The influence of different methods of under-vine management on the structure of vegetation and the qualitative parameters of the grapes in the Moravian wine region

Tomáš Kopta; Lucia Nedorost Ragasová; Radek Sotolář; Jozef Sedláček; Vojtěch Ferby; Erika Hurajová; Jan Winkler

doi:10.2478/fhort-2024-0015

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

The influence of different methods of under-vine management on the structure of vegetation and the qualitative parameters of the grapes in the Moravian wine region

Folia Horticulturae

Volume 36 (2024): Issue 2 (October 2024)

By: Tomáš Kopta , Lucia Nedorost Ragasová , Radek Sotolář , Jozef Sedláček , Vojtěch Ferby , Erika Hurajová and Jan Winkler

Open Access

|Jul 2024

Figures & Tables

Meteorological conditions of the experimental site.

Different under-vine treatments. (MECH, bare soil cultivated mechanically; HERB, bare soil with herbicide application; TEX, under-vine belt covered by black woven agrotextile; MULCH, green mulch – mowed grass; MONO, cover crop – monoculture; MIX, cover crop – mixture of plants).

Table 1.

Treatment description.

Abbreviation	Treatment	Description
MECH	Bare soil cultivated mechanically	Weed control in the under-vine area was carried out by using a mechanical blade weeder (three times per year)
HERB	Bare soil with herbicide application	Weed control in the under-vine area was carried out by applying herbicide (Glyphosate) at a rate of 4 L · ha⁻¹ on the following dates: 31/04, 17/06, 12/08 in 2021 and 13/04, 29/06, 4/08 in 2022
TEX	Textile mulch	The under-vine belt was covered by black woven agrotextile (90 g) made of polypropylene with UV stabilisation with a width of 60 cm
MULCH	Green mulch – mowed grass	Under-vine area with a width of 60 cm was covered with a layer of cut grass at a height of 30 cm during June every year
MONO	Cover crop – monoculture	Microclover (Trifolium repens ‘Pipolina’) were sown manually on 07/04 2021 at a seed rate of 15 kg · ha⁻¹ on a 60 cm-wide strip in the under-vine area
MIX	Cover crop – a mixture of plants	Plants from the Fabaceae family were sown manually on 07/04 2021 on a 60 cm-wide strip in the under-vine area, as shown in Table 2

Table 2.

Species composition of treatment MIX.

Species	Variety	Seed rate kg · ha⁻¹	% share in mixture	Final seed rate kg · ha⁻¹
Trifolium repens L. f. silvestre	Luke	15	35	5.25
Lotus corniculatus L.	Leo	15	10	1.5
Medicago lupulina L.	Ekola	15	50	7.5
Anthyllis vulneraria L.	Pamír	15	5	0.75

Graphical evaluation of NDVI in different treatments. NDVI, normalized difference vegetation index.

Under-vine area covered by green vegetation (2022).

Ratio (2-year average) of selected plant groups coverage (Fabaceae, Poaceae, noxious weeds and the rest of dicotyledonous) per three evaluation terms.

Ordination diagram of CCA, describing the distribution of three categories of plant species and their coverage in the six different treatments (pseudo-F = 10.1, p = 0.002). CCA, canonical correlation analysis.

Botanical assessment of vegetation (A – number of species; B – number of families; C – number of Fabaceae; D – number of Poaceae; E – number of noxious weeds). LSD, least significant difference.

Table 3.

Species identification in different treatments.

Treatment	Predominant species in the vegetation cover
MECH	Bromus hordeaceus L., Convolvulus arvensis L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, Lolium perenne L., Setaria pumila, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Hordeum murinum L., Chenopodium album L.
HERB	Bromus hordeaceus L., Setaria verticilata (L.) P. Beauv., Lolium perenne L., Setaria pumila (Poir)Roem. et Schult., Convolvulus arvensis L., Portulaca oleracea L., Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv., Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop., Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., Amaranthus retroflexus L, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum.
TEX	Lolium perenne L., Convolvulus arvensis L., Bromus hordeaceus L.
MULCH	Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Convolvulus arvensis L., Bromus hordeaceus L., Amaranthus retroflexus L, Stellaria media (L.) Vill.
MONO	Lolium perenne L, Trifolium repens L., Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Setaria viridis (L.) P. Beauv., Chenopodium album L., Bromus hordeaceus L., Medicago lupulina L., Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, Convolvulus arvensis L., Setaria verticilata (L.) P. Beauv., Lotus corniculatus L.
MIX	Trifolium repens L., Lolium perenne L., Anthyllis vulneraria L., Medicago lupulina L., Lotus corniculatus L., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Bromus hordeaceus L., Chenopodium album, Setaria viridis, Setaria verticilata, Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum, Convolvulus arvensis L.

Table 4.

Selected yield and uvological parameters.

Year	Treatment	Number of bunches per vine (pcs)	Weight of bunches per vine (kg)	Bunch weight (g)	Berry weight (g)	Number of berries in a cluster (pcs)	Rachis weight (g)
2021	MECH	16.4 ± 1.5 abc	1.7 ± 0.1 a	103.0 ± 12.5 ab	1.7 ± 0.3 d	66.6 ± 13.7 a	4.0 ± 0.1 a
	HERB	19.8 ± 1.9 d	2.1 ± 0.1 bc	115.2 ± 8.3 ab	1.1 ± 0.1 abc	95.8 ± 6.8 cd	6.0 ± 0.7 b
	TEX	18.8 ± 0.8 cd	1.9 ± 0.04 ab	97 ± 6.3 a	1.4 ± 0.4 bc	76.4 ± 12.4 ab	4.1 ± 0.3 a
	MULCH	18.8 ± 2.5 cd	2 ± 0.2 ab	110.1 ± 4.3 ab	1.2 ± 0.4 abc	84 ± 18.9 bc	4.6 ± 0.1 a
	MONO	20.2 ± 1.8 d	2.4 ± 0.1 d	120.9 ± 3.7 ab	1.0 ± 0.2 ab	117.0 ± 3.1 e	6.3 ± 0.2 bc
	MIX	19.2 ± 3.1 d	2.3 ± 0.1 cd	119.2 ± 12.2 ab	1.1 ± 0.1 abc	107.0 ± 3.9 de	7.0 ± 0.1 c
2022	MECH	15.0 ± 2.3 a	1.8 ± 0.2 a	112.8 ± 7.3 ab	1.0 ± 0.1 a	121.6 ± 10.4 e	6.8 ± 0.5 bc
	HERB	15.2 ± 2.8 a	2.5 ± 0.3 d	162.6 ± 23.1 c	1.3 ± 0.2 abc	154.2 ± 12.5 f	6.8 ± 0.5 c
	TEX	16.0 ± 2.3 ab	2.3 ± 0.3 cd	139.5 ± 25.6 bc	1.0 ± 0.4 a	188.0 ± 14.6 h	9.2 ± 0.7 d
	MULCH	14.0 ± 0.7 a	2.5 ± 0.04 d	173.8 ± 45.3 c	1.4 ± 0.2 cd	161.0 ± 13.3 fg	9.4 ± 0.5 d
	MONO	19.8 ± 2.9 d	2.4 ± 0.3 d	122.3 ± 29.3 ab	1.0 ± 0.2 ab	117.0 ± 11.5 e	6.0 ± 0.5 b
	MIX	18.4 ± 1.8 bcd	3.2 ± 0.3 e	215.9 ± 84.2 d	1.4 ± 0.3 c	173.0 ± 16.3 gh	9.7 ± 1.8 d

1 Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, according to Fisher’s LSD test. LSD, least significant difference.

Table 5.

Analytical parameters of grapes.

Year	Treatment	YAN (mg · L⁻¹)	Sugar content (glucose + fructose) (g · L⁻¹)	Acid content (g · L⁻¹)	Malic acid (g · L⁻¹)	Tartaric acid (g · L⁻¹)	Citric acid (g · L⁻¹)	PH
2021	MECH	211.7 ±4.3 cd	240.6 ± 4.0 fg	7.2 ±0.1 c	3.6 ± 0.1g	7.6 ± 0.03 ef	0.25 ±0.01 f	3.5 ±0.03 be
	HERB	150.4 ± 3.5 b	243.7 ± 1.0 g	6.9 ± 0.7 c	3.1 ± 0.2 f	7.4 ± 0.5 de	0.18 ± 0.02 c	3.6 ±0.1 c
	TEX	221.8 ± 4.7 d	238.0 ± 2.9 fg	8.2 ± 0.2 d	3.7 ± 0.05 h	8.2 ± 0.01 h	0.22 ±0.01 de	3.5 ± 0.02 abc
	MULCH	344.4 ± 14.2 f	204.6 ±8.9 a	9.3 ± 0.7 e	5.9 ±0.1 k	8.3 ±0.1 h	0.24 ± 0.02 ef	3.4 ±0.1 a
	MONO	268.9 ± 2.0 e	207.8 ±3.1 ab	8.5 ± 0.4 d	4.8 ± 0.02 j	7.9 ± 0.01 fg	0.23 ± 0.01 def	3.5 ±0.01 abc
	MIX	278.7 ± 1.1 e	208.9 ± 2.3 ab	8.7 ± 0.2 d	4.3 ± 0.03 i	8.1 ±0.1 gh	0.21 ±0.01 d	3.4 ± 0.03 ab
2022	MECH	H9±l.8a	227.9 ± 1.8 de	4.2 ±0.1 ab	0.6 ± 0.04 a	7.5 ±0.04 de	0.10 ±0.01 a	3.8 ± 0.2 ef
	HERB	162.1 ± 5.4 b	221.06 ±3.4 cd	4.6 ± 0.4 ab	1.1 ± 0.03 c	6.7 ± 0.3 b	0.15 ± 0.01b	3.6 ±0.1 c
	TEX	152.4 ± 6.5 b	232.5 ± 10.2 ef	4.7 ±0.1 b	0.8 ±0.01 b	7.3 ± 0.01 cd	0.10 ±0.01 a	3.5 ±0.01 abc
	MULCH	218 ± 12.8 d	210.7 ± 2.0 ab	4.2 ± 0.02 a	1.7 ±0.01 e	7 ± 0.02 c	0.15 ± 0.01b	3.9 ± 0.02 f
	MONO	201 ± 4.6 c	216.1 ±3.0 be	4.2 ± 0.01 ab	0.8 ± 0.03 ab	7.5 ±0.02 de	0.10 ±0.01 a	3.6 ± 0.02 cd
	MIX	214.1 ± 11.4 d	220.9 ± 7.8 cd	4.7 ±0.1 ab	1.3 ± 0.02 d	6.3 ±0.1 a	0.11 ±0.01 a	3.7 ± 0.01 de

1 Values in each column followed by different letters are significantly different at p ≤ 0.05, according to Fisher’s LSD test. LSD, least significant difference; YAN, yeast assimilable nitrogen.

Supplementary Table 1.

Coverage rate of each plant species in six under-vine treatments during three evaluation terms (July, August and September) in years 2021 and 2022.

Family	Species	Category*	JULY 2021						AUGUST 2021						SEPTEMBER 2021
Family	Species	Category*	MECH	HERB	TEX	MULCH	MONO	MIX	MECH	HERB	TEX	MULCH	MONO	MIX	MECH	HERB	TEX	MULCH	MONO	MIX
Amaranthaceae	Amaranthus blitoides S. Watson	1
	Amaranthus retroflexus L.	2	10			7	15	4		2	1		15	20	4	3	1	3	10	7
	Atriplex patula L.	2
	Chenopodium album L.	3	6	1		2	6	5	1	1			15	15	4	1		3	15	10
	Chenopodium hybridum L.	2
Apiaceae	Daucus carota L.	2
Asteraceae	Artemisia vulgaris L.	3																1
	Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.	3	1			10	12					1	5		5			15	5
	Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.	2							1
	Crepis biennis L.	2
	Crepis tectorum L.	2
	Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.	3
	Senecio vulgaris L.	1													1	1		1
	Sonchus oleraceus L.	1																1
	Taraxacum officinale (L.) Weber ex F. H. Wigg.	3	5			5	3	7	1	1			4	2	4	1		1	1	4
	Tragopogon pratensis L.	2				1
	Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch.Bip.	3					1						2		1				1
Brassicaceae	Capsella bursa-pastoris L.	1	1				2	1		1				1	3	4		3
	Sinapis alba L.	1
	Thlaspi arvense L.	1
Caryophylaceae	Arenaria serpyllifolia L.	1	1				1						2
	Stellaria media (L.) Vill.	1	1															6
Convolvulaceae	Convolvulus arvensis L.	3	1			2		2	1	1	1	1	2	1	8	3	2	8	4
Fabaceae	Anthyllis vulneraria L.	1						5						10						10
	Lotus corniculatus L.	2						3						5						7
	Medicago lupulina L.	2	1					5	1				4	8		1			1	5
	Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.	1
	Trifolium pratense L.	1																		1
	Trifolium repens L.	1					10	40					8	40	1			3	20	70
	Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb.	1																	1
Geraniaceae	Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér.	2													1
	Geranium pusillum Brum. fil.	2	1				1	1							1				1
Lamiaceae	Lamium amplexicaule L.	1
	Lamium purpureum L.	1																1
Plantaginaceae	Plantago major L.	1											1
	Veronica polita Fries.	1			1								1
Poaceae	Bromus hordeaceus L.	2	2				3	6			1	1	2	3	10	11	3	18		5
	Bromus japonicus Thnub.	2
	Bromus tectorum L.	2
	Digitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop.	2								2				5	3	2	2			4
	Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.	2														1			1
	Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski	3													1
	Festuca rubra L.	2																	10
	Hordeum murinum L.	2												1
	Lolium perenne L.	2	3				3	4					3	3				3	6	6
	Panicum miliaceum L.	3
	Poa annua L.	1													1
	Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. et Schult.	2	6	1											4	5			55	15
	Setaria verticilata (L.) P. Beauv.	2							1	5			10	12	6	12		2	4
	Setaria viridis L.	2			1	1	8	4	2				12	10		4	1
Polygonaceae	Polygonum vulgare L.	2	5		1		3	3	1				2		2	2		1	7	4
Portulacaceae	Portulaca oleracea L.	2		1		1				4		1				8	1	3
Resedaceae	Reseda lutea L.	1
Rosaceae	Rosa canina L.	3
Solanaceae	Datura stramonium L.	3
	Solanum nigrum L.	2								1			1			1
Violaceae	Viola arvensis Murray	1
Amaranthaceae	Amaranthus blitoides S. Watson	1
	Amaranthus retroflexus L.	2							5			1				6		1
	Atriplex patula L.	2
	Chenopodium album L.	3					1						2	2					2
	Chenopodium hybridum L.	2
Apiaceae	Daucus carota L.	2																1
Asteraceae	Artemisia vulgaris L.	3
	Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop.	3	8	1	1	8	8	1				8	8	2		10	1	10		4
	Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.	2
	Crepis biennis L.	2
	Crepis tectorum L.	2
	Erigeron annuus (L.) Pers.	3
	Senecio vulgaris L.	1																1
	Sonchus oleraceus L.	1
	Taraxacum officinale (L.) Weber ex F. H. Wigg.	3	2	4		3	5	6					3		7	4			4	3
	Tragopogon pratensis L.	2
	Tripleurospermum inodorum (L.) Sch.Bip.	3	1				2						3
Brassicaceae	Capsella bursa-pastoris L.	1	1	1											1	3		3	2
	Sinapis alba L.	1
	Thlaspi arvense L.	1													3				1
Caryophylaceae	Arenaria serpyllifolia L.	1		1			2						2
	Stellaria media (L.) Vill.	1													2	7		6	1	2
Convolvulaceae	Convolvulus arvensis L.	3	5	4	2	5	3	2	1	1	4	4	7	4	4	8	2	3	1	7
Fabaceae	Anthyllis vulneraria L.	1						15						15					6
	Lotus corniculatus L.	2						8						11					12
	Medicago lupulina L.	2	3	2			10	25		2			3	7					7
	Onobrychis viciifolia Scop.	1												1
	Trifolium pratense L.	1
	Trifolium repens L.	1		1			45	20	1	3			10	6					10	10
	Vicia tetrasperma (L.) Schreb.	1					2								3		1			2
Geraniaceae	Erodium cicutarium (L.) L’Hér.	2							2
	Geranium pusillum Brum. fil.	2	2	3			1	1							1	1	1	2	1
Lamiaceae	Lamium amplexicaule L.	1														1		2	1
	Lamium purpureum L.	1
Plantaginaceae	Plantago major L.	1
	Veronica polita Fries.	1																	1
Poaceae	Bromus hordeaceus L.	2	15	10	3		15	10	2	2	2	1	4	1	12	12	1			2
	Bromus japonicus Thnub.	2			1					1	1
	Bromus sterilis L.	2
	Bromus tectorum L.	2		3			2	1							5
	Digitaria sanguinalis (L) Scop.	2		2					1	2						5			4
	Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv.	2	2	1	1		1		2	10
	Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski	3	4													4
	Festuca rubra L.	2
	Hordeum murinum L.	2	2	2			3	1							10		1
	Lolium perenne L.	2	8	4	3		20	13	4	5	6	3	55	35		15	4	3	40	55
	Panicum miliaceum L.	3		2
	Poa annua L.	1													1
	Setaria pumila (Poir.) Roem. et Schult.	2	5	4			1			10				2						6
	Setaria verticilata (L.) P. Beauv.	2	2	2						5	2					8	2		3	7
	Setaria viridis L.	2	1	2			1			8	2		2	2					7	4
Polygonaceae	Polygonum vulgare L.	2																	1	1
Portulacaceae	Portulaca oleracea L.	2								2
Resedaceae	Reseda lutea L.	1
Rosaceae	Rosa canina L.	3											1							1
Solanaceae	Datura stramonium L.	3
	Solanum nigrum L.	2
Violaceae	Viola arvensis Murray	1		2

1* Category: 1: non-dangerous weed; 2: dangerous weed; 3: highly dangerous weed.

References

Authors

Metrics

Articles in this issue

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fhort-2024-0015 | Journal eISSN: 2083-5965 | Journal ISSN: 0867-1761

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 235 - 257

Submitted on: Oct 28, 2023

Accepted on: Jun 14, 2024

Published on: Jul 22, 2024

Published by: Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

Keywords:

Fabaceae,

grape quality,

soil vegetation cover,

sustainable viticulture,

vine yield

Related subjects:

Life sciences,

Plant science

© 2024 Tomáš Kopta, Lucia Nedorost Ragasová, Radek Sotolář, Jozef Sedláček, Vojtěch Ferby, Erika Hurajová, Jan Winkler, published by Polish Society for Horticultural Sciences (PSHS)
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 36 (2024): Issue 2 (October 2024)

The influence of different methods of under-vine management on the structure of vegetation and the qualitative parameters of the grapes in the Moravian wine region

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Table 1.

Table 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Supplementary Table 1.

Paradigm

My account