Study

Belowground Interactions in a Vine (Vitis vinifera L.)-tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea Shreb.) Intercropping System: Water Relations and Growth

  • Published source details Celette F., Wery J., Chantelot E., Celette J. & Gary C. (2005) Belowground Interactions in a Vine (Vitis vinifera L.)-tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea Shreb.) Intercropping System: Water Relations and Growth. Plant and Soil, 276, 205-217

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland

Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

Action Link
Mediterranean Farmland
  1. Crop production: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1998–2002 in a rainfed vineyard in southern France found lower crop yields in plots sown with grass between vine rows, compared to bare soil. Crop yield: Lower grape yields were found in plots with grass between the vine rows, compared to bare soil (8 vs 12 t/ha). Methods: In 1998, grass seeds (Festuca arudinacea tall fescue) were sown between the vine rows in four treatment plots, and herbicide was used to control weeds between vine rows in four control plots (12 x 15 m plots). The grass was mown three times/year, in the summer. Grape yield was measured from 1999–2002 (three vines/plots).

  2. Water: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1998–2002 in a rainfed vineyard in southern France found that planting grass between the vine rows had inconsistent effects on water availability. Water availability: More water was found in the soil, in plots with grass between the vine rows, compared to bare soil between the vine rows, in eight of 40 comparisons (0.19–0.33 vs 0.14–0.25 m3 water/m3 soil), but less water was found in one of 40 comparisons (0.22 vs 0.27). Methods: In 1998, grass seeds (Festuca arudinacea tall fescue) were sown between the vine rows in four treatment plots, and herbicide was used to control weeds between the vine rows in four control plots (12 x 15 m plots). The grass was mown three times/year, in the summer. Water was measured every three weeks, in mid-March–August 2002, in soil cores (0–150 cm depth; two cores/plot: one under the vines, one between the vines).

     

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 17

Go to the CE Journal

Subscribe to our newsletter

Please add your details if you are interested in receiving updates from the Conservation Evidence team about new papers, synopses and opportunities.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust