THE EFFECT OF COMPLETE VINEYARD FLOOR GROUND COVERS AND ROOT PRUNING ON CABERNET SAUVIGNON

Abstract

Complete vineyard floor cover cropping and root pruning (RP) were evaluated for their ability to regulate excessive vegetative growth and improve berry and wine composition of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (Vitis vinifera L.). Treatments were: tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Shreb.) ‘KY-31’ and ‘Elite II’, hard fescue (Festuca ovina L.) ‘Aurora Gold’, perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.), orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata L.), and an under-trellis herbicide strip combined with KY-31fescue interrows. Compared to herbicide strip/non-root pruned (NRP), Elite II fescue reduced vine pruning weight (kg/vine) 28%, individual cane weight (g) 20%, and canopy leaf layer number 25%. KY-31 fescue/RP lowered vine pruning weights 29% compared to an 8% reduction in pruning weights of vines grown in herbicide strip/NRP plots from 2005 to 2010. KY-31 fescue produced the greatest biomass and stand density. With the exception of a yield reduction in vines grown with KY-31 fescue in 2006, cover crops minimally decreased grape yield. Yearly climatic variation had a greater effect on berry weight and composition (pH, TSS, TA) than did treatments. Limited treatment differences detected in chemical compounds by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis in wines made from treatment vines in 2010 were correlated to descriptive sensory terms. Cover crop water use, as evapotranspiration, determined by mini-lysimeter (ML), ranged from 3.28 mm/d for KY-31 fescue to 1.52 mm/d for herbicide-treated plots. In 2008, root biomass of vines grown on KY-31 fescue/RP was increased at the 60 to 80 and 80 to 100 cm soil depths compared to root biomass of KY-31 fescue/NRP vines at those depths. Cover crops minimally impacted vine water potential (ΨPD, Ψmd, Ψstem) and grapevine nitrogen levels relative to the herbicide strip, indicating that the grasses were not overly competitive with grapevines. Root pruning and complete vineyard floor cover crops favorably reduced grapevine vegetative growth, although treatment effects diminished over time, possibly in response to redistribution of grapevines’ roots and climatic variation at the site.