Speaker
Description
Introduction
In viticulture, addressing contemporary challenges such as the reduction of pesticide use, the agroecological transition, or the adaptation and mitigation to climate change effectively involves soil management practices, especially with the use of service crops (Abad et al., 2021a, 2021b). Service crops are grown to provide provisioning, regulation and maintenance, and cultural ecosystem services (Garcia et al., 2018). However, service crops can also negatively affect grapevine vigor and yield due to competition for water and nitrogen (Celette and Gary, 2013), underscoring the importance of cover crop management to achieve a balance between services and dysservices, a topic that is yet underexplored in scientific literature.
Material and methods
Over three years, this research examined six different service crops termination strategies, that combined two termination periods (early termination vs. termination at grapevine budburst) and three methods of termination (mowing (M), mowing combined with tillage (T), and roller-crimping (R)). Various indicators were recorded from 2019 to 2022, including service crop variables (biomass, C:N ratio, weed suppression, and post-termination mulching), soil properties (organic matter, microbial biomass, water, and inorganic nitrogen stocks), grapevine variables related to water stress (pre-dawn leaf water potential, δ13C), yield components (cluster number and yield), vigor (pruning weight) and juice quality (yeast assimilable nitrogen).
Results
Permitting service crops to grow until grapevine budburst increased biomass production by two to three times compared to early termination. Among the termination methods, tillage proved the most efficient. Early destruction with tillage exhibited minimal regrowth and consistently reduced weed biomass during grapevine flowering in two out of three years, effectively suppressing the resurgence of specific sown species, particularly among Poaceae. In contrast, roller-crimping was less effective in terminating service crops but better-conserved plant residues on the soil surface. Enhanced soil microbial biomass was observed under budburst termination strategies, particularly when combined with no-till methods. Tillage-based termination also effectively halted service crop transpiration, and resulted in higher soil water stocks and grapevine water status (Figure 1). In 2020 and 2022, soil tillage treatments resulted in soil inorganic nitrogen stocks around 60 kg ha-1, nearly quadrupling compared to other methods, aligning closely with the annual nitrogen needs of grapevines (Figure 1). This trend was reflected in the yeast-assimilable nitrogen levels in grape juice. Pruning weight varied notably across termination methods, with tillage-based treatments yielding higher weights per vine than roller-crimping and mowing (Figure 1). Overall, vineyard yields ranged from 7.25 to 13.7 t ha-1, approximately corresponding to 52 to 98 hL ha-1 per hectare, suitable for Protected Designations of Origin limiting yields to 40 or 60 hL ha-1, but possibly restrictive for Protected Geographical Indications allowing 90 hL ha-1, or unregulated productions.
Discussion
In the context of the Mediterranean climate, increasingly characterized by dry winters due to climate change, tillage-based termination strategy appears to be a safer strategy to maintain grapevine vigor and productivity, while also enhancing soil ecosystem functions. However, this approach's suitability may depend on specific yield goals and wine market values. Additionally, other strategies could be considered to facilitate cover crop management strategies more favorable to soil biological activity, such as the use of more vigorous grapevine varieties and rootstocks, or those better adapted to drought conditions (Simonneau et al., 2017).
References
Abad, J., Hermoso de Mendoza, I., Marín, D., Orcaray, L., Santesteban, L.G., 2021a. Cover crops in viticulture. A systematic review (1): Implications on soil characteristics and biodiversity in vineyard. OENO One 55, 295–312. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2021.55.1.3599
Abad, J., Hermoso de Mendoza, I., Marín, D., Orcaray, L., Santesteban, L.G., 2021b. Cover crops in viticulture. A systematic review (2):Implications on vineyard agronomic performance. OENO One 55, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2021.55.2.4481
Celette, F., Gary, C., 2013. Dynamics of water and nitrogen stress along the grapevine cycle as affected by cover cropping. Eur. J. Agron. 45, 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2012.10.001
Garcia, L., Celette, F., Gary, C., Ripoche, A., Valdés-Gómez, H., Metay, A., 2018. Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 251, 158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.09.030
Simonneau, T., Lebon, E., Coupel-Ledru, A., Marguerit, E., Rossdeutsch, L., Ollat, N., 2017. Adapting plant material to face water stress in vineyards: which physiological targets for an optimal control of plant water status? OENO One 51, 167. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2016.0.0.1870
| Keywords | Sustainable viticulture, cover crops management, ecosystem functions, agroecology, diversified cropping systems |
|---|
