weed suppressive cropping systems
TRANSCRIPT
Vineyard design and weed suppression: an example with black nightshade (Solanum nigrum)
Matthew FidelibusExtension Specialist
Department of Viticulture and EnologyUniversity of California, Davis
Challenges to Weed Control in San Joaquin Valley (SJV) Vineyards
• Economic: Profit margins are slim and the ‘cost’ of weeds in mature vineyards is uncertain
• Environmental: – Air and water pollution are major problems in the SJV– Regulation of dust emissions may curtail mechanical
controls. – Herbicide use restricted in some SJV vineyards to protect
groundwater• Biological: Many weed species are resistant to
common herbicides
Weed control a low priority in some raisin vineyards
Photo courtesy of Kurt Hembree, UCCE
Dust emissions from vehicles, equipment and windare regulated
Herbicide resistant horseweed discovered in SJV, 2005
Photo courtesy of Anil Shrestha, CSUF
New production concepts present opportunities to reassess vineyard design which could affect the ecology of vineyard weeds
OBJECTIVES:Determine whether row orientation of open gable DOV trellis system affects the light environment of
weeds growing in the rows.
If so, could such differences potentially help manage weeds?
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3-4 leaf black nightshade (Solanum nigrum) plants were transplanted into 9-l pots
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Pots placed beneath the canopy of raisin grapes in rows orientedEast-West (E-W) or North-South (N-S) in April
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Quantity and quality of light available to weeds measured weekly 3-times a day (9 AM, 12 PM, 3 PM).
Photosynthesis and water use of weeds were also measured.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Weeds were harvested 2 months after planting and separated into: roots, stems, leaves and berries
Leaf area was measured and each plant part was dried and weighed
SEASONAL SHADOW PATTERNS IN THE VINEYARD
East-West North-South
9 AM
12 PM
4 PM
PAR 12 PM
0
400
800
1200
1600
PAR 4 PM
Date
0
400
800
1200
1600
PAR 9 AM
PA
R ( m
ol m
- 2 s
-1) 0
400
800
1200
1600NS EW
5/9 5/27 6/24
0
10
20
30
40
50
Time of day (hrs)
Ligh
t lev
el (%
of f
ull s
un)
N-S
E-W
Typical light under the grape canopy zones of the N-S and E-W rows
DAILY LIGHT MICROENVIRONMENTS
Row orientation
9 AM 12 PM 4 PM
EW 0.26 0.24 0.24
NS 0.87 0.24 0.82
P-value 0.005 0.81 0.009
Red: Far Red ratio
2004
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
EWNS
2003
PAR (mol m -2 sec-1)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Photosynthesis (
m
ol CO
2 m
-2 s
-1)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nightshades Need About 30% Full Sun for Optimal Photosynthesis
Clear effects on morphology, but not in shoot mass
N-S E-WFull sun
Leaf characteristics of nightshade
E-W N-S
Larger, thinner leaves in E-W compared to N-S;This might make them more susceptible to herbicides
Nightshade rootsFull sun N-S E-W
Root mass and R:S ratio declined with shade; full sun > NS > EW
Leaf (33%)
Stem(34%)
Fruit(18%)
Root(14%) Leaf
(27%)
Stem(31%)
Fruit(24%)
Root(17%)
E-W N-S
Row Orientation Affected How the Weeds Used their Resources
Weeds in EW were light deficient; they invested more in leaves and stems, and less in fruits and roots than weeds in NS
Seed return of nightshade
Row orientation
Berries (No.)
Seeds/berry (No.)
Seeds/plant (No.)
EW 155 47 7151
NS 184 51 8976
P-value .07 .004 .03
CONCLUSIONS
• Row direction affected light environment of weeds in this trellis and spacing system
• The growth and productivity of weeds was dependant on their to the light environments; weeds in EW rows produced 20% fewer seeds than weeds in NS rows
• An integrated approach to vineyard design can provide one of the “many little hammers” needed to help manage weeds
Acknowledgements
Dr. Anil Shrestha Kimberley CathlineJorge Osorio Aguilar