Paper · 1984 · Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science

Response of Six Grape Cultivars to the Combined Effects of High Salinity and Rootzone Waterlogging

D. W. West; J. A. Taylor

11
claims
22
verbatim quotes
53
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

Abstract The effect of rootzone salinity (0 to 90 mM NaCl) on shoot growth of 6 grape cultivars [‘Sultana’ (syn. ‘Thompson Seedless’), ‘Carbernet Sauvignon’, ‘Crouchen’, ‘Shiraz’, ‘Doradillo’ and ‘Palomino’] grown as rooted cuttings was determined in sand cultures. Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59. Application of concurrent waterlogging (anaerobiosis) stress on the root system depressed shoot growth more than salt stress alone and changed the ranking for shoot growth. Waterlogging increased total uptake of Na and Cl, increased the amount of Na and Cl transported into the shoots, and resulted in visible leaf damage within 5 days of the onset of the waterlogging.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Palomino had relative shoot growth of 100 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Palomino’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
100e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sultana had relative shoot growth of 94 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Sultana’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
94e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shiraz had relative shoot growth of 87 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Shiraz’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
87e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Crouchen had relative shoot growth of 83 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Crouchen’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
83e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cabernet Sauvignon had relative shoot growth of 63 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Cabernet Sauvignon’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
63e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Doradillo had relative shoot growth of 59 under salt.

Taxon
Grapet0
Material
‘Doradillo’e0
Treatment
salte0
Outcome
Relative shoot growthe0
Value
59e0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Relative shoot growth values over 23 days with salt were ‘Palomino’ 100, ‘Sultana’ 94, ‘Shiraz’ 87, ‘Crouchen’ 83, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ 63, and ‘Doradillo’ 59.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 266–425 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Concurrent waterlogging depressed grape shoot growth more than salt stress alone.

Taxon
Grapet0
Treatment
concurrent waterlogging (anaerobiosis) stresse0
Outcome
shoot growthe0
Direction
depressede0
Comparator
salt stress alonee0

Verbatim

e0

“Application of concurrent waterlogging (anaerobiosis) stress on the root system depressed shoot growth more than salt stress alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 426–556 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Concurrent waterlogging changed the cultivar ranking for shoot growth.

Taxon
Grapet0
Treatment
concurrent waterlogging (anaerobiosis) stresse0
Outcome
ranking for shoot growthe0
Direction
changede0
Comparator
salt stress alonee0

Verbatim

e0

“Application of concurrent waterlogging (anaerobiosis) stress on the root system depressed shoot growth more than salt stress alone and changed the ranking for shoot growth.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 426–598 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging increased total uptake of Na and Cl.

Taxon
Grapet0
Treatment
Waterlogginge0
Outcome
total uptake of Na and Cle0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Waterlogging increased total uptake of Na and Cl”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 599–647 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging increased Na and Cl transport into shoots.

Taxon
Grapet0
Organ / stage
shootse0
Treatment
Waterlogginge0
Outcome
amount of Na and Cl transported into the shootse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Waterlogging increased total uptake of Na and Cl, increased the amount of Na and Cl transported into the shoots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 599–710 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Waterlogging caused visible leaf damage within five days.

Taxon
Grapet0
Organ / stage
leafe0
Treatment
Waterlogginge0
Outcome
visible leaf damagee0
Qualifier
within 5 days of the onset of the waterlogginge0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Waterlogging increased total uptake of Na and Cl, increased the amount of Na and Cl transported into the shoots, and resulted in visible leaf damage within 5 days of the onset of the waterlogging.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 599–795 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–21 · show in text ↑

flooding · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

flooding · nutrient: content · VitisResults agree

3 papers: 0 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
See all 3 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.