Abstract
A field trial was carried out in a drip irrigated Dan-ben-Hannah/Ramsey vineyard near Paarl in the BergRiver Valley region of South Africa to compare three fertigation strategies. Fertilisers were applied (i)two weeks after bud break, fruit set and post-harvest (LF), (ii) weekly from two weeks after bud breakuntil ten weeks after harvest, except during berry ripening (WF), and (iii) in daily irrigation pulses (DF).Grapevines of all treatments received c. 116 kg/ha N, 22 kg/ha P and 92 kg/ha K per season. Grapevinesof all the fertigation strategies were thinned to obtain a normal and high crop load, which is 26 and36 bunches per grapevine respectively for Dan-ben-Hannah. Crop load did not affect vegetative growth,berry size or bunch mass. However, compared to LF and WF, DF increased the berry size of grapevinesbearing 26 bunches. Crop load tended to reduce juice TSS, irrespective of fertigation strategy, particularlyin 2002/03. Neither fertigation strategy nor crop load affected TTA and pH. Less berry crack contributedto a higher yield and higher export percentage of the DF grapes. In addition, bigger berries, and thereforebetter appearance, also contributed to the higher export quality of the DF grapes. Although the DFgrapevines bearing 36 bunches produced grapes of poorer colour and overall impression, they were withinexport norms. Based on the foregoing, the DF strategy should not be regarded as the ultimate solution fortable grape production. However, it can be recommended for vineyards on poor soils or where berry crackoccurs commonly.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load did not affect growth, berry size or bunch mass.
- Taxon
- Table Grapest0
- Treatment
- Crop loade0
- Outcome
- vegetative growth,berry size or bunch masse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Crop load did not affect vegetative growth,berry size or bunch mass.”
Claim · model-written summary
DF increased berry size at 26 bunches relative to LF and WF.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“compared to LF and WF, DF increased the berry size of grapevinesbearing 26 bunches”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher crop load tended to reduce juice TSS.
- Taxon
- Table Grapest0
- Treatment
- Crop loade0
- Outcome
- juice TSSe0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Qualifier
- particularlyin 2002/03e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Crop load tended to reduce juice TSS, irrespective of fertigation strategy, particularlyin 2002/03.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation strategy and crop load did not affect TTA or pH.
- Taxon
- Table Grapest0
- Treatment
- fertigation strategy nor crop loade0
- Outcome
- TTA and pHe0
- Direction
- Neithere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Neither fertigation strategy nor crop load affected TTA and pH.”
Claim · model-written summary
Less berry crack contributed to higher DF yield and export percentage.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Less berry crack contributedto a higher yield and higher export percentage of the DF grapes.”
Claim · model-written summary
Bigger berries contributed to higher export quality of DF grapes.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“bigger berries, and thereforebetter appearance, also contributed to the higher export quality of the DF grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
DF vines with 36 bunches had poorer colour and overall impression, within export norms.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“the DFgrapevines bearing 36 bunches produced grapes of poorer colour and overall impression, they were withinexport norms”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend DF on poor soils or where berry crack is common.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“it can be recommended for vineyards on poor soils or where berry crackoccurs commonly”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results
13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.