Paper · 2015 · Acta Horticulturae

CLUSTER THINNING EFFECTS ON THE FRUIT AND WINE QUALITY OF 'DOONURI' GRAPE

Eun-Ha Chang; Kyo-Sun Park; Sung-Min Jeong; et al.

7
claims
13
verbatim quotes
5
citations
4
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The quality of wine is influenced primarily by the quality of the raw material and secondly by fermentation technology. In general, important methods of cultivation for increasing the quality of the grape are shoot thinning, desuckering, shoot positioning and topping, basal leaf removal, girdling, cluster thinning and berry thinning. In this study the influence of cluster thinning was investigated to set standards for management for the grape cultivar ?Doonuri?. The ?Doonuri? grape was a cross of ?Schuyler? and ?Campbell Early? at the National Institute of Horticultural and Herbal Science in Korea in 2006. This red grape has a full fruit aroma, and it was used as a table and wine grape. In addition, this cultivar had a resistance to cold in winter as well as a downy mildew resistance. The fruit setting of grapes after cluster thinning was adjusted to 1.1 ton (1 cluster per shoot), 1.5 tons (1.5 clusters per shoot), and 2.1 tons (2 clusters per shoot) per 10 ares. As a result, ripening was faster when the yield was 1.5 t then 2.1 t per 10 are. Total acidity was reduced about 0.2% (w/v) at 1.5 t compared with 2.1 t. On the other hand, the sugar content was higher, about 2~3°Brix. The total acidity and sugar content for the 1.1 and 1.5 t levels were not significantly different. As cluster thinning increased, total polyphenol and total anthocyanin contents increased with early maturity. Also, the grapes with less 1.5 t per 10 acre were able to produce high quality wine.

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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ripening was faster at 1.5 than 2.1 t per 10 are.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
1.5 te0
Outcome
ripeninge0
Direction
fastere0
Comparator
2.1 t per 10 aree0

Verbatim

e0

“ripening was faster when the yield was 1.5 t then 2.1 t per 10 are”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total acidity was about 0.2% lower at 1.5 than 2.1 t.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
1.5 te0
Outcome
Total aciditye0
Direction
reducede0
Value
0.2% (w/v)e0
Comparator
2.1 te0

Verbatim

e0

“Total acidity was reduced about 0.2% (w/v) at 1.5 t compared with 2.1 t.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1059–1131 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugar content was about 2–3°Brix higher at 1.5 t.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
1.5 te0
Outcome
sugar contente0
Direction
highere0
Value
2~3°Brixe0
Comparator
2.1 te0

Verbatim

e0

“Total acidity was reduced about 0.2% (w/v) at 1.5 t compared with 2.1 t. On the other hand, the sugar content was higher, about 2~3°Brix”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1059–1195 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Total acidity did not differ significantly between 1.1 and 1.5 t levels.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
1.1e0
Outcome
total aciditye0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Comparator
1.5 te0

Verbatim

e0

“The total acidity and sugar content for the 1.1 and 1.5 t levels were not significantly different.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1295 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Sugar content did not differ significantly between 1.1 and 1.5 t levels.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
1.1e0
Outcome
sugar contente0
Direction
not significantly differente0
Comparator
1.5 te0

Verbatim

e0

“The total acidity and sugar content for the 1.1 and 1.5 t levels were not significantly different.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1295 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Greater cluster thinning increased total polyphenol and anthocyanin contents.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
cluster thinninge0
Outcome
total polyphenol and total anthocyanin contentse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“As cluster thinning increased, total polyphenol and total anthocyanin contents increased with early maturity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1296–1405 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–73 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Grapes below 1.5 t per 10 acre could produce high-quality wine.

Taxon
grapese0
Outcome
high quality winee0
Qualifier
less 1.5 t per 10 acree0

Verbatim

e0

“the grapes with less 1.5 t per 10 acre were able to produce high quality wine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1412–1489 · show in text ↑

cluster · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results

10 papers: 8 positive, 2 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

6 papers more in this group

See all 10 papers →

pruning · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results

38 papers: 30 positive, 8 negative or no effect

29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 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.