Vineyard floor management intensity impacts soil health indicators and plant diversity across South Australian viticultural landscapes

IF 2.2 3区 农林科学 Q3 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Merek Kesser, T. Cavagnaro, R. de Bei, C. Collins
{"title":"Vineyard floor management intensity impacts soil health indicators and plant diversity across South Australian viticultural landscapes","authors":"Merek Kesser, T. Cavagnaro, R. de Bei, C. Collins","doi":"10.20870/oeno-one.2023.57.2.7432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the last thirty years, major shifts in vineyard floor management have been observed. Challenges initially posed by intensive tillage included high rates of soil erosion and the degeneration of soil structure and soil organic matter, which lead viticulturists to depend more heavily on herbicide use as an effective weed control strategy. However, an increase in herbicide persistence and toxicity in water, soils, and grapevines, increasing resistance of common weeds; and pressure from consumers and regulators to reduce their use is directing a shift towards an overall reduction in herbicide usage. This has led to more frequent tillage to manage vegetation in vineyards, while in some instances, cultural practices including slashing and animal grazing are used solely or in conjunction. However, little is known about the holistic effects of these varying practices on vineyard soils and biodiversity across landscapes in Australia. Thus, to comparatively assess the environmental impacts of different floor management practices, soil health indicators and plant dynamics were seasonally measured in the mid- and under-vine rows at twenty-four vineyard sites and four native sites in the Barossa Valley, Eden Valley, and McLaren Vale, all located in South Australia, where different intensities of floor management were implemented. Vineyard sites were categorised based on the frequency of herbicide and/or tillage passes particularly in the under-vine area into Low (no annual management passes), Medium (one annual management pass), and High (two to four annual management passes) intensity groups. Findings revealed similarities in the vineyard mid-rows across the management intensities, yet the under-vine rows displayed many differences; in particular, there were more plant species, higher plant coverage, and greater plant biomass in the Low management intensity group. Furthermore, as management intensity decreased, the relative richness of ruderal plant species also decreased, giving way to a plant community mainly comprised of slow-growing, perennial Poaceae and Fabaceae species in the Low-intensity management group. These differences in plant dynamics drove a suite of soil responses including faster water infiltration, higher soil ammonium-N and total nitrogen, and a tendency of higher soil gravimetric water content at the time of sampling. These results suggest that after an initial period of establishing these more extensive vineyard floor management practices, low levels of soil disturbance in the under-vine rows may contribute positively to improving natural ecosystem synergy and functionality between soil and plants. Therefore, our findings lend insights into how the varying intensity of floor management practices, rather than differing management ideologies per se, across a viticultural landscape can be intrinsic supporters of agroecosystem resilience under South Australian conditions.","PeriodicalId":19510,"journal":{"name":"OENO One","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OENO One","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2023.57.2.7432","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Throughout the last thirty years, major shifts in vineyard floor management have been observed. Challenges initially posed by intensive tillage included high rates of soil erosion and the degeneration of soil structure and soil organic matter, which lead viticulturists to depend more heavily on herbicide use as an effective weed control strategy. However, an increase in herbicide persistence and toxicity in water, soils, and grapevines, increasing resistance of common weeds; and pressure from consumers and regulators to reduce their use is directing a shift towards an overall reduction in herbicide usage. This has led to more frequent tillage to manage vegetation in vineyards, while in some instances, cultural practices including slashing and animal grazing are used solely or in conjunction. However, little is known about the holistic effects of these varying practices on vineyard soils and biodiversity across landscapes in Australia. Thus, to comparatively assess the environmental impacts of different floor management practices, soil health indicators and plant dynamics were seasonally measured in the mid- and under-vine rows at twenty-four vineyard sites and four native sites in the Barossa Valley, Eden Valley, and McLaren Vale, all located in South Australia, where different intensities of floor management were implemented. Vineyard sites were categorised based on the frequency of herbicide and/or tillage passes particularly in the under-vine area into Low (no annual management passes), Medium (one annual management pass), and High (two to four annual management passes) intensity groups. Findings revealed similarities in the vineyard mid-rows across the management intensities, yet the under-vine rows displayed many differences; in particular, there were more plant species, higher plant coverage, and greater plant biomass in the Low management intensity group. Furthermore, as management intensity decreased, the relative richness of ruderal plant species also decreased, giving way to a plant community mainly comprised of slow-growing, perennial Poaceae and Fabaceae species in the Low-intensity management group. These differences in plant dynamics drove a suite of soil responses including faster water infiltration, higher soil ammonium-N and total nitrogen, and a tendency of higher soil gravimetric water content at the time of sampling. These results suggest that after an initial period of establishing these more extensive vineyard floor management practices, low levels of soil disturbance in the under-vine rows may contribute positively to improving natural ecosystem synergy and functionality between soil and plants. Therefore, our findings lend insights into how the varying intensity of floor management practices, rather than differing management ideologies per se, across a viticultural landscape can be intrinsic supporters of agroecosystem resilience under South Australian conditions.
葡萄园地面管理强度影响南澳大利亚葡萄栽培景观的土壤健康指标和植物多样性
在过去的三十年里,葡萄园管理发生了重大变化。集约耕作最初带来的挑战包括土壤侵蚀率高、土壤结构和土壤有机质退化,这导致葡萄种植者更多地依赖除草剂的使用作为有效的杂草控制策略。然而,除草剂在水、土壤和葡萄藤中的持久性和毒性增加,增加了普通杂草的抗性;消费者和监管机构要求减少使用的压力正在引导人们转向全面减少除草剂的使用。这导致更频繁的耕作来管理葡萄园的植被,而在某些情况下,包括砍树和放牧在内的文化实践单独或结合使用。然而,人们对这些不同的做法对澳大利亚葡萄园土壤和生物多样性的整体影响知之甚少。因此,为了比较评估不同地板管理措施对环境的影响,本研究在巴罗萨谷、伊甸谷和麦克拉伦谷的24个葡萄园地和4个产地的藤中行和藤下行土壤健康指标和植物动态进行了季节性测量,这些葡萄园地都位于南澳大利亚,实施了不同强度的地板管理。根据除草剂和/或耕作的频率,特别是在葡萄藤下地区,将葡萄园分为低(无年度管理通行证)、中(一次年度管理通行证)和高(2至4次年度管理通行证)强度组。研究结果显示,不同管理强度的葡萄园中行有相似之处,而葡萄藤下行则有许多差异;特别是低管理强度组植物种类多、盖度高、生物量大。此外,随着管理强度的降低,野生植物种类的相对丰富度也降低,在低管理强度组,植物群落以生长缓慢的多年生禾本科和豆科植物为主。这些植物动态的差异驱动了一系列土壤响应,包括更快的水分入渗,更高的土壤铵态氮和全氮,以及采样时土壤重量含水量更高的趋势。这些结果表明,在建立这些更广泛的葡萄园底管理措施的初始阶段后,在藤下行中低水平的土壤干扰可能有助于提高土壤与植物之间的自然生态系统协同作用和功能。因此,我们的研究结果揭示了在南澳大利亚条件下,不同强度的地面管理实践,而不是不同的管理意识形态本身,是如何成为农业生态系统恢复力的内在支持者的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
OENO One
OENO One Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Food Science
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
13.80%
发文量
85
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: OENO One is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research, reviews, mini-reviews, short communications, perspectives and spotlights in the areas of viticulture, grapevine physiology, genomics and genetics, oenology, winemaking technology and processes, wine chemistry and quality, analytical chemistry, microbiology, sensory and consumer sciences, safety and health. OENO One belongs to the International Viticulture and Enology Society - IVES, an academic association dedicated to viticulture and enology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信