Abstract
Background and Aims: The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation. Methods and Results: Drip-irrigated Shiraz vines on eight rootstocks were subjected to industry standard and 30% reduced irrigation regimes over four seasons. Reducing irrigation decreased pruning weights and yield, but did not consistently affect irrigation water use index (IWUI). It increased leaf Δ13C. Reduced irrigation and elevated vapour pressure deficit (VPD) were associated with decreases in leaf water potential (ψl), leaf stomatal conductance and assimilation rate. Reducing irrigation raised leaf transpiration efficiency, whereas elevated VPD lowered it. These effects of reduced irrigation were independent of rootstock. Vines grafted to 101-14 had a higher ψl and achieved the highest yield and IWUI. The yields of vines grafted to Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri were also high. Vines grafted to 101-14, Ramsey and 1103 Paulsen had the higher rates of leaf assimilation. Rootstock did not affect Δ13C. Conclusion: The gain in leaf transpiration efficiency caused by reducing irrigation was not associated with a gain in IWUI. Rootstocks 101-14, Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri achieved higher yields and IWUI under both standard and reduced irrigation regimes. Significance of the Study: Among grafted vines growing on saline soil but receiving non-saline irrigation water and subject to a 30% reduction in irrigation, the yield responses of vines grafted on rootstocks rated as having good drought tolerance were the same as those of vines grafted on rootstocks rated as having poor drought tolerance.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
30% reduced irrigation decreased pruning weight and yield of grapevine compared with industry standard irrigation.
- Treatment
- 30% reduced irrigatione2
- Outcome
- pruning weights and yielde1
- Direction
- decreasede1
- Comparator
- industry standarde2
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e1“Reducing irrigation decreased pruning weights and yield”
e2“Drip-irrigated Shiraz vines on eight rootstocks were subjected to industry standard and 30% reduced irrigation regimes over four seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
30% reduced irrigation did not consistently change irrigation water use index of grapevine.
- Treatment
- 30% reduced irrigatione2
- Outcome
- irrigation water use index (IWUI)e3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- industry standarde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e2“Drip-irrigated Shiraz vines on eight rootstocks were subjected to industry standard and 30% reduced irrigation regimes over four seasons”
e3“did not consistently affect irrigation water use index (IWUI)”
Claim · model-written summary
30% reduced irrigation increased leaf Δ13C of grapevine compared with industry standard irrigation.
- Treatment
- 30% reduced irrigatione2
- Outcome
- leaf Δ13Ce3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Comparator
- industry standarde2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e2“Drip-irrigated Shiraz vines on eight rootstocks were subjected to industry standard and 30% reduced irrigation regimes over four seasons”
e3“It increased leaf Δ13C”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced irrigation and elevated VPD were associated with lower leaf water potential, stomatal conductance and assimilation rate in grapevine.
- Treatment
- Reduced irrigatione4
- Outcome
- leaf water potential (ψl), leaf stomatal conductance and assimilation ratee4
- Direction
- decreasese4
- Qualifier
- elevated vapour pressure deficit (VPD)e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e4“Reduced irrigation and elevated vapour pressure deficit (VPD) were associated with decreases in leaf water potential (ψl), leaf stomatal conductance and assimilation rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing irrigation raised leaf transpiration efficiency of grapevine.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e5“Reducing irrigation raised leaf transpiration efficiency, whereas elevated VPD lowered it”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated VPD lowered leaf transpiration efficiency of grapevine.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e5“Reducing irrigation raised leaf transpiration efficiency, whereas elevated VPD lowered it”
Claim · model-written summary
Grapevine on rootstock 101-14 had a higher leaf water potential than other rootstocks.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e6“Vines grafted to 101-14 had a higher ψl and achieved the highest yield and IWUI”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock 101-14 gave the highest yield and irrigation water use index.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e6“Vines grafted to 101-14 had a higher ψl and achieved the highest yield and IWUI”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstocks Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri had high yields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e7“The yields of vines grafted to Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri were also high”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstocks 101-14, Ramsey and 1103 Paulsen had higher rates of leaf assimilation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e4“Vines grafted to 101-14, Ramsey and 1103 Paulsen had the higher rates of leaf assimilation”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstock did not affect Δ13C of grapevine.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e5“Rootstock did not affect Δ13C”
Claim · model-written summary
The gain in leaf transpiration efficiency from reduced irrigation was not associated with a gain in irrigation water use index.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e4“The gain in leaf transpiration efficiency caused by reducing irrigation was not associated with a gain in IWUI”
Claim · model-written summary
Rootstocks 101-14, Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri gave higher yields and IWUI under both standard and reduced irrigation.
- Material
- 101-14, Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggerie4
- Treatment
- standard and reduced irrigatione4
- Outcome
- yields and IWUIe4
- Direction
- highere4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e4“Rootstocks 101-14, Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 140 Ruggeri achieved higher yields and IWUI under both standard and reduced irrigation regimes”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield responses of grapevine on good-drought-tolerance rootstocks were the same as on poor-drought-tolerance rootstocks under 30% reduced irrigation.
- Material
- rootstocks rated as having good drought tolerancee4
- Outcome
- yield responsese4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
- Comparator
- rootstocks rated as having poor drought tolerancee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The study investigated whether rootstocks can modify grapevine responses to reduced irrigation”
e4“the yield responses of vines grafted on rootstocks rated as having good drought tolerance were the same as those of vines grafted on rootstocks rated as having poor drought tolerance”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · VitisResults differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.