Interspecific Interactions between Olive

Trees and Grapevines in Vineyard

Agroforestry Systems in an Arid Climate
Region

__________________________________________
A Thesis
presented to
the Faculty of the Graduate School
at the University of Missouri-Columbia
_________________________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science in Agroforestry
______________________________________________

by
KATHERINE FAVOR

Advisors:
Dr. Michael Gold
Dr. Megan Hall
Dr. Samniqueka Halsey
Dr. Rosana Vallone

MAY 2021
© Copyright by Katherine Favor 2021

All Rights Reserved

The undersigned, appointed by the Associate Vice Chancellor of the Office of Research and
Graduate Studies, have examined the thesis entitled:

INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLIVE TREES AND GRAPEVINES IN

VINEYARD AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN AN ARID CLIMATE REGION

presented by Katherine Favor, a candidate for the degree of Master of Science in

Agroforestry, and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance.

__________________________________
Dr. Michael Gold

__________________________________
Dr. Samniqueka Joi-Weaver Halsey

__________________________________
Dr. Megan Hall

__________________________________
Dr. Rosana Vallone
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all of the people and institutions who have
contributed to this research project, who have taught me, and who have supported me along
the way.

Dr. Rosana Vallone, Cátedra de Edafología, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Lujan de Cuyo,
Mendoza, Argentina. Thank you for taking me in under your wing and for giving me countless hours
of planning, guidance, support, and wisdom. You are an incredible teacher, role model, and servant of
our planet. I could not have done this research without you.

Dr. Michael Gold, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of Missouri,
Columbia. Thank you for serving as my advisor and for your consistent support, guidance, and
encouragement throughout my entire graduate career.

Dr. Megan Hall, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of Missouri,
Columbia. Thank you for serving on my thesis committee, for your support, and for sharing your
invaluable experience in viticulture with me.

Dr. Samniqueka Halsey, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of
Missouri, Columbia. Thank you for serving on my thesis committee, for your support, and for sharing
with me your indispensable knowledge of statistics.

Dr. Ranjith Udawatta, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of
Missouri, Columbia. Thank you for your support, your invaluable knowledge, your guidance, and
your generous willingness to help me with my many questions.

Dr. Christine Spinka, College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, University of
Missouri, Columbia. Thank you for your support and guidance through the process of statistical
analysis.

Gerardo Catapano, Owner, Catapano Family Vineyard. Thank you for allowing me to use your
vineyard as a research site.

Mario Santo Delgado, Vineyard Manager, Catapano Family Vineyard. Thank you for your support,
flexibility, hours of labor, and willingness to help with whatever task was at hand.

Lucas Vila, Ingeniero de Recursos Naturales. Thank you for the countless hours of labor and
support that went far beyond what was asked of you.

Ing. Agrónomo Jorge Esteban Perez Peña, National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA),
Argentina. Thank you for your generous support, guidance, and time.

Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina.

College of Agricultural Sciences, National University of Cuyo, Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina.
Thank you for providing labor, resources, transportation, knowledge transfer, financial support, and
endless guidance. Thank you for receiving me into your university and supporting me as if I were an
alumnus.

Dorris D. and Christine M. Brown Fellowship. Thank you for the generous financial support that
allowed me to perform this research in Argentina. This research would not have been possible without
this assistance, and I am extremely grateful.

ii
 “Cada persona, en su existencia, puede tener dos actitudes: Construir o Plantar. Los
constructores pueden demorar años en sus tareas, pero un día terminan aquello que estaban
haciendo. Entonces se paran y quedan limitados por sus propias paredes. La vida pierde el
sentido cuando la construcción acaba.
Pero existen los que plantan. Éstos a veces sufren con las tempestades, las estaciones, y
raramente descansan. Pero al contrario que un edificio, el jardín jamás para de crecer. Y, al
mismo tiempo que exige la atención del jardinero, también permite que, para él, la vida sea
una gran aventura. Los jardineros se reconocerán entre sí, porque saben que en la historia
de cada planta está el crecimiento de toda la Tierra.”

PAULO COELHO

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………...ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………ix
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS………………………………………………….....xi
ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………….xii
CHAPTER I: Literature Review Introduction………………………………………………...1
I.1. Abstract……………………………………………………………………………2
I.2. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..4
CHAPTER II: Below Ground Services in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems…………………..6
II.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………7
II.2. The Effect of Trees on Water Parameters in Vineyards………………………….7
II.2.1. Issues Surrounding Water in Conventional Viticulture………………...7
II.2.2. Increased Water Conservation in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems…….8
II.2.3. Competition Between Trees and Grapevines for Water………………10
II.2.4. Striking Water Stress Balance in Grapevines…………………………10
II. 3. The Effect of Trees on Vine Nutrition Parameters……………………………..18
II.3.1. Issues Surrounding Nutrition in Conventional Viticulture……………18
II.3.2. Increased Nutrient Availability in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems….19
II.3.3. Reduced Nutrient Losses in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems………...21
II.3.4. Competition Between Trees and Grapevines for Nutrients…………...23
II.3.5. Striking Nutritional Balance in Grapevines…………………………...24
II.4. The Effect of Trees on Vine Root Systems……………………………………..25
II.4.1. Issues Surrounding Vine Rooting Patterns in Conventional
Viticulture…………………………………………………………………….25
II.4.2. Improved Soil Structure in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems………….26
II.4.3. Soil Niche Competition Between Tree and Grapevine Roots………...29
II.4.4. Balancing Competition Through Root Plasticity in Vineyard
Agroforestry Systems………………………………………………………...31
II.5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………34
CHAPTER III: Agroforestry for Enhanced Integrated Pest Management in Vineyards…….35
III.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….36
III.2. Issues Surrounding Pests and Diseases in Modern Viticulture……………….. 37
III.2.1. Diversity as a Means to Combat Pests and Diseases………………...38
III.3. Integrated Pest Management in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems……………...40
III.3.1. Improved Management of Insect Pests………………………………40
III.3.2. Improved Management of Viruses and Bacteria……………………..47
III.3.3. Improved Management of Fungal Diseases………………………….49
III.3.4. Precision Pesticide Application………………………………………50
III.4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..51
CHAPTER IV: The Effect of Trees on Light in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems…………..53
IV.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………….54

iv
 IV.2. The Effects of Sun and Shade on Wine Grapes in General……………………55
IV.2.1. The Effects of Sun and Shade on Grapevine Physiological
Parameters……………………………………………………………………55
IV.2.2. The Effect of Sun and Shade on Grape Yield………………………..58
IV.2.3. The Effect of Sun and Shade on Grape and Wine Quality…………..61
IV.3. The Effects of Sun and Shade in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems…………….67
IV.4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..72
CHAPTER V: The Effect of Trees on Microclimate in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems…...74
V.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………..75
V.2. The Effect of Trees on Wind Patterns in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems……..76
V.2.1. The Negative Effects of Wind in Conventional Vineyards…………...76
V.2.2. Windbreaks as a Solution in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems………..78
V.3. The Effect of Trees on Microclimate in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems……...82
V.3.1. Microclimatic Issues in Conventional Viticulture…………………….82
V.3.2. Microclimatic Regulation in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems………..86
V.4. Negative Impacts of Trees in Vineyards………………………………………..90
V.5. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………91
CHAPTER VI: Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..93
VI.1 Practical Implications…………………………………………………………...94
VI.2 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...97
BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………………98
CHAPTER VII: Interspecific Interactions between Olive Trees and Grapevines in Vineyard
Agroforestry Systems in an Arid Climate Region…………………………………...……..118
VII.1. Abstract………………………………………………………………………119
VII.2. Introduction…………………………………………………………………..120
VII.3.Purpose and Objectives……………………………………………………….120
VII.3.1. Specific Objectives…………………………………….…………..121
VII.4. Materials and Methods………………………………………………………123
VII.4.1. Site…………………………………………………………………123
VII.4.2. Experimental Design………………………………………………124
VII.4.2.i. Background Uniformity Checks………………………….125
VII.4.2.ii. Selection of Observational Units………………………...127
VII.4.3. Data Collection…………………………………………………….130
VII.4.3.i. Quality Parameters……………………………………….130
VII.4.3.ii. Vine Growth Parameters………………………………...131
VII.4.3.iii. Production Parameters…………………………………..132
VII.4.3.iv. Vine Nutritional Parameters…………………………….132
VII.5. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………...133
VII.6. Results………………………………………………………………………..135
VII.6.1. Quality Parameter Results.………………………………………...135
VII.6.1.i. Glucose/Fructose…………………………………………135
VII.6.1.ii. Brix………………………………………………………137
VII.6.1.iii. Density…………………………………………………..139
VII.6.1.iv. Total Acidity…………………………………………….141

v
 VII.6.1.v. pH………………………………………………………..143
VII.6.1.vi. Malic Acid………………………………………………144
VII.6.1.vii. Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen…………………………….144
VII.6.1.viii. Total Skin Phenolics…………………………………...145
VII.6.1.ix. Total Skin Anthocyanins………………………………..146
VII.6.1.x. Total Skin Tannins……………………………………….146
VII.6.1.xi. Total Seed Phenolics……………………………………148
VII.6.1.xii. Total Seed Tannins……………………………………..148
VII.6.2. Growth Parameter Results…………………………………………149
VII.6.2.i. Vigor……………………………………………………...149
VII.6.2.ii. Ravaz Index……………………………………………...151
VII.6.3. Production Parameter Results……………………………………...152
VII.6.3.i. Yield……………………………………………………...152
VII.6.4. Nutritional Parameters Results…………………………………….154
VII.6.4.i. Petiole Nitrate…………………………………………….154
VII.6.4.ii. Leaf Blade Total N………………………………………154
VII.6.4.iii. Petiole Total N…………………………………………..155
VII.6.4.iv. Leaf Blade P…………………………………………….155
VII.6.4.v. Petiole P………………………………………………….155
VII.6.4.vi. Leaf Blade K…………………………………………….155
VII.6.4.vii. Petiole K………………………………………………..157
VII.6.4.viii. Leaf Blade Mg…………………………………………158
VII.6.4.ix. Petiole Mg……………………………………………….158
VII.6.4.x.Nutritional Results Summary………………………….…158
VII.7. Discussion……………………………………………………………………161
VII.7.1. The Relationship Between Nutrients, Yield, and Vigor…………...161
VII.7.2. The Influence of Light, Wind, and Competition for Water………..163
VII.7.2.i. Speculations About the Effect of Light Competition…….163
VII.7.2.ii. Speculations About the Effect of Water Competition…...166
VII.7.2.iii. Speculations About the Effect of Wind ………………...167
VII.8.Conclusion……………………………………………………………………167
VII.8.1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………167
VII.8.2. Future Research……………………………………………………169
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………………..171
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………176
APPENDIX A – Regional Soil Characteristics……………………………………..176
APPENDIX B – Background Site Uniformity Tests……………………………….177
APPENDIX C – Selection of Observational Units…………………………………179
APPENDIX D – Raw Data for Quality, Production, Growth, and Nutritional
Parameters…………………………………………………………………………..182
APPENDIX E – Normal Values of Macro and Micronutrients in Grapevine Tissue at
Full Bloom in Mendoza, Argentina…………………………………………………186
APPENDIX F – SAS Statistical Output Using the GLM Procedure……………….187
APPENDIX G – SAS Statistical Output Using the Glimmix Procedure…………...271
APPENDIX H – SPSS Statistical Output for Vine Diameter………………………283

vi
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Daily precipitation and volumetric soil water content at 12:00 noon (n = 4) for crop
and agroforestry treatments for 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-cm depths during 2007 at the
Greenley Research Center, University of Missouri, USA. Source: Udawatta et al.
(2011a)..…………………………………………...…………………………………..9
Figure 2. Effect of irrigation treatments of 25% Plant Available Moisture (PAM), 90% PAM,
25% PAM stress during fruit set alone, 25% PAM stress during ripening alone, and
trickle irrigation (concentrated irrigation) at 90% PAM on the cumulative berry mass
of Colombard grapes during the 1979/80 season in South Africa. Source: Van zyl
(1984)……………………………………………………………..……………….....12
Figure 3. Effect of vineyard floor management on soil moisture levels in Cabernet Sauvignon
vineyard in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Source: Wheeler and Pickering
(2005)…………………………………………………………………………..…….15
Figure 4. Effect of chicory cover crop on perceived ripeness of aroma and flavor in 4-year-
old Cabernet Sauvignon wine in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. Source: Wheeler and
Pickering
(2005)……………………………………………………...…………………………15
Figure 5. Relationship between vine root density (RD) (kg/m2), vine root mass (RM)
(kg/vine) and plant density (PD) (number of vines/ha). Source: Archer & Saayman
(2018).……..…………………………………………………………………….…...32
Figure 6. Relationship between root density (RD) (kg/m2) and vegetative potential (vigor or
shoot mass, VP) per square m of surface unit. Source: Archer & Saayman
(2018).………………………………………………………………………………..33
Figure 7. Major pathways for reducing the impact of pests and diseases via the introduction
of plant species diversity in agroecosystems. Source: Ratnadass et al.
2012……………………………………………………………………………..……40
Figure 8. Relationship between several types of biodiversity and their role in pest regulation
in a diversified vineyard. Source: Altieri et al.
(2005)…………………………………………………..………………….…………45
Figure 9. Nymphal densities of Empoasca vitis in monoculture (conventional) and
agroforestry (traditional) vineyards in northwestern Portugal in 1999. Source: Altieri
and Nicholls (2002)…………………………………………………..………………45
Figure 10. Infestation of grape inflorescences by Lobesia botrana in monoculture
(conventional) and agroforestry (traditional) vineyards in northwestern Portugal in
1999. Source: Altieri and Nicholls (2002)…………………………………………46
Figure 11. Mean number of damaged berries per cluster (± SE) in nocturnal exclosures (bats
absent) and controls (bats present) in three vineyards in central Chile over 6 sampling
periods from December 2017 to March 2018. Source: Rodríguez-San Pedro et al.
(2020)……………………………………………………..………………………….46
Figure 12. Nightly recorded activity (passes per night) of bats in vineyards in Northern
California within the vineyard interior and adjacent to remnant vegetation for: (a) all
species combined (b) E. fuscus (c) M. yumanensis and (d) T. brasiliensis. Source:
Kelly et al. (2016)…………………………………………………………………….47
Figure 13. Temperature of exposed and shaded ‘Carignan’ berries, relative to the air
temperature at cluster height on February 10, 1972. Source: Millar
(1972)……………………….......................................................................................58
Figure 14. The effect of light intensity on the mean number of bunch primordia per bud for
the basal 12 buds on shoots. Source: Buttrose (1970)………………………………..60

vii
Figure 15. Evolution of total flavonol content per berry (A), % kaempferol (B), % quercetin
(C), and % myricetin (D) under ambient (0% shading factor) and under two shade
nets (20 and 40% shading factor) covering the fruit-zone of cv. Cabernet Sauvignon
grapes. Source: Martínez-Lüscher et al. (2019)……………………………………...66
Figure 16. Schematic representations of potential light availability patterns around a single
tree of height H when integrating the shadows case from said tree from 1 April to 21
September in at a latitude of 43.8 °N, with tree height H, and ellipsoid tree canopy
shape. Source: Grimaldi (2018) and Dupraz et al. (2005)…………………………...71
Figure 17. Schematic Model of radiation exchanges above and within a forest. Source: Oke
(1988)…………………………………………………………….………………......72
Figure 18. Percentage of erosion for wind and rain on different land management systems in
Spain. Source: Marzen et al. (2019)………………………………………………….78
Figure 19. Modifications of the incoming radiations for an understory crop in the vicinity of a
tree. (Source: Grimaldi (2018)……………………...………………………..............90
Figure 20. Experimental design setup of Catapano Vineyard, with five treatment blocks at
five distances from an olive tree hedgerow…………………………………………129
Figure 21. Average photosynthetic photon flux density measurements (µMol/m2/S) in
grapevine rows at 2 m, 4 m, 6 m, 12 m, and 40 m from an olive tree hedgerow from
the hours of 8 am to 7 pm on a clear spring day in Mendoza, Argentina…………..130
Figure 22. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and
glucose/fructose levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in
Mendoza Argentina, 2020…………………………………………………………..137
Figure 23. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and brix levels in
grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020…………………………………………………………………………………139
Figure 24. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and density levels
of grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020…………………………………………………………………………………141
Figure 25. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total acidity
levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza
Argentina, 2020……………………………………………………………………..143
Figure 26. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total skin
tannin levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza
Argentina, 2020……………………………………………………………………..148
Figure 27. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and pruning
weight taken in dormancy in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020…………………………………………………………………………………151
Figure 28. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total yield per
vine of 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020…………………………………………………………………………………154
Figure 29. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and leaf blade K
levels in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2019…………………………………………………………………………………157
Figure 30. Mean foliar nutrient values for grapevines at Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu,
Mendoza, Argentina, as compared to typical nutrient values for grapevines in the
Mendoza, Argentina region…………………………………………………………160

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Effect of partial root drying on yield, water use and fruit composition of Cabernet
Sauvignon grafted to Ramsey. Source Wheeler and Pickering
(2005)……...……………………………………………………………………........14
Table 2. Average root length density per unit area and per unit of volume for different crops
under field conditions. Source: Smart and Coombe
(1983)………………………….................................................................................. 31
Table 3. Mean separations of yield, percentage of shriveled berries per cluster at harvest from
2010 to 2012 in Douro, Portugal. Source: Oliveira et al.
(2014)…………………......………………………………………………………….60
Table 4. Influence of cluster temperature and exposure to sunlight on flavonol concentrations
in Merlot berry skins in the Yakima Valley, Washington, 2000. Adapted from Spayd
et al.
(2002)…………………………………………………………………………….…..65
Table 5.Growth response of Cabernet Franc to wind in Eden Valley, South Australia. Source:
Dry and Botting
(1993)……………………………………………………………….………………..81
Table 6. The effect of wind on yield parameters of Chardonnay grapes. Source: Bettiga et al.
(1996)………………………………..………………………………..……….……..82
Table 7. Quality parameters in grape must at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow……………………………………………………………………………134
Table 8. Grapevine production and growth parameters for the 2019/2020 growing
seasons………………………………………………………………………………134
Table 9. Grapevine nutritional parameters from tissue samples taken at bloom, November
2019…………………………………………………………………………………135
Table 10. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
glucose/fructose levels (g/L) in must from grapevines at different distances from an
olive tree hedgerow…………………………………………………………………136
Table 11. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for brix
levels in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow……………………………………………………………………………139
Table 12. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
density levels in must (g/L) from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow……………………………………………………………………………141
Table 13. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for total
acidity levels (g/L) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow……………………………………………………………………………143
Table 14. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for total
skin tannin levels (mg/g fruit) in must from grapevines at different distances from an
olive tree hedgerow…………………………………………………………………147
Table 15. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
pruning weights (g) in grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow……………………………………………………………………..……..150
Table 16. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for vine
yield (kg) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow…………………………………………………………………………....153
Table 17. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for leaf
blade potassium levels (g/100 g dry tissue) in grapevines at different distances from
an olive tree hedgerow……………………………………………………………...157

ix
Table 18. Mean foliar nutrient values for vines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow, taken at Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu, Mendoza, Argentina, during
the flowering period of 2019………………………………………………………..159
Table 19. Correlations between various nutrients in both petioles and leaf blades and yield
and vigor…………………………………………………………………………….163

x
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

C, Carbon
CEC, cation exchange capacity
CWSI, Crop Water Stress Index
DBH, diameter at breast height
EC, electrical conductivity
K, Potassium
Ksat, saturated hydraulic conductivity
m, meters
N, Nitrogen
OM, organic matter
P, Phosphorous
PAM, Plant Available Moisture
PAR, photosynthetically active radiation
PART, transmitted photosynthetically active radiation
PD, plant density
RD, root density
SS, soluble solids
TA, Total Acidity
UV, ultraviolet
VP, vegetative potential
W. m-2, watt per square meter
WUE, water use efficiency
YAN, yeast assimilable nitrogen
μmol/m2/s, micromoles per square meter per second

xi
 ABSTRACT

In the face of climate change and environmental degradation, conventional viticulture

risks the threats of reduced soil fertility, increased heat stress, water scarcity, unseasonal

frost, extreme climate events, wind damage, reduced biodiversity, increased erosion, and

increased pest and disease pressure. Agroforestry is a sustainable land-use system proven to

address many of these conservation and production issues, and yet, agroforestry’s

applications in viticulture have been severely overlooked. This thesis summarizes the existing

body of knowledge surrounding vineyard agroforestry systems in an extensive literature

review, and also contributes new research about olive tree and wine grape vineyard

agroforestry systems in an arid and irrigated grape growing region in Mendoza, Argentina.

The existing body of knowledge surrounding vineyard agroforestry systems shows

that the incorporation of trees into vineyards reduces pest and disease pressure, prevents wind

damage and erosion, increases stomatal aperture and leaf area, and protects vines against heat

and frost damage. Existing research on competition for resources in vineyard agroforestry

systems suggests that competition for water may not affect grapevines in a negative way, but

that competition for nutrients may affect vines within 4 m of trees, although other studies

suggest that trees may actually improve vineyard soil quality. Existing literature also shows

that vine yield is reduced within 4 m of trees.

Our experiment on a Malbec/olive tree alley cropped vineyard agroforestry system

examined the effects of olive trees on grape quality, growth, and production parameters at

five different distances from an olive tree hedgerow. Results revealed that proximity of

grapevines to the hedgerow was associated with significantly higher quality must, including

higher glucose/fructose levels, higher brix levels, higher must density, and higher total

acidity. However, within 4 m of the hedgerow, grapevines also experienced significantly

lower yield, with yield reductions up to 50% in vines at 2 m from the hedgerow. Our study

xii
also revealed that there were no significant differences in nutrient status between treatments

in any pattern that would indicate competition, suggesting that competition for nutrients was

not a major competitive factor.

The information summarized in this literature review, along with the results of our

study, broaden our understanding of vineyard agroforestry systems in different growing

contexts and can help determine under which conditions agroforestry should be utilized as an

appropriate technology in vineyards. In an arid region with a tree-crop combination of olives

and grapevines, the presence of trees was correlated with higher must quality but lower

yields. Depending on winemaker goals, the beneficial effects that trees impart on grape must

quality parameters, in addition to their whole-farm benefits and ecosystem services, may be

determined to outweigh the negative effects that trees have on yield in the rows nearest to

trees. Additionally, as many arid grape growing regions anticipate higher temperatures in the

coming years due to climate change, utilizing trees in vineyards may be an adaptive strategy

for preventing future quality and yield reductions.

xiii
________________________________
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW INTRODUCTION

________________________________

1
I.1 ABSTRACT

In the face of climate change and environmental degradation, conventional viticulture

risks the threats of reduced soil fertility, increased heat stress, water scarcity, unseasonal

frost, extreme climate events, wind damage, reduced biodiversity, increased erosion, and

increased pest and disease pressure. Agroforestry is a sustainable land-use system proven to

address many of these conservation and production issues, and yet, agroforestry’s

applications in viticulture have been severely overlooked. So as to better understand how

agroforestry might help address the issues currently threatening conventional viticulture, this

review uses published peer-reviewed literature, as well as some grey-literature, to summarize

the current knowledge surrounding both the below-ground and above-ground interactions

between trees and grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) and their effects on water availability,

nutrient availability, grapevine rooting patterns, pest and disease pressure, light patterns,

wind patterns, and microclimatic factors in vineyard agroforestry systems.

Existing studies reveal that the presence of trees in vineyards imparts a neutral to

positive effect on parameters surrounding grapevine water status despite competition, due to

trees’ ability to reduce evaporation and transpiration, modify the microclimate, and distribute

water through hydraulic lift. In terms of nutritional parameters, one study showed that within

4 m of trees, vines may have reduced nutrient status, however, other studies suggest that trees

may actually improve vineyard soil quality, and trees may also potentially increase vine

rooting depth and root density by improving soil structure and inducing root plasticity. The

incorporation of trees into vineyards has also been shown to reduce pest and disease pressure,

prevent wind damage and erosion, increase stomatal aperture and leaf area, and protect vines

against heat and frost damage.

Despite the presence of trees being associated with reduced grapevine yields within 4

m of trees; overall, the incorporation of trees into vineyards can create more resilient

2
agroecosystems, can improve certain grape quality and production parameters, can increase

farmer savings, and can better the environment in numerous ways. More studies on tree/vine

interactions are needed, especially ones that examine different tree/vine species

combinations, grape trellis systems, row orientations, and growing zones. However, existing

evidence, as summarized in this review, indicates that agroforestry has great potential

applications in viticulture despite tradeoffs, especially in the face of the extreme

temperatures, pests, plagues, and weather events that are predicted to occur in the coming

years with climate change.

3
I.2 INTRODUCTION

Conventional viticulture faces a multitude of issues including erosion and topsoil loss,

reduced soil fertility, biodiversity loss, increased pest and disease pressure, increased reliance

on agrochemicals, direct and indirect wind damage, heat stress, unseasonal frost, water

scarcity, yield and quality reductions due to erratic weather patterns from climate change, and

the associated economic losses that accompany all of these challenges (Francis et al. 2004;

Martínez-Casasnovas and Ramos 2006; Pimentel 2006; Dunn and Martin 2008; Henderson

and Rex 2012; Borrelli et al. 2013; Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Pagay and Collins 2017;

Ferreira et al. 2018; Rodrigo-Comino et al. 2018). Agroforestry, defined as the intentional

incorporation of trees into agricultural systems (Gold and Garrett 2009), is a sustainable land-

use system proven to address many of these conservation and production issues, and it is one

solution for creating more sustainable viticulture systems while simultaneously providing

numerous other ecosystem services. Agroforestry has great promise for applications in

vineyards but until recently, these applications have been overlooked (Grimaldi 2018). This

review uses published peer-reviewed literature, as well as some grey-literature, to summarize

the current knowledge surrounding the below-ground and above-ground interactions between

trees and grapevines, so as to better understand how agroforestry can help address the issues

currently facing modern viticulture.

Although vineyard agroforestry systems were, for centuries, the traditional method of

wine grape cultivation, since the beginning of the 19th century with the rise of

industrialization, vineyards have shifted to monocultures, and the use of trees has largely

been abandoned (Fabre 2014). Other than some vineyards in Argentina, Portugal, Spain,

Nepal, Italy, Iran, and Greece, the practice is not very common (Amouretti 1988; Bartolucci

and Dhakal 1999; Altieri and Nicholls 2002; Raj and Lal 2014; Wezel et al. 2014; Gholami et

al. 2018; NPCS Board of Consultants and Engineers n.d.). This shift has brought with it a

4
multitude of problems that affect vineyards; which, paired with the extreme weather and

environmental patterns caused by climate change, result in yield losses and/or economic

losses (Grimaldi 2018). In order for the wine grape industry to continue to thrive in the

coming years despite environmental changes, sustainable solutions must be implemented

now.

Today, agroforestry in vineyards is being looked to once again as one such

sustainable solution. Agroforestry has beneficial applications in viticulture in terms of the

below-ground services that it can provide to vineyards, including affecting water parameters,

nutritional parameters, and grapevine rooting patterns. Agroforestry also benefits viticultural

systems in numerous ways in terms of the above-ground services that it provides, by altering

light patterns, wind patterns, pest presence, and the viticultural microclimate. Although some

of the interspecific interactions between grapevines and trees have negative effects, many of

their interactions are positive. Paired with the fact that trees also provide a host of ecosystem

services including purifying water, mitigating pollution, sequestering carbon, conserving

biodiversity, and maintaining a beautiful landscape aesthetic (Garcia et al. 2018), the case can

be made that agroforestry’s applications in vineyards have the potential to create regenerative

viticultural systems that are able to both resist and mitigate many of the issues that modern

viticulture is confronted with (Raj and Toppo 2018).

5
________________________________
CHAPTER II
BELOW-GROUND SERVICES IN VINEYARD
AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

________________________________

6
II.1. INTRODUCTION

Tress affect below-ground parameters in vineyard agroforestry systems by influencing

elements surrounding water, nutrition, and grapevine rooting patterns. What makes a soil

suitable for growing grapes is dependent on many factors, including soil structure, available

water holding capacity, nutrient availability, organic matter (OM) quantity, bulk density,

porosity, and pH (Thomazini et al. 2015). Trees have been proven to improve many of these

below-ground soil quality parameters in vineyards, causing greater water infiltration and

water-holding capacity, greater nutrient availability, better soil quality, and more efficient

vine rooting patterns. Trees do have negative impacts on vineyard below-ground parameters

as well, such as competing for nitrogen (N) and water, and can negatively impact the growth,

quality, and yield of grapevines within 4 m of trees. However, the benefits of agroforestry on

below-ground parameters in vineyards may outweigh its costs, especially in the face of the

environmental changes predicted to come in the following years.

II.2. THE EFFECT OF TREES ON WATER PARAMETERS IN VINEYARDS

II.2.1. Issues Surrounding Water in Conventional Viticulture

Premier wine grape production typically takes place in semi-arid climates that receive

little rainfall, most commonly in Mediterranean, maritime, and continental climate regions

(Stevenson 2005). In the coming years, climate change predictions estimate that both periods

of drought and periods of extreme precipitation will increase in these regions (Di Carlo

2019). Although grapevines themselves are a drought-resistant species, because of the low

rainfall that wine growing regions tend to receive, conserving moisture is still of the greatest

priority in most vineyards (Charrier et al. 2018). Additionally, although it is difficult for

drought to kill grapevines outright, drought can stunt vegetative growth, reduce fruit quality,

and even suppress fruit production completely (Medrano et al. 2003; Charrier et al. 2018). In

7
areas where vines are irrigated, excess drought can result in expensive water bills for farmers

and even the drying up of groundwater (Cooley et al. 2015). Conversely, increased

precipitation can also have negative impacts on the quality of wine (Di Carlo et al. 2019).

II.2.2. Increased Water Conservation in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Trees conserve soil moisture in agroforestry systems through a variety of

mechanisms. Shade from trees conserves soil moisture by decreasing temperature and solar

irradiance levels, which results in decreased evaporation (Lin 2007). The mulching effect

from tree litterfall and prunings also reduces evaporation by covering soil and reducing soil

temperatures (Riha and McIntyre 1999). Both the mulching effect of trees and the simple

presence of lateral tree roots reduce runoff as well, slowing the flow of water and resulting in

higher infiltration rates (Riha and McIntyre 1999). The mulching effect of trees also reduces

kinetic impact from rain; reduced kinetic impact from rain maintains surface soil structure

intact and therefore sustains high water infiltration rates (Lanyon et al. 2004). Water

infiltration is also influenced by the amount of macropores in the soil. Trees increase the

quantity of macropores in soil by breaking up compacted soils with their roots and leaving

behind old root channels that serve as passages for increased water infiltration (Young

1989a).

Trees increase soil water holding capacity as well by improving overall soil structure.

Trees improve soil structure by boosting both OM and microbial populations, each of which

leads to the formation of water-stable aggregates that create micro and mesopores in the soil,

capable of holding increased amounts of water (Lal 1989). Agroforestry systems can increase

OM by up to 100%, and on average, every 1% increase in OM increases soil-available water

holding capacity by 1.9 mm 100 mm-1, or 1.9% (Young 1989b; Minasny and McBratney

2015). A comparison was done between the soil recharge capacity of corn (Zea mays L.)-

8
soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] systems as compared to agroforestry systems, and

researchers found that the agroforestry systems had significantly higher soil water recharge

capacity (Udawatta et al. 2011a) (Figure 1). All in all, agroforestry systems are able to

significantly increase soil moisture, water infiltration rates, water recharge capacity, and

water holding capacity (Young 1989b), which in turn, results in greater drought resistance

and less reliance on irrigation (Shantz 1927).

Figure 1. Daily precipitation and volumetric soil water content at 12:00 noon (n = 4) for crop
and agroforestry treatments for 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-cm depths during 2007 at the
Greenley Research Center, University of Missouri, USA. Bars on the 40-cm depth
graph indicate LSD values for significant differences in water content between crop
and agroforestry treatments at the α = 0.05 level. Source: Udawatta et al. (2011a).
(Reproduced with permission).

9
II.2.3. Competition Between Trees and Grapevines for Water

Despite the increased infiltration rates, increased water holding capacity, reduced

runoff, and reduced evapotranspiration due to the incorporation of trees in cropping systems,

some competition for water between trees and crops in agroforestry systems is inevitable

(Udawatta et al. 2011b, 2014, 2016). Although little research has been done on competition

for water between trees and grapevines specifically, there is research that has shown that

competition for water between grapevines and other crops, including cover crops, does exist,

and that this competition can result in varying degrees of water stress (Celette and Gary

2013).

Excess competition can result in high levels of water stress, which, if great enough,

can reduce both the number of bunches per vine, berry weight, and the total yield per vine

(McCarthy et al. 1983). Various studies have confirmed that excessive water stress reduces

photosynthesis, both because of reduced leaf area and increased stomatal closure, which

results in lower berry sugar levels (Winkel and Rambal 1993; Gómez-del-Campo et al. 2002;

Schultz 2003). In a study on the effect of different irrigation treatments on Colombard

grapevines, both fruit growth and vegetative growth were found to be inversely correlated

with increases in water stress (Stevens et al. 1995). Additionally, when grapes experience

significant water stress, sugar metabolism and flavor development are negatively affected as

well (Jones and Webb 2010; Bondada and Keller 2012).

II.2.4. Striking Water Stress Balance in Grapevines

Although excess competition can cause undesirable levels of water stress in

grapevines, some water stress is actually desirable for high quality wine grape production.

High water availability is considered undesirable when growing grapes because it promotes

excess vigor in grapevines and diversion of resources from developing fruit to shoot tips

10
(Wheeler and Pickering 2005). As stated by Lanyon et al. (2004), “Optimum berry quality is

seldom achieved if vines are excessively vigorous,” due to a number of factors. Excess vigor

manifests as higher leaf area, greater trunk growth, and excessive shoot growth rates

(Wheeler and Pickering 2003). Excessive shoot growth rates subsequently cause high in-

canopy shading, which can cause a reduction in anthocyanin and sugar development and an

increase in must potassium (K) content and pH (Wheeler and Pickering 2005). High moisture

levels affect overall yield as well; two studies in France – one on Grenache vines and one on

Cabernet Sauvignon vines – both found that excess water inhibits the bud burst of basal and

primary shoots, resulting in lower bud break and lower yield (Carbonneau and Casteran

1979; Mériaux et al. 1981). In another study in Australia, researchers compared three

irrigation treatments: 40%, 20%, and 0% replacement of evaporated water (McCarthy et al.

1983). They found that greater amounts of irrigation water applied resulted in increased berry

weight, due to an increased amount of water in the berries, which in turn led to delayed sugar

accumulation and diluted sugars and flavors. In this study, increased irrigation reduced wine

quality as well; highly irrigated vines produced wine with less-brilliant wine color, lower

amounts of anthocyanins, lower total phenolics, higher pH, and increased K, which are all

indicators of poor wine quality. Increased in-canopy shading – which was caused by

increased vegetation, which was in turn caused by increased irrigation – was not the only

culprit of these adverse wine quality effects; even when vigor was controlled for by applying

the plant growth regulator, ethephon, poor wine quality was still observed with high levels of

irrigation. Excessive vegetative growth can also indirectly reduce grape yield and quality by

creating microclimatic humidity that causes vines to be more vulnerable to powdery mildew

and other harmful fungi (Smart and Robinson 1991).

For these reasons, mild water stress is indeed desirable when growing wine grapes. In

addition to the reasons stated above, mild water stress has been shown to improve wine

11
quality by increasing the sugar:acid ratio, lowering malate and total titratable acid

concentrations, and increasing total soluble solids (Van zyl 1984). Mild water stress increases

grape phenological profiles as well; a study comparing irrigated to non-irrigated Tempranillo

grapes found that non-irrigated grapes had significantly higher total phenols and total tannins

in grape skins (Esteban et al. 2001). Mild water stress can also increase sugar concentration

in berries. In a study comparing the effects of 25%, 50%, 70%, and 90% soil moisture

regimes, soil moisture regimes of 25% were found to produce the smallest berries and

subsequently the highest concentrations of sugars and phenological compounds (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Effect of irrigation treatments of 25% Plant Available Moisture (PAM), 90% PAM,
25% PAM stress during fruit set alone, 25% PAM stress during ripening alone, and
trickle irrigation (concentrated irrigation) at 90% PAM on the cumulative berry mass
of Colombard grapes during the 1979/80 season in South Africa. Source: Van zyl
(1984). (Reproduced with permission).

12
 Grape yield and wine quality are not negatively affected by moderate water stress, but

they can be affected by the time at which water stress occurs. Water stress that occurs at

certain periods within a vine’s growth cycle can positively affect vines, while water stress

that occurs at other periods can affect vines negatively (Van zyl 1984). Mild water stress

during the period from bud burst to flowering, for instance, can suppress shoot growth, which

results in less vegetative growth and thus, the potential for higher wine quality (Van zyl

1984). During flowering and phase I of berry development, however, grapes are very

susceptible to water stress, and water stress can cause stunts in cell division, lower fruit set,

and desiccation of clusters (Hardie and Considine 1976; Van zyl 1984). After veraison, when

cell division is no longer occurring, berry mass is not as sensitive to water stress (Van zyl

1984), although extreme water stress can still result in failure of fruit to mature (Hardie and

Considine 1976). In general, neither water stress nor water excesses after the period of

veraison impact berry sugar accumulation. Sugar concentration might be increased by water

stress during the ripening period due to berry shrinkage, but actual sugar accumulation is

affected neither by water deficiencies nor excesses during this period in the grapevine growth

cycle (Hunter et al. 2014).

With grapevine growth, striking the balance between too-much water and too-little

water is of the utmost importance. Vines must receive sufficient water at the right times in

order to produce the minimum amount of vegetative growth that is needed to support fruit

development and ripening, and in order to support cell development for sufficient yield.

However, vines also must experience slight water stress so as to prevent excessive vegetative

growth and so as to not divert nutrient sources away from fruit production (Wheeler and

Pickering 2003). To illustrate, a study on Cabernet Sauvignon vines in California applied

water in increasing amounts in four different treatments and found that vines receiving high

amounts of water experienced delayed maturity and lower yield compared to vines receiving

13
moderate amounts of water. However, vines receiving low amounts of water and vines

receiving no water also had lower yields than the “moderate water” treatment (Neja et al.

1977). This study reflects the importance of balancing water stress in grapevines; some

competition is a good thing, but too much competition can be detrimental.

For these reasons, viticulturists often employ techniques to actually cut back water to

ideal-stress levels and to induce slight water competition (Wheeler and Pickering 2005). Such

soil-water-reducing techniques include regulated deficit irrigation, partial root zone drying,

root pruning, high-density vine planting, and cover crop-induced competition (Wheeler and

Pickering 2003; Wheeler and Pickering 2005). Such stress-inducing techniques result in more

balanced acidity, more brilliant color (mg g fruit weight-1), higher glycosyl-glucose (mol g

fruit weight-1), and increased perception of ripeness of aroma and flavor (Dry et al. 1996;

Wheeler and Pickering 2003; Wheeler and Pickering 2005). Benefits of these techniques can

be summarized in Table 1, Figure 3, and Figure 4. Competition for water from tree roots in

vineyard agroforestry systems is also speculated to be a valuable technique for inducing

desirable levels of water stress.

Table 1. Effect of partial root drying on yield, water use and fruit composition of Cabernet
Sauvignon grafted to Ramsey. Source Wheeler and Pickering (2005). (Reprinted with
permission).

14
Figure 3. Effect of vineyard floor management on soil moisture levels in Cabernet Sauvignon
vineyard in Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Chicory and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)
cover crop treatment resulted in lower soil moisture. Source: Wheeler and Pickering
(2005) (Reproduced with permission).

Figure 4. Effect of chicory cover crop on perceived ripeness of aroma and flavor in 4-year-
old Cabernet Sauvignon wine in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand. Data shown are mean
values [n=44] + std error; *** indicates treatments are significantly different at
p<0.001. Source: Wheeler and Pickering (2005). (Reproduced with permission).

15
 More research is needed to determine whether the competition for water rendered by

trees in vineyards would result in overall positive or negative effects for grapevines. This is

an exactitude that would of course depend on the species of trees being intercropped, the soil

available water, the architecture of both species’ root systems (which is dependent on both

species type and management practices) as well as the amount and timing of transpiration

from each species (Grimaldi 2018). The amount of competition would also depend on

management practices; trees that are pruned and/or root pruned, and systems that are irrigated

more would experience less competition (Sudmeyer and Flugge 2004).

Although much research has yet to be done in this area, in the grey literature there

does exist an extensive study at the Restincliéres agroforestry site in Montpellier, France, in

which competitive effects between certain types of trees and vines were quantified. In this

study, Syrah and Grenache vines were intercropped with sorb (Sorbus domestica L.) and

stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) in both N/S and E/W orientations, at both high (15 m x 2.5 m)

and low (15 m x 3.75 m) tree densities. Early grapevine water stress was estimated using the

apex method and late-stage soil water stress was quantified using environmental isotope

hydrology. Between all treatments, all tree planting densities, and all row orientations, no

negative effects from competition for water were observed between trees and grapevines

(Trambouze and Goma-Fortin 2013). In a similar unpublished study, GreenSeeker

technology was used to measure the Normalized Difference Vegetative Index of vines at

different distances from fruit trees. No significant differences in vegetative growth were

noted between vines growing near trees and vines growing far from trees (Dufourcq et al.

2017).

In a similar yet different study at the Restinclières experimental site, data on the Crop

Water Stress Index (CWSI) of vines in a vineyard agroforestry system was collected using

thermal infrared imagery. Results showed that, overall, there were not significant differences

16
in CWSI at different distances from tree hedgerows (Grimaldi 2018). Yet another study at the

Restinclières viticulture experimental site also found that competition for water between trees

and grapevines was negligible, although competition for N was significant (Trambouze et al.

2017). Available literature suggests that this could be due to trees’ ability to redistribute

water from deep in the ground through the process of hydraulic lift, reduce evaporative losses

from the soil by modifying the climatic demand, reduce transpiration losses by creating a

cooler microclimate, and increase water storage capacity by increasing soil OM and porosity

(Trambouze et al. 2017; Grimaldi 2018).

There is evidence that both tree roots and grapevine roots exhibit hydraulic

redistribution, defined as the transfer of water from deep edaphic sources to drier soils (Smart

et al. 2005). In both trees and grapevines, this process occurs both vertically (roots draw

water up from deep profiles into shallower ones) and also laterally (roots draw water from

irrigated areas to non-irrigated areas) (Smart et al. 2005). This phenomenon allows both tree

and vine roots to expand to unirrigated parts of the soil, allowing them to absorb nutrients and

maintain strong anchorage across a broader area. The fact that both grapes and trees have the

capacity for hydraulic redistribution is hypothesized as one of the reasons why low

competition appears to exist between grapevines and trees in vineyard agroforestry systems

(Grimaldi 2018).

Overall, the existing studies on agroforestry in vineyards suggest that trees have a

neutral to positive effect on parameters surrounding grapevine water status. Grapevines are a

drought tolerant species which are capable of producing higher quality berries and higher

yields under slight water stress (Carbonneau and Casteran 1979; Mériaux et al. 1981;

Wheeler and Pickering 2005; Charrier et al. 2018). Although trees and grapevines do impart

some levels of water stress through competition and root niche overlap, trees can also

conserve water in vineyards by reducing evapotranspiration through increased shade and

17
mulch, by increasing water infiltration through improvements in soil structure and water

holding capacity, and by distributing water from wet to dry zones through hydraulic

distribution (Young 1989a, 1989b; Morlat and Jacquet 1993; Riha and McIntyre 1999;

Lanyon et al. 2004; Smart et al. 2005; Kailis and Harris 2007; Lin 2007; Bhadha et al. 2018).

Given all tradeoffs, research findings suggest that trees would not induce damagingly high

levels of water stress through competition for water, and grey-literature studies have

confirmed that trees in vineyards did not increase CWSI in vines (Grimaldi 2018) and that

water is not responsible for reductions in fruit quality, vegetative growth, nor yield

(Trambouze et al. 2017). More studies on the effects of tree/vine competition for water are

needed, especially ones that examine different tree species, grape trellis systems, row

orientations, and layouts, in order to definitively determine the effects of trees on grapevine

water status.

II.3. THE EFFECT OF TREES ON VINE NUTRITION PARAMETERS

II.3.1. Issues Surrounding Nutrition in Conventional Viticulture

Conventional vineyards commonly face nutritional issues in soil due to low organic

matter levels, high levels of erosion, low microbial activity, and compaction (Pool et al.

1990; Garcia et al. 2018). Globally, soil erosion is increasing at epidemic rates of 2.5% per

year - a rate 10 to 40 times faster than the rate of soil renewal (Pimentel 2006; Borrelli et al.

2013). Viticulture is not immune to these losses; in fact, conventionally cultivated vineyards

are considered one of the most erosion-prone land use practices because of the lack of ground

cover, the high rates of tillage, and high levels of compaction associated with traditional

management practices (Coll et al. 2011). Several studies have quantified these erosion

effects. Vineyards in the Bairrada wine region of Portugal have been shown to experience

sediment loss at alarmingly high rates, up to 29 Mg ha-1yr-1, with total N losses of up to 20 kg

18
ha-1yr-1 (Ferreira et al. 2018). Similarly, bare-soil vineyards in an eight-year study in Tuscany,

Italy experienced N losses of 12.5 kg ha-1yr-1 and phosphorous (P) losses of 5 kg ha-1yr-1

(Napoli et al. 2017). Soil erosion results in the loss of soil organic carbon as well; in a study

on vineyards in Sicily, Novara et al. (2018) found that soil organic carbon was lost at a rate of

0.20 Mg ha-1yr-1, and that total sediment loss was 16 Mg ha-1yr-1. Fertility losses such as these

result in the need to apply high amounts of fertilizers and can cause real economic losses for

farmers (Novara et al. 2018). Using data from vineyards in northeastern Spain, economists

estimated that the amount of N lost by normal, bare-soiled vineyards each year amounts to

2.4% of a vineyard’s annual income, and that the amount of P lost each year amounts to 1.2%

of annual income (Martínez-Casasnovas and Ramos 2006).

Conventional vineyard floor management generally leads to impaired soil structure and

reduced soil water holding capacity as well (Biddoccu et al. 2017; Rodrigo-Comino et al.

2018), which in turn results in reduced biological activity and consequently diminishing

levels of OM and nutrients over time (Pool et al. 1990). Many studies have proven the

importance of incorporating cover crops and other service crops into vineyards to address

these issues (Garcia, et al., 2018), but few studies have looked at the incorporation of trees

specifically. The use of trees in agroforestry systems in general can have dichotomous effects

on crop nutrition; trees can both cause nutrient stress due to increased competition between

species, but trees can also increase nutrient availability through a variety of mechanisms.

11.3.2 Increased Nutrient Availability in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Trees increase the soil nutrients available for crop uptake by increasing OM, cycling

nutrients from deep soil profiles to shallow ones, fixing N (in the case of leguminous trees)

and transforming nutrients into a more plant-absorbable form through increased microbial

activity (Young 1989b). Although vineyards do not necessarily require high levels of N, they

19
do perform better when there are adequate levels of soil OM and nutrients (Pool et al. 1990).

Research suggests that the increased nutrient availability imparted by trees in vineyard

agroforestry systems may balance out some of the competition for nutrients that occurs in

these systems.

Agroforestry systems have the potential to increase soil OM by 50-100% (Young

1989b). They have been shown to return an average of 7.4 tons of OM per hectare per year in

the form of prunings alone, and they also produce OM through litterfall, root slough, and root

exudates (Nair 1993b; Schroeder 1993; Thevathasan and Gordon 2004). Nutrients that take

the form of OM are released slowly at rates comparable to rates of plant-absorption, and they

are in a stable molecular form that is resistant to leaching (Young 1989b). Organic matter

produced by trees serves as a source of food for microbes, which results in increased

microbial populations; indeed, trees in agroforestry systems have been shown to increase soil

microbiological activity by up to 30% (Young 1989a). Microbes excrete enzymes that

mineralize nutrients, that stabilize carbon and N in the soil, and that decompose OM into

simple, plant-available forms, resulting in higher plant nutrient uptake (Paudel et al. 2011;

Adetunji et al. 2017). Increased OM in agroforestry systems also results in increased cation

exchange capacity (CEC), which translates to a greater ability of soil to hold onto

exchangeable cations. This results in better retention of applied nutrients and resistance from

nutrient leaching (Young 1989b; Maher et al. 2008).

Trees increase nutrient cycling in agroforestry systems as well by drawing nutrients

up from deep in the ground, converting them into plant tissue and OM, dropping OM to the

ground in the form of leaf litter and above-ground debris, and thereby releasing nutrients into

the upper soil profiles, making them available for other crops to take up (Ramachandran et al.

1999). Nitrogen-fixing trees are capable of cycling N from the atmosphere into the soil as

20
well, through the process of N fixation. Depending on the species, trees can fix N at average

rates of 40 to 200 kg N ha-1 yr-1 (Nair 1993a).

II.3.3. Reduced Nutrient Losses in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Trees also allow more nutrients to remain in cropping systems by reducing nutrient

losses from leaching, erosion, and runoff. There is an abundance of evidence supporting the

use of vegetative ground cover in general in vineyards to reduce such nutrient losses due to

leaching and erosion. A study in Italy compared the erosion rates of conventionally-tilled

vineyards to those of vineyards with a grass cover crop by measuring infiltration rates, runoff

discharge, and sediment yield at various rainfall intensities in each system. In the summer

after high rainfall events, grass-covered vineyards experienced 83% less mean annual soil

loss than did conventionally-tilled vineyards (Bagagiolo et al. 2017). Another study in

Germany compared the erosion rates between a bare-soil vineyard and a grass-covered

vineyard and found that soil losses and runoff rates were significantly higher in the bare-soil

vineyards (Kirchhoff et al. 2017). Other studies have measured the erosion rates of bare-soil

vineyards as well, and they support the conclusion that bare soils are one of the greatest

determining causes of soil erosion in vineyards (Cerdà and Rodrigo-Comino 2018; Rodrigo-

Comino et al. 2018). These studies have suggested the use of tree hedgerows, a type of

agroforestry system, as a possible solution for halting erosion in vineyards (Cerdà and

Rodrigo-Comino 2018).

Although there is little research on erosion reduction in vineyard agroforestry systems

in specific, other studies have shown that agroforestry in general reduces soil erosion levels.

As mentioned above, agroforestry systems have been shown to increase soil OM by up to

100% (Young 1989b), and just a 10% increase in OM results in a decrease in soil erodibility

by roughly 13-23% (Young 1989c). Litterfall from trees in agroforestry systems translates to

21
increased groundcover, which also results in reduced surface runoff and thus reduced erosion

(Kimmins 1997; Pimentel 2006). While bare soil is exposed to the kinetic force of rain,

which “seals the surface” of soils, breaks down soil structure where impact has occurred,

dislodges soil particles, and reduces infiltration rates; agroforestry systems have a layer of

surface mulch that protects soil from kinetic impact (Riha and McIntyre 1999; Cerdà and

Rodrigo-Comino 2018). Indeed, studies comparing hedgerow intercropped agroforestry

systems to monoculture systems found that the agroforestry systems in question had saturated

hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) rates of 50 cm hr-1, while the monoculture systems had rates of

only 18.5 cm hr-1 (Riha and McIntyre 1999). In a study comparing silvopasture agroforestry

systems to treeless pastures in Missouri, Kumar et al. (2012) saw 31 times greater quasi-

steady state infiltration (qs) and 46 times greater saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) in

the agroforestry systems than in the treeless pastures. Similarly, Seobi et al. (2005) observed

14 times greater Ksat in grass and agroforestry buffers compared to a corn-soybean rotation

in Missouri. Increased infiltration results in reduced runoff, which results in fewer nutrients

that are carried out of the system (Seobi et al. 2005). Agroforestry reduces erosion potential

by reducing compaction as well (Seobi et al. 2005; Kumar et al. 2008; Udawatta et al.

2011a).

Because nutrient loss due to soil erosion is such a large problem for vineyards,

addressing soil erosion can result in significant farmer savings on fertilizer inputs. Depending

on a number of factors such as vineyard size, slope, and soil type, among others, it is

estimated that, on average, European viticulturists could save up to 1,088 Euros ha-1 annually

by planting vegetative cover in vineyards, due to the increased nutrient retention that

vegetative cover provides (Galati et al. 2015). It is speculated that agroforestry systems could

be one such vegetative cover that is suitable for addressing erosion issues and maintaining

nutrients within the cropping system (Cerdà and Rodrigo-Comino 2018).

22
II.3.4. Competition Between Trees and Grapevines for Nutrients

Despite the increased nutrient availability that trees provide to crops, trees do compete

with crops for nutrients. In general, competition for below-ground nutrients is more of a

limiting factor for crop growth in agroforestry systems than even light is (Gillespie et al.

2000) and this pattern may very well extend to vineyard agroforestry systems as well. In an

unpublished study on a 13-year-old vineyard agroforestry system in France in which

grapevines were intercropped with Stone Pine (Pinus pinea L.), and Service Tree (Sorbus

domestica L.), at densities of 222 trees ha-1, data on vine nutrient status, vigor parameters,

yield, berry quality, and soil electromagnetic conductivity was collected. Results showed that

beyond 4 m from tree rows, no negative effects on grapevine yield due to competition for

nutrients were experienced. However, at distances of 2.5 – 3.23 m from tree rows, high levels

of competition for nutrients, especially N, were experienced. These negative effects

manifested as reductions in vine vigor and yield, however, no reductions in berry quality

were observed. No negative effects from water competition were experienced; nutrients

and/or light were speculated to be the limiting factors (Trambouze and Goma-Fortin 2013).

In line with these results, another study examining competition between vines and

cover crops also discovered that vines are sensitive to N competition in particular, more than

other factors. In a study comparing five vineyard floor management treatments: bare soil

without tillage, bare soil with tillage, sawdust mulch, chicory cover crops without tillage, and

permanent chicory cover crops, researchers found that vines which received the bare-soil

treatment (no competition) had the highest petiole nitrate concentration. Vines receiving

cover crop treatments (both with tillage and without), on the other hand, had lower tissue N

content, lower shoot growth, and lower pruning weights, showing that the presence of cover

crops in vineyards does indeed result in competition for nutrients (Wheeler et al. 2005). A

similar experiment comparing clean cultivation to cover crop treatments echoed these

23
findings and found that, while cover crops increased water infiltration and did not compete

excessively with vines for water, they did cause a significant decrease in the tissue N status of

grapevines (Saayman and Huyssteen 1983). All of these findings point to the conclusion that

nutrients, rather than water, are most likely the limiting factor for grapevine growth.

II.3.5. Striking Nutritional Balance in Grapevines

Agroforestry’s applications in vineyards could negatively affect grapevine nutrient

status (Trambouze et al. 2017). However, in instances when vines are excessively vigorous,

some competition for N can be beneficial. High soil fertility does not necessarily equate to

higher yield nor higher quality wine grapes, and in grapevines there exists a fine balance

between healthy competition and excessive competition for nutrients (Wheeler and Pickering

2003). Too little N can result in severe stress, reduced yields, and decreased bud fertility, but

too much N can result in reduced fruit set, excess allocation of resources to vegetative

growth, increased in-canopy shading, and poor fruit quality (Wheeler and Pickering 2003).

Vegetative imbalance from excessive N can delay crop maturation, prevent berry sugar

accumulation, reduce phenolic concentration, and increase susceptibility to diseases such as

powdery mildew and Botrytis cinera (Wheeler and Pickering 2005). Additionally, excess

vegetative growth leads to increased production costs from an increased need for spraying,

trimming, leaf pulling, and thinning (Smart and Smith 1988). In general, grapevines have

lower N requirements than many other crops, and they can maintain high yields and high

quality production in soils that are slightly deficient in N (Smart and Smith 1988; Martison

2010).

In wine grape growing, striking the balance between excessive and healthy levels of

competition for nutrients is of the utmost importance (Smart and Smith 1988). Nutrients are

more of a limiting factor for grapevines than is water (Ussahatanonta et al. 2008) and

24
nutritional balance can be difficult to achieve (Smart and Smith 1988). Although grapevines

thrive under levels of slight nutrient deficiency, both nutrient surpluses and extreme nutrient

deficits negatively impact vine growth, grape quality, and yield (Wheeler and Pickering

2005). In vineyard agroforestry systems, trees provide many nutritional benefits to the soil by

increasing OM, cycling nutrients from deep soil profiles to shallow ones, fixing N,

supporting microbial activity, increasing CEC, resisting nutrient loss from leaching and

erosion, and increasing plant absorbability of nutrients (Young 1989a, 1989b; Nair 1993b;

Schroeder 1993; Ramachandran et al. 1999; Thevathasan and Gordon 2004; Paudel et al.

2011; Adetunji et al. 2017). These positive benefits may balance out some of the negative

effects on nutrient status caused by competition between trees and vines. However, the

current literature reveals that, overall, trees do cause negative effects on grapevine yield and

growth within 4 m of tree hedgerows, likely due to competition for N (Trambouze et al.

2017). Thus, it is most likely that the negative effects that trees have on on vine nutritional

parameters outweigh their positive benefits within 4 m of trees (Trambouze et al. 2017).

Beyond 4 m of distance, there does not seem to be any effect, neither positive nor negative,

but further evidence is needed to confirm the current studies’ findings (Trambouze et al.

2017).

II.4. THE EFFECT OF TREES ON VINE ROOT SYSTEMS

II.4.1. Issues Surrounding Vine Rooting Patterns in Conventional Viticulture

Competition for nutrients and competition for water are two limiting factors that can

hinder grapevine production in vineyard agroforestry systems when not managed correctly.

Even though grapevines can, as proven, thrive at some levels of competition with other deep-

rooted plants, excess competition can be damaging. However, much of the ability of vines to

absorb both water and nutrients in the face of competition depends on the health and spatial

25
distribution of the vine’s root system (Morlat and Jacquet 1993). Yield and overall quality of

grapes is largely dependent on the ability of a vine’s root system to exploit soil resources, and

as such, it is important to examine the effects that interspecific interactions have on the roots

of vines in specific (Morlat and Jacquet 1993). Research suggests that the depth and

expansion of grapevine roots is highly dependent on soil structure and permeability, even

more so than genotype (Smart et al. 2006), and that grapevine root plasticity is also

influenced by planting density and competition (Hidalgo 1968). Yield decline as a result of

reduced soil permeability and increased compaction is a common occurrence in conventional

vineyards and must be addressed (Pool et al. 1990).

II.4.2. Improved Soil Structure in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Although trees in vineyard agroforestry systems can compete with vines for nutrients

and water, these negative effects can be balanced by the positive influences that trees have on

soil structure and quality (Smart et al. 2006). Soil structure consists of the spatial

arrangement of individual soil particles, their aggregates, and the pore space that is formed

between them (Lanyon et al. 2004). Soil structure affects soil strength, water holding

capacity, nutrient retention, aeration, friability, erodibility, plant root movement, and

biological activity (Lanyon et al. 2004). High-quality soil structure allows for deeper and

stronger vine root systems that are better able to exploit soil resources (Smart et al. 2006),

and thus, it allows for higher grape production and quality despite competition.

According to Northcote (1988), soil porosity, and the increased aeration and water-

holding capacity that comes with it, is an even more important determinant of quality wine

grape production than nutrient availability is. High aggregate stability (which leads to high

porosity, high levels of water infiltration, low bulk density, and consequently, greater root

expansion) was also found to be a major wine grape quality determinant (Oliver et al. 2013).

26
Soil penetrability, also determined by soil structure, is an important determinant of grapevine

yield and quality as well (Henry 1993). An experiment was conducted in which grapevines

were grown in soils with varying compaction levels. Researchers found that both size and

depth of grapevine root systems decreased with increasing bulk density, and that grapevine

roots did not occupy pores < 200 μm in diameter (Henry 1993). In a large-scale study across

a variety of soil conditions throughout Australia, Myburgh et al. (1998) found that compacted

soils with higher bulk density, greater incidence of cemented hardpans, and lower porosity

were correlated with higher levels of grapevine root restriction and subsequent reduced yield

and fruit quality.

Agroforestry has been shown to improve soil structure – including soil porosity,

penetrability, aggregate stability, water holding capacity, and strength - through a variety of

mechanisms. As such, it has the potential to improve grapevine rooting potential, and

consequentially, production and fruit quality (Young 1989a, 1989b). Depending on what

kinds of trees are used in vineyard agroforestry systems, a mulching effect from litterfall and

pruning materials can occur that can have considerable beneficial effects on topsoil structure

(Riha and McIntyre 1999). Soil cover improves soil structure by reducing raindrop and

irrigation impact, which leads to conserved surface macro-porosity, which leads to greater

water infiltration rates and resultingly, improved soil penetration (Lanyon et al. 2004). An

eight-year study on different groundcover treatments including red fescue sod (Festuca rubra

L.), post-emergence herbicides, pre-emergence herbicides, and mulch confirmed that mulch

lowers bulk density, decreases compaction, increases soil porosity, and increases water

infiltration compared to bare-soil treatments and even the cover crop treatment (Oliveira and

Merwin 2001).

Agroforestry systems also improve soil structure through the high amounts of root

biomass that trees produce (Seobi et al. 2005). Tree roots in agroforestry systems improve

27
soil macroporosity by breaking up compacted soils and leaving behind old root channels that

grapevine roots are able to occupy for greater rooting depth capability (Mckenry 1984;

Young 1989a). Finer roots also contribute to improved soil structure. In a study on

agroforestry buffers in corn-soybean systems, researchers observed that tree buffer treatments

produced higher porosity, increased coarse mesoporosity, and improved soil structure, most

likely due to the increased root development in the tree buffer treatments (Seobi et al. 2005).

In the case of vineyards, improved soil quality, such as seen in this experiment, would result

in greater vine rooting capacity (Henry 1993).

The increased OM content that agroforestry systems impart to soil is another major

contributor to improved soil structure. Soil structure is largely influenced by the amount of

OM in soil (Young 1989b). In addition to increasing water infiltration and fertility, as

mentioned previously, higher levels of OM translate to higher aggregate stability and overall

improved structure (Balesdent et al. 2000). Organic matter contains sticky substances from

bacterial exudates, organic gels, fungal hyphae, and excretions from fauna, and is able to

“glue” soil particles together, thereby creating stable soil pores (Rashid et al. 2016).

Agroforestry systems have been proven to increase soil OM by 50-100%, thus increasing

porosity, reducing bulk density, and increasing soil water holding capacity (Young 1989b). It

can be speculated that because of this increase in OM, agroforestry’s applications in

vineyards would result in improved soil structure, resulting in increased rooting capability,

and subsequently, higher yields and higher quality fruit production (Henry 1993).

II.4.3. Soil Niche Competition Between Tree and Grapevine Roots

Based on typical interspecific competitive interactions in agroforestry systems in

general (Chirko et al. 1996), it is speculated that interspecific competition in vineyard

agroforestry systems would be dependent on the measured extent of associated tree roots. In

28
order to avoid competition within agroforestry systems in general, it is important to take into

consideration crop and associated tree root distribution patterns. Within the top 30 cm of any

intercropped system there is typically intense competition between roots for nutrients and

water, which results in lower yields and lower plant biomass production (Jose et al. 2009).

However, below-ground competition be tempered through spatial separation of tree and crop

roots; for example, by combining deep-rooted trees with short-rooted crops (Lott et al. 1995).

In the case of agroforestry’s applications in vineyards, both tree roots and vine roots can be

very long. Although the majority of grapevine roots are found in the top 1-2 m of soil, their

roots, like those of trees, can reach much greater deep depths (Smart et al. 2006). It is

estimated that 63% of grapevine roots are found in the upper 60 cm of soil, 80% of grapevine

roots are found in the upper 1.0 m of soil, and that the remaining roots can extend to depths

of 12 m (Lavee 2000; Smart et al. 2006). In contrast, 77% of coniferous forest tree roots are

found in the upper 60 cm of soil, and 91% of coniferous tree roots are found in the upper 1.0

m of soil, revealing that grapevines might have a higher concentration of roots at deeper soil

profiles than even some trees do (Jackson et al. 1996). Laterally, grapevine roots can spread

outwards from the vine trunk up to 10 m (Smart et al. 2006).

The amount of overlapping soil niche occupation between grapevine roots and tree

roots depends on the kind of trees that are utilized in the vineyard agroforestry system. Of the

few vineyard agroforestry systems in existence today, most consist of grapes intercropped

with olives (Olea europaea L.), Portuguese Oak (Quercus lusitanica Lam.), elm (Ulmus sp.),

poplar (Populus sp.), and wild cherry (Prunus sp.) (Altieri and Nicholls 2002). Due to a lack

of research, it is not known which trees might be most compatibly grown with grapevines

(Lanyon et al. 2004). In the case of olive trees, lateral tree roots generally extend up to 12 m,

and vertical roots grow even deeper (Kailis and Harris 2007). Like grapevines, the majority

of nutrient uptake occurs in the top 1 m of soil, and water uptake occurs within the top 1.2 –

29
1.7 m of soil (Morlat and Jacquet 1993; Kailis and Harris 2007). These results suggest that

there may be substantial below-ground niche overlap in these systems. Similarly, a study on

an 11-year-old Sorbus domestica L./grapevine agroforestry system found that tree roots and

vine roots occupied the same soil profile at distances of up to 8 m from the tree rows

(Trambouze and Goma-Fortin 2013).

However, even though tree and vine roots occupy similar soil profiles, findings

surrounding grapevine root morphology propone that there are still sufficient morphological

and physiological differences between tree roots and vine roots to allow water and nutrient

capture in different areas (Grimaldi 2018). Grapevine roots have been shown to exploit

biopores left behind by dead tree roots and have been known to occupy “fracture lines”

created by tree roots as well (Mckenry 1984). Because of this phenomenon, research suggests

that grapevine roots evolved in competition with trees, and that it is possible for tree roots

and grapevine roots to occupy different niches, even though they might exist within the same

soil profile (Mckenry 1984).

The extent of interspecific competition for nutrients also depends on the root density

(RD) per unit area volume of the competing species. The absorption rate of nutrients in plants

is dependent on root length density and thus, higher root length density in competing species

can result in higher rates of competition for N (Fargione and Tilman 2006). Average root

length density per unit area and per unit volume varies by species (Table 2). More research

must be done to determine which tree species are most compatible with grapevines, both in

terms of spatial root distribution and also in terms of nutrient and water absorption potential

(Jonsson et al. 1988).

30
Table 2. Average root length density per unit area and per unit of volume for different crops
under field conditions. Source: Smart and Coombe (1983). (Reprinted with permission).

II.4.4. Balancing Competition through Root Plasticity in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Inferences about how grapevine roots will perform in vineyard agroforestry systems

can be drawn based on evidence of how grapevine roots perform when in competition with

cover crops and with other vines in high-density plantings. Archer and Strauss (1985), in a

study on grapevine root distributions at varying planting densities, found that vineyards with

narrower spacings were able to utilize soil more efficiently and exploit more nutrients and

water while occupying a smaller space. This study found that when grapevine roots compete

with other vines for water at higher planting densities, the horizontal space occupied by roots

decreases, but RD increases, showing that grapevine root morphology can be modified to

better exploit a smaller area, if necessary. Similarly, Hidalgo (1968) also found that

throughout the entire soil profile, as plant density increased, root mass per vine decreased, but

that RD increased (Figure 5). Root density is positively correlated with vine vigor (Figure 6).

These findings point to the possibility that reduced nutrient availability from competition

might be at least partially compensated for by increased root plasticity due to competition.

Branas and Vergnes (1957) also found that as vine planting density increased, the quantity of

shallow roots (25 – 45 cm) decreased, while the quantity of deep roots (65+ cm) increased,

showing better utilization of soil volume in response to competition. It can be speculated that

31
grapevines experiencing competition from tree roots rather than other vine roots would

exhibit similar RD distribution patterns and exhaustive exploitation of soil resources.

Grapevine root plasticity can be induced by competition for water as well; the

available soil water supply can determine the quantity of roots and the vertical distribution of

roots (Morlat and Jacquet 1993). Studies have shown that more grapevine roots are produced

under dry irrigation regimes than wet irrigation regimes, demonstrating that grapevine roots

can indeed exhibit plasticity in response to resource scarcity as well (Freeman and Smart

1976; Freeman et al. 1982).

Figure 5. Relationship between vine root density (RD) (kg/m2), vine root mass (RM)
(kg/vine) and plant density (PD) (number of vines/ha). Source: Archer & Saayman
(2018). (Reproduced with permission).

32
Figure 6. Relationship between root density (RD) (kg/m2) and vegetative potential (vigor or
shoot mass, VP) per square m of surface unit. Source: Archer & Saayman (2018).
(Reproduced with permission).

The positive effects that trees impart on soil structure, soil quality, and root plasticity

allow for deeper and stronger grapevine root systems that can better absorb nutrients and

water despite competition from trees (Smart et al. 2006). Trees and vines are both perennial

species with roots that occupy many of the same soil niches, which can result in high levels

of competition (Morlat and Jacquet 1993; Kailis and Harris 2007). However, trees increase

OM, aggregate stability, macroporosity, mesoporosity, water infiltration, water holding

capacity, penetrability, and overall quality in soils, and they decrease bulk density, the

incidence of hardpans, and irrigation impact, which all contribute to a soil environment that

allows grapevine roots to grow more deeply (Young 1989a, 1989b; Henry 1993; Lanyon et

al. 2004; Seobi et al. 2005). Fracture lines left behind by tree roots also allow opportunities

33
for grapevines to grow even deeper than they otherwise would have (Mckenry 1984).

Additionally, competition from tree roots can trigger grapevine root plasticity, which results

in increased root length density and increased nutrient and water absorption capacity per cm

of soil (Branas and Vergnes 1957; Hidalgo 1968; Freeman et al. 1982; Fargione and Tilman

2006). Tree roots and grapevine roots are indeed be able to adapt to competition and thrive

despite occupying overlapping niches.

II.5. CONCLUSION

Trees that are grown in association with grapevines both positively and negatively

influence below-ground soil parameters in vineyards such as vine water status, vine nutrient

status, and rooting patterns. Existing studies reveal that the presence of trees in vineyards

imparts a neutral to positive effect on parameters surrounding grapevine water status and

water stress despite competition, due to trees’ ability to reduce evaporation and transpiration,

modify the microclimate, and distribute water through hydraulic lift. Studies show that trees

likely have a slight negative effect on grapevine nutrient status within 4 m of trees; however,

trees also have been proven to significantly improve vineyard soil quality. Trees may also

potentially increase vine rooting depth and density by improving soil structure and inducing

root plasticity. Overall, the positive below-ground services that trees provide in vineyards,

paired with the ecological and cost-saving benefits that trees impart to a viticultural

ecosystem as a whole, might very well balance out these negative effects. Although more

research on the below-ground interactions between trees and grapevines must be done, there

is growing evidence that incorporating trees into vineyards could play a valuable role in the

future of viticulture in the coming years.

34
 _______________________________
CHAPTER III
AGROFORESTRY FOR ENHANCED INTEGRATED
PEST MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARDS

_______________________________

35
III.1. INTRODUCTION

The simplified monocultural designs in conventional viticulture are associated with a

multitude of issues surrounding pest management including increases in pest and disease

pressure, pesticide resistance, increased reliance on agrochemicals, and higher overall farm

vulnerability (Altieri and Nicholls 2002; Francis et al. 2004; Nicholls et al. 2008; Meehan et

al. 2011; Henderson and Rex 2012; Mahmood et al. 2015). These issues, coupled with yield

and quality reductions due to erratic weather patterns from climate change, erosion, soil

fertility losses, drought, and damage due to high winds, highlight the need for more

sustainable vineyard practices and new vineyard designs (Altieri and Nicholls 2002;

Martínez-Casasnovas and Ramos 2006; Pimentel 2006; Dunn and Martin 2008; Borrelli et al.

2013; Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Pagay and Collins 2017; Ferreira et al. 2018; Grimaldi

2018; Rodrigo-Comino et al. 2018). Agroforestry, defined as the intentional incorporation of

trees into agricultural systems (Gold and Garrett 2009), has the potential to remedy many of

these production issues, while simultaneously sequestering carbon, providing ecosystem

services, and mitigating many of the ecological issues that the planet as a whole is confronted

with (Dupraz et al. 2009; Raj and Toppo 2018).

Agroforestry has been demonstrated to have favorable applications in viticulture in

terms of the below-ground services that it can provide to vineyards, including increasing

drought resistance, reducing erosion, building organic matter, bettering soil structure, and

improving vine rooting capability (Hidalgo 1968; Mckenry 1984; Young 1989a, 1989b;

Schroeder 1993; Riha and McIntyre 1999; Thevathasan and Gordon 2004; Smart et al. 2005,

Seobi et al. 2005; Minasny and McBratney 2015; Favor and Udawatta 2020). Agroforestry

has also been shown to improve vineyards in numerous ways in terms of the above-ground

services that it provides, including slowing wind, increasing photosynthetic capacity,

buffering temperature extremes, protecting against frost, protecting against heat stress, and

36
mitigating climate change; all without causing significant competition for light (Norton 1988;

Dupraz et al. 2009; Dupraz et al. 2018; Grimaldi 2018).

This paper reviews the ways in which agroforestry’s applications in viticulture affect

integrated pest management. Although more research regarding vineyard agroforestry

systems must be undergone, there is already evidence, as summarized in this paper, that

agroforestry can play a significant role in the integrated pest management of vineyards. The

utilization of trees in vineyards has the potential to increase associated biodiversity and

reduce windspeeds, thus impacting insect, viral, bacterial, and fungal pathogen pressure,

while also preventing dependence on chemical pesticides and facilitating precision pesticide

applications. In order for the wine grape industry to continue to thrive in the coming years

despite environmental changes and increased pest pressure, sustainable pest management

solutions must be implemented now, and agroforestry may be one such solution.

III.2. ISSUES SURROUNDING PESTS AND DISEASES IN MODERN

VITICULTURE

With the expansion of monocultures, the decrease of on-farm vegetational diversity,

and the trend of landscape simplification during the past century, agricultural systems

worldwide are experiencing more pest and disease pressure than before (Altieri et al. 2005;

Meehan et al. 2011; Bellamy 2013; Wetzel et al. 2016; Grab et al. 2018). Monoculture

systems in general have been proven to be both less able to withstand disturbance, and also

less able to recover from disturbance after it occurs, than are diversified cropping systems

(Francis et al. 2004). The simplified landscapes intrinsic to monocultures provide an

abundance of the preferred food sources, habitat, and resources of pests, allowing unbridled

dispersal, reproduction, and colonization to occur (Risch et al. 1983; Margosian et al. 2009).

Monoculture vineyard designs also cause reductions in bird, insect, and other natural enemy

37
communities within vineyards, which results in systems that are less able to self-regulate,

causing pest populations to increase at unchecked rates (Corbett and Rosenheim 1996;

Francis et al. 2004; Altieri et al. 2005; Grab et al. 2018; Peralta et al. 2018).

Increased pest and disease pressure in vineyards causes yield losses and/or the

dependence on chemical pesticides (Altieri et al. 2005; Nicholls et al. 2008; Meehan et al.

2011). In California in 2005 alone, 20 million kg of pesticides were applied in vineyards to

combat the increased pest pressure of monocultures (Altieri et al. 2005). Increased pesticide

usage creates a cycle of dependence on these same pesticides, as pesticides kill both grape

pests and their natural enemies, and because repeated pesticide application over time can

result in the evolution of pesticide-resistant pests (Mahmood et al. 2015). As a result, farmers

are often forced to choose between using harsher and harsher pesticides in order to protect

their crops, or losing their yields entirely. This reliance on pesticides can result in severe

human and environmental health issues, ranging from endocrine issues to cancer to even

death (Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al. 2016; California Department of Pesticide Regulation

2017). Reliance on pesticides can also cause economic strain on farmers; it is estimated that

landscape simplification and the resulting pesticide reliance in specific are responsible for

losses of $69 million per year in Midwestern farms (Meehan et al. 2011). In the winegrape

industry in particular, the expenses associated with the high-input demands of monoculture

have been shown to be some of the main barriers to profitability for small vineyards (Sellers

and Alampi-Sottini 2016).

III.2.1. Diversity as a Means to Combat Pests and Diseases

There are many causal pathways that explain why diversified cropping systems are

more resistant to pests and diseases than monoculture systems are (Figure 7). Agroforestry

systems in particular are presumed to suppress pest and disease pressure through the

38
following mechanisms. 1. The Natural Enemies Hypothesis proposes that floristically-diverse

systems are able to support greater quantities of natural enemies, which are thus able to

regulate herbivore pests through higher rates of predation and parasitism (Andow 1991). In

general, research has supported this hypothesis and has shown that agricultural diversification

of the landscape is correlated with increases in natural enemy populations and consequently,

parasitism rates of crop pests (Altieri et al. 2005; Grab et al. 2018). 2. The Resource

Conservation Hypothesis proposes that diverse vegetation dilutes visual and olfactory cues

that pests might receive from their target food source, making them less likely to find and

attack said crops (Root 1973). 3. Another mechanism for reducing pest and pathogen pressure

is the spatial separation of host-plants by non-host-plants that occurs in floristically-diverse

cropping systems, which may prevent herbivores from proliferating or disseminating

rampantly (Ratnadass et al. 2012). 4. In some circumstances, intercropping can utilize push-

or pull-mechanisms to either repel pests away from crops through various volatiles that they

emit, or draw pests towards them, as in the case of trap crops (Cook et al. 2007). 5.

Enhancement of below-ground biodiversity is another resistance-increasing mechanism that

reduces pathogens by increasing the likelihood that beneficial microbes might antagonize

pathogens or exhibit direct antibiotic effects (Altieri 1999; Peralta et al. 2018). Agroforestry

systems in particular have been proven to increase soil microbiological populations by 30%

(Young 1989), and thus, they have a high potential for soil pathogen suppression through this

mechanism. 6. Diversified systems including agroforestry systems also can reduce fungal

prevalence by slowing wind and thus preventing the spread of spores of certain fungal

diseases (Schroth et al. 2000).

All of these resilience-increasing causal pathways are inherent to agroforestry

systems. The increased diversity imparted by agroforestry enhances natural enemy

effectiveness, reduces herbivore access to resources, elevates herbivore suppression, and

39
increases both resistance against and resilience from pests and pathogens (Mineau and

McLaughlin 1996; Letourneau et al. 2011; Cardozo et al. 2015).

Figure 7. Major pathways for reducing the impact of pests and diseases via the introduction
of plant species diversity in agroecosystems. Source: Ratnadass et al. (2012)
(Reproduced with permission).

III.3. INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT IN VINEYARD AGROFORESTRY

SYSTEMS

III.3.1. Improved Management of Insect Pests

Although vineyard agroforestry systems are still relatively uncommon, the existing

literature on vineyard agroforestry systems and on vineyards located within biologically

diverse landscapes has proven that trees play a positive role in the management of insect

pests in vineyards. Biodiversity from woody vegetation can have an influence on vineyards

either in the form of surrounding biodiversity (i.e. adjacent forests, adjacent riparian zones,

etc.), or in the form of planned biodiversity (i.e. the intentional incorporation of trees into

vineyards themselves through agroforestry) (Altieri et al. 2005). In both the cases of

40
surrounding biodiversity and planned biodiversity, the resulting effect is an increase in

associated biodiversity (i.e. predators and parasitoids), which helps to regulate vineyard pests

and keep the agro-ecosystem in balance (Figure 8).

In terms of surrounding biodiversity, many studies have shown that vineyards located

in close proximity to surrounding woody vegetation experience reduced insect pest pressure.

Wilson et al. (2017a) compared vineyards with varying gradients of landscape diversity and

found that vineyards which had a higher percentage of “natural habitat” (consisting or

riparian or oak woodland areas) within a 0.5 km radius were associated with increased

biological control of the Western grape leafhopper, Erythroneura elegantula, due to

increased presence of the natural enemy parasitoids Anagrus erythroneaurae and Anagrus

daanei. In this study, researchers found that the approximation of vineyards to trees in

surrounding landscapes was more of a prerequisite for insect pest control than even the

presence of flowering cover crops within vineyards themselves was; this is to say that

vineyards closer to surrounding woody vegetation experienced even higher parasitism rates

and lower pest pressure than did vineyards that had flowering cover crops within the vineyard

itself but no surrounding woody vegetation. These results emphasize the importance of

woody perennial diversity in specific as a resilience-enhancing tool in vineyards. In another

study, Kido et al. (1984) found that French prune (Prunus domestica L.) orchards

surrounding vineyards served as overwintering habitat for important leafhopper enemies, the

parasitic wasps of the Anagrus genus, and thus, enhanced parasitism rates and biological

control of E. elegantula Osborn in vineyards. Several other studies have echoed these

findings and have also observed that vineyards which were surrounded by French prune trees

(Prunus domestica L.) experienced higher leafhopper parasitism and thus lower damage from

leafhoppers (Erythroneura elegantula Osborn), due to increases in Anagrus populations

(Corbett and Rosenheim 1996; Murphy et al. 1996). Researchers hypothesize that the

41
favorable control of E. elegantula Osborn seen in these vineyards was due to both trees’

ability to serve as overwintering sites, which allowed early-season Anagrus populations to

proliferate before E. elegantula Osborn populations did, and also trees’ ability to provide a

windbreak effect, which helped beneficial Anagrus insects colonize vineyards at a higher

rate. Another study found similar results and showed that vineyards which were surrounded

by woody riparian habitat experienced higher parasitism of E. elegantula by Anagrus epos

due to the ability of woody riparian vegetation to serve as overwintering sites for Anagrus

epos (Doutt and Nakata 1973). All of these findings point to the need for diversified

viticultural landscapes that include woody vegetation.

In the case of planned biodiversity in vineyard agroforestry systems, several studies

have examined vineyard agroforestry systems in particular and have shown that the

incorporation of trees into vineyards significantly reduces insect pest pressure. Altieri and

Nicholls (2002) compared 30 vineyard agroforestry systems (consisting of vines intercropped

in various patterns with Quercus lusitanica, Ulmus sp., Populus sp., and Prunus sp.) to 20

monoculture vineyards in the Minho region of Portugal and found that vineyard agroforestry

systems had greater insect species diversity than did the monoculture vineyards, including

higher numbers of predator and parasite insect species. Resultingly, the vineyard agroforestry

systems also had higher rates of parasitism. Researchers found that there were significantly

fewer leafhopper nymphs (Empoasca vitis) on leaves and significantly fewer European

grapevine moth larvae (Lobesia botrana) on inflorescences in the vineyard agroforestry

systems than in the monoculture vineyards (Figures 9 and 10). Other studies have also found

that agroforestry hedgerows serve as hosts for some of the most important grapevine-specific

natural enemy insects, including Orius spp., Geocoris spp., Coccinellidae, Chrysopidae,

Nabidae, and Syrphidae (Earnshaw 2018; Miles et al. 2012). Additionally, a 10-year study in

France comparing monoculture vineyards to adjacent vineyard agroforestry systems

42
intercropped with Pinus pinea and Sorbus domestica found that, in most years, densities of

the beneficial predatory mite, Phytoseiidae, which preys upon vineyard pest mites, were

significantly higher in the agroforestry plots as compared to the monoculture plots (Barbar et

al. 2010; Tixier et al. 2015). It is speculated that the reason for the abundance of mite natural

enemies in vineyard agroforestry systems is that trees provide beneficial shelter and shade to

predatory mite species, reducing UVB light waves, reducing temperatures, and providing an

abundance of pollen, factors all of which allow natural enemy mite species to thrive (Kasap

2005; Broufas et al. 2007; Onzo 2010).

Agroforestry can also promote insect control in vineyards by providing habitat for

insectivorous animals such as bats. Baroja et al. (2019) found that the bat Rhinolophus

hipposideros effectively controlled the grape pests Lobesia botrana, Sparganothis pilleriana,

and Drosophila suzukii, along with 52 other insect pests, in vineyards in the Rioja wine

region in Spain. Another study examined the influence of bats on pest control in vineyards by

installing nocturnal exclosures to exclude bats from vineyards at night, and by then

comparing pest damage in these bat-excluded vineyards to pest damage in control vineyards.

Researchers found that bats perform significant pest control in vineyards, enough to reduce

yield losses considerably; herbivore insect damage on clusters was 7% lower in plots where

bats were present (0.48 ± 0.20) as compared to plots excluded from bats (2.42 ± 0.66)

(F(1,20) = 13.94; p= 0.001) (Figure 11). Researchers estimated that the savings in grape yield

due to pest control from bats at similar sites could equal 595 kg/ha/year in yield, which

translates to farmer savings of US$188-$248/ha/year (using the market value of winegrapes

in 2017/2018) (Rodríguez-San Pedro et al. 2020). Insectivorous bats indeed are a valuable

component of insect control in vineyards, and creating diversified vineyard landscapes that

serve as habitat for bats should be a fundamental component of an integrated pest

management plan in vineyards (Boughey et al. 2011; Baroja et al. 2019; Rodríguez-San

43
Pedro et al. 2020). Several studies on vineyards in specific have found that bat activity in

vineyards is significantly increased by closer proximity to hedgerows (Froidevaux et al.

2017) and by increased surrounding landscape structural heterogeneity (Kelly et al. 2016).

Using acoustic surveys to track bat activity, Kelly et al. (2016) found that total bat activity

amongst three bat species (E. fuscus, M. yumanensis, and T. brasiliensis) was significantly

higher in rows adjacent to woody vegetation as compared to rows isolated from woody

vegetation (Figure 12). Researchers concluded that incorporating trees into and around

vineyards through agroforestry is a way to increase the landscape complexity required to

increase insectivorous bat activity.

Despite the evidence demonstrating agroforestry’s favorable effects on insect control

in vineyards, other studies have shown that windbreaks can increase the concentration of pest

insects in downwind areas, due to the fact that flying insects prefer to settle in areas where

windspeeds are lower than their flight speeds (Pasek 1988). The same favorable conditions

which allow for the proliferation of beneficial predator insects – such as shelter, vegetational

diversity, abundant food sources, and microclimatic alterations – also allow for proliferation

of pests (Altieri and Nicholls 2008). However, it appears that, because increases in insect

pests are accompanied by increases in insect predators along with other pest-regulating

factors, vineyard agroforestry systems become balanced and self-regulating, and the benefits

of incorporating trees appear to outweigh their disadvantages (Altieri and Nicholls 2008).

44
Figure 8. Relationship between several types of biodiversity and their role in pest regulation
in a diversified vineyard. Source: Altieri et al. (2005). (Reproduced with permission).

Figure 9. Nymphal densities of Empoasca vitis in monoculture (conventional) and

agroforestry (traditional) vineyards in northwestern Portugal in 1999. Source: Altieri
and Nicholls (2002). (Reprinted with permission).

45
Figure 10. Infestation of grape inflorescences by Lobesia botrana in monoculture
(conventional) and agroforestry (traditional) vineyards in northwestern Portugal in
1999. Source: Altieri and Nicholls (2002). (Reprinted with permission).

Figure 11. Mean number of damaged berries per cluster (± SE) in nocturnal exclosures (bats
absent) and controls (bats present) in three vineyards in central Chile over 6 sampling
periods from December 2017 to March 2018. Source: Rodríguez-San Pedro et al.
(2020). (Reprinted with permission).

46
Figure 12. Nightly recorded activity (passes per night) of bats in vineyards in Northern
California within the vineyard interior and adjacent to remnant vegetation for: (a) all
species combined (b) E. fuscus (c) M. yumanensis and (d) T. brasiliensis. The middle
line is equal to the median nightly passes, boxes indicate interquartile range, the
whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range, and values beyond this range are
indicated by (°). Source: Kelly et al. (2016). (Reprinted with permission).

III.3.2. Improved Management of Viruses and Bacteria

There are more than 70 known virus species that can affect grapevines, and three

major bacterial diseases, and many of these are spread by insect vectors (Szegedi and

Civerolo 2011; Wallingford et al. 2015; Martelli 2017). To our knowledge, no research on

viral nor bacterial infection in vineyard agroforestry systems in specific has been undergone.

However, existing research on agroforestry systems in general suggests that agroforestry

47
could either increase viral and bacterial disease incidence, by providing breeding ground for

disease vectors (Bondole 1999) or decrease viral and bacterial disease incidence, by

controling insect vectors (Schroth et al. 2000; Moreira et al. 2019).

Research shows that, in general, polycultures have lower rates of insect-trasnmitted

viruses than do monocultures, due to their inherent greater plant species richness, which

imparts greater vector control (Brunt et al. 1996; Ratnadass et al. 2012). However, research

has drawn conflicting conclusions regarding the effect of windbreaks on grape viral vectors.

Some grape virus vectors, such as mealybugs (Pseudococcidae) and soft scales (Coccidae),

which transmit leafroll ampeloviruses (GLRaV-1 and -3) and ‘rugose wood’-associated

vitiviruses (GVA), are largely dispersed by wind. Windbreaks, such as those found in many

vineyard agroforestry systems, may prevent their colonization (Franco et al. 2009; Hommay

et al. 2012). However, windbreaks and ornamental fruit trees planted near vineyards have

also been observed to serve as host sites for mealybugs (Soares Cariri Lopes et al. 2019).

One of the most threatening grape bacterial vectors, the glassy-winged sharpshooter,

Homalodisca vitripennis, which transmists Xylella fastidiosa and causes Pierce’s Disease, has

been known to host upon trees such as acacia (Acacia cowleana), avocado (Persea

americana), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus wandoo), almond (Prunus dulcis), peach (Prunus

persica), olive (Olea europaea), plum (Prunus L.), mulberry (Morus L.), citrus (Citrus L.),

and many other woody species (Rathé et al. 2014; Stancanelli et al. 2015). Several studies

have shown windbreaks to increase glassy-winged sharpshooter infestation in vineyards in

California, in particular, jojoba and eucalyptus windbreaks (Daane et al. 2006; Wistrom et al.

2010). In areas where Pierce’s Disease is common, intercropping grapevines or lining

vineyards with windbreaks composed of glassy-winged sharp shooter host trees would be

highly discouraged.

48
III.3.3. Improved Management of Fungal Diseases

Fungal infections in grapevines are largely dependent upon light, temperature, and

humidity (Zahavi et al. 2001; Austin and Wilcox 2012), factors all of which can be

manipulated by the presence of trees. Under traditional monoculture vineyard designs,

grapevines are exposed to high amounts of sunlight, which does help to control fungal

development. Sunlight is made up of a majority of infrared wavelengths, but 8-9% of light is

made up of ultraviolet light, consisting of UV-A wavelengths (315-400 nm), UV-B

wavelengths (280-320 nm) and UV-C wavelengths (100 to 280 nm) (Frederick 1993).

Ultraviolet light is important for certain grape development qualities and it protects grapes

against many pathogens, including pathogenic grape fungi, whose conidia and thalli are

damaged by UV light (Hollósy 2002; Austin and Wilcox 2012). The long wave radiation

component of sunlight is responsible for tissue heating, sometimes elevating grape tissues to

up to 13 °C higher than ambient temperatures, which also prevents fungal infections from

establishing (Spayd et al. 2002). Shade from trees can reduce both the amount of heat and

UV light reaching grapevines, which may increase fungal development in grapevines,

although to our knowledge no conclusive studies have been undergone regarding fungal

development due to shade in vineyard agroforestry systems.

Powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator), one of the most prevalent grape fungal

pathogens, has been shown to be inhibited by high light intensity and enhanced under shade

conditions (Zahavi et al. 2001). Austin and Wilcox (2012) found that shade increased

powdery mildew severity by 49 to 75% on grapevine leaves, and by 20 to 40% on grapevine

clusters. They determined that the main causes were reduced temperatures and reduced UV-B

radiation due to reduced shade. Researchers concluded that minimizing shade, both within-

canopy and also externally, was important for preventing powdery mildew infestations. This

49
conclusion implies that intercropping vines with trees, given the associated shade that trees

provide, would cause higher rates of powdery mildew infection.

However, although powdery mildew proliferation increases under shade, it decreases

when its host plant is less vigorous. Powdery mildew proliferation and vine vigor are

positively associated; as vine vigor and turgor of tissue increase, powdery mildew infection

rates increase as well. This is due in part to the fact that high vigor leads to poorly ventilated

canopies, thus favoring the conditions for fungal infestations, and that epidemic spread of

fungal spores is more possible with dense vine canopies (Valdés-Gómez 2008; Calonnec et

al. 2009). A study on a vineyard in France found that vines exposed to interspecific

competition by perennial cover crops had lower early-season shoot growth, and subsequently,

fewer powdery mildew hosts early in the season, which led to lower powdery mildew

infestation of berries at harvest (Valdés-Gómez et al. 2011). Valdés-Gomez et al. (2008)

found similar results in a sister study; researchers found that plots in which vines experienced

interspecific competition from tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Shreb) and ray grass (Lolium

perenne L.) had one-fourth the amount of botrytis infections as did vines that were treated

with chemical weed control. In the case of vineyard agroforestry systems, reduced vigor

caused by competition from trees may be favorable for reducing the proliferation of powdery

mildew. Additionally, the wind-slowing effect of trees may prevent the spread of fungal

spores, thus slowing the rate of colonization within the vineyard (Schroth et al. 2000). More

studies should be undergone in this area.

III.3.4. Precision Pesticide Application

One of the core tenets of integrated pest management is applying pesticides at the

proper intervention thresholds, when pest and disease pressure is at optimal levels (Barzman

et al. 2015). However, the EPA mandates that pesticides be only be applied when wind

50
speeds are lower than three to ten miles per hour (depending on the chemical), meaning that

farmers are often unable to apply pesticides at the precise moment that they would be most

beneficial (Norton 1988; United States Environmental Protection Agency 2019). Windbreaks

have been shown to reduce pesticide drift by up to 80-90% in some cases, thus allowing for

more precise timing of pesticide application, when pest thresholds are at the optimal levels

(Norton 1988; Ucar and Hall 2001).

III.4. CONCLUSION

The existing research on integrated pest management in vineyard agroforestry

systems demonstrates the effectiveness of utilizing agroforestry to create heterogeneous

vineyard landscape designs as a way to combat pests and diseases. Monocultural vineyard

designs are associated with numerous pest management issues that leave vineyards

vulnerable to losses, dependent on pesticides, and economically less-resilient. Creating

diverse vineyard agroforestry systems by incorporating trees into vineyards has been shown

to benefit insect pest management efforts by providing habitat for natural enemy insects and

vertebrates, which results in increased abundance of natural enemies, increased parasitism

rates, reduced insect pest pressure, and subsequently, reduced yield losses. Although vineyard

agroforestry systems can cause increases in pest insect abundance as well, the existing

literature shows that the accompanied increases of natural enemy populations result in overall

increased insect pest control and reduced herbivore damage. Vineyard agroforestry systems

may also control bacterial and viral infections by controlling the insect vectors that transmit

these pathogens, however, great care must be taken to avoid intercropping grapevines with

trees that could be hosts for harmful viral and bacterial vectors. The prevalence of fungal

infections in vineyard agroforestry systems may be increased by the increased shade that

trees impart, but may be reduced by trees’ windbreak effects and by the beneficial reductions

51
in vine vigor that occur as a result of below-ground competition between trees and vines. The

presence of trees in vineyards also facilitates the proper timing of precision pesticide

applications by slowing wind and creating conditions conducive to pesticide application at

the precise moment when pest pressure is at the proper threshold. More research must be

undergone regarding integrated pest management in vineyard agroforestry systems; however,

the existing literature demonstrates that there are significant benefits to incorporating trees

into vineyards. These benefits, in addition to the above-ground, below-ground, and ecosystem

services that trees provide to both vineyards and to the broader environment, make the case

that designing diverse vineyard agroforestry systems is an effective way to manage pests and

diseases while benefiting the environment.

52
 _______________________________
CHAPTER IV
THE EFFECT OF TREES ON LIGHT IN VINEYARD
AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

_______________________________

53
IV.1. INTRODUCTION

In the face of climate change and environmental degradation, agroforestry is being

looked to as a sustainable solution to address many of the issues that modern viticulture is

facing. Agroforestry, defined as the intentional combination of agriculture and forestry into a

single integrated system (Gold and Garrett 2009), has been shown to enhance vineyard

functionality by improving conditions for pest and disease suppression, reducing farmer

dependence on chemical pesticides, preventing both direct and indirect wind damage,

increasing vine photosynthetic capacity, protecting against heat stress, protecting against

frost, increasing drought resistance, reducing erosion, building organic matter, bettering soil

structure, and improving vine rooting capability (Hidalgo 1968; Mckenry 1984; Young

1989a, 1989b; Schroeder 1993; Riha and McIntyre 1999; Altieri and Nicholls 2002;

Thevathasan and Gordon 2004; Smart et al. 2005, Seobi et al. 2005; Udawatta et al. 2011b;

Minasny and McBratney 2015; Favor and Udawatta 2020). These farm benefits, in addition

to the ecosystem services that trees provide, suggest that incorporating trees into vineyards

may be an appropriate solution to address the many challenges that modern viticulture faces,

especially in the face of a changing climate (Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Garcia et al. 2018;

Raj and Toppo 2018).

Despite the many proven advantages of agroforestry’s applications in vineyards,

many farmers remain wary of incorporating trees into their vineyards for fear of competition

for light (Zelba et al. 2016; Dupraz et al. 2018). This review paper explores the many ways

that trees influence light patterns in vineyards, and subsequently, how they both positively

and negatively influence wine grape physiological, production, and quality parameters.

Although more research must be undergone on light interference in vineyard agroforestry

systems, the existing knowledge surrounding the role of light in vineyards in general, along

with several studies on light in vineyard agroforestry systems in particular, suggests that the

54
positive above- and below-ground services that trees impart to vineyard agroforestry systems

may outweigh the negative effects of competition for light.

IV.2. THE EFFECTS OF SUN AND SHADE ON WINE GRAPES IN GENERAL

IV.2.1. The Effects of Sun and Shade on Grapevine Physiological Parameters

Generally speaking, sunlight has photosynthetic, thermal, and phytochromatic effects

on grapevines (Kliewer and Smart 1989). Radiation from sunlight influences grapevine

physiology by supplying the quantity of photosynthetic photon flux density in

photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) necessary for photosynthesis, by altering the

microclimate and providing warmth, and by influencing growth through quality of light

(Smart 1987a). Grapevines depend on PAR radiation in the wave band 400 – 700 nm for

photosynthesis, they depend on thermal radiation in the 300-1500 nm wavelength for tissue

heating, and they depend on light quality with a ratio of red:far red radiation of above 1.1 for

growth and production (Smart 1987a, Gommers et al. 2013).

In general, the growth rate of unstressed crops, also known as net primary

productivity, is positively related to the quantity of PAR absorbed, up to a point, until it

reaches light saturation (Monteith 1972; Smart and Robinson 1991; Medlyn 1997). The light

saturation point in grapevines has been found to be around 0.55 µmol quanta m-2 s-1 (During

1988). However, in grapevines, photosynthesis rate is more responsive to ambient

temperature, water stress, and reductions in the ratio of red:far red light than to reductions in

PAR quantity (Greer and Weedon 2013; Zhang et al. 2019), thus, although high PAR is

generally associated with higher rates of photosynthesis, this relationship is not linear

(Medlyn 1997; Sun and Wang 2018). Shade does reduce PAR, but it also reduces thermal

radiation, which can have positive or negative effects on photosynthesis, depending on the

ambient temperature of the growing region. The ideal temperature range for photosynthesis in

55
grapevines is between 25-28 °C. When ambient temperatures are higher than this, direct

sunlight can have detrimental effects on photosynthesis by increasing leaf temperatures

excessively (Kriedemann 1968). When leaf temperatures become high, leaf water potential is

reduced, which in turn can cause a reduction in stomatal conductance, and thus,

photosynthesis (Smart 1974; Greer and Weedon 2013). Shade, on the other hand, can reduce

both ambient temperature and leaf temperature, thus actually increasing photosynthesis when

grapevines are experiencing heat stress, despite lowering transmitted photosynthetically

active radiation (PART) (Marshall 1967).

Shade also significantly reduces the temperatures of berries themselves. Studies have

observed berries to have temperatures up to 17 °C higher than ambient temperature (Figure

13; Millar 1972; Smart and Sinclair 1976; Spayd et al. 2002; Tarara et al. 2005). Grape

berries are extremely sensitive to temperature, and their cell division can halt when

temperatures exceed 35 °C (Kliewer 1977; Dokoozlian 2016). On hot days, minor increases

in shade can positively impact berry cell functioning in significant ways (Smart and Sinclair

1976; Pereira et al. 2005).

Shade changes the quality of light that reaches grapevines as well; different

wavelengths of light have different effects on grapevine physiological and morphological

characteristics (Krueger 1981; Šebela et al. 2017). Red and blue light rays are the most

photosynthetically active rays, and thus promote the most photosynthesis, while yellow and

orange light promotes cell elongation. Interactions between infrared and red light control

plant hormones, which can subsequently control morphological changes such as flowering

and tissue production (Krueger 1981), while the ratio of red:far red light interacts with the

plant phytochrome system to affect regulatory enzymes, cell development, fruit ripening, and

the development of other grape compounds (Smart 1987b; Wright 1989). Shade affects the

quantity of UV light reaching grapevines as well. Sunlight is made up of a majority of

56
infrared wavelengths, but 8-9% of light is made up of UV light, consisting of UV-A

wavelengths (315-400 nm), UV-B wavelengths (280-320 nm) and UV-C wavelengths (100 to

280 nm) (Frederick 1993). UV light is important for certain grape development qualities, and

it protects grapes against many pathogens, but it can also cause sunburn and tissue damage

(Hollósy 2002; Austin and Wilcox 2012). Shade can reduce the amount of UV light reaching

grapevines, thus preventing tissue damage (Parsons et al. 1998).

All in all, shade can alter the photosynthetic, thermal, and phytochromatic

environment and thus affect grapevine physiological parameters in numerous ways, both

positively and negatively. Climate change models estimate that temperatures in wine growing

regions may rise 1.7 °C in the next 50 years; an estimation that, although small, could still

affect wine production (Jones 2005). It is predicted that under a 2 °C global warming

scenario, 51% of current wine regions would no longer be able to grow high-quality grapes

(Morales-Castilla et al. 2020). If these predictions prove true, increased shading in vineyards

may be a vital adaptation strategy for maintaining optimal grapevine physiology in a majority

of the current grape growing regions of the world.

57
Figure 13. Temperature of exposed and shaded ‘Carignan’ berries, relative to the air
temperature at cluster height on February 10, 1972. Source: Millar (1972).

IV.2.2. The Effect of Sun and Shade on Grape Yield

Shade can negatively affect wine grape yield by decreasing bud fruitfulness, fruit bud

initiation, and inflorescence formation. Shade decreases the number of bunch primordia per

bud (Buttrose 1970) (Figure 14) and decreases fruit bud initiation as well (May and Antcliff

1963; Baldwin 1964; Kliewer 1982; Shaulis 1982), which results in direct yield reductions.

The negative effects of shade on bud initiation can even impact yield years into the future;

shade not only causes reduced bud break in the current year, but also caused decreased

budbreak, lower numbers of fruitful shoots, and reduced cluster weight in the following year

(Hopping 1975). All in all, grapevines need on average 10 hours of sunlight per day to reach

maximum fruitfulness, and when light levels are lower than this, yield is significantly

reduced (Baldwin 1964).

58
 Shade can either negatively or positively affect flower formation, depending on

temperature conditions. Grapevine flowering is dependent upon cytokinin synthesis, which is

dependent upon light (Mullins et al. 1992; Lombard et al. 2006; Roman et al. 2016). The

triggering of inflorescence formation is also dependent upon high intensity of light and high

temperatures at budburst (Antcliff and Webster 1955; Buttrose 1970; Buttrose 1974; Kliewer

1975; Palma and Jackson 1981; Srinivasan and Mullins 1981; Dunn and Martin 2008).

However, beyond a short pulse of four to five hours of temperatures 20 °C or higher, high

temperatures can actually negatively affect the number of flowers per inflorescence (Buttrose

1974; Srinivasan and Mullins 1981; Petrie and Clingeleffer 2008; Vasconcelos et al. 2009).

While high temperatures create more inflorescences per branch, lower temperatures create

more flowers per inflorescence (Pouget 1981; Martin 2000; Petrie and Clingeleffer 2008).

Therefore, although heat and PAR are important for inflorescence formation, slight levels of

shade that reduce thermal radiation might not have a negative influence on overall numbers

of flowers formed.

Under extremely hot growing conditions, shade can actually increase yield. Today,

more and more wine growing regions are being impacted by unusually high temperatures,

which can result in yield losses due to shriveling, sunburn, and raisining (McCarthy 1997;

Coombe and McCarthy 2000; Spayd et al. 2002; Keller 2010; Krasnow et al. 2010; Bonada et

al. 2013a, 2013b). In such areas impacted by climate change, shade can reduce heat stress and

sunburn, and can thereby reduce yield losses (Chorti et al. 2010; Oliveira et al. 2014; Bayer

2015). In the Douro region of Portugal, for example – a region often affected by extreme

temperatures – researchers found that shading in the fruit zone of the vine canopy during

different points in grapes’ phenological cycle (both from fruit set to harvest and also veraison

to harvest) reduced the percentage of shriveled berries per cluster and increased yield

significantly (Table 3). This research suggest that the negative effects of hot growing regions

59
can not only be combatted by reducing ambient temperature, but also by reducing the

quantity of sunlight radiation reaching grapes itself.

Figure 14. The effect of light intensity on the mean number of bunch primordia per bud for
the basal 12 buds on shoots. Daylength was 16 hours at 25 °C. The vertical bars equal
1 x standard error of the mean. Source: Buttrose (1970).

Table 3. Mean separations of yield, percentage of shriveled berries per cluster at harvest from
2010 to 2012 in Douro, Portugal. Source: Oliveira et al. (2014).

Treatment Yield (g plant-1) % Shriveled berries per

cluster

Control 1503.5a 13.7a

Shade Fruit Set - Harvest 2172.0b 5.8b

Shade Veraison - Harvest 2075.6b 6.7b

Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference (Tukey’s a ≤ 0.05).

60
IV.2.3. The Effects of Sun and Shade on Grape and Wine Quality

Shade affects grape must and wine quality as well. Grape must quality and wine

quality are subjective concepts but can be generally quantified through measuring levels of

sugars/soluble solids (SS), pH, Total Acidity (TA), tartaric acid, malic acid, anthocyanins,

tannins, polyphenols, and other flavonoids (Archer and Strauss 1989; Sadler and Murphy

2010; Boudreau et al. 2018; Blancquaert et al. 2019; Kemp et al. 2019).

Sugar content in grapes, measured as soluble solids (SS), is the biggest indicator of

ripeness and determines post-fermentation alcohol content (Jordão et al. 2015; Kemp et al.

2019). Heat, influenced in part by sunlight, is the greatest driver of SS accumulation, with

higher temperatures (up to 30 °C) generally associated with greater and more rapid SS

accumulation (Winkler et al. 1974; Coombe 1987; Mullins et al. 1992; Sadras and Moran

2012; Rienth et al. 2014). However, even though heat usually increases grape SS content,

under certain circumstances, SS accumulation can be delayed or even halted entirely by heat

(Sepúlveda and Kliewer 1986; Bergqvist et al. 2001; Greer and Weston 2010; Lecourieux et

al. 2017). Reduced photosynthesis due to heat stress is speculated to be a cause of this

phenomenon (Greer and Weston 2010). In areas impacted by high temperatures, shade can

actually reduce the negative effects of heat upon SS accumulation (Abeysinghe et al. 2019).

Soluble solid accumulation is also influenced by PAR or the lack thereof, although

the effect of shading on clusters is different from the effect of shading on vine canopies. The

effect of cluster shading in specific on SS development in grapes has been widely debated,

with some studies finding that cluster shading has no effect upon SS levels at harvest

(Crippen and Morrison 1986; Rojas-Lara and Morrison 1989; Morrison and Noble 1990;

Haselgrove et al. 2008; Spayd et al. 2002; Downey et al. 2006; Lee 2017) and others finding

that cluster shading reduces SS levels (Reynolds et al. 1986; Kliewer and Smart 1989;

Dokoozlian and Kliewer 1996; Chorti et al. 2010). The effects of canopy shading are clearer;

61
many researchers have found that the process of SS accumulation is slowed down (although

not inhibited) in the presence of shade due to reduced PAR (Lakso et al. 1989; Rojas-Lara

and Morrison 1989; Morrison and Noble 1990; Mullins et al. 1992; Cartechini and Palliotti

1995; Abeysinghe et al. 2019). However, in hot regions where temperature negatively affects

SS accumulation, reductions in light can lower temperature and balance out the negative

effects of reduced PAR, to result in overall equal or greater SS accumulation rates

(Abeysinghe et al. 2019).

Acids in grape must and wine are also affected by shade. Acids balance sulfur dioxide

content in wine, determine the stability of anthocyanins and thus color, determine

conduciveness to fermentation, keep harmful microorganisms in check during fermentation,

and are fundamental to achieving a crisp, high-quality flavor (Pedroza et al. 2017; Comuzzo

and Battistutta 2019). Acid synthesis is partially dependent upon light exposure and partially

dependent upon temperature. Temperature is the driving influencer of acid synthesis and

degradation, especially at later stages of grapevine development, with higher temperatures

causing reduced levels of TA, and subsequently, lower quality wine (Buttrose et al. 1971;

Ruffner et al. 1976; Bergqvist et al. 2001; Spayd et al. 2002; Keller 2010; Bonada et al.

2013b; Sweetman et al. 2014; Martínez-Lüscher et al. 2017). Shade has been shown to have

either little effect on acidity overall (Kliewer and Antcliff 1970; Morrison and Noble 1990;

Oliveira et al. 2014) or even positive effects on acidity, due to its temperature-reducing

properties (Spayd et al. 2002). Shade’s effects on acidity in a given environment would,

however, depend on the amount of shade received, the climate of the particular growing

region, the trellis system, the grape variety being grown, and many other factors (Cartechini

and Palliotti 1995; Greer and Weedon 2013).

Flavonols are a type of flavonoid that bond with anthocyanins to stabilize wine and

form co-pigment complexes, and they also scavenge free radicals, protect plants against UV

62
damage, and protect against pathogens (Flint et al. 1985; Mattivi et al. 2006; Azuma et al.

2012). Sunlight exposure is the main factor in influencing flavonol content in wine grapes,

with higher light exposure directly resulting in higher flavonol quantities (Price et al. 1995;

Tarara et al. 2005; Martínez-Lüscher et al. 2019). In a study comparing shaded and sun-

exposed Merlot clusters in Yakima Valley, Washington, Spayd et al. (2002) found that sun-

exposed clusters had 10 times the amount of flavonols as did shaded clusters, even when

temperature was decoupled from irradiance (Table 4). Many other studies have examined the

effect of light on flavonol content as well and have found that flavonol content in light-

exposed berries is consistently higher than flavonol content in light-excluded berries (Fujita

et al. 2006; Azuma et al. 2012; Sun et al. 2017). In particular, the flavonols kaempferol,

quercetin glycoside, and quercetin aglycone have been shown to be especially sensitive to

shade (Price et al. 1995; Martínez-Lüscher et al. 2019) (Figure 15).

Anthocyanins are the pigments that create color in wine, and they are primarily found

in grape skin (Mattivi et al. 2006; Kennedy 2008). The concentration of anthocyanins

increases under greater light exposure and is suppressed by shade (Morrison and Noble 1990;

Gao and Cahoon 1994; Dokoozlian and Kliewer 1996; Keller and Hrazdina 1998; Oliveira et

al. 2014) but only up to irradiance levels of 100 mmol/m2/s (Bergqvist et al. 2001; Tarara et

al. 2005). Once grapevines receive 100 mmol/m2/s of sunlight, anthocyanin levels actually

begin to decline with increased sunlight, largely because with greater sunlight exposure come

higher temperatures, which negatively affect anthocyanins (Buttrose et al. 1971; Haselgrove

et al. 2008; Bergqvist et al. 2001; Spayd et al. 2002; Downey et al. 2006; Yamane et al. 2006;

Mori et al. 2007; Tarara et al. 2005; Azuma et al. 2012; Blancquaert et al. 2019; Gouot et al.

2019). Because of this, providing grapevines with enough shade to reduce thermal radiation

without causing irradiance to drop below 100 mmol/ m2/s could be a way to maintain optimal

anthocyanin production even with the increased temperatures that are predicted to occur with

63
climate change (Buttrose et al. 1971; Downey et al. 2006). The incorporation of trees into

vineyards may be a way to do this.

Although sunlight is less of an influencing factor on anthocyanin production than is

temperature, researchers have observed higher anthocyanin content in the wines made from

sun-exposed grapes, even though they did not observe higher anthocyanin content in the

grape skin of sun-exposed grapes (Price et al. 1995). Researchers speculate that this could be

due to the higher quercetin aglycone levels that sun exposure causes, which may promote the

polymerization of anthocyanins in wines, thus leading to greater stability of anthocyanins

over time, even though grapes themselves might not have higher anthocyanin levels under

different light treatments (Price et al. 1995; Kennedy 2008).

The biggest indicator of wine quality is balance – when acids, tannins, sugars,

anthocyanins, phenolics, and alcohol levels are present in balanced ratios within a wine

(Jackson and Lombard 1993; Jones et al. 2005; Rienth et al. 2016). Because of climate

change and higher temperatures, many wine growing regions, especially those in warmer

climates, will find it hard to continue to produce quality and balanced wine in the coming

years (Jones et al. 2005; Keller 2010; Mira de Orduña 2010; Rienth et al. 2016; Drappier et

al. 2019). Higher temperatures cause sugars to develop at accelerated rates, leading fruit to

mature long before other components such as aroma and polyphenols have time to develop

(Jones and Davis 2000; Chuine et al. 2004; Webb et al. 2008; Rienth et al. 2016). Higher

temperatures also lead to higher levels of alcohol, which results in the masking of other

complex aromas, and higher temperatures can directly degrade many other quality-related

compounds as well (Jones et al. 2005; Stock et al. 2005; Keller 2010; Mira de Orduña 2010;

Rienth et al. 2016; Lecourieux et al. 2017; Drappier et al. 2019; Gouot et al. 2019; Morales-

Castilla et al. 2020). Utilizing shade in vineyards may be an important strategy for

maintaining balanced wine in the face of increased temperatures in wine growing regions in

64
 the coming years. All in all, shade reduces both PAR and microclimatic temperature,

resulting in both positive and negative effects on wine quality. Shade lowers wine quality by

reducing flavonol synthesis and reducing long-term anthocyanin stability in wine over time.

However, under the projected temperature increases predicted by climate change models,

shade could actually increase wine quality by slowing sugar accumulation, moderating

alcohol levels, maintaining high acidity levels, and maintaining anthocyanin levels, resulting

in overall wine balance and persistent wine quality.

Table 4. Influence of cluster temperature and exposure to sunlight on flavonol concentrations

in Merlot berry skins in the Yakima Valley, Washington, 2000. Adapted from Spayd et al.
(2002).

SUN SHADE

Control Blower Cooled Control Blower Heated

Total flavonols 82.70a 82.70a 76.00a 10.20b 22.90b 17.80b

Quercetin 3- 59.90a 62.80a 56.60a 7.50b 14.60b 12.50b

glucoside

Myricetin 3- 9.12a 8.50a 8.15a 0.01b 3.15b 1.80b

glucoside

Kaempferol 3- 13.70a 11.40a 11.30a 2.68c 6.72b 4.80bc

glucoside

Mean separation within years within rows by Duncan’s new multiple range test (p = 0.05).
Means followed by the same letter do not differ.

65
Figure 15. Evolution of total flavonol content per berry (A), % kaempferol (B), % quercetin
(C), and % myricetin (D) under ambient (0% shading factor) and under two shade
nets (20 and 40% shading factor) covering the fruit-zone of cv. Cabernet Sauvignon
grapes. Ripening is considered from color change (ca. 12 ◦Brix) to soluble solids of
ca. 22 ◦ Brix and over-ripening from 23 ◦Brix to harvest. Means in the same time point
with no letters in common differ (ANOVA-LSD; p < 0.05). Source: Martínez-
Lüscher et al. 2019.

66
IV.3. THE EFFECTS OF SUN AND SHADE IN VINEYARD AGROFORESTRY

SYSTEMS

Shade in-and-of-itself can have negative effects on grapevine physiological,

production, and quality parameters, such as decreasing SSs, flavonols, long-term anthocyanin

stability, bud fruitfulness, fruit bud initiation, and inflorescence formation, along with

potentially negatively affecting acids under certain conditions. However, despite these

negative effects, shading from trees in specific is a more complex matter with many moving

parts at play. In fact, current research suggests that shade from trees might minimally affect

wine grape production and quality parameters (Gillespie et al. 2000; Dupraz et al. 2009;

Trambouze and Goma-Fortin 2013; Grimaldi 2018). The presence of trees in vineyards does

impact the quantity of PAR, thermal radiation, and light quality that reaches grapevines

(Kliewer and Smart 1989), but not always in significant nor negative ways.

Light interference was observed in vineyard agroforestry systems in several extensive,

20-year studies at the Restincliéres Agroforestry site in Montpellier, France, in which

grapevines were intercropped with Pinus pinea L., Pinus brutia Ten., Cupressocyparis

leylandii, Cupressus sempervirens, Pyrus communis L., and Sorbus domestica L. In these

studies, grapevines were observed to have lower yield within 4 m of tree rows, however, this

was speculated to be mainly caused by competition for N, rather than competition for light

(Gillespie et al. 2000; Dupraz et al. 2009; Trambouze and Goma-Fortin 2013; Grimaldi

2018). Under this same research project, a Discrete Anisotropic Radiative Transfer (DART)

model was developed to predict how much grapevines would be impacted by shading from

trees under various growing conditions (Grimaldi 2018). The model used meteorological

data, radiative data, typical vineyard agroforestry system shading patterns, and actual

recorded data from dozens of vineyard experimental sites in France. Data was grouped into

categories: vines under large trees vs. vines under small trees, and vines on south sides of tree

67
rows vs. vines on north sides of tree rows. The model showed that vines exposed to shade

from trees did indeed absorb lower levels of radiative energy; in the “large tree” treatment,

grapevines to the south of tree rows absorbed 4% more PAR than tree rows to the north,

while in the “small tree” treatment there was no difference. However, even though the

presence of trees did reduce vine PAR absorption in this study, the model predicts that these

reductions in PAR are not enough to significantly reduce neither photosynthesis nor yield

(Grimaldi 2018). These studies and models suggest that shade from trees would not

negatively impact grapevines in a significant way. There are many reasons to explain why

this might be the case.

In terms of the quantity of PAR reaching grapevines in vineyard agroforestry systems,

every agroforestry system is different, but trees do reduce the amount of sunlight reaching

understory crops (Oke 1988). The amount of light that penetrates the understory through tree

canopies depends on tree species, height, and density, and the angle of solar incidence (Oke

1988). In forests, only 20% of incident short-wave light reaches the understory, but in

agroforestry systems, the percentage is higher (Oke 1988). Estimations for the light

interception patterns around a single tree during the grapevine growing season in the

Northern Hemisphere (April 1 – September 21) can be summarized in Figure 16. These

estimations are specifically for a latitude of 34.8 °N and trees with an ellipsoid canopy shape,

but they can be a good indicator of general shading patterns in other trees and latitudes. In

general, estimations for PAR reaching the understory to the north of trees is roughly 15 to

50% of full-sun irradiance, estimations for PAR reaching the understory to the east and west

of trees is roughly 40 to 50% of full-sun irradiance, and estimations for PAR reaching the

understory to the south of trees is roughly 25-70% of full-sun irradiance (Dupraz et al. 2005).

However, studies from Guyot (1989) show that, although tree canopies do shade grapevines,

the many leaves in tree canopies also act as reflectors, reflecting radiation onto the vines

68
below. Short-wave radiation can be reflected off of the ground, off of understory vegetation,

and off of the underside of tree canopies as well, which causes understory plants, grapevines

in this case, to receive amounts of short-wave radiation that are often still sufficient for

growth (Oke 1988). Figure 17 sums up the general light distribution patterns that occur when

radiation comes into contact with tree canopies. Overall, PAR is predicted to be only 10-15%

lower in vineyard agroforestry systems than in vineyard monocultures (Grimaldi 2018).

In terms of the effect of trees on the quality of light reaching grapevines, tree canopies

in general absorb (and therefore deplete for understory crops) quantities of red and blue (0·40

to 0·45 μm) light, therefore leaving higher ratios far red and infrared light (0·65 to 0·75 μm),

which is less suitable for photosynthesis (Oke 1988). Deciduous trees absorb most of

sunlight’s red and blue light rays, leaving understory plants below to absorb mostly orange,

yellow, green, and infrared light (Krueger 1981). However, coniferous trees absorb mostly

blue light, allowing some red light to also filter through to understory plants (Krueger 1981).

Because red and blue light rays are the wavelengths primarily responsible for photosynthesis,

reductions in quantities of these light rays can indeed have an impact on understory crop

photosynthesis (Krueger 1981, Oke 1988); thus, shade from deciduous trees is likely to have

a more negative effect on understory grapevine photosynthesis than shade from coniferous

trees. Shade causes the red:far red ratio to drop below 1.1 as well, which is also less

conducive to photosynthesis (Gommers et al. 2013; Grimaldi 2018). Reductions in red light

have other negative consequences as well; the reduction in red light caused by tree shade

causes a reduction in the creation of important plant enzymes, such as PAL and invertase,

which in turn causes a reduction in lignin production, flavonoid production, and sucrose

hydrolysis (Wright 1989; Tauzin and Giardina 2014).

Despite the reduction in PAR and light quality that tree shade causes, the

photosynthesis-enhancing effects that tree shade imparts on the vineyard microclimate, such

69
as the buffering of extreme temperatures, could outweigh any negative effects upon

photosynthesis (Grimaldi et al. 2017; Grimaldi 2018). In fact, daytime shading from trees has

been shown to reduce vines heat stress, which actually increases photosynthesis (Oke 1988;

Grimaldi et al. 2017; Grimaldi 2018). Although lower amounts of PAR and diminished light

quality do of course correspond to lower photosynthesis rates, shade can cause lower heat

stress and lower evaporative demand, which encourages stomata to open, thus allowing

photosynthesis to occur more efficiently (Oke 1988). More studies must be undergone to

examine the tradeoffs between reduced PAR, reduced light quality, and the increased

stomatal opening that occurs in vineyard agroforestry systems in specific due to shading, but

the models from Grimaldi (2018) suggest that grapevine photosynthesis is not significantly

affected by shade in vineyard agroforestry systems. Another reason why grapevine

photosynthesis might not be affected by reduced light is that grapevines adapt to low light

intensities by increasing leaf chlorophyll content and modifying their canopy architecture

(Cartechini and Palliotiti 1995).

Because of its temperature-buffering effects, shade from vineyard agroforestry

systems may also create conditions for optimal cellular division, and thus growth, in grape

berries (Dokoozlian 2016). Since grape berry development is largely influenced by

temperature and is halted above temperatures of 35 °C, some shade from trees, especially in

hot growing regions or in regions impacted by climate change, may beneficially affect berry

development (Dokoozlian 2016).

The predicted amount of shade as indicated by Grimaldi’s models might not be

sufficient to impact wine quality parameters in a negative way either; many wine quality

indicators such as flavonol content and SS levels are indeed inhibited by shade, but only high

levels of shade have been shown to have a significant impact. For instance, Gao and Cahoon

(1994) did observe lower total SS and anthocyanin levels in grapes treated with a 95% shade

70
treatment as compared to a 55% shade treatment and a full-light shade treatment, but they did

not observe differences between the 55% shade treatment and the full-light treatment. Thus,

grape quality parameters in vineyard agroforestry systems might not be significantly

impacted by the PAR reductions that occur in vineyard agroforestry systems, although more

research is needed in this area. All in all, the existing research suggests that, under hot

growing conditions such as those that are predicted to occur in the coming years with climate

change, the positive impacts that tree shade imparts to the vineyard microclimate may very

well outweigh the negative effects from reduced PAR and reduced light quality.

Figure 16. Schematic representations of potential light availability patterns around a single
tree based on the tree’s shadows from April 1 to September 2, at a latitude of 43.8 °N,
with tree height H, and ellipsoid tree canopy shape. Source: Grimaldi (2018) and
Dupraz et al. 2005.

71
Figure 17. Schematic Model of radiation exchanges above and within a forest. Dashed lines
indicate partial transmission through the canopy. Flux 1 indicates the short-wave
radiation that comes down onto trees from the sun. Flux 2 indicates the short-wave
radiation that is transmitted to the understory. Flux 3 indicates the initial short-wave
radiation reflected from the floor upwards. Flux 4 indicates the reflection between the
floor and the underside of the canopy or the underside of the understory crop. Flux 5
represents the short-wave radiation that is reflected by the tree canopy. Flux 6
represents the short-wave radiation reflected from the floor onto understory plants.
Flux 7 represents that total short-wave radiation reflected from both the canopy (Flux
5) and the floor (Flux 6). Source: Oke (1988).

IV.4. CONCLUSION

The presence of trees in vineyard agroforestry systems impacts light patterns, which,

in turn, affect wine grape physiological, production, and quality parameters in both positive

and negative ways. Trees reduce the quality and quantity of light that reaches understory

crops, trees reflect light from their canopies onto understory crops, and tree shade reduces

temperature. The small body of current research on vineyard agroforestry systems today

indicates that shade from trees may not significantly affect grapevine photosynthesis nor

quality, and that rather, below-ground competition for resources may be more of a limiting

factor than is competition for light. More studies must be undergone on vineyard agroforestry

systems in specific, but existing studies examining shade from other sources in vineyards

suggests that, in regions that are predicted to be impacted by climate change in the coming

years, shade may impact grapevines in positive ways. In wine growing regions impacted by

72
high temperatures and more frequent heat waves, shade from trees may benefit grapevines by

reducing sunburn from UV radiation, maintaining photosynthesis rates, preventing yield

losses from shriveling, maintaining adequate sugar levels, preventing acid degradation,

allowing anthocyanin development, and promoting synchronized development of flavor

profiles for an overall balanced and high-quality wine. In wine growing regions that are less

impacted by climate change, shade may have opposite effects, and may reduce levels of SS,

acids, anthocyanins, and yield. In all regions, regardless of the predicted impact of climate

change, shade is speculated to have a negative impact on flavonols and long-term

anthocyanin stability.

Many management practices can be implemented in order to create vineyard

agroforestry systems that maximize benefits while minimizing competition for light. More

research on vineyard agroforestry systems in specific is needed in order to confirm the

research findings summarized in this review. However, the existing research summarized in

this review, along with other research demonstrating the other positive benefits that

agroforestry brings to vineyards (including increased drought resistance, increased OM,

improved soil structure, improved vine rooting capability, increased photosynthetic capacity,

erosion reductions, reduced pest and disease pressure, reduced wind damage and erosion,

reduced heat stress, and reduced frost damage, and ecosystem services) warrants more

research to be done on light in vineyard agroforestry systems. In particular, research that

focuses on light in a wide range of wine producing regions, grape varieties, and tree-vine

combinations would be beneficial.

73
 ________________________________
CHAPTER V
THE EFFECT OF TREES ON MICROCLIMATE IN
VINEYARD AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

________________________________

74
V.1. INTRODUCTION

Agroforestry, defined as the intentional incorporation of trees into agricultural

systems (Gold and Garrett 2009), was once a common practice in vineyards, and today it is

being looked to once again as a way to address many of the threats facing modern viticulture

(Dupraz et al. 2009; Fabre 2014). Although vineyard agroforestry systems were, for

centuries, the traditional method of wine grape cultivation, since the beginning of the 19th

century with the rise of industrialization, vineyards have shifted to monocultures, and the use

of trees has largely been abandoned (Fabre 2014). This shift has brought with it a multitude

of problems that affect vineyards including erosion, reduction in soil fertility, biodiversity

loss, shoot and vine damage due to high winds, increased pest and disease pressure, and

increased reliance on agrochemicals (Francis et al. 2004; Martínez-Casasnovas and Ramos

2006; Pimentel 2006; Dunn and Martin 2008; Henderson and Rex 2012; Borrelli et al. 2013;

Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Pagay and Collins 2017; Ferreira et al. 2018; Rodrigo-Comino et

al. 2018). These issues, paired with the extreme weather patterns caused by climate change,

including drought, extreme precipitation, unseasonal frost, and extreme heat, result in yield

losses and/or economic losses, and they point to a need for more sustainable viticulture

solutions (Hennessy and Pittock 1995; Dupraz et al. 2009; Grimaldi 2018).

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating that agroforestry has beneficial

applications in viticulture in terms of its integrated pest management potentials (Altieri and

Nicholls 2002; Wilson et al. 2015; Wilson et al. 2017a; Wilson et al. 2017b) and its below-

ground services, including increasing drought resistance, reducing erosion, building organic

matter, bettering soil structure, and improving vine rooting capability (Hidalgo 1968;

Mckenry 1984; Young 1989a, 1989b; Schroeder 1993; Riha and McIntyre 1999; Thevathasan

and Gordon 2004; Smart et al. 2005, Seobi et al. 2005; Udawatta et al. 2011b; Minasny and

McBratney 2015; Favor and Udawatta 2020). Agroforestry also benefits viticultural systems

75
in numerous ways in terms of its effects on above-ground parameters such as wind patterns

and microclimate, as this review paper will summarize.

The utilization of agroforestry in vineyards affects wind patterns, preventing both

direct and indirect wind damage, reducing wind erosion, increasing leaf area, increasing

stomatal aperture, and maintaining high vine photosynthetic capacity. Agroforestry also alters

the vineyard microclimate by buffering temperature, protecting against heat, protecting

against frost, reducing water stress, and mitigating climate change. Although some

interactions between grapevines and trees have negative ramifications, many of the

interaction effects are positive. Paired with the fact that windbreaks also provide a host of

ecosystem services including purifying water, mitigating pollution, sequestering carbon, and

conserving biodiversity (Root 1973; Mize et al. 2008; Jose 2009; Garcia et al. 2018), the case

can be made that the utilization of trees in vineyards may once again have its place in

sustainable viticulture, especially considering the impending negative effects that climate

change will have on vineyard microclimates. The intentional application of agroforestry in

vineyards has the potential to modify the viticultural microclimate and create regenerative

viticultural systems that are able to both resist and also mitigate many of the issues that

modern viticulture is confronted with (Raj and Toppo 2018).

V.2. THE EFFECT OF TREES ON WIND PATTERNS IN VINEYARD

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

V.2.1. The Negative Effects of Wind in Conventional Vineyards

Wind can negatively affect vineyards in many ways, both directly and indirectly.

Wind can cause direct damage to vineyards by whipping branches, buds, flowers, and fruit,

and even toppling entire grapevines if strong enough (Norton 1988, Jagoutz 2004; Henderson

and Rex 2012). In some cases, especially in the case of young vines, wind has been known to

deform or completely break trunks, shoots, and roots (Norton 1988; Tarara et al. 2005). Wind

76
can also damage buds, resulting in reduced bud fertility, and subsequently, reductions in

cluster numbers per vine (Dry and Botting 1993; Bettiga et al. 1996). During the winter,

winds can bring cold air into vineyards and can cause increased risk of tissue damage from

frost as well (Gade 1978; Vogt and Schruft 2000).

Wind can indirectly harm vineyards by reducing the photosynthetic rate of

grapevines. Wind reduces shoot length, leaf size, and stomatal density of grapevines,

resulting in fewer cells that are able to perform photosynthesis and thus, lower photosynthesis

rates (Dry and Botting 1993; Pienaar 2005). Wind reduces stomatal conductance as well; in

response to strong wind, grapevine stomata have been observed to close several hours more

quickly than those of vines exposed to light winds or reduced wind from windbreaks (Dry

and Botting 1993). Wind can also permanently damage stomata by diminishing the boundary

layer of leaves, damaging the grape leaf cuticle, and even damaging epidermal cells and/or

their structures, which all either directly harm stomata or limit their functioning (Weyers and

Hans 1990; Boyer 2015). Since photosynthesis occurs as a result of CO 2 diffusing into

stomata while water vapor diffuses out, stomatal closure and damage results in the direct

reduction of photosynthesis (Freeman et al. 1982; Kobriger et al. 1984; Boyer 2015).

Reductions in photosynthesis reduce the amount of sugars and phenolic compounds in

berries, which translates to reduced quality and flavor in wine (Creasy and Creasy 2009).

Wind can also cause significant soil erosion in vineyards, which not only diminishes

soil fertility and increases farmer dependence on fertilizers, but which can also cause

environmental problems such as contamination in watersheds and ecosystems downstream,

along with health risks from dust production (Goudie 2014; Rodrigo-Comino et al. 2018).

Wind erosion occurs when wind energy itself dislodges soil particles from the soil surface,

and also when these dislodged particles hit and dislodge other soil surface particles through a

mechanism known as saltation (Blanco-Canqui and Lal 2010; Pennock 2019). In a study

77
comparing the erosion rates of different land management systems in Spain, Marzen et al.

(2019) found that 98% of erosion in the conventional vineyards studied was caused by wind,

which was a significantly higher percentage than that found in other land management

systems such as orchards, Mediterranean fallows, and wheat fields (Figure 18). This higher

rate of wind erosion is speculated to be due to the high amount of tillage in conventional

vineyards, and it is estimated to be lower in vineyards that implement low- or no-till practices

or that implement windbreaks (Kirchhoff et al. 2017; Marzen et al. 2019). All in all, the

negative effects of wind on grapevine tissue, yield, stomata, photosynthesis rate, and even

soil fertility can result in significant losses and additional expenses for wine grape farmers

worldwide.

Figure 18. Percentage of erosion for wind and rain on different land management systems in
Spain. Source: Marzen et al. (2019).

V.2.2. Windbreaks as a Solution in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

Windbreaks, also known as shelterbelts, are an agroforestry practice consisting of

lines of trees and shrubs that slow and change windflow patterns by intercepting wind as it

78
passes through trees and by forcing air up and over trees (Mize et al. 2008; Brandle et al.

2009). As air approaches a windbreak, its surface static pressure increases as it hits the barrier

of trees, sharply drops as it flows through, and then continues to stay low for some distance

after the windbreak until it gradually goes up again (Brandle et al. 2009). Windbreaks are

commonly used to protect livestock and crops, control snowdrift, reduce wind soil erosion,

improve aesthetics, provide habitat to wildlife, improve irrigation efficiency, yield tree

products, reduce odor and noise, and reduce pesticide drift (Ucar and Hall 2001; Brandle et

al. 2009; Tamang et al. 2009). The design of a windbreak, including its height, length,

continuity, orientation, species composition, and density (determined by number of rows and

tree spacing) determines how effective windbreaks will be at reducing wind speed (Ucar and

Hall 2001; Mize et al. 2008).

Both windbreaks and alley cropping systems, two types of agroforestry practices,

function to slow wind in vineyards. Although the practice of incorporating agroforestry into

vineyards is still relatively uncommon, several studies have demonstrated the benefits of

windbreaks in vineyards in specific. Dry and Botting (1993) conducted an extensive

experiment in Eden Valley, Australia over the course of six years in which grapevines

exposed to wind were compared to grapevines sheltered by a 3.5 m high, 300 m long

windbreak. Sheltered vines were found to have significantly more shoots per m cordon,

longer shoot lengths, more nodes per shoot, higher stomatal density, and an overall higher

mean mass per cane, showing that vegetative growth, and thus, photosynthetic capacity, is

higher in vines sheltered by windbreaks (Table 5). A similar grey-literature study in

Stellenbosch, South Africa also examined the effects of wind on grapevine physiology by

comparing sheltered Merlot vines to wind-exposed vines over the course of two years, and

found that sheltered vines had a higher number of primary and secondary leaves, higher total

primary and secondary leaf area, longer shoot length, and longer internodes (Pienaar 2005).

79
Researchers found that sheltered vines also had higher stomatal conductance (Pienaar 2005).

In another study, Bettiga et al. (1996) compared sheltered Chardonnay grapes to wind-

exposed Chardonnay grapes (in which wind speed was higher than 4 m per second).

Researchers found that sheltered vines had significantly larger leaf areas; primary leaves of

sheltered vines were 40% larger than those of non-sheltered vines, and lateral leaves of

sheltered vines were 30% larger than those of non-sheltered vines. Additionally, the sheltered

vines in this study were observed to have higher bud fertility, more bunches per m cordon,

higher bunch mass, and overall 13% more yield than non-sheltered vines (Table 6). All of

these observations support the conclusion that windbreaks result in better physiological

structure, and thus, higher photosynthetic rate and higher yield in vineyards.

Trees in vineyards can increase grape yields in more indirect ways by reducing

windspeed and thus allowing for efficient applications of pesticides in precise moments when

pest pressure is at the correct threshold (Norton 1988). Environmental Protection Agency

regulations prohibit pesticide applications when wind speed is greater than three to ten miles

per hour (depending on the pesticide), and thus, pesticides are sometimes unable to be

applied at the precise moment when they would be most effective for the vineyard, which can

result in losses (Norton 1988; Ucar and Hall 2001; United States Environmental Protection

Agency 2019). Windbreaks reduce windspeeds, thus minimizing the conditions that cause

pesticide drift, which allows for pesticide application at more precise moments throughout

the year (Norton 1988). Another way that windbreaks indirectly benefit vineyards is by

reducing soil erosion from wind, thereby keeping nutrients in place and reducing the need for

fertilizer inputs (Tamang et al. 2009).

Windbreaks can also benefit vineyards by reducing evaporation up to a point, thus

contributing to farmer water savings (Norton 1988; Davarzani et al. 2014). Windbreaks have

been shown to reduce soil evaporation and maintain soil moisture, resulting in higher yields

80
in dry areas (Kort 1988; McNaughton et al. 1989). However, the slowing of wind does not

significantly reduce soil evaporation rate under all growing conditions, as evaporation is only

increased by wind under certain local weather conditions (McNaughton 1988; Norton 1988;

Cleugh 1998). This is because, although wind does increase evaporation rates up to a point,

once evaporation moves from first stage evaporation (soil water flow to vapor diffusion

controlled stage) to second stage evaporation (diffusion-dominant stage), wind does not

affect evaporation rate significantly (Davarzani et al. 2014). Thus, although windbreaks can

often positively influence the water status of grapevines by reducing evaporation, the benefits

are not consistent. Still, there are sufficient benefits of windbreaks - such as increased

vegetative growth, increased photosynthetic capacity, reduced soil erosion, more precise

pesticide applications, increased budburst rate, and increased yield - to warrant their use in

vineyards (Norton 1988; Dry and Botting 1993; Jagoutz 2004; Pienaar 2005).

Table 5.Growth response of Cabernet Franc to wind in Eden Valley, South Australia. Source:
Dry and Botting (1993) (Reproduced with permission).

81
Table 6. The effect of wind on yield parameters of Chardonnay grapes. Source: Bettiga et al.
(1996) (Reproduced with permission).

V.3. THE EFFECT OF TREES ON MICROCLIMATE IN VINEYARD

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS

V.3.1. Microclimatic Issues in Conventional Viticulture

Wine grape production is influenced by climate at the macro-, meso-, topo-, and

micro-climatic scales (Neethling et al. 2019). On a macro-climatic level, the majority of the

world’s wine grapes are grown within a finite geographical and climatic range, typically

between the 30th and 50th parallel in both the northern and southern hemisphere, in climates

that fall under the Köppen classification as Mediterranean, mild mid-latitude, mid-latitude

dry, subtropical dry, and severe mid-latitude climates (Stevenson 2005; Jones and Webb

2010; Jones et al. 2012). The macroclimates of high-quality wine grapes are typically

characterized by growing season isotherms between 12 and 22 °C, and high quality wine is

82
generally not produced in regions whose mean growing season temperatures exceed 22 °C

(Neethling et al. 2019). Meso-climatic influences are related to the daily temperatures and

precipitation patterns within a region. At this level, the accumulation of growing degree days

greatly influences the growth and development of the grapevine (Neethling et al. 2019). Wine

grape quality varies highly depending on topo-climatic factors as well, i.e. the local climatic

conditions that make up part of the “terroir” of the site (van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006;

Neethling et al. 2019). The climatic influences at the topo level are often influenced by the

terrain, elevation, slope, aspect, and heat and moisture exchange at this local level (Neethling

et al. 2019). Microclimate specifically refers to the temperature, relative humidity, and solar

radiation at the canopy-level, immediately within and around the grapevine. The

microclimate includes the complex and often subtle interactions that occur between the

grapevine and the mineral, vegetative, and climatic components of its surrounding ecosystem,

and it is a major determinant of yield, fruit quality, and ultimately, wine quality (Wright

1989; Zahavi et al. 2001; van Leeuwen and Seguin 2006). Because there is already a narrow

range of optimum climatic conditions for wine grape growing, grapes are more vulnerable to

changes in climate and weather patterns than other crops are; increases or decreases in

temperature, albeit a few degrees, can drastically alter the terroir of a site, and thus, the

production of high quality wine (Jones and Webb 2010; Santillán et al. 2019; Neethling et al.

2019).

Heat stress, exacerbated by the increased incidence of droughts and extreme heat

waves due to climate change, is increasingly becoming a cause of concern in vineyards, and

heat stress is only predicted to increase in the coming years (Hennessy and Pittock 1995;

Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Cook and Wolkovitch 2016). Heat stress impacts yield by

reducing photosynthesis – up to 35% in some cases – and by halting berry cell division

(Smart 1974; Kliewer 1977; Greer and Weedon 2013; Dokoozlian 2016). Heat stress early in

83
the growing season can cause significant yield reduction due to reduced numbers of

inflorescences and reduced fruit set (Stephenson 1981; Dunn and Martin 2008). Daily

daytime temperatures of 40 °C during flowering and fruit set have been shown to cause high

rates of flower abscission (Greer and Weston 2009), and likewise, heat stress late in the

season can cause fruit abscission (Stephenson 1981; Dunn and Martin 2008; Pagay and

Collins 2017). Late season heat can cause yield reductions due to berry shriveling, sunburn,

and raisining, as well (McCarthy 1997; Coombe and McCarthy 2000; Spayd et al. 2002;

Keller 2010; Krasnow et al. 2010; Oliveira et al. 2014).

High temperatures throughout the growing season have been shown to speed up sugar

accumulation while inhibiting the production of acids, tannins, anthocyanins, and other

important flavor compounds, resulting in unbalanced and lower-quality wine (Jones and

Davis 2000; Sadras and Moran 2012; Rienth et al. 2016; Alikadic et al. 2019; Drappier et al.

2019). Acids, tannins, sugars, color, and phenolics must all develop in sync in order for a

quality wine to be produced, but with high temperatures, sugar and organic acid metabolism

are desynchronized, which results in wines which lack complexity or which have high levels

of alcohol (Jones and Davis 2000; Rienth et al. 2016; Drappier et al. 2019; Santillán et al.

2019). Not only does heat prevent wine quality indicators from developing by the time

harvest arrives; in many cases, heat causes the molecules that contribute to wine quality to

degrade entirely. The amount of heat that vineyards experience during heat waves has been

shown to degrade anthocyanins, organic acids, polyphenols, amino acids, and other quality-

driving volatiles (Bergqvist et al. 2001; Spayd et al. 2002; Lecourieux et al. 2017; Martínez-

Lüscher et al. 2017; Drappier et al. 2019; Gouot et al. 2019). As the effects of global

warming increase in the coming years, damage due to heat stress in the wine grape industry is

only predicted to increase. Scientists estimate that if climate change predictions come true,

84
51% of current wine growing regions will no longer be able to grow enough high quality

wine grapes to justify cultivation in the future (Morales-Castilla et al. 2020).

At the other extreme, abnormal climate change patterns can also cause grape losses

due to frost. Most wine grapes are grown in areas with average growing-season-temperatures

between 12 and 22 °C (Stevenson 2005, Neethling et al. 2019). Prolonged temperatures

above 10 °C trigger dormancy release, and historically, this has occurred in the spring, long

after the last frost has occurred (Keller 2015). However, the weather patterns in many of wine

regions are now changing due to climate change, and warm temperatures earlier in the season

are causing grapes to exit dormancy before the last frost hits (Kliewer and Soleimani 1972;

Webb et al. 2007; Gosme et al. 2019). Early bud break followed by frost can damage delicate

buds and shoots, and in some cases can even result in complete crop failure (Gosme et al.

2019). In order to prevent this, farmers must resort to measures such as lighting fires in their

vineyards at night, burning straw or rubber to produce smoke and prevent radiative cooling,

and inverting warm air onto vines through the use of helicopters (Gosme et al. 2019). These

are extreme and expensive measures, and not all farmers are able to afford them; as a result,

many farmers are forced to accept yield losses (Gosme et al. 2019).

In the coming years, climate change is also predicted to bring both periods of drought

and periods of extreme precipitation to grape growing regions throughout the world (Di Carlo

2019; Santillán et al. 2019). Severe drought, especially in grape growing regions where

irrigation is not common, can result in stunted vegetative growth, reduced fruit quality, and

diminished fruit production (Medrano et al. 2003; Charrier et al. 2018). In regions where

irrigation is common, droughts can result in groundwater depletion and/or high water bills

that can impact farmer profit (Cooley et al. 2015).

Climate change is also predicted to bring patterns of extreme and unseasonal

precipitation to these same regions, which can also reduce wine quality and yield. Already,

85
scientists are noticing that traditional wine growing regions are experiencing climatic shifts

from steady, gentle rains to scarcer yet more intense precipitation events, even though the

total quantity of precipitation through the growing season may not change (Di Carlo et al.

2019). In a study based off of viticultural data from 1818 to 2012 in the Abruzzo region of

Italy, intensity of rainfall (calculated by dividing precipitation amount by the number of rainy

days) was shown to be correlated with earlier harvests, and it was determined to be a leading

factor, second only to temperature, in terms of inducing harvest (Di Carlo et al. 2019). Early

harvests result in reduced quality because grapes reach peak sugar levels before having the

chance to fully develop aromas and flavors, resulting in wines which lack complexity and

depth (Di Carlo et al. 2019; Santillán et al. 2019).

Today, in the face of global macroclimatic changes that are uncontrollable, being able

to manipulate the vineyard microclimate is of the utmost importance in order to secure

vineyard resilience well into the future (Neethling et al. 2019). Manipulation of the macro-

and meso-climate by the viticulturist is impossible, but the manipulation of the viticultural

microclimate can significantly alter the temperature and humidity of grapevines, often

making or breaking grapevine growth and production. The vineyard microclimate is already

commonly manipulated by viticulturists through countless cultural practices such as

fertilization, weed management, irrigation, pruning, trellis system, leaf removal, shoot

positioning, and many others (Zahavi et al. 2001). The incorporation of trees into vineyards is

another underutilized yet highly beneficial practice that can be employed to positively

influence the viticultural microclimate, especially in light of the high temperatures and

extreme weather patterns that are predicted to impact wine growing regions in the coming

years.

V.3.2. Microclimatic Regulation in Vineyard Agroforestry Systems

86
Trees regulate the viticultural microclimate and buffer temperature extremes by providing

shade during the day, by radiating thermal heat at night, and by regulating wind speeds. Trees

have been shown to positively impact the vineyard microclimate without causing significant

competition for light, suggesting that vineyard agroforestry could be an effective tool for

protecting grapevines from the extreme weather patterns that are predicted to occur in the

coming years with climate change (Dupraz et al. 2009; Dupraz et al. 2018).

Trees mitigate both high and low temperatures by providing shade and shelter,

resulting in less heat and water stress among grapevines (Grimaldi 2018). In general,

temperatures are roughly 10 °F cooler during the day and 10 °F warmer at night under shade

conditions, as compared to open air conditions (Krueger 1981), and in vineyard agroforestry

systems in specific, temperatures have been documented to be up to 6 °C lower during the

day than in monoculture vineyards (Grimaldi et al. 2017; Grimaldi 2018; Gosme et al. 2019).

In an extensive, 20-year study on vineyard agroforestry systems in Montpelier, France,

reduced temperatures were particularly notable in vines on the southern side of tree rows, and

as a result of the reduced temperatures, vines were documented to experience both reduced

water stress and subsequently increased yield (Grimaldi 2018). This finding held true with

younger trees as well; in a similar study, a monoculture Sauvignon Gris vineyard was

compared to an adjacent and otherwise identical vineyard agroforestry system in which

grapevines were intercropped with 7-year-old Sorbus domestica L., Sorbus torminalis (L.)

Crantz, and Pyrus pyraster (L). trees. Grimaldi et al. (2016) found that inner-canopy

temperatures were lower in vine rows to the south of tree hedgerows. These findings were

more pronounced especially when evaporative demand was high. In a later study on this same

vineyard, it was confirmed that the vines nearest to trees experienced had lower Crop Water

Stress Indices (Grimaldi et al. 2017).

87
 Although more studies regarding shade from trees in specific have yet to be

undergone, studies that have examined the temperature-regulating effects of shade in general

upon grapevines have shown that shade has the capacity to improve both yields and many

wine quality parameters, especially in regions that are impacted by high temperatures from

climate change. In warmer growing regions impacted by high temperatures, temperature

reductions from shade can improve yield by increasing photosynthesis, and also by providing

protection against losses from shriveling and raisining (Marshall 1967; Chorti et al. 2010;

Oliveira et al. 2014; Bayer 2015). Under extremely hot conditions where berry cell division

would normally cease due to high temperatures, shade can also improve yield by reducing

temperatures enough to allow healthy berry cell division and functioning (Smart and Sinclair

1976; Pereira et al. 2005). Several wine quality indicators, including acidity, anthocyanins,

and even soluble solids at times are negatively impacted by high temperatures (Buttrose et al.

1971; Ruffner et al. 1976; Keller 2010; Bonada et al. 2013; Sweetman et al. 2014;

Abeysinghe et al. 2019). Shade can promote the development of and/or prevent the

decomposition of these quality components in wine, resulting in greater wine complexity and

quality (Buttrose et al. 1971; Spayd et al. 2002; Downey et al. 2006). Additionally, under hot

conditions where soluble solids are known to accumulate at excessively fast rates, shade can

reduce ambient temperature enough to slow the rate of accumulation of soluble solids,

allowing sugars, aromas, acids, tannins, and flavors to all develop in sync with one another

(Jackson and Lombard 1993; Jones et al. 2005; Rienth et al. 2016). Balanced and high quality

wines can still be grown even under the unnaturally high temperatures forecasted in the

future, as long as adaptive strategies such as increased shade are employed to reduce

microclimatic temperature.

Trees mitigate frosts as well by creating a “night mask” which reduces radiative

cooling and shelters vines from radiation frost (Norton 1988; Gosme et al. 2019). Trees

88
absorb short-wave radiation during the day and radiate it out to the surrounding area in the

form of sensible heat and long-wave radiation at night (Oke 1988). The height of trees,

coupled with their horizontal canopies, allows them to capture more radiation than other

forms of vegetation. This radiation is then emitted upwards from the canopy and down onto

the the area below the canopy (Oke 1988). Under sunny daytime conditions in particular,

trees absorb high amounts of shortwave radiation and are then able to radiate it out in the

form of longwave irradiance throughout the day and night, at levels that have been shown to

significantly impact the surrounding microclimate (Spittlehouse et al. 2004; Howard and

Stull 2013) (Figure 19). Indeed, trees have been shown to increase the microclimatic

temperature enough to increase the rate of snowmelt in their surrounding vicinity due to this

radiation transfer (Oke 1988). When the surrounding vicinity consists of crops, trees can

protect crops from radiation frost as well. At 0 °C, trees release 360 W.m-2 of radiative

energy, whereas air at this temperature only releases 236 W. m-2. At 25 °C trees release 434

W .m-2, whereas air at this temperature only releases 336 W. m-2 (Brutsaert 1982). All in all,

trees can increase surface and near-surface soil temperatures by 1-2 °C, which can make all

the difference when vineyards are on the brink of frost damage (Chen et al. 1995). Other

sources have shown that trees also prevent frost by reducing crop transpiration, which can

produce slightly higher humidity levels within the canopy, resulting in slightly greater

protection against radiative heat losses (Norton 1988; Brandle et al. 2009). Indeed, in a study

in Montpellier, France that compared vineyard agroforestry systems to adjacent monoculture

vineyards, researchers found that the vineyard agroforestry systems suffered from

significantly less frost damage than did adjacent monoculture vineyards (Gosme et al. 2019).

Meso- and macro-climatic factors such as temperature, drought, precipitation-

intensity are more difficult to control than are microclimatic factors. The only way to change

these factors is by slowing down the progression of climate change on the planet as a whole

89
through concerted efforts. Humans can deal with climate change in two ways: by adapting

and by mitigating (Jones and Webb 2010; Neethling et al. 2019). Trees not only can help

vineyards adapt to climate change by altering microclimates, protecting against drought,

protecting against frost, and protecting against extreme heat; in the long run, trees’ presence

in vineyards can also help mitigate climate change, even if in a small way, by sequestering

carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and reducing global greenhouse gases (Raj and Toppo

2018). Estimates for carbon-sequestration potential in alley cropping agroforestry systems are

3.4 Mg C ha-1 yr-1 (Udawatta and Jose 2011). If agroforestry is implemented in vineyards

worldwide, vineyards could participate in collective climate change mitigation efforts in a

significant way.

Figure 19. Modifications of the incoming radiations for an understory crop in the vicinity of a
tree. (a) shows interception and reflections of the solar shortwave radiations. (b)
shows the contribution of longwave radiations emitted by trees in the solid-colored
triangle. Source: Grimaldi (2018).

V.4. NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF TREES IN VINEYARDS

Despite the positive impacts that trees have on wind and microclimatic patterns in

vineyards, implementing agroforestry in vineyards does of course come with its challenges.

Vineyard agroforestry systems are by definition more complicated to manage than are

monoculture vineyards, requiring intensive management in order for both species to thrive

90
(Gold and Garrett 2009; Altieri et al. 2012). Additionally, despite the many yield increases

that reduced windspeed and improved microclimate might cause, trees have been observed to

cause yield reductions in vines within 4 m of tree rows, likely due to competition for nutrients

such as nitrogen (Gillespie et al. 2000; Dupraz et al. 2009; Trambouze and Goma-Fortin

2013). Trees also reduce the quality and quantity of light reaching understory grapevines,

which, under certain growing conditions, may negatively affect wine quality metrics such as

anthocyanin accumulation and flavonol content (Morrison and Noble 1990; Spayd et al.

2002; Blancquaert et al. 2019).

However, despite these drawbacks, vineyard agroforestry systems have the capacity

to increase wine quality and yield under the projected weather patterns that are predicted to

come with climate change. Additionally, despite reductions in grape yield in rows closest to

trees, the farm as a whole, including the yield from associated trees, has the capacity to yield

more (Raj and Toppo 2018). The savings from reduced fertilizer and pesticide inputs, along

with the numerous ecosystem benefits that trees provide, could also justify the yield loss

within vine rows closest to trees (Galati et al. 2015; Pachauri and Meyer 2015; Cerdà and

Rodrigo-Comino 2018; Garcia et al. 2018). Weighing the benefits and drawbacks of

incorporating trees into vineyards is, of course, a determination that must be made by each

individual farmer, and is one that would depend upon the growing region, the variety grown,

and the holistic goals of the vineyard as a whole.

V.5. CONCLUSION

Trees benefit vineyards by positively affecting wind patterns and the viticultural

microclimate. Although incorporating trees into vineyards can increase management

complexity, can reduce yields nearest to trees, and can negatively affect certain grape quality

parameters, research suggests that the many above-ground benefits of vineyard agroforestry

may very well outweigh their costs. The positive above-ground services that trees provide,

91
such as preventing wind damage and erosion, increasing stomatal aperture and leaf area,

increasing photosynthetic capacity, protecting against heat, protecting against frost, and

reducing water stress suggest that vineyard agroforestry systems may be a wise solution to

the many problems facing modern viticulture, especially considering the extreme

temperatures, weather events, pest and disease pressure, and micro- and macro-climatic shifts

that are predicted to come in the following years with climate change. The current literature

indicates that trees may help vineyards both adapt-to and also mitigate climate change, but

more research on vineyard agroforestry systems should be undergone to confirm the current

findings, especially research that focuses on different grape varieties, wine producing

regions, tree-vine combinations, intercropping planting structure, and canopy management

choices.

92
________________________________
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION

________________________________

93
VI.1. Practical Implications

As with any farming technology, the use of trees in vineyards comes with tradeoffs,

and if grapevines are to be successfully intercropped with trees, vineyard agroforestry

systems must be designed strategically. Despite the numerous above- and below-ground

services that trees provide to vineyards, agroforestry systems are inherently more

complicated to manage, and they require planning, intention, and continued dedication in

order to be successful (Altieri et al. 2012). Farmers must be well-prepared to address the

negative impacts of incorporating trees into vineyards before attempting to utilize them.

There are many management practices that can be implemented in order to maximize the

benefits of agroforestry in vineyards and in order to minimize its drawbacks.

First, farmers must be aware that yield reductions have been seen in grapevines within

4 m of tree rows. Research suggests that the cause is below-ground competition between trees

and grape vines, especially for nutrients such as N (Gillespie et al. 2000; Trambouze and

Goma-Fortin 2013). Despite these reduced yields, agroforestry systems have been shown to

increase overall farm yield; that is to say, although grapevines might experience reduced

yield in rows nearest to trees, the farm as a whole, including the yield from associated trees,

has the capacity to yield more (Raj and Toppo 2018). If grapevines are intercropped with

trees that also have economic value, such as nuts, fruit, timber, etc., it may be possible to

produce more income per hectare through the increased use of vertical space (Nair 1993e).

Additionally, the savings from reduced fertilizer and pesticide inputs could justify the slight

yield loss within vine rows closest to trees (Galati et al. 2015; Cerdà and Rodrigo-Comino

2018). This is, of course, a determination that must be made by each individual farm and that

would depend upon the growing region, the variety grown, and the holistic goals of the

vineyard as a whole.

94
 For wine grapes in particular, more important than high yields or a high growth rate in

vineyards is the concept of growing a “balanced” vine – one which produces sufficient yield

to be economically viable and which has sufficient vegetative growth to produce quality fruit

(Wheeler and Pickering 2005). In vineyards, this balance is typically struck by allowing

slight nutrient and water stress (Wheeler and Pickering 2005), and, in the case of vineyard

agroforestry systems, trees could complete this function through regulated competition.

However, excessive competition between trees and vines for nutrients and water is damaging

and must be prevented when designing vineyard agroforestry systems (McCarthy et al. 1983;

Giese et al. 2014). In vineyard agroforestry systems, competition for N can be addressed by

planting leguminous cover crops, applying higher rates of fertilizer in vine rows closer to tree

rows, or selecting N-fixing trees for intercropping (Nair 1993c, 1993d). Competition for

water has been shown to be less of an issue in vineyard agroforestry systems, but during

drought years, competition for water can be addressed through management practices such as

root pruning, branch pruning, and tree thinning (Peter and Lehmann 2000; Reynolds et al.

2007; Senaviratne et al. 2012; Trambouze et al. 2017) Competition for both water and N can

be addressed by combining vines with tree species whose roots occupy different soil niches

than grapevine roots, or by spacing trees more widely (Nair 1993e). To minimize

competition, grapes can be intercropped with trees that have lower root length densities, such

as apples, pears, and plums (Smart and Coombe 1983). Preservation of soil structure and

quality and reductions in erosion can be achieved by choosing trees with high litterfall

production (Nair 1993a; Oliveira and Merwin 2001).

To minimize competition for light, grapevines can be intercropped with tree varieties

whose leaves absorb more blue light and less red light, such as conifers, which would allow

higher quantities of beneficial red light to reach grapevines (Krueger 1981). Trees with lower

leaf area indices (and therefore higher light transmission), would also be recommended

95
(Mōttus et al. 2010). Zhang et al. (2019) found that, for plants in general, mild shade levels

(leaf area index of 0.5 and 1 m2/m−2) do not significantly reduce photosynthesis rates, while

heavy shade levels (leaf area index of 2 and 3 m2/m−2) can reduce photosynthesis rates.

Although the ideal leaf area index for trees intercropped specifically with grapevines has yet

to be determined, trees with lower leaf area indices such as Melia azedarach L. and Prosopis

pallida, might be recommended for trial and further research (Angrish et al. 2009; Mōttus et

al. 2010). Light transmittance levels can also be managed by manipulating tree canopies

through strategic pruning practices.

Regarding orientation, in regions located at latitudes above 50 degrees in the Northern

Hemisphere and below 50 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere, a north-south row orientation

is preferable in order to achieve maximum homogeneity of light exposure despite an

overstory canopy of trees. However, at latitudes below 40 degrees in the Northern

Hemisphere and above 40 degrees in the Southern Hemisphere, planting vines in east-west

row orientations allows for more heterogeneous distribution of light and shadows from trees

(Artru et al. 2017; Dupraz et al. 2018).

To maximize the windbreak effect of intercropped trees, the architecture of tree

alleyways should be structured so that wind does not flow around the windbreak but rather

through it. In order to achieve this, each alleyway of trees should be at least 10 times the

length of the height of the trees and trees should be evenly spaced with no large gaps or

openings (Brandle et al. 2009).

By designing vineyard agroforestry systems with strategic species combinations,

cultural practices, and spacing, grapevines and trees can be integrated into a holistic system

that is resilient against climate change, pests, plagues, and extreme weather; that produces

high yields and high quality wine; that improves soil fertility and quality; that reduces farmer

reliance on agrochemicals; that is economically sustainable; and that betters the environment.

96
VI.2. Conclusion

With growing concern over climate change, the environmental impacts of

conventional viticulture, and rising production costs, sustainable viticulture solutions are

needed now more than ever. Modern viticulture is both affected by and simultaneously

contributes to environmental and economic problems; however, agroforestry is a sustainable

solution that has the potential to both help vineyards adapt-to and also mitigate these

environmental challenges. Agroforestry can benefit vineyards in many ways, both in terms of

the above- and below-ground services that it provides to vineyard ecosystems. Agroforestry

has been shown to affect below-ground parameters in vineyards positively by increasing

drought resistance, reducing erosion, building OM, bettering soil structure, and improving

vine rooting capability. Agroforestry has been shown to affect above-ground parameters in

vineyards positively by reducing pest and disease pressure, preventing wind damage and

erosion, increasing stomatal aperture and leaf area, protecting against heat stress, and

protecting against frost. Although incorporating trees into vineyards can increase

management complexity and can reduce yields within 4 m of trees, research suggests that the

positive benefits and the ecosystem services that trees impart to vineyards may very well

outweigh these negative effects. Additionally, many of these challenges can be overcome

with strategic management practices. Overall, there is sufficient scientific evidence that

agroforestry has great potentials in viticulture, especially in the face of the extreme

temperatures, pests, plagues, and weather events that are predicted to come with climate

change. This is a judgment that is, of course, up to each individual viticulturist to decide, and

determinations may be informed by more research on vineyard agroforestry systems done for

all major wine producing regions and tree-vine combinations.

97
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeysinghe SK, Greer DH, Rogiers SY (2019) The effect of light intensity and temperature
on berry growth and sugar accumulation in Vitis vinifera ‘Shiraz’ under vineyard
conditions. Vitis 58:7-16
Adetunji AT, Lewu FB, Mulidzi R, Ncube B (2017) The biological activities of β-
glucosidase, phosphatase and urease as soil quality indicators: A review. J of Soil
Science and Plant Nutrition, 17: 794-807
Alikadic A, Pertot I, Eccel E, Dolci C, Zarbo C, Caffarra A, De Filippi R, Furlanello C
(2019) The impact of climate change on grapevine phenology and the influence of
altitude: a regional study. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 271:73-82
Altieri MA (1999) The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 74:19-31
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2002) The simplification of traditional vineyard based agroforests in
northwestern Portugal: some ecological implications. Agroforestry Systems 56:185-
191
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2008) Ecologically Based Pest Management in Agroforestry
Systems. In: Batish DR, Kohli RK, Jose S, Singh HP (eds) Ecological Basis of
Agroforestry, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp 95-106
Altieri MA, Nicholls CI, Ponti L (2005) Manipulating vineyard biodiversity for improved
insect pest management: case studies from northern California. The International
Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 1:1-13
Altieri MA, Funes-Monzote FR, Petersen P (2012) Agroecologically efficient agricultural
systems for smallholder farmers: contributions to food sovereignty. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 32:1-13
Andow DA (1991) Vegetational Diversity and Arthropod Population Response. Annual
Review of Entyomology 36:561-586
Angrish R, Datta KS, Rani C, Arora V, Chawla S, Madaan S, Kumar M (2009) Comparative
Biodrainage Potentail of some tree Species. In: Proceedings of the 60th International
Executive Council Meeting & 5 Asian Regional Conference, 6-11 December 2009,
New Delhi, India
Antcliff AJ, Webster WJ (1955) Studies on the sultana vine. 1. Fruit bud distribution and bud
burst with reference to forecasting potential crops. Australian Journal of Agricultural
Research 6:565-588
Archer E, Saayman D (2018) Vine Roots. The Institute for Grape and Wine Sciences
(IGWS), Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Archer E, Strauss HC (1985) Effect of Plant Density on Root Distribution of Three-Year-Old
Grafted 99 Richter Grapevines. South African Journal of Enology & Viticulture 6:25-
30
Archer E, Strauss HC (1989) Effect of Shading on the Performance of Vitis Vinifera L. CV.
Cabernet Sauvignon. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 10:74-76
Artru S, Garré S, Dupraz C, Hiel MP, Blitz-Frayet C, Lassois L (2017) Impact of spatio-
temporatl shade dynamics on wheat growth and yield, perspectives for temperate
agroforestry. Agronomy 82:60-70
Austin CN, Wilcox WF (2012) Effects of Sunlight Exposure on Grapevine Powdery Mildew
Development. Phytopathology 102:857-866
Azuma A, Yakushiji H, Koshita Y, Kobayashi S (2012) Flavonoid biosynthesis-related genes
in grape skin are differentially regulated by temperature and light conditions. Planta
236:1067-1080

98
Bagagiolo G, Biddoccu M, Rabino D, & Cavallo E (2017) Monitoring erosion in sloping
vineyards: effectiveness of grass covering in different periods. Convegno AIAM -
SIA 2017. Conference Proceedings, Milan, Italy
Baldwin JG (1964) The relation between weather and fruitfulness of the sultana vine.
Australian Jouranl of Agricultural Research 15:920-928
Balesdent J, Chenu C, Balabane M (2000). Relationship of soil organic matter dynamics to
physical protection and tillage. Soil and Tillage Research, 53: 215-230
Barbar Z, Tixier MS, Cheval B, Kreiter S (2010) Does agroforestry affect phytoseiid mite
communities in vineyards in the South of France? Trends in Acarology.
DOI: 10.1007/978-90-481-9837-5_66
Bartolucci P, Dhakal BR (1999) Prospects for Olive Growing in Nepal. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Department of Agriculture, Fruit Development
Division Olive Production Development Project, TCP/NEP/6713, Kathmandu.
Barzman M, Bàrberi P, Birch ANE, Boonekamp P, Dachbrodt-Saaydeh S, Graf B, Hommel
B, Jensen JE, Kiss J, Kudsk P, Lamichhane JR, Messéan A, Moonen AC, Ratnadass
A, Ricci P, Sarah JL, Sattin M (2015) Eight principles of integrated pest management.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35:1199-1215
Bayer LC (2015) Heat wave mitigation strategies for wine grape production and measures of
the impact of heat on berry ripening and wine composition. Dissertation, University
of Adelaide, South Australia
Bell SJ, Henschke PA (2008) Implications of nitrogen nutrition for grapes, fermentation and
wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 11:242-295
Bellamy AS (2013) Banana Production Systems: Identification of Alternative Systems for
More Sustainable Production. Ambio A Journal of the Human Environment 42:334-
343
Bergqvist J, Dokoozlian N, Ebisuda N (2001) Sunlight Exposure and Temperature Effects on
Berry Growth and Composition of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central
San Joaquin Valley of California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 52:1-
7
Bettiga LJ, Dokoozlian NK, Williams LE (1996) Windbreaks improve the growth and yield
of Chardonnay grapevines grown in a cool climate. In: Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Cool Climate Viticulture and Enology, pp 43-46
Bhadha JH, Capasso J, Khatiwada R, Swanson S, Laborde C (2018) Raising Soil Organic
Matter Content to Improve Water Holding Capacity. University of Florida, IFAS
Extension
Biddoccu M, Pitacco A, Ferraris S, Cavallo E (2017) Temporal variability of soil
management effects on soil hydrological properties, runoff and erosion at the field
scale in a hillslope vineyard, North-West Italy. Soil and Tillage Research, 165:46-58
Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R (2010) Wind Erosion. In: Principles of Soil Conservation and
Management. Springer, Dordrecht
Blancquaert EH, Oberholster A, Ricardo-da-Silva JM, Deloire AJ (2019) Grape Flavonoid
Evolution and Composition Under Altered Light and Temperature Conditions in
Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.). Frontiers in Plant Science 10:1062
Bondada BR, Keller M (2012) Not All Shrivels Are Created Equal—Morpho-Anatomical
and Compositional Characteristics Differ among Different Shrivel Types That
Develop during Ripening of Grape (Vitis vinifera L.) Berries. American Journal of
Plant Sciences 3: 879-898
Bonada M, Sadras VO, Fuentes S (2013a) Effect of elevated temperature on the onset and
rate of mesocarp cell death in berries of Shiraz and Chardonnay and its relationship
with berry shrivel. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19:87-94

99
Bonada M, Sadras V, Moran M, Fuentes S (2013b) Elevated temperature and water stress
accelerate mesocarp cell death and shrivelling, and decouple sensory traits in Shiraz
berries. Irrigation Science 31:1317-1331
Bondole BML (1999) Potential Influences of Multipurpose Tree Choice in the Development
of Diseases of Associated Crops in Agroforestry Systems: What Do We Know
Today? Journal of Tropical Forest Science 11:26-35
Borrelli P, Robinson DA, Fleischer LR, Lugato E, Ballabio C, Alewell C, Meusburger K,
Modugno S, Schutt B, Ferro V, Bagarello V, Van Oost K, Montanarella L, Panagos P.
(2013) An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil
erosion. Nature Communications 8:1-13
Boudreau IV TF, Peck GM, O’Keefe SF, Stewart A (2018) Free amino nitrogen
concentration correlates to total yeast assimilable nitrogen concentration in apple
juice. Food Science & Nutrition 6:119-123
Boughey KL, Lake IR, Haysom KA, Dolman PM (2011) Improving the biodiversity benefits
of hedgerows: how physical characteristics and the proximity of foraging habitat
affect the use of linear features by bats. Biological Conservation 144:1790-1798
Boyer JS (2015) Turgor and the transport of CO2 and water across the cuticle (epidermis) of
leaves. Journal of Experimental Botany 66:2625-2633
Branas J, Vergnes A (1957) Morphologie du système radiculaire de la vigne. Prog. Agric.
Vitic. 74: 1-47
Brandle JR, Hodges L, Tyndall J, Sudmeyer RA (2009) Windbreak Practices. In: Garrett HE
(ed) North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and Practice, 2nd edn.
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI
Broufas GD, Pappas ML, Koveos DS (2007) Development, Survival, and Reproduction of
the Predatory Mite Kampimodromus aberrans (Acari: Phytoseiidae) at Different
Constant Temperatures. Environmental Entmology 36:657-665
Brunt AA, Crabtree K, Dallwitz MJ, Gibbs AJ, Watson L (1996) Viruses of plants.
Descriptions and lists from the VIDE database. CAB International, Wallingford
Brutsaert W (1982) Energy Fluxes at the Earth’s Surface. In: Brutsaert W (ed) Evaporation
into the Atmosphere. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp128-153
Buttrose MS (1970) Fruitfulness in grape-vines: The response of different cultivars to light,
temperature and daylength. Vitis 9:121-125
Buttrose MS (1974) Climatic factors and fruitfulness in grapevines. Horticultural Abstracts
44:319-326
Buttrose MS, Hale CR, Kliewer WM (1971) Effect of Temperature on the Composition of
‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 22:71-75
California Department of Pesticide Regulation (2017) 2017 Pesticide Use Report Highlights.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur17rep/pur_highlights_2017.pdf. Accessed 19
March 2020
Calonnec A, Cartolaro P, Chadoeuf J (2009) Highlighting Features of Spatiotemporal Spread
of Powdery Mildew Epidemics in the Vineyard Using Statistical Modeling on Field
Experimental Data. Phytopathology 99:411-422
Carbonneau A, Casteran P (1979) Irrigation-Depressing Effect on Floral Initiation of
Cabernet Sauvignon Grapevines in Bordeaux Area. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 30: 3-7
Cardozo EG, Muchavisoy HM, Silva HR, Zelarayán MLC, Leite MFA, Rousseau GX,
Gehring C (2015) Species richness increases income in agroforestry systems of
eastern Amazonia. Agroforestry Systems 89:901-916

100
Cartechini A, Palliotti A (1995) Effect of Shading on Vine Morphology and Productivity and
Leaf Gas Exchange Characteristics in Grapevines in the Field. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 46:227-234
Celette F, Gary C (2013) Dynamics of water and nitrogen stress along the grapevine cycle as
affected by cover cropping. European Journal of Agronomy 45:142-152
Cerdà A, Rodrigo-Comino J (2018) Is the hillslope position relevant for runoff and soil loss
activation under high rainfall conditions in vineyards? Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology
20:59-72
Charrier G, Delzon S, Domec JC, Zhang L, Delmas CEL, Merlin I, Corso D, King A, Ojeda
H, Ollat N, Prieto JA, Scholach T, Skinner P, van Leeuwen C, Gambetta GA (2018)
Drought will not leave your glass empty: Low risk of hydraulic failure revealed by
long-term drought observations in world’s top wine regions. Science Advances, 4:1-9
Chen J, Franklin JF, Spies TA (1995) Growing-Season Microclimate Gradients from Clearcut
Edges into Old-Growth Douglas-fir Forests. Ecological Applications 5:74-86
Chirko CP, Gold MA, Nguyen PV, Jiang JP (1996) Influence of orientation on wheat yield
and photosynthetic photon flux density (Qp) at the tree and crop interface in a
Paulownia-wheat intercropping system. Forest Ecology and Management 89:149-156
Chorti E, Guidoni S, Ferradino A, Novello V (2010) Effect of Different Cluster Sunlight
Exposure Levels on Ripening and Anthocyanin Accumulation in Nebbiolo Grapes.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 61:23-30
Chuine I, Yiou P, Viovy N, Seguin B, Daux V, Ladurie E (2004) Grape ripening as a past
climate indicator. Nature 432:289-290
Cleugh HA (1998) Effects of windbreaks on airflow, microclimate and crop yields.
Agroforestry Systems 41:55-84
Coll P, Le Cadre E, Blanchart E, Hinsinger P, Villenave C (2011) Organic viticulture and soil
quality: A long-term study in Southern France. Applied Soil Ecology 50: 37-44
Comuzzo P, Battistutta F (2019) Acidification and pH Control in Red Wines. In: Morata A
(ed) Red Wine Technology. Elsevier, London, pp 17-34
Cook SM, Khan ZR, Pickett JA (2007) The use of push-pull strategies in integrated pest
management. Annual Review of Entomology 52:375-400
Cook BI, Wolkovich EM (2016) Climate change decouples drought from early wine grape
harvests in France. Nature Climate Change 6:715-719
Cooley H, Donnelly K, Phurisamban R, Subramanian M (2015) Impacts of California’s
Ongoing Drought: Agriculture. Pacific Institute. Oakland, CA
Coombe BG (1987) Influence of Temperature on Composition and Quality of Grapes. Acta
Horticulturae 206:23-36
Coombe BG, McCarthy MG (2000) Dynamics of grape berry growth and physiology of
ripening. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 6:131-135
Corbett A, Rosenheim JA (1996) Impact of a natural enemy overwintering refuge and its
interaction with the surrounding landscape. Ecological Entomology 21:155-164
Creasy GL, Creasy LL (2009) Grapes. Cab International, Wallingford, UK
Crippen DD, Morrison JC (1986) The Effects of Sun Exposure on the Phenolic Content of
Cabernet Sauvignon Berries During Development. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 37:243-247
Daane KM, Wistrom C, Yokota G, Almeida R, Hashim J, Pryor M (2006) Host plant
preferences and natural infectivity of insect vectors of Xylella fastidiosa on common
weeds and crop plants. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Pierce’s Disease Research
Symposium, 12-14 December 2007, San Diego California

101
Davarzani H, Smits KM, Tolene RM, Illangasekare TH (2014) Study of the effect of wind
speed on evaporation from soil through integrated modeling of atmospheric boundary
layer and shallow subsurface. Water Resources Research 50:661-680
Di Carlo P, Aruffo E, Brune WH (2019) Precipitation intensity under a warming climate is
threatening some Italian premium wines. Science of the Total Environment 685: 508-
513
Dokoozlian NK, Kliewer WM (1996) Influence of Light on Grape Berry Growth and
Composition Varies during Fruit Development. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science 121:869-874
Dokoozlian NK (2016) Grape Berry Growth and Development. In: The Grapevine. UC
Davis, Davis, California
Doutt R, Nakata J (1973) The Rubus leafhopper and its egg parasitoid: an endemic biotic
system useful in grape pest management. Environmental Entomology 2:381-386
Downey MO, Dokoozlian NK, Krstic MP (2006) Cultural Practice and Environmental
Impacts on the Flavonoid Composition of Grapes and Wine: A Review of Recent
Research. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 57:257-268
Drappier J, Thibon C, Rabot A, Geny-Denis L (2019) Relationship between wine
composition and temperature: Impact on Bordeaux wine typicity in the context of
global warming – Review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 59:14-30
Dry PR, Botting DG (1993) The Effect of Wind on the Performance of Cabernet Franc
Grapevines. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 8:347-352
Dry PR, Loveys BR, Botting D, During H (1996) Effects of partial root–zone drying on
grapevine vigour, yield, composition of fruit and use of water. Proceedings of the
Ninth Australian Wine Industry Technical Conference
Dufourcq T, Lopez F, Vergnes M, Gontier L (2017) Use of Proxy Sensors to Characterize
Spatial Variability on Agroforestry Vineyards. Group of International Experts for
Cooperation on Vitivinicultural Systems GiESCO. Conference Paper, 20th
International GIESCO Symposium, Mendoza, Argentina
Dunn GM, Martin SR (2008) Do temperature conditions at budburst affect flower number in
Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon? Australian Journal of Grape and Wine
Research 6:116-124
Dupraz C, Blitz-Frayret C, Lecomte I, Molto Q, Reyes F, Gosme M (2018) Influence of
latitude on the light availabililty for intercrops in agroforestry alley-cropping system.
Agroforestry Systems 92:1019-1033
Dupraz C, Burgess P, Gavaland A, Graves A, Herzog F, Incoll LD, Jackson N, Keesman K,
Lawson G, Lecomte I, Liagre F, Mantzanas K, Mayus M, Moreno G, Palma J,
Papanastasis V, Pilbeam PP, Reisner DJ, Van Noordwijk M, Vincent G, Werf Van
der W (2005) Silvoarable Agroforestry for Europe. SAFE Project Final Report.
INRA-UMR Systems Editions, Montpellier, France
Dupraz C, Goma-Fortin N, Trambouze W, Kreiter S, Tixier MS, Gary C (2009) Vineyard
agroforestry: a new concept for a sustainable vineyard production. In: Proceedings
from the 2nd World Congress of Agroforestry (WCA2) August 2009, Ken, France.
(hal-02758349)
During H (1988) CO2 assimilation and photorespiration of grapevine leaves: Responses to
light and drought. Vitis 27:199-208
Earnshaw S (2018) Hedgerows and Farmscaping for California Agriculture: A Resource
Guide for Farmers, 2nd Edn. Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Davis.
https://www.rcdmonterey.org/images/docs/publications/CAFF_Hedgerow_Manual_2
018.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020

102
Esteban MA, Villanueva MJ, Lissarrague JR (2001) Effect of irrigation on changes in the
anthocyanin composition of the skin of cv Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L) grape berries
during ripening. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81
Fabre E (2014) Des vignes entre champs et bois. Le cas de la marge pyrénéenne du vignoble
languedocien (milieu XVIIIe-milieu XIXe siècle). Proceedings of the Bordeaux
conference, Caen, Association for the History of Rural Societies, pp 373-386
Fargione J, Tilman D (2006) Plant Species Traits and Capacity for Resource Reduction
Predict Yield and Abundance under Competition in Nitrogen-Limited Grassland.
Functional Ecology 20: 533-540
Favor K, Udawatta RP (2020). Below ground services in vineyard agroforestry systems. Pp
###-### In: Udawatta RP & Jose S (eds.) Ecosystem Services of Agroforestry.
Springer Nature, The Netherlands. In Press.
Ferreira CS, Keizera JJ, Santosa LM, Serpaa D, Silvaa V, Cerqueira M, Ferreira AJD,
Abrantes N (2018). Runoff, sediment and nutrient exports from a Mediterranean
vineyard under integrated production : An experiment at plot scale. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 256: 184-193
Flint SD, Jordan PW, Caldwell MM (1985) Plant Protective Response to Enhanced UV-B
Radiation Under Field Conditions: Leaf Optical Properties and Photosynthesis.
Photochemistry and Photobiology 41:95-99
Francis CA, Altieri MA, Nicholls CI (2004) Designing Species-Rich, Pest-Suppressive
Agroecosystems through Habitat Management. In: Rickerl D, Farncis C (eds)
Agroecosystems Analysis. Madison, WI, pp 49-62
Franco JC, Zada A, Mendel Z (2009) Novel Approaches for the Management of Mealybug
Pests. In: Ishaaya I, Horowitz AR (eds) Biorational Control of Arthopod Pests.
Springer, Dordrecht, pp 233-278
Frederick JE (1993) Ultraviolet Sunlight Reaching the Earth’s Surface: A Review of Recent
Research. Photochemistry and Photobiology 57:175-178
Freeman BM, Smart RE (1976) A Root Observation Laboratory for Studies with Grapevines.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 27: 36-39
Freeman BM, Kliewer WM, Stern P (1982) Influence of Windbreaks and Climatic Region on
Diurnal Fluctuation of Leaf Water Potential, Stomatal Conductance, and Leaf
Temperature of Grapevines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 33:233-236
Froidevaux JSP, Louboutin B, Jones G (2017) Does organic farming enhance biodiversity in
Mediterranean vineyards? A case study with bats and arachnids. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 249:112-122
Fujita A, Goto-Yamamoto N, Aramaki I, Hashizume K (2006) Organ-Specific Transcription
of Putative Flavonol Synthase Genes of Grapevine and Effects of Plant Hormones on
Shading and Flavonol Biosynthesis in Grape Berry Skins. Bioscience, Biotechnology,
and Biochemistry 70:632-638
Gade DW (1978) Windbreaks in the Lower Rhone Valley. Geographical Review 68:127-144
Galati A, Gristina L, Crescimanno M, Barone E, Novara A (2015) Towards More Efficient
Incentives for Agri‐environment Measures in Degraded and Eroded Vineyards. Land
Degradation & Development 26
Gao Y, Cahoon GA (1994) Cluster shading effects on fruit quality, fruit skin color, and
anthocyanin content and composition in Reliance (Vitis hybrid). Vitis 33:205-209
Garcia L, Celette F, Gary C, Ripoche A, Valdés-Gómez H, Metay A (2018) Management of
service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review.
Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 251:158-170
Gholami R, Hadjiamiri A, Ghanbari F (2018) Effect of Plant Density and Grape Training
Method on Pomological Characteristics and Yield of Olive and Grape in

103
 Intercropping System. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science,
28:15-24
Giese G, Velasco-Cruz C, Roberts L, Heitman J, Wolf TK (2014) Complete vineyard floor
cover crops favorably limit grapevine vegetative growth. Scientia Horticulturae 170:
256-266
Gillespie AR, Jose S, Mengel DB, Hoover WL, Pope PE, Seifert JR, Biehle DJ, Stall T,
Benjamin TJ (2000) Defining competition vectors in a temperate alley cropping
system in the midwestern USA: 1. Production physiology. Agroforestry Systems
48:25-40
Gobert A, Tourdot-Maréchal R, Morge C, Sparrow C, Liu Y, Quintanilla-Casas B, Vichi S,
Alexandre H (2017) Non-Saccharomyches Yeasts Nitrogen Source Preferences:
Impact on Sequential Fermentation and Wine Volatile Compounds Profile. Frontiers
in Microbiology 8:2175
Gold MA, Garrett HE (2009) Agroforestry nomenclature, concepts, and practices. In: Garrett
HE (ed) North American Agroforestry, an Integrated Science and Practice, 2nd ed.
American Society of Agronomy. Madison, WI, pp 45-55
Gómez-del-Campo M, Ruiz C, Lissarrague JS (2002) Effect of Water Stress on Leaf Area
Development, Photosynthesis, and Productivity in Chardonnay and Airén Grapevines.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 53: 138-143
Gommers CMM, Visser EJW, St Onge KR, Voesenek LACJ, Pierik R (2013) Shade
tolerance: when growing tall is not an option. Trends in Plant Science 18:65-71
Gosme M, Delmotte S, Grimaldi J, Trambouze W (2019) Diachronic study of the effect of
growing trees on grapevine yield: 24 years of experience in the South of France. 4th
World Congress on Agroforestry, INRA SYSTEM. Conference Paper, Montpellier,
France
Goudie AS (2014) Desert dust and human health disorders. Environmental International
63:101-113
Gouot JC, Smith JP, Holzapfel BP, Barril C (2019) Grape Berry Flavonoid Responses to
High Bunch Temperatures Post Véraison: Effect of Intensity and Duration of
Exposure. Molecules 24:4341
Grab H, Danforth B, Poveda K, Loeb G (2018) Landscape simplification reduces classical
biological control and crop yield. Ecological Applications 0:1-8
Greer DH, Weston C (2009) Heat stress affects flowering, berry growth, sugar accumulation
and photosynthesis of Vitis vinifera cv. Semillon grapevines grown in a controlled
environment. Functional Plant Biology 37:206-214
Greer DH, Weedon MM (2013) The impact of high temperatures on Vitis vinifera cv.
Semillon grapevine performance and berry ripening. Frontiers in Plant Science 4:491
Grimaldi J (2018) Impacts of agroforestry on microclimate for grape and wine production:
assessment in Southern France. Dissertation, University of Toulouse, France
Grimaldi J, Fieuzal R, Pelletier C, Bustillo V, Houet T, Sheeren D (2016) Microclimate
Patterns in an Agroforestry Intercropped Vineyard: First Results. In: Proceedings of
the 3rd European Agroforestry Conference, 23-25 May 2016, Montpellier, France
Grimaldi J, Trambouze W, Dufourcq T, Vergnes M, Pelletier C, Helen F, Fieuzal R, Houet T,
Bustillo V (2017) Can intercropped trees mitigate heat and drought effects on
grapevines? A study of microclimate patterns in agroforestry vineyards, Southern
France. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Conference, 24-29
September 2017, Halle, Germany
Guyot G (1989) Les effets aerodynamiques et microclimatiques des brise-vent et des
amenagements regionaux. In: Reifsnyder WS, Darnhofer TO (eds) Meteorology and

104
 Agroforestry, International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya pp
485-520
Hardie WJ, Considine JA (1976) Response of Grapes to Water-Deficit Stress in Particular
Stages of Development. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 27:55-61
Haselgrove L, Botting D, van Heeswijck R, Høj PB, Dry PR, Ford C, Land PGI (2008)
Canopy microclimate and berry composition: The effect of bunch exposure on the
phenolic composition of Vitis vinifera L cv. Shiraz grape berries. Australian Journal
of Grape and Wine Research 6:141-149
Henderson JP, Rex D (2012) About Wine, 2nd Edition. Clifton Park, NY
Hennessy KJ, Pittock AB (1995) Greenhouse warming and threshold temperature events in
Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Climatology 15:591-612
Henry CC (1993) The effect of container volume and pore diameter on the growth of
grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.). Dissertation, Lincoln University
Hidalgo L (1968) Contribuții la studiul densității radiculare la vița de vie. Revista de
Horticultură şi Viticultură, 7-8:116-121
Hollósy F (2002) Effects of ultraviolet radiation on plant cells. Micron 33:179-197
Hommay G, Wiss L, Le Maguet J, Beuve M, Herrbach E (2012) First Results on Wind
Dispersal of Parthenolecanium corni Larvae in a Newly Planted Vineyard. In:
Proceedings of the 17th Congress of ICVG, October 2012, Davis, United States, pp
202-203
Hopping (1975) Effect of light intensity during cane development on subsequent bud break
and yield of ‘Palomino’ grape vines. New Zealand Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 5:287-290
Howard R, Stull R (2013) IR Radiation from Trees to a Ski Run: A Case Study. Journal of
Applied Meteorology and Climatology 52:1525-1539
Hunter JJ, Volschenk CG, Novello V, Strever AE, Fouché GW (2014) Integrative Effects of
Vine Water Relations and Grape Ripeness Level of Vitis vinifera L. cv.
Shiraz/Richter 99. I. Physiological Changes and Vegetative-Reproductive Growth
Balances. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35: 332-358
Jackson DI, Lombard PB (1993) Environmental and Management Practices Affecting Grape
Composition and Wine Quality – A Review. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 44:409-430
Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global
analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia, 108:389-411
Jagoutz H (2004) The Effect of Wind. Geologische Abhandlungen von Hessen 114:42-53
Jones GV (2005) Climate Change in the Western United States Grape Growing Regions. In:
Williams LE (ed) Proceedings of the VIIth International Symposium on Grapevine
Physiology and Biotechnology. Acta Horticulturae, 689:41-51
Jones GV, Davis RE (2000) Climate Influences on Grapevine Phenology, Grape
Composition, and Wine Production and Quality for Bordeaux, France. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 51:249-261
Jones GV, Webb LB (2010) Climate Change, Viticulture, and Wine: Challenges and
Opportunities. Journal of Wine Research 21:103-106
Jones GV, Reid R, Vilks A (2012) Climate, Grapes, and Wine: Structure and Suitability in a
Variable and Changing Climate. In: Dougherty PH (ed) The Geography of Wine:
Regions, Terroir and Techniques. Springer, Dordrecht
Jones GV, White MA, Cooper OR, Storchmann K (2005) Climate Change and Global Wine
Quality. Climate Change 73:319-343

105
Jonsson K, Fidjeland L, Maghembe JA, Högberg P (1988) The vertical distribution of fine
roots of five tree species and maize in Morogoro, Tanzania. Agroforestry Systems 6:
63-69
Jordão AM, Vilela A, Cosme F (2015) From Sugar of Grape to Alcohol of Wine: Sensorial
Impact of Alcohol in Wine. Beverages1:292-310
Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview.
Agroforestry Systems 76: 1-10
Jose S, Holzmueller EJ, Gillespie AR (2009) Tree–Crop Interactions in Temperate
Agroforestry. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American Agroforestry: An Integrated
Science and Practice, 2nd edn. Madison, WI, pp 57-74
Kailis S, Harris DJ (2007) Producing Table Olives. Landlinks Press, Collingwood, VIC,
Australia
Kasap I (2005) Life-history traits of the predaceous mite Kampimodromus aberrans
(Oudemans) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae) on four different types of food. Biological
Control 35:40-45
Keller M (2010) Managing grapevines to optimize fruit development in a challenging
environment: a climate change primer for viticulturists. Australian Journal of Grape
and Wine Research 16:56-69
Keller M, Hrazdina G (1998) Interaction of Nitrogen Availability During Bloom and Light
Intensity During Veraison. II. Effects on Anthocyanin and Phenolic Development
During Grape Ripening. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 49:341-349
Keller M (2015) The Science of Grapevines, 2nd edn. Elsevier Inc. London
Kelly RM, Kitzes J, Wilson H, Merenlender A (2016) Habitat diversity promotes bat activity
in a vineyard landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 223:175-181
Kemp B, Pedneault K, Pickering G, Usher K, Willwerth J (2019) Red Winemaking in Cool
Climates. In: Morata A (ed) Red Wine Technology. Elsevier, London, pp 17-34
Kennedy JA (2008) Grape and wine phenolics: Observations and recent findings. Ciencia e
Investigación Agraria 35:107-120
Kido H, Flaherty DL, Bosch DF, Valero KA (1984) French Prune Trees as Overwintering
Sites for Grape Leafhopper Egg Parasite. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 35:156-160
Kimmins JP (1997) Forest Ecology: A Foundation for Sustainble Management. Prentice Hall,
University of Minnesota, United States
Kirchhoff M, Rodrigo-Comino J, Seeger M, Ries JB (2017) Soil erosion in sloping vineyards
under conventional and organic land use managements (Saar-Mosel Valley,
Germany). Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica 43:119-140
Kliewer WM (1975) Effect of Root Temperature on Budbreak, Shoot Growth, and Fruit-Set
of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Grapevines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
26:82-89
Kliewer WM (1977) Effect of High Temperatures during the Bloom-Set Period on Fruit-Set,
Ovule Fertility, and Berry Growth of Several Grape Cultivars. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 28:215-222
Kliewer WM (1982) Vineyard canopy management – a review. In: Webb AD (ed) Grape and
Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings (18-21 June 1980). University of
California, Davis, California, pp 342-325
Kliewer WM, Antcliff AJ (1970) Influence of Defoliation, Leaf Darkening, and Cluster
Shading on the Growth and Composition of Sultana Grapes. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 21:26-36

106
Kliewer WM, Smart RE (1989) Canopy Manipulation for Optimizing Vine Microclimate,
Crop Yield, and Composition of Grapes. In: Wright CJ (ed) Manipulation of Fruiting.
Butterworths, London, pp 275-291
Kliewer WM, Soleiani A (1972) Effect of Chilling on Budbreak in ‘Thompson Seedless’ and
‘Carignane’ Grapevines. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 23:31-34
Kobriger JM, Kliewer WM, Lagier ST (1984) Effects of Wind on Water Relations of Several
Grapevine Cultivars. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35:164-169
Kort JR (1988) 9. Benefits of windbreaks to field and forage crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment 22-23:165-190
Krasnow MN, Matthews MA, Smith RJ, Benz J, Weber E, Shackel KA (2010) Distinctive
symptoms differentiate four common types of berry shrivel disorder in grape.
California Agriculture 64:155-159
Kriedemann PE (1968) Photosynthesis in vine leaves as a function of light intensity,
temperature, and leaf age. Vitis 7:213-220
Krueger WC (1981) How a Forest Affects a Forage Crop. Rangelands 3:70-71
Kumar S, Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Kallenbach RL (2012) Water infiltration influenced
by agroforestry and grass buffers for a grazed pasture system. Agroforestry Systmes,
84:325-335
Lakso AN, Robinson TL, Pool RM (1989) Canopy Microclimate Effects on Patterns of
Fruiting and Fruit Development in Apples and Grapes. In: Wright CJ (ed)
Manipulation of Fruiting. Butterworth & Co., London, UK, pp 263-274
Lal R (1989) Agroforestry systems and soil surface management of a tropical alfisol: V.
Agroforestry Systems 8:217-238
Lanyon DM, Cass A, Hansen D (2004) The effect of soil properties on vine performance.
Technical Report, CSIRO Land and Water, South Australia
Lavee S (2000) Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera) Growth and Performance in Warm Climates. In:
Erez A (ed) Temperate Fruit Crops in Warm Climates, Bet Dagen, Israel, pp 343-366
Lee J (2017) Light exclusion influence on grape anthocyanin. Heliyon 3:e00243
Lecourieux F, Kappel C, Pieri P, Charon J, Pillet J, Hilbert G, Renaud C, Gomès E, Delrot S,
Lecourieux D (2017) Dissecting the Biochemical and Transcriptomic Effects of a
Locally Applied Heat Treatment on Developing Cabernet Sauvignon Grape Berries.
Frontiers in Plant Science 8:53
Letourneau DK, Armbrecht I, Salguero Rivera B, Lerma JM, Carmona EJ, Daza MC,
Escobar S, Galindo V, Gutierrez C, López SD, López Mejía J, Acosta Rangel AM,
Herrera Rangel J, Rivera L, Saavedra CA, Torres AM, Trujillo AR (2011). Does plant
diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecological Applications 21:9-
21
Lin BB (2007) Agroforestry management as an adaptive strategy against potential
microclimate extremes in coffee agriculture. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology,
144:85-94
Lombard J, Cook NC, Bellstedt DU (2006) Endogenous cytokinin levels of table grape vines
during spring budburst as influenced by hydrogen cyanamide application and pruning.
Scientia Horticulturae 109:92-96
Lott JE, Khan AA, Ong CK, Black CR (1995) Sap flow measurements of lateral tree roots in
agroforestry systems. Tree Physiology 16:95-1001
Maher M, Prasad M, Raviv M (2008) 11 - Organic Soilless Media Components. In: Raviv M,
Lieth JH (eds) Soilless Culture: Theory and Practice, pp 459-504
Mahmood I, Imadi SR, Shazadi K, Gul A, Hakeem KR (2015) Effects of Pesticides on
Environment. In: Hakeem K, Akhtar M, Abdullah S (eds) Plant, Soil and Microbes,
Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp 253-269

107
Margosian ML, Garrett KA, Hutchinson JMS, With KA (2009) Connectivity of the American
Agricultural Landscape: Assessing the National Risk of Crop Pest and Disease
Spread. BioScience 59:141-151
Marshall JK (1967) The effect of shelter on the productivity of grasslands and field crops.
Field Crop Abstract 20:1-14
Martelli GP (2017) An Overview on Grapevine Viruses, Viroids, and the Diseases They
Cause. In: Meng B, Martelli G, Golino D, Fuchs M (eds) Grapevine Viruses:
Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management. Springer, Charm
Martínez-Casasnovas JA, Ramos MC (2006) The cost of soil erosion in vineyard fields in
Penedès–Anoia Region (NE Spain). Catena 68:194-199
Martínez-Lüscher, Chen CCL, Brillante L, Kurtural SH (2017) Partial Solar Radiation
Exclusion with Color Shade Nets Reduces the Degradation of Organic Acids and
Flavonoids of Grape Berry (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 65:10693-10702
Martínez-Lüscher, Brillante Luca, Kurtural SK (2019) Flavonol Profile is a Reliable Indicator
to Assess Canopy Architecture and the Exposure of Red Wine Grapes to Solar
Radiation. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:10
Martison T (2010) Sources and Sinks: Allocation of Photosynthates during the Growing
Season. Appellation Cornell (4). Cornell College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
https://grapesandwine.cals.cornell.edu/newsletters/appellation-cornell/2010-
newsletters/issue-4/sources-and-sinks-allocation-photosynthates/. Accessed 15
January 2020
Marzen M, Iserloh T, Fister W, Seeger M, Rodrigo-Comino J, Ries JB (2019) On-Site Water
and Wind Erosion Experiments Reveal Relative Impact on Total Soil Erosion.
Geosciences 9:478
Mattivi F, Guzzon R, Vrhovsek U, Stefanini M, Velasco R (2006) Metabolite Profiling of
Grape: Flavonols and Anthocyanins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
54:7692-7702
May P, Antcliff AJ (1963) The Effect of Shading on Fruitfulness and Yield in the Sultana.
Journal of Horticultural Science 38:85-94
McCarthy MG (1997) The effect of transient water deficit on berry development of cv. Shiras
(Vitis vinifera L.). Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 3:41-48
McCarthy MG, Cirami RM, McCloud P (1983) Vine and Fruit Responses to Supplementary
Irrigation and Canopy Management. South African Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 4:67-76
Mckenry MV (1984) Grape Root Phenology Relative to Control of Parasitic Nematodes.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35:206-211
McNaughton KG (1988) 1. Effects of windbreaks on turbulent transport and microclimate.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 22-23:17-39
McNaughton KG, Unsworth M, Raupach M (1989) Micrometeorology of shelter belts and
forest edges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B,
Biological Sciences 324:351-368
Medlyn BE (1997) Physiological basis of the light use efficiency model. Tree Physiology
18:167-176
Medrano H, Escalona JM, Cifre J, Bota J, Flexas J (2003) A ten-year study on the physiology
of two Spanish grapevine cultivars under field conditions: effects of water availability
from leaf photosynthesis to grape yield and quality. Functional Plant Biology 30: 607-
619

108
Meehan TD, Werling BP, Landis DA, Gratton C (2011) Agricultural landscape simplification
and insecticide use in the Midwestern United States. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:11500-11505
Mériaux S, Rollin H, Rutten P, Lessut J, Lallemand R (1981) Effets de la sécheresse sur la
vigne (Vitis vinifera L.) II. - Etudes sur ” Grenache ”. Agronomie 1:375-382
Miles A, Altieri MA, Wilson H, Nicholls CI (2012) Habitat Diversity at the Field and
Landscape Level: Conservation Biological Control Research in California Viticulture.
In: Bostonian NJ, Isaacs R, Vincent C (eds) Arthropod Management in Vineyards:
Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 159-189
Millar AA (1972) Thermal Regime of Grapevines. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 23:173-176
Minasny B, McBratney AB (2015) Limited effect of organic matter on soil available water
capacity. European Journal of Soil Science 69: 39-47
Mineau P, McLaughlin A (1996) Conservation of Biodiversity within Canadian Agricultural
Landscapes: Integrating Habitat for Wildlife. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics 9:93-113
Mira de Orduña R (2010) Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and
production. Food Research International 43:1844-1855
Mize CW, Brandle JR, Schoeneberger MM, Bentrup G (2008) Ecological Development and
Function of Shelterbelts in Temperate North America. In: Jose S, Gordon AM (eds)
Toward Agroforestry Design: An Ecological Approach. Springer, Lincoln, Nebraska,
pp 27-54
Monteith JL (1972) Solar Radiation and Productivity in Tropical Ecosystems. Journal of
Applied Ecology 9:747-766
Morales-Castilla I, García de Cortázar-Atauri I, Cook BI, Lacombe T, Parker A, van
Leeuwen C, Nicholas KA, Wolkovich EM (2020) Diversity buffers winegrowing
regions from climate change losses. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America 117:2864-2869
Moreira CC, Celestino D, Guerra Sobrinho T, Cardoso IM, Elliot SM (2019) Agroforestry
coffee soils increase the insect-suppressive potential offered by entomopathogenic
fungi over full-sun soils: A case proposing a “bait survival technique”. Ecology and
Evolution 9:10777-10787
Mori K, Goto-Yamamoto N, Kitayama M, Hashizume K (2007) Loss of anthocyanins in red-
wine grape under high temperature. Journal of Experimental Botany 58:1935-1945
Morlat R, Jacquet A (1993) The soil effects on the grapevine root system in several vineyards
of the Loire Valley (France). Vitis 32:35-42
Morrison JC, Noble AC (1990) The Effects of Leaf and Cluster Shading on the Composition
of Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes and on Fruit and Wine Sensory Properties. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 41:193-200
Mōttus M, Sulev M, Baret F, Lopez-Lozano R, Reinart A (2010) Photosynthetically Active
Radiation: Measurement and Modeling. In: Meyers R (ed) Encyclopedia of
Sustainability Science and Technology. Springer, pp 7902-7932
Mullins MG, Bouquet A, Williams LE (1992) Biology of the Grapevine. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK
Murphy BC, Rosenheim JA, Granett J (1996) Habitat Diversification for Improving
Biological Control: Abundance of Anagrus epos (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae) in Grape
Vineyards. Environmental Entomology 25:495-504
Myburgh P, Cass A, Clingeleffer P (1998) Root systems and soils in Australian vineyards
and orchards : an assessment : 1996 Barossa Valley Rotary Foundation Fellowship
report. Cooperative Research Centre for Soil and Land Management, South Australia

109
Nair PK (1993a) An Introduction to Agroforestry. Klgwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands
Nair PK (1993b) Nutrient cycling and soil organic matter. In: Nair PK (author) An
introduction to agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, pp 277-306
Nair PK (1993c) Nitrogen fixation. In: Nair PK (author) An introduction to agroforestry,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 307-323
Nair PK (1993d) Alley cropping. In: Nair PK (author) An introduction to agroforestry,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 123-139
Nair PK (1993e) Component interactions. In: Nair PK (author) An introduction to
agroforestry, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 243-258
Napoli M, Dalla Marta A, Zanchi CA, Orlandini S (2017) Assessment of soil and nutrient
losses by runoff under different soil management practices in an Italian hilly vineyard.
Soil and Tillage Research 168:71-80
Neethling E, Barbeau G, Coulon-Leroy C, Quénol H (2019) Spatial complexity and temporal
dynamics in viticulture: A review of climate-driven scales. Agriculture and Forest
Meteorology 276-277:107618
Neja RA, Wildman WE, Ayers RS, Kasimatis AN (1977) Grapevine Response to Irrigation
and Trellis Treatments in the Salinas Valley. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 28:16-26
Nicholls CI, Ponti L, Altieri MA (2008) Enhancing plant diversity for improved insect pest
management in Northern California organic vineyards. Acta horticulturae 785:263-
278
Nicolopoulou-Stamati P, Maipas S, Kotampasi C, Stamatis P, Hens L (2016) Chemical
Pesticides and Human Health: The Urgent Need for a New Concept in Agriculture.
Frontiers in Public Health 4, 148
Northcote KH (1988) Soil and Australian viticulture. In: Coombe BG, Dry PR (eds)
Viticulture: Volume 1 – Resources, 2nd edn. Adelaide, Australia, pp 61-90
Norton RL (1988) 11. Windbreaks: Benefits to orchard and vineyard crops. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment 22-23:205-213
Novara A, Pisciotta A, Minacapilli M, Maltese A, Capodici F, Cerdà A, & Gristina L (2018)
The impact of soil erosion on soil fertility and vine vigor. A multidisciplinary
approach based on field, laboratory and remote sensing approaches. Science of the
Total Environment 622-623: 474-480
NPCS Board of Consultants and Engineers (n.d.) Handbook on Citrus Fruits: Cultivation and
Oil Extraction. Asia Pacific Business Press Inc, Kamla, Nagar, Delhi, India
Oke TR (1988) Boundary Layer Climates, 2nd Edn. Taylor & Francis Group
Oliveira MT, Merwin IA (2001) Soil physical conditions in a New York orchard after eight
years under different groundcover management systems. Plant and Soil 234: 233-237
Oliveira M, Teles J, Barbosa P, Olazabal F, Queiroz J (2014) Shading of the fruit zone to
reduce grape yield and quality losses caused by sunburn. Journal international des
sciences de la vigne et du vin 48:179-187
Oliver DP, Bramley RG, Riches D, Porter IJ, Edwards J (2013) Review: Soil physical and
chemical properties as indicators of soil quality in Australian viticulture. Australian
Journal of Grape and Wine Research 19:129-140
Onzo A, Sabelis MW, Hanna R (2010) Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation on Predatory Mites
and the Role of Refuges in Plant Structures. Environmental Entomology 39:695-701
Pachauri RK, Meyer L (2015) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Report,
Geneva, Switzerland

110
Pagay V, Collins C (2017) Effects of timing and intensity of elevated temperatures on
reproductive development of field-grown Shiraz grapevines. OENO One - Vine and
Wine Open Access Journal 51:409-421
Palma BA, Jackson DI (1981) Effect of Temperature on Flower Initiation. Botanical Gazette
142:490-493
Parsons PG, Neale R, Wolski P, Green A (1998) The shady side of solar protection. Medical
Journal of Australia 168:327-330
Pasek JE (1988) 30. Influence of wind and windbreaks on local dispersal of insects.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 22-23:539-554
Paudel B, Udawatta RP, Kremer RJ, Anderson SH (2011) Soil quality indicator responses to
row crop, grazed pasture, and agroforestry buffer management. Agroforestry Systems
82: 311-323
Pedroza MA, Salinas MR, Alonso GL, Zalacain A (2017) Oenological Applications of
Wineking By-Products. In: Galanakis CM (ed) Handbook of Grape Processing By-
Products. Elsevier, London
Pennock D (2019) Soil Erosion: the greatest challenge for sustainable soil management. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy.
http://www.fao.org/3/ca4395en/ca4395en.pdf. Accessed 19 March 2020
Peralta AL, Sun Y, McDaniel MD, Lennon JT (2018) Crop rotational diversity increases
disease suppresive capacity of soil microbiomes. Ecosphere 9:1-16
Pereira GE, Gaudillere JP, van Leeuwen C, Hilbert G, Maucourt M, Deborde C, Moing A,
Rolin D (2005) H NMR metabolite fingerprints of grape berry: Comparison of
vintage and soil effects in Bordeaux grapevine growing areas. Analytica Chimica
Acta 563:346-352
Peter I, Lehmann J (2000) Pruning effects on root distribution and nutrient dynamics in an
acacia hedgerow planting in northern Kenya. Agroforestry Systems 50: 59-75
Petrie PR, Clingeleffer PR (2008) Effects of temperature and light (before and after budburst)
on inflorescence morphology and flower number of Chardonnay grapevines (Vitis
vinifera L.). Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 11:59-65
Petrovic G (2018) A survey of the YAN status of South African grape juices and exploration
of multivariate data analysis techniques for spectrometric calibration and cultiavr
discrimination purposes. Dissertation, Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Pienaar JW (2005) The effect of wind on the performance of the grapevine. Master’s Thesis,
Stellenbosch University, South Africa
Pimentel D (2006) Soil Erosion: A Food and Environmental Threat. Environment,
Development and Sustainability 8:119-137
Pool RM, Dunst RM, Lakso AN (1990) Comparison of sod, mulch, cultivation, and herbicide
floor management practices for grape production in nonirrigated vineyards. Journal of
the American Society for Horticultural Science 115: 872-877
Pouget R (1981) Action de la température sur la différenciation des inflorescences et des
fleurs durant les phases de pré-débourrement et de post-débourrement des bourgeons
latents de la vigne. Journal international des sciences de la vigne et du vin 15:65-79
Price SF, Breen PJ, Valladao M, Watson BT (1995) Cluster Sun Exposure and Quercetin in
Pinot noir Grapes and Wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 46:187-
194
Raj AJ, Lal SB (2014) Agroforestry Theory and Practices. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur,
India
Raj A, Toppo P (2018) Role of Agroforestry in Climate Change Mitigation. Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 7:241-243

111
Ramachandran NP, Buresh RJ, Mugendi DN, Latt CR (1999) Nutrient Cycling in Tropical
Agroforestry Systems: Myths and Science. In: Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes EC
(eds) Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press LLC
Rashid MI, Mujawar LH, Shahzad T, Almeelbi T, Ismail IM, Oves M (2016) Bacteria and
fungi can contribute to nutrients bioavailability and aggregate formation in degraded
soils. Microbiological Research 183: 26-41
Rathé AA, Pilkington LJ, Hoddle MS, Spohr LJ, Daugherty MP, Gurr GM (2014) Feeding
and Development of the Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter, Homalodisca vitripennis, on
Australian Native Plant Species and Implications for Australian Biosecurity. PloS
one, 9:e90410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090410
Ratnadass A, Fernandes P, Avelino J, Habib R (2012) Plant species diversity for sustainable
management of crop pests and diseases in agroecosystems: a review. Agronomy for
Sustainable Development 32: 273-303
Reynolds AG, Pool RM, Mattick LR (1986) Influence of cluster exposure on fruit
composition and wine quality of Seyval blanc grapes. Vitis 25:85-95
Reynolds PE, Simpson JA, Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM (2007) Effects of tree competition
on corn and soybean photosynthesis, growth, and yield in a temperate tree-based
agroforestry intercropping system in southern Ontario, Canada. Ecological
Engineering 29: 362-371
Rienth M, Torregrosa L, Gautier S, Ardisson M, Brillouet JM, Romieu C (2016) Temperature
desynchronizes sugar and organic acid metabolism in ripening grapevine fruits and
remodels their transcriptome. BMC Plant Biology 16:164
Rienth M, Torregrosa L, Luchaire N, Chatbanyong R, Lecourieux D, Kelly MT, Romieu C
(2014) Day and night heat stress trigger different transcriptomic responses in green
and ripening grapevine (vitis vinifera) fruit. BMC Plant Biology 14:108
Riha SJ, McIntyre BD (1999) Water Management with Hedgerow Agroforestry Systems. In:
Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes EC (eds) Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural
Systems, Lewis Publishers, pp 47-67
Risch SJ, Andow D, Altieri MA (1983) Agroecosystem Diversity and Pest Control: Data,
Tentative Conclusions, and New Research Directions. Environmental Entomology
12:625-628
Rodrigo-Comino J, Keesstra S, Cerdà A (2018) Soil Erosion as an Environmental Concern in
Vineyards. The Case Study of Celler del Roure, Eastern Spain, by Means of Rainfall
Simulation Experiments. Beverages, 4:1-11
Rodríguez-San Pedro A, Allendes JL, Beltrán CA, Chaperon PN, Saldarriaga-Córdoba MM,
Silva AX, Grez AA (2020) Quantifiying ecological and economic value of pest
control services provided by bats in a vineyard landscape of central Chile.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 302:107063.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107063
Rojas-Lara BA, Morrison JC (1989) Differential effects of shading fruit or foliage on the
development and composition of grape berries. Vitis 28:199-208
Roman H, Girault T, Barbier F, Péron T, Brouard N, Penčík A, Novák O, Vian A, Sakr S,
Lothier J, Le Gourrierec J, Leduc N (2016) Cytokinins Are Initial Targets of Light in
the Control of Bud Outgrowth. Plant Physiology 172:489-509
Root RB (1973) Organization of a Plant-Arthropod Association in Simple and Diverse
Habitats: The Fauna of Collards (Brassica Oleracea). Ecological Monographs, 43:95-
124
Ruffner HP, Hawker JS, Hale CR (1976) Temperature and enzymatic control of malate
metabolism in berries of Vitis vinifera. Phytochemistry 15:1877-1880

112
Saayman D, Huyssteen LV (1983) Preliminary Studies on the Effect of a Permanent Cover
Crop and Root Pruning on an Irrigated Colombar Vineyard. South African Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 4:7-12
Sadler GD, Murphy PA (2010) PH and Titratable Acidity. In: Nielsen S (ed) Food Analysis,
4th Edition. Springer, New York, pp 219-238
Sadras VO, Moran MA (2012) Elevated temperature decouples anthocyanins and sugars in
berries of Shiraz and Cabernet Franc. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research
18:115-122
Santillán D, Iglesias A, La Jeunesse I, Garrote L, Sotes V (2019) Vineyards in transition: A
global assessment of the adaptation needs of grape producing regions under climate
change. Science of the Total Environment 657:839-852
Schroeder P (1993) Organic Matter Cycling by Tropical Agroforestry Systems: A Review.
Journal of Tropical Forest Science 7:462-474
Schroth G, Krauss U, Gasparotto L, Duarte Aguilar JA, Vohland K (2000) Pests and diseases
in agroforestry systems of the humid tropics. Agroforestry Systems 50:199-241
Schultz HR (2003) Differences in hydraulic architecture account for nearisohydric and
anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought.
Plant, Cell and Environment 26:1393-1405
Schymanski SJ, Or D (2016) Wind increases leaf water use efficiency. Plant, Cell and
Environment 39:1448-1459
Šebela D, Turóczy Z, Olejníčková J, Kumšta M, Sotoláf R (2017) Effect of ambient sunlight
intensity on the temporal phenolic profiles of Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Chardonnay during
the ripening season – a field study. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture
38:94-102
Sellers R, Alampi-Sottini V (2016) The influence of size on winery performance: Evidence
from Italy. Wine Economics and Policy 5:33-41
Senaviratne A, Udawatta RP, Nelson KA, Shannon KK, Jose S (2012) Temporal and Spatial
Influence of Perennial Upland Buffers of Corn and Soybean Yields. Semigroup
Forum 104: 1356-1362
Seobi T, Anderson SH, Udawatta RP, Gantzer C (2005) Influence of Grass and Agroforestry
Buffer Strips on Soil Hydraulic Properties for an Albaqualf. Soil Science Society of
America Journal 69:893-901
Sepúlveda G, Kliewer WM (1986) Effect of High Temperature on Grapevines (Vitis vinifera
L.). II. Distribution of Soluble Sugars. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
37:20-25
Shantz HI (1927) Drought Resistance and Soil Moisture. Ecology 8:145-157
Shaulis NJ (1982) Responses of grapevines and grapes to spacing of and within canopies. In:
Webb AD (ed) Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings (18-21 June
1980). University of California, Davis, California, pp 353-361
Smart RE (1974) Aspects of Water Relations of the Grapevine (Vitis vinifera). American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 25:84-91
Smart RE (1987a) Canopy management to improve yield, fruit composition and vineyard
mechanisation: a review. In: Lee TH (ed) Proceedings of the Sixth Australian Wine
Industry Technical Conference (14-17 July 1986, Adelaide, SA). The Australian Wine
Research Institute, Adelaide, pp 205-211
Smart RE (1987b) Influence of light on composition and quality of grapes. Acta
Horticulturae 206:37-47
Smart DR, Carlisle E, Goebel M, Núnez BA (2005) Transverse hydraulic redistribution by a
grapevine. Plant, Cell and Environment 28:157-166

113
Smart RE, Coombe BG (1983) Water relations of grapevines. In: Kozlowski TT (ed) Water
Deficits and Plant Growth Volume VII: Additional Woody Crop Plants. Academic
Press, New York, pp 137-196
Smart RE, Robinson M (1991) Sunlight into Wine: A Handbook for Winegrape Canopy
Management. Winetitles, Adelaide, Australia
Smart DR, Schwass E, Lakso A, Morano L (2006) Grapevine Rooting Patterns: A
Comprehensive Analysis and a Review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
57:89-104
Smart RE, Sinclair TR (1976) Solar heating of grape berries and other spherical fruits.
Agricultural Meteorology 17:241-259
Smart RE, Smith SM (1988) Canopy management: identifying the problems and practical
solutions. In: Proceedings of the Second International Cool Climate Viticulture and
Oenology Symposium (January 1988). Auckland, New Zealand, pp 316-324
Soares Cariri Lopes F, Vargas de Oliveira J, Eudes de Morais Oliveira J, Duarte de Oliveira
M, Maria de Souza A (2019) Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical 49, e54421
Spayd SE, Tarara JM, Mee DL, Ferguson JC (2002) Separation of Sunlight and Temperature
Effects on the Composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot Berries. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 53:171-182
Spittlehouse DL, Adams RS, Winkler RD (2004) Forest, Edge, and Opening Microclimate at
Sicamous Creek. Ministry of Forests Forest Science Program, British Columbia
Srinivasan C, Mullins MG (1981) Physiology of Flowering in the Grapevine – A Review.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 32:47-63
Stancanelli G, Almeida R, Bosco D, Caffier D, Czwienczek E (2015) Assessing the risk
posed to plant health by Xylella fastidiosa in the European Union. CIHEAM
International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, Watch Letter
33:1–8
Stephenson AG (1981) Flower and Fruit Abortion: Proximate Causes anad Ultimate
Functions. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 12:253-279
Stevens RM, Harvey G, Aspinall D (1995) Grapevine growth of shoots and fruit linearly
correlate with water stress indices based on root‐weighted soil matric potential.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 1:58-66
Stevenson T (2005) The Sotheby’s Wine Encyclopedia, 4th edn. Dorling Kindersley, London
Stock M, Gerstengarbe FW, Kartschall T, Werner PC (2005) Reliability of Climate Change
Impact Assessments for Viticulture. Acta Horticulturae 689:29-40
Sudmeyer R, Flugge F (2004) The economics of managing tree–crop competition in
windbreak and alley systems. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45:1403
- 1414
Sun R, Cheng G, Li Q, He Y, Wang Y, Lan Y, Li S, Zhu Y, Song W, Zhang X, Cui X, Chen
W, Wang J (2017) Light-induced Variation in Phenolic Compounds in Cabernet
Sauvignon Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) Involves Extensive Transcriptome
Reprogramming of Biosynthetic Enzymes, Transcription Factors, and Phytohormonal
Regulators. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:547
Sun D, Wang Q (2018) Linear Relationships between Photosynthetic Rate and
Photochemical Energy Expressed by PAR x Fv/Fm. American Journal of Plant
Sciences 9:125-138
Sweetman C, Sadras VO, Hancock RD, Soole KL, Ford CM (2014) Metabolic effects of
elevated temperature on organic acid degradadtion in ripening Vitis vinifera fruit.
Journal of Experimental Botany 65:5975-5988
Szegedi E, Civerolo EL (2011) Bacterial diseases of grapevine. International Journal of
Horticultural Science 17:45-49

114
Tamang B, Rockwood DL, Andreu MG (2009) Microclimate Modification by Tree
Windbreaks in Florida Farms. In: Gold MA, Hall MM (Eds.) Agroforestry Comes of
Age: Putting Science into Practice. Proceedings of the 11th North American
Agroforestry Conference, May 31-June 3, 2009. Columbia, Missouri, pp 339 – 348
Tarara J, Ferguson J, Hoheisel G, Perez J (2005) Assymetrical canopy architecture due to
prevailing wind direction and row orientation creates an imbalance in irradiance at the
fruiting zone of grapevines. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 135:144-155
Tauzin AS, Giardina T (2014) Sucrose and invertases, a part of the plant defense response to
the biotic stresses. Frontiers in Plant Science 5:293
Thevathasan N, Gordon AM (2004) Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North
temperate region: Experiences from southern Ontario, Canada. Agroforestry Systems
61:257-268
Thomazini A, Mendonça ES, Cardoso IM, Garbin ML (2015) SOC dynamics and soil quality
index of agroforestry systems in the Atlantic rainforest of Brazil. Geoderma Regional
5:15-24
Tixier MS, Arnaud A, Douin M, Kreiter S (2015) Effects of agroforestry on Phytoseiidae
communities (Acari: Mesostigmata) in vineyards. A synthesis of a 10-year period of
observation. Acarologia 55:361-375
Trambouze W, Goma-Fortin N (2013) Agroforesterie viticole : résultats de 11 ans d’étude sur
la production et la vigueur des vignes. Chambre d’agriculture de l’Hérault, Portugal
Trambouze W, Gouttesoulard D, Saubion C (2017) Agroforesterie viticole : 20 ans de
complantation arbres/vignes, pour quels résultats agronomiques? Report, RMT
Agroforesteries Chambre D’ Agriculture Hérault, Paris, France
Ucar T, Hall FR (2001) Windbreaks as a pesticide drift mitigation strategy: a review. Pest
Management Science 57:663-675
Udawatta RP, Anderson SH, Motavalli PP, Garrett HE (2011a) Calibration of a water content
reflectometer and soil water dynamics for an agroforestry practice. Agroforestry
Systems 82: 61-75
Udawatta RP, Garrett HE, Kallenbach RL (2011b) Agroforestry buffers for non-point source
pollution reductions from agricultural watersheds. Journal of Environmental Quality
40:800-806
Udawatta RP, Jose S (2011) Carbon Sequestration Potential of Agroforestry Practices in
Temperate North America. In: Kumar B, Nair P (eds) Carbon Sequestration Potential
of Agroforestry Systems. Advances in Agroforestry, Vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht
Udawatta RP, Nelson KA, Jose S, Motavalli PP (2014) Temporal and spatial differences in
crop yields of a mature silver maple alley cropping system. Agronomy Journal
106:407-415
Udawatta RP, Gantzer CJ, Reinbott TM, Wright RL, Pierce RA II (2016) Yield differences
influenced by distance from riparian buffers and CRP. Agronomy Journal 108:647-
655
Udawatta RP, Anderson SH, Kremer RJ (2020) Soil benefits of agroforestry. In: Garrett HE,
Jose S, Gold M (eds.) North American Agroforestry: An Integrated Science and
Practice 3rd Edition. American Society of Agronomy-Crop Science Society of
America-Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA). Madison, WI, USA,
pp ##-##
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2019) PRN 2001-X Draft: Spray and Dust
Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products. EPA. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-
registration/prn-2001-x-draft-spray-and-dust-drift-label-statements-pesticide-
products. Accessed 18 March 2020

115
Ussahatanonta S, Jackson DI, Rowe RN (2008) Effects of nutrient and water stress on
vegetative and reproductive growth in Vitis vinifera L. Australian Journal of Grape
and Wine Research 2:64-69
Valdés-Gómez H, Fermaud M, Roudet J, Calonnec A, Gary C (2008) Grey mould incidence
is reduced on grapevines with lower vegetative and reproductive growth. Crop
Protection 27:1174-1186
Valdés-Gómez H, Gary C, Cartolaro P, Lolas-Caneo M, Calonnec A (2011) Powdery mildew
development is positively influenced by grapevine vegetative growth induced by
different soil management strategies. Crop Protection 30:1168-1177
Van Leeuwen C, Seguin G (2006) The concept of terroir in viticulture. Journal of Wine
Research 17:1-10
Van zyl JL (1984) Response of Colombar Grapevines to Irrigation as Regards Quality
Aspects and Growth. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 5:19-28
Vasconcelos MC, Greven M, Winefield CS, Trought MCT, Raw V (2009) The Flowering
Process of Vitis vinifera: A Review. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
60:411-434
Vogt E, Schruft G (2000) Weinbau 8th Edition. Ulmer, Stuttgart, Germany
Wallingford AK, Fuchs MF, Martinson T, Hesler S, Loeb GM (2015) Slowing the Spread of
Grapevine Leafroll-Associated Viruses in Commercial Vineyards With Insecticide
Control of the Vector, Pseudococcus maritimus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae). Journal
of Insect Science 15:1-6
Webb LB, Whetton PH, Barlow EWR (2007) Modelled impact of future climate change on
the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine
Research 13:165-175
Wetzel WC, Kharouba HM, Robinson M, Holyoak M, Karban R (2016) Variability in plant
nutrients reduces insect herbivore performance. Nature 539: 425-427
Weyers JD, Hans M (1990) Methods in Stomatal Research. Harlow, Longman Scientific &
Technical
Wezel A, David C, Ferrer A, Letort A, Feret S, Peigné J, Vian JF, Celette F (2014)
Agroecological practices supporting the provision of goods and services in
agriculture. Examples from France and Europe. ISARA Lyon, France and the Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266143585_Agroecological_practices_supp
orting_the_provision_of_goods_and_services_in_agriculture_Examples_from_France
_and_Europe. Accessed 16 January 2020
Wheeler SJ, Pickering GJ (2003) Optimizing grape quality through soil management
practices. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 1:190-197
Wheeler SJ, Pickering GJ (2005) Effects of Soil Management Techniques on Grape and
Wine Quality. In: Dris R (author) Fruits: Growth, Nutrition, and Quality, WFL
Publisher, Helsinki, Finland, pp 195-208
Wheeler SJ, Black AS, Pickering GJ (2005) Vineyard floor management improves wine
quality in highly vigorous Vitis vinifera ’Cabernet Sauvignon’ in New Zealand. New
Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 33:317-328
Wilson H, Daane K, Miles A, Altieri MA (2015) Landscape Diversity and Crop Vigor
Influence Biological Control of the Western Grape Leafhopper (E. elegantula Osborn)
in Vineyards. PLoS ONE 10:e0141752
Wilson H, Miles AF, Daane KM, Altieri MA (2017a). Landscape diversity and crop vigor
outweigh influence of local diversification on biological control of a vineyard pest.
Ecosphere 8:1-18

116
Wilson H, Miles AF, Daane KM, Altieri MA (2017b) Vineyard proximity to riparian habitat
influences Western grapeleafhopper (Erythroneura elegantula Osborn) populations.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 211:43-50
Winkel T, Rambal S (1993) Influence of Water Stress on Grapevines Growing in the Field:
from Leaf to Whole-plant Response. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 20:143-
157
Winkler AJ, Cook JA, Kliewer WM, Lider LA (1974) General viticulture. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA
Wistrom C, Sisterson MS, Pryor M, Hashim-Buckey JM, Daane KM (2010) Distribution of
Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter and Threecornered Alfalfa Hopper on Plant Hosts in the
San Joaquin Valley, California. Journal of Economic Entomology 103:1051-1059
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford
University Press, United Nations
Wright CJ (1989) Manipulation of Fruiting. Butterworths, London
Young A (1989a) Effects of Trees on Soils. In: Young A (author) Agroforestry for Soil
Conservation. Wallingford, UK, pp 93-103
Young A (1989b) Soil Organic Matter. In: Young A (author) Agroforestry for Soil
Conservation. Wallingford, UK, pp 105-128
Young A (1989c) Trends in Soil-Conservation Research and Policy. In: Young A (author)
Agroforestry for Soil Conservation. Wallingford, UK pp 17-52
Zahavi T, Reuveni M, Scheglov D, Lavee S (2001) Effect of Grapevine Training Systems on
Development of Powdery Mildew. European Journal of Plant Pathology 107:495-501
Zhang N, van Westreenen Av, Anten NPR, Evers JB, Marcelis LFM (2019) Disentangling
the effects of photosynthetically active radiation and red to far-red ratio on plant
photosynthesis under canopy shading: a simulation study using a functional-structural
plant model. Annals of Botany mcz197

117
 ________________________________
CHAPTER VII
INTERSPECIFIC INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OLIVE
TREES AND GRAPEVINES IN VINEYARD
AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS IN AN ARID CLIMATE
REGION

________________________________

118
VII.1. ABSTRACT

Agroforestry is a sustainable land use system with proven benefits in vineyards,

including increased climate resilience, improved pest management, improved soil fertility,

and other enhanced ecosystem services. Previous studies on vineyard agroforestry systems

have focused on Mediterranean climate regions, but the purpose of this study was to quantify

the interspecific interactions between trees and grapevines in an arid and irrigated grape

growing region of Argentina. The study took place in an 8-year-old Malbec vineyard in

Mendoza, Argentina that was intercropped with hedgerows of 70-year-old olive trees. Grape

quality, growth, and production parameters were examined at five different distances from an

olive tree hedgerow. Results revealed that proximity of grapevines to the hedgerow was

associated with significantly higher quality must, including higher glucose/fructose levels,

higher brix levels, higher must density, and higher total acidity. However, proximity of

grapevines to the hedgerow was also associated with significantly lower vigor and lower

yield, with yield reductions up to 50% in vines closest to the hedgerow.

To investigate the potential causes of variance among these variables, nutritional

analyses were undergone by examining vine tissue during the period of flowering, in order to

determine whether the variation observed was due to competition for nutrients. Results

revealed that there were no significant differences in nutrient status between treatments in

any pattern that would indicate competition, suggesting that competition for nutrients was not

a major limiting factor.

The results of this study broaden our understanding of vineyard agroforestry systems

in different growing contexts and can help determine under which conditions agroforestry

should be utilized as an appropriate technology in vineyards. In an arid region with a tree-

crop combination of olives and grapevines, the presence of trees was correlated with higher

must quality but lower yields. Depending on winemaker goals, the beneficial effects that trees

119
impart on grape must quality parameters, in addition to their beneficial ecosystem services,

may be determined to outweigh the negative effects that trees have on yield in the rows

nearest to trees. Additionally, as many arid grape growing regions anticipate destructively

high temperatures in the coming years due to climate change, utilizing trees in vineyards may

be an adaptive strategy for preventing future quality and yield reductions.

VII.2. INTRODUCTION

Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) and olive trees (Olea europaea L.) have been

intercropped in Mendoza, Argentina for hundreds of years. Previous studies on vineyard

agroforestry systems and on agroforestry systems in general in other growing regions have

shown that the presence of trees in vineyards increases biodiversity, reduces pest damage,

regulates the microclimate, protects vines from heat and frost damage, protects vines from

wind, and improves soil fertility, in addition to providing many ecosystem services.

However, studies about the impact of trees on grapevine yield, production, and quality

parameters in arid climate regions have not been undergone. This study aims to scientifically

document the effects of olive trees on grapevine growth, yield, and quality parameters. By

studying vineyard agroforestry systems and measuring these various grapevine parameters at

different distances from olive trees, we can quantify the extent of the competitive and

beneficial interactions between grapevines and olive trees in vineyard agroforestry systems in

Mendoza, Argentina.

VII.3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to quantify the interspecific interactions between olive

trees and grapevines at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow in an arid and

irrigated wine growing region of Argentina. Quality, growth, and production parameters were

120
examined at five different distances from an olive tree hedgerow, and the specific variables

measured included: glucose/fructose levels in must, brix levels at harvest, must density, total

acidity (TA), pH, malic acid, yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN), total skin phenolics, total

skin anthocyanins, total skin tannins, total seed phenolics, total seed tannins, pruning weight,

yield, and the Ravaz Index. Each variable was measured for one year. In order to investigate

the potential causes of variance among these parameters, vine nutritional status was studied

through vine tissue samples, in order to determine if competition for nutrients was the main

competitive factor. The following nutrients were measured: petiole nitrate, leaf blade N,

petiole total N, leaf blade P, petiole P, leaf blade K, petiole K, leaf blade Mg, and petiole Mg.

VII.3.1. Specific Objectives

1. Measure glucose/fructose levels (g/L) in grape must at harvest from vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

2. Measure brix levels in grape must at harvest from vines at different distances from an

olive tree hedgerow.

3. Measure grape must density (g/L) at harvest from vines at different distances from an

olive tree hedgerow.

4. Measure TA (g/L) in grape must at harvest from vines at different distances from an

olive tree hedgerow.

5. Measure pH in grape must at harvest from vines at different distances from an olive

tree hedgerow.

6. Measure malic acid (g/L) in grape must at harvest from vines at different distances

from an olive tree hedgerow.

7. Measure YAN (g/L) in grape must at harvest from vines at different distances from an

olive tree hedgerow.

121
8. Measure total skin phenolics in berries at harvest (mg/g fruit) from vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

9. Measure total skin anthocyanins in berries at harvest (mg/g fruit) from vines at

different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

10. Measure total skin tannins in berries at harvest (mg/g fruit) from vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

11. Measure total seed phenolics in berries at harvest (mg/g fruit) from vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

12. Measure total seed tannins in berries at harvest (mg/g fruit) from vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

13. Measure yield (kg/vine) from vines at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

14. Determine the vegetative growth from pruning weights (g/m cordon) of grapevines at

different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

15. Evaluate vine balance (using the Ravaz Index) of grapevines at different distances

from an olive tree hedgerow.

16. Measure the quantity of N-NO3 (mg/kg) in the tissue of grapevine petioles (during the

period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

17. Measure the quantity of total N (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine leaf

blades (during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree

hedgerow.

18. Measure the quantity of total N (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine petioles

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

19. Measure the quantity of P (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine leaf blades

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

122
 20. Measure the quantity of P (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine petioles

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

21. Measure the quantity of K (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine leaf blades

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

22. Measure the quantity of K (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine petioles

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

23. Measure the quantity of Mg (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine leaf blades

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

24. Measure the quantity of Mg (g/100 g dry tissue) in the tissue of grapevine petioles

(during the period of flowering) at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

VII.4. MATERIALS AND METHODS

VII.4.1. Site

The study was performed at Catapano Family Vineyard in Maipu, Mendoza,

Argnentina (33°00’52”S 68°48’50”W) during the 2019/2020 growing season. Mendoza is a

temperate, arid wine growing region in western Argentina, located at the foothills of the

Andes mountain range. It is famous for its high-end red wines, particularly Malbec, and its

distinct high-altitude terroir (Liberman 2014; Fushing et al. 2019). Its climate can be

technically classified as Mediterranean and Continental. Maipu is a premier wine growing

region within Mendoza characterized by large day-night temperature variations, with warm

days during the growing season and cool nights, and with temperatures that do not typically

exceed 30 °C during the growing season (Fushing et al. 2019). Maximum, minimum, and

median monthly temperatures during 2018, 2019, and 2020 were taken from the Perdriel

weather station at Belasco de Baquedano in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina, which was the

weather station nearest to the site (Appendix A, Table 1). Maipu is located in the foothills

123
and plains region of Mendoza, with the Andes mountains to the west and the plateaus and

volcanoes of La Payunia to the South. Rainfall in this region is on average 220 mm per year

(Departamento General de Irrigación 2016). Typical soil nutrient levels in the Maipu region

of Mendoza, Argentina are summarized in Appendix A, Table 2.

The site consists of 1.64 hectares of 8-year-old Malbec grapevines spaced at 1 m x 2

m, with approximately 127 vines per row in a north-south orientation. The trellis system is

single cordon vertical shoot positioned with approximately 12 spurs per cordon and a cordon

length of 1 m. To the east of the vine rows is a hedgerow of 17 70-year-old olive trees,

spaced 7 m apart, with a mean DBH of 36.34 cm. The olive tree hedgerow is separated from

the first vine row by 2 m. All vines are irrigated uniformly by drip irrigation; vines receive on

average 10 mm per day per m3 of water. Olive trees are irrigated by flood irrigation every six

days for 72 hours using a furrow to the east of the hedgerow (on the opposite side of the

grapevine rows, at approximately 5 m from the first grape row).

During the year prior to this study, during the 2018/2019 growing season, vines were

fertilized with 30 kg/ha ammonium sulfate during the period of budbreak to bloom, 30 kg/ha

ammonium sulfate during the period of veraison to harvest, and 30 kg/ha ammonium sulfate

during the period of post-harvest. During the 2019/2020 growing season when the study was

undertaken, vines were fertilized with 30 kg/ha ammonium sulfate during the period of

budbreak to bloom, 30 kgs/ha ammonium sulfate during the period of veraison to harvest, 50

kilos/ha ammonium sulfate post-harvest, and 15 kg/ha phosphoric acid post-harvest. The soil

is regularly disc harrowed to manage weeds. Deep ploughing and herbicide usage are avoided

but have been used in the past. To manage powdery mildew, Copper Sulfate and Sulfur are

sprayed as needed.

VII.4.2. Experimental Design

124
 The site was divided into five treatment blocks at varying distances from an olive tree

hedgerow: 2 m from the hedgerow, 4 m from the hedgerow, 6 m from the hedgerow, 12 m

from the hedgerow, and 40 m from the hedgerow. The spacing of blocks was determined on

the basis of three assumptions: 1. Mature olive tree roots extend up to 12 m from their trunk,

which is what other studies have observed (Kailis and Harris 2007), 2. Shade from trees at

this site is cast out to 5 m from the hedgerow for approximately 6 hours per day, and shade

from trees is cast out to 20 m from the hedgerow for approximately 2 hours per day. This

determination was made from our observations. 3. Vines at 40 m from the hedgerow

experience little to no influence from trees whatsoever, as neither shade nor root niche

overlap nor microclimatic shifts occur at this distance.

The experiment was set up in a randomized complete block design with five treatment

blocks in total. Each treatment block was divided into three equally-sized repetitions along

the north-south gradient, to control for potential differences in soil and microclimate. Within

each repetition, five observational units (five grapevines) were sampled. The experimental

setup can be seen in Figure 20 and is summarized as follow:

• Blocks: Blocks consist of a factorial design with five treatment blocks in total: 2
m from hedgerow, 4 m from hedgerow, 6 m from hedgerow, 12 m from
hedgerow, and 40 m from hedgerow.
o Block 1: 2 m from tree row (1st vine row on west side of hedgerow).
o Block 2: 4 m from tree row (2nd vine row on west side of hedgerow).
o Block 3: 6 m from tree row (3rd vine row on west side of hedgerow).
o Block 4: 12 m from tree row (6th vine row on west side of hedgerow).
o Block 5: 40 m from tree row (20th vine row on west side of hedgerow).
• Repetitions: There were three repetitions per treatment, each equal in size
(consisting of 32 vines each), divided from North to South, to control for
differences in soil and microclimate across the North-South gradient.
• Observational Unit: There were five observational units per repetition (five
individual vines sampled per repetition), all with similar mean trunk diameters

VII.4.2.i. Background Uniformity Tests

In order to determine that the background conditions of the site were uniform across

repetitions and treatments, several tests were undergone. First, every row in the vineyard was

125
walked and changes in vegetation type and quantity were looked for to determine if there

might be possible underlying differences in growing conditions. No differences in vegetation

were observed. Data from Google Earth was used to ensure homogeneity of the topography

of the site. No differences in terrain nor slope were found; elevation was 856 m throughout

site. Treatment rows were walked to determine that there were no leaks in the irrigation drip

line, so as to ensure rough irrigation uniformity between treatments; no leaks were observed.

Diameter at Breast Height of trees was taken as well, to determine that all trees had roughly

the same growth and thus, uniform influence on vines (See Appendix B, Table 1). Diameter

at Breast Height was measured at 4.5 feet using a DBH tape measurer. The mean DBH was

36.34 cm with a standard deviation of 16.52. Out of the 17 trees, only one was found to be an

outlier, suggesting an overall uniform influence of conditions among the olive trees.

To determine the composition and uniformity of the soil within the experimental site,

background soil tests were performed. The site was divided into four equal transects:

northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. Following the recommendation of previous

studies (Chirko et al. 1996; Nair 2011), in each transect a randomly selected location was

selected in which holes would be dug. At each hole, two soil cores were taken: one at 0-30

cm and one at 30-60 cm, in accordance with the breakdown of horizons in the soil profile.

Sub-samples were mixed within horizons. A total of eight samples were sent into the

laboratory for testing of soil texture, EC, pH, N, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, carbonates, bicarbonates,

chlorides, sulfates, sodium absorption ratio, OM, and C/N ratio (see Appendix B, Table 2 and

3). Analyses revealed that the dominant soil at the site was Typic Torrifluvent, a class of

Entisols deposited from alluvial plains and characterized by their deep, medium-textured

profiles (Abraham and Martínez 2000). Soil texture at this site was found to be loam in the

northwest, southwest, and southeast sectors, and silty loam in the northeast sector (Appendix

B, Table 2). Salinity levels were low to medium, and sodium levels were found to be normal.

126
Soil was found to be calcareous, saturated in gypsum, and slightly alkaline, which is normal

for this region. Chloride levels at the site were higher than average for this region. Nitrogen,

P, K, and organic matter were all high, and there was a high C/N ratio, suggesting good

mineralization rates.

Photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) measurements were taken at each

treatment row every hour from 8 am to 7 pm during one day in spring in order to estimate

how much shade the olive trees were casting on grapevines. Photosynthetic photon flux

density was measured using the Korona light measurement application on an iPhone 7, which

had a PPFD limit of 3000 μmol/m-2/s-1. Throughout the course of 11 hours, grapevines 2 m

from the hedgerow were found to receive an average of 1,868.93 μmol/m-2/s-1, vines 4 m

from the hedgerow received an average of 2,282.55 μmol/m-2/s-1, vines 6 m from the

hedgerow received an average of 2,340.34 μmol/m-2/s-1, vines 12 m from the hedgerow

received an average of 2,371.53 μmol/m-2/s-1, and vines 40 m from the hedgerow received an

average of an average of 2,416.28 μmol/m-2/s-1 light. All of these measurements were

considerably higher than the light saturation point of grapevines, which is 499 to 598.8 µmol

quanta m-2 s-1 (Kriedemann 1968). Full sunlight has a PPFD of 2,000 to 3,000 µmol quanta

m-2 s-1, however, under full sunlight only a grapevines’ leaves which are exposed at right

angles to incident light are able to absorb full PPFD, and because of canopy density and

varying leaf angles within the canopy, grapevines in general absorb less PPFD in the field. A

map of the light distribution from the hours of 8 am to 7 pm on a clear day in spring can be

seen in Figure 21. In general, significant reductions in light were only seen in vines within a 2

m distance of the olive tree hedgerow.

VII.4.2.ii. Selection of Observational Units

In addition to background uniformity checks of the site, uniformity checks of the

initial vigor of each observational unit (each sampled vine) were also undergone, and outliers

127
were removed from the sampling pool. First, in order to control for “edge effect,” the first 13

vines on both the north and south sides of the row (vines within 13 m from the edge) were

eliminated from the sampling pool and only the middle 96 vines within each treatment were

considered for sampling.

In order to determine uniformity amongst sampling units within the same treatment

block, vine diameter at a height of 40 cm from soil was taken for every vine within the five

determined sampling blocks (a total of 480 vines) (Appendix C, Table 1). Outliers were

determined by calculating the trimmed mean and the interquartile range of all vines within

each block. If an outlier was detected it was eliminated from the sampling pool, and sampling

units were subsequently drawn from an outlier-free sampling pool within each treatment

block (Appendix C, Table 1). In general, vine diameter was mostly uniform throughout the

repetitions; in the row 40 m from the hedgerow only four vines needed to be removed from

the sampling pool, in the row 12 m from the hedgerow five vines were removed, in the row 6

m from the hedgerow three vines were removed, in the row 4 m from the hedgerow two vines

were removed, and in the row 2 m from the hedgerow six vines were removed.

A random number generator was used to select five observational units (five

individual vines) within each repetition. In the random generator, the following information

was entered. Each treatment had a total of 96 vines, and each repetition had a total of 32

vines; therefore, a number range of 1-32 was entered. This process was repeated three times

per treatment for a total of 15 times. If a vine that was an outlier was selected, it was

discarded and another randomly selected vine was chosen. The diameters of these five

randomly selected vines were then again compared between repetitions, within treatments, to

ensure that all vines within a given treatment had no statistically significant differences

between trunk diameter. Final selected observational units can be seen in Appendix C, Table

2.

128
Figure 20. Experimental design setup of Catapano Vineyard, with five treatment blocks at
five distances from an olive tree hedgerow. Within each treatment block there were
three repetitions, and within each repetition, five vines with uniform trunk diameters
were selected at random for sampling.

129
Figure 21. Average photosynthetic photon flux density measurements (µMol/m2/S) in
grapevine rows at 2 m, 4 m, 6 m, 12 m, and 40 m from an olive tree hedgerow from
the hours of 8 am to 7 pm on a clear spring day in Mendoza, Argentina.

VII.4.3. Data Collection

Various variables were collected and measured in order to determine the effect of

olive tree hedgerows on three broad parameter categories: must quality parameters, grapevine

growth parameters, and production parameters. Then, in order to investigate the causes of

variation in the aforementioned parameters, a tissue nutritional analysis was undergone, to

determine if competition for nutrients between olive trees and grapevines contributed to the

variation observed. The following data was taken.

VII.4.3.i. Quality Parameters

To measure quality parameters, grapes were harvested when the winemaker

determined them to be ripe, on March 13, 2020. 500 berries were randomly sampled from

each repetition; this was done by randomly sampling 100 berries from each of the five

130
observational units (sampled vines) in the repetition. Berries were sampled from different

parts of clusters: top, bottom, middle, and from both sides of each cluster. From this sample

of 500 berries a clean extraction was performed in the Pedology Laboratory at the College of

Agricultural Sciences to produce grape must. 100 mL samples of the must were sent to MAG

S.R.L. Laboratory, in Mendoza, Argentina, where levels of Glucose + Fructose (g/L), °Brix,

density (g/L) TA (g/L), pH, Malic Acid (g/L), and YAN (mg/L) were measured. An

additional 100 mL of must was sent to the laboratory of the National Institute for Agricultural

Technology (INTA) in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina, where a panel of total skin phenolics, total

skin anthocyanins, total skin tannins, total seed phenolics, and total seed tannins was

performed. Raw data can be seen in Appendix D, Table 1 and 2, and documentation of the

analysis process can be seen in Appendix D, Figure 1.

VII.4.3.ii. Vine Growth Parameters

The effect of olive tree hedgerows on vine vigor was analyzed by measuring pruning

weights (g m-1), which is a common measurement of vine vigor. During the pruning season

when vines were dormant, on June 22, 2020, vines were spur pruned by hand and all pruned

canes were collected and weighed using an electronic scale. Because each vine cordon was

exactly one m in length, the pruning mass per vine was equivalent to the standard pruning

weights metric of pruning mass per linear meter of canopy (Smart et al. 1990).

Vine balance was calculated by comparing yield to pruning weight using the Ravaz

Index, which is the most common and widely accepted method for calculating vine balance

(Skinkis and Vance 2013). The Ravaz Index is calculated by dividing yield by pruning

weight; a detailed formula is outlined in Appendix D, Table 5. Well-balanced vines are

indicated by Ravaz Index values between 300 and 600 g m-1(Smart et al. 1990). Results can

be seen in Appendix D, Table 3.

131
 VII.4.3.iii. Production Parameters

The effect of olive tree hedgerows on grape yield was analyzed by measuring the total

yield in kg of all clusters per vine at harvest on March 13, 2020. Vines were harvested clean,

and the weight of all clusters per vine was taken using an electronic scale. Raw data can be

seen in Appendix D, Table 3, and documentation of the measurement process can be seen in

Appendix D, Figure 2.

VII.4.3.iv. Vine Nutritional Parameters

To determine vine nutrient status, petiole and leaf blade samples were taken in

accordance with the internationally accepted viticultural tissue sampling standards (Wolf

2008). Petiole analyses are widely considered to be the most accurate and objective method

for measuring grapevine nutrition status, as they measure the actual amounts of nutrients

absorbed by grapevines, rather than simply the amount of nutrients that are in the soil

(Robinson 1992). Samples were taken at peak bloom (80% flowering) on November 11,

2019, and on November 2, 2020. At each of the five observational units within each

repetition (at each sampled vine) 12 petioles and 12 leaf blades were sampled, for a total of

60 petioles and 60 leaf blades per repetition. Samples were taken near the base of the shoot,

opposite inflorescences. Leaves were separated from petioles manually and were delivered to

the laboratory for analysis. In 2019 foliar tissue was taken to the Pedology Laboratory at the

College of Agricultural Sciences, in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina, and in 2020, tissue was taken

to Agroas Laboratory in Mendoza, Argentina. Tissue was washed with deionized water, dried

at 55 °C for 24 hours, and then analyzed for N, N-NO3, P, K, and Mg levels. Nitrate levels

were analyzed using the Micro-Kjeldalh method and Bremner-Keeney method, total N was

analyzed using the Macro Kjeldalh method, Mg was determined using Complexometric

Titration with EDTA, P was measured using colorimetric estimation by the nitro-vanado-

molybdic method of Mission, and K was measured by a flame photometer through the

132
process of hydrochloric acid extraction. Data from 2019 can be seen in Appendix D. Table 4.

Typical levels of petiole and leaf blade macro and micronutrients for the region of Maipu,

Mendoza, Argentina can be seen in Appendix E.

VII.5. DATA ANALYSIS

Two different statistical analyses were undergone in this experiment. In order to

determine if distance of grapevines from an olive tree hedgerow had an effect on grape must

quality parameters and nutritional parameters, a randomized complete block design one-way

analysis of variance was undergone using SAS software and the GLM procedure (see

Appendix F). For the analyses of these parameters, vines were classified into five treatment

groups: 2 m from hedgerow (n = 3), 4 m from hedgerow (n =3), 6 m from hedgerow (n = 3),

12 m from hedgerow (n =3) and 40 m from hedgerow (n=3).

In order to determine if distance of grapevines from an olive tree hedgerow had an

effect on production and growth parameters, a repeated randomized complete block design

one-way analysis of variance was undergone using SAS software and the glimmix procedure

(see Appendix G). For production and growth parameters, vines were classified into five

groups: 2 m from hedgerow (n = 15), 4 m from hedgerow (n =15), 6 m from hedgerow (n =

15), 12 m from hedgerow (n =15) and 40 m from hedgerow (n=15).

For both the randomized complete block design and the repeated randomized

complete block design, each treatment group was broken into three blocks, from north to

south. Upon analysis, the blocks did not affect results for the majority of variables; all p

values were greater than .05 for all variables except for leaf blade K (p=.0146). For post-hoc

analyses, Fisher’s Least Significant Differences multiple comparison procedure was selected

due to its liberalism, given the pioneer nature of this study. Results from the one-way

133
ANOVA can be summarized in Tables 7, 8, and 9. For all results, data is presented as mean ±

model standard error.

Table 7. Quality parameters in grape must at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.
Variables with significant differences between treatment are designated by an asterisk.

Variable Num Den SS MS F Value p

DF DF
Glucose/fructose* 4 10 1534.02 383.51 10.31 0.0030
Brix* 4 10 11.27 2.82 9.61 0.0038
Density* 4 10 0.00 0.00 10.02 0.0033
Total acidity* 4 10 0.38 0.09 8.41 0.0058
Total berry skin 4 10 0.12 0.03 4.85 0.0279
tannins*
pH 4 10 0.08 0.02 2.47 0.1287
Malic acid 4 10 0.10 0.03 1.15 0.4007
Yeast assimilable 4 10 1144.23 286.06 0.46 0.7629
nitrogen
Total berry skin 4 10 0.17 0.04 0.20 0.9332
phenolics
Total berry skin 4 10 0.32 0.08 2.74 0.1047
anthocyanins
Total seed 4 10 0.88 0.22 1.18 0.3882
phenolics
Total seed tannins 4 10 0.54 0.14 1.66 0.2503

Table 8. Grapevine production and growth parameters for the 2019/2020 growing seasons.
Variables with significant differences between treatment are designated by an asterisk.

Variable Num DF Den DF F Value p

Vine yield 4 68 6.60 0.0002
(kg)*
Pruning 4 68 4.12 0.0048
weights*
Ravaz index 4 68 1.06 0.381

134
Table 9. Grapevine nutritional parameters from tissue samples taken at bloom in November
2019. Variables with significant differences between treatment are designated by an asterisk.

Variable Num Den DF SS MS F Value p

DF
Leaf Blade 4 10 0.319 0.079 30.23 <.0001
K*
Petiole N- 4 10 5540.40 1385.100 1.51 0.287
NO3
Leaf Blade 4 10 0.55 0.137 2.23 0.155
Total N
Petiole Total 4 10 0.03 0.007 0.73 0.595
N
Leaf Blade 4 10 0.03 0.008 0.88 0.5165
Total P
Petiole P 4 10 0.02 0.006 3.54 0.0603
Petiole K 4 10 0.44 0.110 1.25 0.3636
Leaf Blade 4 10 0.21 0.052 1.48 0.295
Mg
Petiole Mg 4 10 0.24 0.061 0.77 0.575

VII.6. RESULTS

VII.6.1. Quality Parameter Results

VII.6.1.i. Glucose/Fructose

Glucose/fructose (g/L) is a common metric for measuring the amount of sugar in

grape must and indicates the alcohol content that wine will have post-fermentation (Kemp et

al. 2019). The data for glucose/fructose levels in this experiment satisfied the assumptions of

the one-way ANOVA. Residuals for sugar content, measured in glucose/fructose levels in

grape must (g/L), were normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk's

test (p = 0.928). There were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No

differences were found between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.7032).

A strong association between distance and glucose/fructose levels was found; the one-

way ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and

glucose/fructose levels was significant, F(4,10) = 10.31, p = .003 (see Table 7).

Glucose/fructose levels in grape must at harvest (g/L) were lowest in vines farthest from the

135
hedgerow and increased linearly as vine proximity to trees increased (See Figure 22), from

vines 40 m from the hedgerow (234.94 g/L ± 3.52) to 12 m from the hedgerow (247.05 g/L ±

3.52), to 6 m from the hedgerow (253.73 g/L ± 3.52), to 4 m from the hedgerow (259.72 g/L

± 3.52), to 2 m from the hedgerow (M = 263.56 g/L ± 3.52). Fisher’s LSD post hoc analyses

revealed that mean glucose/fructose levels (g/L) were significantly lower in vines 40 m from

the hedgerow as compared to all other rows (p < .05) (See Table 10 and Figure 22). From 40

m from the hedgerow to 2 m from the hedgerow, glucose/fructose levels went up 12.18%,

which is a consequential increase when making wine.

Vines 2 m from the hedgerow did not have glucose/fructose levels significantly

different from vines 4 m from the hedgerow or 6 m from the hedgerow, but at a distance of

12 m from the hedgerow, glucose/fructose levels began decreasing significantly. (See Table

10 and Figure 22). These results suggest that trees may have a favorable effect on

glucose/fructose levels in grapevines up to at least 6 m from a hedgerow. Higher levels of

glucose/fructose in wine grapes at harvest often corresponds to higher quality wine,

especially when in tandem with balanced levels of aromatics and acidity (Boulton et al.

1999). Therefore, these results suggest that trees could play a role in the cultivation of higher

quality grapes, and ultimately, higher quality wine. Further studies should be undergone to

better ascertain up to which distance olive trees have a favorable effect on glucose/fructose

levels.

Table 10. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
glucose/fructose levels (g/L) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.4629 0.0841 0.0106* 0.0004*
4 0.4629 0.02640* 0.0345* 0.0011*
6 0.0841 0.2640 0.2165 0.0054*
12 0.0106* 0.0345* 0.2165 0.0412*
40 0.0004* 0.0011* 0.0054* 0.0412*

136
Figure 22. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and
glucose/fructose levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in
Mendoza Argentina, 2020.

VII.6.1.ii. Brix

Soluble solid levels (sugar levels) are measured in degrees Brix (Kemp et al. 2019). In

general, SS levels range from 18.0 – 22.5 °Brix for dry white wine, 21.5 – 24.5 °Brix for

fruity white wine, 18.0-23.0 °Brix for dry red wine, and 23.0-26.0 °Brix for full-bodied red

wine (Considine and Frankish 2014). Soluble solid content in the higher range is usually

considered more desirable, although it is undesirable if a high SS content is reached too

quickly, before other flavors, acids, and tannins have the chance to develop (Kliewer and

Smart 1989; Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019). Brix are highly correlated with glucose/fructose

levels, as brix are a measure of sucrose levels, and sucrose is a molecule composed of both

glucose and fructose molecules (Kimball, 1991).

Data for brix levels in this experiment satisfied the assumptions of the one-way

ANOVA; residuals for brix levels in grape must were normally distributed for all groups, as

137
assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.943), and there were no outliers in the data, as assessed

by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to indicate any

blocking effect (p = 0.618).

The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow

and brix levels was significant, F(4,10) = 9.61, p = .0038 (see Table 7). Parallel to the results

for glucose/fructose levels, brix levels were lowest in vines farthest from the olive tree

hedgerow and increased linearly as proximity to the hedgerow increased. Brix levels

increased from vines 40 m from the hedgerow (23.133 ± 0.31), to vines 12 m from the

hedgerow (24.167 ± 0.31), to vines 6 m from the hedgerow (24.867 ± 0.31), to vines 4 m

from the hedgerow (25.333 ± 0.31), to vines 2 m from the hedgerow (M = 25.500 ± 0.31).

Fisher’s LSD post hoc analyses revealed that brix levels in vines 40 m from the hedgerow

were significantly lower as compared to vines at all other distances from the hedgerow (p <

.05 for all treatments; see Figure 23). Brix levels at 40 m from the hedgerow were 9.4%

lower than brix levels at 2 m from the hedgerow, were 8.6% lower than brix levels at 4 m

from the hedgerow, and were 7% lower than brix levels at 6 m from the hedgerow. Brix

levels in vines 2 m from the hedgerow were not significantly different from vines 4 m from

the hedgerow nor vines 6 m from the hedgerow, however, at 12 m from the hedgerow, brix

levels were significantly lower (See Figure 23 and Table 11). These finding suggest that

trees may increase brix levels up to at least 6 m from a hedgerow.

Higher brix levels, like glucose/fructose levels, often indicate higher quality wine,

especially when higher levels of brix are paired with equally balanced levels of acidity and

aromatics. Therefore, these results indicate that proximity to trees may impart favorable

effects on brix levels in grape must at harvest. Further studies should be undergone to

determine precisely up to which distance from a hedgerow brix levels may be positively

influenced by trees.

138
Table 11. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for brix
levels in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow. Significant
differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.7161 0.1900 0.0167* 0.0007*
4 0.7161 0.3221 0.0298* 0.0011*
6 0.1900 0.3221 0.1521 0.0044*
12 0.0167 0.0298* 0.1521 0.0477*
40 0.0007* 0.0011* 0.0044* 0.0477*

Figure 23. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and brix levels in
grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina, 2020.

VII.6.1.iii. Density

Residuals for density of grape must (g/L) were normally distributed for all groups, as

assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.943). There were no outliers in the data, as

assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to

indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.7941). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

139
distance of vine from hedgerow and must density was significant, F(4,10) = 10.02, p = .0033

(see Table 7).

Density is an indicator of ripeness and of sugar content. When temperature is held

constant, density of grape must is largely affected by soluble solid (brix) levels, with high

levels of soluble solids, especially glucose and fructose, resulting in higher density ratings

(Zuritz et al. 2005). It therefore is no surprise that, just as brix levels and glucose/fructose

levels increased as vine proximity to the olive tree hedgerow increased, so did density levels

(g/L). Mean density increased linearly as vine proximity to the hedgerow increased, from 40

m from the hedgerow (1.090 ± 0.001) to 12 m from the hedgerow (1.104 ± 0.001), to 6 m

from the hedgerow (1.107 ± 0.001), to 4 m from the hedgerow (1.109 ± 0.001), to 2 m from

the hedgerow (1.110 ± 0.001) (see Table 12 and Figure 24). Fisher’s LSD post hoc analyses

revealed that density was significantly lower in vines 40 m from the hedgerow as compared

to vines at all other distances from the hedgerow (p < .05). However, even though there were

significant differences, these differences may be negligible in the context of real world

applications; density levels at 40 m from the hedgerow were only 0.9% lower than density

levels at 2 m from the hedgerow.

Density levels in vines 2 m from the hedgerow did not differ significantly from vines

4 m from the hedgerow nor vines 6 m from the hedgerow, but they began to decrease

significantly at 12 m from the hedgerow (see Table 12). More studies are needed to

determine the optimal distance from a hedgerow for ideal density levels, but these data

appear to suggest that trees impart a positive effect on grape must density levels, albeit small,

at least up to 6 m from the hedgerow.

140
Table 12. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
density levels in must (g/L) from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.6277 0.1688 0.0164* 0.0005*
4 0.6277 0.3428 0.0357* 0.0010*
6 0.1688 0.3428 0.1688 0.0038*
12 0.0164 0.0357* 0.1688 0.0357*
40 0.0005* 0.0010* 0.0038* 0.0357*

Figure 24. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and density levels
of grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020.

VII.6.1.iv. Total Acidity

Total acidity (TA) is “the equivalence of the acid anions as measured by

spectrophotometric or chromatographic methods” and is the sum of the total amounts of acid

in must or wine: mainly malic, tartaric, and citric acids (Boulton 1980; Sadler and Murphy

2010), however, it is typically measured by measuring tartaric acid alone. Total acidity values

141
are nearly the same as Titratable acidity values, and thus, the terms are often used

interchangeably, but Titratable acidity is technically defined as “the number of protons

recovered during a titration with a strong base to a specified endpoint” (Boulton 1980). Total

acidity levels range from 4.5 to 10 g L-1 but in general, TA levels of around 6 g/L are

desirable in a balanced wine (Ferreira and Mendes-Faia 2020). Total acidity is an important

quality component of wine, and it also is a major factor in the stability of a wine over time.

High quality wines are generally characterized by a balance of high sugar and high acid

(Boulton et al. 1999).

In this study the data for TA satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

Residuals for TA levels (g/L) in grape must were normally distributed for all groups, as

assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.973). There were no outliers in the data, as assessed by

inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to indicate a blocking

effect (p = 0.1629). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of vine

from hedgerow and TA was significant, F(4,10) = 8.41, p = .0058.

Fisher’s LSD post hoc analyses revealed that TA was significantly higher in vines 2

m from the hedgerow (2.17 g/L ± 0.061), as compared to vines 4 m from the hedgerow (1.87

g/L ± 0.061), 6 m from the hedgerow (1.76 g/L ± 0.061), 12 m from the hedgerow (1.80 g/L

± 0.061), and 40 m from the hedgerow (1.75 g/L ± 0.061) (see Table 13 and Figure 25). This

translates to a 24.3% increase in TA in vines at 2 m from the hedgerow as compared to at 40

m from the hedgerow, which, practically speaking, is a consequential increase when

considering wine quality. No other significant differences in TA were observed at any other

distances from the hedgerow, indicating that trees may not influence TA levels beyond 2 m

from the hedgerow.

142
Table 13. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for total
acidity levels (g/L) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.0076* 0.0013* 0.0025* 0.0012*
4 0.0076* 0.2271 0.4424 0.2034
6 0.0013* 0.2271 0.6304 0.9405
12 0.0025* 0.4424 0.6304 0.5797
40 0.0012* 0.2034 0.9405 0.5797

Figure 25. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total acidity
levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza
Argentina, 2020.

VII.6.1.v. pH

The pH of grape must determines its chemical stability, its conducivity to

fermentation, and the types of microorganisms that are present in the winemaking process

(Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019). It balances sulfur dioxide content in wine, determines the

stability of anthocyanins and thus color, and affects flavor (Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019).

In general, a must pH of between 3.3 and 3.8 is considered ideal, with lower pH levels within

143
this range typically corresponding to higher quality (Kliewer and Smart 1989; Kodur 2011;

Commuzo and Battistutta 2019). Total acidity and pH are inversely related.

In this experiment the data for pH satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

Residuals for pH in grape must were normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by

Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.987). There were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection

of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p =

0.7397). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow

and pH was not significant, F(4,10) = 2.47, p = .128.

VII.6.1.vi. Malic Acid

Malic acid is the second greatest contributor to grape acidity, and it is thus also an

important indicator of wine quality (Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019). Ideal malic acid content

ranges from 1-3 g/L in must from warm climates, to 4 – 6.5 g/L in musts from cool climates

(Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019). Malic acid is an important component of acidity and wine

quality, but if malic acid levels are too high, they can have negative effects on flavor when

converted to lactic acid through malolactic fermentation (Comuzzo and Battistutta 2019).

In this experiment, residuals for malic acid levels in grape must at harvest (g/L) were

normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.948). There

were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were

found between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.617). The ANOVA revealed

that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and malic acid levels was not

significant, F(4,10) = 1.15, p = .4007.

VII.6.1.vii. Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen

Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN) plays a role in determining the alcohol content

and post-fermentation sugar content of wine; YAN consists of ammonium ions and free

amino N, and it is an essential nutrient for yeast growth during fermentation (Boudreau et al.

144
2018). It is responsible for ensuring complete fermentation and also is responsible for the

formation of many aromas (Petrovic 2018). Values for YAN generally fall between 120 and

300 mg/L (Gobert et al. 2017). Higher values indicate higher N absorption in grapevines but

can result in faster fermentations that lead to less-complex aromas and even undesirable

aromas (Stewart 2013; Kemp et al. 2019). Lower values are associated with hydrogen sulfide

aromas and excessively high alcohol production (Bell and Henschke 2008). Therefore, YAN

values around 140 mg/L are typically desirable, although, as sugar levels increase, YAN

requirements also increase (Stewart 2013; Kemp et al. 2019).

In this study, the data for YAN satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

Residuals for YAN levels in grape must at harvest (g/L) were normally distributed for all

groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.951). There were no outliers in the data, as

assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to

indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.9841). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

distance of vine from hedgerow and YAN levels was not significant, F(4,10) = 0.46, p =

.7629.

VII.6.1.viii. Total Skin Phenolics

Total phenolics refer to the many phenol and polyphenol components that compose

the flavors, aromas, color, and body of wine, including phenolic acids, flavonoids, oligomeric

proanthocyanidins, and polymeric condensed tannins (Waterhouse 2003). All phenolics are

characterized by an aromatic ring with at least one hydroxyl group, and they are found in the

skin, pulp, and seeds of grapes (Harbertson and Spayd 2005). The phenolics in this study

were analyzed using the Adams-Harbertson method.

In this study, data for total skin phenolics satisfied the assumptions of normality for

the one-way ANOVA. Residuals for total phenolics levels in berry skins (mg/g fruit) were

normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.928). There

145
were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were

found between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.9922). The ANOVA revealed

that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and berry skin phenolics levels

was not significant, F(4,10) = .20, p = .9332.

VII.6.1.ix. Total Skin Anthocyanins

Anthocyanins are pigments that are responsible for giving wine its color, and they are

mainly found in grape skin (Mattivi et al. 2006). In this study, data for total skin anthocyanins

satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA. Residuals for total anthocyanins in berry

skins at harvest (mg/g fruit) were normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-

Wilk's test (p = 0.917). There were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a

boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p =

0.0869). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow

and skin anthocyanin levels was not significant, F(4,10) = 2.74, p = .104.

VII.6.1.x. Total Skin Tannins

Flavan-3-ols, better known as tannins, are polyphenolic compounds that are present in

grape seeds, skin, pulp, and stem. The flavonols that compose tannins include (+)-catechin,

(−)-epicatechin, and (−)-epicatechin-gallate. These compounds are the biggest contributors to

wine body, and are important components of wine quality, especially when they are balanced

with high sugar levels and high acidity, as they account for the feel and body of a wine (Bogs

2005; Adams 2006; Rice et al. 2017).

Residuals for total tannins in berry skin (mg/g fruit) in this experiment were normally

distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.921). There were no

outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found

between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.4437). The ANOVA revealed that the

146
relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and berry skin tannin levels was

significant, F(4,10) = 4.85, p = .0279.

Mean skin tannin levels (mg/g fruit) were lowest in vines 2 m from the hedgerow

(0.702 ± 0.045) and increased to vines 40 m from the hedgerow (0.89 ± 0.045), to vines 4 m

from the hedgerow (0.893 ± 0.045) to vines 6 m from the hedgerow (0.92 ± 0.045) to vines

12 m from the hedgerow (0.959 ± 0.045) in an inexplicable pattern; however Fisher’s LSD

post hoc analyses revealed that these differences were only significant in vines 2 m from the

hedgerow as compared to all other treatments (p < .05) (See Table 14 and Figure 26). We

observed a 21.1% reduction in skin tannins in vines at 2 m from the hedgerow as compared to

vines at 40 m, and, practically speaking, this amount of reduction in tannins would most

likely have consequential negative ramifications for wine quality.

Because the lower tannin levels seen in vines closest to the hedgerow were in

association with higher brix levels and higher TA levels, these low tannin levels may indicate

that wine made from this must could be unbalanced and lack the body required to

complement high sugar and acid levels, however wine would need to be made from the must

in order to determine this definitively.

Table 14. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for total
skin tannin levels (mg/g fruit) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive
tree hedgerow. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.0175* 0.0091* 0.0038* 0.0188*
4 0.0175* 0.6732 0.3278 0.9633
6 0.0091* 0.6732 0.5623 0.6406
12 0.0038* 0.3278 0.5623 0.3076
40 0.0188* 0.9633 0.6406 0.3076

147
Figure 26. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total skin
tannin levels in grape must at harvest in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza
Argentina, 2020.

VII.6.1.xi. Total Seed Phenolics

The data for total seed phenolics satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

Residuals for phenolics levels in grape seeds (mg/g fruit) were normally distributed for all

groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.938). There were no outliers in the data, as

assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to

indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.3115). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

distance of vine from hedgerow and total phenolics levels in seeds was not significant,

F(4,10) = 1.18, p = .3882.

VII.6.1.xii. Total Seed Tannins

The data for total seed tannins satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA.

Residuals for tannin levels in grape seeds (mg/g fruit) were normally distributed for all

groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.965). There were no outliers in the data, as

assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to

148
indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.7758). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

distance of vine from hedgerow and seed tannin levels was not significant, F(4,10) = 1.66, p

= .2503.

VII.6.2. Growth Parameter Results

VII.6.2.i. Vigor

Pruning weights measure the amount of vegetative growth in a vine in a given

growing season, and are a standard indicator of vine vigor. In this experiment, we found that

within the dataset for pruning weights there were two outliers, as assessed by boxplot.

However, given the large sample size, two outliers does not suggest a lack of normality, and

outliers were left in the analysis. Data was normally distributed for each group, as assessed

by Shapiro-Wilk test (p = .973).

The ANOVA found that pruning weights (g) were significantly different between

groups at different distances from the olive tree hedgerow, F(4, 68) = 4.12, p =.0048. Pruning

weights were lowest in vines 12 m from the hedgerow (209.53 g ± 29.67), then increased to

vines 2 m from the hedgerow (249.13 g ± 29.67), to vines 4 m from the hedgerow (282.27 g

± 29.67), to 6 m from the hedgerow (323 g ± 29.67), to vines 40 m from the hedgerow (363 g

± 29.67) in an inexplicable pattern. Fisher’s LSD post hoc analyses revealed that vigor was

significantly higher in vines 40 m from the hedgerow as compared to 12 m (p = .0005) and 2

m (p = 0.0084) from the hedgerow, however there were no differences between pruning

weights at 40 m and 6 m from the hedgerow (p = 0.3438) nor between 40 m and 4 m (p =

0.059) (See Table 15 and Figure 27). Vines at 12 m from the hedgerow also had significantly

lower vigor than did vines at 6 m from the hedgerow (p = 0.0086). Competition between

olive trees and grapevines would explain the decrease in vigor in vines nearest to the

hedgerow, and it would explain the increase in vigor in vines farther from the hedgerow, but

149
it does not explain why vines 12 m from the hedgerow had such low vigor. There are no

known factors to explain why vines at 12 m from the hedgerow had such a sharp drop in

vigor, while all other rows experienced increases in vigor in a linear pattern as distance from

the hedgerow increased. There may have been undetected differences in soil makeup or in

vine health in row 12 that could explain this unexpected pattern. The row could have been

impacted by hail, frost, herbicide exposure, tractor damage, or another factor that we are

unaware of. A one-way ANOVA was undergone to see if there were any differences in vine

diameter in row 12 that might be contributing to the unexpected results we observed;

however, the ANOVA revealed that there were no significant differences in vine diameter

between row 12 and any other row, thus ruling out the possibility that vines in row 12 were

smaller than vines in other treatments (see Appendix H, Table 1).

When examining exclusively the “control row” at 40 m from the hedgerow as

compared to vines closest to the hedgerow at a 2 m distance, large differences were in vine

vigor observed. Vigor was 31.3% lower in vines closest to the hedgerow as compared to the

“control” vines at 40 m from the hedgerow. However, at 6 m from the hedgerow, no

differences in vigor were observed as compared to the “control” at 40 m from the hedgerow.

Table 15. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for
pruning weights (g) in grapevines at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.
Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.4325 0.0829 0.3487 0.0084*
4 0.4325 0.3351 0.0876 0.0585
6 0.0829 0.3351 0.0086* 0.3438
12 0.3487 0.0876 0.0086* 0.0005*
40 0.0084* 0.0585 0.3438 0.0005*

150
Figure 27. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and pruning
weight taken in dormancy in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina,
2020.

VII.6.2.ii. Ravaz Index

A one-way ANOVA was conducted to determine if vine balance, measured by the

Ravaz Index ratio of yield to pruning weights per meter, was different for vines at different

distances from an olive tree hedgerow. The square root of all observed values was taken to

correct for skewness. There were two outliers, as assessed by boxplot, but given the large

sample size, two outliers does not suggest a lack of normality. Outliers were left in the

analysis. Data was normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by the Shapiro-Wilk test (p

= .9752). Vine balance was not statistically significantly different at different distances from

the olive tree hedgerow, F(4, 68) = 1.06, p =.381. This can be explained by the fact that both

vine vigor and vine yield were diminished at relatively the same rate as proximity to the

hedgerow increased.

151
VII.6.3. Production Parameter Results

VII.6.3.i. Yield

The data for yield satisfied the assumptions of the one-way ANOVA. In this dataset

there were two outliers, as assessed by boxplot, but given the large sample size, two outliers

do not suggest a lack of normality, and outliers were left in the analysis. Data was normally

distributed for each group, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p = .985).

The ANOVA found that yield (kg) was significantly different between groups at

different distances from the olive tree hedgerow, F(4, 68) = 6.60, p =.0002. Yield increased

from vines at 2 m from hedgerow (1.133 kg ± 0.1636), to vines 12 m from hedgerow (1.473

± 0.1636), to vines 4 m from hedgerow (1.553 ± 0.1636), to vines 6 m from hedgerow (1.813

± 0.1636), to vines 40 m from hedgerow (2.260 ± 0.1636) in an inexplicable pattern. Fisher’s

LSD post hoc analyses revealed that yield was significantly higher in vines 40 m from the

hedgerow as compared to all other rows except for the row 6 m from the hedgerow (p =

0.0577), and that vines 2 m from the rows had significantly lower yield than vines 6 m and 40

m from the hedgerow (see Table 16, Figure 28).

Compared to the “control” vines at 40 m from the hedgerow, vines closest to the

hedgerow at a 2 m distance experienced a 50% reduction in yield, and vines at 4 m from the

hedgerow experienced a 31.3% reduction in yield. Practically speaking, both of these

percentages translate to consequential and serious yield reductions. This is comparable with

existing literature, which also observed significant yield decreases within 4 m from a

hedgerow (Grimaldi 2018). However, previous studies did not observe any differences in

yield beyond 4 m from the hedgerow, while in this study, vines 12 m from the hedgerow had

significantly lower yields than did vines at 40 m from the hedgerow (although vines at 6 m

from the hedgerow did not). It is not known why reductions in yield at 12 m beyond the

hedgerow but not at 6 m beyond the hedgerow were occurring, as at 12 m from the hedgerow

152
there are few olive tree roots to compete with grapevine roots, and there are negligible

differences in light. Because there were no differences observed between vines 6 m from the

hedgerow and vines 40 m from the hedgerow, the question remains open as to why vines at

12 m from the hedgerow exhibited lower yield. We cannot conclude that this has anything to

do with distance from the hedgerow or competition from the hedgerow. More detailed soil

uniformity analyses should be undergone in the row of vines 12 m from the hedgerow to see

if there might be a reason why row 12 exhibited such abnormal patterns, not only for yield

but for vigor and several other variables as well. Although it is unknown why vines 12 m

from the hedgerow would be experiencing such low yields, previous studies on vineyard

agroforestry systems suggest that the yield reductions in vines at 2 m and 4 m from the

hedgerow can likely be explained by competition between the olive trees and grapevines.

Table 16. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for vine
yield (kg) in must from grapevines at different distances from an olive tree hedgerow.
Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.0738 0.0045* 0.1462 <.0001*
4 0.0738 0.2650 0.7305 0.0032*
6 0.0045* 0.2650 0.1462 0.0577
12 0.1462 0.7305 0.1462 0.0011*
40 <.0001* 0.0032* 0.0577 0.0011*

153
Figure 28. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and total yield per
vine of 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina, 2020.

VII.6.4. Nutritional Parameter Results

VII.6.4.i. Petiole Nitrate

Residuals for petiole nitrate levels (mg/kg) were normally distributed for all groups,

as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.888). There were no outliers in the data, as assessed

by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to indicate a

blocking effect (p = 0.7984). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between distance of

vine from hedgerow and petiole N-NO3levels was not significant, F(4,10) = 1.51, p = .2870).

VII.6.4.ii. Leaf Blade Total N

Residuals for leaf blade total N levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally distributed

for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.976). There were no outliers in the

data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions

to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.8289). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship

154
between distance of vine from hedgerow and leaf blade total N was not significant, F(4,10) =

2.23, p = .1555).

VII.6.4.iii. Petiole Total N

Residuals for petiole total N levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally distributed for

all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.942). There were no outliers in the data,

as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions to

indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.8108). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

distance of vine from hedgerow and petiole total N was not significant, F(4,10) = .73, p =

.5955).

VII.6.4.iv. Leaf Blade P

Residuals for leaf blade phosphorous levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally

distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.938). There were no

outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found

between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.566). The ANOVA revealed that the

relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and leaf blade P was not significant,

F(4,10) = .88, p = .5165).

VII.6.4.v. Petiole P

Residuals for petiole phosphorous levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally

distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.941). There were two

outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found

between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.522). The ANOVA revealed that the

relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and petiole P was not significant,

F(4,10) = 3.54, p = .0603).

VII.6.4.vi. Leaf Blade K

155
 The data for leaf blade K in this experiment satisfied the assumptions of the one-way

ANOVA. Residuals for leaf blade K levels (g/100 g dry tissue) in this experiment were

normally distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.938). There

were no outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. The ANOVA revealed

that the relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and leaf blade K was

significant, F(4,10) = 30.23, p < .0001. However, repetitions did have a significant blocking

effect, indicating that, although distance from hedgerow was a factor in the differences in leaf

blade K seen between treatments, other factors likely also played a role (p = 0.0146).

Potassium levels were lowest in vines 40 m from the hedgerow (0.73 g/100 g dry

tissue ± 0.03), and increased to vines 2 m from the hedgerow (0.89 g/100 g dry tissue ±

0.03), to vines 4 m from the hedgerow (1.06 g/100 g dry tissue ± 0.03), to vines 6 m from the

hedgerow (1.06 g/100 g dry tissue ± 0.03), to vines 12 m from the hedgerow (1.12 g/100 g

dry tissue ± 0.03) in an inexplicable pattern. Fisher’s LSD post hoc analysis revealed that K

levels in vines 40 m from the hedgerow were significantly lower than all other treatments,

and that K levels in vines 2 m from the hedgerow were significantly higher than vines 40 m

from the hedgerow, but significantly lower than vines 4, 6, and 12 m from the hedgerow (see

Table 17 and Figure 29). Compared to vines closest to the hedgerow at a 2 m distance, vines

at 40 m from the hedgerow suffered a 19% reduction in K levels.

More data is needed to explain this interesting pattern of K levels. K levels were

expected to be low at 2 m from the hedgerow due to competition from olive trees. However,

it is unknown why K levels would be lowest in vines at 40 m from the hedgerow. Because

there was a significant blocking effect for this variable, these results could be partially

explained by another unknown variable besides proximity to the hedgerow, such as soil

variability.

156
Table 17. Fisher’s Least Squares Means post-hoc analyses at 0.05 significance level for leaf
blade potassium levels (g/100 g dry tissue) in grapevines at different distances from an olive
tree hedgerow. Significant differences are indicated by an asterisk.

Post Hoc Least Squares Means for Effect Distance

Distance (m) 2 4 6 12 40
2 0.0041* 0.0041* 0.0006* 0.0037*
4 0.0041* 1.000 0.1696 <.0001*
6 0.0041* 1.000 0.1696 <.0001*
12 0.0006* 0.1696 0.1696 <.0001*
40 0.0037* <.0001* <.0001* <.0001*

Figure 29. The relationship between distance from an olive tree hedgerow and leaf blade K
levels in 8-year-old Malbec grapevines in Mendoza Argentina, 2019.

VII.6.4.vii. Petiole K

Residuals for petiole potassium levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally distributed

for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.975). There were no outliers in the

data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions

157
to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.7632).The ANOVA revealed that the relationship between

distance of vine from hedgerow and petiole K was significant, F(4,10) = 1.25, p = .3636).

VII.6.4.viii. Leaf Blade Mg

Residuals for leaf blade magnesium levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally

distributed for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.979). There were no

outliers in the data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found

between repetitions to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.3079). The ANOVA revealed that the

relationship between distance of vine from hedgerow and leaf blade Mg was not significant,

F(4,10) = 1.48, p = 0.2948).

VII.6.4.ix. Petiole Mg

Residuals for petiole magnesium levels (g/100 g dry tissue) were normally distributed

for all groups, as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk's test (p = 0.9655). There were no outliers in the

data, as assessed by inspection of a boxplot. No differences were found between repetitions

to indicate a blocking effect (p = 0.8187). The ANOVA revealed that the relationship

between distance of vine from hedgerow and petiole Mg was not significant, F(4,10) = .77, p

= .575).

VII.6.4.x. Nutritional Results Summary

Mean nutrition levels for all vines in the 2019 growing season are summarized in

Table 18. Compared to normal nutrition values for vines in the Maipu growing region of

Argentina, all vines were found to have lower-than-normal values for N-NO3 in petioles,

Total N in petioles, and total N in leaf blades. All vines at this site were found to have above-

average values for P in leaf blades, P in petioles, and K in leaf blades. K and Mg levels in

petioles were found to be roughly normal for this region. Vines in rows 2 m, 4 m, and 40 m

from the hedgerow had adequate levels of leaf blade Mg, while vines in rows 6 and 12 m

from the hedgerow had low levels of leaf blade Mg. Nutrient levels of grapevines at this site

158
as compared to typical Maipu, Argentina nutrient levels can be summarized in Figure 30 and

Appendix E, Table 1.

Table 18. Mean foliar nutrient values for vines at different distances from an olive tree
hedgerow, taken at Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu, Mendoza, Argentina, during the
flowering period of 2019.

Distance from 2m 4m 6m 12 m 40 m
Hedgerow
Petiole N-NO3 266.00 256.67 263.67 259.00 308.66
(mg/kg)
Leaf Blade N 2.65 2.86 3.15 2.96 3.17
(g/100 g dry tissue)
Petiole N (g/100 g 0.82 0.92 0.91 0.81 0.87
dry tissue)
Leaf Blade P 0.20 0.26 0.27 0.14 0.21
(g/100 g dry tissue)
Petiole P (g/100 g 0.34 0.35 0.45 0.39 0.38
dry tissue)
Leaf Blade K 0.89 1.06 1.06 1.13 0.73
(g/100 g dry tissue)
Petiole K (g/100 g 1.51 1.58 1.84 1.98 1.70
dry tissue)
Leaf Blade Mg 0.32 0.39 0.14 0.15 0.40
(g/100 g dry tissue)
Petiole Mg (g/100 0.51 0.71 0.59 0.89 0.69
g dry tissue)

159
Figure 30. Mean foliar nutrient values for grapevines at Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu,
Mendoza, Argentina, as compared to typical nutrient values for grapevines in this
region. Green bars represent adequate nutrient levels for this growing region, while
red bars indicate the deficiency thresholds for this region.

160
VII.7. Discussion

VII.7.1. The Relationship Between Nutrients, Yield, and Vigor

In this study we observed significant differences in glucose/fructose levels, brix,

density, TA, skin tannins, vigor, and yield in vines at different distances from the olive tree

hedgerow. In agroforestry systems in general, the most common causes for such differences

stem from competition for water, nutrients, and light. Wind, or conversely, shelter from wind,

along with microclimatic influences, can also cause differences in crops. Because this study

was limited in funding and time, we were only able to measure vine tissue nutrient status,

which can help us draw conclusions about the effect of competition for nutrients in this

particular system. The following discussion explores the impact of competition for nutrients

in this study.

We observed no differences in vine nutrient status for N, N-NO3, P, or Mg at different

distances from the hedgerow. We did observe differences in leaf blade K levels; however,

these differences were not distributed in any type of pattern that would imply that proximity

to the hedgerow caused these differences. To explore this question further, we investigated

whether or not K levels, or other macronutrient levels, were correlated with differences in

vine yield and vigor. A Pearson’s product-moment correlation was undergone to examine the

relationship between vine nutrient status, and both vine yield and vine vigor. Significant

correlations are detailed below, and all correlations are summarized in Table 19.

Analyses revealed that there was no correlation between vine yield and any

macronutrient except for total leaf blade N, and that there was no correlation between vine

vigor and any macronutrient except for total petiole N. Because there were no correlations

between K and yield nor between K and vigor, this leads us to conclude that the significant

differences we observed in leaf blade K in our study indeed did not contribute to the

differences we observed in vine yield and vine vigor.

161
 In our experiment there were no significant differences in N levels at different

distances from the hedgerow, but we did observe differences in yield and vigor at different

distances from the hedgerow. Even though our study results suggested that N did not cause

the differences in yield and vigor that we observed, a Pearson’s product-moment correlations

was undergone and the correlation between total N levels in leaves and vine yield was found

to be significant.

In the Pearson’s product-moment correlation the assumptions of linearity and lack of

outliers were satisfied through observation of a boxplot and histogram, and the assumption of

normality was satisfied with a Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05). There was a strong positive

correlation between total N levels in leaves and vine yield r(15) = .784, p = .001, with leaf N

levels accounting for 61.47% of the variability in yield.

There was also a significant correlation between vigor and petiole N. For the

comparison between petiole N and vigor, assumptions of linearity and lack of outliers were

satisfied. The assumption of normality was satisfied with a Shapiro-Wilk’s test (p > .05).

There was a significant correlation between total N levels in petioles and pruning weights

r(15) = .578, p = .024, with petiole N levels explaining 33.4% of the variation in pruning

weights.

These results suggest that even though there were no significant differences between

petiole nor leaf blade N levels at different distances from the olive tree hedgerow,

competition for N may still explain some of the yield and vigor differences that were

observed. However, because no significant differences in nutrients were observed between

treatments in our study except for leaf K, these correlations still lead us to speculate that

competition for water or light, rather than competition for nutrients, were most likely the

main factors contributing to the low yield and vigor in vines closer to the hedgerow.

162
 Table 19. Correlations between various nutrients in both petioles and leaf blades and yield
and vigor. Significant correlations are indicated with an asterisk. In this study, leaf blade N
levels and petiole N levels were strongly correlated with the yield and vigor results that were
observed in grapevines at all five distances from an olive tree hedgerow.

Variable 1 Variable 2 n Pearson p-value

Coefficient
Petiole N-NO3 Yield 15 0.484 0.068
Leaf N Yield 15 0.784 0.001*
Petiole P Yield 15 0.370 0.175
Leaf P Yield 15 -0.116 0.681
Petiole K Yield 15 0.277 0.317
Leaf K Yield 15 -0.378 0.165
Petiole N-NO3 Vigor 15 0.009 0.974
Leaf N Vigor 15 0.330 0.229
Petiole N Vigor 15 0.578 0.024*
Petiole P Vigor 15 0.198 0.480
Leaf P Vigor 15 0.499 0.058
Petiole K Vigor 15 -0.391 0.150
Leaf K Vigor 15 -0.418 0.121

VII.7.2. The Influence of Light and Competition for Water

Although we were not able to quantify water status, wind speed, or light distribution

in this experiment, we can speculate about the influences that these factors may have had on

the differences we observed in glucose/fructose, brix, density, TA, skin tannins, yield, and

vigor.

VII.7.2.i. Speculations About the Effect of Light Competition

Shade from trees influences crops below by reducing light and also reducing daytime

temperatures, both of which have been shown to have an effect on grapevines. Grapevine

photosynthesis can be negatively affected by tree shade because shade reduces PAR, however

shade also reduces thermal radiation, which can actually increase photosynthesis in certain

situations. Leaf temperatures are increased significantly by sunlight, and this can sometimes

have detrimental effects on photosynthesis. This is because excess solar radiation can reduce

leaf water potential, which in turn can cause a reduction in stomatal conductance, and thus,

163
photosynthesis (Smart 1974). In Australia, temperatures of 40 °C for 14 days were shown to

reduce Semillon grapevine photosynthesis by 35% (Greer and Weedon 2013). Shading can

reduce both ambient temperatures and leaf temperatures, thus actually increasing

photosynthesis when grapevines are experiencing heat stress (Marshall 1967). In this

experiment, temperatures were observed to have reached 38 °C only for one month in 2018,

which may not have been high enough to be considered heat stress, given the amount of

irrigation the vines were receiving (Appendix A, Table 1.), so we do not think that this would

be the case. Therefore, we speculate that tree shade’s reductions of PAR may have had a

negative impact on vine photosynthesis, especially given the fact that ambient temperatures

were not high enough for reduced temperature from shade to have a positive impact on vine

photosynthesis.

Shading can have significant effects on wine grape yield by decreasing bud

fruitfulness, fruit bud initiation, inflorescence formation, bunch mass, and potentially berry

mass. Buttrose (1970) studied bud fruitfulness in five Vitis vinifera L. varieties which were

grown in a laboratory and exposed to differing levels of light intensity (900, 1800, and 3600

foot candles for 16 hours per day). Researchers found that as light intensity increased, mean

number of bunch primordia per bud (an indicator of fruitfulness) also increased (Figure 14).

These results echoed those of a study on Sultana table grapes, which found that 70% shade

during the phenological period of inflorescence initiation depresses fruit bud initiation (May

and Antcliff 1963), and those of another study, in which 18 years of data showed that the

percentage of fruitful buds in Sultana grapes decreased with decreased sunlight (Baldwin

1964). In two other similar studies, Kliewer (1982) and Shaulis (1982) both found that fruit

bud initiation in Vitis vinifera L. grapevines was depressed by shade, thus causing lower

yield. In a study on Palomino grapes, grapevines which received full light were compared to

grapevines which received only 26% of light, and researchers found that the 74% shade

164
treatment caused not only reduced bud break in the current year, but also caused decreased

budbreak, lower numbers of fruitful shoots, and reduced cluster weight the following year

(Hopping 1975). Overwhelmingly, evidence shows that bud fruitfulness is dependent upon

light. Maximum fruitfulness of latent buds is also dependent on temperature to a certain

extent, but the main factor in influencing fruitfulness is light (Srinivasan and Mullins 1981).

It is highly probable that the reductions in light that we observed at 2 m from the olive tree

hedgerow had a negative influence on photosynthesis and yield.

Competition for PAR itself has been shown to negatively affect sugar levels in some

studies but not in others. Spayd et al. (2002) found that PAR did not affect SS accumulation

in berries, neither when temperature was controlled for nor not-controlled-for in sun-exposed

vs shaded treatments. Similarly, Crippen and Morrison (1986) did not find significant

differences between SS content in clusters that received different quantities of light.

However, Dokoozlian and Kliewer (1996) compared sun-exposed clusters to shaded clusters

and observed that, overall, shaded clusters did have lower and slower SS accumulation than

did sun-exposed clusters. Although heat sometimes speeds the accumulation of sugars,

extreme temperature can negatively affect accumulation of sugar in grapes (Abeysinghe et al.

2019). Therefore, when shade reduces not only PAR but also heat, sugars can actually

accumulate more quickly. We suspect that the high temperatures of this growing region may

negatively affect sugar accumulation, and we suspect that the olive trees in this study may

have alleviated some heat stress, thus causing higher sugar levels in grapevines closer to

trees.

In other studies, shade has been shown to have a significant effect on grape must

acidity, mostly due to reductions in temperature under shade conditions. In this study we

were not able to monitor temperature at different treatments, but other studies on vineyard

agroforestry systems have documented temperatures up to 6 °C lower during the day in vine

165
rows close to trees (Grimaldi et al. 2017; Grimaldi 2018; Gosme et al. 2019). We observed

higher acidity in vine rows closest to trees (2 m from trees), and we speculate that this may

have been due to temperature reductions from increased shade in that row. It is widely

accepted that high temperatures are the main cause of acid degradation in wine grapes

(Buttrose et al. 1971; Ruffner et al. 1976; Bergqvist et al. 2001; Spayd et al. 2002; Keller

2010; Bonada et al. 2013; Sweetman et al. 2014; Martínez-Lüscher et al. 2017). Light also

can cause acid degradation, but in studies where shade and temperature were decoupled,

researchers found that temperature was more of an influencing factor on acid degradation

than light was (Spayd et al. 2002). We suspect that increased shade from trees at 2 m from

the hedgerow provided enough temperature alleviation to increase acidity in favorable ways.

We observed significant reductions in berry skin tannins in vines closest to the

hedgerow (2 m from the hedgerow), however no reductions in seed tannins were observed.

Previous studies found similar results and determined that light does not have a significant

effect on seed tannins (Lee 2017; Sun et al. 2017; Gouot et al. 2019). Researchers speculate

that this may be because the tannins in seeds remain relatively protected against changes in

light and temperature by berry flesh (Gouot et al. 2019). However skin tannins have been

shown to be reduced by shade in other studies (Blancquaert et al. 2019). We hypothesize that

reduced shade in the vine row closest to the hedgerow (2 m from the hedgerow) most likely

caused the reductions in skin tannins levels that we observed.

VII.7.2.ii. Speculations About the Effect of Water Competition

The reductions in vine yield that we observed could have been caused by competition

between grapevines and olive trees for water. Numerous studies have shown that excess

water stress can cause reduced photosynthesis, reduced yield, and reduced vigor in

grapevines (McCarthy et al. 1983; Winkel and Rambal 1993; Stevens et al. 1995; Gómez-del-

Campo et al. 2002; Schultz 2003). We hypothesize that competition for water was the main

166
factor contributing to the reduced vigor observed in the vine rows closer to the olive tree

hedgerow.

The increases in glucose/fructose, brix, and density that we observed likely were

induced by water stress as well. Studies have shown that, when administered in the right

amounts and at the right times, water stress can result in higher quality wine with higher

sugar levels (McCarthy et al. 1983). Moderate water stress prevents sugars from being

allocated to vegetative growth and instead directs accumulation of sugars to berries (Wheeler

and Pickering 2005). Additionally, moderate water stress prevents inflation of berry cells,

thus concentrating sugars and flavors and avoiding dilution. We hypothesize that water stress

may have caused the increases in sugar levels that we observed, although more studies are

needed to test this hypothesis.

We do not expect that the reduction in berry skin tannins that we observed in vines 2

m from the hedgerow was due to competition for water. On the contrary, other studies have

shown that increased water stress in grapes was correlated with higher berry skin tannins

(Esteban et al. 2001). We expect that the differences observed in skin tannins were due to

competition for light.

VII.7.2.iii. Speculations About the Effect of Wind

We do not expect that that any of the reductions in yield or vigor were associated with

the hedgerow acting as a windbreak. A study by Dry and Botting (1993) found that, on the

contrary, vines in Australia had increased vegetative growth and yield when they were

protected by a windbreak. These results are the opposite of what we observed, and therefore

we do not think it is likely that slowing of wind had anything to do with changes in any of the

variables we documented in this study.

VII.8. CONCLUSION

167
VII.8.1. Conclusion

Vineyard agroforestry has the potential to be a beneficial appropriate technology for

buffering extreme temperature and weather events, for controlling pests, and for improving

soil fertility. However, just as with any appropriate technology, it is important that

agroforestry be carried out in a way that is appropriate to the site, in a way that satisfies the

goals of the producer, and in a way that maximizes benefits while minimizing disadvantages.

The results of this study indicate that for this particular growing region, this tree-crop

species combination, and this management system, the presence of trees was associated with

several negative results including 50% lower yields in vines 2 m from the hedgerow, 31%

lower yields in vines 4 m from the hedgerow, and 21% fewer tannins in must in vines within

2 m of the hedgerow. However, the presence of trees was also associated with indicators of

high quality wine, including higher glucose/fructose levels, higher brix levels, higher density,

and higher TA. Beyond 6 m it appears that trees did not have a significant effect on any

variables, although this should be investigated further before conclusions are drawn. Because

the most severe negative effects on yield were observed within 4 m of the hedgerow, we

maintain that vineyard agroforestry systems may very well be a viable practice, as long as

farmers are prepared to deal with the reductions in yield within 4 m of the hedgerow and/or

implement management strategies to address them.

The differences in glucose/fructose, brix, density, TA, tannins, vigor, and yield that

we observed could have been caused by interactions between grapevines and olive trees such

as competition for nutrients, competition for water, competition for light, a windbreak effect,

or a microclimatic effect. Due to the limitations of this study, we were only able to examine

competition for nutrients. We cannot conclude that competition for nutrients between

grapevines and olive trees played any role in any of the changes that we observed in vines at

different distances from the olive tree hedgerow.

168
 From previous studies examining the effect of shade and competition for water in

vineyards, we can speculate that many of the grape yield and quality differences we observed

were impacted by competition for light and competition for water. Because shade from trees

reduces both PAR and temperature, we hypothesize that many of the differences we observed

are affected by temperature or the interaction between temperature and PAR.

Depending on winemaker goals, the beneficial effects that trees appear to have on

grape must quality parameters, in addition to the ecosystem services they provide, may

outweigh the negative effects that trees have on yield in vines close to trees. Additionally,

given that climate change models predict yield and quality reductions in vineyards in the

coming years due to higher temperatures and earlier budbreak, and given the fact that

vineyard agroforestry systems mitigate many of these detrimental effects, farmers may

determine that vineyard agroforestry systems are more beneficial than harmful. Presented

with the options of either lower yield yet higher quality due to the incorporation of trees into

vineyards, or lower yield and lower quality due to climate change, many farmers likely will

decide that vineyard agroforestry systems are indeed the better choice.

VII.8.2. Future Research

This study examined a very specific Malbec grapevine and olive tree agroforestry

system in an arid and irrigated climate region. Vitis vinifera sp. as a species is highly

sensitive to both terroir and vineyard management practices, so it is important to not

extrapolate the findings of this study to other climate regions and growing conditions, but

rather, to use them as a base for future studies. Similar studies with other tree-vine

combinations, design layouts, trellis systems, vine row orientations, and growing regions are

important to undergo.

169
 Because of limited funding for this study, there were many variables that we were

unable to measure, such as percent fruit set, number of berries per cluster, and number of

clusters per vine. If time was not a limiting factor it would have also been interesting to

analyze the wine made from each treatment, so as to determine if the individual quality

metrics that we observed resulted in overall balanced or unbalanced flavor profiles in

fermented and aged wine.

Another limitation of this study was that, although significant differences were

observed in many of the variables that we measured, we were unable to determine the causes

of those differences. There are many competitive interactions that could have caused the

differences we observed, including competition for light, differences in wind exposure,

competition for water, competition for nutrients, or a combination of all of the above. This

study only examined competition for nutrients, but future studies should investigate other

competitive factors.

Future studies should include examining PAR and PPFD to determine the amount of

shade imparted by olive trees throughout the entire growing season, measuring water stress

through C13 isotope spectrometry, quantifying actual water use in each species through sap

flow measurements, and monitoring microclimatic effects through heat balance and heat

pulse technology. By determining the limiting factors contributing to reduced vigor and yield

in vineyard agroforestry systems, management strategies for controlling competition can be

developed, and vineyard agroforestry systems can begin to be adopted.

170
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abeysinghe SK, Greer DH, Rogiers SY (2019) The effect of light intensity and temperature
on berry growth and sugar accumulation in Vitis vinifera ‘Shiraz’ under vineyard
conditions. Vitis 58:7-16
Abraham EM, Martínez FR (2000) Inventario de Recursos para la Planificación y Gestión de
la Región Andina Argentina. Secretaría de Ciencia y Tenología de Argentina.
https://www.mendoza-conicet.gob.ar/ladyot/catalogo/cdandes/start.htm. Accessed 6
April 2020
Adams DO (2006) Phenolics and Ripening in Grape Berries. American Journal of Enology
and Viticulture 57:249-256
Archer E, Strauss HC (1989) Effect of Shading on the Performance of Vitis Vinifera L. CV.
Cabernet Sauvignon. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 10:74-76
Azuma A, Yakushiji H, Koshita Y, Kobayashi S (2012) Flavonoid biosynthesis-related genes
in grape skin are differentially regulated by temperature and light conditions. Planta
236:1067-1080
Baldwin JG (1964) The relation between weather and fruitfulness of the sultana vine.
Australian Jouranl of Agricultural Research 15:920-928
Bergqvist J, Dokoozlian N, Ebisuda N (2001) Sunlight Exposure and Temperature Effects on
Berry Growth and Composition of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache in the Central
San Joaquin Valley of California. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 52:1-
7
Blancquaert EH, Oberholster A, Ricardo-da-Silva JM, Deloire AJ (2019) Grape Flavonoid
Evolution and Composition Under Altered Light and Temperature Conditions in
Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.). Frontiers in Plant Science 10:1062
Bogs J, Downey MO, Harvey JS, Ashton AR, Tanner GJ, Robinson SP (2005)
Proanthocyanidin Synthesis and Expression of Genes Encoding Leucoanthocyanidin
Reductase and Anthocyanidin Reductase in Developing Grape Berries and Grapevine
Leaves. Plant Physiology 139:652-663
Bonada M, Sadras V, Moran M, Fuentes S (2013) Elevated temperature and water stress
accelerate mesocarp cell death and shrivelling, and decouple sensory traits in Shiraz
berries. Irrigation Science 31:1317-1331
Boudreau IV TF, Peck GM, O’Keefe SF, Stewart A (2018) Free amino nitrogen
concentration correlates to total yeast assimilable nitrogen concentration in apple
juice. Food Science & Nutrition 6:119-123
Boulton R (1980) The relationship between total acidity, titratable acidity, and pH in wine.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 31:76-80
Boulton RB, Singleton VL, Bisson LF, Kunkee RE (1999) Juice and Wine Acidity. In:
Principles and Practices of Winemaking. Springer, Boston, MA
Buttrose MS (1970) Fruitfulness in grape-vines: The response of different cultivars to light,
temperature and daylength. Vitis 9:121-125
Buttrose MS, Hale CR, Kliewer WM (1971) Effect of Temperature on the Composition of
‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ Berries. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 22:71-75
Chirko CP, Gold MA, Nguyen PV, Jiang JP (1996) Influence of orientation on wheat yield
and photosynthetic photon flux density (Qp) at the tree and crop interface in a
Paulownia-wheat intercropping system. Forest Ecology and Management 89:149-156
Comuzzo P, Battistutta F (2019) Chapter 2 - Acidification and pH Control in Red Wines. In:
Morata A (ed) Red Wine Technology. Elsevier, pp 17-34

171
Considine JA, Frankish E (2014) Chapter 10 – Essential Analyses. In: Considine JA,
Frankish E (eds) A Complete Guide to Quality in Small-Scale Winemaking. Elsevier,
London, pp 137-154
Crippen DD, Morrison JC (1986) The Effects of Sun Exposure on the Phenolic Content of
Cabernet Sauvignon Berries During Development. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 37:243-247
Departamento General de Irrigación (2016) Climatología y fisiografía de Mendoza.
Aquabook. http://aquabook.agua.gob.ar/384_0. Accessed 6 April 2020
Dokoozlian NK (2016) Grape Berry Growth and Development. In: The Grapevine. UC
Davis, Davis, California
Dokoozlian NK, Kliewer WM (1996) Influence of Light on Grape Berry Growth and
Composition Varies during Fruit Development. Journal of the American Society of
Horticultural Science 121:869-874
Dry PR, Botting DG (1993) The Effect of Wind on the Performance of Cabernet Franc
Grapevines. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 8:347-352
Esteban MA, Villanueva MJ, Lissarrague JR (2001) Effect of irrigation on changes in the
anthocyanin composition of the skin of cv Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L) grape berries
during ripening. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81
Ferreira AM, Mendes-Faia A (2020) The Role of Yeasts and Lactic Acid Bacteria on the
Metabolism of Organic Acids during Winemaking. Foods 9:1231
Fujita A, Goto-Yamamoto N, Aramaki I, Hashizume K (2006) Organ-Specific Transcription
of Putative Flavonol Synthase Genes of Grapevine and Effects of Plant Hormones on
Shading and Flavonol Biosynthesis in Grape Berry Skins. Bioscience, Biotechnology,
and Biochemistry 70:632-638
Fushing H, Lee O, Heitkamp C, Heymann H, Ebeler SE, Boulton RB, Koehl P (2019)
Unraveling the Regional Specificities of Malbec Wines from Mendoza, Argentina,
and from Northern California. Agronomy 9:234
Gómez-del-Campo M, Ruiz C, Lissarrague JS (2002) Effect of Water Stress on Leaf Area
Development, Photosynthesis, and Productivity in Chardonnay and Airén Grapevines.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 53: 138-143
Gosme M, Delmotte S, Grimaldi J, Trambouze W (2019) Diachronic study of the effect of
growing trees on grapevine yield: 24 years of experience in the South of France. 4th
World Congress on Agroforestry, INRA SYSTEM. Conference Paper, Montpellier,
France
Greer DH, Weedon MM (2013) The impact of high temperatures on Vitis vinifera cv.
Semillon grapevine performance and berry ripening. Frontiers in Plant Science 4:491
Grimaldi J (2018) Impacts of agroforestry on microclimate for grape and wine production:
assessment in Southern France. Dissertation, University of Toulouse, France
Grimaldi J, Trambouze W, Dufourcq T, Vergnes M, Pelletier C, Helen F, Fieuzal R, Houet T,
Bustillo V (2017) Can intercropped trees mitigate heat and drought effects on
grapevines? A study of microclimate patterns in agroforestry vineyards, Southern
France. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Landscape Ecology Conference, 24-29
September 2017, Halle, Germany
Gouot JC, Smith JP, Holzapfel BP, Barril C (2019) Grape Berry Flavonoid Responses to
High Bunch Temperatures Post Véraison: Effect of Intensity and Duration of
Exposure. Molecules 24:4341
Harbertson J, Spayd S (2005) Measuring Phenolics in the Winery. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 57:280-288

172
Hopping (1975) Effect of light intensity during cane development on subsequent bud break
and yield of ‘Palomino’ grape vines. New Zealand Journal of Experimental
Agriculture 5:287-290
Kailis S, Harris DJ (2007) Producing Table Olives. Landlinks Press, Collingwood, VIC,
Australia
Keller M (2010) Managing grapevines to optimize fruit development in a challenging
environment: a climate change primer for viticulturists. Australian Journal of Grape
and Wine Research 16:56-69
Kemp B, Pedneault K, Pickering G, Usher K, Willwerth J (2019) Red Winemaking in Cool
Climates. In: Morata A (ed) Red Wine Technology. Elsevier, London, pp 17-34
Kimball D (1991) Brix and Soluble Solids. In: Kimball D (ed) Citrus Processing: Quality
Control and Technology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY pp 7 – 33
Kliewer WM (1982) Vineyard canopy management – a review. In: Webb AD (ed) Grape and
Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings (18-21 June 1980). University of
California, Davis, California, pp 342-325
Kliewer WM, Smart RE (1989) Canopy Manipulation for Optimizing Vine Microclimate,
Crop Yield, and Composition of Grapes. In: Wright CJ (ed) Manipulation of Fruiting.
Butterworths, London, pp 275-291
Kodur S (2011) Effects of juice pH and potassium on juice and wine quality, and regulation
of potassium in grapevines through rootstocks (Vitis): a short review. VITIS Journal
of Grapevine Research 50: 1-6
Kriedemann PE (1968) Photosynthesis in vine leaves as a function of light intensity,
temperature, and leaf age. Vitis 7:213-220
Lee J (2017) Light exclusion influence on grape anthocyanin. Heliyon 3:e00243
Liberman GL (2014) The Argentine wine industry: creating new spaces for coordination?
Prometheus 31:305-318
Marshall JK (1967) The effect of shelter on the productivity of grasslands and field crops.
Field Crop Abstract 20:1-14
Martínez-Lüscher, Chen CCL, Brillante L, Kurtural SH (2017) Partial Solar Radiation
Exclusion with Color Shade Nets Reduces the Degradation of Organic Acids and
Flavonoids of Grape Berry (Vitis vinifera L.). Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry 65:10693-10702
Mattivi F, Guzzon R, Vrhovsek U, Stefanini M, Velasco R (2006) Metabolite Profiling of
Grape: Flavonols and Anthocyanins. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
54:7692-7702
May P, Antcliff AJ (1963) The Effect of Shading on Fruitfulness and Yield in the Sultana.
Journal of Horticultural Science 38:85-94
McCarthy MG, Cirami RM, McCloud P (1983) Vine and Fruit Responses to Supplementary
Irrigation and Canopy Management. South African Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 4:67-76
Millar AA (1972) Thermal Regime of Grapevines. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 23:173-176
Mendoza Gobierno (2021) Agrometeorología: Datos Estadísticos – Anuales. Retrieved 5
April 2021 from https://www.mendoza.gov.ar/contingencias/agrometeorologia/
Morrison JC, Noble AC (1990) The Effects of Leaf and Cluster Shading on the Composition
of Cabernet Sauvignon Grapes and on Fruit and Wine Sensory Properties. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 41:193-200
Nair PK (2011) Methodological Challenges in Estimating Carbon Sequestration Potential of
Agroforestry Systems. In: Mohan Kumar B, Nair PK (eds) Carbon Sequestration

173
 Potential of Agroforestry Systems – Opportunities and Challenges. Springer,
Dordrecht, pp 3-16
Pachauri RK, Meyer L (2015) Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Report,
Geneva, Switzerland
Price SF, Breen PJ, Valladao M, Watson BT (1995) Cluster Sun Exposure and Quercetin in
Pinot noir Grapes and Wine. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 46:187-
194
Rice S, Koziel JA, Dharmadhikari M, Fennell A (2017) Evaluation of Tannins and
Anthocyanins in Marquette, Frontenac, and St. Croix Cold-Hardy Grape Cultivars.
Fermentation 3:47
Robinson JB (1992) Grapevine Nutrition. In: Coombe BG, Dry PR (eds) Viticulture: Volume
2, Practices. Winetitle, Adelaide, Australia, pp 178-208
Ruffner HP, Hawker JS, Hale CR (1976) Temperature and enzymatic control of malate
metabolism in berries of Vitis vinifera. Phytochemistry 15:1877-1880
Sadler GD, Murphy PA (2010) PH and Titratable Acidity. In: Nielsen S (ed) Food Analysis,
4th Edition. Springer, New York, pp 219-238
Sánchez LA, Dokoozlian NK (2005) Bud Microclimate and Fruitfulness in Vitis vinifera L.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 56:319-329
Schultz HR (2003) Differences in hydraulic architecture account for nearisohydric and
anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought.
Plant, Cell and Environment 26:1393-1405
Shaulis NJ (1982) Responses of grapevines and grapes to spacing of and within canopies. In:
Webb AD (ed) Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium Proceedings (18-21 June
1980). University of California, Davis, California, pp 353-361
Skinkis PA, Vance AJ (2013) Understanding Vine Balance: An Important Concept in
Vineyard Management. Oregon State University Extension Service.
https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em9068. Accessed 6 April 2020
Smart RE (1974) Aspects of Water Relations of the Grapevine (Vitis vinifera). American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 25:84-91
Smart RE, Dick JK, Gravett IM, Fisher BM (1990) Canopy Management to Improve Grape
Yield and Wine Quality – Principles and Practices. South African Journal of Enology
and Viticulture 11:3-17
Smart RE, Robinson M (1991) Sunlight into Wine: A Handbook for Winegrape Canopy
Management. Winetitles, Adelaide, Australia
Spayd SE, Tarara JM, Mee DL, Ferguson JC (2002) Separation of Sunlight and Temperature
Effects on the Composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot Berries. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 53:171-182
Srinivasan C, Mullins MG (1981) Physiology of Flowering in the Grapevine – A Review.
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 32:47-63
Stevens RM, Harvey G, Aspinall D (1995) Grapevine growth of shoots and fruit linearly
correlate with water stress indices based on root‐weighted soil matric potential.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 1:58-66
Sun R, Cheng G, Li Q, He Y, Wang Y, Lan Y, Li S, Zhu Y, Song W, Zhang X, Cui X, Chen
W, Wang J (2017) Light-induced Variation in Phenolic Compounds in Cabernet
Sauvignon Grapes (Vitis vinifera L.) Involves Extensive Transcriptome
Reprogramming of Biosynthetic Enzymes, Transcription Factors, and Phytohormonal
Regulators. Frontiers in Plant Science 8:547

174
Sweetman C, Sadras VO, Hancock RD, Soole KL, Ford CM (2014) Metabolic effects of
elevated temperature on organic acid degradadtion in ripening Vitis vinifera fruit.
Journal of Experimental Botany 65:5975-5988
Tarara J, Ferguson J, Hoheisel G, Perez J (2005) Assymetrical canopy architecture due to
prevailing wind direction and row orientation creates an imbalance in irradiance at the
fruiting zone of grapevines. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 135:144-155
Van zyl JL (1984) Response of Colombar Grapevines to Irrigation as Regards Quality
Aspects and Growth. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 5:19-28
Waterhouse AL (2003) Determination of Total Phenolics. Current Protocols in Food
Analytical Chemistry 6: I1.1.1-I1.1.8
Winkel T, Rambal S (1993) Influence of Water Stress on Grapevines Growing in the Field:
from Leaf to Whole-plant Response. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 20:143-
157
Wolf T (2008) Wine Grape Production Guide for Eastern North America. Natural Resource,
Agriculture, and Engineering Service
Zuritz CA, Muñoz Puntes E, Cabeza MS (2005) Density, viscosity and coefficient of thermal
expansion of clear grape juice at different soluble solid concentrations and
temperatures. Journal of Food Engineering 71: 143-149

175
 APPENDIX A

REGIONAL CLIMATE CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1. Maximum, minimum, and median monthly temperatures in °C taken during 2018,
2019, and 2020 from the Perdriel weather station at Belasco de Baquedano in Lujan de Cuyo,
Argentina. Source: Mendoza Gobierno (2021).

Date Max Median Min Date Max Median Min Date Max Median Min
01-2018 38.0 21.6 9.3 01-2018 37.2 21.1 5.5 01-2018 35.9 22.6 6.4

02-2018 36.0 20.8 3.4 02-2018 34.2 20.5 4.8 02-2018 34.3 19.4 6.5

03-2018 30.6 16.2 -1.1 03-2018 31.8 15.7 0.9 03-2018 33.4 19.4 7.0

04-2018 29.8 14.0 -0.5 04-2018 28.8 13.7 1.3 04-2018 25.3 12.5 1.2

05-2018 21.0 8.3 -1.8 05-2018 23.3 8.2 -3.5 05-2018 26.4 7.5 -5.1

06-2018 23.2 3.8 -9.4 06-2018 20.2 5.1 -6.5 06-2018 29.0 4.1 -7.7

07-2018 25.6 3.0 -8.7 07-2018 20.2 4.5 -9.4 07-2018 21.2 3.6 -7.3

08-2018 25.3 6.4 -7.9 08-2018 28.6 0.8 -8.6 08-2018 22.0 6.3 -9.9

09-2018 33.1 12.5 -4.6 09-2018 29.6 10.3 -7.4 09-2018 26.7 11.6 -4.8

10-2018 29.3 14.2 -1.4 10-2018 30.3 13.9 -0.8 10-2018 31.5 14.6 -2.7

11-2018 34.8 17.9 3.8 11-2018 32.7 20.0 4.4 11-2018 31.9 18.7 4.6

12-2018 34.6 19.7 5.0 12-2018 35.6 21.1 4.4 12-2018 36.7 20.5 5.6

Table 2. Typical Soil Characteristics for the Maipu region of Mendoza, Argentina. Data
retrieved from the National Institute of Agricultural Technology (INTA).

Total N (mg kg-1) P H2CO3 1:10 (mg kg-1)

>1000 Very high >6.5 Very high
800-1000 High 4.5-6.5 High
600-800 Medium 3.5-4.5 Medium
400-600 Low 2.5-3.5 Low
<400 Very Low <2.5 Very Low

K Int NH4OAc pH 7 (mg kg-1) Sedimentation Volume(cm3%)

>200 High <80 Sand
150-200 Good 80-93 Silty Sand
100-150 Poor 94-104 Silt
50-100 Poor 105-115 Silt Loam
<50 Very Poor 116-135 Loamy Clay
136-139 Loamy Clayey
Silt
>140 Clay

176
 APPENDIX B

BACKGROUND SITE UNIFORMITY TESTS

Table 1. Circumference and diameter at breast height of all 17 olive trees in the olive tree
hedgerow “treatment” at the experimental site, Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu, Mendoza,
Argentina, 2019.

Tree Number Circumference (cm) Diameter (cm)

1 192 61.0
2 173 55.0
3 105 33.5
4 59 19.0
5 125 40.0
6 97 31.0
7 71 22.5
8 215 68.5
9 125 40.0
10 110 35.0
11 200 64.0
12 117 37.0
13 89 28.0
14 80 25.5
15 58 18.5
16 69 22.0
17 55 17.5

Table 2. Soil uniformity analysis at Catapano Family Vineyard, Maipu, Mendoza, Argentina,
2019. The site was divided into four equal-sized transects: northwest, northeast, southwest,
and southeast. The analysis of soil quality and nutritional characteristics was performed at the
Laboratory of Pedology (Laboratorio Cátedra de Edafología) at the College of Agricultural
Sciences in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina.

177
Table 3. Additional background uniformity soil analyses at Catapano Vineyard, Maipu,
Mendoza, Argentina. The site was divided into four equal-sized transects: northwest,
northeast, southwest, and southeast. The analysis of soil quality and nutritional characteristics
was performed at the Laboratory of Pedology (Laboratorio Cátedra de Edafología) at the
College of Agricultural Sciences in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina.

Area Depth Sodium Carbonates Bicarbonates Chlorides Sulfates

(cm) Absorption (me/L) (me/L) (me/L) (me/L)
Ratio
NW 0-30 3.8 0.0 4.0 53.0 29.4
NE 0-30 1.6 0.0 2.5 17.0 19.2
SW 0-30 3.8 0.0 2.0 18.0 39.1
SE 0-30 1.7 0.0 3.0 8.0 13.9
NW 30-60 3.1 0.0 2.5 29.0 23.1
NE 30-60 2.9 0.0 2.5 21.0 16.3
SW 30-60 4.7 0.0 2.0 15.0 32.4
SE 30-60 2.4 0.0 1.5 9.0 17.3

178
 APPENDIX C

SELECTION OF OBSERVATIONAL UNITS

Table 1. Vine trunk diameter values for all vines within all treatment blocks, taken at 40 cm
above soil. Trunk diameter values determined to be outliers are highlighted in red and were
removed from the sampling pool.

179
180
Table 2. Selection of observational units. Final observational units were selected after having
discarded vines with diameters outside of the interquartile range. Vines were numbered from
1-96 from North to South, beginning at the 13th vine from the North in each treatment row so
as to remove vines impacted by the edge effect from the sampling pool.

o 40 m from Hedgerow:
Rep 1: 2, 6, 14, 23, 31
Rep 2: 46, 49, 51, 60, 62
Rep 3: 69, 75, 86, 88, 95
o 12 m from Hedgerow:
Rep 1: 4, 6, 13, 21, 31
Rep 2: 35, 40, 49, 57, 60
Rep 3: 70, 75, 78, 82, 94
o 6 m from Hedgerow:
Rep 1: 6, 10, 20, 25, 29
Rep 2: 34, 52, 55, 61, 64
Rep 3: 71, 73, 79, 81, 94
o 4 m from Hedgerow:
Rep 1: 7, 10, 16, 17, 32
Rep 2: 36, 39, 46, 56, 60
Rep 3: 71, 73, 75, 89, 94
o 2 m from Hedgerow:
Rep 1: 4, 8, 18, 25, 26
Rep 2: 33, 40, 42, 49, 60
Rep 3: 66, 77, 86, 88, 90

181
 APPENDIX D

RAW DATA FOR QUALITY, PRODUCTION, GROWTH, AND NUTRITIONAL

PARAMETERS

Table 1. Grape must quality data, analyzed by MAG S.R.L. Laboratory, in Mendoza,
Argentina, March 2020.

Table 2. Grape must quality data, analyzed by the laboratory at the National Institute for
Agricultural Technology (INTA) in Lujan de Cuyo, Argentina, March 2020.

Distance Rep Total Berry Total Berry Total Berry Total Seed Total Seed
from Skin Skin Skin Phenolics Tannins
Hedgerow Phenolics Anthocyanins Tannins (mg/g fruit) (mg/g fruit)
(m) (mg/g fruit) (mg/g fruit) (mg/g fruit)

40 1 1.51 0.93 0.92 1.71 0.85

40 2 1.17 1.10 0.80 2.00 1.16
40 3 1.39 1.01 0.95 1.66 0.81
12 1 1.26 1.06 0.99 2.37 1.34
12 2 1.55 1.56 0.99 2.29 0.98
12 3 1.46 1.45 0.90 2.38 0.68
6 1 1.00 1.14 0.79 0.86 0.45
6 2 1.65 1.10 1.02 2.68 1.18
6 3 1.44 1.07 0.96 2.10 1.13
4 1 1.22 1.17 0.83 1.71 0.68
4 2 1.88 1.54 0.94 1.95 0.31
4 3 1.79 1.29 0.91 1.33 0.41
2 1 2.43 1.39 0.65 1.82 0.87
2 2 1.03 1.66 0.76 1.75 0.80
2 3 1.18 1.03 0.70 1.64 0.75

182
Table 3. Grapevine production, vigor, and vine balance data, measured using an electronic
scale. Ravaz Index was calculated using the Ravaz Index formula in Table 5.

Distance
Pruning
from Vine Number (Beginning at 13th Total Vine
Rep Weights Ravaz Index
Hedgerow Vine from North) Yield (kg)
(g/m)
(m)
40 1 2 1.3 388 3.35051546
40 1 6 3.2 310 10.3225806
40 1 14 2.7 220 12.2727273
40 1 23 1.4 604 2.31788079
40 1 31 0.9 428 2.10280374
40 2 46 1.9 276 6.88405797
40 2 49 2.5 379 6.59630607
40 2 51 2.3 330 6.96969697
40 2 60 3.2 375 8.53333333
40 2 62 1.9 416 4.56730769
40 3 69 2.1 367 5.72207084
40 3 75 3.9 375 10.4
40 3 86 1.8 258 6.97674419
40 3 88 1.9 241 7.88381743
40 3 95 2.9 478 6.06694561
12 1 4 1.7 123 13.8211382
12 1 6 1.3 98 13.2653061
12 1 13 0.2 60 3.33333333
12 1 21 2.3 129 17.8294574
12 1 31 1.3 144 9.02777778
12 2 35 1.8 261 6.89655172
12 2 40 1.8 365 4.93150685
12 2 49 2.1 260 8.07692308
12 2 57 2 145 13.7931034
12 2 60 0.7 133 5.26315789
12 3 70 1.8 158 11.3924051
12 3 75 0.8 459 1.74291939
12 3 78 1.3 202 6.43564356
12 3 82 1.9 274 6.93430657
12 3 94 1.1 332 3.31325301
6 1 6 2.3 274 8.39416058
6 1 10 2.9 268 10.8208955
6 1 20 1.5 94 15.9574468
6 1 25 2.1 235 8.93617021
6 1 29 2.1 376 5.58510638
6 2 34 1.3 346 3.75722543
6 2 52 1.4 362 3.86740331
6 2 55 2 295 6.77966102
6 2 61 2.3 490 4.69387755
6 2 64 0.5 95 5.26315789
6 3 71 1.2 347 3.45821326
6 3 73 1.8 500 3.6
6 3 79 2.7 452 5.97345133
6 3 81 1.3 451 2.88248337
6 3 94 1.8 260 6.92307692
4 1 7 1.6 306 5.22875817
4 1 10 1.8 280 6.42857143
4 1 16 1.4 275 5.09090909
4 1 17 1.9 310 6.12903226
4 1 32 1.3 361 3.60110803
4 2 36 1.3 344 3.77906977
4 2 39 1.3 204 6.37254902
4 2 46 2.6 355 7.32394366
4 2 56 1.5 342 4.38596491
4 2 60 2 156 12.8205128
4 3 71 0.8 219 3.65296804
4 3 73 1 181 5.52486188
4 3 75 1.9 204 9.31372549
4 3 89 1.5 387 3.87596899
4 3 94 1.4 310 4.51612903
2 1 4 1.5 530 2.83018868
2 1 8 1.4 566 2.47349823
2 1 18 1.1 212 5.18867925
2 1 25 0.9 164 5.48780488
2 1 26 0 162 0
2 2 33 2.6 389 6.68380463
2 2 40 0.8 148 5.40540541
2 2 42 0.9 203 4.43349754
2 2 49 0.9 42 21.4285714
2 2 60 0.9 297 3.03030303
2 3 66 1.1 214 5.14018692
2 3 77 0.9 114 7.89473684
2 3 86 1.4 108 12.962963
2 3 88 0.4 294 1.36054422
2 3 90 2.2 294 7.4829932

183
Table 4. Grapevine nutritional status data, taken from petioles and leaf blades at peak bloom
(80% flowering) on November 11, 2019. Samples were processed by the Pedology
Laboratory of the College of Agricultural Sciences at the National University of Cuyo,
Mendoza, Argentina.
Distance from
Tissue Type Hedgerow Rep N-NO3 N P K Mg
(m)

Leaf 40 1 N/A 3.16 0.23 0.67 0.55

Leaf 40 2 N/A 3.19 0.22 0.83 0.36

Leaf 40 3 N/A 3.17 0.19 0.68 0.3

Leaf 12 1 N/A 2.96 0.16 1.07 0.26

Leaf 12 2 N/A 3.1 0.16 1.24 0.07

Leaf 12 3 N/A 2.82 0.11 1.07 0.11

Leaf 6 1 N/A 3.39 0.08 1 0.1

Leaf 6 2 N/A 2.8 0.43 1.17 0.24

Leaf 6 3 N/A 3.25 0.31 1.02 0.07

Leaf 4 1 N/A 2.88 0.29 1.1 0.07

Leaf 4 2 N/A 3.17 0.25 1.04 0.74

Leaf 4 3 N/A 2.55 0.23 1.05 0.38

Leaf 2 1 N/A 2.69 0.28 0.86 0.25

Leaf 2 2 N/A 2.42 0.21 0.96 0.55

Leaf 2 3 N/A 2.85 0.11 0.87 0.17

Petiole 40 1 322 0.91 0.38 1.55 0.66

Petiole 40 2 280 0.91 0.38 1.83 0.47

Petiole 40 3 324 0.79 0.4 1.72 0.95

Petiole 12 1 266 0.77 0.41 2.1 1.33

Petiole 12 2 280 0.84 0.39 1.76 0.85

Petiole 12 3 231 0.82 0.38 2.08 0.48

Petiole 6 1 280 0.85 0.47 2.18 0.67

Petiole 6 2 266 0.77 0.47 1.77 0.52

Petiole 6 3 245 1.1 0.43 1.58 0.59

Petiole 4 1 231 0.87 0.31 1.11 0.73

Petiole 4 2 252 0.96 0.43 1.99 0.52

Petiole 4 3 287 0.93 0.31 1.64 0.89

Petiole 2 1 224 0.88 0.4 1.31 0.3

Petiole 2 2 273 0.79 0.31 1.6 0.76

Petiole 2 3 301 0.81 0.32 1.62 0.46

184
Figure 1. Extraction of juice from berries in the Pedology Laboratory at the College of
Agricultural Sciences (Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias) in Lujan de Cuyo Argentina,
March 13, 2020.

Figure 2. Measuring yield by weighing total berries per observational unit (per sampled vine)
on the day of harvest, March 12, 2020.

Table 5. Ravaz Index Formula. The Ravaz Index can be calculated as follows:

Ravaz index = Yield/Pruning Weight

where the yield from the current harvest is used against the pruning weight in the following dormant season.

185
 APPENDIX E

NORMAL VALUES OF MACRO AND MICRONUTRIENTS IN GRAPEVINE

TISSUE AT FULL BLOOM IN MENDOZA, ARGENTINA

Table 1. Normal macro and micronutrient values for grapevine petioles and leaf blades for
the region of Maipu, Mendoza, Argentina, as determined by the National Institute of
Agricultural Technology in Argentina (INTA).

N-NO3 ppm P% K% Ca% Mg%

Petioles 600.00 0.25 1.50 1.10 0.40
Fe ppm Mn ppm Cu ppm Zn ppm Na(*) ppm
25.00 30.00 5.00 25.00 <500
N-NO3 ppm P% K% Ca% Mg%
Leaf Blades 2.80 0.20 0.60 1.20 0.25
Fe ppm Mn ppm Cu ppm Zn ppm Na(*) ppm
50.00 50.00 5.00 20.00 <2000

(*) Sodium is not an essential nutrient however it can cause salinity problems and it is
recommended to maintain its concentration below the levels indicated

186
 APPENDIX F

SAS STATISTICAL OUTPUT USING GLM PROCEDURE

Table 1. SAS output for the variable glucose/fructose levels (g/L).

187
188
189
190
Table 2. SAS output for the variable brix levels.

191
192
193
194
Table 3. SAS output for the variable density (g/L)

195
196
197
198
Table 4. SAS output for the variable total acidity (g/L)

199
200
201
202
Table 5. SAS output for the variable pH

203
204
205
206
Table 6. SAS output for the variable malic acid (g/L)

207
208
209
210
Table 7. SAS output for the variable YAN (g/L)

211
212
213
214
Table 8. SAS output for the variable total berry skin phenolics (mg/g fruit)

215
216
217
218
Table 9. SAS output for the variable total berry skin anthocyanins (mg/g fruit)

219
220
221
222
Table 10. SAS output for the variable total berry skin tannins (g/mg fruit)

223
224
225
226
Table 11. SAS output for the variable total seed phenolics (mg/g fruit)

227
228
229
230
Table 12. SAS output for the variable total seed tannins (mg/g fruit)

231
232
233
234
Table 13. SAS output for the variable petiole nitrate

235
236
237
238
Table 14. SAS output for the variable total leaf blade nitrogen

239
240
241
242
Table 15. SAS for the variable total petiole nitrogen

243
244
245
246
Table 16. SAS output for the variable leaf blade phosphorous

247
248
249
250
Table 17. SAS output for the variable petiole phosphorus

251
252
253
254
Table 18. SAS output for the variable leaf blade potassium

255
256
257
258
Table 19. SAS output for the variable petiole potassium

259
260
261
262
Table 20. SAS output for the variable leaf blade magnesium

263
264
265
266
Table 21. SAS output for the variable petiole magnesium

267
268
269
270
 APPENDIX G

SAS STATISTICAL OUTPUT USING THE GLIMMIX PROCEDURE

Table 1. SAS output for the variable total vine yield (kg)

271
272
273
274
275
Table 2. SAS output for the variable pruning weight (g/m)

276
277
278
Table 3. SAS output for the variable of vine balance, as measured by the Ravaz Index. For
the purpose of this analysis the square root of the Ravaz Index was taken.

279
280
281
282
 APPENDIX H

SPSS STATISTICAL OUTPUT FOR VINE DIAMETER

Table 1. SPSS statistical output for vine diameter at 40 cm from soil (cm)

283
284