Next Article in Journal
Just Transition or Just Transitioning? Potentials and Limitations of Urban Growers’ Adaptations to the Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Industry Clusters on the Performance of High Technology Small and Middle Size Enterprises
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 12
10.3390/su15129339
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sustainable Viticulture in the Valdepeñas Protected Designation of Origin: From Soil Quality to Management in Vitis vinifera

by
Francisco Jesús García-Navarro
1,*,
Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta
2,
Jesús Antonio López Perales
1,
Caridad Perez
1,
Jose Angel Amorós
1 and
Sandra Bravo
1
1
High Technical School Agricultural Engineers of Ciudad Real, University of Castilla-La Mancha, 13071 Ciudad Real, Spain
2
Department of Geology and Geochemistry, Autónoma University of Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(12), 9339; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129339
Submission received: 17 February 2023 / Revised: 1 June 2023 / Accepted: 2 June 2023 / Published: 9 June 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Historically, the productivity–quality dualism has been fundamentally oriented toward productivity in Castilla-La Mancha (Spain), and more specifically, in the Valdepeñas Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). Today this trend is balanced and involves another factor: the environment. From this perspective, soil quality conservation and enhancement is one of the major sustainable viticulture goals today. This study explores soil characteristics and identifies the diversity in soils in the study area for vineyard production in the terroir context, synthesizing old and new trends in applying vineyard cultivation techniques in relation to their sustainability and identifying knowledge gaps in the management of novel practices to improve soil productivity and grape quality. The effects of integrated, organic, and traditional biodynamic management are discussed. The main conclusion is that a careful retrospective analysis of the grape-growing techniques that have dominated in the past century (soil cultivation, fertilization, etc.) is not unfavorable from a sustainability point of view. The study outlines and emphasizes that, despite the suitability of soils, it is necessary to evolve with new methodologies, but without forgetting ancestral techniques.

1. Introduction

Today, in many world regions, viticulture defines our modern lives, but it is often disruptive of natural ecosystems, mainly when practiced as an extensive monoculture, because the cover and quality of natural or seminatural habitats are reduced. Winegrowers must be aware of the negative impact on landscape esthetics and the associated biodiversity [1] in such way that conservative soil management techniques (compared to conventional tillage) play an important role in saving soil fertility and maintaining the vegetative–productive balance and environment’s health. For this reason, today, there is concern about knowing the long-term adaptation strategies to strike a balance between vines and the surrounding environment. The final focus should lie in adequate soil management in vineyards.
In addition to fertilizing, conventional soil management practices include three to four mechanical tillages per year for weed control purposes or phytosanitary product applications [2]. In viticulture, as in other forms of agriculture, pesticides are used to control weeds, diseases, and insects, with consequent environmental effects [3,4]. In contrast, conservative soil management (i.e., zero or minimum tillage and cover crops) lowers erosion rates and moisture losses, and increases organic matter (OM) content [5]; in the last case, there is a positive effect on yield and fruit quality traits [3]. Furthermore, conservative soil management generates beneficial effects on root growth, which results in improved soil volume explored by plants [5].
Nevertheless, the word “sustainability” has many definitions because it involves economic principles, ecological principles, and even aspects of human resources, which imply uncertainties [6]. In fact, quality and sustainability are both socially constructed and ambiguous terms. Some authors [7] distinguish between green and green-green businesses and, thus, some regions are “greener” than others.
It is generally accepted that sustainable practices can help mitigate the environmental impact of wine production [8]. The wine sector has become more aware of the sustainability concept [9,10,11]. Therefore, to implement sustainable winemaking crops, especially on local and regional scales, must be addressed. However, as is known, to implement sustainable practices, significant investment in new equipment, technology, or personnel is required [12].
Mediterranean regions, with hot dry summers and cool rainy winters, are some of the world’s most important grape- and wine-producing areas [9]. In 2021, the vineyard soil surface area used for worldwide viticulture covered 7.3 mha (according to the OIV International Organization of Vine and Wine [13]). In the European Union (EU), it has generally stabilized in recent years (covering 3.3 mha). In 2021, it accounted for 964 kha in Spain, which is about 15.6% of the world’s wine-growing area and 27.4% of that of Europe, and is a 0.4% increase compared to 2020 [9,13].
In 2022 in Spain, Castilla-La Mancha (CLM), the largest vineyard in the world, covered 440,032 ha [14], which represents 48.1% of the Spanish wine-growing area [15]. In the 1950s, most of the produced wine was sold in bulk to large wine-producing companies at low prices. Times, however, are changing, and today, there are numerous prestigious wineries in CLM. Thus, in terms of production as well as quality, CLM has a high capacity to respond to market demands.
In CLM, approximately 1 million people (around 45%) live in rural areas and depend almost exclusively on income from the agri-food sector and the companies associated with this sector. Thus, agriculture is a pillar of this region’s economic development, representing around 24.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP) [16]. However, this sector is beset by several anthropogenic and natural factors that negatively affect its productivity. As CLM stands out as a wine-growing region worldwide, it is necessary to address some of these anthropogenic and natural factors.
Sustainable viticulture should aim to produce high-quality vines and wine, respect people and the environment, and ensure long-term economic benefits from vines and wine. The Valdepeñas PDO, located in CLM, probably does not occupy a leading position in the most sustainable agricultural producing regions, but its management is very traditional and likely sustainable (Figure 1). Environmental sustainability is becoming more widespread in winemaking, and Valdepeñas PDO wineries in particular are already ahead of the curve. Perhaps farmers have been unaware that their management model has not been emphasized in communication with clients. In fact, one might wonder if the farmers of this region have been strictly concerned about sustainability.
Given the recent increase in wine production quality and intensification, soil management will become increasingly important in forthcoming years. Managing soils’ sustainably will be a challenge. Thus, today, sustainability plays a key role in viticulture, as highlighted by the publication of many articles and the attention paid to it on several levels by the academy, institutions, and associations. Everything related to viticulture is engaged in sustainability, which has motivated winemakers to wonder which sustainable practices are the best. In this context, the questions that we consider are: Under what conditions does sustainability currently occur and what was it like before in the Valdepeñas PDO? Are they so different? What measures must be implemented in this extensive wine-growing area?
The way to assess soil quality and suitability for vineyard use is to identify the characteristics of the soil type. Soil type provides us with information about the morphological, physical, and chemical characteristics and mineral content. As a medium for growing vines, soil is one of the important factors for assessing the sustainability of viticulture. Different soil types impact the distinct management improvements that can be made [17].
Very little information exists on traditional, current, and future soil management and uses in the Valdepeñas PDO viticultural context. In this article, we show the main characteristics of Valdepeñas soils and the traditional handling method that led to the current one. We focus on using OM applications, a widespread practice applied to vineyard soils since ancient times. One way to contribute to more sustainable vineyard management is to make use of organic farming, that is, the use of natural fertilizers and pest management techniques, in order to help improve soil health, reduce erosion, and enhance biodiversity [18]. In addition, traditionally, the inter-rows of vineyards were kept free of vegetation with the use of herbicides and tillage; however, today, the opposite is thought, since both practices may have detrimental effects on environmental soil quality and the ecosystem [19,20,21,22]. In fact, cover-cropping and no-tillage methods improve soil health in an arid irrigated cropping system in California’s San Joaquin valley, USA [23]. Therefore, the main objectives of this work are to: (1) explore soil characteristics and identify the diversity in soils in the study area for vineyard production in the terroir context; (2) synthesize old and new trends in applying vineyard cultivation techniques in relation to their sustainability; and (3) identify knowledge gaps in the management of novel practices to improve soil productivity and grape quality.

2. Materials and Methods

The study site, Valdepeñas PDO, is found in CLM (Figure 1). It is the third largest Spanish region, with a surface area of 79,409 km2, which represents 15.7% of Spanish territory, and it lies in the heart of the Iberian Peninsula.
In a comprehensive in-depth analysis of soil characteristics and correct soil sampling, prior to appropriate pedological excavation with a machine, composite soil samples were taken at different soil depths on each soil horizon following the morphological criteria. Ten soil profiles were selected for this article (Table 1).
The soil data used to evaluate the soil characteristics in the study area were obtained from field identifications and a soil sample analysis. The important parameters were morphological features, such as soil depth, root status, soil macroporosity, etc. Of the chemical parameters, a key role for the fertility of vineyard soils is played by soil nutrients (particularly, N and P), along with the presence/absence of soil contaminants such as heavy metals, while physical properties involve structure, water content, etc. The collected soil samples were transported to the laboratory. After drying in an open-air space for 6–7 days, samples were passed through a 2 mm mesh sieve. Chemical and physicochemical analyzes of the fine earth samples were performed according to the following standard procedures: Soil texture was determined using the hydrometer method [24] with three replicates. Exchangeable cations (determined by atomic absorption spectrometry) and base saturation (V) were obtained using the ammonium acetate extraction method [25]. Soil organic carbon was determined as described by Walkley and Black [26]. Soil pH was measured potentiometrically in H2O using a 1:2.5 soil/water suspension. Olsen’s method [27] to estimate the available P. Soil classification by the USDA 2014 [28]. Soil samples were analyzed for the total contents of elements by X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (XRF) using a Philips PW 2404 spectrophotometer with a maximum power of 4 kW (set of crystal analyzers for LiF220, LiF200, Ge, PET, and PX1, flow detector, and twinkle detector).
Based on the temperature and rainfall data in the last 9 years (2014–2022), the climate type in the Valdepeñas PDO is Csa, according to the Koppen climate type (Figure 2). The soil order formed in CLM is: Inceptisol, Entisol, and Afisols. The main characteristics and soil types are presented in Table 1.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Vineyard Soil Characteristics

Regarding winemaking objectives, it is important to optimize support for high crop quality and quantity. It is a well-known fact that soils influence wine grape quality. In fact, the impact of soil, when combined with climate, topography, and grapevine variety, is referred to as the terroir effect [29]. Although soil is one of the most important factors in wine quality [29], globally speaking, grapevines are planted in an extremely wide variety of soils. Vogel [30] considered that each soil has a limited potential to deliver a certain soil function, and that soil health assessments should reflect soil status in relation to its potential. Sustainable, efficient soil use is essential for supporting continued vineyard production and quality. However, the scientific names of the soils being cultivated for growing wine in the Valdepeñas PDO are unknown, but their properties are known on a very detailed scale.
Soil morphological and physicochemical characteristics and mineral content provide us with important information for assessing soil type and, consequently, the sustainability of viticulture. Different properties lead to distinct soil types and impact management improvements. Based on the field description and laboratory data, the different soil profiles were classified according to Soil Taxonomy [28] and the Reference Base for Soil Resources [31], as observed in Table 1 and Figure 3.
Results provided evidence that vineyards develop and grow in soils with acceptable qualities. In this way, the soil pH (that provides information about the solubility and availability of nutrients for vine growth) range from 7.1 to 8.4, (Table 2) which are rated as moderately to slightly basic [32]. The CEC, with values of samples ranging from 13.3 to 19.5 (cmol+·kg−1), is dominated by the cation Ca2+, therefore always with a degree of saturation of 100%. Organic matter (that occurs in moderate to low contents, between 0.1 and 1.5%, typical of semiarid regions), is an important parameter that affects soil quality and agriculture sustainability; in no case are soil amendments, such as dolomite, used given the area’s predominantly carbonate nature. Soil texture is one of the major soil physical characteristics to determine vine growth. Vines should be grown on soils with good drainage, aeration, and permeability. Therefore, soil texture is not a limiting factor for vine production in the study area because most textures are clay loam and clay, which can be classified as suitable soil textures for vine production [33] (Table 2). Table 3 shows the mean values of the concentration of macronutrients in these soils, where moderate P and N contents are highlighted.
Vine needs soil that is well drained and not very wet. The drainage classes of the study area are classified as two soil permeability property classes: well drained and moderately drained. The color of Valdepeñas PDO soils is very striking because many are red, and others are white due to the high carbonate content (Table 2). According to Lazcano et al. [32], while soil temperature appears to be relevant for terroir, it has not often been associated with soil health assessments.
Several authors [34,35] have mentioned that vineyards in the old world were often established on marginal land, and the most fertile soils were reserved for growing cereals and other food crops, while extensive land availability in the new world offered deep, alluvial, fertile soils for vineyard establishment purposes [17]. As a result, vineyards arguably occupy a wider range of soil types than any other crop. In Valdepeñas, there are vineyards on very varied soils, but most are of good quality.
It is known that plant nutrients play an important role in plant physiology and metabolism. However, viticulturalists in this area have been unaware that they have been optimally managing soil nutrient supply because K deficiencies are not observed.
About 22–56 kg of N ha−1 is removed from wine grapes through harvest [17]. Soil N supply and retention are fundamental in viticulture because N is one of the most limiting nutrients for vine growth. Therefore, an adequate N supply is crucial for good vineyard productivity. Thus, as N and P contents are moderate (Table 3), farmers have worked without overapplying N fertilizer. Lazcano [32] stated that it is clear that vineyard N status must be very carefully managed to strike a vine health–grape quality balance.
The Valdepeñas PDO is a typical area with a semiarid Mediterranean climate. Therefore, water scarcity can become an issue, especially in the light of climate change [36,37]. There are generally no drainage problems, but managing water availability is somewhat more complicated if the aim is to improve productivity and quality. We should bear in mind that excessive water availability can promote vigor and cause direct and indirect negative effects on wine grape quality [17,38]. Many soils in the Valdepeñas PDO are finer-textured soils with a higher water-holding capacity compared to coarser-textured soils.

3.2. Vineyard Soil Management; from the Past to the Future through the Present in the Valdepeñas PDO Vineyard Soils

Common practices in Valdepeñas vineyards are plowing or tillage, mineral fertilization, irrigation and drainage systems, and weed management. Organic amendments with manure are also very common because they provide a direct C source for soil organisms and an indirect C source via increased plant growth and plant residue returns [39].
Soil functions for vineyard include: (1) supporting high yield and grape quality; (2) good water infiltration and the capacity to store water; (3) retaining and recycling nutrients efficiently, while supplying nutrients in correspondence with crop demand, which can also be demanded; (4) storing C and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and (5) supporting diverse microorganisms and marked biological activity. Soil’s capacity to perform these functions can be assessed by many chemical, physical, physicochemical, biological, and biochemical parameters, but the most informative and reliable ones are generally selected [40,41]. Agricultural vineyard systems and management practices that ensure high production often have negative repercussions on soil health, quality, and fertility [30,42].
Viticulture is a long-standing tradition in the Valdepeñas PDO, and management practices have hardly changed for centuries. Evidently, vineyard soil management has implications for wine quality [43,44]. Indeed, soil conservation, weed management, improvement in soil nutrients, water content, pest control, and resource availability regulation (i.e., water, nutrients) are very important aspects for controlling vine vigor and vine growth, and for influencing desirable wine quality targets.
In the Valdepeñas PDO, it is customary to use conventional agriculture in such a way that the application of phytosanitary products and mineral fertilizers is frequent, but it has always been restricted. For this reason, although these applications cannot be considered ecofriendly because their overuse can cause soil and water contamination, their negative effects have not really been incurred because they are scarcely added. In the study area, which has a dry climate and low rainfall, the incidence of fungal diseases is very low. Therefore, fungicides are only applied in small quantities [45].
In the Valdepeñas PDO, vineyards are based on a combined edaphic and climatic terroir to produce high-quality grapes and, above all, good productivity. Consequently, it is possible to affirm that this is an ideal scenario for authentic ecological viticulture.
Nevertheless, the vineyard field land use in the Valdepeñas PDO can be classified from a highly suitable class to a moderately suitable class. Soil is still quite potent in developing vineyard fields, but the presence of calcium carbonate indicates that soil has not undergone an intensive leaching process. This does not mean that it does not require fertilization management, but rather the other way around; that is, it requires solid OM being added to improve soil aggregate.
Although vineyard land use is located in a marginally suitable class, from the obtained results (Table 2 and Table 3) it can be deduced that the soil type requires the addition of solid OM. Therefore, it is a matter of improving a series of soil properties to maintain nutrients in soil, reducing nutrient leaching to improve soil aggregate, etc. Finally, to increase production, the addition of chemical fertilizers is necessary.
Globally speaking, agricultural practices are intensely used, such as continuous soil tillage, mineral fertilizer inputs, application of low-quality irrigation water, and removal of pruning waste, which have determined soil fertility loss and the depletion of soil OM. All this has had negative effects on both productivity and soil conservation [46] in many areas worldwide, such as southern Italy, and perhaps in the Valdepeñas PDO.
The climate factor is key in the terroir concept; thus, a positive correlation between high soil temperature and N, K, C, and Mg uptake exists [47]. Without going into the functions performed by climate in detail, it is known that inter-row spontaneous vegetation in Valdepeñas vineyards is controlled by grazing, tillage, and exceptionally by the application of herbicides, as in other areas [48,49,50,51,52]. To a certain extent, this has been carried out ancestrally by farmers, who have passed their knowledge from generation to generation. Thus, for example, until approximately two decades ago, dry vineyards predominated. Today, the opposite occurs, and with increasing intensity. The reason for this is very simple: unfavorable soil conditions, such as low water content due to soil mishandling, can cause plant stress, which has negative effects on both growth and yield. Water deficit also decreases photosynthetical activity and can affect differentiation and berry sizes [53].
Since halfway through the past century, or even before, the application of organic waste, mainly from livestock, was commonplace in Spanish vineyards. As is known, the main effect of such addition is to improve soil health in vineyards [46,47]. It is no surprise today that the literature about using organic additions, particularly compost in vineyards, is vast [54,55,56,57,58,59].
The application of OM, manure, or other byproducts could facilitate vertical water movement in soil [60] by increasing functionality and soil biological fertility and, therefore, improving soil quality and vineyard productivity. It is also known that OM additions to vineyard soils typically lower soil bulk density, improve aggregation, and lead to improved soil porosity [61,62,63,64].
Increases in OM lead to higher total N contents [54,58,65] and revitalize the presence of P [66,67]. In the case of P, it is known that deficiency in wine grapes has been reported in certain soil types with less than 10 mg P per kg soil [68]. Although the Valdepeñas soils contain little P, and a substantial number of soils are carbonate in nature, the addition of OM easily compensates for this P deficit. The viticulturists of Valdepeñas have, thus, been working correctly for many decades before present day. Given the carbonate nature of a considerable number of soils in Valdepeñas, the P management carried out by Valdepeñas viticulturists has been correct.
Increases in OM are also known to improve soil aggregation, infiltration, and water-holding capacity, and to lower bulk density [54,61,64,69]. OM additions have been suggested to be a potential C sequestration practice [58,70], and improve microbial biomass activity by providing nutrient cycling with beneficial effects, especially in degraded soils [71].
It should be noted that K is the major cation in grape juice and must. It also has a significant effect on juice pH [72]. In a wide range of studies with many different sources, compost application usually increases soil extractable K [58,68,73,74,75].
Today, however, traditional OM application has been replaced with other organic materials, such as composted sewage sludge, mushroom compost, composted cattle manure, winery waste, vermicompost, or pruning waste, which routinely increase soil total N [54,58,65,76,77]. However, these techniques have not been well accepted and are, therefore, not implemented by most Valdepeñas winegrowers.
The study of the metals that accumulate in agricultural soils due to agricultural practices (i.e., manure fertilization and pest control spraying) has been addressed on numerous occasions [78,79,80,81,82,83].
Although, for climate reasons, Valdepeñas is not an area prone to fungicide use, misuse by repeated applications of Cu-based fungicides in both conventional and organic farming can certainly create environmental problems. Therefore, it should be taken into account that Cu accumulation in vineyard soils can alter some soil properties, which compromises their fertility and induces toxicity in plants that, ultimately, has detrimental effects on growth and productivity.
A specific example is that represented by Cu accumulation in agricultural soils in general, and vineyards in particular. Vineyard soils are prone to Cu accumulation by uncontrolled applications of metal-contaminated sludge and/or Cu-based fungicides for crop defense against pathogens. Although Cu is an essential micronutrient for vineyards, excessive Cu in soil can lead to toxicity symptoms, particularly in acid soils, as stated by Miotto [84] and Brunetto [85]. This is rare in our case because Valdepeñas hardly has any acid soils. The studied soils have an average Cu concentration of 25.7 mg·kg−1 on the surface horizon and 23.2 mg·kg−1 on the subsurface horizon (Table 3). These values are in accordance with the concentration of world soils (25 mg·kg−1) [86] and are higher than those published by Reiman [87] (13 mg·kg−1) for European agricultural soils.
Compared to other crops, vine requires less water to grow and mature. However, the expected climate change can intensify water stress on vine, particularly in regions with limited water availability, which is the case of Valdepeñas. Ideally, the best practice for each vineyard site should be determined mainly considering vineyard design, soil type, and the climate conditions of the vineyard site, as stated by Ripoche [88] and Sweet [89].
The amount of water available for access by grapevine roots depends on the soil type, particularly on its physicochemical properties (profile depth, texture, structure, OM content, salinity, etc.). The ease with which root development occurs in both depth and laterally determines the effective grapevine root volume and, therefore, determines the volume of water that can be taken up by grapevine. Water is a limited vulnerable resource in Valdepeñas and, hence, irrigation demands have been increasing to offset the effects of environmental stress on vineyard cultivation [90].
Given the region’s semiarid climate, water management in vineyards requires irrigation if plants are not subjected to water stress, at least at certain vegetative growth times. However, the implementation of these irrigation techniques can lead to changes in the status of the soil organisms’ diversity and abundance. It is necessary to bear in mind that some organisms, such as earthworms and generalist predators, spiders and ground beetles, prefer higher moisture content [91,92]. Without knowing this effect, the winegrowers from Valdepeñas are meticulous irrigation caretakers, and have unknowingly cushioned this effect. Likewise, after irrigation in mid-summer (when temperatures of around 40 °C are reached), preferential calcium carbonate accumulation can be observed, such as that which appears in Figure 4D (whitish spots). They are carefully dealt with via minimal tillage, which is frequently carried out manually. Regarding potentially resistant weeds (as Conyza Canadensis, Figure 4D), it is desirable not to rely on a single strategy, in such way that in CLM herbicides are generally only used when necessary. The viticulturist of this region also tends to rotate the application of herbicides. In any case, it is advisable to carry out mechanical weed control practices, applying minimum tillage. However, perhaps the most important thing is that the viticulturist maintains permanent control of new weeds, cleaning them manually.

3.3. Future in the Valdepeñas Vineyards and Suitability

Agricultural production plays a vital role in generating enough capital for farmers’ socioeconomic conditions. The Valdepeñas PDO can produce a lot of good wine. However, farmers wish to produce more to meet increasing wine demand. To produce more, better and sustainably, adequate vineyard soil management ensures that nutrients are not deficient or toxic to vine, and appropriate nutrients enter the food chain. Thus, soil management is important both directly and indirectly for vineyard productivity, environmental sustainability, and human health. Moreover, if farmers currently wish to achieve sustainable viticulture, modern techniques with the least environmental impact must be used in such a way that productivity and quality over time are compatible [93,94].
Cover cropping in vineyards has been a common practice in several areas in the world, particularly in Europe [95]. It has been found [44] that cover cropping can improve soil and vine health; may influence vine vigor while increasing juice anthocyanins, soluble solids, and other phenolic components; and can decrease titratable acidity.
Currently, viticulture is undergoing change in such a way that vineyard areas are being reduced in certain world regions, while others tend to increase, albeit very gradually. Thus, it is worth highlighting the application of smart precision viticulture paradigms, and their related technologies could allow the timely, localized, and balanced distribution of, for example, agrochemicals to achieve the required goals. However, given the smallholding nature of the viticulturists in CLM and, therefore, in Valdepeñas, smart precision viticulture technologies are not used by farmers, only by large wineries. The reality is that viticulturists go out of their way to work their vineyards themselves day by day, with constant monitoring to maintain the phytosanitary status, an adequate humidity level, etc., to avoid having to make large investments in new equipment and techniques.
Therefore, given the way that the farmers in the region work today, such investments may not be necessary because they work family plots, and they work tirelessly and permanently every day so that vineyards and farmers’ families practically coexist closely on a daily basis. In fact, if some modern techniques, such as precision equipment, were used, it would entail a cost that winegrowers could hardly afford. This agrees with Caffaro [96] and Tey [97].
Among the traditional techniques, we can mention the following: mechanical tillage using traditional implements (plow) and with mechanical traction; predominantly, organic fertilization with manure from livestock in the area, mainly sheep; absence of irrigation: cultivation mainly in dry land; traditional conduction systems in “gobelet”, with moderate productions; and scarce use of phytosanitary products except sulfur in dust.
Technical additions implemented in recent times include: alternative soil maintenance systems either with herbicides or with cover crops; predominantly chemical fertilization with formulated fertilizers and, if there is the possibility, incorporating through fertirrigation; and incorporation of drip irrigation system techniques.
In the Valdepeñas area, rainfall generally concentrates in winter and does not usually exceed 400–500 mm per year. In this context, where water is a very limited resource, traditional management is based on intensive weed control to avoid competition with grapevines for water and nutrients. Nowadays, many winegrowers use plant cover in vineyard agroecosystems, although the study of the benefits and ecosystem services supported by spontaneous flora in vineyard agroecosystems is certainly a novel topic [98]. Currently, in the Valdepeñas PDO, vineyard management ranges from barely any disturbance at all (permanent plant cover) to considerable disturbance (regular soil tillage or herbicide application), although the latter predominates (Figure 4). The fact that cover cropping has been found to increase soluble solids, anthocyanins, and other phenolic components of grapes [36,44], it leads to a bigger soil microbial biomass and controls grapevine canopy growth [99]. This means that winegrowers should be guided toward these procedures. Therefore, it is necessary to convince viticulturists about always seeing green roofs as competition in relation to nutrient and N supply. In fact, this has already been observed by Griesser in several European vineyards [100]. A Trifolium fragiferum (strawberry clover) cover crop could be implemented as an alternative for weed control under vines based on the success of an irrigated vineyard according to Abad [101].
Although the conditions for agricultural vineyard production and sustainability are optimal in Valdepeñas, viticulturists should be aware of the need to promote sustainable practices, which they have carried out for years, to not only increase grape productivity and quality but to also conserve healthy soil and water quality, and to increase the economic vitality in this rural area.
Following the criteria of the International Organization of Vine and Wine, sustainable viticulture must respect the environment and also integrate concepts of sustainable development. In this sense, it is necessary to minimize the risk of erosion, select vineyards in the most suitable soils, and carry out soil management in order to preserve biodiversity. However, it is also necessary to adapt to climate change. In this way, every day, the use of green cover (use of local plant species, adapted periods, etc.) becomes more common, as well as the rationalization of machinery use. However, perhaps where it has had the greatest success is in the use of adapted irrigation systems. In short, everything that leads to maintaining fertility, biodiversity, and structure of the soil will be seen as positive.
Examples of possible actions that winegrowers should take into consideration are: sustainable weed control, adaptation of the vegetable cover strategy, sustainable use of herbicides for reducing their impacts, protecting and improving soil organic matter and water retention capacity (where applicable), implementing a sustainable fertilization plan with best practices based on scientific assessment, the rationalization of machinery use, and the limitation of soil compaction. Other proposed actions are to increase the surface under the green cover and modernize the application techniques of plant protection products.
More winegrowers are increasingly paying attention to the ecological aspects of wine production. Indeed, sustaining ecosystem functions and services and testing sustainable farming practices are key issues in recent agroecological and biological conservation research and policies [102]. The problem lies in striking a balance between ecological and economic aspects.
Perhaps it would not be as important anywhere else as in Valdepeñas to apply and implement vinecology via the integration of ecological and viticultural practices, a term proposed by Viers [10]. Engaging the viticultural sector in conservation requires raising awareness about the ecological benefits of conservation, in other words, continuing to cultivate vineyards, but in close connection with nature conservation, and in such a way that they are complemented by a full range of the ecosystem services integrated into the wonderful Valdepeñas landscape.
New trellis driving systems with higher productions. Use of fungicide, insecticide and acaricide, phytosanitary products. who noted that the investments and/or operating costs required by the above-mentioned systems were rather high, particularly for small vineyards.

4. Conclusions

Soil quality conservation and enhancement are major sustainable viticulture goals today. This study indicates the potentially sustainable vineyard of the Valdepeñas PDO by demonstrating the strengths and limitations of its management systems. The effects of integrated, organic, and traditional biodynamic management are discussed. The main conclusion is that a careful retrospective analysis of the grape-growing techniques that have dominated in the past century (soil cultivation, fertilization, etc.) is not unfavorable from a sustainability point of view. This study outlines and emphasizes that despite the suitability of soils, it is necessary to evolve with new methodologies, but without forgetting ancestral techniques.
Since, in viticulture, intensive agricultural practices may cause soil degradation or deteriorate soil quality, leading to a decrease in the magnitude of one or more factors, winegrowers should take into consideration applying methods and practices that make it possible to preserve, regenerate, and expand, where appropriate, ordinary functional biodiversity.

Author Contributions

R.J.-B., F.J.G.-N. and S.B. conceived and designed this study; F.J.G.-N., R.J.-B., S.B., C.P. and J.A.A. participated in the collection of soil samples; software, S.B. and J.A.L.P.; formal analysis, S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.J.-B., F.J.G.-N. and S.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the “Denominación de Origen Valdepeñas” (denomination of origin), grant number UCTR180065.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the data are contained in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support by the “Denominación de Origen Valdepeñas” (Denomination of Origin). We extend a special thanks to the farmers in the region.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Costantini, E.A.C.; Barbetti, R. Environmental and visual impact analysis of viticulture and olive tree cultivation in the Province of Siena (Italy). Eur. J. Agron. 2008, 28, 412–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abad, J.; Hermoso de Mendoza, I.; Marín, D.; Orcaray, L.; Santesteban, L.G. Cover crops in viticulture. A systematic review (1): Implications in agronomic performance. OENO One 2021, 55, 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dumitriu, G.D.; Teodosiu, C.; Cotea, V.V. Management of Pesticides from Vineyard to Wines: Focus on Wine Safety and Pesticides Removal by Emerging Technologies; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  4. Springmann, M.; Clark, M.; Mason-D’Croz, D.; Wiebe, K.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Lassaletta, L.; de Vries, W.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Herrero, M.; Carlson, K.M.; et al. Options for keeping the food system within environmental limits. Nature 2018, 562, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ibáñez, S. Gestión del Suelo en Viñedo Mediante Cubiertas Vegetales. Incidencia Sobre el Control del Rendimiento y Vigor. Aspectos Ecofisiológicos, Nutricionales, Microclimáticos y de Calidad del Mosto y del Vino. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidad de La Rioja, Logroño, Spain, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  6. Warner, K.D. The quality of sustainability: Agroecological partnerships and the geographic branding of California winegrapes. J. Rural Stud. 2007, 23, 142–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Isaak, R. The making of the ecopreneur. Greener Manag. Int. 2002, 38, 81–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Baiano, A. An Overview on Sustainability in the Wine Production Chain. Beverages 2021, 7, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hannah, L.; Roehrdanz, P.R.; Ikegami, M.; Shepard, A.V.; Shaw, M.R.; Tabord, G.; Zhi, L.; Marquet, P.A.; Hijmans, R.J. Climate change, wine, and conservation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 6907–6912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Viers, J.H.; Williams, J.N.; Nicholas, K.A.; Barbosa, O.; Kotze, I.; Spence, L.; Webb, L.B.; Merenlender, A.; Reyn-olds, M. Vinecology: Pairing wine with nature. Conserv. Lett. 2013, 6, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Litskas, V.; Mandoulaki, A.; Vogiatzakis, I.N.; Tzortzakis, N.; Stavrinides, M. Sustainable viticulture: First determination of the environmental footprint of grapes. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Maicas, S.; Mateo, J.J. Sustainability of Wine Production. Sustainability 2020, 12, 559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. OIV (International Organization of Vine and Wine). State of the World Vine and Wine Sector. 2021. Available online: https://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/documents/eng-state-of-the-world-vine-and-wine-sector-april-2022-v6_0.pdf (accessed on 4 January 2022).
  14. Gobierno de Castilla-La Mancha. Datos del Registro Vitícola de Castilla-La Mancha. Available online: https://www.castillalamancha.es/node/204661 (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  15. Cooperativas Agroalimentarias Castilla-La Mancha. Castilla-La Mancha, Entre las Regiones que más Vino Produce y Menos Consume. Available online: https://www.agroalimentariasclm.coop/prensa/actualidad-del-sector/2082-castilla-la-mancha,-entre-las-regiones-que-m%C3%A1s-vino-produce-y-menos-consume (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  16. Caixabank Research. Castilla-La Mancha. Available online: https://www.caixabankresearch.com/es/search?buscar=Castilla-La%20Mancha (accessed on 27 January 2022).
  17. White, P.J.; Crawford, J.W.; Díaz, M.C.; García, R. Soil Management for Sustainable Agriculture. Appl. Environ. Soil Sci. 2012, 2012, 850739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Brunori, E.; Farina, R.; Biasi, R. Sustainable viticulture: The carbon-sink function of the vineyard agro-ecosystem. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 223, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Patiño-Zúñiga, L.; Ceja-Navarro, J.A.; Govaerts, B.; Luna-Guido, M.; Sayre, K.D.; Dendooven, L. The effect of different tillage and residue management practices on soil characteristics, inorganic n dynamics and emissions of N2O, CO2 and CH4 in the central highlands of Mexico: A laboratory study. Plant Soil 2009, 314, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferreira, C.S.S.; Veiga, A.; Caetano, A.; Gonzalez-Pelayo, O.; Karine-Boulet, A.; Abrantes, N. Assessment of the impact of distinct vineyard management practices on soil physical-chemical properties. Air Soil Water Res. 2020, 13, 1178622120944847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gatti, M.; Garavani, A.; Squeri, C.; Capri, C.; Diti, I.; D’Ambrosio, R. Inter-row floor management is a powerful factor for optimizing vine balance in a non-irrigated organic barbera vineyard in northern Italy. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 136, 126490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Steenwerth, K.; Belina, K.M. Cover crops enhance soil organic matter, carbon dynamics and microbiological function in a vineyard agroecosystem. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 40, 359–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mitchell, J.P.; Shrestha, A.; Mathesius, K.; Scow, K.M.; Southard, R.J.; Haney, R.L. Cover cropping and no-tillage improve soil health in an arid irrigated cropping system in California’s San Joaquin valley, USA. Soil Tillage Res. 2017, 165, 325–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Gee, G.W.; Bauder, J.W. Particle-Size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd ed.; Klute, A., Ed.; American Society of Agronomy (ASA)-Soil Science Society of America (SSSA): Madison, WI, USA, 1986; pp. 383–411. [Google Scholar]
  25. Thomas, G.W. Exchangeable cations. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy (ASA)-Soil Science Society of America (SSSA): Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 159–165. [Google Scholar]
  26. Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Page, A.L., Miller, R.H., Keeney, D.H., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy (ASA): Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 539–579. [Google Scholar]
  27. Olsen, S.R.; Cole, C.V.; Watanabe, F.S.; Dean, L.A. Estimation of Available Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): Washington, DC, USA, 1954. [Google Scholar]
  28. Soil Survey Staff. Key to Soil Taxonomy, 12th ed.; United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)—Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  29. Van Leeuwen, C.; Roby, J.P.; De Rességuier, L. Soil-related terroir factors: A review. OENO One 2018, 52, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Vogel, H.-J.; Wollschläger, U.; Helming, K.; Heinrich, U.; Willms, M.; Wiesmeier, M.; Russell, D.; Franko, U. Assessment of soil functions affected by soil management. In Atlas of Ecosystem Services; Schröter, M., Bonn, A., Klotz, S., Seppelt, R., Baessler, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 77–82. [Google Scholar]
  31. IUSS Working Group WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources, Update International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lazcano, C.; Decock, C.; Wilson, S.G. Defining and Managing for Healthy Vineyard Soils, Intersections with the Concept of Terroir. Front. Environ. Sci. 2020, 8, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Bravo, S.; Amoros, J.A.; Pérez-de-los-Reyes, C.; García-Pradas, J.; Sanchez, M.; García-Navarro, F.J. A morphological approach to evaluating the nature of vineyard soils in semiarid Mediterranean environment. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2021, 73, e13201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A.; Ramos, M.C. The cost of soil erosion in vineyard fields in the Penedès–Anoia Region (NE Spain). Catena 2006, 68, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Blavet, D.; De Noni, G.; Le Bissonnais, Y.; Leonard, M.; Maillo, L.; Laurent, J.Y.; Asseline, J.; Leprun, J.C.; Arshad, M.A.; Roose, E. Effect of land use and management on the early stages of soil water erosion in French Mediterranean vineyards. Soil Tillage Res. 2009, 106, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Medrano, H.; Tomás, M.; Martorell, S.; Escalona, J.-M.; Pou, A.; Fuentes, S.; Flexas, J.; Bota, J. Improving water use efficiency of vineyards in semi-arid regions. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 499–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Mirás-Avalos, J.M.; Buesa, I.; Llacer, E.; Jiménez-Bello, M.A.; Risco, D.; Castel, J.R.; Intrigliolo, D.S. Water versus source–sink relationships in a semiarid tempranillo vineyard: Vine performance and fruit composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2017, 68, 11–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wheeler, S.J.; Pickering, G.J. Optimizing grape quality through soil management practices. Food Agric. Environ. 2003, 1, 190–197. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bünemann, E.K.; Schwenke, G.D.; van Zwieten, L. Impact of agricultural inputs on soil organisms—A review. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2006, 44, 379–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Cheik, S.; Jouquet, P. Integrating local knowledge into soil science to improve soil fertility. Soil Use Manag. 2020, 36, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Gil-Sotres, F.; Trasar-Cepeda, C.; Leirós, M.C.; Seoane, S. Different approaches to evaluating soil quality using biochemical properties. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2005, 37, 877–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schulte, R.P.O.; Creamer, R.E.; Donnellan, T.; Farrelly, N.; Fealy, R.; O’Donoghue, C.; O’huallachain, D. Functional land management: A framework for managing soil-based ecosystem services for the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Environ. Sci. Policy 2014, 38, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Wheeler, S.J.; Black, G.J.; Pickering, A.S. Vineyard floor management improves wine quality in highly vigorous Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 2005, 33, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Guerra, B.; Steenwerth, K. Influence of floor management technique on grapevine growth, disease pressure, and juice and wine composition: A review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2012, 63, 149–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. García-Castellanos, B.; García-García, B.; García-García, J. Evaluation of the Sustainability of Vineyards in Semi-Arid Climates: The Case of Southeastern Spain. Agronomy 2022, 12, 3213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bonanomi, G.; D’Ascoli, R.; Antignani, V.; Capodilupo, M.; Cozzolino, L.; Arzaioli, R.; Puopolo, G.; Rutigliano, F.A.; Scelza, R.; Scotti, R.; et al. Assessing soil quality under intensive cultivation and tree orchards in Southern Italy. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011, 47, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bogoni, M.; Panont, A.; Valenti, L.; Scienza, A. Effects of soil physical and chemical conditions on grapevine nutritional status. Hortic. Act. 1995, 383, 299–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Likar, M.; Vogel-Mikuš, K.; Potisek, M.; Hančević, K.; Radi’c, T.; Nečemer, M.; Regvar, M. Importance of soil and vineyard management in the determination of grapevine mineral composition. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 505, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Pardini, A.; Faiello, C.; Longhi, F.; Mancuso, S.; Snowball, R. Cover crop species and their management in vine-yards and olive groves. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2002, 16, 225–234. [Google Scholar]
  50. Saladin, G.; Magné, C.; Clément, C. Stress reactions in Vitis vinifera L. following soil application of the herbicide flumioxazin. Chemosphere 2003, 53, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mailly, F.; Hossard, L.; Barbier, J.M.; Thiollet-Scholtus, M.; Gary, C. Quantifying the impact of crop protection practices on pesticide use in wine-growing systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 84, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pickering, G.J.; Wheeler, S. The effects of soil management techniques on grape and wine quality. In Fruits Growth, Nutrition, and Quality; Dris, R., Ed.; WFL Meri-Rastilantie 3 C: Helsinki, Finland, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  53. Shellie, K.C. Vine and berry response of Merlot (Vitis vinifera L.) to differential water stress. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2006, 57, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Morlat, R.; Chaussod, R. Long-term additions of organic amendments in a Loire valley vineyard. I. Effects on properties of a calcareous sandy soil. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2008, 59, 353–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Brown, S.; Cotton, M. Changes in soil properties and carbon content following compost application: Results of on-farm sampling. Compost Sci. Util. 2011, 19, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bustamante, M.A.; Said-Pullicino, D.; Agulló, E.; Andreu, J.; Paredes, C.; Moral, R. Application of winery and distillery waste composts to a Jumilla (SE Spain) vineyard: Effects on the characteristics of a calcareous sandy-loam soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rubio, R.; Pérez-Murcia, M.D.; Agulló, E.; Bustamante, M.A.; Sánchez, C.; Paredes, C.; Moral, R. Recycling of agro-food wastes into vineyards by composting: Agronomic validation in field conditions. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2013, 44, 502–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Calleja-Cervantes, M.E.; Fernández-González, A.J.; Irigoyen, I.; Fernández-López, M.; Aparicio-Tejo, P.M.; Menéndez, S. Thirteen years of continued application of composted organic wastes in a vineyard modify soil quality characteristics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 90, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mondini, C.; Fornasier, F.; Sinicco, T.; Sivilotti, P.; Gaiotti, F.; Mosetti, D. Organic amendment effectively recovers soil functionality in degraded vineyards. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 101, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Whelan, A.; Kechavarzi, C.; Coulon, F.; Sakrabani, R.; Lord, R. Influence of compost amendments on the hydraulic functioning of brownfield soils. Soil Use Manag. 2013, 29, 260–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Celik, I.; Ortas, I.; Kilic, S. Effects of compost, mycorrhiza, manure and fertilizer on some physical properties of a Chromoxerert soil. Soil Tillage Res. 2004, 78, 59–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kong, A.Y.Y.; Six, J.; Bryant, D.C.; Denison, R.F.; van Kessel, C. The relationship between carbon input, aggregation, and soil organic carbon stabilization in sustainable cropping systems. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2005, 69, 1078–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Salomé, C.; Coll, P.; Lardo, E.; Metay, A.; Villenave, C.; Marsden, C.; Blanchart, E.; Hinsinger, P.; Le Cadre, E. The soil quality concept as a framework to assess management practices in vulnerable agroecosystems: A case study in Mediterranean vineyards. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 61, 456–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ramos, M.C. Effects of compost amendment on the available soil water and grape yield in vineyards planted after land levelling. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 191, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Larchevêque, M.; Baldy, V.; Montès, N.; Fernandez, C.; Bonin, G.; Ballini, C. Short-term effects of sew-age-sludge compost on a degraded mediterranean soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006, 70, 1178–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hunt, J.F.; Ohno, T.; He, Z.; Honeycutt, C.W.; Dail, D.B. Inhibition of phosphorus sorption to goethite, gibbsite, and kaolin by fresh and decomposed organic matter. Biol. Fertil. Soils. 2007, 44, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wilson, S.G.; Lambert, J.-J.; Dahlgren, R.A. Seasonal phosphorus dynamics in a volcanic soil of Northern California. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2016, 80, 1222–1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Skinner, P.W.; Cook, J.A.; Matthews, M.A. Phosphorus fertilizer applications under phosphorus-limited. Vitis 1988, 27, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  69. Pérez-de-los-Reyes, C.; Amorós, J.A.; García-Navarro, F.J.; Bravo, S.; Sánchez, C.; Chocano, D.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R. Changes in water retention properties due to the application of sugar foam in red soils. Agric. Water Manag. 2011, 98, 1834–1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Longbottom, M.L.; Petrie, P.R. Role of vineyard practices in generating and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions: Greenhouse gas emissions in vineyards. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2015, 21, 522–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lazcano, C.; Gómez-Brandón, M.; Revilla, P.; Domínguez, J. Short-term effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil microbial community structure and function. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2013, 49, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mpelasoka, B.S.; Schachtman, D.P.; Treeby, M.T.; Thomas, M.R. A review of potassium nutrition in grapevines with special emphasis on berry accumulation. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2003, 9, 154–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Pinamonti, F. Compost mulch effects on soil fertility, nutritional status and performance of grapevine. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1998, 51, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chan, K.Y.; Fahey, D.J. Effect of composted mulch application on soil and wine grape potassium status. Soil Res. 2011, 49, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Goulet, E.; Dousset, S.; Chaussod, R.; Bartoli, F.; Doledec, A.F.; Andreux, F. Water-stable aggregates and organic matter pools in a calcareous vineyard soil under four soil-surface management systems. Soil Use Manag. 2006, 20, 318–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Korboulewsky, N.; Dupouyet, S.; Bonin, G. Environmental risks of applying sewage sludge compost to vine-yards: Carbon, heavy metals, nitrogen, and phosphorus accumulation. J. Environ. Qual. 2002, 31, 1522–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bravo, S.; García, F.J.; Amorós, J.A.; Pérez-de-los-Reyes, C.; Higueras, P. Effect of the addition of sewage sludge as a fertilizer on a sandy vineyard soil. J. Soils Sediments 2015, 16, 1360–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Morgan, R.K.; Bowden, R. Copper accumulation in soils from two different-aged apricot orchards in Central Otago, New Zealand. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 1993, 43, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Novak, J.M.; Watts, D.; Stone, K.C. Copper and zinc accumulation, profile distribution, and crop removal in coastal plain soils receiving long-term, intensive applications of swine manure. Trans. ASAE 2004, 47, 1513–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Huang, S.; Jin, J.-Y. Status of heavy metals in agricultural soils as affected by different patterns of land use. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2007, 139, 317–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fernández-Calviño, D.; Nóvoa-Muñoz, J.C.; López-Periago, E.; Arias-Estévez, M. Changes in copper content and distribution in young, old and abandoned vineyard acid soils due to land use changes. Land Degrad. Dev. 2008, 19, 165–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Brunetto, G.; Bastos de Melo, G.W.; Terzano, R.; Del Buono, D.; Astolfi, S.; Tomasi, N.; Pii, Y.; Mimmo, T.; Cesco, S. Copper accumulation in vineyard soils: Rhizosphere processes and agronomic practices to limit its toxicity. Chemosphere 2016, 162, 293–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Karimi, B.; Masson, V.; Guilland, C.; Leroy, E.; Pellegrinelli, S.; Giboulot, E.; Maron, P.A.; Ranjard, L. Ecotoxicity of copper input and accumulation for soil biodiversity in vineyards. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2021, 19, 2013–2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Miotto, A.; Ceretta, C.A.; Brunetto, G.; Nicoloso, F.T.; Girotto, E.; Farias, J.G.; Tiecher, T.L.; De Conti, L.; Trentin, G. Copper uptake, accumulation and physiological changes in adult grapevines in response to excess copper in soil. Plant Soil 2013, 374, 593–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Brunetto, G.; Ferreira, P.; Melo, G.; Ceretta, C. Heavy metals in vineyards and orchad soils. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2017, 39, e263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Sparks, D.L. Environmental Soil Chemistry, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2003; 352p. [Google Scholar]
  87. Reimann, C.; Birke, M.; Demetriades, A.; Filzmoser, P.; O’Connor, P. Chemistry of Europe’s Agricultural Soils: Part A: Methodology and Interpretation of the GEMAS Data Set; Geologisches Jahrbuch (Reihe B) Schweizerbarth: Hannover, Germany, 2014; 528p. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ripoche, A.; Celette, F.; Cinna, J.P.; Gary, C. Design of intercrop management plans to fulfill production and environmental objectives in vineyards. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 32, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Sweet, R.M.; Schreiner, R.P. Alleyway cover crops have little influence on Pinot noir grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) in two western Oregon vineyards. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2010, 61, 240–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Costa, J.M.; Vaz, M.; Escalona, J.; Egipto, R.; Lopes, C.; Medrano, H.; Chaves, M.M. Modern viticulture in southern Europe: Vulnerabilities and strategies for adaptation to water scarcity. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 164, 5–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Thomson, L. Influence of reduced irrigation on beneficial invertebrates in vineyards. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 1389–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Holland, T.C.; Reynolds, A.G.; Bowen, P.A.; Bogdanoff, C.P.; Marciniak, M.; Brown, R.B.; Hart, M.M. The response of soil biota to water availability in vineyards. Pedobiologia 2012, 56, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sadras, V.; Morán, M.; Petrie, P. Resilience of grapevine yield in response to warming. OENO One 2017, 51, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Fiera, C.; Ulrichb, W.; Popescuc, D.; Buchholzd, J.; Quernerd, P.; Buneae, C.I.; Straussf, P.; Bauerf, T.; Kratschmerd, S.; Winter, S.; et al. Tillage intensity and herbicide application influence surface-activespringtail (Collembola) communities in Romanian vineyards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 300, 107006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pou, A.; Gulias, J.; Moreno, M.; Thomas, M.; Medrano, H.; Cifre, J. Cover cropping in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Manto Negro vineyards under Mediterranean conditions: Effects on plant vigour, yield and grape quality. OENO One 2011, 45, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Caffaro, F.; Cremasco, M.M.; Roccato, M.; Cavallo, E. Drivers of farmers’ intention to adopt technological innovations in Italy: The role of information sources, perceived usefulness, and perceived ease of use. J. Rural Stud. 2020, 76, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Tey, Y.S.; Brindal, M. Factors influencing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies: A review for policy implications. Precis. Agric. 2012, 13, 713–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Garcia, L.; Celette, F.; Gary, C.; Ripoche, A.; Valdés-Gómez, H.; Metay, A. Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 251, 158–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Tesic, D.; Keller, M.; Hutton, R.J. Influence of vineyard floor management practices on grapevine vegetative growth, yield, and fruit composition. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2007, 58, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Griesser, M.; Khalil, S.; De Berardinis, F.; Oriol, F.; Hörmayer, R.; Mayer, N.; Kührer, E.; Forneck, A. Under-vine vegetation in vineyards: A case study considering soil hydrolytic enzyme activity, yield and grape quality in Austria. OENO One 2022, 56, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Abad, J.; de Mendoza, I.H.; Marín, D.; Orcaray, L.; Santesteban, L.G. Cover crops in viticulture. A systematic review (2): Implications on vineyard agronomic performance. OENO One 2021, 55, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Batáry, P.; Báldi, A.; Kleijn, D.; Tscharntke, T. Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agrienvironmental management a meta-analysis. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2011, 278, 1894–1902. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 09339 g001 550
Figure 1. Study area.
Figure 1. Study area.
Sustainability 15 09339 g001
Sustainability 15 09339 g002 550
Figure 2. Climate graphs of the Valdepeñas and Alcubillas stations (data collected from the Spanish State Meteorological Agency).
Figure 2. Climate graphs of the Valdepeñas and Alcubillas stations (data collected from the Spanish State Meteorological Agency).
Sustainability 15 09339 g002
Sustainability 15 09339 g003 550
Figure 3. Profiles of study.
Figure 3. Profiles of study.
Sustainability 15 09339 g003
Sustainability 15 09339 g004a 550Sustainability 15 09339 g004b 550
Figure 4. Combination of different sustainable soil/water management practices in vineyards. (A) Vegetation cover comprising a mixture of a legume (Vicia sativa L.), a crucifer (Sinapis alba L.), and three graminaceous species (Avena sativa L., Secale cereale L., Hordeum vulgare L.). (B) Spontaneous plant cover in spring. (C) Spontaneous plant cover in summer. (D) Conyza canadensis in a drip irrigation line. (E) Example of a vineyard with no vegetation cover. (F) Photograph of a profuse stony phase (mainly petrocalcic fragment that acts as inert vegetation cover).
Figure 4. Combination of different sustainable soil/water management practices in vineyards. (A) Vegetation cover comprising a mixture of a legume (Vicia sativa L.), a crucifer (Sinapis alba L.), and three graminaceous species (Avena sativa L., Secale cereale L., Hordeum vulgare L.). (B) Spontaneous plant cover in spring. (C) Spontaneous plant cover in summer. (D) Conyza canadensis in a drip irrigation line. (E) Example of a vineyard with no vegetation cover. (F) Photograph of a profuse stony phase (mainly petrocalcic fragment that acts as inert vegetation cover).
Sustainability 15 09339 g004aSustainability 15 09339 g004b
Table
Table 1. Selected soil profile characteristics.
Table 1. Selected soil profile characteristics.
Selected Morphological Properties of The Soil Profiles; Also Coordinates and Classification
SOIL 1
FAO: Haplic Leptosol (Calcaric, Novic). USDA: Lithic Xerorthent. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0479718 x − 4294064 y Coordinate GPS: 38°47′42.3″ N–03°14′00.8″ W Morphology: Ap-R Depth: 32 cm Topography: Sloping Drainage: Moderately drained.		SOIL 2
FAO: Petric Calcisol (Chromic, Novic). USDA: Petric Calcixerept. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0466319 x − 4304034 y Coordinate GPS: 38°53′04″ N–03°23′19.9″ W Morphology: Ap-Bw-Ckm Depth: 32 cm Topography: Flat Drainage: Moderately drained		SOIL 3
FAO: Petri Calcisol (Skeletic, Chromic). USDA: Petrocalcic Calcixerept Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0467476 x − 4303818 y
Coordinate GPS: 38°52′57.5″ N–03°22′30.0″ W Morphology: Ap-Ckm Depth: 40 cm Topography: Flat Drainage: Moderately drained
SOIL 4
FAO: Calcic Luvisol (Rhodic, Novic). USDA:
Calcic Rhodoxeralf Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0463824 x − 4306846 y Coordinate GPS: 38°54′35.2″ N–03°25′02.1″ W Morphology: Ap-Bt-Ck Depth: 95 cm Topography: Nearly level Drainage: Moderately drained		SOIL 5
FAO: Calcic Luvisol (Profundic, Rhodic). USDA: Petrocalcic Rhodoxeralf. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0451259 x − 42906 23 y Coordinate GPS: 38°45′46.2″ N–03° 33′37.3″ W Morphology: Ap-Bt-Bk-Ckm Depth: 116 cm Topography: Sloping Drainage: Well drained		SOIL 6
FAO: Haplic Regosol (Calcaric, Skeletic). USDA: Typic Xerorthent. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0455514 x − 4291861y Coordinate GPS: 38°46′27.7″ N–03°30′43.7″ W Morphology: Ap-C Depth: 25 cm Topography: Flat Drainage: Moderately drained
SOIL 7
FAO: Cutanic Luvisol (Rhodic, Novic). USDA: Typic Rhodoxeralf. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0466042 x − 4277800 y Coordinate GPS: 38°38′53.2″ N–03°23′24.9″ W Morphology: Ap-Bt-C Depth: 77 cm Topography: Flat Drainage: Well drained		SOIL 8
FAO: Calcic Luvisol (Chromic, Novic). USDA: Calcic Rhodoxeralf. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0471649 x − 4288817 y Coordinate GPS: 38°44′51.1″ N–03°19′34.5″ W Morphology: Ap-Bt-Ck Depth: 78 cm Topography: Nearly level. Drainage: Well drained		SOIL 9
FAO: Haplic Calcisol (Chromic, Novic). USDA: Typic Calcixerept. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0489166 x − 4296580 y Coordinate GPS: 38°49′04.5″ N–03°07′29.3″ W Morphology: Ap-Bw-Ck Depth: 48 cm Topography: Flat Drainage: Well drained
SOIL 10
FAO: Haplic Cambisol (Calcaric, Rhodic). USDA: Typic Haploxerept. Coordinate UTM: (30s) 0482521 x − 4296908 y Coordinate GPS: 38°49′14.8″ N–03°12′04.8″ W Morphology: Ap-Bw-C Depth: 72 cm Topography: Nearly level Drainage: Moderately drained
Table
Table 2. Mean of the main characteristics of the studied soils.
Table 2. Mean of the main characteristics of the studied soils.
Sand (%)Silt (%)Clay (%)pHOrganic Carbon (%)CEC (cmol+·kg−1)V (%)
Surface Horizon (n = 10)MEAN50.4632.2917.228.470.8816.93100
CV19.4124.8852.992.3642.1123.1100
MAX60.650.435.78.91.513.7100
MIN31.921.46.38.20.316.880.00
Subsurface Horizon (n = 9)MEAN39.5233.5627.18.490.520.2100
CV28.6921.8333.262.9258.5525.8100
MAX54.944.237.48.90.913.3100
MIN26.320.213.78.20.119.520.00
n = number of samples. (CEC: cation exchange capacity; V.: Based saturation; CV.: coefficient of variation).
Table
Table 3. Mean macronutrient concentrations studied.
Table 3. Mean macronutrient concentrations studied.
Nitrogen (%)Phosphorus (mg·kg−1)Potassium (g·kg−1)Sulfur
(g·kg−1)		Copper (mg·kg−1)
Surface Horizon (n = 10)MEAN0.0711.5219.460.5225.67
CV0.380.380.190.190.25
Subsurface Horizon (n = 9)MEAN0.0410.3720.390.3925.50
CV0.550.240.290.370.20
(CV.: coefficient of variation).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

García-Navarro, F.J.; Jiménez-Ballesta, R.; Perales, J.A.L.; Perez, C.; Amorós, J.A.; Bravo, S. Sustainable Viticulture in the Valdepeñas Protected Designation of Origin: From Soil Quality to Management in Vitis vinifera. Sustainability 2023, 15, 9339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129339

AMA Style

García-Navarro FJ, Jiménez-Ballesta R, Perales JAL, Perez C, Amorós JA, Bravo S. Sustainable Viticulture in the Valdepeñas Protected Designation of Origin: From Soil Quality to Management in Vitis vinifera. Sustainability. 2023; 15(12):9339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129339

Chicago/Turabian Style

García-Navarro, Francisco Jesús, Raimundo Jiménez-Ballesta, Jesús Antonio López Perales, Caridad Perez, Jose Angel Amorós, and Sandra Bravo. 2023. "Sustainable Viticulture in the Valdepeñas Protected Designation of Origin: From Soil Quality to Management in Vitis vinifera" Sustainability 15, no. 12: 9339. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129339

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop