Abstract
[Objective]This research studied the beneficiary effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizer applications on the yield and quality of wild grape(Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)and screened for the best fertilizer combination to provide technical support for fertilizer application decisions in wild grape production. [Method] Using 3414 complete implementation scheme (the N, P2O5, and K2O application on 2 levels were respectively 100.20, 114.30, and 108.90 kg/ha), the yield and quality of wild grape variety Yeniang 2 were determined and the economic benefits of fertilizer application were analyzed. [Result]Under the conditions of available N(196 mg/kg)and available K(414 mg/kg)in soil moisture, the combined effects of different fertilization treatments on grape yield promotion were arranged in the following order:N2P2K0(28122.62 kg/ha)N0P2K2(27819.57 kg/ha)N1P1K2(25940.69 kg/ha)N2P0K2(24849.73 kg/ha). The effect of P fertilizer on the fruit yield was not significant. The N, K fertilizers interacted on the wild grapes; the yield resulting from N0P2K2 application was significantly higher than the yield resulting from N3P2K2 application (21970.80 kg/ha). As the potassium content increased, the resulting fruit yield decreased. Effects of different fertilizer treatments on the soluble solid contents of wild grapes were not significant. [Conclusion]During different wild grape growth periods, the ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers should be reasonably combined with the corresponding type of soil and effective component contents for fruit application.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
N2P2K0 produced 28122.62 kg/ha grape yield, the highest listed treatment.
- Taxon
- wild grape
Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0 - Material
- Yeniang 2t0
- Treatment
- N2P2K0e0
- Outcome
- grape yielde1
- Direction
- promotione1
- Value
- 28122.62 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N2P2K0(28122.62 kg/ha)N0P2K2(27819.57 kg/ha)N1P1K2(25940.69 kg/ha)N2P0K2(24849.73 kg/ha)”
e1“grape yield promotion”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
N0P2K2 produced 27819.57 kg/ha grape yield.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Material
- Yeniang 2t0
- Treatment
- N0P2K2e0
- Outcome
- grape yielde1
- Direction
- promotione1
- Value
- 27819.57 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N0P2K2(27819.57 kg/ha)”
e1“grape yield promotion”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
N1P1K2 produced 25940.69 kg/ha grape yield.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Material
- Yeniang 2t0
- Treatment
- N1P1K2e0
- Outcome
- grape yielde1
- Direction
- promotione1
- Value
- 25940.69 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N1P1K2(25940.69 kg/ha)”
e1“grape yield promotion”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
N2P0K2 produced 24849.73 kg/ha grape yield.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Material
- Yeniang 2t0
- Treatment
- N2P0K2e0
- Outcome
- grape yielde1
- Direction
- promotione1
- Value
- 24849.73 kg/hae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N2P0K2(24849.73 kg/ha)”
e1“grape yield promotion”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
P fertilizer had no significant effect on fruit yield.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Treatment
- P fertilizere0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“effect of P fertilizer on the fruit yield was not significant”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
N and K fertilizers interacted in their effect on wild grape yield.
- Taxon
- wild grapesVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrise0
- Treatment
- N, K fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“N, K fertilizers interacted on the wild grapes; the yield resulting from N0P2K2 application was significantly higher than the yield resulting from N3P2K2 application (21970.80 kg/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
N0P2K2 produced significantly higher yield than N3P2K2, which yielded 21970.80 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Treatment
- N0P2K2 applicatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 21970.80 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- N3P2K2 applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield resulting from N0P2K2 application was significantly higher than the yield resulting from N3P2K2 application (21970.80 kg/ha)”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fruit yield decreased as potassium content increased.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrist0
- Treatment
- potassium contente0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As the potassium content increased, the resulting fruit yield decreased”
t0“wild grape variety Yeniang 2 (Vitis quinquangularis Rehd.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer treatments did not significantly affect soluble solids.
- Taxon
- wild grapesVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrise0
- Treatment
- different fertilizer treatmentse0
- Outcome
- soluble solid contentse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Effects of different fertilizer treatments on the soluble solid contents of wild grapes were not significant”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend adjusting N, P and K ratios by growth period and soil conditions.
- Taxon
- wild grapeVitis vinifera subsp. sylvestrise0
- Outcome
- ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers should be reasonably combinede0
- Qualifier
- corresponding type of soil and effective component contentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During different wild grape growth periods, the ratios of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium fertilizers should be reasonably combined with the corresponding type of soil and effective component contents for fruit application”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.