Abstract
The effect of different P-sources on growth, leaf chemical composition, and fruit soluble solids and acid content was evaluated in mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR. Mycorrhizal and non mycorrhizal plants were grown in 20 L pots containing 20 kg soil supplemented with different P-forms: (Calcium bis-dihydrogen-phosphate, tri-calcium phosphate, aluminium phosphate, iron (III) phosphate) with different solubility, equivalent to 90 kg P.ha-1. The percent of mycorrhizal root colonization was higher in insoluble P-form treatments compared to control or to soluble P-form treatment (CaDP), ranging from 66 to 84 % in treatments receiving insoluble P, from 36.67 to 38.33 % in control and from 25.33 to 27.33 % in soluble P-form treatments. The roots of 110R rootstock showed higher colonization rate compared to the 3309C. Mycorrhizal colonization increased both the pruning weight and number of nodes of the vines, up to 9 and 1.9 times respectively, according to the rootstock- P form combination. Mycorrhizal vines showed increased leaf concentrations in N, P, K, Ca. Fruit total soluble solids of mycorrhizal vines were about 30 % lower compared with those of the non mycorrhizal vines. Both factors, mycorrhizal colonization and P-forms had no significant effect in fruit titratable acidity.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal root colonization of grapevine was higher in insoluble P-form treatments (66 to 84 %) than in control or soluble P-form treatments.
- Material
- Victoriae0
- Treatment
- insoluble P-form treatmentse1
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale1symbiont
- Outcome
- percent of mycorrhizal root colonizatione1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 66 to 84 %e1
- Comparator
- control or to soluble P-form treatmente1
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e1“The percent of mycorrhizal root colonization was higher in insoluble P-form treatments compared to control or to soluble P-form treatment (CaDP), ranging from 66 to 84 % in treatments receiving insoluble P, from 36.67 to 38.33 % in control and from 25.33 to 27.33 % in soluble P-form treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal root colonization in control grapevine plots was 36.67 to 38.33 %.
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale1symbiont
- Outcome
- percent of mycorrhizal root colonizatione1
- Value
- 36.67 to 38.33 %e2
- Qualifier
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e1“The percent of mycorrhizal root colonization was higher in insoluble P-form treatments compared to control or to soluble P-form treatment (CaDP), ranging from 66 to 84 % in treatments receiving insoluble P, from 36.67 to 38.33 % in control and from 25.33 to 27.33 % in soluble P-form treatments”
e2“from 36.67 to 38.33 % in control”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal root colonization in soluble P-form grapevine treatments was 25.33 to 27.33 %.
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale1symbiont
- Outcome
- percent of mycorrhizal root colonizatione1
- Value
- 25.33 to 27.33 %e3
- Qualifier
- soluble P-form treatmentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e1“The percent of mycorrhizal root colonization was higher in insoluble P-form treatments compared to control or to soluble P-form treatment (CaDP), ranging from 66 to 84 % in treatments receiving insoluble P, from 36.67 to 38.33 % in control and from 25.33 to 27.33 % in soluble P-form treatments”
e3“from 25.33 to 27.33 % in soluble P-form treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal colonization increased grapevine pruning weight, up to 9 times, depending on rootstock and P form.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal colonizatione4
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale4symbiont
- Outcome
- pruning weighte4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 9e4
- Qualifier
- up toe4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e4“Mycorrhizal colonization increased both the pruning weight and number of nodes of the vines, up to 9 and 1.9 times respectively, according to the rootstock- P form combination”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal colonization increased grapevine node number, up to 1.9 times, depending on rootstock and P form.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal colonizatione4
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale4symbiont
- Outcome
- number of nodese4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Value
- 1.9e4
- Qualifier
- up toe4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e4“Mycorrhizal colonization increased both the pruning weight and number of nodes of the vines, up to 9 and 1.9 times respectively, according to the rootstock- P form combination”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal grapevine vines showed increased leaf concentrations in N, P and K.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal vinese5
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale5symbiont
- Outcome
- leaf concentrations in N, P, Ke5
- Direction
- increasede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e5“Mycorrhizal vines showed increased leaf concentrations in N, P, K, Ca”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal grapevine vines showed increased leaf Ca concentration.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizal vinese5
- Interactor
- Mycorrhizale5symbiont
- Outcome
- Cae5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Qualifier
- leaf concentrationse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e5“Mycorrhizal vines showed increased leaf concentrations in N, P, K, Ca”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal grapevine vines had about 30 % lower fruit total soluble solids than non-mycorrhizal vines.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal vinese6
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale6symbiont
- Outcome
- Fruit total soluble solidse6
- Direction
- lowere6
- Value
- 30 %e6
- Qualifier
- aboute6
- Comparator
- non mycorrhizal vinese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e6“Fruit total soluble solids of mycorrhizal vines were about 30 % lower compared with those of the non mycorrhizal vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal colonization and P forms had no significant effect on grapevine fruit titratable acidity.
- Treatment
- mycorrhizal colonization and P-formse7
- Interactor
- mycorrhizale7symbiont
- Outcome
- fruit titratable aciditye7
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“mycorrhizal Victoria grapevine variety gralted onto the rootstocks 3309C or 11 OR”
e7“Both factors, mycorrhizal colonization and P-forms had no significant effect in fruit titratable acidity”
The same questions in other papers
phosphorus · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
mycorrhiza · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
infection · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.