Abstract
This is an experiment to study the effect of water supply on the quality of the must produced by grapevines, and to determine the water use efficiency (WUE) of different irrigation strategies to give farmers a tool to optimize irrigation, reducing water use with the least negative effect on production. WUE was based on the ratio between a given parameter (yield, different must solubes) and the water used by plant transpiration plus evaporation from soil. The experiment was a completely randomized design with six irrigation treatments (non-irrigated, irrigated from flowering to veraison at rates of 4 and 8 mm day−1, irrigated from veraison to commercial maturation at rates of 4 and 8 mm day−1, and irrigated from flowering to commercial maturation at a rate of 8 mm day−1) in three replications over three seasons (2004–2006). Irrigation significantly increased grapevine yield and, because the plants produced larger berries, there was a dilution of colour, aroma and soluble solids that corresponded to a lower quality of the must. The higher WUE was achieved with no irrigation but yield was very low, albeit with an outstanding quality, that might not be profitable. The best strategy is to balance the water stress of the vines that best combines yield and berry quality and this was achieved by irrigating from flowering to veraison at a rate of ∼50% of the potential evapotranspiration. This strategy might conserve water, an increasingly scarce resource that we are pressed to use with the utmost efficiency.
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
Irrigation significantly raised grapevine yield.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation significantly increased grapevine yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation produced larger grapevine berries.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the plants produced larger berries”
t0“irrigated grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation diluted must colour, aroma and soluble solids, lowering must quality.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was a dilution of colour, aroma and soluble solids that corresponded to a lower quality of the must.”
t0“irrigated grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
No irrigation yielded the highest water use efficiency.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher WUE was achieved with no irrigation”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield without irrigation was very low.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield was very low”
t0“grapevines”
e1“with no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Must quality without irrigation was outstanding.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“albeit with an outstanding quality”
t0“grapevines”
e1“with no irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors favor irrigation from flowering to veraison at about half potential evapotranspiration to balance yield and berry quality.
Verbatim
e0“The best strategy is to balance the water stress of the vines that best combines yield and berry quality and this was achieved by irrigating from flowering to veraison at a rate of ∼50% of the potential evapotranspiration.”
Claim · model-written summary
The recommended irrigation strategy might conserve water.
Verbatim
e0“This strategy might conserve water”
e1“water stress of the vines”
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
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.