Abstract
Irrigation has been considered a controversial practice in European traditional viticulture due to potential alterations in the balance between vegetative growth and yield. In this regard, the influence of surface (DI) and subsurface (SDI) drip irrigation on physiological performance of the ‘Godello’ grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivar was compared with a non-irrigated control (R) over three consecutive growing seasons (2012- 2014) in NW Spain. Irrigation improved vine water status; R plants reached a minimum of midday leaf water potential of –1.5 MPa, whereas DI and SDI plants reached –1.3 MPa. Stomatal conductance was unaffected by irrigation as well as chlorophyll a fluorescence. However, photosynthetic pigments were present at higher concentrations in leaves from irrigated plants than in those from R plants in 2013. In addition, R plants showed higher values for the indicators of oxidative damage. No significant yield improvements were observed for irrigated plants, although the trend was to obtain slightly higher yields under irrigation in years with low rainfall amounts. This may not encourage growers to establish irrigation systems on their vineyards. However, these results may be important with the objectives of stabilizing yield from year to year.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation improved vine water status compared with the non-irrigated control.
- Treatment
- Irrigatione2
- Outcome
- vine water statuse2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Comparator
- non-irrigated control (R)e3
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e2“Irrigation improved vine water status”
e3“compared with a non-irrigated control (R)”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated vines (DI and SDI) reached a midday leaf water potential of -1.3 MPa, higher than the -1.5 MPa of the non-irrigated control.
- Treatment
- DI and SDI plantse4
- Outcome
- midday leaf water potentiale4
- Direction
- higherinferrede4
- Value
- –1.3 MPae4
- Qualifier
- –1.5 MPae4
- Comparator
- R plantse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e4“R plants reached a minimum of midday leaf water potential of –1.5 MPa, whereas DI and SDI plants reached –1.3 MPa”
Claim · model-written summary
Stomatal conductance was unaffected by irrigation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e5“Stomatal conductance was unaffected by irrigation as well as chlorophyll a fluorescence”
Claim · model-written summary
Chlorophyll a fluorescence was unaffected by irrigation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e5“Stomatal conductance was unaffected by irrigation as well as chlorophyll a fluorescence”
Claim · model-written summary
Photosynthetic pigments were present at higher concentrations in leaves of irrigated vines than in those of R plants in 2013.
- Organ / stage
- leavese6
- Treatment
- irrigated plantse6
- Outcome
- photosynthetic pigmentse6
- Direction
- highere6
- Comparator
- R plantse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e6“photosynthetic pigments were present at higher concentrations in leaves from irrigated plants than in those from R plants in 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
R plants had higher values for indicators of oxidative damage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e7“R plants showed higher values for the indicators of oxidative damage”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation did not significantly improve yield of Godello grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e2“No significant yield improvements were observed for irrigated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield under irrigation was slightly higher in years with low rainfall.
- Treatment
- under irrigatione2
- Outcome
- yieldse2
- Direction
- highere2
- Qualifier
- in years with low rainfall amountse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e2“the trend was to obtain slightly higher yields under irrigation in years with low rainfall amounts”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest that these results may not encourage growers to establish irrigation systems in vineyards.
- Outcome
- establish irrigation systems on their vineyardse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e2“This may not encourage growers to establish irrigation systems on their vineyards”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · physiology: gas exchange · VitisResults differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.