Abstract
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to evaluate the productive performance and physicochemical characteristics of ‘BRS Magna’ and ‘Isabel Precoce’ grapes influenced by two types of pruning. The experiment was carried out during two growing seasons in a commercial vineyard of Petrolina, PE, in the period 2013-2014. Treatments were represented by two cultivars, ‘Isabel Precoce’ and ‘BRS Magna’, and two types of pruning, with selection during plant formation (P1) and without selection (P2) of lateral branches, using a randomized experimental block design, in subdivided plots and four replicates. After pruning P2, the amount of buds kept on vines was greater than after pruning P1, favoring an increase in yield. However, the sizes of bunches and berries, content of soluble solids, and titratable acidity were not influenced by the pruning type. In general, the sizes of bunches and berries in ‘BRS Magna’ were larger than in the ‘Isabel Precoce’ cultivar. Conversely, content of soluble solids and titratable acidity varied among cultivars as a function of production cycle and type of pruning; however, within the standards described for both cultivars and accepted by the Brazilian legislation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Claim · model-written summary
P2 pruning retained more buds than P1.
Verbatim
e0“After pruning P2, the amount of buds kept on vines was greater than after pruning P1”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
P2 pruning increased grape yield.
Verbatim
e0“After pruning P2, the amount of buds kept on vines was greater than after pruning P1, favoring an increase in yield.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning type did not influence bunch size, berry size or soluble solids.
- Taxon
- grapest0
- Treatment
- pruning typee0
- Outcome
- sizes of bunches and berries, content of soluble solidse0
- Direction
- not influencede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the sizes of bunches and berries, content of soluble solids, and titratable acidity were not influenced by the pruning type.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning type did not influence titratable acidity.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the sizes of bunches and berries, content of soluble solids, and titratable acidity were not influenced by the pruning type.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
BRS Magna had larger bunches and berries than Isabel Precoce.
Verbatim
e0“the sizes of bunches and berries in ‘BRS Magna’ were larger than in the ‘Isabel Precoce’ cultivar.”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids and titratable acidity varied among cultivars with production cycle and pruning type.
Verbatim
e0“content of soluble solids and titratable acidity varied among cultivars as a function of production cycle and type of pruning”
t0“grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids and acidity remained within standards accepted by Brazilian legislation.
Verbatim
e0“within the standards described for both cultivars and accepted by the Brazilian legislation.”
t0“grapes”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 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.