 10.1016/j.still.2004.07.012 BINLEY A, 2002, J HYDROL, V7, P51 BOCOCK KL, 1982, EUR J SOIL SCI, V33, P155 BOUTRAUD JC, 1984, SCI SOL, V4, P295 CAMPBELL RB, 1948, SOIL SCI SOC AM PRO, V13, P66 CAVAILLE A, 1973, CARTE GEOLOGIQUE DET CELETTE F, 2008, EUR J AGR, DOI DOI 10.1016/J.EJA Courjault-Rade P, 2005, J INT SCI VIGNE VIN, V39, P95 CREASY GL, 1993, AM J ENOL VITICULT, V44, P193 DAILY W, 1992, WATER RESOUR RES, V28, P1429, DOI 10.1029/91WR03087 EDWARDS LS, 1977, GEOPHYSICS, V66, P78 Goulet E, 2004, J INT SCI VIGNE VIN, V38, P231 Goulet E, 2006, J INT SCI VIGNE VIN, V40, P57 GRIFFITHS DH, 1993, J APPL GEOPHYS, V29, P211, DOI 10.1016/0926-9851(93)90005-J Haynes SJ, 1999, GEOSCI CAN, V26, P189 *INF, 2009, DONN ARCH DONN STAT Intrigliolo DS, 2009, AGR WATER MANAGE, V96, P282, DOI 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.08.001 Jackson RS, 2008, FOOD SCI TECHNOL-INT, P1 KEAREY P, 2002, INTRO GEOPHYS EAPLOR Keller G.V., 1966, ELECT METHODS GEOPHY Lamb D.W., 2002, ACTA HORTIC, V640, P15 LAVIGNAC G, 2001, CEPAGES SUD OUEST 20 LOKE MH, 2001, USGS WORKSH 2 D 3 D Loke MH, 1996, GEOPHYS PROSPECT, V44, P131, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2478.1996.tb00142.x Loke MN., 1997, RES2DINV SOFTWARE US Michot D, 2003, WATER RESOUR RES, V39, DOI 10.1029/2002WR001581 MORAIS R, 2007, COMPUT ELECTRON AGR, V62, P94 MORARI F, 2009, COMP ELECT AGR Morlat R., 1992, Journal International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, V26, P197 Morlat R, 2003, AM J ENOL VITICULT, V54, P1 Morlat R., 2001, TERROIRS VITICOLES E Bodin F, 2006, PLANT SOIL, V281, P37, DOI 10.1007/s11104-005-3768-0 Ojeda H, 2002, AM J ENOL VITICULT, V53, P261 PALACKY GJ, 1987, ELECTROMAGNETIC METH, V1, P53 Panissod C, 2001, GEOPHYS PROSPECT, V49, P570, DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2478.2001.00277.x Pellegrino A, 2004, PLANT SOIL, V266, P129 POMEROL C, 1990, TERROIRS VINS FRANCE Rein A, 2004, J HYDROL, V285, P215, DOI 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.08.015 Samouelian A, 2005, SOIL TILL RES, V83, P173, DOI 10.1016/j.still.2004.10.004 SHAFFER R, 2004, 8882 EM OR STAT U SHULTZ HR, 2003, PLANT CELL ENVIRON, V26, P1393 Stoll M, 2007, J INT SCI VIGNE VIN, V41, P77 TABBAGH A, 2002, EUR J ENV ENG GEOPHY, V7, P229 Tardieu F, 1998, J EXP BOT, V49, P419, DOI 10.1093/jexbot/49.suppl_1.419 TIMLIN D, 2008, RESPONSES CROPS LTD, P105 TISSEYYE B, 2007, INT J WINE VINE RES, V41, P63 Van Leeuwen Cornelis, 2006, Journal of Wine Research, V17, P1, DOI 10.1080/09571260600633135 van Leeuwen C, 2004, AM J ENOL VITICULT, V55, P207 Van Leeuwen C, 2009, J INT SCI VIGNE VIN, V43, P121 Vouillamoz JF, 2006, HEREDITY, V97, P102, DOI 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800842 Wheeler S.J., 2003, FOOD AGR ENV, V1, P190 Zhou QY, 2001, WATER RESOUR RES, V37, P273, DOI 10.1029/2000WR900284 Courjault-Rade, P. Llubes, M. Darrozes, J. Munoz, M. Maire, E. Hirissou, N. 1 VIGNE ET VIN PUBLICATIONS INT VILLENAVE D ORNON J INT SCI VIGNE VIN; Aims: The aim of this 2D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey performed on a vineyard plot of the Gaillac appellation was to investigate spatial and temporal variations in subsurface water supply in relation with pedo-geological and morphological features. Methods and results: The ERT surveys were carried out under two contrasted - dry and humid - climatic conditions. All the resistivity profiles showed the superposition of two layers: a lower layer characterized by very low resistivity values (< 40 Omega.m) corresponding to a marly molassic subsoil overlaid by an upper layer characterized by moderate to high resistivity values (300 Omega.m to 1500 Omega.m) corresponding to a silty-sandy and gravely-pebbly soil sequence. The resistivity values of the molassic subsoil stayed very low independently of water supply conditions whereas those of the soil sequence decreased by a factor 2 (300/750 Omega.m versus 750/1500 Omega.m) when the plot was close to field capacity. Conclusion: The ERT results coupled with pedological and morphological data strongly suggest that the water flow is preferentially restricted at the molassic subsoil/soil sequence interface, short-lived and of low amplitude. Significance and impact of the study: Consequently, the water supply regime, which points out a potential risk of drought stress for vine crops, implies a minimization strategy when choosing vegetal material and viticultural management operations