Abstract
Drip and micro-sprinkler irrigation systems were compared in a Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard in a weathered granite-gneiss soil in the Lower Orange River region. For each system, two different irrigation strategies were investigated. Drip irrigation frequencies of two days or longer, induced more water constraints in grapevines compared to micro-sprinkler irrigation applied at the same frequencies in the 1996/97 and 1997/98 seasons. Higher water constraints imposed by drip irrigation had negative effects on vegetative growth, berry size and grape quality compared to micro-sprinkler irrigation. However, responses of drip irrigated grapevines were comparable to micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines when drip irrigations were applied daily in the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 seasons. Daily, early morning drip irrigation increased evapotranspiration (ET) by 6% compared to drip during the warmest part of the day. Drip irrigation suppressed weed growth considerably compared to micro-sprinklers. Daily ET of the drip irrigated grapevines was substantially lower compared to micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines that received either two or three irrigations per week. In the case of micro-sprinklers, the higher frequency increased ET by 8% compared to the lower irrigation frequency. Since micro-sprinkler irrigation invariably produced higher yields than drip irrigation during the four seasons, it should be the preferred system for irrigation of table grapes under the given atmospheric and soil conditions. If water resources are limited, or if high water cost reduces table grape profitability, drip irrigation merits consideration as an alternative. However, daily drip irrigation will be required during the growing season to maintain acceptable yields and grape quality.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation at frequencies of two days or longer induced more water constraints in grapevines than micro-sprinkler irrigation at the same frequencies.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e1“Drip irrigation frequencies of two days or longer, induced more water constraints in grapevines compared to micro-sprinkler irrigation applied at the same frequencies in the 1996/97 and 1997/98 seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher water constraints from drip irrigation had negative effects on vegetative growth, berry size and grape quality compared with micro-sprinkler irrigation.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e2“Higher water constraints imposed by drip irrigation had negative effects on vegetative growth, berry size and grape quality compared to micro-sprinkler irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
When drip irrigation was applied daily, grapevine responses were comparable to micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines in the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 seasons.
- Treatment
- drip irrigations were applied dailye3
- Outcome
- responsese3
- Direction
- comparablee3
- Comparator
- micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevinese3
- Setting
- 1998/99 and 1999/2000 seasonse3
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e3“However, responses of drip irrigated grapevines were comparable to micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines when drip irrigations were applied daily in the 1998/99 and 1999/2000 seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Daily early morning drip irrigation increased evapotranspiration by 6% compared with drip irrigation during the warmest part of the day.
- Treatment
- Daily, early morning drip irrigatione1
- Outcome
- evapotranspiration (ET)e1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 6%e1
- Comparator
- drip during the warmest part of the daye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Daily, early morning drip irrigation increased evapotranspiration (ET) by 6% compared to drip during the warmest part of the day”
e2“Daily ET of the drip irrigated grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Daily evapotranspiration of drip irrigated grapevines was substantially lower than that of micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines receiving two or three irrigations per week.
- Treatment
- drip irrigatede2
- Outcome
- Daily ETe2
- Direction
- substantially lowere2
- Comparator
- micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines that received either two or three irrigations per weeke2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Daily ET of the drip irrigated grapevines was substantially lower compared to micro-sprinkler irrigated grapevines that received either two or three irrigations per week”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing micro-sprinkler irrigation frequency raised evapotranspiration by 8% compared with the lower irrigation frequency.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e3“In the case of micro-sprinklers, the higher frequency increased ET by 8% compared to the lower irrigation frequency”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation suppressed weed growth considerably compared with micro-sprinklers.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e4“Drip irrigation suppressed weed growth considerably compared to micro-sprinklers”
Claim · model-written summary
Micro-sprinkler irrigation invariably produced higher yields than drip irrigation during the four seasons.
Verbatim
e0“Thompson Seedless/Ramsey table grape vineyard”
e5“Since micro-sprinkler irrigation invariably produced higher yields than drip irrigation during the four seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Micro-sprinkler irrigation should be the preferred irrigation system for table grapes under the given atmospheric and soil conditions.
Verbatim
e6“it should be the preferred system for irrigation of table grapes under the given atmospheric and soil conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Drip irrigation merits consideration as an alternative if water is limited or water cost reduces table grape profitability.
Verbatim
e7“If water resources are limited, or if high water cost reduces table grape profitability, drip irrigation merits consideration as an alternative”
Claim · model-written summary
Daily drip irrigation during the growing season is required to maintain acceptable yields and grape quality.
Verbatim
e1“daily drip irrigation will be required during the growing season to maintain acceptable yields and grape quality”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · weed · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.