Abstract
Increasing temperatures and resulting stronger spring and summer drought have exponentially increased irrigation in Mediterranean vineyards. So far, little is known about the potential effects of irrigation on vineyard agroecosystems. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of vineyard irrigation on vegetation, soil mesofauna, the decomposition of organic matter, grapevine yield and berry sugar content. Five pairs of vineyards were selected in South-eastern France (Luberon), each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard. The irrigated vineyards received on average 60 mm of water which doubles usual summer rainfall. Under-vine vegetation and soil mesofauna were analysed during the growing season (April) and the following summer drought (August). Organic matter decomposition was tested using tea bags that were buried from January to May in the grapevine row. We found a significant difference in vegetation cover between treatments in April but not in the following August. Springtail and mite abundance were only different between treatments in August being higher in irrigated vineyards. In August, we also found significant differences between treatments in the structure of the soil mesofauna community. The effect of irrigation on the decomposition of organic matter was not significant. Grapevine yield was higher in irrigated vineyards but no effect on the chlorophyll index of grapevine leaves was found. This study highlighted the effect of irrigation showing that even moderate irrigation has significant effects on Mediterranean vineyard ecosystems. The strong increase of irrigated vineyards advocates for further research to obtain a better understanding of irrigation consequences under different pedoclimatic conditions. • Summer irrigation buffers the negative effect of summer drought on mite but not on springtail abundance. • Irrigation further changed the mesofauna community structure during summer drought. • Irrigation effects did not persist until the following spring. • Summer irrigation did not affect organic matter decomposition during peak activity of soil microorganisms. • Irrigation increased the grapevine yield and reduced the grapevine sugar content.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetation cover differed significantly between irrigated and non-irrigated vineyards in April but not in the following August.
- Taxon
- vegetatione0
- Treatment
- irrigatede1
- Outcome
- vegetation covere0
- Qualifier
- April but not in the following Auguste0
- Comparator
- non-irrigatede1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“We found a significant difference in vegetation cover between treatments in April but not in the following August”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
Springtail and mite abundance differed between treatments only in August, being higher in irrigated vineyards.
Verbatim
e0“Springtail and mite abundance were only different between treatments in August being higher in irrigated vineyards”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
In August the structure of the soil mesofauna community differed significantly between irrigated and non-irrigated vineyards.
- Taxon
- soil mesofaunae0
- Treatment
- irrigatede1
- Outcome
- structure of the soil mesofauna communitye0
- Comparator
- non-irrigatede1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“In August, we also found significant differences between treatments in the structure of the soil mesofauna community”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of irrigation on the decomposition of organic matter was not significant.
Not reportedTaxonComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“The effect of irrigation on the decomposition of organic matter was not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
Grapevine yield was higher in irrigated vineyards than in non-irrigated ones.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grapevine yield was higher in irrigated vineyards”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation had no effect on the chlorophyll index of grapevine leaves.
- Organ / stage
- leavese0
- Treatment
- irrigatede1
- Outcome
- chlorophyll indexe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Comparator
- non-irrigatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect on the chlorophyll index of grapevine leaves was found”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation reduced the grapevine sugar content (berry sugar content).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased the grapevine yield and reduced the grapevine sugar content”
e1“each comprising an irrigated and a non-irrigated vineyard”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer irrigation buffered the negative effect of summer drought on mite abundance.
- Taxon
- mitee0
- Treatment
- Summer irrigatione0
- Outcome
- negative effect of summer drought on mitee0
- Direction
- bufferse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Summer irrigation buffers the negative effect of summer drought on mite but not on springtail abundance”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer irrigation did not buffer the negative effect of summer drought on springtail abundance.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Summer irrigation buffers the negative effect of summer drought on mite but not on springtail abundance”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation effects did not persist until the following spring.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation effects did not persist until the following spring”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.