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

Abstract

Service crops are crops grown with the aim of providing non-marketed ecosystem services, i.e. differing from food, fiber and fuel production. Vineyard soils face various agronomic issues such as poor organic carbon levels, erosion, fertility losses, and numerous studies have highlighted the ability of service crops to address these issues. In addition to their ability to increase soil organic matter and fertility, and reduce runoff and erosion processes, service crops provide a large variety of ecosystem services in vineyards such as weed control, pest and disease regulation, water supply, water purification, improvement of field trafficability and maintenance of soil biodiversity. However, associating service crops with grapevines may also generate disservices and impair grape production: competition for soil resources with the grapevine is often highlighted to reject such association. Consequently, vinegrowers have to find a balance between services and disservices, depending on local soil and climate conditions, on their objectives of grape production and on the nature and temporality of the ecosystem services they expect during the grapevine cycle. This study proposes a review of the services and disservices provided by service crops in vineyards, and a framework for their management. Vinegrowers' production objectives and pedoclimatic constraints form the preliminary stage to consider before defining a strategy of service crop management. This strategy assembles management options such as the choice of species, its spatial distribution within the vineyard, the timing of its installation, maintenance and destruction. These management options, defined for both annual and long-term time scales, form action levers which may impact cropping system functioning. Finally, we underline the importance of implementing an adaptive strategy at the seasonal time scale. Such tactical management allows adapting the cropping system to observed climate and state of the biophysical system during the grapevine cycle, in order to provide targeted services and achieve satisfactory production objectives.

Seasonal and interannual variations in functional traits of sown and spontaneous species in vineyard inter‐rows

“…In particular, recent work has revealed linkages, in different agrosystems, between functional traits and functions delivered by service crops that relate to the provision of ecosystem services. Service crops are grown to provide ecosystem services such as weed control, erosion mitigation, or soil fertility improvement (Finney et al 2016, Finney and Kaye 2017, Blesh 2018, Garcia et al 2019), in contrast to traditional marketed crops, or cash crops, that are grown for the production of food, fiber, or fuel (Garcia et al 2018). In vineyards, the trait‐based approach seems hopeful to understand the composition of spontaneous flora (Fried et al 2019), to assess the effect of plant communities (sown or spontaneous species) on the agrosystem functioning (Kazakou et al 2016, Garcia et al 2019), and to identify service crops’ ability to provide services (Damour et al 2014, 2015).…”

“…In vineyards, the trait‐based approach seems hopeful to understand the composition of spontaneous flora (Fried et al 2019), to assess the effect of plant communities (sown or spontaneous species) on the agrosystem functioning (Kazakou et al 2016, Garcia et al 2019), and to identify service crops’ ability to provide services (Damour et al 2014, 2015). Identifying such ideotypes of service crops may help vinegrowers to choose appropriate associated species (sown or spontaneous) to fulfill ecosystem services in vineyards (e.g., weed control, runoff and erosion mitigation, soil fertility improvement) and avoid yield loss due to competition for soil resources (Garcia et al 2018). However, if the choice of service crops is based on differences in trait values between potentially interesting species (Damour et al 2014, Tardy et al 2015), care must be taken to ensure that these differences are robust on a large diversity of pedoclimatic situations and cropping systems (Wood et al 2015).…”

“…While it is suggested to measure plant traits in optimal growing conditions (Pérez‐Harguindeguy 2013), the diversity of cropping systems (soil, climate, crop type, agricultural practices) may lead to very diverse conditions, not always optimal, in which plant communities may grow. The period at which plant traits should be measured may also depend on the crop cycle and the period at which a targeted service is expected (Garcia et al 2018), and traits values may vary across seasons too (Garnier et al 2001, Römermann et al 2016). Moreover, farming practices may also act as filters on weed species and the functional structure of communities, thus affecting trait variability in agricultural fields (Fried et al 2016, Gaba 2017).…”

Characterising the biophysical, economic and social impacts of soil carbon sequestration as a greenhouse gas removal technology

“…Residues will be rendered unavailable for other uses by this measure. Capital investment in new equipment, and a time cost may be necessary to process or reincorporate residues (Garcia et al, ). Fertiliser costs may be partially offset by nutrients from retained residues (e.g.…”

Estimating Non-Sustainable Soil Erosion Rates in the Tierra de Barros Vineyards (Extremadura, Spain) Using an ISUM Update

“…The scientific literature discusses plot sizes and the representability of the erosion and runoff plots [34,35,78,79]. Human-and nature-driven factors such as parent material [80], organic matter [81], vegetation cover [82], rock fragments [83] can greatly affect the spatial variability of hydrological and biological processes. Recent research conducted on the influence of weather types [84,85] also insisted that the elevated spatial and temporal variability of the soil erosion results among hillslopes and regions close to each other, considering factors such as the altitude [86], different soil managements, or geological discontinuities [87,88] as key factors of soil erosion.…”