terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Under-vine management effects on grapevine production, soil properties and plant communities in South Australia

Abstract

Under-vine (UV) management has traditionally consisted of synthetic herbicide use to limit competition between weeds and grapevines. With growing global interest towards non-synthetic chemical use, this study aimed to capture the effects of alternative UV management at two commercial Shiraz vineyards in South Australia, where the sole management variables were UV management since 2016. In adjacent treatment blocks, cultivation (CU) was compared to spontaneous vegetation (SV) in McLaren Vale (MV), and herbicide was compared to SV in Eden Valley (EV). Soil water infiltration rates were slower and grapevine stem water potential was lower in CU compared to SV in MV, with the latter having a plant community dominated by soursob (Oxalis pes-caprae) during winter; while in EV, there was little separation between the treatments. Yields were affected at both sites, with SV being higher in MV and HE being higher in EV. In MV, the only effect on grape must was a lower 13C:12C isotope ratio in CU, indicating greater grapevine water stress. In the grape must at EV, SV had higher total soluble solids, total phenolics, anthocyanins, and yeast available nitrogen; and lower pH and titratable acidity. Pruning weights were not affected by the treatments in MV, while they were higher in HE at EV. Assessments revealed that the differing soil types at the two sites were likely the main determinants of the opposing production outcomes associated with UV management. In the silty loam soil of MV, the higher yields in SV were likely due to more plant-available water, as a potential result of the continuous soil bio-pores formed by winter UV vegetation. Conversely, in the loamy sand soils of EV with a lower cation exchange capacity, the lower yields and pruning weights in SV suggest the UV vegetation competed significantly with the grapevines for available water and nutrients. 

DOI:

Publication date: May 31, 2022

Issue: Terclim 2022

Type: Article

Authors

Merek Kesser, Willem Joubert, Timothy Cavagnaro, Roberta De Bei and Cassandra Collins

School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, Glen Osmond, Australia

Contact the author

Keywords

alternative under-vine management, cultivation, grapevine production, soil physiochemical properties, spontaneous vegetation

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Terclim 2022

Citation

Related articles…

Impact of agrivoltaics on berry ripening: preliminary results for the white cv. Viosinho

Climate change poses significant challenges for viticulture, particularly in Mediterranean regions like Portugal, where extreme heat and drought conditions are becoming more frequent.

Evaluation of shelf life of white wines in aluminium bottle: a modelling approach

Aluminum is a particularly interesting material for packaging because it is environmentally sustainable, lighter than standard glass bottles, and protective against light radiation [1].

Shift of Nitrogen Resources by biotic interaction in grapevine

Grape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch), a monophagous pest of the grapevine, induces nodosities on the roots through its sap-sucking activity.

Additives od aids? Evaluation of aroma compounds release from oenological tannins of different botanical origins.

Oenological tannins are products extracted from various botanical sources, such as mimosa,
acacia, oak gall, quebracho, chestnut and tara. The polyphenolic component is obtained through a solid-liquid extraction also using specific solvents, then removed by evaporation or freeze-drying. Tannins are employed in two phases of winemaking, during the pre-fermentative phase or during fining with different purposes such as modulate antioxidant activity, colour stabilization, bacteriostatic activity, protein stabilization and modulation of sensory properties. To date, the current regulatory framework is not very clear. In fact, the Codex Alimentarius classifies commercial tannins as “food additives” but also as
“processing aids”. The main distinction is that “additives” have a technological function in the final food, whereas “processing aids” do not. In this sense, oenological tannins, despite the technological treatments, could contain aromatic compounds of the botanical species they belong to and release them to the wine.

Short-term canopy strategies to enhance grapevine adaptation to climate change

Context and purpose of the study – Viticulture faces significant challenges due to climate change, with increased frequency of extreme weather events impacting grapevine growth, grape quality, and wine production.