Abstract
Conventional viticultural practice in Australia and elsewhere involves removal of under‐vine vegetation using herbicides or cultivation. Concerns over the long‐term effects of herbicides on soil health, evolution of resistant weeds and possible impacts on human health motivate the search for alternative weed management options. Industry‐supported trials on commercial vineyards in four South Australian regions investigated standard practices of straw mulch and bare earth created with herbicides, compared to under‐vine cover crops, focusing on soil health attributes (soil carbon, soil microbiological processes, etc.) and grape yields in 2016 and 2017. Measured yields with the Control (herbicide) treatment were combined with published district grape prices and yields over the 12‐year (2006–2017) period, defining multivariate distributions of gross revenues ($/ha). Assuming all treatments produce grapes of equal quality and price as the Control, our results showed median per‐hectare gross margins greater than the Control in the Barossa district, lower than Control in Riverland, and mixed results in Langhorne Creek and Eden Valley. Multi‐year risk profiles, based on decadal whole‐farm (50 ha) cash flows for each treatment, were calculated using Monte Carlo analysis, based on historical yield and price distributions. These risk profiles showed the under‐vine treatments may result in major differences in long‐term vineyard financial viability.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Claim · model-written summary
Under-vine cover crop treatments gave median per-hectare gross margins greater than the herbicide Control in the Barossa district.
Verbatim
e1“focusing on soil health attributes (soil carbon, soil microbiological processes, etc.) and grape yields in 2016 and 2017”
e2“investigated standard practices of straw mulch and bare earth created with herbicides, compared to under‐vine cover crops”
e3“our results showed median per‐hectare gross margins greater than the Control in the Barossa district”
e6“Assuming all treatments produce grapes of equal quality and price as the Control”
Claim · model-written summary
Under-vine cover crop treatments gave lower median per-hectare gross margins than the Control in Riverland.
Verbatim
e1“focusing on soil health attributes (soil carbon, soil microbiological processes, etc.) and grape yields in 2016 and 2017”
e2“investigated standard practices of straw mulch and bare earth created with herbicides, compared to under‐vine cover crops”
e3“our results showed median per‐hectare gross margins greater than the Control in the Barossa district”
e4“lower than Control in Riverland”
Claim · model-written summary
Under-vine cover crop treatments gave mixed gross margin results relative to Control in Langhorne Creek and Eden Valley.
- Taxon
- grapee1
- Treatment
- under‐vine cover cropse2
- Outcome
- median per‐hectare gross marginse3
- Direction
- mixed resultse5
- Setting
- Langhorne Creek and Eden Valleye5
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“focusing on soil health attributes (soil carbon, soil microbiological processes, etc.) and grape yields in 2016 and 2017”
e2“investigated standard practices of straw mulch and bare earth created with herbicides, compared to under‐vine cover crops”
e3“our results showed median per‐hectare gross margins greater than the Control in the Barossa district”
e5“mixed results in Langhorne Creek and Eden Valley”
Claim · model-written summary
Under-vine treatments may result in major differences in long-term vineyard financial viability.
- Taxon
- grapee1
- Treatment
- under‐vine treatmentse7
- Outcome
- financial viabilitye7
- Qualifier
- major differencese7
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e1“focusing on soil health attributes (soil carbon, soil microbiological processes, etc.) and grape yields in 2016 and 2017”
e7“These risk profiles showed the under‐vine treatments may result in major differences in long‐term vineyard financial viability”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · yield · VitisResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.