Abstract
Living mulches from resident vegetation or intercrops could be used to control weeds and partially alleviate soil erosion during vineyard establishment in Quebec. However, their impact on grapevine yield and fruit quality is poorly documented. Growing semihardy grapevines is a challenge in southern Quebec as winter protection is necessary. Winter protection is provided either by hilling or by geotextiles and these methods determine what type of living mulch can be grown. Annual plant species are best suited for the former method, while perennial species are compatible with the latter. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two grass living mulches (annual and perennial) on weed control and diversity, soil aggregate stability, vine growth, and fruit quality in comparison with cultivation and an unmanaged (weedy) control during vineyard establishment. The cultivation treatment was the most efficient weed control method and decreased weed species richness and diversity in comparison with intercrops. Maintaining a living mulch in the interrow, however, helped preserve soil aggregate stability better than cultivation did. Vine yield and fruit quality were not affected by any interrow weed management method. Consequently, the use of living mulches is a promising alternative to cultivation in the interrow during vineyard establishment in Quebec, Canada.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivation controlled weeds most efficiently and reduced weed richness and diversity versus intercrops.
- Treatment
- cultivation treatmente0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed species richness and diversitye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- intercropse0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cultivation treatment was the most efficient weed control method and decreased weed species richness and diversity in comparison with intercrops”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Living mulch better preserved soil aggregate stability than cultivation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maintaining a living mulch in the interrow, however, helped preserve soil aggregate stability better than cultivation did”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Interrow weed management did not affect vine yield or fruit quality.
- Taxon
- Vinee0
- Treatment
- interrow weed management methode0
- Outcome
- Vine yield and fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Vine yield and fruit quality were not affected by any interrow weed management method”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend living mulches as an alternative to cultivation during vineyard establishment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of living mulches is a promising alternative to cultivation in the interrow during vineyard establishment in Quebec, Canada”
t0“grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · soil: physics · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.