Abstract
Leaf removal treatments were applied to Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling grapevines of varying vigor at two locations in the Niagara Region during the 1990 and 1991 seasons to control leaf density in the fruiting zone. Fruit zone leaf removal treatments consisted of a control (no leaf removal), mechanical leaf removal (MLR) applied either to the west side (WS) or both sides (2S) of the canopy, and hand leaf removal (HLR). Treatments were applied when the berries had reached pea size ( i.e. , early), just prior to veraison ( i.e. , late), or at both early and late treatment dates. The leaf removal treatments exerted no influence on the fruit composition parameters examined with one exception: HLR treatments had slightly greater sugar concentrations and marginally lower titratable acidity levels than MLR treatments. Yield components were affected by leaf removal at KEW vineyards, with MLR 2S late having a 19.3% and 11.2% greater crop per vine and cluster weight, respectively, than the control. At both vineyards the late leaf removal treatments had a greater yield per vine than those applied early, and MLR treatments had a greater yield per vine than HLR treatments. The treatments MLR 2S early and HLR 2S early reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot ( Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.) at KEW vineyards at harvest in 1990. At harvest in 1991, MLR 2S early, MLR 2S early and late, and HLR 2S early and late reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot at the Grape Research Station. Variations in results between years and vineyards were associated with differences in vine vigor and cluster development prior to the application of the first leaf removal. Therefore, the use of leaf removal in the Canadian Niagara region with Riesling grapes results in the improvements of yield components and a reduction in the incidence and severity of bunch rot.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf removal generally did not alter examined fruit composition parameters.
- Taxon
- leaf removal treatmentse0
- Treatment
- leaf removal treatmentse0
- Outcome
- fruit composition parameterse0
- Direction
- no influencee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The leaf removal treatments exerted no influence on the fruit composition parameters examined”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand leaf removal produced slightly greater sugar concentrations than mechanical leaf removal.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- HLR treatmentse0
- Outcome
- sugar concentrationse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- MLR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HLR treatments had slightly greater sugar concentrations and marginally lower titratable acidity levels than MLR treatments”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Hand leaf removal produced marginally lower titratable acidity than mechanical leaf removal.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- HLR treatmentse0
- Outcome
- titratable acidity levelse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- MLR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“HLR treatments had slightly greater sugar concentrations and marginally lower titratable acidity levels than MLR treatments”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Late two-sided mechanical leaf removal increased crop per vine by 19.3% against control at KEW.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR 2S latee0
- Outcome
- crop per vinee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 19.3%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S late having a 19.3% and 11.2% greater crop per vine and cluster weight, respectively, than the control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Late two-sided mechanical leaf removal increased cluster weight by 11.2% against control at KEW.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR 2S latee0
- Outcome
- cluster weighte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 11.2%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S late having a 19.3% and 11.2% greater crop per vine and cluster weight, respectively, than the control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Late leaf removal yielded more per vine than early leaf removal at both vineyards.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- late leaf removal treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yield per vinee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- those applied earlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At both vineyards the late leaf removal treatments had a greater yield per vine than those applied early”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Mechanical leaf removal yielded more per vine than hand leaf removal.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR treatmentse0
- Outcome
- yield per vinee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- HLR treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR treatments had a greater yield per vine than HLR treatments”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Early two-sided mechanical leaf removal reduced bunch rot incidence and severity at KEW in 1990.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR 2S earlye0
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.
Botrytis cinereae0pathogen - Outcome
- incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S early and HLR 2S early reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot ( Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.) at KEW vineyards at harvest in 1990”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Early two-sided hand leaf removal reduced bunch rot incidence and severity at KEW in 1990.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- HLR 2S earlye0
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.Botrytis cinereae0pathogen
- Outcome
- incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S early and HLR 2S early reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot ( Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.) at KEW vineyards at harvest in 1990”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Early two-sided mechanical leaf removal reduced bunch rot incidence and severity at the Grape Research Station in 1991.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR 2S earlye0
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.Botrytis cinereat1pathogen
- Outcome
- incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S early, MLR 2S early and late, and HLR 2S early and late reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot at the Grape Research Station”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
t1“Botrytis cinerea Pers.:Fr.”
Claim · model-written summary
Early and late two-sided mechanical leaf removal reduced bunch rot incidence and severity at the Grape Research Station in 1991.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- MLR 2S early and latee0
- Outcome
- incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S early, MLR 2S early and late, and HLR 2S early and late reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot at the Grape Research Station”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Early and late two-sided hand leaf removal reduced bunch rot incidence and severity at the Grape Research Station in 1991.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- HLR 2S early and latee0
- Outcome
- incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MLR 2S early, MLR 2S early and late, and HLR 2S early and late reduced the incidence and severity of bunch rot at the Grape Research Station”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Between-year and vineyard differences were associated with vine vigor and cluster development before leaf removal.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling GrapevinesVitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- cluster developmente0
- Outcome
- Variations in resultse0
- Qualifier
- vine vigor and cluster developmente0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Variations in results between years and vineyards were associated with differences in vine vigor and cluster development prior to the application of the first leaf removal”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling Grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →pruning · disease · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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
- no effect
- negative
- negative
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →pruning · Botrytis cinerea · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.