Changing the soil surface management in vineyards: immediate and delayed effects on the growth and yield of grapevine

Abstract

In a changing context, farmers adapt their cropping systems and, in this respect, the response time of the soil-crop system (changes in the soil resources and in the grapevine vegetative or reproductive development) has to be considered to maintain its agronomic performances. This is particularly true for perennial crops such as grapevine. This paper aims to analyse the short- and long-term effects of changes in soil surface management on grapevine performances. Avineyard in which bare soil inter-rows had been compared with a tall fescue intercrop since 2002 had each of these treatments split into two in 2007, with half of the intercrop being ploughed in and half of the bare soil being sown with fescue, resulting in four treatments whose effects were studied in 2008–2009. Grapevine growth, yield formation and grape quality were assessed. After intercrop destruction, grapevine vegetative growth was enhanced by the mineralization of organic matter from the first year, whereas after intercrop introduction, the competition for soil resources affected growth only in the second year. The grape yield depended on the number of bunches, elaborated the year before. One year after the change in soil surface management, the ranking of yield was as follows: permanent intercrop < intercrop destroyed < intercrop introduced < bare soil. The second year, this ranking altered (still in relation to the number of bunches) to: intercrop introduced < permanent intercrop < bare soil=intercrop destroyed. This study shows that the response times of the processes of grapevine vegetative growth and yield formation to a change in the cropping system vary from one to two years, and therefore, have to be considered carefully to manage the cropping system well

Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A review

“…Whereas, in other studies, it has been shown that cover-cropped vineyards do not always exhibit higher water stress compared to those with bare soil (Celette et al 2005;Ripoche et al 2011). Nevertheless, what it is commonly shown is that cover crop clearly interacts with the vines by improving soil properties, including spatial and temporal modifications of the water within the soil profile (Celette et al 2008).…”

Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review

“…Spatial structure refers to service crop location in the field: full surface, only rows or inter-rows, one inter-row out of two or more (Figure 3). Such a choice impacts competition between service crops and grapevines, and thus berry production, particularly in non-irrigated conditions (Ripoche et al, 2011a). Sowing one inter-row out of two might act as partial root-zone drying (PRD) technique, without altering grapevine yield and improving berry quality (Poni et al, 2007;Lopes et al, 2011).…”

Influence of Floor Management Technique on Grapevine Growth, Disease Pressure, and Juice and Wine Composition: A Review

“…In all these cases, permanent cover crops growing in the interrows, when they were eliminated during the summer months to avoid severe competition with the vines, tended to have a weakening effect on both vegetative and reproductive growth, despite the presence of deep soils and/or fertilization. However, a recent study demonstrated that response times in grapevine vigor to changes in floor management varied annually (Ripoche et al 2011a). In the first year after incorporation of a permanent cover crop (intercrop destroyed), the yield was still greater in a bare soil treatment or where cover crop was established in previously bare alleys (intercrop introduced).…”