Abstract
Regulated deficit irrigation (RDI) is a management strategy that on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio, water efficiency, and wine quality but has the potential to reduce yield. As part of a study on the influence of RDI on leafhopper density, we evaluated the effects on grape yield, berry size, berry soluble solids, and wine color. The studies were conducted at commercial vineyards in the San Joaquin Valley and in the Paso Robles region, CA, with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar. Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control) for a period of 3 or 6 weeks and initiated at berry set, leafhopper egg hatch, or veraison. Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 16.1% at the San Joaquin Valley site (Aliso) and 11.7% at one of the Paso Robles sites (Frankel) but did not differ at the other site (Steinbeck). Yield was decreased by the deficits by 18.1% at Aliso, 26.7% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and 24% at Steinbeck. Wine color density was increased by 21.8% at Aliso, 34.4% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and did not differ at Steinbeck. Soluble solids did not differ among treatments at any site. There was no difference in berry weight, yield, or color between the moderate and severe deficits. It appears that in central California, RDI such as these are likely to reduce yield but are only one factor among many variables affecting quality such as wine color.
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
Deficit irrigation decreased yield by 18.1% at Aliso.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e3“Yield was decreased by the deficits by 18.1% at Aliso, 26.7% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and 24% at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation decreased yield by 26.7% at Frankel in 2001 but not in 2002.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e3“Yield was decreased by the deficits by 18.1% at Aliso, 26.7% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and 24% at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation decreased yield by 24% at Steinbeck.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e3“Yield was decreased by the deficits by 18.1% at Aliso, 26.7% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and 24% at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 16.1% at Aliso.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e4“Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 16.1% at the San Joaquin Valley site (Aliso) and 11.7% at one of the Paso Robles sites (Frankel) but did not differ at the other site (Steinbeck)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 11.7% at Frankel.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e4“Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 16.1% at the San Joaquin Valley site (Aliso) and 11.7% at one of the Paso Robles sites (Frankel) but did not differ at the other site (Steinbeck)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation did not change berry weight at Steinbeck.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e4“Deficit irrigation decreased berry weight by 16.1% at the San Joaquin Valley site (Aliso) and 11.7% at one of the Paso Robles sites (Frankel) but did not differ at the other site (Steinbeck)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation increased wine color density by 21.8% at Aliso.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e5“Wine color density was increased by 21.8% at Aliso, 34.4% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and did not differ at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation increased wine color density by 34.4% at Frankel in 2001 but not in 2002.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e5“Wine color density was increased by 21.8% at Aliso, 34.4% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and did not differ at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation did not change wine color density at Steinbeck.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e1“with Cabernet Sauvignon as the cultivar”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e5“Wine color density was increased by 21.8% at Aliso, 34.4% at Frankel 2001 (but not 2002), and did not differ at Steinbeck”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids did not differ among deficit treatments at any site.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e6“Soluble solids did not differ among treatments at any site”
Claim · model-written summary
Moderate and severe deficits did not differ in berry weight, yield or color.
Verbatim
e0“on grape can improve shoot/fruit ratio”
e2“Water deficits were imposed at either 50% (moderate deficit) or 25% (severe deficit) of standard irrigation (the control)”
e7“There was no difference in berry weight, yield, or color between the moderate and severe deficits”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · VitisResults differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →drought · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →drought · quality: postharvest · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.