Abstract
The response of container-grown, girdled vines to water-deficit stress was examined by investigating the leaf net CO2 assimilation rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration rate (E), predawn leaf water potential (ΨPD), and the fluctuations of stem diameter in vines. At the beginning of withholding irrigation, A, gs, and E were lower in girdled vines than in control vines. A and gs decreased 4 and 5 days after the start of withholding irrigation in control and girdled vines, respectively. ΨPD reached −1.13 MPa in the control vines and −0.67 MPa in girdled vines at 6 days after withholding irrigation. The higher soil water potential in water-deficient girdled vines than in control vines showed lower water consumption in girdled vines. Daytime stem contraction was smaller in girdled vines than in control vines while drying. Hence, results indicated that decreased water use as a result of girdling reduced the depletion of soil water in the containers, which caused high ΨPD and subsequent low stem contraction in girdled vines. Combined treatment of girdling and short-term strong water-deficit stress did not cause leaf wilt or decrease shoot growth in the subsequent growing season. These results reveal the response of girdled vines to water-deficit stress, especially severe and short-term water-deficit stress, in controlled conditions under which vines were grown in containers in a vinyl greenhouse.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
At the beginning of irrigation withholding, leaf assimilation, stomatal conductance and transpiration were lower in girdled vines.
- Treatment
- girdled vinese0
- Outcome
- A, gs, and Ee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- At the beginning of withholding irrigatione0
- Comparator
- control vinese0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“At the beginning of withholding irrigation, A, gs, and E were lower in girdled vines than in control vines.”
e1“leaf net CO2 assimilation rate (A), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration rate (E)”
Claim · model-written summary
Assimilation and stomatal conductance fell four days after irrigation withholding in control vines and five days after in girdled vines.
- Outcome
- A and gse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 4 and 5 dayse0
- Qualifier
- control and girdled vines, respectivelye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“A and gs decreased 4 and 5 days after the start of withholding irrigation in control and girdled vines, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
After six days without irrigation, predawn leaf water potential was −1.13 MPa in control vines.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“ΨPD reached −1.13 MPa in the control vines and −0.67 MPa in girdled vines at 6 days after withholding irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
After six days without irrigation, predawn leaf water potential was −0.67 MPa in girdled vines.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“ΨPD reached −1.13 MPa in the control vines and −0.67 MPa in girdled vines at 6 days after withholding irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water potential was higher under water-deficient girdled vines, indicating lower water use.
- Treatment
- water-deficient girdled vinese0
- Outcome
- soil water potentiale0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- control vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“The higher soil water potential in water-deficient girdled vines than in control vines showed lower water consumption in girdled vines.”
Claim · model-written summary
Daytime stem contraction was smaller in girdled vines during drying.
- Treatment
- girdled vinese0
- Outcome
- Daytime stem contractione0
- Direction
- smallere0
- Qualifier
- while dryinge0
- Comparator
- control vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“Daytime stem contraction was smaller in girdled vines than in control vines while drying.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute higher leaf water potential and lower stem contraction to girdling-induced reductions in water use and soil water depletion.
- Treatment
- girdlinge0
- Outcome
- high ΨPD and subsequent low stem contractione0
- Qualifier
- decreased water usee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“decreased water use as a result of girdling reduced the depletion of soil water in the containers, which caused high ΨPD and subsequent low stem contraction in girdled vines.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined girdling and short severe water deficit did not cause leaf wilt or reduce later shoot growth.
- Treatment
- girdling and short-term strong water-deficit stresse0
- Outcome
- leaf wilt or decrease shoot growthe0
- Direction
- did not causee0
- Qualifier
- subsequent growing seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“Combined treatment of girdling and short-term strong water-deficit stress did not cause leaf wilt or decrease shoot growth in the subsequent growing season.”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · physiology: gas exchange · VitisResults differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- no effect
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →drought · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →pruning · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 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.