Details of green cover in a vineyard with rows oriented up and down the slope (Nicole Güdel (Berne, Switzerland))

Green cover in vineyards (Switzerland)

Begrünung von Rebflächen (im Direktzug / in der Falllinie bewirtschaftet)

Description

Naturally growing or sown perennial grasses/herbs providing cover
between rows in sloping vineyards, where the vines are usually oriented up and down slope.

The area around Lake Biel has a strong wine growing tradition dating back several centuries. The vineyards are, for micro-climatic reasons, sited on the southwest facing slope close to the lake. Annual rainfall is about 1,000 mm, with at least one erosive storm per year, and the soils are highly erodible. In conventional viniculture all weeds are controlled chemically. The ‘green cover technology’ comprises sown, or naturally occurring, perennial grasses and herbs which form a biodiverse green cover - a ‘living mulch’ - over the soil surface between vine rows. In this region, rows are generally oriented up and down the slope for ease of machine operation. Green cover may also be applied where vines are grown on narrow bench terraces. The purpose is the prevention of soil degradation, especially soil erosion by water. Secondary purposes include protection of the soil surface from compaction when using mechanised equipment, and promotion of biodiversity.
Green cover is generally established naturally - except on contour-planted terraced vineyards, where cover is planted for immediate stabilisation of the terraces. To avoid competition, a 10-40 cm diameter zone around the freshly planted vines is kept free from vegetation: during the three year establishment period it is removed by hoe, later it is controlled with herbicides (either as a strip along vine rows or around individual vines). The topsoil between the vine rows is ripped every few years with an implement pulled by a small caterpillar tractor. The green cover vegetation is cut, chopped and left as mulch several times using special mulching machines. These operations are not carried out over the whole field at once: alternate rows are left untouched to ensure that some vegetation remains to maintain biodiversity. When these rows redevelop their green cover, the others are then treated. This is effectively a minimum tillage system, building up organic matter in the soil. Cutting and mulching, in addition to ripping, serves to circulate nutrients. Mineral fertilizer and herbicides are applied once a year around the vines. Experiments with the technology started in the 1970s, but green cover has now become standard practice.
Supportive measures include not removing crop residues (from vineyards) which are chopped later - simultaneously with the cover crop (grass) - to protect the soil surface, and irrigation in dry years.

Location

Location: Lake of Biel, Canton of Berne, Switzerland

No. of Technology sites analysed:

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 7.1354, 47.0865

Spread of the Technology:

In a permanently protected area?:

Date of implementation: less than 10 years ago (recently)

Type of introduction
Details of green cover in a vineyard with rows oriented up and down the slope (Nicole Güdel (Berne, Switzerland))
Details of a vineyard: every second row freshly ripped, leaving rich plant diversity in the rows between - which supplies pollen for beneficial insects. (Nicole Güdel (Berne, Switzerland))

Classification of the Technology

Main purpose
  • improve production
  • reduce, prevent, restore land degradation
  • conserve ecosystem
  • protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
  • preserve/ improve biodiversity
  • reduce risk of disasters
  • adapt to climate change/ extremes and its impacts
  • mitigate climate change and its impacts
  • create beneficial economic impact
  • create beneficial social impact
Land use

  • Cropland
    • Perennial (non-woody) cropping
    • Tree and shrub cropping: grapes
    Number of growing seasons per year: 1

Water supply
  • rainfed
  • mixed rainfed-irrigated
  • full irrigation

Purpose related to land degradation
  • prevent land degradation
  • reduce land degradation
  • restore/ rehabilitate severely degraded land
  • adapt to land degradation
  • not applicable
Degradation addressed
  • soil erosion by water - Wt: loss of topsoil/ surface erosion, Wo: offsite degradation effects
  • chemical soil deterioration - Cn: fertility decline and reduced organic matter content (not caused by erosion), Cp: soil pollution
  • physical soil deterioration - Pc: compaction, Pk: slaking and crusting
SLM group
  • improved ground/ vegetation cover
  • cross-slope measure
SLM measures
  • agronomic measures - A7: Others
  • vegetative measures - V5: Others

Technical drawing

Technical specifications
Technical drawing of green cover on parcel with vine rows oriented up and down the slope. A = distance between vine rows (130-220 cm), B = zone of application of herbicides (10-40 cm).

Location: Twann, Lake of Biel. Canton of Berne

Date: June 2003

Technical knowledge required for field staff / advisors: moderate

Technical knowledge required for land users: moderate

Main technical functions: control of raindrop splash, control of dispersed runoff: retain / trap, improvement of ground cover, improvement of soil structure

Secondary technical functions: increase of surface roughness, increase in organic matter, increase of infiltration, increase / maintain water stored in soil, increase in soil fertility

Mulching
Material/ species: cut or chopped cover vegetation
Remarks: dispersed over the whole surface; if possible cutting/chopping only every second row (alternating)

Agronomic measure: removing less vegetation cover
Material/ species: cut or chopped cover vegetation, vine leaves and cut branches
Remarks: between vine rows

Manure / compost / residues
Material/ species: compost
Remarks: only sporadically (every 5-10 year or less)

Mineral (inorganic) fertilizers
Material/ species: nitrogen
Quantity/ density: 0-50 kg/ha
Remarks: normally rather little nitrogen

Agronomic measure: mineral (inorganic) fertilizers: potassium
Quantity/ density: 0-20 kg

Agronomic measure: mineral (inorganic) fertilizers: magnesium
Quantity/ density: 0-25 kg

Agronomic measure: mineral (inorganic) fertilizers: phosphorus
Quantity/ density: 0-20 kg

Breaking compacted topsoil
Remarks: if possible: only every second row (alternating)

Scattered / dispersed
Vegetative material: G : grass

Grass species: different grass species, taraxacum, veronica, legumes, calystegia, geranium...
Author: Nicole Güdel, Berne, Switzerland

Establishment and maintenance: activities, inputs and costs

Calculation of inputs and costs
  • Costs are calculated:
  • Currency used for cost calculation: Swiss Franc
  • Exchange rate (to USD): 1 USD = 0.75 Swiss Franc
  • Average wage cost of hired labour per day: n.a
Most important factors affecting the costs
Labour is the major cost component, since wage levels are very high in Switzerland.
Establishment activities
  1. Allow natural cover to establish. (Timing/ frequency: winter/spring, usually at the same time as a new plantation is established)
  2. Weeding around base of vines to reduce competition, 2–4 times during (Timing/ frequency: during season (Mai – October), 2 - 4 times, when necessary.)
Establishment inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Swiss Franc) Total costs per input (Swiss Franc) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 13800.0 13800.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use ha 1.0 1000.0 1000.0 100.0
Tools ha 1.0 100.0
Plant material
Seeds of natural vegetation ha 1.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer ha 1.0 200.0 200.0 100.0
Biocides ha 1.0 100.0
Compost/manure ha 1.0 100.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology 15'000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD 20'000.0
Maintenance activities
  1. cuting and not removing vine leaves and branches (Timing/ frequency: winter / annual)
  2. Apply mineral fertilizer to the vines (particularly K, N, P, Mg) (Timing/ frequency: April/May / annual)
  3. Cut cover vegetation with a portable motor scythe or mower with (Timing/ frequency: during cropping season (first time April/May) / each row 2-4 times during cropping season)
  4. cuting and not removing vine leaves and branches (Timing/ frequency: during cropping season / several times during cropping season)
  5. Minimum tillage (rip topsoil) of alternating inter-rows with machine (Timing/ frequency: April/May / each row every 4-8 years)
  6. Application of herbicides (glyphosates) (Timing/ frequency: beginning of season (May), if necessary second time in Aug./Sept /once (if necessary twice) during s)
  7. Cut/chop vine leaves and wood for mulching (Timing/ frequency: during growing season, 2-4 times)
Maintenance inputs and costs
Specify input Unit Quantity Costs per Unit (Swiss Franc) Total costs per input (Swiss Franc) % of costs borne by land users
Labour
Labour ha 1.0 1500.0 1500.0 100.0
Equipment
Machine use ha 1.0 650.0 650.0 100.0
Tools ha 1.0 100.0
Fertilizers and biocides
Fertilizer ha 1.0 60.0 60.0 100.0
Biocides ha 1.0 90.0 90.0 100.0
Compost/manure ha 1.0 100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology 2'300.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD 3'066.67

Natural environment

Average annual rainfall
  • < 250 mm
  • 251-500 mm
  • 501-750 mm
  • 751-1,000 mm
  • 1,001-1,500 mm
  • 1,501-2,000 mm
  • 2,001-3,000 mm
  • 3,001-4,000 mm
  • > 4,000 mm
Agro-climatic zone
  • humid
  • sub-humid
  • semi-arid
  • arid
Specifications on climate
Average: Biel: 1200 mm. Region of Bielersee: 1000 - 1200 mm. Neuchâtel: 930 mm.
Thermal climate class: temperate
Slope
  • flat (0-2%)
  • gentle (3-5%)
  • moderate (6-10%)
  • rolling (11-15%)
  • hilly (16-30%)
  • steep (31-60%)
  • very steep (>60%)
Landforms
  • plateau/plains
  • ridges
  • mountain slopes
  • hill slopes
  • footslopes
  • valley floors
Altitude
  • 0-100 m a.s.l.
  • 101-500 m a.s.l.
  • 501-1,000 m a.s.l.
  • 1,001-1,500 m a.s.l.
  • 1,501-2,000 m a.s.l.
  • 2,001-2,500 m a.s.l.
  • 2,501-3,000 m a.s.l.
  • 3,001-4,000 m a.s.l.
  • > 4,000 m a.s.l.
Technology is applied in
  • convex situations
  • concave situations
  • not relevant
Soil depth
  • very shallow (0-20 cm)
  • shallow (21-50 cm)
  • moderately deep (51-80 cm)
  • deep (81-120 cm)
  • very deep (> 120 cm)
Soil texture (topsoil)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Soil texture (> 20 cm below surface)
  • coarse/ light (sandy)
  • medium (loamy, silty)
  • fine/ heavy (clay)
Topsoil organic matter content
  • high (>3%)
  • medium (1-3%)
  • low (<1%)
Groundwater table
  • on surface
  • < 5 m
  • 5-50 m
  • > 50 m
Availability of surface water
  • excess
  • good
  • medium
  • poor/ none
Water quality (untreated)
  • good drinking water
  • poor drinking water (treatment required)
  • for agricultural use only (irrigation)
  • unusable
Is salinity a problem?
  • Yes
  • No

Occurrence of flooding
  • Yes
  • No
Species diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low
Habitat diversity
  • high
  • medium
  • low

Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Market orientation
  • subsistence (self-supply)
  • mixed (subsistence/ commercial)
  • commercial/ market
Off-farm income
  • less than 10% of all income
  • 10-50% of all income
  • > 50% of all income
Relative level of wealth
  • very poor
  • poor
  • average
  • rich
  • very rich
Level of mechanization
  • manual work
  • animal traction
  • mechanized/ motorized
Sedentary or nomadic
  • Sedentary
  • Semi-nomadic
  • Nomadic
Individuals or groups
  • individual/ household
  • groups/ community
  • cooperative
  • employee (company, government)
Gender
  • women
  • men
Age
  • children
  • youth
  • middle-aged
  • elderly
Area used per household
  • < 0.5 ha
  • 0.5-1 ha
  • 1-2 ha
  • 2-5 ha
  • 5-15 ha
  • 15-50 ha
  • 50-100 ha
  • 100-500 ha
  • 500-1,000 ha
  • 1,000-10,000 ha
  • > 10,000 ha
Scale
  • small-scale
  • medium-scale
  • large-scale
Land ownership
  • state
  • company
  • communal/ village
  • group
  • individual, not titled
  • individual, titled
Land use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Water use rights
  • open access (unorganized)
  • communal (organized)
  • leased
  • individual
Access to services and infrastructure

Impacts

Socio-economic impacts
Crop production
decreased
increased


10–20% due to competition for water/nutrients

crop quality
decreased
increased


Quality of wine decreased when strong competition of water and nutrients happens and nothing is done against it.

risk of production failure
increased
decreased


Due to competition of water and nutrients and higher susceptibility to fungal decay (due to higher evapotranspiration rate with green cover and therefore humid microclimatic conditions). Little danger of frost only in depressions or plains (due to higher evapotranspiration rate)

farm income
decreased
increased


(Indirectly due to less erosion damage in the long-term – also due to subsidies related to green cover,marketing under the label of ‘ecological agricultural production’, and other criteria)

workload
increased
decreased


More and specific knowledge necessary. Weeing, cutting, ripping

Machine use
increased
decreased


Special machines needed, mechanisation is almost a must to be economically successful in the long term

Socio-cultural impacts
health situation
worsened
improved


Healthier than without SWC, less application of biocides

community institutions
weakened
strengthened


Increased exchange of knowledge and contacts in winegrowers society

national institutions
weakened
strengthened


Research stations gained new knowledge and attention

conflict mitigation
worsened
improved


Between generations or between farmers applying green cover and others. Reason: farmers are differently attached to traditional values and norms (i.e.: traditionally every plant 'out-of-place' was seen as unuseful weed and fought with a hoe)

Personal satisfaction / challenge
decreased
increased


Many farmers apply green cover see green cover as a personal satisfaction or challenge for an ecologically and economically sustainable viticulture

Acceptance by society
Low
High


Landscape and appearance of vineyard as cultural heritage. Reason: different values an norms of "how a vineyard should look like". Traditionally vines were planted very dense with no vegetation cover in between.

Ecological impacts
soil moisture
decreased
increased


Especially through improved water retention capacity (due to improved soil structure)

soil cover
reduced
improved

soil loss
increased
decreased

soil compaction
increased
reduced

invasive alien species
increased
reduced


Especially mice

pest/ disease control
decreased
increased


Through beneficial animals

Soil fertility
decreased
increased

Biodiversity
decreased
increased

Soil erosion through wind
decreased
increased

Off-site impacts
downstream flooding (undesired)
increased
reduced

downstream siltation
increased
decreased


And groundwater

groundwater/ river pollution
increased
reduced

wind transported sediments
increased
reduced

Cost-benefit analysis

Benefits compared with establishment costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Benefits compared with maintenance costs
Short-term returns
very negative
very positive

Long-term returns
very negative
very positive

Climate change

-

Adoption and adaptation

Percentage of land users in the area who have adopted the Technology
  • single cases/ experimental
  • 1-10%
  • 11-50%
  • > 50%
Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many have done so without receiving material incentives?
  • 0-10%
  • 11-50%
  • 51-90%
  • 91-100%
Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?
  • Yes
  • No
To which changing conditions?
  • climatic change/ extremes
  • changing markets
  • labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Personal satisfaction/challenge for ecologically and economically sustainable viniculture

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Promote ecologically sustainable agriculture.
  • Increased exchange of knowledge and contacts in winegrowers’ associations

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Sustain/strengthen farmers’ institutions.
  • Improved knowledge/awareness regarding SWC/erosion: among winegrowers, but perhaps also to some extent among consumers (through ecological marketing) or walkers passing by.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Prevention of erosion

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Maintain green cover
  • Improvement of soil quality (fertility, organic matter, moisture retention, soil structure)

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Ensure that cover vegetation doesn’t compete with the vines; improve soil properties by applying mentioned agronomic measures.
  • Contribution to a better balanced and more stable ecosystem (with living space for a wider range of organisms)

    How can they be sustained / enhanced? Specific management of cover crops (alternating treatment of inter-rows; find solutions to replace application of herbicide).
  • In the long-term economically beneficial because of cutting costs of restoration of soils and fertility loss after heavy erosion events.
  • Possibilities of farm income increase through marketing wine under the ‘vinatura’ label, certifying ecologically produced wine.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • General competition of water and nutrients depending on climate, soil depth and species of cover vegetation Eliminate/reduce competitive effect of cover vegetation by cutting/mulching vegetation or ripping/ploughing soil.
  • Application of herbicides around vines because of undesirable vegetation in proximity of vine Find alternative solutions, or minimise application of herbicides.

References

Compiler
  • Nicole Guedel
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
  • Deborah Niggli
  • Alexandra Gavilano
Date of documentation: March 16, 2011
Last update: Aug. 1, 2019
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International