149 Full

Influence of Floor Management Technique
on Grapevine Growth, Disease Pressure, and Juice

and Wine Composition: A Review
Bibiana Guerra1 and Kerri Steenwerth2*
Abstract: Vineyard floor management has multiple goals that encompass improving weed management and soil
conservation, reducing soil resource availability to control vine vigor, and influencing desirable aspects in wine
quality. This review addresses the effects of cultivation, weed control, cover crops, and mulch on vine growth and
balance, disease pressure, yield, and juice and wine quality in many growing regions (Australia, New Zealand, South
Africa, Europe, and the western United States); offers recommendations for practical use; and highlights research
needs. In the last decade, more literature has been published on mulching and cover cropping than on cultivation and
herbicide use, suggesting stronger interest in cover cropping and mulching practices for vineyards. Cover crops have
the potential to improve soil and vine health, can be adapted to many climates and soils, and may influence vine vigor
by adjusting parameters such as the length of their growth period, coverage of the vineyard floor, and aggressiveness.
Cover crops increased juice soluble solids, anthocyanins, and other phenolic components and decreased titratable
acidity and pH. They were associated with red wines judged superior to those issued from non-cover-cropped vines.
Use of organic mulches resulted in improved vine balance, soil water content, and friability, increased yields, and
reduced pathogen and pest pressure. Plastic and fabric mulches remain impractical due to high installation cost.
Application of newer techniques such as flame weeding or soil steaming is limited due to difficulty in targeting the
appropriate stage of weed growth and limited susceptibility of some weed species to these techniques. Research
needs include development of multiyear, multidisciplinary studies that use a mechanistic approach to link manage-
ment practices to soil processes, grapevine responses, grape and wine composition, and sensory characteristics.
Key words: cover crop, mulch, weed control, winegrape, cultivation, vineyard
Principal goals of vineyard floor management include weed 2010). Environmental regulations and public perceptions re-
management, soil conservation and improvement, soil nutri- garding the use of various management practices also deter-
ent and water management, enhanced biodiversity for pest mine the best practices for a given site (Baker et al. 2005,
management, refugia for beneficial insects, and diminished Thomson and Hoffmann 2007, Smith et al. 2008, Steinmaus
resource availability (i.e., nutrients, water) to control vine et al. 2008). This review addresses the multiple effects of
vigor (Celette et al. 2005, 2009, Jacometti et al. 2007a, 2007b, vineyard floor management tools, or tillage, herbicide, cover
Baumgartner et al. 2005, 2008, Steenwerth and Belina 2008a, crops, and mulches on winegrape production (e.g., yield pa-
Brugisser et al. 2010, Ripoche et al. 2010). These aspects are rameters and complex quality metrics).
important to vine growth, and therefore vineyard floor man- Few reviews specifically address the broad spectrum of
agement has implications for wine quality (Nauleau 1997, vineyard floor management and the associated consequences
Afonso et al. 2003, Wheeler et al. 2005, Nazrala 2008). The of such management on grapevines in different growing re-
best practice for each vineyard site is determined in part by gions (Lanini 1988, Lipecki and Berbeć 1997, Ingels et al.
vine age, vineyard design, soil type, and climatic conditions 1998, Hartwig and Ammon 2002, Olmstead 2006, Colug-
of the vineyard site (Ripoche et al. 2010, Sweet and Schreiner nati et al. 2004). Most often, review articles have focused
on one specific floor management technique, such as cover
1Senior Technical Writer, Department of Viticulture and Enology, University of cropping (Ingels et al. 1998, Hartwig and Ammon 2002), or
California, Davis, CA 95616; and 2Research Soil Scientist, USDA/ARS Crops a specific region, such as Pacific Northwest vineyards (Ol-
Pathology and Genetics Research Unit, Davis, CA 95616. mstead 2006). Other reviews have addressed mulch trials or
*Corresponding author (email: [email protected]) techniques for soil management for orchards (Lanini 1988,
Acknowledgments: This literature review was funded by a grant from the Lipecki and Berbeć 1997) and, more recently, weed manage-
American Vineyard Foundation, the California Competitive Grant Program
ment for organic vineyards (Lanini et al. 2011). The most
for Research in Viticulture and Enology, and the Viticulture Consortium West.
recent review compared floor management techniques and
The authors thank Glenn McGourty, UCCE Farm Advisor, for his comments
and suggestions in preparing the manuscript. impacts of cover-crop species on yield parameters and juice
Manuscript submitted Jan 2010, revised Dec 2010, Aug 2011, accepted Oct 2011 composition in various Italian regions (Colugnati et al. 2004).
Copyright © 2012 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. All This current review covers research published in the last
rights reserved. decade on effects of the dominant floor management practices
doi: 10.5344/ajev.2011.10001 on grape and fruit quality. We have organized the review into
149
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)
150 – Guerra and Steenwerth
four sections representing the four main approaches: culti- content. Cultivation affects decomposition and mineralization
vation, herbicides, cover crops, and mulches. More litera- of existing soil organic N pools and plant residues, providing
ture on the latter two techniques was identified, suggesting a pool of inorganic N for vine uptake (Calderón et al. 2001).
stronger interest in cover cropping and mulching practices for Quality and quantity of incorporated plant residues also will
vineyards. The benefits and drawbacks of each management inf luence the timing of N release relative to vine demand
practice as well as responses important for production goals (Campiglia et al. 2011).
will be discussed, including vine growth and balance, disease
pressure, yield, and juice and wine quality. Herbicides
Some advantages of herbicides are their effectiveness when
Cultivation correctly chosen, their low cost, and the ease of use. The
Cultivation, or tillage, is the most traditional practice for main disadvantages include the risk of developing herbicide-
controlling weeds. The technique was historically applied us- resistant weeds, the risk of toxicity—both to the vines and
ing animals until the introduction of tractors in the 1920s. operator—and the potential for herbicide residues leaching
Tillage eliminates surface crusts, leading to less run-off than to waterways (Merwin et al. 1994, Tourte et al. 2008). Other
when herbicides are the sole means of weed control (Merwin indirect effects are soil compaction incurred during appli-
et al. 1994). There has been a recent resurgence of cultivation cation and decreased soil fertility from loss of soil organ-
for weed control, particularly on the vine row, as a means ic matter (Smith et al. 2008, Steenwerth and Belina 2010).
to reduce chemical inputs (Gaviglio 2007). The main disad- Herbicide treatment of the vineyard floor is often restricted
vantages of cultivation include soil compaction and loss of to the vine row (10 to 15% of the total vineyard floor), and
structure, cumulative loss of fertility and soil organic matter, can involve preemergence and/or postemergence herbicides
risk of damage to the vine roots, trunks, and arms, and con- (“knock-downs”) (Lang 1990, Dastgheib and Frampton 2000).
tribution to the directional spread of soil pests and pathogen, Herbicides are mostly used at very low dosage, with sprayers
such as phylloxera, nematodes, and wood-rotting fungi like equipped with panels that prevent chemical drift. Sprayers
Phaemoniella, Acremonium, and Botriosfaeria (Merwin et with infrared sensors detect weeds and give targeted applica-
al. 1994, Salazar and Melgarejo 2005, Steenwerth and Belina tions to minimize drift and the amount of herbicide applied
2008a). (Salazar and Melgarejo 2005, Gaviglio 2007). Both the ef-
Cultivation is best kept shallow to avoid damage to vine ficacy and economics of weed control practices in vineyards
roots (Lanini et al. 2011). In addition, cultivation brings new were evaluated in a five-year study on the Central Coast of
seeds to the surface and tends to enhance soil nitrogen (N) California. Postemergence herbicides (glyphosate 2% a.i.,
mineralization, both of which are conducive to weed emer- plus oxyfluorfen 1% a.i.) required fewer chemical applica-
gence flushes (Bàrberi 2002). Various authors have reviewed tions than preemergence herbicides (simazine, 2 kg a.i./ha) or
the equipment available to cultivate either the vine row or the cultivation (Tourte et al. 2008). The postemergence herbicide
interrow of the vineyard (Heinzle 2003, Gaviglio 2007, Lanini treatments were less costly, yet produced similar yields and
et al. 2011) and the effects of cultivation on weed ecology in fruit quality as the other treatments. When various common
annual cropping systems (Chauhan et al. 2006). floor management treatments under the vine were compared
In studies that compared cultivation with alternative meth- over a two-year period in Lodi, California, a preemergence
ods, noncultivation techniques tended to be favored (also see herbicide (diuron, oxyfluorfen) coupled with a postemergence
the following sections on herbicides and cover crops). An systemic herbicide (glyphosate) was the most effective and
exception was observed in one Bordeaux (France) study on least expensive treatment to manage weed pressure (Elmore et
dry-farmed Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Sauvignon al. 1997). When a fall cultivation pass (Clemens) was paired
blanc. The cover crop (Festuca arundinacea) reduced vigor with a single postemergence herbicide treatment in Napa, Cal-
and yields, vine leaf N (average 0.42% N dry weight in cover ifornia, in spring (glyphosate, 5.6 kg a.i./ha), a level of weed
crop vs. 0.59% N in the cultivation) and juice N (280 mg/L control similar to two herbicide applications was achieved and
in cover crop vs. 565 mg/L in the cultivation) (Rodriguez- herbicide usage was cut in half (Baumgartner et al. 2007).
Lovelle et al. 2000). Higher N in leaves and juice and higher However, no cost analysis was included, underscoring gaps
yields and pruning weights in response to cultivation than to in the economic evaluation of best management practices for
other floor management practices were observed in various vineyard weed management.
studies (Rodriguez-Lovelle et al. 2000, Afonso et al. 2003). A buildup of weeds resistant to herbicides can be a con-
In contrast, yields were lower under cultivation than under sequence of herbicide use. For example, some weeds found
herbicide (both in vine row) at three of four sites in the south in vineyards have recently shown resistance to glyphosate in
of France (Gaviglio 2007). This effect was attributed to re- California, such as horseweed (Conyza canadiensis) (Shrestha
duced nutrient uptake due to damage to surface roots of the et al. 2010) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) (Jasi-
grapevine by the cultivation equipment. enuk et al. 2008). Resistance of Senecio vulgaris and ryegrass
Understanding the physiological mechanisms for grapevine (Lolium rigidum), both found in vineyards, also has been re-
responses would facilitate improved timing of management ported (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique 2008).
practices such as cultivation with vine demand for N or wa- Today, 348 resistant biotypes and 194 weed species are resis-
ter, two factors that can influence juice composition and N tant to herbicides, forcing growers and other land managers
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Influence of Floor Management Technique – 151
to use alternative methods to eliminate these weeds (http:// an herbicide regime than from a cultivation treatment that
www.weedscience.org/In.asp). Few studies were found that supported relatively greater weed cover (Smith et al. 2008,
addressed management of herbicide resistant weeds in vine- Steenwerth and Belina 2010), suggesting there were changes
yards and their potential impacts on vine growth (but see in soil characteristics related to soil N availability. Nonethe-
Alcorta et al. 2011a, 2011b). less, the winegrapes had similar leaf and petiole nutrition over
Another result of sustained herbicide use is a shift in weed this five-year trial, but N content of the winegrapes was not
communities (Elmore et al. 1997, Afonso et al. 2003, Gago et assessed (Smith et al. 2008).
al. 2007, Baumgartner et al. 2007, Sanguankeo et al. 2009). In addition to weed control, herbicides can provide an ef-
When annual weeds are controlled through herbicides, peren- fective tool to control periods of competition between the
nial weeds can become more common and difficult to control cover crop and vine. In a coastal vineyard in South Africa, a
(Elmore et al. 1997). Species that tended to be favored by an postemergence herbicide was applied to precisely eliminate
herbicide treatment varied widely across trials, in some cases competition from a cover crop either before or after budbreak
due to the specific mode of action of the herbicide applied (Fourie et al. 2006). Using an herbicide to kill cover crops be-
(e.g., Elmore et al. 1997, Sanguankeo and Leon 2011). Also, fore vine budbreak increased shoot biomass and crop yields.
timing of herbicide application can shift the weed commu- This practice was particularly beneficial in new vineyards,
nity, especially if applied when weeds are less susceptible to where it helped accelerate the young vine development. In
chemical control (Baumgartner et al. 2007). contrast, in a study conducted in Corce, France, yields were
Organic herbicides are being developed in response to pub- reduced when native vegetation was killed before (March)
lic interest in reducing pesticide inputs in the vineyard and in or after (June) vine budbreak (Bourde et al. 1999). Here, the
managing weed vegetation by alternative methods (Elmore et decomposing cover-crop biomass that was desiccated prior to
al. 1997, Tourte et al. 2008). A number of herbicides accepted budbreak could cause microbial N immobilization and limit
for organic production, including clove oil, acetic and citric soil inorganic N required by vines during budbreak, whereas
acid products, and corn gluten meal, have been tested (Lanini cover crops not desiccated until after budbreak could seques-
et al. 2011). Recommendations to improve weed control inter N via uptake and compete with vines for water (Steenw-
clude high application rates, adding an organically accepted erth and Belina 2008b, Celette et al. 2009). The cover crop
surfactant, treating weeds at warm temperatures, and treat- desiccated after budbreak produced wines higher in alcohol,
ing when weeds are at young stages. However, most organic anthocyanins, and total polyphenols, lower in acidity, and
herbicides are expensive and ineffective on grasses and weeds overall were judged superior by an expert taste panel com-
with waxy or hairy leaves. pared to wines produced with a cover crop desiccated before
Herbicides have also been combined with mulches to con- budbreak. This suggests that only when the presence of the
trol seed germination and seedlings in vineyards. A mulch cover crop was extended during most of the vine growing
consisting of fresh residues of wheat (Triticum aestivum), oats season did the cover crop exert sufficient competition for nu-
(Avena sativa), and barley (Hordeum vulgare) grown in the trients and/or water to modify the wine chemistry.
interrows, which was chopped and transported to the vine In summary, herbicides were more effective than cultiva-
rows (Trimax frail mower with Mulchmasta conveyor), was tion in controlling vineyard weeds and generally were more
effective in controlling weeds in Lodi, California (Elmore et cost-effective, justifying their role in vineyard floor manage-
al. 1997). This technique was particularly effective the sec- ment. Additionally, herbicides can enhance other floor man-
ond year, when the cover-crop biomass was higher and when agement techniques. Examples include bolstering the weed
glyphosate was used to clean the vine row just before placing control by cultivation, mulching, and providing a precise on/
the mulch, thus ensuring uniformity of mulch application. off switch to deactivate the weed or cover-crop competition
Desiccation of a cover crop in the vine row by an herbicide with the vines. However, development of models for under-
provides another mulching option. A rye (Secale cereale L.) standing long-term effects of management practices on weed
cover crop grown in the vine row was chemically desiccated composition and control, soil health, and vine growth are
using glyphosate. The desiccated cover-crop mulch provided needed. Such models exist for many annual cropping systems
better weed suppression than when the same cover crop was (e.g., see review by Holst et al. 2007), but must still be devel-
either mowed or incorporated into the soil in Indiana (Bor- oped for vineyard systems.
delon and Weller 1997).
Grapevines have significant N stores (Schreiner et al. Cover Crops
2006), and thus effects of vineyard floor management practic- A cover crop can be purposely seeded or consist of resident
es on grape nutrition may occur over the long term, especially species that cover the vineyard floor. In the last decade, use
when N fertilizer is part of the management scheme (Smith et of cover crops has become a common vineyard floor man-
al. 2008). Weed management practices can directly influence agement practice due to their many benefits: soil protection
soil N availability and short-term N transformations (Steen- from erosion and crusting, vine growth regulation, improved
werth and Belina 2010). After five successive years of weed soil fertility, structure, and water-holding capacity, increased
control treatments in a Chardonnay vineyard in the Central soil biological diversity, weed suppression, habitat for ben-
Coast of California, annual nitrate leaching and short-term eficial predators, and early firm footing for cultural opera-
nitrous oxide emissions after fertigation were greater from tions (Hartwig and Ammon 2002, Morlat and Jacquet 2003,
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

McGourty 2004, Colugnati et al. 2004, Monteiro et al. 2008, commonly used as cover crops for vineyards in California
Smith et al. 2008, Fourie 2010). Potential disadvantages in- (Ingels et al. 1998). Various studies have compared species
clude competition with vines for water and nutrients, cost of for use as cover crops in nontilled organic vineyards in the
establishment, need for regular maintenance, increased risk north coast of California (Bugg et al. 1996, McGourty et
of spring frost, and vine damage from increased rodent popu- al. 2006, 2008). Common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), annual
lations (Tan and Crabtree 1990, Carsoulle 1995, McGourty ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lamarck), oats (Avena fatua
2004, Colugnati et al. 2004, Ingels et al. 2005, Celette et al. L.), and berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum) showed
2008, 2009). Overall, cover crops are clearly considered a the greatest percentage of soil coverage, whereas the follow-
quality element in a vineyard, with benefits to the vine out- ing were rated highly for regeneration: soft chess (Bromus
weighing the disadvantages (Salazar and Melgarejo 2005). It hordeacens L.), California brome (Bromus carinatus Hooker
has been suggested that as vines and cover crops coexist in & Arnott), annual ryegrass (L. multiflorum), blue wildrye
vineyards, management of irrigation, fertilization, and other (Elymus glaucus Buckely), oats (A. fatua), rye (S. cereale),
practices must meet the needs of both (Colugnati et al. 2004). crimson clover (T. incarnatum), subterranean clover (T. sub-
General aspects of cover crops. Cover crops can be terraneum), and strawberry clover (T. fragiferum L.) (Bugg
annual, biennial, or perennial herbaceous plants grown in a et al. 1996). Top performers among the clovers included
pure or mixed stand during all or part of the year (Sullivan crimson clover (T. incarnatum L.) (well-adapted to cool, wet
2003). The most commonly used cover crops belong to the conditions), subterraneum clover (T. subterraneum L. Antas)
Poaceae (cereals or grasses) and the Fabaceae (legumes) fam- (well-adapted, large seed producer, fast soil coverage), and
ilies. A third, less common, type of cover crops consists of Balensa clover (T. micheliaunun) (prolific flowering) (Mc-
broadleaved herbaceous plants, also known as forbs, which Gourty et al. 2006, 2008). Cover-crop recommendations from
include a wide variety of plant families, such as Brassicaceae various authors are summarized in Table 1.
and Asteraceae (McGourty and Reganold 2005). Available Cover crops can be classified by their dominant functions
cover-crop selections are diverse: over 50 plant species are and characteristics. Grasses have fibrous roots that effectively
Table 1 Cover-crop species recommended for vineyards from various sources.

Location / Crop name (reference) Comment
California, North Coast (McGourty 2004)
Legumes
Trifolium subterraneum (sub. cover) Fits most situations; use Nugaria, Seaton Park, York when rain limited; use Antas, Koala,
Mt. Barber with more rain
Trifolium resupinatum (Persian clover) Tolerates water-logging once germinated; use Nitro for self-reseeding; use Lightning to
reseed annually
Trifolium michelianun (Balansa clover) For cool, moist winters, tolerates water-logging; use Frontier for dry, shallow soils; use Bolta
for cooler, wetter sites
Trifolium incarnatum (crimson clover) Lots of biomass that can be difficult to incorporate
Trifolium hirtum (rose clover)
Medicago polymorpha (bur medic) For areas with lots of rain; Santiago is bur-less
Pisum sativum (Magnus winterpea) For cool, moist climate
Grasses
Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue) For perennial covers in vigorous vineyards
Dactylis glomerata (orchardgrass) For perennial covers in vigorous vineyards
Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass) For perennial covers in vigorous vineyards
Festuca rubra (red fescue) For perennial covers in moderate vigor vineyards
Festuca ovina (sheep or hard fescue) For perennial covers in moderate vigor vineyards
Festuca longifolia (hard fescue) For perennial covers in moderate vigor vineyards
Vulpia myuros v. hirsuta (Zorro fescue) For perennial covers in moderate vigor vineyards
Bromus hordeaceous (Blando brome) For areas with limited rain
Italy (Colugnati et al. 2004)

Legumes
Trifolium pratenses (field clover) For cool, humid conditions
Trifolium repens (white clover) Tolerates high temperatures
Trifolium fragiferum (strawberry clover) Good resistance to both cold and dryness
Grasses
Festuca rubra Good resistance to both cold and dryness
Festuca ovina Good resistance to both cold and dryness
Festuca arundinacea More aggressive, keep just for interrows
Lolium perenne For cool climates
Poa pratensis (meadow grass or bluegrass) For moist conditions
Dactylis glomerata Good resistance to both cold and dryness; rather aggressive, tends to dominate mixes
Dactylis hispanica (Spanish grass) Good resistance to both cold and dryness; rather aggressive, tends to dominate mixes
Bromus inermis Resistant to cold, but does not like wet soils
Bromus Resistant to cold, but does not like wet soils
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

penetrate and aggregate the soil (Colugnati et al. 2004). Their time, hold soil in place, and reduce soil compaction (Colug-
high C:N ratio is associated with slower decomposition rates nati et al. 2004, McGourty and Reganold 2005, Olmstead
than those of legumes (McGourty and Reganold 2005, Olm- 2006). On the other hand, legumes have lower C:N ratios,
stead 2006). Grasses are able to provide a large amount of allowing them to decompose rapidly after incorporation and
biomass that can help increase vineyard organic matter over better meet microbial N needs (Faria et al. 2004, McGourty
Table 1 (continued) Cover-crop species recommended for vineyards from various sources.
Location / Crop name (reference) Comment
Washington State (Olmstead 2006)
Legumes
Trifolium incarnatum (crimson clover) Good reseeder
Trifolium subterraneum (subter. clover)
Trifolium hirtum (rose clover)
Trifolium repens (white clover) For nontilled vineyards (perennial); performs better on heavy soils
Pisum sativum (field pea) Often mixed with grasses
Medicago polymorpha (bur medic)
Medicago truncatula (barrel medic)
Medicago kupulina (black medic)
Vicia sativa (common vetch) Shorter and less likely to interfere with vines; can be used in mixes with grasses to provide
a support for the vetches to climb
Vicia villosa (hairy vetch) More cold tolerant than common vetch
Brassica juncea (oriental mustard) Not a legume, but a forb; good for dry environments; can act as fumigants and weed
suppressants
Sinapsis spp. (white mustard) Not a legume, but a forb; good for dry environments; can act as fumigants and weed
suppressants
Grasses
Lolium multiflorum (annual ryegrass) Typically tilled in late spring
Hordeum vulgare (barley) Often interplanted with vetches; barley and wheat more drought tolerant than oats or
triticosecale
Triticum aestivum (wheat)
Avena sativa (oats)
Triticale (triticosecale hexaploide)
Secale cereale (rye) Good to raise organic matter; very cold tolerant; extensive root system than can compete;
with vines for water and nitrogen
Festuca arundinacea (tall fescue)
Festuca ovina (sheep fescue)
Festuca rubra (red fescue)
Hordeum brachiantherum (meadow barley) Best for wet areas; can tolerate serpentine (Mg rich) soils
Orzyopsis hymenoides (Indian ryegrass) Good for erosion control
Lolium perenne (perennial ryegrass) Good for erosion control
Aropyron spp. (wheatgrass)
Germany (Breil 1999)
Legumes
Trifolium medic (white clover)
Grasses
Lolium perenne (ryegrass) For deep, rich soils
Poa pratensis (bluegrass) For deep, rich soils
Poa trivialis (rough fescue) For deep, rich soils
Agrostis capillaries (brown brent or brown For shallow soils with low rain
watergrass)
Festuca ovina (sheep fescue) For hill vineyards and shallow soils
Festuca rubra (red fescue) For hill vineyards and shallow soils
Festuca pratensis (meadow fescue) For hill vineyards and shallow soils
South Africa (Fourie et al. 2006)
Legumes
Medicago truncata v. Paraggio (medic) For young vineyards
Grasses
Secale spp. (rye) For mature vineyards, alternate 4 years of legumes
Avena spp. (oats)
Switzerland (Spring and Mayor 1996)
Legumes
Trifolium spp. (clovers) Avoid Trifolium repens unless plenty of water
Vicia spp. (vetches)
Grasses
Festuca rubra (red fescue)
Poa spp. (bluegrass) Avoid Lolium multiflorum because too aggressive and glyphosate-resistant
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

and Reganold 2005, Fourie et al. 2006). Optimum C:N ratios the permanent grass cover crop, a perennial grass, competed
for rapid cover-crop decomposition range from 15:1 to 25:1 for N more strongly than the nonpermanent cover crop or
(e.g., C:N ratios for various cover crops/mulches: red clover barley and elicited N reductions in grapevine storage organs.
15:1, hairy vetch 10:1 to 15:1, mature rye 20:1, and corn stalks This suggests that cover crops influence both the current and
60:1; Sullivan 2003). The amount of atmospheric N fixed by subsequent season’s grapevine nutrition. The strength of the
legumes varies greatly depending on type, inoculation effec- reduction in grapevine growth varied among years, but was
tiveness, and soil moisture and temperature (Madge 2005). greater in years when water availability was more limiting.
Estimations of N fixation by vetches (Vicia sp.) ranged from Growers have major concerns regarding water consump-
50 to over 220 kg/ha, and for strawberry clover (Trifolium tion by cover crops. In Rheingau, Germany, cover-crop and
fragiferum L.) from 100 to over 330 kg/ha (Ingels et al. 1998). weed species had higher leaf transpiration rates than did
Cover crops can be classified not only by their botani- 25-year-old Riesling vines (Lopes et al. 2004). Based on es-
cal or functional characteristics, but also according to their timated leaf area per unit of soil surface, a pure stand of red
management as tilled or permanent (nontilled). Most perma- fescue (Festuca rubra) contributed less than 1 mm H 2O d-1 to
nent cover crops are best suited for soils with high water- the vineyard evapotranspiration, whereas a stand of common
holding capacity and fertility or sites with abundant (>500 mallow (Malva neglecta) could contribute greater than 5 mm
mm/yr) water availability due to potential competition with H 2O d-1. In comparison, vine transpiration rates were 0.9 mm
vines, especially under dry-farming practices (Colugnati et H2O d-1. Water consumption for all herbaceous species peaked
al. 2004). A permanent cover crop can be introduced in a between 12 and 15 hr, in contrast to grapevines whose water
vineyard by continually mowing weeds naturally growing consumption peaked earlier in the day (8 to 10 hr).
in abundance, a practice that tends to reduce the majority of In an attempt to achieve several benefits simultaneously,
broadleaf weeds, allowing the grasses to dominate (Lipecki vineyard cover crops are often a mix of grasses, legumes, and
and Berbeć 1997). Alternatively, the permanent cover crop forbs. Cover-crop mixes have been studied for their adapt-
can be a seeded perennial or a naturally reseeding annual. ability to soil types and topographies (Breil 1999) (Table 1).
Annual cover crops, often used in tilled systems, present a For example, for deep soils with presumably adequate avail-
challenge due to imperfect reseeding, but they can persist able soil moisture, the recommended mix included more ag-
for years once a sufficient cover and seedbank are achieved gressive grass species, whereas for shallow soils receiving
(McGourty 2008). During establishment, mowing legumes limited rainfall and for hillside vineyards, the recommended
at the flowering stage, and grasses earlier than that, tends to mix contained a variety of fescues (Festuca spp.). Soil N min-
enhance rapid soil coverage (Colugnati et al. 2004). Perma- eralization and nitrification rates associated with decomposi-
nent cover crops consisting of grasses tend to benefit from N tion of single species grown alone are not necessarily additive
fertilization, particularly with tall species that compete with when grown in a mixture (e.g., annual grasses and perennial
the vines (Carsoulle 1995, Spring and Mayor 1996, Agulhon grasses) (Eviner and Hawkes 2008), revealing a need for more
1998, Colugnati et al. 2004). Compost may normally provide research on implications of such phenomena on vine growth
sufficient N, phosphorus, and potassium (K) to meet cover- and N storage.
crop needs (McGourty 2004). Because of the greater duration Impact on pests and natural enemies. The management
of imposed effects on the vines, permanent cover crops have of ground covers, such as seeded cover crops or natural vege-
the greatest potential for impacting vine growth and grape tation, is an important component of integrated pest manage-
quality (see subsequent sections). ment in California (Costello and Daane 1998). By increasing
The decomposition rate of a cover crop can be used to time species diversity, cover crops may stabilize the ecosystem
its mowing and/or incorporation to ensure that N release co- and enhance the natural control of pests by bringing pest-
incides with the appropriate vine growth stage (Olmstead predator relationships into balance (Sullivan 2003). Some
2006), but few studies on cover crops have documented their vineyard pests, like cutworms, prefer to feed on broadleaf
decomposition rates and linked them to vine uptake. However, covers more than on grasses, and the presence of a broadleaf
in one case, stable isotopes (e.g., 15N) were used to identify in- cover can reduce the number of bud strikes during the early
teractions between the vines and a dormant season cover crop spring season (Olmstead 2006). In such cases, it is recom-
grown in the interrow (Patrick et al. 2004). The labeled cover mended to delay tillage of the cover crop until the cutworm
crop was tilled to a depth of 0 to 15 cm, and the 15N label was threat damage has passed. In fact, conservation tillage and
found in grapevine leaf tissue within six weeks. Developing strip tillage are considered better options than conventional
N budgets in the vineyard is challenging due to difficulties tillage because they leave more cover-crop residue on the soil
in achieving total 15N recovery (Patrick et al. 2004). A recent surface to harbor beneficial insects (Sullivan 2003).
integrative study of vineyard N and water dynamics conducted In California, the primary insect pests in the vineyard
over three years in an unfertilized, dry-farmed vineyard in ecosystem are leafhoppers (Erythroneura spp.), moths (Des-
Montpellier, France, underscores the importance of studying mia funeralis, Harrisina brillians, Platynota stultana), spider
both the spatial and temporal aspects of N uptake and water mites (Tetranichus pacificus, Eotetranichus willametti), and
use by both the cover crop and grapevines (Celette et al. 2009). mealybugs (Pseudococcus spp.) (Costello and Daane 1998).
The temporal changes in N content in both the tissue of grape- Each of these pests has natural enemies that can be either spe-
vines and cover crops in relation to soil N pools indicated that cialist or generalist predators. These latter include whirligig
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

mite (Anystis agilis), convergent ladybeetle (Hyppodamia con- fescue (Festuca arundinacea), a grass commonly used as a
vergens), damselbug (Nabis americoferus), green lacewings cover crop, has shown allelopathic effects when in associa-
(Chrysoperla spp., Crysopa spp.), and various spider species tion with some woody plants (Smith et al. 2001). In contrast,
(Costello and Daane 1998). Even though cover crops increased the weed-suppressive ability of legumes is usually low (Bàr-
spider species diversity in a vineyard in Fresno, California, beri 2002). One study suggested that the weed-suppressive
when compared to a bare soil control, spider abundance was effect of decomposing cover crops could be attributed more
not changed sufficiently to increase generalist predator popu- to the physical effect of the mulch generated than to an al-
lations (Costello and Daane 1998). Unlike the outcome with lelochemical effect (Teasdale and Mohler 2000). However,
spiders, native cover crops (e.g., wallaby, Austrodanthonia because allelopathic effects are difficult to disentangle from
richardsonii; windmill, Chloris truncate; saltbrush, Atriplex resource competition, and allelochemical production is
semibaccata and A. suberecta) supported a greater number highly dependent on environmental conditions, allelopathy
of natural enemies (e.g., Trichogramma and Danthonia) than is more likely to become a complementary tactic within a
did oats (Avena sativa) in South Australia (Thomson et al. wider weed management strategy, rather than the dominant
2009). These were grown as a means to provide natural en- weed management tool per se (Bàrberi 2002). Biofumigants
emies against common pests, such as lightbrown apple moth are often grown in the vineyard interrow for nematode con-
(LBAM) (Lobesia spp.), scale (Coccidiae), and mealybugs trol, but the heterogeneity of the vineyard floor has implica-
(Pseudococcus spp.). In particular, more LBAM egg masses tions for nematode distribution and control. When nematode
were parasitized in the native cover crops than in the oats. composition was compared in the vine row where weed con-
Addition of wild flowers and various dicotyledons to a cover- trol treatments were applied (i.e., cultivation or herbicide for
crop mix can also increase populations of beneficial insects five successive years, see Smith et al. 2008), the nematode
(Spring and Mayor 1996, McGourty 2008). However, a per- community in the vine row was dominated by plant parasitic
manent cover of subterranean clover (T. subterraneum) in cen- taxa, primarily of the genus Criconemoides (Parker 2010).
tral Italy initially lowered beneficial invertebrate populations, The interrow was generally dominated by bacterivores and
but increased them after the second year through the input of fungivores. The bacterivores with greater abundance in the
vegetable residue, which caused an increase in organic matter interrow than vine row included the genera Mesorhabditis,
(Favretto et al. 1992). Acrobeles, and Acrobeloides and the fungivores included
Vegetation can also influence soil-borne pathogens and Aphelenchus and Aphelencoides. These compositional shifts
pests. The permanent natural vegetation present in two Aus- occurred over a very short distance (~30 to 50 cm).
tralian vineyard sites in Wagga Wagga (warm climate) and Impact on vine growth and yield. Cover crops can affect
Tumbarumba (cool climate) increased the populations of soil properties, including spatial and temporal modification of
parasitic beneficial nematodes several fold, and decreased the water in the soil profile (Celette et al. 2008), soil nitrate
the populations of plant parasitic nematodes after three years and ammonium pools, and N mineralization rates (Steenwerth
(Rahman et al. 2009). Cover crops also reduced soil water and Belina 2008b). They can also improve structure and depth
content and decreased Botrytis incidence by opening up the of “soft” (low bulk density) soil (Wheaton et al. 2008) and
vine canopy (decreasing the leaf layer number and percentages increase soil organic matter (Merwin et al. 1994, McGourty
of internal clusters and leaves and increasing the percentage and Reganold 2005) and microorganism populations (Petgen
of gaps) (Morlat and Jacquet 2003, David et al. 2001, Tesic et et al. 1998, Baumgartner et al. 2005, Ingels et al. 2005, Steen-
al. 2007). Choice of cover crops can affect rodent populations. werth and Belina 2008a). Such soil alterations are likely to
A higher population of gophers was more attracted to a clover affect both the underground and aboveground development
mix than a green manure mix in the California Central Valley of the vine. For example, fine roots (<1 mm diam) within soil
(Ingels et al. 2005). depth increments to 0.65 m were more numerous in response
Some research has revealed a weed-suppressive effect to a cover-crop treatment (Festuca arundinacea cv. Manade)
of Brassicaceae cover crops, such as kale (Brassica spp.), than to an herbicide treatment applied closer to the vine row
arugula (Eruca spp.), and mustard (Sinapis spp.), due to the (0.15 m) (Morlat and Jacquet 2003). This distribution was
release of toxic isothiocyanates after destruction of their reversed when farther away from the vines (1.6 m, center of
plant tissues (Angelini et al. 1998). Mustard cover crops are the interrow), where roots were much more numerous in the
sometimes grown and incorporated before vineyard estab- herbicide treatment, indicating a negative effect of cover-crop
lishment (i.e., biofumigation) when a chemical fumigant is roots on vine roots, particularly fine roots. Woody roots (>2
not desired (Matthiessen and Kirkegaard 2006, Olmstead mm) generally were not affected by other treatments. Grape-
2006). The amount of weed suppression depends on the bio- vine roots also tend to occupy lower soil depths when grown
fumigant species and cultivar. For example, white mustard with permanent cover crops under dry-farm conditions (van
(Sinapis alba L.) is more suppressive than Indian mustard Huyssteen 1988), but potential mechanisms of competition
(Brassica juncea L.) (Brown et al. 2004, cited by Melander and interactions have not been clearly elucidated.
et al. 2005). Within the grasses, rye (Secale cereale) has been Early studies conducted in the 1980s in Bordeaux, France,
shown to release allelopathic compounds (Bàrberi 2002) and to evaluate the consequences of permanent cover crops
sorghum (Sorghum spp.) contains sorgoleone, a compound showed reductions in vine vigor, yield, leaf N, and Botrytis
that reduces weed emergence (Duke et al. 2000). Also, tall infection (Carsoulle 1995). In most studies reviewed here,
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

cover crops had a devigorating effect on the vines. In a 17- exist with the vines without causing a devigorating effect is
year trial conducted in the Loire Valley, France, (550 mm an- complex and still poorly defined.
nual rainfall), increasing levels of soil coverage by tall fescue In vineyards that can tolerate or would benefit from devig-
(F. arundinacea) inhibited vine growth (i.e., lower pruning oration and yield reduction, a permanent cover crop can also
weights, fewer lateral shoots, lower yield), increased canopy improve soil physical properties and juice quality (Morlat and
exposure and temperature, and decreased Botrytis infection Jacquet 2003). In a number of studies, cover crops success-
(Morlat and Jacquet 2003). In New South Wales, Australia, fully corrected high-vigor situations. In Hawke’s Bay, New
canopy openness increased (i.e., fewer interior leaves) and Zealand, two years of cover cropping improved the viticul-
shoot length decreased with increasing percentage of soil cov- ture and enological characteristics of a vigorous Cabernet
erage by permanent cover crops (Tesic et al. 2007). Berry Sauvignon (Wheeler et al. 2005). Both permanent chicory
weight, cluster number, and yield were reduced after the third (Chicorium intybus) and chicory killed with an herbicide at
year with a cover crop. These effects were more pronounced veraison were effective in reducing soil moisture and shoot
in a dry, warm site (304 mm annual rainfall) than in a cool, growth. Overall, the cover-crop treatments were more effec-
humid site (492 mm annual rainfall), suggesting that irriga- tive at devigorating vines (i.e., decreased shoot length, lower
tion and fertilization practices were the best ways to compen- pruning weights, lower petiole N) than were cultivation or
sate for establishment of a permanent cover crop in a warm herbicide treatments. A Portuguese study found a similar
climate. In a Swiss study, berry, cluster, and pruning weights devigorating effect (i.e., reduced pruning weights) of a na-
were also reduced by cover crops, particularly tall fescue (F. tive cover crop consisting mostly of legumes and grasses on
arundinacea), which increased canopy aeration and caused a vigorous Alvarinho site after comparing a wide variety of
vine growth to stop earlier than did low fescue (F. rubra), a floor management techniques (Afonso et al. 2003). Unlike
fescue/ryegrass mix (F. rubra 70%, Lolium perenne 30%) or the cover crop, the herbicide and the cultivation treatments
a control treatment of herbicide (David et al. 2001). In gen- tended to increase the already excessive vigor. The cover crop
eral, competition between cover crops and vines increased reduced pruning weights by 21% and yield by 32% (i.e., lower
and then leveled off after four years. However, even with the cluster weights) compared to the cultivation or the herbicide
deep soil and abundant water at the Swiss site, the competi- treatments, which produced similar results. These effects
tion exerted by the tall fescue was excessive, as determined were insufficient to influence fruit composition, suggesting
by the associated pale green color of the canopy. Similarly, a that the vine may have self-adjusted in response to the cover-
cover crop grown with Gamay at the Agricultural Research crop competition by reducing both its growth and production
Station of Changins, Switzerland, caused a reduction in prun- so that the source/sink relationship was maintained.
ing weights in all four years of the study, but total yield was Not all cover-crop studies found vine devigoration as a re-
not affected (Maigre and Aerny 2001a). These trends were sponse. In a 10-year trial in a coastal region in South Africa,
maintained even when the whole vineyard floor was fertilized a medic (Medicago scuttelata) cover crop that was desiccated
(100 kg/ha N). In the California Central Valley, a native grass by herbicide before budbreak was correlated with the greatest
mix (barley, brome, and wild rye), followed by a cereal mix petiole N at bloom and juice N (at harvest) and was the rec-
(barley and oats 50-50), caused the greatest reduction (30%) ommended management practice in young vineyards (Fourie
in pruning weights and the lowest leaf N at bloom when cover et al. 2006). However, the supply of additional N by this and
crops were compared (Ingels et al. 2005). Similar devigorat- other legume cover crops may lead to excessive vigor in the
ing effects (30% yield reduction) occurred when the cover long term, as was the case after the fifth year of the study,
crop was killed with an herbicide at the beginning of summer suggesting that rotating an N-scouring grass species with le-
and left as a dry mulch (Bourde et al. 1999). In all these cases, gumes would diminish high vigor due to excess soil N. To do
permanent cover crops growing in the interrows, when they so, a cover crop would sequester inorganic N in its tissue as
were eliminated during the summer months to avoid severe well as support greater microbial biomass where N could be
competition with the vines, tended to have a weakening ef- immobilized (Jackson 2000, Steenwerth and Belina 2008a,
fect on both vegetative and reproductive growth, despite the 2008b). In a three-year study in Napa, California, comparing
presence of deep soils and/or fertilization. However, a recent no-till annuals (rose clover, soft brome, zorro fescue), no-till
study demonstrated that response times in grapevine vigor perennials (blue wildrye, California brome, meadow barley,
to changes in floor management varied annually (Ripoche et red fescue, yarrow), tilled annual grain (triticale), and a no-
al. 2011a). In the first year after incorporation of a permanent cover-crop tilled control, there were no effects on pruning
cover crop (intercrop destroyed), the yield was still greater weights, plant nutrition, and yield (Baumgartner et al. 2008).
in a bare soil treatment or where cover crop was established When five different cover-crop mixtures (various mixes in-
in previously bare alleys (intercrop introduced). In the sec- cluded perennial and annual grasses, grains, and legumes)
ond year after incorporation, this ranking altered: the yield in western Oregon vineyards were mowed periodically over
was greatest in the bare soil and intercrop destroyed followed two years and compared to a clean cultivated control and a
by the permanent cover-crop and intercrop introduced treat- resident vegetation treatment, there was no consistent effect
ments. The combination of factors (i.e., soil nutrient status, on shoot growth, pruning weights, leaf water potential, fine
water regime, species aggressiveness, area covered, length of root density, and cluster weights, as well juice soluble solids,
presence, age of the vines) that would allow a cover crop to pH, or titratable acidity (Sweet and Schreiner 2010).
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Impact on juice and wine composition. In general, cov- were lowest in the green cover (26.72°C), followed by the
er-crop effects on juice quality can arise through competition yellow cover (29.11°C), and bare soil (30.83°C). As a result,
for water and nutrients, which reduces vigor and enhances the green cover crop increased anthocyanins, but decreased
fruit exposure (David et al. 2001, Maigre and Aerny 2001a), proanthocyanidin levels, when compared to the cultivated,
increases water stress leading to reduced berry size and yield bare soil. In contrast, flavonols and oligomeric flavanols were
(Afonso et al. 2003, Wheeler et al. 2005, Tesic et al. 2007), significantly lower in response to the green cover crop than
and lowers ambient/canopy temperature and Botrytis inci- cultivation. The dead cover crop resulted in intermediate lev-
dence caused by cover-crop transpiration (Morlat and Jacquet els of berry phenolics (Nazrala 2008). Similarly, grape clus-
2003, Nazrala 2008). General effects of the adoption of per- ters exposed to direct sunlight had greater total polyphenols,
manent cover crops in the Bordeaux area on juice composition anthocyanins, and flavonols than those growing in moderate
were increased soluble solids and phenolic compounds and sunlight exposure or shade, as did the respective wines made
decreased titratable acidity, pH, and N (Carsoulle 1995). In from each treatment (Price et al. 1995). Flavanols and flava-
addition to the overall increase in juice quality, cost benefits nol polymers respond more to water stress than to changes
associated with eliminating vineyard operations such as fruit in light or temperature regimes (Ojeda et al. 2002). Recent
thinning and leaf pulling were accrued with cover cropping. work on isolated effects of temperature and sunlight expo-
In later studies, most grapes grown under permanent cover sure, which could result from changes in canopy architecture,
crops showed an increase in soluble solids levels, often linked may provide insight on such changes in grape nutrition and
to the reduced yield in France (Agulhon 1998, David et al. juice composition observed from cover cropping (e.g., Spayd
2001, Morlat and Jacquet 2003) and New Zealand (Wheeler et al. 2002, Tarara et al. 2008). For example, total skin mono-
et al 2005). In other instances, the permanent cover had no meric anthocyanins (TSMA) increased due to sunlight over
effect on soluble solids levels in Switzerland (Maigre and two years, regardless of fruit temperature, while heating of
Aerny 2001b), Portugal (Afonso et al. 2003), and Uruguay shaded clusters decreased TSMA at least in one of two years.
(Nazrala 2008) or it led to a reduction in soluble solids, as The variation in juice composition observed in response to
was the case with a clover cover in France (Nauleau 1997). management practices is not surprising considering the wide
Several studies found titratable acidity and pH were reduced range of climatic, edaphic, and cover-crop conditions.
by cover cropping relative to bare soil due to an increase in Impact on wine sensory evaluation. Very few studies on
the ratio of tartaric to malic acids (Nauleau 1997, Morlat and cover crops include a sensory evaluation of the resulting wines.
Jacquet 2003, Wheeler et al. 2005). However, in one study, Those that do often used a hedonic approach. Only those stud-
titratable acidity increased and pH decreased when vines were ies which reported the use of a nonhedonic, descriptive ap-
grown with a cover crop as compared to a bare soil control proach are covered here. In white wines, the tasting results
(Nazrala 2008). This response was attributed to reduction in from seven years of trials on White Colombard showed that the
reflected radiation (170 vs. 370 μmol m-2 s-1) and lower vine wines issued from three types of cover-cropped plots (Festuca
canopy temperature (26.7 vs. 30.8°C) with cover crops. In ad- arundinacea, F. rubra, or a mix F. rubra/Lolium perenne) had
dition, soil temperature effects on K absorption may influence a better mouth balance and a lower acidity than those from
juice acidity and pH and should be further studied (Nazrala bare soil plots, but the aromatic intensity was always high in
2008). There was agreement in the literature that permanent the latter (David et al. 2001). The loss of aromas in response to
cover crops reduced leaf petiole N at bloom, lowered juice the cover-crop treatment was attributed to the longer fermenta-
N levels at harvest, and extended duration of fermentations tions brought about by the reduced juice N levels.
(Agulhon 1996, Le Goff et al. 2000, David et al. 2001, Maigre In red wines, effects of cover crops on sensory character-
and Aerny 2001b). The latter was often corrected with N ad- istics appeared to be influenced by the mere presence of the
ditions during fermentation. cover crop as well as the timing of its removal. For instance,
Another observed effect of permanent cover crops is the a cover crop reduced the overall wine quality of Gamay in a
general increase in anthocyanins and tannin levels, both in four-year study (Maigre and Aerny 2001b). In a well-organized
juice and wine (Agulhon 1998, Bourde et al. 1999, Morlat tasting conducted all four years of the study, wines issued
and Jacquet 2003, Wheeler et al. 2005, Nazrala 2008). In from the cover-crop treatment were considered to have less
Cabernet Sauvignon, the effect of a cover crop (native mixed typicity, a closer nose, and more aggressive tannins. When
vegetation) depended on the type of phenolic compound, as the tasting was repeated after three years of aging, the control
well cultural method used to manage the cover crop—living wines tended to age more rapidly, but overall, their tannin
(green cover) or dead (yellow cover) (Nazrala 2008). The quality was still considered superior to those from the cover-
green cover had the lowest amount of reflected light and the crop vines. Sensory descriptive analysis was conducted for
bare soil the highest (170 and 370 μmol m-2 s-1, respectively). wines of Nielluccio noir vines issued from vineyard plots with
The red/far-red ratio of the reflected light was also lower in a cover crop (natural vegetation) allowed to compete with the
the green cover than in the cultivated, bare soil (0.71 and vines until after budbreak or before budbreak (Bourde et al.
1.03, respectively). These differences translated into lower 1999). Elimination of the cover crop after budbreak resulted in
photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) at the cluster level in wines with an increased intensity of fruit, spicy, and balsamic
the green cover than bare soil (9 vs. 19 μmol m-2 s-1). How- notes, no vegetative notes, and better mouthfeel characteristics
ever, mean temperatures in the interior grapevine canopy (i.e., acidity, alcohol, tannin quality, tannin quantity, density,
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

body, balance, aromatic persistence). Retention of the cover Varga and Májer 2004), improved soil structure and decreased
crop after budbreak increased the wine color intensity, while soil compaction (Oliveira and Merwin 2001, Agnew et al.
absence of a cover crop resulted in lowest color intensity. 2002, Némethy 2004), increased availability of nutrients and
Similarly, cover cropping when compared to cultivation (bare of organic matter (for organic mulches only) (Jacometti et al.
soil) increased the color intensity of a Cabernet Sauvignon 2007a, Thomson and Hoffmann 2007), soil insulation from
wine (Nazrala 2008). In contrast, cover cropping compared to temperature extremes (except plastic mulches) (Pinamonti
bare soil resulted in wines with less color unless the macera- 1998), increased soil biological activity (Sauvage 1995, Thom-
tion was extended for two additional days (Agulhon 1998). In son and Hoffmann 2007), and increased vine health (Mundy
most studies, color intensity was greater in wines originating and Agnew 2002). Some disadvantages of mulches include
from cover-cropped vineyard plots than in those from vines increased vertebrate problems (Lanini et al. 1988), energy
on bare ground (Nauleau 1997, Bourde et al. 1999, Maigre consumption during manufacturing, initial cost of specialized
and Aerny 2001b, Nazrala 2008). The impact of floor manage- equipment for spreading organic material, and installation of
ment practices on wine quality in studies conducted in several plastic film and disposal (Sauvage 1995). Organic mulches
French regions (i.e., Champagne, Val de Loire, Bourgogne, need to be at least 10 cm thick to block light and be effective
Bordeaux, Beaujolais, and Languedoc-Rousillon), including (Lanini et al. 2011). The thickness of organic mulch typically
both white (Chardonnay, Sauvignon blanc, Muscadelle) and declines by 60% in the first year, depending on the material.
red (Cabernet franc, Gamay, Grenache, Nielluccio noir) (Nau- In general, the coarser the mulch material, the longer it will
leau 1995, 1997, Agulhon 1998, Bourde et al. 1999) variet- last (i.e., relatively slower decomposition), but most mulches
ies, have been summarized by others. These trials compared need to be reapplied every two to three years (Lanini et al.
wines from bare (control) plots against those produced from 2011).
plots with either a permanent cover crop or a cover crop tilled Impact on pests and natural enemies. An increased in-
in the summer to reduce competition (enherbement naturel cidence of fungal diseases due to increased soil water content
maitrisé, or managed natural cover). Common to most trials, might be expected in mulched vineyards (Varga and Májer
wine quality decreased as fermentation length increased due 2004). However, Botrytis bunch rot did not increase when
to lower juice N, which resulted from permanent cover crop- various mulch materials (vineyard prunings, pomace, green
ping that reduced the quality of the vines. However, in the waste, pine bark, animal manure, and mussel shells) were
cases where the fermentation was either supplemented with N tested in several commercial vineyards in Malborough, New
or the red macerations were prolonged for two additional days Zealand (Mundy and Agnew 2002). Surprisingly, at some
to compensate for the cover crop, the results were reversed, sites, Botrytis incidence was lower in mulched than bare
and the wines from the cover crop plots were rated the high- plots. In another New Zealand study that compared mulches
est by descriptive analysis (Agulhon 1998). As for the wines of pomace (marc) fermented either aerobically or anerobi-
from plots with a managed natural cover, the difference in cally, grass clippings, and paper in a Riesling vineyard (Ja-
juice N levels was small, and there was no clear preference cometti et al. 2007a), the two pomace and paper mulches
over wines from bare ground plots. increased yields, berry skin strength, and berry resistance
In summary, permanent cover crops had generally a posi- to Botrytis infection (Jacometti et al. 2007b). The increased
tive effect on wine quality. The few exceptions were associ- skin strength was attributed to the soil calcium and/or the
ated with excess competition from the cover crop followed by higher cation exchange capacity (CEC) in mulched soils,
sluggish fermentations or a loss of typicity. More research is which likely triggered a higher nutrient absorption in the
needed to understand the interaction of microclimate and site mulched vineyards. The effects of mulches for New Zea-
characteristics (e.g., vineyard age and winegrape variety, soil land vineyards have been compiled in a downloadable report
fertility, depth to groundwater) with cover-crop selection and (Agnew et al. 2002).
management so as to avoid excessive competition leading to Addition of straw and compost mulches to a Yarra Valley,
severe devigoration, lower juice N content, and reduced wine Australia, vineyard increased a wide array of beneficial spe-
sensory quality. Review of these studies has revealed the need cies in the soil and the canopy, including predatory and/or
to develop models to understand not only linkages between parasitic Diptera and Hemiptera as well as earthworm popula-
N and water dynamics within the vineyard but also cover- tions (Thomson and Hoffmann 2007). Given the direct impact
crop effects on grapevine physiology and metabolism, canopy of beneficial invertebrate populations on pest abundance and
growth, which affects canopy temperature and radiation, and soil health, such findings support using the abundance of ben-
successive components that influence wine composition (but eficial species as a sustainability indicator for the viticulture
see VERDI model; Ripoche et al. 2011b). industry (Thomson et al. 2007). In two phylloxera-infected
sites near Geisenheim, Germany, reduced phylloxera abun-
Mulches dance and vine symptoms were observed after a three-year
Mulch is any bulk material placed on the soil surface to application of a spruce sawdust mulch and were attributed to
control weeds and/or preserve moisture. The advantages of the increased soil moisture content under the mulch (Huber
mulches include weed control (Frederikson et al. 2011) com- et al. 2003). The sawdust-mulched vines had larger canopies
parable to cultivation (Steinmaus et al. 2008), minimization and produced greater yields than nonmulched vines. Vine-
of water loss and improved soil infiltration (Pinamonti 1998, yards mulched with compost had increased populations of
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

organisms antagonistic to Fusarium (Brzeski et al. 1993), but levels (Pinamonti 1998). In vineyards, unsorted solid waste
perennial weeds, such as bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), mulch (composted) high in heavy metals increased leaf Ni and
were not controlled. Cd and must Cd and Cr. In contrast, the wastewater purifica-
Impact on vine growth and yield. Use of mulches in tion sludge compost did not affect leaf or must characteristics
orchards has been found to increase tree growth and yields and in soil caused only an increase in soil Zn. Wastewater
(see review by Lanini et al. 1988). In New Zealand, mulches sludge in combination with bark, which reduced the need for
increased shoot length and leaf N and K at four sites, and chemical weed control without reducing vigor, yields, or must
although soils were cooler under the mulches, budbreak was quality, was a suitable alternative to fertilizers for the sustain-
not delayed (Agnew et al. 2002). The mulches also encour- able production of grapes. In New Zealand, researchers found
aged the development of surface roots, but problems normally benefits to vine and must characteristics of mulches composed
associated with shallow roots (e.g., potential interference with of vineyard prunings, pomace, bark, animal manure, and/or
cultivation or chemical pick up) were not detected. Effects on mussel shells (Mundy and Agnew 2002). Mulching increased
yield were small and inconsistent, but yield increases were grape juice potassium by 16% at four sites and yeast available
detected in response to mulch that included at least 6% of nitrogen (YAN) by 38% at one site. The response of K lends
manure by volume. Waste mulches stimulated vine growth some credence to winemaker concerns that, by making nutri-
and increased pruning weights and plastic mulch increased ents such as K more available, mulches might increase juice
yields (Pinamonti 1998). In South Africa, soil warming was and wine pH. In contrast, effects on vine growth and nutri-
delayed in a mulched straw treatment and overall had lower tion or juice composition are not always observed when using
soil temperatures than various cover-crop and bare soil treat- natural mulches such as bark (fresh or composted) and hay
ments (Fourie and Freitag 2010). The mulched straw treatment (Sauvage 1995, Chan and Fahey 2011). Further, fermentation
had reduced bud numbers (Chardonnay/99 Richter) in mid- duration and wine sensory characteristics may not be affected
spring, indicating that the onset of budbreak was delayed by (Agulhon 1998, Sauvage 1995, Fourie 2011). These variations
the mulch, presumably by the lower soil temperatures. in response to mulches across trials are expected, considering
Although the benefits of a compost mulch may take a few the wide variation in mulch composition. The high content of
years to manifest, improvements in vine vigor and increased grape skins (rich in K) and green waste/manure (rich in N) in
yields (up to 2.2 more tons/ha) were observed after the third some of the mulches may explain the observed K and YAN
year of application (Porter 1999). The slow release of N from levels. A list of mulch materials evaluated by various authors
compost compared to other fertilizers is a feature generally is presented in Table 2.
considered beneficial for the vines. Application rates at the Inorganic mulches. Mulches consisting of translucent,
commercial vineyards ranged from 2 to 20 tons/ha, and mini- colored plastic film, reflective materials, and breathable geo-
mum thickness was 8 cm (or 15 cm to avoid reapplying the textiles have been tested in a variety of studies. The ben-
following year). efits of inorganic mulches are weed control, increased vine
Impact on juice composition. Mulch composed of fresh vigor and pruning weights, and increased yield (Hostetler
plant residues increased grape juice TA and, in dry years, et al. 2007a, 2007b, Sandler et al. 2009). The disadvantages
increased juice soluble solids (Varga and Májer 2004). City include the high cost of installation, short life span (often
waste mulches also increased tartaric acid and potassium one year), and the creation of nonrecyclable waste (Hostetler
Table 2 Materials used as mulches in vineyards.

Material (reference) Comment
Green waste Higher cluster weight than with native vegetation cover; increased TA; increased Botrytis pressure
(Varga and Májer 2004) (strong fungicide program recommended); should be collected before pasture seeds ripen
Cover-crop mowings Similar in-row weed suppression as herbicide or cultivation
(Steinmaus et al. 2008)
Compost 2 to 20 tonnes/ha; benefit of slow nitrogen release; unable to control perennial weeds
(Porter 1999)
Hay Needs frequent reappliccation
(Sauvage 1995)
Bark (fresh or composted) Increased worm populations
(Sauvage 1995)
Sawdust Increased vigor; reduced Phylloxera populations and symptoms
(Huber et al. 2003)
Pomace, shredded paper Increased berry skin strength and increased Botrytis resistance
(Jacometti 2007)
Wastewater sludge (+ bark) Increased soil Zn; suitable fertilizer alternative for sustainable grape production
(Pinamonti 1998)
Vineyard prunings, animal manure, Increased Botrytis resistance
mussel shells
(Mundy and Agnew 2002)
Gravel Increased radiation in fruit zone; increased soil temperature; increased evapotranspiration
(Nachtergaele et al. 1998)
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

et al. 2007a, 2007b). Benefits of reflective mulches include Finally, gravel mulching is a traditional technique still
altered quality and increased intensity of light reflected to practiced in some countries. A study in Chamoson, Swit-
the fruit—causing an advancement of veraison and increased zerland, found that a gravel mulch consisting of nonporous
soluble solids, total phenols, flavanols, and anthocyanins— limestone fragments (2 to 8 cm diam, spread 15 cm thick)
and reduced aphid and leaf hopper populations (Coventry et enhanced reflected radiation to the vines and increased soil
al. 2005, Igounet et al. 1995). In Rhode Island, an aluminized temperatures at various depths (0, 3, and 10 cm), thus pre-
reflective mulch and a white reflective woven material both venting root exposure to cold temperatures (Nachtergaele et
improved photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) reflected into al. 1998). The gravel mulch caused an unexpected increase
the canopy but had no impact on Merlot yield or fruit compo- in evaporation from soil during the summer months when, at
sition (Sandler et al. 2009). A mulch of crushed white mollusk that location, the annual precipitation was 597 mm.
shells (quahog, Mercenaria spp.) resulted in increased canopy In summary, inorganic mulches seem impractical for large
densities, yields (both higher cluster weight and cluster num- vineyards in most climates. The benefits of organic mulches
ber), and juice soluble solids. The shell mulch also increased seem to outnumber potential negative aspects (e.g., higher
soil Ca levels, which resulted in higher juice pH and Ca:Mg juice K, rodent damage). Still, more research is needed to
ratios. determine the most adequate (nontoxic, easy-to-apply, cost-
The color of a plastic mulch—or of the soil itself, depend- effective) mulching materials and their associated impact on
ing on its various mineral and organic constituents and de- grape composition.
grees of wetness—may be critical to the amount and type
of radiation reflected (Meinhold et al. 2010), and therefore, Other Techniques
to grape quality (Nazrala 2008). The microclimate modifi- Flame weeding, first used by organic growers in Germany
cations detected under different plastic mulches were thor- and Switzerland in the 1970s, has renewed interest as a means
oughly reviewed (Tarara 2000). For example, in tomatoes of weed control in organic production (Cisneros and Zands-
(Lycopersicum esculentum), yields were higher with red or tra 2008). The main advantages of flame weeding are a lack
black mulches than with white and reflective mulches (De- of chemical residues, including persistent herbicides, wide-
coteau 1989, cited by Tarara 2000). Turnips (Brassica rapa spectrum weed control, effectiveness when soil is too moist
L.) produced longer leaves and higher shoot-to-root ratios on for cultivation, absence of weed resistance, and compatibility
blue or green mulch than on white mulch (Antonius 1996, with no-tillage techniques and organic production (Bond and
cited by Tarara 2000). In grapevines, fruit composition can Grundy 2001, Vitelli and Madigan 2004). The main disad-
be affected not only by the total amount of PAR intercepted vantages include resistance of some weeds to flames, short-
by clusters, but also by the ratio of red and far-red radia- term effectiveness to herbicides, consumption of costly fossil
tion (R:FR), which regulates the levels of the phytochrome fuels and production of greenhouse gases, safety concerns,
involved in many aspects of vine metabolism and growth and fire risks (Heinzle 2003, Hansson and Ascard 2002). In
(Smart et al. 1988). Red and black mulches reflect similar flame weeding, plant cells expand, causing cell wall rupture
amounts of PAR, but light reflected by red plastic is higher in and plant death (Vitelli and Madigan 2004). Efficacy of flame
R:FR, whereas reflected light from white and green mulches weeding also is attributed to subsequent plant desiccation
(most frequent color of natural cover crops) has low R:FR (Ascard 1995). There are two main types of thermal weed-
due to strong absorption of red light by the mulches. In the ers: true “flame” weeders, reaching temperatures of 1,900°C,
Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada, a wavelength- and infrared weeders, with essentially no visible flame and
selective polyethylene mulch had no detectable effects on heating to 900°C (Laguë 2001, cited by Melander et al. 2005).
Merlot vine development, yield, or fruit composition (Bowen Flamers with covered burners are generally more energy ef-
et al. 2004). White and green plastic films had little impact ficient and safer than open burners. Shield design is critical
on weeds, whereas brown, black, blue, and white on black to keep the combusting gases close to the ground for as long
(double color) films prevented weeds from emerging (Bond as possible (Bond and Grundy 2001). Most flame weeders
and Grundy 2001). Plastic mulches may be less influential use propane, but renewable fuels such as hydrogen have been
to vines than other row crops because the fruit is suspended evaluated (Ardensen 1997, cited by Bond and Grundy 2001).
high above the mulch, where other sources of reflected light The effectiveness of thermal weed control is determined
may play a more relevant role. by several factors, the most important being weed species,
In most cases, high costs make plastic and geotextile growth stage, amount of heat transferred, and exposure time.
mulches impractical. Despite the higher yields obtained un- Annual weeds are more susceptible to heat than biennials
der mulches, a cost study comparing a geotextile against a and perennials (Mojžiš 2002, cited by Cisneros and Zand-
traditional cover crop with herbicide in the vine rows showed stra 2008). Broadleaf plants are also more susceptible than
higher net gains with the traditional system (Hostetler et al. grasses, which have a sheath that protects the growing point.
2007b). Plastic mulches were useful in extreme climatic situa- When the susceptibility of various species common to North
tions. Some examples include a cool, short season site in On- Queensland, Australia, to f laming and various exposure
tario, Canada, where advancing ripening was essential (Cov- lengths was evaluated, the most susceptible species had the
entry et al. 2005), and a very hot, high evaporative vineyard following characteristics in common: low capacity for root
in Egypt, where conserving water was crucial (Hegazi 2000). suckering, thin bark, high bark moisture content, and low
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

bark density (Vitelli and Madigan 2004). The growth stage and spatial heterogeneity (e.g., different vine spacing and
at which the treatment is executed is crucial because growth row widths, inrow vs. interrow regions, trellising options,
stage determines the location of the plant’s growing points, cover-crop planting widths) within vineyards also must be
the degree of protection of shoot apices, and the level of lig- addressed to enhance our understanding of observed phe-
nification. Overall, no important differences in percentage nomena in grapevines. Additional complexities are added by
of mortality were recorded for heating periods of 60 sec- varietal responses, regional climates, microclimates, and the
onds or longer. In general, young seedlings with an exposed wide variety of suitable soils for production. As winegrapes
shoot apex are more susceptible than older seedlings where are also a perennial crop that can be sustained for decades,
the shoot apex is protected by surrounding leaves. However, elucidating the mechanisms involved in quality wine pro-
when flaming weeds at a 0- to 2-leaf stage or at a 2- to 4-leaf duction must undoubtedly involve a long-term investment by
stage, the most sensitive stage was species-dependent (Cis- multidisciplinary research teams and funding agencies.
neros and Zandstra 2008). When three flaming speeds (2,
4, and 6 km/hr) were tested, there was significant regrowth Literature Cited
even at the lowest speed, particularly in species with un- Afonso, J.M., A.M. Monteiro, C.M. Lopes, and J. Lourenço. 2003.
derground growing points. Two successive flamings seemed Enrelvamento do solo em vinha na região dos Vinhos Verdes. Três
more effective than a single treatment (Bond and Grundy anos de estudo na casta ‘Alvarinho’. Ciência Téc. Vitiv. 18(2):47-63.
2001). Flame weeding does not appear to reduce subsequent Agnew, R., D. Mundy, and M. Spiers. 2002. Mulch for sustainable
production. Malborough District Council Sustainable Management
weed emergence and may even increase the germination of
Fund Project 4123. 52 pp. Christchurch, New Zealand.
some species (Ascard 1995). In orchards, flame weeding re-
Agulhon, R. 1996. Intérêt des nouvelles technique d’entretien des sols
duced weed pressure in a young orchard, where treatments de vigne pour la viticulture, l’œnologie, l’environement et la santé.
were initiated on a clean soil, but it was insufficient to control Prog. Agric. Vitic. 112(12):275-278.
well-established perennial weeds in a mature orchard (Bond Agulhon, R. 1998. Enherbement permanent, ENM et mulch, comparés
and Grundy 2001). Most research on flaming addressed weed à la non culture. Phytoma 511:46-48.
control for vegetable row crops where it has the widest ap- Alcorta, M., M. Fidelibus, K. Steenwerth, and A. Shrestha. 2011a.
plication. Effect of vineyard row orientation on growth and phenology of
Other heat-related weeding techniques include hot-water glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible horseweed (Conyza
applications (Hansson and Ascard 2002), soil steaming (Me- canadensis L. Cronq.).Weed Sci. 59:55-60.
lander et al. 2005), and weed microwaving (Sartorato et al. Alcorta, M., M. Fidelibus, K. Steenwerth, and A. Shrestha. 2011b.
Competitive effects of glyphosate-resistant and glyphosate-susceptible
2006), but high energy consumption by these techniques lim-
horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronq.) on young grapevines (Vitis
its their practical application. Weed control through the use vinifera L.). Weed Sci. 59:481-494.
of freezing temperatures was also evaluated by using either Angelini, L., L. Lazzeri, S. Galleti, A. Cozzani, M. Macchia, and S.
liquid N or dry ice as freezing agents. Liquid N had greater Palmieri. 1998. Antigerminative activity of three glucosinolate-
efficacy than dry ice, but both were less effective than flaming derived products generated by mirosinase hydrolysis. Seed Sci.
(Bond and Grundy 2001). Performing soil cultivation in the Technol. 26:771-780.
dark to prevent exposure of weed seeds to daylight, thereby Ascard, J. 1995. Effects of flame weeding on weed species at different
breaking dormancy, has produced some degree of success in developmental stages. Weed Res. 35:397-411.
row crops (Fogelberg 1999). Finally, high-tech solutions for Baker, J., R.J. Southard, and J.P. Mitchell. 2005. Agricultural dust
production in standard and conservation tillage in the San Joaquin
weed control have been developed, including electroporation
Valley. J. Environ. Qual. 34:1260-1269.
(i.e., application of electric pulses to the soil), carbon dioxide
Bàrberi, P. 2002. Weed management in organic agriculture: Are we
lasers, and weed optical detection, but the high capital invest- addressing the right issues? Weed Res. 42:177-193.
ment in the equipment makes their widespread use unlikely
Baumgartner, K., R.F. Smith, and L. Bettiga. 2005. Weed control and
even in high-value crops such as grapes (Bàrberi 2002). cover crop management affect mycorrhyzal colonization of grape-
vine roots and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spore populations in
Summary a California vineyard. Mycorrhiza 15:111-119.
The studies in this review emphasize the need for con- Baumgartner, K., K.L. Steenwerth, and L. Veilleux. 2007. Effects of
tinued expansion of multiyear, multidisciplinary studies that organic and conventional practices on weed control in a perennial
use a mechanistic approach to link management practices cropping system. Weed Sci. 55:352-358.
to grapevine responses, grape and wine composition, and Baumgartner, K., K.L. Steenwerth, and L. Veilleux. 2008. Cover-crop
systems affect weed communities in a California vineyard. Weed
sensory characteristics. Understandably, no study clearly
Sci. 56:596-605.
integrated the spectrum of vineyard floor management prac-
Bond, W., and A.C. Grundy. 2001. Non-chemical weed management
tices, associated soil nutrient management and dynamics, in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 41:383-405.
canopy and water management, yield and juice composition,
Bordelon, B.P., and S.C. Weller. 1997. Preplant cover crops affect weed
and variations in fermentation practices and chemical char- and vine growth in first-year vineyards. HortScience 32:1040-1043.
acteristics of the wine, including sensory characteristics and
Bourde, L., A. Bagard, G. Salva, N. Uscidda, D. Vallee, C. Lavegne,
consumer preference, although most studies addressed one or M.J. Serpentini, and M. Albertini. 1999. Intérêt de l’enherbement
two of these aspects. Temporal (e.g., different growth seasons naturel maîtrisé et inf luence d’une concurrence limitée de l’herbe
for cover crops and vines, timing of cover-crop desiccation) sur la production et la qualité des vins. Rev. Fran. Oenol. 179:16-19.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Bowen, P.A., C.P. Bogdanoff, and B. Estergaard. 2004. Impacts of using Eviner, V.T., and C.V. Hawkes. 2008. Embracing variability in the ap-
polyethylene sleeves and wavelength-selective mulch in vineyards. plication of plant-soil interactions to the restoration of communities
II. Effects on growth, leaf gas exchange, yield components and fruit and ecosystems. Restoration Ecol. 16:713-729.
quality of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot. Can. J. Plant Sci. 84:555-568. Faria, C.M.B., J.M. Soares, and P.C.S. Leão. 2004. Adubaçao verde
Breil, K. 1999. Mulchrasen im Obst- und Weinbau: Arten, Sorten, com leguminosas em videira no submédio São Francisco. R. Bras.
Mischungen. Erwerbsobstbau 41:61-63. Ci. Solo. 28:641-648.
Brugisser, O.T., M.H. Schmidt-Entling, and S. Bacher. 2010. Effects Favretto, M.R., M.G. Paoletti, F. Caporali, P. Nannipieri, A. Onnis,
of vineyard management on biodiversity at three trophic levels. Biol. and P.E. Tomei. 1992. Invertebrates and nutrients in a Mediterranean
Conserv. 143:1521-1528. vineyard mulched with subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum
L.). Biol. Fertil. Soils. 14:151-158.
Brzeski, M.W., U. Smolinska, M. Szczech, M. Paul, and J. Ostrzycka.
1993. Short-term effect of green manuring on soil-inhabiting nema- Fogelberg, F. 1999. Night-time soil cultivation and intra-row brush
todes and microorganisms. Nematol. Mediterr. 21:169-176. weeding for weed control in carrots (Daucus carota L.). Biol. Agric.
Hortic. 17:31-45.
Bugg, R.L., G. McGourty, M. Sarrantonio, W.T. Lanini, and R. Bar-
tolucci. 1996. Comparison of 32 cover crops in an organic vineyard Fourie, J.C., P.J.E. Louw, and G.A. Agenbag. 2006. Cover crop
on the north coast of California. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 13:63-81. management in a Chardonnay/99 Richter vineyard in the coastal
region, South Africa. 2. Effect of different cover crops and cover
Calderón, F.J., L.E. Jackson, K.M. Scow, and D.E. Rolston. 2001.
crop management practices on grapevine performance. S. Afr. J.
Short-term dynamics of nitrogen, microbial activity, and phospholipid
Enol. Vitic. 27:178-186.
fatty acids after tillage. Soil Biol. Biochem. 65:118-126.
Fourie, J.C. 2010. Soil management in the Breede River Valley wine
Campiglia, E., R. Mancinelli, E. Radicetti, and S. Marinari. 2011.
grape region, South Africa. 1. Cover crop performance and weed
Legume cover crops and mulches: Effects on nitrate leaching and
control. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 31:14-21.
nitrogen input in a pepper crop. Nutr. Cycl. Agroeco. 89:399-412.
Fourie, J.C. 2011. Soil management in the Breede River Valley wine
Carsoulle, J. 1995. L’enherbement permanent du vignoble. Inf luence
grape region, South Africa. 3. Grapevine performance. S. Afr. J.
sur la production viticole et son environment. Phytoma 478:38-41.
Enol. Vitic. 32:60-70.
Celette, F., J. Wery, E. Chantelot, J. Celette, and C. Gary. 2005. Fourie, J.C., and K. Freitag. 2010. Soil management in the Breede
Belowground interactions in a vine (Vitis vinifera L.)-tall fescue River Valley wine grape region, South Africa. 2. Soil temperature.
(Festuca arundinacea Shreb.) intercropping system: Water relations S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 31:165-168.
and growth. Plant Soil 276:205-217.
Frederikson, L., P.A. Skinkis, and E. Peachey. 2011. Cover crop and
Celette, F., R. Gaudin, and C. Gary. 2008. Spatial and temporal changes floor management affect weed coverage and density in an establish-
to the water regime of a Mediterranean vineyard due to the adoption ing Oregon vineyard. HortTechnology 21:208-216.
of cover cropping. Eur. J. Agron. 29:153-162.
Gago, P., C. Cabaleiro, and J. Garcia. 2007. Preliminary study of the
Celette, F., A. Findeling, and C. Gary. 2009. Competition for nitrogen effect of soil management systems on the adventitious f lora of a
in an unfertilized intercropping system: The case of an association vineyard in northwestern Spain. Crop Prot. 26:584-591.
of grapevine and grass cover in a Mediterranean climate. Eur. J.
Agron. 30:41-51. Gaviglio, C. 2007. Intérêt et limites des solutions alternatives au désherb-
age chimique sur le rang. Progrès Agric. Vitic. 124(20):423-427.
Chan, K.Y., and D.J. Fahey. 2011. Effect of composted mulch applica-
tion on soil and wine grape potassium status. Soil Res. 49:455-461. Hansson, D., and J. Ascard. 2002. Influence of developmental stage and
time of assessment on hot water weed control. Weed Res. 42:307-316.
Chauhan, B.S., G.S. Gill, and C. Preston. 2006. Tillage system effects
on weed ecology, herbicide activity and persistence: A review. Aust. Hartwig, N.L., and H.U. Ammon. 2002. Cover crops and living mulches.
J. Exp. Agric. 46:1557-1570. Weed Sci. 50:688-699.
Cisneros, J.J., and B.H. Zandstra. 2008. Flame weeding effects on Hegazi, A. 2000. Plastic mulching for weed control and water economy
several weed species. Weed Tech. 22:290-295. in vineyards. Acta Hortic. 536:245-250.
Heinzle, Y. 2003. L’entretien des sols viticoles. Travail du sol et
Colugnati, G., G. Cattarossi, and G. Crespan. 2004. Gestione del ter-
désherbage thermique. Progrès Agric. Vitic. 120(6):127-130.
reno in viticoltura. Vigne Vini 11:53-83.
Holst, N., A. Rasmussen, and L. Bastiaans. 2007. Field weed popu-
Costello, M.J., and K.M. Daane. 1998. Inf luence of ground cover on
lation dynamics: A review of model approaches and applications.
spider populations in a table grape vineyard. Ecol. Entomol. 23:33-40.
Weed Res. 47:1-14.
Coventry, J.M., K.H. Fisher, and J.N. Strommer. 2005. Ref lective
Hostetler, G.L., I.A. Merwin, M.G. Brown, and O. Padilla-Zakour.
mulch to enhance berry quality on Ontario wine grapes. Acta Hor-
2007a. Inf luence of undervine f loor management on weed compe-
tic. 689:95-101.
tition, vine nutrition, and yields of Pinot noir. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
Dastgheib, F., and C. Frampton. 2000. Weed management practices 58:421-430.
in apple orchard and vineyards in the South Island of New Zealand.
Hostetler, G.L., I.A. Merwin, M.G. Brown, and O. Padilla-Zakour.
N.Z J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 28:53-58.
2007b. Inf luence of geotextile mulches on canopy microclimate,
David, N., E. Serrano, and R. Renard. 2001. Vigne et qualité de vend- yield, and fruit composition of Cabernet franc. Am. J. Enol. Vitic.
age: Effet de l’enherbement semé. Synthèse de sept années d’essais 58:431-442.
sur cépage Colombard. Phytoma 544:46-47.
Huber, L., M. Porten, G. Eisenbeis, and E.H. Rühl. 2003. The influence
Duke, S.O., F.E. Dayan, J.G. Romagni, and A.M. Rimando. 2000. of organically managed vineyard-soils on the phylloxera-populations
Natural products as sources of herbicides: Current status and future and the vigor of grapevines. Acta Hortic. 617:55-59.
trends. Weed Res. 40:99-111. Igounet, O., C. Baldy, J.P. Robin, J.C. Boulet, M. Sanon, and B. Suard.
Elmore, C.L., J. Roncoroni, L. Wade, and P. Verdegaal. 1997. Mulch 1995. Effets de revêtements artificiels du sol sur la température a
plus herbicides effectively control vineyard weeds. Calif. Agric. l’intérieur des grappes de raisin au cours de la maturation. J. Int.
51(2):14-18. Sci. Vigne Vin. 29(3):131-142.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Ingels, C.A., R.L. Bugg, G.T. McGourty, and L.P. Christensen. 1998. McGourty, G., J. Nosera, S. Tylicki, and A. Toth. 2008. Self-reseeding
Cover Cropping in Vineyards: A Growers’ Handbook. University of annual legumes evaluated as cover crops for untilled vineyards.
California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland. Calif. Agric. 62(4):191-194.
Ingels, C.A., K.M. Scow, D.A. Whisson, and R.E. Drenovsky. 2005. Meinhold, T., J.P. Richters, L. Damerow, and M.M. Blanke. 2010.
Effects of cover crops on grapevines, yield, juice composition, soil Optical properties of ref lection ground covers with potential for
microbial ecology, and gopher activity. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56:19-29. enhancing fruit colouration. Biosyst. Engin. 107:155-160.
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique. 2008. Note nationale Melander, B., I.A. Rasmussen, and P. Bàrberi. 2005. Integrating physi-
entretien des sols viticoles 2008. La gestion de la résistance au cal and cultural methods of weed control: Examples from European
glyphosate. Progrès Agric. Vitic. 125:195-197. research. Weed Sci. 53:369-381.
Jacometti, M.A., S.D. Wratten, and M. Walter. 2007a. Management Merwin, I.A., W. Stiles, and H. van Es. 1994. Orchard groundcover
of understorey to reduce the primary inoculum of Botrytis cinerea: management impacts on soil physical properties. J. Am. Soc. Hortic.
Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards. Biol. Control. 40:57-64. Sci. 119:216-222.
Jacometti, M.A., S.D. Wratten, and M. Walter. 2007b. Understorey Monteiro, A., C.M. Lopes, J.P. Machado, N. Fernandes, A. Araújo,
management increases grape quality, yield and resistance to Botrytis and A. Moreira. 2008. Cover cropping on a sloping, non-irrigated
cinerea. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 122:349-356. vineyard: I. Effects on weed composition and dynamics. Ciência
Téc. Vitiv. 23(1):29-36.
Jasieniuk, M., R. Ahmad, A.M. Sherwood, J.L. Firestone, A. Perez-
Jones, W.T. Lanini, C. Mallor y-Smith, and Z. Stednick. 2008. Morlat, R., and A. Jacquet. 2003. Grapevine root system and soil
Glyphosate-resistant Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) in Cali- characteristics in a vineyard maintained long-term with or without
fornia: Distribution, response to glyphosate, and molecular evidence interrow sward. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 54:1-17.
for an altered target enzyme. Weed Sci. 56:496-502. Mundy, D.C., and R.H. Agnew. 2002. Effects of mulching with
Lang, D.I. 1990. Soil management in South Australian vineyards. vineyard and winery waste on soil fungi and Botrytis bunch rot in
Plant Prot. Quart. 5(3):114-115. Marlborough vineyards. N.Z. Plant Protec. 55:135-138.
Lanini, W.T., J.M. Shribbs, and C.E. Elmore. 1988. Orchard f loor Nachtergaele, J., J. Poesen, and B. van Wesemael. 1998. Gravel mulch-
mulching trials in the USA. Fruit Belgique 56:228-249. ing in vineyards of southern Switzerland. Soil Tillage Res. 46:51-59.
Lanini, W.T., G.T. McGourty, and L.A. Thrupp. 2011. Weed manage- Nauleau, F. 1995. Nouvelles techniques d’entretien des sols viticoles.
ment for organic vineyards. In Organic Winegrowing Manual (G. Conséquences œnologiques. Phytoma 78:47-48.
McGourty (ed.), pp. 69-82. University of California, Agriculture Nauleau, F. 1997. Nouvelles techniques d’entretien des sols viticoles.
and Natural Resources, Richmond. Conséquences œnologiques. Synthèse de 5 années d’experimentation
LeGoff, I., J. Marsault, and C. Riou. 2000. Impacts de l’enherbement menés dans différents vignobles français. Progrès Agric. Vitic.
sur le fonctionnement de la vigne, la composition des moûts, les 114(8):188-190.
durées de fermentation et la qualité des vins. Synthèse d’un essai Nazrala, J.B. 2008. Inf luencia del manejo del suelo y las coberturas
de 5 ans mené sur les principaux terroirs du Saumurois. Progrès vegetales en el microclima de la canopia de la vid, la composición
Agric. Vitic. 117(5):103-110. de la uva y el vino. Rev. FCA UNCuyo. Tomo XL.1:85-104.
Lipecki, J., and S. Berbeć. 1997. Soil management in perennial crops: Némethy, L. 2004. Alternative soil management for sandy vineyards.
Orchards and hop gardens. Soil Tillage Res. 43:169-184. Acta Hortic. 640:119-125.
Lopes, C., A. Monteiro, F.E. Rücker, B. Gruber, B. Steinberg, and Ojeda, H., C. Andary, E. Kraeva, A. Carbonneau, and A. Deloire.
H.R. Schultz. 2004. Transpiration of grapevines and co-habitating 2002. Inf luence of pre- and postveraison water deficit on synthesis
cover crop and weed species in a vineyard. A “snapshot” at diurnal and concentration of skin phenolic compounds during berry growth
trends. Vitis 43(2):111-117. of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53:261-267.
Madge, D. 2005. Organic Viticulture: An Australian Manual. Depart- Oliveira, M.T., and I.A. Merwin. 2001. Soil physical conditions in
ment of Primary Industries, State of Victoria, Australia. a New York orchard after eight years under different groundcover
Maigre, D., and J. Aerny. 2001a. Enherbement permanent et fumure azo- management systems. Plant Soil 234:233-237.
tée sur cv. Gamay dans le Valais central. 1. Résultats agronomiques. Olmstead, M.A. 2006. Cover crops and a f loor management strategy
Rev. Suisse Vitic. Arboric. Hortic. 33(3):145-150. for Pacific Northwest Vineyards. Extension Bulletin 2010. College
Maigre, D., and J. Aerny. 2001b. Enherbement et fumure azotée of Agriculture, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences, Washington
sur cv. Gamay dans le Valais central. 2. Résultats analytiques et State University, Pullman.
organoleptiques. Rev. Suisse Vitic. Arboric. Hortic. 33(4):199-204. Parker, S.R. 2010. Analysis of microbial communities associated
Matthiessen, J.N., and J.A. Kirkegaard. 2006. Biofumigation and with grapevine in California. Ph.D. dissertation. University of
enhanced biodegradation: Opportunity and challenge in soilborne California, Davis.
pest and disease management. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 25:235-265. Patrick, A.E., R. Smith, K. Keck, and A.M. Berry. 2004. Grapevine
McGourty, G. 2004. Cover cropping systems for organically farmed uptake of 15 N-labeled nitrogen derived from a winter-annual legu-
vineyards. Prac. Winery Vineyard Sep/Oct:1-7. minous cover-crop mix. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:187-190.
McGourty, G. 2008. Choosing cover crops. Vineyard Winery Manag. Petgen, M., A. Schropp, and V. Römheld. 1998. Einfluß verschiedener
Sep/Oct:71-75. Bodenpf legemaßnahmen und Begrünungsvarianten auf die autoch-
thone Mykorrhiza in einem Weinberg. Vitic. Enol. Sci. 53:11-17.
McGourty, G.T., and J.P. Reganold. 2005. Managing vineyard soil
organic matter with cover crops. In Proceedings of the Soil Envi- Pinamonti, F. 1998. Compost mulch effects on soil fertility, nutritional
ronment and Vine Mineral Nutrition Symposium. P. Christensen status and performance of grapevine. Nutr. Cycl. Agroeco. 51:239-248.
and D.R. Smart (eds.), pp. 145-151. Am. Society for Enology and Porter, C. 1999. California wineries take major steps to improve
Viticulture, Davis. vineyards. BioCycle Jan:59-62.
McGourty, G., S. Tylicki, J. Price, and J. Nosera. 2006. Performance Price, S.F., P.J. Breen, M. Valladao, and B.T. Watson. 1995. Cluster
of 18 cover crop species in new high elevation North Coast vineyard. sun exposure and quercetin in Pinot noir grapes and wine. Am. J.
Prac. Winery Vineyard Sept/Oct:11-19. Enol. Vitic. 46:187-194.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Rahman, L., M.A. Whitelaw-Weckert, R.J. Hutton, and B. Orchard. Steenwerth, K.L., and K.M. Belina. 2010. Vineyard weed management
2009. Impact of f loor vegetation on the abundance of nematode practices inf luence nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emissions.
trophic groups in vineyards. App. Soil Ecol. 42:96-106. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 138(1-2):127-131.
Ripoche, A., F. Celette, J.P. Cinna, and C. Gary. 2010. Design of in- Steinmaus, S., C.L Elmore, R.J. Smith, D. Donaldson, E.A. Weber,
tercrop management plans to fulfill production and environmental J.A. Roncoroni, and P.R. Miller. 2008. Mulched cover crops as an
objectives in vineyards. Eur. J. Agron. 32:30-39. alternative to conventional weed management systems in vineyards.
Ripoche, A., A. Metay, F. Celette, and C. Gary. 2011a. Changing the Weed Res. 48:273-281.
soil surface management in vineyards: Immediate and delayed ef- Sullivan, P. 2003. Overview of cover crops and green manures. AT-
fects on the growth and yield of grapevine. Plant Soil 339:259-271. TRA Publication IP024. 16 pp. National Sustainable Agriculture
Ripoche, A., J.P. Rellier, R. Martin-Clouaire, N. Paré, A. Biarnès, and Information Service, Butte, MT.
C. Gary. 2011b. Modelling adaptive management of intercropping Sweet, R.M., and R.P. Schreiner. 2010. Alleyway cover crops have
in vineyards to satisfy agronomic and environmental performances little inf luence on Pinot noir grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) in two
under Mediterranean cliamte. Environ. Model. Software 26:1467-1480. western Oregon vineyards. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 61:240-252.
Rodriguez-Lovelle, B., J.P. Soyer, and C. Molot. 2000. Nitrogen avail- Tan, S., and G.D. Crabtree. 1990. Competition between perennial
ability in vineyard soils according to soil management practices. ryegrass sod and ‘Chardonnay’ wine grapes for mineral nutrients.
Effects on vine. Acta Hortic. 256:277-285. HortScience 25:533-535.
Salazar, D., and P. Melgarejo. 2005. Manejo del suelo. In Viticultura. Tarara, J. 2000. Microclimate modification with plastic mulch. Hort-
Técnicas de cultivo de la vid, calidad de la uva y atributos de los Science 35:169-180.
vinos. A. Madrid Vicente (ed.), pp. 201-208. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid. Tarara, J.M., J. Lee, S.E. Spayd, and C.F. Scagel. 2008. Berry tempera-
Sandler, H.A., P.E. Brock II, and J.E. Vanden Heuvel. 2009. Effects ture and solar radiation alter acylation, proportion, and concentration
of three reflective mulches on yield and fruit composition of coastal of anthocyanin in Merlot grapes. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 59:235-247.
New England winegrapes. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:332-338. Teasdale, J.R., and C.L. Mohler. 2000. The quantitative relationship
Sanguankeo, P.P, and R.G. Leon. 2011. Weed management practices between weed emergence and the physical properties of mulches.
determine weed and arthropod diversity and seed predation in Weed Sci. 48:385-392.
vineyards. Weed Res. 51:404-412. Tesic, D., M. Keller, and R.J. Hutton. 2007. Inf luence of vineyard
Sanguankeo, P.P, R.G. Leon, and J. Malone. 2009. Impact of weed f loor management practices on grapevine vegetative growth, yield,
management practices on grapevine growth and yield components. and fruit composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1-11.
Weed Sci. 57:103-107. Thomson, L.J., and A.A. Hoffmann. 2007. Effects of ground cover
Sartorato, I., G. Zanin, C. Baldoin, and C. De Zanche. 2006. Ob- (straw and compost) on the abundance of natural enemies and soil
servations of the potential of microwaves for weed control. Weed macro invertebrates in vineyards. Agric. Forest Entomol. 9:173-179.
Res. 46:1-9. Thomson, L.J., D.J. Sharley, and A.A. Hoffmann. 2007. Beneficial
Sauvage, D. 1995. La lutte contre l´érosion grâce aux mulchs. Interêt organisms as bioindicators for environmental sustainability in the
et limites. Phytoma 478:43-45. grape industry. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 47:404-411.
Schreiner, R.P., C.F. Scagel, and J. Baham. 2006. Nutrient uptake Thomson, L., A. Danne, D. Sharley, M. Nash, C. Penfold, and A.
and distribution in a mature ‘Pinot Noir’ vineyard. HortScience Hoffmann. 2009. Native grass cover crops can contribute to pest
41:336-345. control in vineyards. Aust. Vitic. 13(2):54-58.
Shrestha, A., M. Fidelibus, B. Hanson, and M. Alcorta. 2010. Growth, Tourte, L., R. Smith, L. Bettiga, T. Bensen, J. Smith, and D. Salm.
phenology, and intraspecific competition between glyphosate-resistant 2008. Post-emergence herbicides are cost effective for vineyard
and glyphosate-susceptible horseweeds (Conyza canadensis) in the f loor management on the Central Coast. Calif. Agric. 62(1):19-23.
San Joaquin Valley of California. Weed Sci. 58:147-153. Van Huyssteen, L. 1988. Grapevine root growth in response to soil
Smart, R.E., S.M. Smith, and R.V. Winchester. 1988. Light quality tillage and root pruning practices. In The Grapevine Root and Its
and quantity effects on fruit ripening for Cabernet Sauvignon. Am. Environment. J.L. Van Zyl (ed.), pp. 44-56. Technical Communication
J. Enol. Vitic. 39:250-258. 215. Dept. of Agriculture and Water Supply, Pretoria, South Africa.
Smith, M.W., M.E. Wolf, B.S. Cheary, and B.L. Carroll. 2001. Alle- Varga, P., and J. Májer. 2004. The use of organic wastes for soil-
lopathy of bermudagrass, tall fescue, redroot pigweed, and cutleaf covering of vineyards. Acta Hortic. 652:191-197.
evening primrose on pecan. HortScience 36:1047-1048. Vitelli, J.S., and B.A. Madigan. 2004. Evaluation of a hand-held
Smith, R., L. Bettiga, M. Cahn, K. Baumgartner, L.E. Jackson, and burner for the control of woody weeds by f laming. Aust. J. Exp.
T. Bensen. 2008. Vineyard f loor management affects soil, plant Agric. 44:75-81.
nutrition, and grape yield and quality. Calif. Agric. 62(4):184-190. Wheaton, A.D., B.M. McKenzie, and J.M. Tisdall. 2008. Management to
Spayd, S.E., J.M. Tarara, D.L. Mee, and J.C. Ferguson. 2002. Separa- increase the depth of soft soil improves soil conditions and grapevine
tion of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis performance in an irrigated vineyard. Soil Tillage Res. 98:68-80.
vinifera cv. Merlot berries. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53:171-182. Wheeler, S.J., A.S. Black, and G.J. Pickering. 2005. Vineyard f loor
Spring, J.L., and J.P. Mayor. 1996. L’entretien des sols viticoles. Rev. management improves wine quality in highly vigorous Vitis vinifera
Suisse Vitic. Arboric. Hortic. 28:83-86. ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ in New Zealand. N.Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci.
Steenwerth, K., and K.M. Belina. 2008a. Cover crops enhance soil 33:317-328.
organic matter, carbon dynamics and microbiological function in a
vineyard agroecosystem. App. Soil Ecol. 40:359-369.
Steenwerth, K., and K.M. Belina. 2008b. Cover crops and cultiva-
tion: Impacts on soil N dynamics and microbiological function in a
Mediterranean vineyard agroecosystem. App. Soil Ecol. 40:370-380.
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

149 Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

149 Full

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

149 Full

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influence of Floor Management Technique

on Grapevine Growth, Disease Pressure, and Juice

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Table 1 Cover-crop species recommended for vineyards from various sources.

Italy (Colugnati et al. 2004)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Table 2 Materials used as mulches in vineyards.

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 63:2 (2012)

You might also like