Abstract
A current significant vineyard challenge is how other-than tillage soil management solutions can be implemented without incurring in major competition for water and nutrients with the consociated grapevines. Therefore, a three-year study was carried at two hilly sites (Sartori and Ottina) in Northern Italy to evaluate the impact of two novel winter cover crop terminations (interrow rolling, R, and sub-row mulching, SRM) on vine physiology and performance as compared to standard practice, either alternate tilled-grassed interrow and/or green manuring (GM). Moreover, at the Ottina site, cover crop sowing used two different seed mixtures: the cereal based Humusfert (HF) and the legume based Nitrofert (NF). Each season, in summer, soil and vine water status were measured as soil saturation degree (θs/θsat), pre-dawn (Ψ PD ) and midday leaf water potential (Ψ MD ), whereas gas exchange was monitored as leaf assimilation (A) and stomatal conductance (g s ). At both sites, for data pooled over years, the amount of rolled dry biomass was lower than 650 g m −2 and R did not result in any significant variation of water status, gas exchange and vine performance versus the standard practice. Vice versa, at the Sartori site, the amount of mulched biomass under the row was quite abundant (1.517 g m −2 dry weight) and effective for weed suppression. SRM also maintained less negative Ψ PD in the warmest part of 2022 and 2023 seasons without, however, greatly impacting leaf water status, gas exchange and vine performances. At Ottina, SRM assured, for data pooled over years, higher total soluble solids (TSS) and malic acid and lower pH than R suggesting that sugar accumulation and acid degradation were partially decoupled. At the same site, NF allowed to increase yield without any concurrent change in vigor with a consequent ripening delay in terms of lower TSS, pH and anthocyanins, and higher tartaric acid at harvest, a sought effects under a global warming scenario. It is also practically relevant that HF lowered berry [K] significantly vs. NF suggesting that it might be used as an additional control tool to limit K accumulation into the berries and, eventually, wine pH. Overall, while SRM had better performance than R in terms of weed suppression, soil water status and berry ripening, results can vary as a function of the type of seed mixture which, in turn, closely interacts with specific environmental conditions. • Inter-row grass rolling (R) and sub-row mulching (SRM) were tested as innovative soil managements in vineyards. • At one site, in each year, under the row mulched grass was abundant enough to warrant weed control. • Vine physiology, yield components and grape quality were only slightly affected. • A legume based winter cover crop allowed a yield increase without concurrent vigor increase. • SRM stands out as a very effective solution to replace tillage or herbicides for under vine weed control.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Rolling caused no significant variation in grapevine water status, gas exchange or performance.
- Treatment
- Re0
- Outcome
- water status, gas exchange and vine performancee0
- Direction
- did not result in any significant variatione0
- Comparator
- standard practicee0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“R did not result in any significant variation of water status, gas exchange and vine performance versus the standard practice”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-row mulching suppressed weeds at Sartori.
- Treatment
- mulched biomass under the rowe0
- Outcome
- weed suppressione0
- Direction
- effectivee0
- Value
- 1.517 g m −2 dry weighte0
- Setting
- Sartori sitee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at the Sartori site, the amount of mulched biomass under the row was quite abundant (1.517 g m −2 dry weight) and effective for weed suppression”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-row mulching maintained less negative predawn water potential in warm periods of 2022 and 2023.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“SRM also maintained less negative Ψ PD in the warmest part of 2022 and 2023 seasons”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Sub-row mulching had little impact on leaf water status, gas exchange and vine performance.
- Treatment
- SRMe1
- Outcome
- leaf water status, gas exchange and vine performancese0
- Direction
- without, however, greatly impactinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without, however, greatly impacting leaf water status, gas exchange and vine performances”
t0“grapevines”
e1“SRM also maintained less negative Ψ PD”
Claim · model-written summary
At Ottina, sub-row mulching raised total soluble solids compared with rolling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Ottina, SRM assured, for data pooled over years, higher total soluble solids (TSS) and malic acid and lower pH than R”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
At Ottina, sub-row mulching raised malic acid compared with rolling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Ottina, SRM assured, for data pooled over years, higher total soluble solids (TSS) and malic acid and lower pH than R”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
At Ottina, sub-row mulching lowered pH compared with rolling.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At Ottina, SRM assured, for data pooled over years, higher total soluble solids (TSS) and malic acid and lower pH than R”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrofert increased yield without a vigor change.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NF allowed to increase yield without any concurrent change in vigor”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrofert did not change vine vigor.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“NF allowed to increase yield without any concurrent change in vigor”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrofert delayed ripening with lower soluble solids, pH and anthocyanins.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a consequent ripening delay in terms of lower TSS, pH and anthocyanins”
t0“grapevines”
e1“NF allowed to increase yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrofert increased tartaric acid at harvest.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher tartaric acid at harvest”
t0“grapevines”
e1“NF allowed to increase yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Humusfert significantly lowered berry potassium relative to Nitrofert.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HF lowered berry [K] significantly vs. NF”
t0“grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · physiology: gas exchange · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
mulching · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mulching · soil: chemistry · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
mulching · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
mulching · 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.