Different Ground Vegetation Cover Management Systems to Manage Cynodon dactylon in an Irrigated Vineyard

Abstract

Ground cover management in vineyards in Spain is focused on minimizing soil erosion and compaction. Such practices have influenced the weed community structure in the inter-rows, contributing to the spread of the high noxious weed Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers. This fact highlights the need for further investigation of the interaction between ground cover practices and weed control techniques. In this study, the effect of four different ground cover managements (M) in the inter-rows on C. dactylon population dynamics (changes in coverage and frequency) was assessed over three seasons (2015–2017): (M1) a no-till spontaneous vegetation ground cover managed by shredding; (M2) a no-till spontaneous vegetation ground cover managed by shredding plus herbicide application, (M3) tilled soil and spontaneous vegetation growing; and (M4) tilled soil and a barley cover crop seeded (Hordeum vulgare L.). Cynodon dactylon and the other weeds responded differently to the various weed control methods. After three seasons, the barley cover crop was the most efficient management system to control C. dactylon and other weeds. Final soil cover in barley cover crop and tilled soil with spontaneous vegetation were 0.5% and 1.1%, respectively, compared to 3.7% and 7.7% obtained by spontaneous vegetation shredded with and without herbicide application, respectively. In addition, total weed frequency varied from 9.7% for barley cover crop to 45.8% for spontaneous vegetation only shredded. Weed community composition changed due to the pressure exerted by each management and the adaptive strategy of the different species. This study highlights the importance of knowledge of how vegetation management influences weed flora to improve the sustainability of wine grape production systems.

Organic Mulches as an Alternative to Conventional Under-Vine Weed Management in Mediterranean Irrigated Vineyards

“…However, this last method (tillage) also favors the presence of C. arvensis , as Abad et al [ 52 ] reported. Conversely, Ormeño-Núñez et al [ 53 ] observed an 82% reduction in the dry matter of Cynodon dactylon (another problematic rhizomatous weed species) in Secale cereale mulch, compared with chemical plus mechanical control, while Valencia-Gredilla et al [ 54 ] observed that inter-row tilling and a H. vulgare cover crop mulched in autumn was effective in maintaining low levels of C. dactylon in the inter-row zone. In our study, C. dactylon did not show any preference for mulch or tillage treatments ( Figure 7 ); nevertheless, this species was capable of overcoming the physical barrier of mulches and developed on top of them, probably due to its vegetative propagation thorough rhizomes.…”

Can Hydromulch Reduce the Emergence of Perennial Weeds?

“…All of them are capable of clonal growth through rhizome production and fragmentation, particularly tubers in purple nutsedge. Populations of C. rotundus mainly affect vegetable crops [17], those of C. dactylon are very persistent in fruit orchards and vineyards [19], S. halepense is a troublesome weed species in orchards and in maize fields [20], and P. dilatatum is very persistent in lawns and in other perennial crops [21].…”

Use of Under-Vine Living Mulches to Control Noxious Weeds in Irrigated Mediterranean Vineyards

“…However, in Mediterranean climates where vineyard-producing areas are generally associated with a scarcity of water resources, their use is still very unusual [ 40 ] and plant covers, if any, are commonly limited to the vineyard inter-rows. Nonetheless, combining under-vine living mulches with irrigation application could be a suitable strategy, as plant covers, besides improving soil conditions and water infiltration, could also limit the presence of noxious weed species [ 7 , 41 ]; while irrigation application could reduce the negative impact of water competition due to plant covers on the vineyard [ 42 ]. Therefore, such competition between cover crops and grapevines must be carefully managed to avoid undesirable results in grape production and quality [ 43 ].…”