Abstract
The effects of several irrigation strategies on vine water relations and the quality of table grapes, Vitis vinifera L. ‘Muscat of Alexandria’, were evaluated from veraison to harvest. The treatments included: (1) standard practice irrigation (control): re-irrigation when the soil moisture tension reached 15 kPa; (2) regulated deficit irrigation (RDI): re-irrigation 4 to 7 days after reaching a soil moisture tension of 15 kPa; (3) fixed partial root-zone drying (FPRD): one half of the root system was re-irrigated when the soil moisture tension reached 15 kPa; and (4) alternate partial root-zone drying (APRD): one half of the root system was re-irrigated when the soil moisture tension reached 15 kPa, and every week the irrigated half was switched. Treatments were continued for 7 weeks until harvest. During the experiment, RDI vines received 58% less irrigation water than the controls, while 33% less irrigation water was applied to FPRD and APRD vines. The results showed that only RDI vines had a significantly lower midday stem water potential compared with the control. Vines of FPRD and APRD treatments had the highest efficiency of water use (photosynthetic rate/stomatal conductance). At harvest, RDI fruit had markedly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar acidity, and lower firmness and smaller size compared with the control. FPRD and APRD fruits had slightly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar firmness and size, and lower acidity compared with the control. Aroma concentrations were high in RDI and FPRD fruits.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
RDI received 58% less irrigation water than controls.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“RDI vines received 58% less irrigation water than the controls”
Claim · model-written summary
FPRD and APRD received 33% less water.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“33% less irrigation water was applied to FPRD and APRD vines.”
Claim · model-written summary
Only RDI significantly lowered midday stem water potential.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“only RDI vines had a significantly lower midday stem water potential compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
FPRD and APRD had highest water use efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Vines of FPRD and APRD treatments had the highest efficiency of water use (photosynthetic rate/stomatal conductance).”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI fruit had higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“RDI fruit had markedly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar acidity, and lower firmness and smaller size compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI fruit had similar acidity.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“RDI fruit had markedly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar acidity, and lower firmness and smaller size compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI fruit had lower firmness and smaller size.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“RDI fruit had markedly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar acidity, and lower firmness and smaller size compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
FPRD and APRD fruit had slightly higher TSS, sugars and amino acids.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“FPRD and APRD fruits had slightly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar firmness and size, and lower acidity compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
FPRD and APRD fruit retained similar firmness and size.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“FPRD and APRD fruits had slightly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar firmness and size, and lower acidity compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
FPRD and APRD fruit had lower acidity.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“FPRD and APRD fruits had slightly higher TSS, sugars, and amino acids, a similar firmness and size, and lower acidity compared with the control.”
Claim · model-written summary
Aroma concentrations were high in RDI and FPRD fruit.
Verbatim
t0“Table Grapes”
e0“Aroma concentrations were high in RDI and FPRD fruits.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: postharvest · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.