Abstract
Aim: Light pruning may improve vine yield and quality although vineyard responses are variable. We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo. Methods and results: During 2008-2011, Bobal and Tempranillo vineyards underwent traditional pruning or light pruning. The effects of both pruning techniques were determined in vine vigour and yield, and grape and wine characteristics. Both cultivars responded similarly to the pruning techniques assayed: i) light-pruned plants tended to overcrop, ii) grape yield significantly increased with light pruning and produced more clusters with smaller berries, and iii) the oenological characteristics of grapes were slightly affected since fruit ripeness was delayed in mechanically light-pruned vineyards. Conclusion: Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics. Significance and impact of the study: No detrimental effect of light pruning on grape characteristics was found, and the wines deriving from these grapevines offered good oenological characteristics. Mechanical light pruning may prove a suitable tool to prolong the vine vegetative cycle, which is reduced by the climate change in the Utiel-Requena region.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Light pruning increased grape yield of Vitis vinifera by 30% compared with traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera
Vitis viniferae1 - Treatment
- light pruninge2
- Outcome
- grape yielde2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 30%e3
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e2“grape yield significantly increased with light pruning and produced more clusters with smaller berries”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning produced more clusters on Vitis vinifera than traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- light pruninge2
- Outcome
- clusterse2
- Direction
- moree2
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e2“grape yield significantly increased with light pruning and produced more clusters with smaller berries”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning produced smaller berries on Vitis vinifera than traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- light pruninge2
- Outcome
- berriese2
- Direction
- smallere2
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e2“grape yield significantly increased with light pruning and produced more clusters with smaller berries”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanically light-pruned Vitis vinifera vineyards showed delayed fruit ripeness compared with traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- mechanically light-prunede7
- Outcome
- fruit ripenesse7
- Direction
- delayede7
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
e7“fruit ripeness was delayed in mechanically light-pruned vineyards”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning slightly affected the oenological characteristics of Vitis vinifera grapes compared with traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Mechanical light pruninge3
- Outcome
- oenological characteristics of grapese5
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
e5“the oenological characteristics of grapes were slightly affected”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning produced wines with lower alcohol than traditional manual pruning in Vitis vinifera.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Mechanical light pruninge3
- Outcome
- alcohole3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning maintained colour and phenolics of wines from Vitis vinifera compared with traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Mechanical light pruninge3
- Outcome
- colour and phenolicse3
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede3
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Light pruning had no detrimental effect on grape characteristics of Vitis vinifera.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- light pruninge4
- Outcome
- grape characteristicse4
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e4“No detrimental effect of light pruning on grape characteristics was found”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning reduced pruning costs by 40% compared with traditional manual pruning in Vitis vinifera.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Mechanical light pruninge3
- Outcome
- pruning costse3
- Direction
- reductione3
- Value
- 40%e3
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning lowered cluster and berry weights of Vitis vinifera compared with traditional manual pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Mechanical light pruninge3
- Outcome
- cluster and berry weightse3
- Direction
- lowere3
- Comparator
- traditional manual pruninge3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“We assessed the effects of traditional manual pruning and mechanical light pruning on the viticultural and oenological performance of Vitis vinifera cv. Bobal and cv. Tempranillo”
e3“Mechanical light pruning vs. traditional manual pruning offers potential benefits: 30% higher yields; lower cluster and berry weights; a 40% reduction in pruning costs; and production of wines with lower alcohol while maintaining colour and phenolics”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical light pruning may be a suitable tool to prolong the vegetative cycle of grapevine.
Verbatim
e6“Mechanical light pruning may prove a suitable tool to prolong the vine vegetative cycle”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 43 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →pruning · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →light · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
light · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →light · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →pruning · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 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.