Abstract
The influence of irrigation strategy on grape berry carotenoids and C13-norisoprenoid precursors was investigated for Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Two irrigation treatments were compared, one in which vines received reduced irrigation applied alternately to either side of the vine (partial rootzone drying, PRD) and a second control treatment in which water was applied to both sides of the vine. Over the two years of the experiments, PRD vines received on average 66% of the water applied to the controls. Initially, the PRD treatment did not alter midday leaf (psiL) and stem (psiS) water potential relative to the control, but decreased stomatal conductance (gs). Continued exposure to the PRD treatment resulted in treated grapevines experiencing hydraulic water deficit relative to the control treatment and induced lowered midday psiL and psiS, which was also reflected in decreased berry weight at harvest. In both irrigation treatments, the most abundant grape berry carotenoids, beta-carotene and lutein, followed the developmental pattern typical of other grape varieties, decreasing post-veraison. At certain points in time, as the fruit approached maturity, the concentration of these carotenoids was increased in fruit of PRD-treated vines relative to the controls. This effect was greater for lutein than for beta-carotene. PRD consistently caused increases in the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in fruit at harvest (24 degrees Brix) over two seasons. The effect of the PRD treatment on the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids was greater in the second of the two seasons of the experiment and was also reflected in an increase in total C13-norisoprenoid content per berry. This suggests that the increases in the concentration of the C13-norisoprenoids in response to PRD were independent of water deficit induced changes in berry size and were not the result of an altered berry surface area to volume ratio.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
PRD vines received 66% of the water supplied to controls on average.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Outcome
- water appliede0
- Value
- 66%e0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD vines received on average 66% of the water applied to the controls.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Initially PRD did not alter midday leaf and stem water potential.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- midday leaf (psiL) and stem (psiS) water potentiale0
- Direction
- did not altere0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Initially, the PRD treatment did not alter midday leaf (psiL) and stem (psiS) water potential relative to the control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Initially PRD decreased stomatal conductance.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance (gs)e0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Initially, the PRD treatment did not alter midday leaf (psiL) and stem (psiS) water potential relative to the control, but decreased stomatal conductance (gs).”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Continued PRD lowered midday leaf and stem water potential relative to controls.
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- midday psiL and psiSe0
- Direction
- lowerede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Continued exposure to the PRD treatment resulted in treated grapevines experiencing hydraulic water deficit relative to the control treatment and induced lowered midday psiL and psiS”
Claim · model-written summary
Continued PRD decreased berry weight at harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- berry weight at harveste0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Continued exposure to the PRD treatment resulted in treated grapevines experiencing hydraulic water deficit relative to the control treatment and induced lowered midday psiL and psiS, which was also reflected in decreased berry weight at harvest.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Beta-carotene and lutein declined after veraison under both irrigation treatments.
Verbatim
e0“In both irrigation treatments, the most abundant grape berry carotenoids, beta-carotene and lutein, followed the developmental pattern typical of other grape varieties, decreasing post-veraison.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased berry beta-carotene concentration near maturity at certain times.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD-treated vinese0
- Outcome
- concentration of these carotenoidse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- At certain points in time, as the fruit approached maturitye0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At certain points in time, as the fruit approached maturity, the concentration of these carotenoids was increased in fruit of PRD-treated vines relative to the controls.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The PRD carotenoid effect was greater for lutein than beta-carotene.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- effecte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- beta-carotenee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This effect was greater for lutein than for beta-carotene.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased hydrolytically released beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and TDN concentrations at harvest across two seasons.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalenee0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Qualifier
- fruit at harvest (24 degrees Brix) over two seasonse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD consistently caused increases in the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in fruit at harvest (24 degrees Brix) over two seasons.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The PRD effect on hydrolytically released norisoprenoid concentration was greater in season two.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoidse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Setting
- second of the two seasonse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of the PRD treatment on the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids was greater in the second of the two seasons of the experiment”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased total C13-norisoprenoid content per berry.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- total C13-norisoprenoid content per berrye0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of the PRD treatment on the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids was greater in the second of the two seasons of the experiment and was also reflected in an increase in total C13-norisoprenoid content per berry.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors inferred that PRD-induced norisoprenoid concentration increases were independent of berry size and surface-to-volume changes.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- increases in the concentration of the C13-norisoprenoidse0
- Qualifier
- independent of water deficit induced changes in berry sizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This suggests that the increases in the concentration of the C13-norisoprenoids in response to PRD were independent of water deficit induced changes in berry size and were not the result of an altered berry surface area to volume ratio.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →irrigation · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 24 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 papers →irrigation · physiology: pigments · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.