Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate the effects of different pruning intensity treatments on grape yield and quality of Erciş grape cultivar in the year 2014. The gobble-trained grapevines grown on their own roots were subjected to three different pruning intensities during winter pruning [16 buds/grapevine (8 shoots x 2 buds); 24 buds/grapevine (8 shoots × 3 buds); 32 buds/grapevine (8 shoots x 4 buds)]. Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity increased grapevine yield by 55% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- grapevine yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 55%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased cluster weight by 17% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- cluster weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased cluster width by 25.2% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- cluster widthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 25.2%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased cluster length by 12.5% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- cluster lengthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 12.5%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased grape width by 10.9% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- grape widthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 10.9%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased grape length by 6.7% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- grape lengthe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 6.7%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased 100-grape weight by 22.7% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- 100-grape weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 22.7%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
High pruning intensity decreased water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6% relative to low pruning intensity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine)e0
- Outcome
- water soluble dry matter yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 2.6%e0
- Comparator
- low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to low pruning intensity (16 buds/grapevine), high pruning intensity treatments (32 buds/grapevine) increased grapevine yield by 55%, but decreased cluster weight by 17%, cluster width by 25.2%, cluster length by 12.5%, grape width by 10.9%, grape length by 6.7%, 100-grape weight by 22.7% and water soluble dry matter yield by 2.6%.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 37 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →pruning · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 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.