Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T03:10:54.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Weed Management Practices on Grapevine Growth and Yield Components

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Paolo P. Sanguankeo ,
Ramon G. Leon  and
Julian Malone
Paolo P. Sanguankeo
Affiliation:
Horticulture and Crop Science Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Ramon G. Leon*
Affiliation:
EARTH University, Apartado 4442-1000, San Jose, Costa Rica
Julian Malone
Affiliation:
Central Coast Vineyard Team, Paso Robles, CA 93446
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The need for reducing costs and making grape production more sustainable has prompted the search for alternative weed control practices that optimize production while maintaining profits. For this reason, it is imperative to understand how different weed management practices modify vine–weed interactions. In the present study, we evaluated the effect on weed growth and Zinfandel grapevine growth and production of five weed control practices: (1) flumioxazin, (2) simazine, (3) cultivation, (4) cover crop, and (5) untreated control. The herbicide treatments had the lowest weed biomass, followed by the cultivation, being approximately 10 and 2 times lower than the weed biomass of either the cover crop or untreated control treatments, respectively. However, the differences in grape yield were not as evident. In 2006, a rainy year, the herbicides and cultivation treatments did not differ in grape yield, but the cover crop and untreated control had a reduction of approximately 20% compared with the other treatments. In 2007, a dry year, in comparison to the herbicide treatments, the grape yield reductions of cultivation were around 22%, and those of the cover crop and untreated control were around 48%. Although the cover crop reduced grape yield, it suppressed weed species considered important, such as horseweed, panicle willowherb, scarlet pimpernel, and sowthistle. Also, it was concluded that vines can tolerate a certain amount of weed competition, and that properly timed postemergence control actions (e.g., cultivation or POST herbicides) could provide the necessary level of control to obtain the desired yields. However, under limited soil moisture conditions, the use of PRE herbicides could prove important to maintain vine yield and vigor.

Keywords

Flumioxazinsimazinehorseweed, Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.panicle willowherb, Epilobium brachycarpum K. Presl.scarlet pimpernel, Anagallis arvensis L.sowthistle, Sonchus sp. L.grape, Vitis vinifera LWeed suppressioncover cropcompetitioncultivationweed communitydiversity
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2009 , pp. 103 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Aguilar, V., Staver, C., and Milberg, P. 2003. Weed vegetation response to chemical and manual selective ground cover management in a shaded coffee plantation. Weed Res. 43:68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, K., Steenwerth, K., and Veilleux, L. 2007. Effects of organic and conventional practices on weed control in a perennial cropping system. Weed Sci. 55:352–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Gunsolus, J. L., and Ralston, D. F. 1992. Integrated weed management techniques to reduce herbicide inputs in soybean. Agron. J. 84:973–978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, M. E. and Howell, G. S. 1978. Initial response of Baco noir grapevine to pruning severity, sucker removal, and weed control. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 29:192–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, X., Tang, J., Fang, Z., and Shimizu, K. 2004. Effects of weed communities with various species numbers on soil features in a subtropical orchard ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 102:377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cortazar, V. G., Cordova, C., and Pinto, M. 2005. Canopy structure and photosynthesis modeling of grapevines grown on an overhead trellis system in Chile. Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 11:328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hembree, K. J. and Lanini, W. T. 2006. Weeds. Grape UC IPM Pest Management Guidelines. Davis, CA: University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources No. 3448. 90–108.Google Scholar
Ingels, C. 1992. Technical brief: sustainable agriculture and grape production. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 43:296–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingels, C. A., Scow, K. M., Whisson, D. A., and Drenovsky, R. E. 2005. Effects of cover crops on grapevines, yield, juice composition, soil microbial ecology, and gopher activity. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56:19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krohn, N. G. and Ferree, D. C. 2005. Effects of low-growing perennial ornamental groundcovers on the growth and fruiting of ‘Seyval blanc’ grapevines. Hortscience. 40:561–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, A. and Lopes, C. M. 2007. Influence of cover crop on water use and performance of vineyard in Mediterranean Portugal. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 121:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinmaus, S., Elmore, C. L., Smith, R. J., Donaldson, D., Weber, E. A., Roncoroni, J. A., and Miller, P. R. M. 2008. Mulched cover crops as an alternative to conventional weed management systems in vineyards. Weed Res. 48:273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troiano, J. and Garretson, C. 1998. Movement of simazine in runoff water from citrus orchard row middle as affected by mechanical incorporation. J. Environ. Qual. 27:488–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wade, J., Holzapfel, B., Degaris, K., Williams, D., and Keller, M. 2004. Nitrogen and water management strategies for wine-grape quality. Acta Hortic. 640:61–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar