Abstract
A partial rootzone drying (PRD) irrigation technique (0.5 ML/ha) was compared with a standard irrigation treatment(1 ML/ha) at three different pruning levels of 30, 60 and 120 nodes per grapevine in Vitis vinifera L. cv Shiraz. The PRDirrigation technique was applied to a single side of the grapevine rootzone at a time, 45 cm from the trunk, and the sideswere switched in 10-day cycles. For the standard irrigation treatment, both sides of the grapevine were irrigated. At theend of an irrigation cycle, the PRD treatment resulted in reduced midday readings of stomatal conductance and stem (ψS)and leaf (ψL) water potential relative to the control treatment. During the switch between irrigation cycles, when the soilwater profile of both the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ sides of the PRD-treated grapevines was refilled, stomatal conductance, ψS andψL were restored to the same levels as for the control experiment. As node number per grapevine increased, berry size andwinter pruning weight were reduced and yield increased. In the first season of the experiment, the PRD treatment did nothave a significant effect on berry size, yield and pruning weight, although shoot length was reduced in response to PRD forall the pruning treatments. In a subsequent season, PRD was found to reduce yield, primarily through a reduction in berryset. Water use efficiency measured as t/ML irrigation water applied was increased significantly as crop load increased, andwas enhanced in response to the PRD irrigation technique.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
At the end of an irrigation cycle, PRD reduced midday stomatal conductance and stem and leaf water potential relative to standard irrigation.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance and stem (ψS)and leaf (ψL) water potentiale0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- middaye0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the PRD treatment resulted in reduced midday readings of stomatal conductance and stem (ψS)and leaf (ψL) water potential relative to the control treatment.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
Refilling both sides during cycle switching restored stomatal conductance and water potentials to control levels.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- soilwater profile of both the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ sides of the PRD-treated grapevines was refillede0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance, ψS andψLe0
- Direction
- restored to the same levelse0
- Comparator
- control experimente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when the soilwater profile of both the ‘wet’ and ‘dry’ sides of the PRD-treated grapevines was refilled, stomatal conductance, ψS andψL were restored to the same levels as for the control experiment.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing node number reduced berry size and winter pruning weight.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- node number per grapevinee0
- Outcome
- berry size andwinter pruning weighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As node number per grapevine increased, berry size andwinter pruning weight were reduced”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing node number increased yield.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- node number per grapevinee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As node number per grapevine increased, berry size andwinter pruning weight were reduced and yield increased.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
In the first season, PRD had no significant effect on berry size, yield, or pruning weight.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD treatmente0
- Outcome
- berry size, yield and pruning weighte0
- Qualifier
- first season of the experimente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first season of the experiment, the PRD treatment did nothave a significant effect on berry size, yield and pruning weight”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD reduced shoot length across all pruning treatments in the first season.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- shoot lengthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- all the pruning treatmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shoot length was reduced in response to PRD forall the pruning treatments.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
In the subsequent season, PRD reduced yield.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducee0
- Qualifier
- subsequent seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In a subsequent season, PRD was found to reduce yield, primarily through a reduction in berryset.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
The subsequent season yield reduction under PRD was primarily attributed to reduced berry set.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Qualifier
- primarily through a reduction in berrysete0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PRD was found to reduce yield, primarily through a reduction in berryset.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency increased significantly as crop load increased.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- crop loade0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency measured as t/ML irrigation water applied was increased significantly as crop load increased”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD enhanced water use efficiency.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. ShirazVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- PRD irrigation techniquee0
- Outcome
- Water use efficiencye0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water use efficiency measured as t/ML irrigation water applied was increased significantly as crop load increased, andwas enhanced in response to the PRD irrigation technique.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz”
The same questions in other papers
processing · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
processing · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →processing · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.