Paper · 2010 · International Journal of Fruit Science

Using Composted Mulch in Vineyards—Effects on Grape Yield and Quality

K. Y. Chan; D. J. Fahey; M. Newell; et al.

4
claims
9
verbatim quotes
31
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Despite interests among Australian vineyard managers, the effects of using mulch as a management tool have not been adequately quantified. This article reports results of a three-year field trial using composted mulch over six vineyards in central NSW, Australia. Yield increases (∼1 t/ha) from mulch were found only in the low yielding areas and under a high mulch rate (153 m3/ha). Mulch also significantly increased berry potassium and pH. The yield increases were attributed to improved soil water and soil temperature conditions of the mulched soil. The research provides better guidelines for mulch use and demonstrates the potential of reducing spatial variability of yield in vineyards.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulch increased grape yield by about 1 t/ha only in low-yielding areas and under a high mulch rate (153 m3/ha).

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
composted mulche2
Outcome
yielde1
Direction
increasese1
Value
∼1 t/hae1
Qualifier
only in the low yielding areas and under a high mulch rate (153 m3/ha)e1
Setting
central NSW, Australiae2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Grape Yield and Quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–69 · show in text ↑
e1

“Yield increases (∼1 t/ha) from mulch were found only in the low yielding areas and under a high mulch rate (153 m3/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 264–382 · show in text ↑
e2

“a three-year field trial using composted mulch over six vineyards in central NSW, Australia”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 171–262 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulch significantly increased berry potassium and pH in grape vineyards.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
Mulche4
Outcome
berry potassium and pHe4
Direction
increasede4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Grape Yield and Quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–69 · show in text ↑
e4

“Mulch also significantly increased berry potassium and pH”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–441 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors attribute the yield increases to improved soil water and soil temperature conditions of the mulched soil.

Taxon
grapet0
Outcome
yield increasese5
Qualifier
improved soil water and soil temperature conditions of the mulched soile5

Verbatim

t0

“Grape Yield and Quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–69 · show in text ↑
e5

“The yield increases were attributed to improved soil water and soil temperature conditions of the mulched soil”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 443–553 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mulch demonstrates potential for reducing spatial variability of yield in vineyards.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
mulche6
Outcome
spatial variability of yielde6
Direction
reducinge6

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“Grape Yield and Quality”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 46–69 · show in text ↑
e6

“The research provides better guidelines for mulch use and demonstrates the potential of reducing spatial variability of yield in vineyards”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 555–693 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ

107 papers: 97 positive, 10 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 papers →

mulching · yield · VitisPositive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.