Study

Influence of two different cover crops on soil N availability, N nutritional status, and grape yeast-assimilable N (YAN) in a cv. Tempranillo vineyard

  • Published source details Pérez-Álvarez E.P., Garde-Cerdán T., Santamaría P., García-Escudero E. & Peregrina F. (2015) Influence of two different cover crops on soil N availability, N nutritional status, and grape yeast-assimilable N (YAN) in a cv. Tempranillo vineyard. Plant and Soil, 390, 143-156

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

Soil: 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 2009–2011 in a rainfed vineyard in northern Spain found similar grape yields but differences in grape quality in plots with cover crops, compared to conventional tillage, between the vine rows. Crop yield: Similar grape yields were found in plots with cover crops or conventional tillage (4.2–6.2 vs 5.1–5.9 kg/vine; 14.1–16.8 vs 13.8–16.6 clusters/vine). Crop quality: Less yeast-assimilable nitrogen (which is needed for wine fermentation) was found in grapes from plots with cover crops, compared to conventional tillage, in one of six comparisons (with barley, in 2011: 48 vs 70 mg YAN/kg grape extract). Significant differences in amino acid content were found between plots with cover crops or conventional tillage (20 amino acids: see publication for details). Similar grape weight was found in plots with cover crops or conventional tillage (250–290 g/100 grapes). Implementation options: Less yeast-available nitrogen was found in grapes from plots that were cover cropped with barley, compared to clover (48 vs 77 mg YAN/kg grape extract). Methods: There were three plots (four vine rows/plot, 20 vines/row) for each of two cover crops (Hordeum vulgare barley or Trifolium resupinatum Persian clover between vine rows, sown in February 2009 and 2011), and there were three control plots (conventional tillage between vine rows: disk plough, 0–15 cm depth, every 4–6 weeks in February–August). No plots were fertilized. Herbicides were used under vine rows. Vine prunings were retained between rows. Grape yield and quality were measured in 2009–2011 (20 vines/plot, 500 grapes/plot).

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

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2009–2011 in a rainfed vineyard in northern Spain found more nitrogen and ammonium in soils with cover crops, compared to conventional tillage, between the vine rows, but found inconsistent differences in nitrate. Nutrients: More nitrogen was found in soils with cover crops, compared to conventional tillage, in one of 12 comparisons (clover, 0–15 cm depth: 2,050 vs 1,900 kg total N/ha), and more ammonium was found in two of 12 comparisons (clover, 0–15 cm depth: 5.1–6.3 vs 3.5–4.8 kg NH4-N/ha). Less nitrate was found in soils with cover crops, compared to conventional tillage, in some comparisons, but more nitrate was found in other comparisons (2–35 vs 2–26 kg N-NO3/ha). Implementation options: Less nitrate (0–15 cm depth: 2–5 vs 11–35 kg N-NO3/ha; 15–45 cm depth: 2–9 vs 15–50), and less ammonium at one of two depths (0–15 cm depth: 3–5 vs 5–6.3 kg NH4-N/ha), were found in soils that were cover cropped with grass (barley) compared to legumes (clover), after one year of cover cropping, but not before. Methods: There were three plots (four vine rows/plot, 20 vines/row) for each of two cover crops (Hordeum vulgare barley or Trifolium resupinatum Persian clover between the vine rows, sown in February 2009 and 2011), and there were three control plots (conventional tillage between the vine rows: disk plough, 0–15 cm depth, every 4–6 weeks in February–August). No plots were fertilized. Herbicides were used under the vine rows. Vine prunings were retained between the rows. Soil samples (0–45 cm depth, three samples/plot) were collected five times/season (April–September).

     

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

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