Complete vineyard floor cover crops favorably limit grapevine vegetative growth

Giese, Gill; Velasco-Cruz, Ciro; Roberts, Lucas; Heitman, Joshua L.; Wolf, Tony K.

doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2014.03.011

Cited by 50 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Acevedo-Opazo et al, 2010, Santesteban et al, 2011. Monteiro and Lopes (2007), Tesic et al (2007), Giese et al (2014) and Muscas et al (2017) have shown that cover crops can be equally successful in reducing excessive grapevine vigour. Also, the Georg Meissner et al effectiveness of cover crops in reducing pests and diseases by modifying nutrient status and grapevine vigour is receiving increasing attention (Muscas et al, 2017).…”

Section: Vegetative Growth Canopy Structure and Susceptibility To Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The effects of integrated, organic and biodynamic management on soil quality and the growth and morphological development of Riesling grapevines were assessed during the first 4 years of a long-term field trial in Geisenheim, Germany. The overall aim was to understand the effects of these different viticultural practices on soil quality and plant morphology as the basis for product quality.Methods and results: As indicators of soil quality, earthworm abundance and the activity of selected enzymes were assessed. The vegetative and reproductive development of the grapevines, as well as their susceptibility to fungal diseases in the field, wood and grape composition, and grape yield, were investigated. Individual variables were subjected to analysis of variance. Additionally, all variables were subjected to multivariate principal component analysis. Compared with plots under integrated management, plots under the two biological treatments were characterized by higher soil quality and lower vegetative growth and grape yield, and therefore higher exposure of grapes and lower grape cluster compactness, and, probably as a result of these morphological differences, lower incidence of acetic acid rot. Principal component analysis clearly differentiated the three treatments, and showed that biodynamic management had more pronounced effects than organic management in terms of enhanced soil fertility and reduction of vegetative growth.Conclusions: In the present study, organic and especially biodynamic management resulted in a morphology favouring production of high-quality grapes. The treatments differed in terms of fertilization and plant protection methods as well as choice of cover crops. Therefore, further research is necessary with respect to root growth and the nitrogen and water uptake dynamics of vines and cover crops. The differences between grapes produced under organic and biodynamic management emphasize the need for more research on the mode of action of biodynamic preparations.Significance and impact of the study: In recent years, both winegrowers and consumers have expressed steadily growing interest in organic and especially biodynamic wine production. The present study contributes to a better understanding of the effects on grapevine growth and morphological development of shifting to these methods as a way to increase product quality.

show abstract

Section: Vegetative Growth Canopy Structure and Susceptibility To Fumentioning

confidence: 99%

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hatch et al found intra-row creeping red fescue decreased leaf layer number by 21% and pruning weight by 47%, in addition to reducing stem Ψ in a Virginia 'Cabernet Sauvignon' vineyard (2011). A study in North Carolina reported slower shoot growth and reduced pruning weights as a result of intra-row groundcover although water potential differences were not significant (Giese et al, 2014), which indicates vineyard floor vegetation affected grapevines in ways other than competition for water.…”

Section: Vine Water Potentialmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…while normal activities such as dormant pruning and shoot positioning take much longer on overly vigorous vines {Smart, 1991 #148}. Many reports show the potential for groundcovers to reduce excessive vine vigor (Giese et al, 2014;Giese et al, 2015;Hatch et al, 2011;Tesic et al, 2007) which can reduce labor requirements and improve fruit yield and quality. Some mulches increase the amount of solar radiation that is reflected, which may improve the light environment within the canopy (Smart et al, 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review #1 of "Mulch and groundcover effects on soil temperature and moisture, surface reflectance, grapevine water potential, and vineyard weed management (v0.1)"

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this research were to identify alternatives to glyphosate for intra-row (under-trellis) vineyard floor management and to evaluate the potential for intra-row and inter-row (alleyway) groundcovers to reduce vegetative vigor of 'Marquette' grapevines (Vitis spp.) in a southeast Nebraska vineyard. The experiment was a randomized factorial design with 5 intra-row treatments (crushed glass mulch [CG], distillers' grain mulch [DG], creeping red fescue [CRF], non-sprayed control [NSC], and glyphosate [GLY]) and 3 interrow treatments (creeping red fescue [CRF], Kentucky bluegrass [KB], and resident vegetation [RV]). Treatments were established in 2010-2011 and measurements were conducted during 2012 and 2013 on 5-and 6-year-old vines. Soil temperatures were mostly higher under mulches and lower under intra-row groundcovers, compared to GLY. Weed cover in CG, DG, and CRF treatments was the same or less than GLY. At most sampling dates, inter-row soil moisture was lowest under KB. Intra-row soil moisture was highest under DG mulch and lowest under CRF and NSC; CG had the same or lower soil moisture than GLY. Surprisingly, we did not detect differences in midday photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) reflectance, despite visual differences among the intra-row treatments. Midday vine water potential did not differ among treatments. We concluded it is not necessary to maintain a bare soil strip under established vines in this region, where soil fertility and moisture are non-limiting.

show abstract

“…However, growth appearance is not the only performance that matches the increasing demand made by farmers. For example, with excessive vegetative growth, crops such as cotton and sugarcane could hardly be controlled and lead to irregular height in farmland which result in low productivities [9,10]. Thus, other regulated chemicals have been introduced to inhibit the hormonal pathways.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Transcriptome Changes of Elongating Internode of Sugarcane in Response to Mepiquat Chloride

Chen

Fan

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Mepiquat chloride (DPC) is an extensively used chemical to control internode growth and compact canopies in cultured plants. Previous studies suggested that DPC could inhibit gibberellin biosynthesis in sugarcane. Unfortunately, the molecular mechanism underlying the suppressive effects of DPC on plant growth is still largely unknown. Results: In the present study, we first obtained the high-quality long transcripts from internode of sugarcane by PacBio Sequel System. A total of 72,671 isoforms with N50 as 3,073 were generated. These long isoforms were used for the following RNA-seq as reference. Subsequently, short reads generated from Illumina Hiseq 4000 platform were used for comparing the differentially expressed genes in DPC and control groups. The transcriptome profiling showed the 6 days post DPC treatment had the most significant changed genes. These genes were related to plant hormone signal transduction and biosynthesis of several metabolites, indicating DPC affected multiple pathways beside depressed gibberellin biosynthesis. The network of DPC on the key stage was illustrated by weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA). Among the constructed 36 modules, the top positive correlated module with stage of 6 day post spraying DPC was sienna3. Stf0 sulphotransferase, cyclin-like F-box and HOX12 were the hub genes in sienna3 that had high correlation with other genes in this module. The qPCR demonstrated the high accuracy of RNA-seq result. Conclusion: Taken together, we demonstrated the key role of these genes in DPC-induced growth inhibition in sugarcane.

show abstract

Complete vineyard floor cover crops favorably limit grapevine vegetative growth

Cited by 50 publications

References 28 publications

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

Conversion to organic and biodynamic viticultural practices: impact on soil, grapevine development and grape quality

Peer Review #1 of "Mulch and groundcover effects on soil temperature and moisture, surface reflectance, grapevine water potential, and vineyard weed management (v0.1)"

Global Transcriptome Changes of Elongating Internode of Sugarcane in Response to Mepiquat Chloride

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About