Abstract
Background and Aims: Several studies have shown that cover crops restrict the development of shallow grapevine roots and reduce vigour and yield in the vineyard. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term effects, after 8 years, of four soil management practices on grapevine root development and on yield in irrigated vineyards under semi-arid conditions. Methods and Results: Four soil management treatments were established in the inter-row: no-tillage with herbicide application (herbicide treatment), tillage (tillage treatment), no-tillage with self-seeding annual grass cover crop [self-seeding annual grass cover crop treatment (AGT)] and tillage with annual cereal seeding [annual cereal treatment (CT)]. The density of lignified grapevine roots was determined using the trench method during grapevine dormancy. The treatments CT and AGT increased grapevine root density as compared to bare soil treatments. In addition, annual cereal treatment and AGT reduced vigour and yield but only in extremely dry years. Conclusions: Unlike previous studies on cover crops, our results show that annual cover crops enhance grapevine root growth both under the row and in the inter-row as compared to bare soil management. The increased grapevine root growth was mainly due to the proliferation of fine roots (diameter less than or equal to 1 mm), while yield reduction was mainly due to fewer berries per bunch. Significance of the Study: This study proves that coupling cover crop management with the grapevine growth cycle under irrigated semi-arid conditions can improve vineyard sustainability with an average yield reduction of less than 15%. To achieve this goal, cover crop competition must be avoided during the stages of the grapevine most sensitive to water deficit or during periods of low water availability. These are mainly during fruitset and ripening.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Annual cereal and self-seeding annual grass cover crops increased grapevine root density compared with bare soil.
- Treatment
- CT and AGTe1
- Outcome
- grapevine root densitye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- bare soil treatmentse1
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine root system”
e1“The treatments CT and AGT increased grapevine root density as compared to bare soil treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual cereal and self-seeding grass cover crops reduced vigour and yield, but only in extremely dry years.
- Treatment
- annual cereal treatment and AGTe2
- Outcome
- vigour and yielde2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Qualifier
- only in extremely dry yearse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine root system”
e2“In addition, annual cereal treatment and AGT reduced vigour and yield but only in extremely dry years”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reduction under cover crops was mainly due to fewer berries per bunch.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine root system”
e3“yield reduction was mainly due to fewer berries per bunch”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased grapevine root growth under cover crops was mainly due to proliferation of fine roots.
- Outcome
- increased grapevine root growthe4
- Qualifier
- proliferation of fine roots (diameter less than or equal to 1 mm)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The increased grapevine root growth was mainly due to the proliferation of fine roots (diameter less than or equal to 1 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual cover crops enhanced grapevine root growth both under the row and in the inter-row compared with bare soil.
- Treatment
- annual cover cropse5
- Outcome
- grapevine root growthe5
- Direction
- enhancee5
- Qualifier
- both under the row and in the inter-rowe5
- Comparator
- bare soil managemente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine root system”
e5“annual cover crops enhance grapevine root growth both under the row and in the inter-row as compared to bare soil management”
Claim · model-written summary
Coupling cover crop management with the grapevine cycle under irrigated semi-arid conditions gave an average yield reduction of less than 15%.
- Treatment
- coupling cover crop management with the grapevine growth cyclee6
- Outcome
- average yield reductione6
- Value
- less than 15%e6
- Qualifier
- under irrigated semi-arid conditionse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevine root system”
e6“This study proves that coupling cover crop management with the grapevine growth cycle under irrigated semi-arid conditions can improve vineyard sustainability with an average yield reduction of less than 15%”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend avoiding cover crop competition during the grapevine stages most sensitive to water deficit.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“cover crop competition must be avoided during the stages of the grapevine most sensitive to water deficit”
e1“These are mainly during fruitset and ripening”
The same questions in other papers
cover crop · yield · VitisResults differ
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →tillage · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →cover crop · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.