Study

Effects of Cover Crops on Grapevines, Yield, Juice Composition, Soil Microbial Ecology, and Gopher Activity

  • Published source details Ingels C.A., Scow K.M., Whisson D.A. & Drenovsky R.E. (2005) Effects of Cover Crops on Grapevines, Yield, Juice Composition, Soil Microbial Ecology, and Gopher Activity. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 56, 19-29

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

Pest regulation: 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 1996–2000 in an irrigated vineyard in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found no differences in grape yield or quality between plots with or without cover crops between the vine rows. Crop yield: Similar grape yields were found in plots with or without cover crops between the vine rows (18–28 vs 19–30 kg/vine). Crop quality: No consistent differences in grape quality were found in plots with or without cover crops (see publication for data on Brix, pH, and titratable acidity). Methods: There were four plots for each of four cover crops (1.8 m width, between vine rows of 3.4 width), and there were four control plots (periodically disked between the vine rows). Each plot was 10 contiguous vines and two adjacent interrows. The cover crops were Californian native grasses (not tilled, mown), annual clover (not tilled, mown), barley and oats (mown and disked), or legumes and barley (mown and disked in spring and used as a green manure). The Californian native grasses were seeded between the vine rows in autumn 1996. The others were seeded in autumn 1997–1999. All plots were drip irrigated, fertigated (20 kg N/ha/year), and the grass cover crops were also fertilized with urea (45 kg N/ha/year). Herbicide was used under the vines. Grape quality was measured in 150 grapes/plot.

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2000 in an irrigated vineyard in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found that less water was available to grape leaves in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, between the vine rows. Water availability: Less water was available to grape leaves in plots with cover crops, compared to bare soil, between the vine rows, in three of 16 comparisons (midday water potential: –1.22 to –0.91 vs –1.11 to –0.82). Implementation options: More water was available to grape leaves in plots that were cover cropped with barley and oats, compared to other cover crops, in three of 12 comparisons (midday water potential: –1.08 to –0.82 vs –1.22 to –0.91). Methods: There were four plots for each of four cover crops (1.8 m width, between vine rows of 3.4 m width), and there were four control plots (periodically disked between the vine rows). Each plot was 10 contiguous vines and two adjacent interrows. The cover crops were Californian native grasses (not tilled, mown), annual clover (not tilled, mown), barley and oats (mown and disked), or legumes and barley (mown and disked in spring and used as a green manure). The Californian native grasses were seeded between the vine rows in autumn 1996. The others were seeded in autumn 1997–1999. All plots were drip irrigated, fertigated (20 kg N/ha/year), and the grass cover crops were also fertilized with urea (45 kg N/ha/year). Herbicide was used under the vines. Midday water potential was measured before irrigation in June and July 1998, May 1999, and June 2000 (pump-up pressure chamber, three leaves/plot).

     

  3. Pest regulation: Plant or maintain ground cover in orchards or vineyards

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1996–2000 in an irrigated vineyard in the Sacramento Valley, California, USA, found more pocket gophers in plots that were cover cropped with clovers, compared to other species of cover crops. Implementation options: More Thomomys spp. pocket gophers were found in plots that were cover cropped with clovers, compared to other cover crops (0.9–6.7% vs 0–0.3% of each plot had signs of gophers). Similar numbers of weeds were found in plots with different cover crops (0.15–0.41 t dry weight/planted ha). Methods: There were four plots for each of four cover crops (1.8 m width, between vine rows of 3.4 width), and there were four control plots (periodically disked between the vine rows). Each plot was 10 contiguous vines and two adjacent interrows. The cover crops were Californian native grasses (not tilled, mown), annual clover (not tilled, mown), barley and oats (mown and disked), or legumes and barley (mown and disked in spring and used as a green manure). The Californian native grasses were seeded between the vine rows in autumn 1996. The others were seeded in autumn 1997–1999. All plots were drip irrigated, fertigated (20 kg N/ha/year), and the grass cover crops were also fertilized with urea (45 kg N/ha/year). Herbicide was used under the vines. Weeds were sampled in the cover crops in April 1998–2000 (four samples/plot, 1.0 x 0.5 m quadrats). Gophers were sampled in January, February, and March 1999 (looking for mounds and feeding holes that were less than two days old, throughout the plots).

     

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 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


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