Scholarlink

<p>As the degradation of agricultural soils and loss of biodiversity are becoming more widespread in response to intensive agricultural practices, the strategic management of vineyards for resilient and balanced production is of utmost relevance. The choice and intensity (e.g., frequency, depth, and/or stocking rate) of vineyard floor management practices determine how soil, water, and weed management are carried out, directly influencing vineyard soil functionality and biodiversity. Grower motivations and challenges in adopting specific practices remain poorly understood, especially across diverse landscapes with varying environments and production goals. This study aimed to explore differences in vineyard floor management across Australia, where soil and water conservation, along with weed and biodiversity management, are key production concerns. An online survey collected information from 199 growers across Australia, who were divided into three comparative groups based on their under-vine management practices: Cultural (no herbicide use), Herbicide, and Hybrid (combination of herbicides and&#xa0;tillage). Vineyard floor management intensity ratings were assigned to each grower based on the types and frequencies of practices they indicated. The Cultural group consisted of growers managing&#xa0;vineyards that were 83% smaller in size, had 32% lower management intensity ratings, used fewer inputs, and were more strongly motivated by goals of improving soil health and enhancing terroir expression compared to the other two groups. For the Herbicide and Hybrid groups, grapevine yield was a stronger motivation, while suppressing weeds was one of the main challenges reported. This&#xa0;indicates that alternatives to the widespread practice&#xa0;of using herbicides are of primary interest. In addition, for the first time, this study emphasized that vineyard floor management intensity rating was a significant driver in growers’ perceptions of sustainability and biodiversity, as those with&#xa0;lower intensity&#xa0;management perceived higher sustainability parameters. We therefore suggest that the future structuring of research and extension services should focus on reducing the intensity of vineyard floor management practices across Australia.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Grower motivations, challenges, and perceptions of sustainability for vineyard floor management in Australia

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月7日

查看全文
  • Merek M. Kesser,
  • Timothy R. Cavagnaro,
  • Roberta De Bei,
  • Cassandra Collins

摘要

As the degradation of agricultural soils and loss of biodiversity are becoming more widespread in response to intensive agricultural practices, the strategic management of vineyards for resilient and balanced production is of utmost relevance. The choice and intensity (e.g., frequency, depth, and/or stocking rate) of vineyard floor management practices determine how soil, water, and weed management are carried out, directly influencing vineyard soil functionality and biodiversity. Grower motivations and challenges in adopting specific practices remain poorly understood, especially across diverse landscapes with varying environments and production goals. This study aimed to explore differences in vineyard floor management across Australia, where soil and water conservation, along with weed and biodiversity management, are key production concerns. An online survey collected information from 199 growers across Australia, who were divided into three comparative groups based on their under-vine management practices: Cultural (no herbicide use), Herbicide, and Hybrid (combination of herbicides and tillage). Vineyard floor management intensity ratings were assigned to each grower based on the types and frequencies of practices they indicated. The Cultural group consisted of growers managing vineyards that were 83% smaller in size, had 32% lower management intensity ratings, used fewer inputs, and were more strongly motivated by goals of improving soil health and enhancing terroir expression compared to the other two groups. For the Herbicide and Hybrid groups, grapevine yield was a stronger motivation, while suppressing weeds was one of the main challenges reported. This indicates that alternatives to the widespread practice of using herbicides are of primary interest. In addition, for the first time, this study emphasized that vineyard floor management intensity rating was a significant driver in growers’ perceptions of sustainability and biodiversity, as those with lower intensity management perceived higher sustainability parameters. We therefore suggest that the future structuring of research and extension services should focus on reducing the intensity of vineyard floor management practices across Australia.