the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Effects of moss restoration on topsoil water dynamics in a temperate vineyard
Abstract. Climate change is intensifying pressure on vineyard soil and water management, particularly under-vine, where vegetation is commonly suppressed to minimize competition with grapevines. Bryophytes represent a promising but little-tested alternative to bare soil or cover crops. We evaluated moss restoration as an under-vine ground cover in a temperate, rainfed vineyard in southwestern Germany, comparing it with bare soil and cover crop (grass) over a 22-month field experiment. Continuous topsoil moisture measurements using time-domain transmission sensors were used to analyse the initial response time (the time between the onset of precipitation and the first increase in topsoil moisture) and the peak response time (the time between the onset of precipitation and the maximum topsoil moisture). We additionally quantified mean topsoil moisture and drying rates and monitored treatment development during and after maintenance.
Moss restoration did not significantly delay topsoil moisture response times following precipitation compared to grass or bare soil. Initial response times followed the pattern grass > moss > bare soil; differences between treatments were most pronounced under light and moderate precipitation and declined with increasing intensity, with moss and bare soil converging under heavy events. Peak response times followed a similar pattern (grass > moss ≈ bare soil), with significant differences restricted to light and heavy precipitation events: grass exhibited longer peak response times than bare soil under light rainfall and longer times than both bare soil and moss under heavy rainfall. Mean topsoil moisture did not differ significantly among treatments, whereas drying rates were higher under moss and bare soil than under grass. Moss plots initially suppressed grass establishment and consistently exhibited the lowest variability in topsoil moisture response, although vegetation cover and functional differences between treatments gradually converged after maintenance ceased.
Overall, moss restoration maintained topsoil moisture dynamics comparable to bare soil while avoiding the delayed infiltration and higher variability associated with grass cover. These results suggest that mosses may provide a low-maintenance under-vine ground cover with stable hydrological functioning, warranting further investigation into their long-term persistence and performance under future climate and management scenarios.
- Preprint
(1928 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1159', Teresa Paço, 29 May 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
Dear Dr. Paço,
Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments.
We appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our
manuscript, and the valuable points you have raised regarding moss
cultivation, experimental design and data interpretation.
We acknowledge the importance of the questions concerning the
scalability and feasibility of moss establishment. In this context, we
would like to note that the moss cultivation for this study was
conducted successfully in collaboration with a private company. The
cultivation has proven effective and does not require the multi-year
timescales often associated with natural moss establishment. However,
the underlying methodology has not yet been formally published. We will
address this aspect, together with the other points raised, in detail in
our revised manuscript and response document.
Kind regards,
the authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1159', Jesús Rodrigo-Comino, 30 May 2026
The manuscript contains useful information on soil moisture dynamics following the previously published study on runoff and erosion from the same experimental vineyard. However, the scientific independence and novelty of the present contribution are not sufficiently demonstrated.
Although the analysed variables differ (soil moisture response times, drying rates and soil moisture dynamics vs rainfall simulations), the study was carried out on the same experimental setup, treatments, site conditions and monitoring framework previously published by the authors. As a consequence, a substantial part of the scientific context, experimental rationale and interpretation overlaps with earlier work.
The manuscript would also benefit from a broader discussion regarding the transferability of the results beyond the specific experimental site. The study was conducted in a single vineyard under particular soil, climatic and management conditions, making it difficult to assess whether similar responses would be expected across the diversity of vineyard systems found in Germany and other European vine-growing regions.
The ecological suitability and establishment potential of the selected moss species across different vineyard environments remains unclear. The manuscript demonstrates successful establishment under the conditions of the study site, but provides little discussion regarding the geographical distribution, ecological tolerance and long-term persistence of these species under contrasting soil properties, climatic conditions and management practices. As a result, it is difficult to evaluate the practical applicability of the proposed restoration strategy at broader spatial scales.
Furthermore, the hydrological interpretation focuses primarily on surface soil moisture dynamics, while several important processes commonly reported in temperate vineyard systems are not considered. In many Central European vineyards, water redistribution is strongly influenced by preferential flow pathways, macropore flow, lateral subsurface flow and subsurface runoff processes (Hewlett runoff vs Hortonian one). These mechanisms may play a significant role in hillslope hydrological connectivity and water availability, particularly during prolonged wet periods or intense rainfall events. Since such processes were not investigated or compared (becasue most of the typical German vineyards are on steep slopes), the extent to which the observed moisture patterns can be extrapolated to vineyard-scale hydrological functioning remains uncertain.
The discussion should acknowledge that the reported effects describe near-surface soil moisture responses at the plot scale in Hortonian runoff type and may not necessarily translate into equivalent changes in water storage, hydrological connectivity or water availability at larger spatial scales.
Looking forward to reviewing this ms and happy to be selected by the editor to learn a lot from you.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
Dear Dr. Rodrigo-Comino,
Thank you for your careful review and constructive comments.
We appreciate your observations regarding the distinction between the
present manuscript and our previously published study. We agree that the
scientific independence and novelty of the current contribution should
be communicated more clearly and will revise the manuscript accordingly
to better highlight the different research questions, analyses and
implications addressed in this work.
We also appreciate your comments concerning the transferability of the
results, the ecological suitability of the moss species, and the
limitations regarding hydrological processes and scale effects. These
aspects will be addressed in detail in our revised manuscript and
response.
Thank you again for your valuable feedback.
Kind regards,
the authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1159-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Silvana Oldenburg, 10 Jun 2026
Data sets
Dataset Soil Moisture Fellbach Vineyard Silvana Oldenburg https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31438390
Model code and software
Code Soil Moisture Fellbach Vineyard Silvana Oldenburg https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.31439944
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 430 | 150 | 32 | 612 | 29 | 47 |
- HTML: 430
- PDF: 150
- XML: 32
- Total: 612
- BibTeX: 29
- EndNote: 47
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Dear Authors,
Your manuscript addresses a quite interesting topic, still quite unexplored. Mosses have the ability to retain water and prevent soil evaporation, contributing also to prevent erosion, among other benefits, and they don't compete with plant roots for resources. Although the idea is appealing, some practical barriers might arise for implementation. Please see some further comments and suggestions.
l. 83: "Mosses have been successfully cultivated under controlled greenhouse conditions" - please provide some references for this. It's true that they can be cultivated but the the growth rate is slow (DOI: 10.3390/plants10112523). To increase the efficiency of the production process, mosses can also be screened for adequate physiology (DOI: 10.3390/w12061748) or selected using ecological criteria (DOI: 10.3390/urbansci3020057). Please discuss this in the paper addressing the viability of using mosses as ground cover in vineyards, which are large cultivated areas. How long would it take to cover the space inter rows with mosses?
l. 108: the treatments surface is small (40 cm x 40 cm); is it enough to ensure that lateral water movements in the sub-surface soil are absent and won't mask the results? The moss mats dimensions are also 40 cm x 40 cm? Could this be related to the non-significative difference in mean topsoil moisture among treatments?
l. 453-4: " it can also impede infiltration, and its root system plays an important role by increasing the soil porosity
and infiltration rates"; this seems contradictory, please rephrase.
Conclusions:
"Mean topsoil moisture did not differ significantly among treatments, with a tendency toward slightly higher moisture
in bare soil plots." - this can be explained by being driven by higher infiltration in bare soil, if analysed for short periods, or, if related to soil evaporation rates, it should be the opposite. Please clarify this better.
Please provide further emphasis on the advantages of moss cover over bare soil, as this is not very clear.