Abstract
Sustainable viticulture increasingly depends on alternative floor management strategies to improve vineyard resilience to weather extremes, while supporting grapevine health and economic viability. One such strategy is the use of perennial and short-lived biennial cover crops as an alternative to mechanical tillage and herbicide applications for under-vine weed control. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the under-vine cover crops red fescue (Festuca rubra), wild thyme (Thymus serpyllum), black medic (Medicago lupulina), and a commercial herb mixture in comparison to spontaneous vegetation, mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments on weed suppression, soil conditions, and grapevine performance in a non-irrigated vineyard with a cool to moderate climate. To assess the impact of the different treatments, soil vegetation coverage, soil moisture, and soil temperature were measured. Grapevine performance was evaluated in terms of yield, berry weight, must composition, cluster looseness, and bunch rot infection levels caused by Botrytis cinerea. Under-vine cover crops effectively suppressed weed growth over time, reducing overall weed cover to levels comparable to mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments. Further, they influenced soil conditions by increasing soil moisture and reducing soil temperature extremes at a depth of 6 cm. During the vegetation period in 2023, soil moisture levels were lowest with mechanical tillage. In contrast, the use of cover crops, such as red fescue, helped to maintain higher soil moisture levels over time and significantly lowered soil temperatures compared to herbicide treatments. Cover crop treatments resulted in looser cluster architecture, which was associated with a lower incidence and severity of Botrytisbunch rot. The highest disease levels occurred in herbicide-treated plots in 2024. Yield, must composition and berry weight were unaffected by the treatments, except that herbicide application resulted in significantly higher yield compared to under-vine cover cropping with wild thyme, which may indicate competition between wild thyme and grapevines for resources. The results suggest that under-vine cover crops offer several agronomic benefits, including improved moisture retention, regulation of soil temperature and reduced disease pressure, making them a viable alternative for sustainable vineyard management. However, potential trade-offs between yield and long-term soil conservation should be considered when implementing this practice.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Under-vine cover crops suppressed weed cover over time to levels comparable to tillage and herbicide.
- Treatment
- Under-vine cover cropse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed covere0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- mechanical tillage and herbicide treatmentse0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under-vine cover crops effectively suppressed weed growth over time, reducing overall weed cover to levels comparable to mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments.”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops increased soil moisture.
Not reportedOrgan / stageComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under-vine cover crops effectively suppressed weed growth over time, reducing overall weed cover to levels comparable to mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments. Further, they influenced soil conditions by increasing soil moisture and reducing soil temperature extremes at a depth of 6 cm.”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops reduced soil temperature extremes at 6 cm depth.
- Treatment
- cover cropse0
- Outcome
- soil temperature extremese0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Qualifier
- at a depth of 6 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under-vine cover crops effectively suppressed weed growth over time, reducing overall weed cover to levels comparable to mechanical tillage and herbicide treatments. Further, they influenced soil conditions by increasing soil moisture and reducing soil temperature extremes at a depth of 6 cm.”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical tillage had the lowest soil moisture during 2023 vegetation period.
- Treatment
- mechanical tillagee0
- Outcome
- soil moisture levelse0
- Direction
- loweste0
- Qualifier
- vegetation period in 2023e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the vegetation period in 2023, soil moisture levels were lowest with mechanical tillage.”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Red fescue cover maintained higher soil moisture over time.
- Treatment
- red fescuee0
- Interactor
- red fescuee0weed
- Outcome
- soil moisture levelse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- over timee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cover crops, such as red fescue, helped to maintain higher soil moisture levels over time”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crops lowered soil temperature versus herbicide treatment.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cover crops, such as red fescue, helped to maintain higher soil moisture levels over time and significantly lowered soil temperatures compared to herbicide treatments”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cover crop treatment produced looser grape clusters.
- Organ / stage
- clustere0
- Treatment
- Cover crop treatmentse0
- Outcome
- cluster architecturee0
- Direction
- loosere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cover crop treatments resulted in looser cluster architecture”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Looser clusters were associated with less Botrytis bunch rot incidence and severity.
BotrytisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“looser cluster architecture, which was associated with a lower incidence and severity of Botrytisbunch rot”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide plots had the highest disease in 2024.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest disease levels occurred in herbicide-treated plots in 2024.”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was generally unaffected by treatments apart from the named herbicide versus thyme contrast.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield, must composition and berry weight were unaffected by the treatments, except that herbicide application resulted in significantly higher yield compared to under-vine cover cropping with wild thyme”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Must composition was unaffected by treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield, must composition and berry weight were unaffected by the treatments”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry weight was unaffected by treatments.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield, must composition and berry weight were unaffected by the treatments”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Herbicide produced significantly higher yield than wild thyme cover.
- Treatment
- herbicide applicatione0
- Interactor
- wild thyme
Thymus serpyllume0weed - Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- under-vine cover cropping with wild thymee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“herbicide application resulted in significantly higher yield compared to under-vine cover cropping with wild thyme”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors consider under-vine cover crops a viable sustainable vineyard management option.
- Outcome
- viable alternative for sustainable vineyard managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under-vine cover crops offer several agronomic benefits, including improved moisture retention, regulation of soil temperature and reduced disease pressure, making them a viable alternative for sustainable vineyard management”
t0“grapevine cultivar Riesling (Vitis vinifera L.)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · soil: physics · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
cover crop · molecular: metabolites · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
cover crop · soil: physics · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
cover crop · weed · VitisResults agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.