Abstract
Abstract The aim of this work was to investigate the effect of full irrigation (FI), pre-veraison water deficit (RDI 1), or post-veraison water deficit (RDI 2) on growth, yield, and berry quality in container-grown, mature vines of cv. Sangiovese grafted onto either 1103P or SO4 rootstock over two consecutive growing seasons. Deficit irrigation regimes significantly affected vine water status of both rootstocks before and after veraison. Trunk diameter (TD) increment was markedly affected when water was restricted early, but not in the post-veraison period. Deficit irrigation from fruit set to veraison inhibited vegetative growth (TD, canopy volume, and weight of pruned wood) more than that applied from veraison to harvest. Yield was unaffected by either irrigation or rootstock in both years. Irrigation had a marked effect on berry and juice quality: the RDI 1 treatment induced the highest berry anthocyanin concentration, and the lowest titratable acidity (TA), which, instead, increased in the RDI 2 treatment. RDI treatments did not modify berry dry weight, soluble solid content, TA, anthocyanins, and epicarp total phenols in vines on both rootstocks.
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
Deficit irrigation significantly affected vine water status before and after veraison.
VitisNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation regimes significantly affected vine water status of both rootstocks before and after veraison”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
Early water restriction markedly affected trunk diameter increment.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trunk diameter (TD) increment was markedly affected when water was restricted early”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
Post-veraison water restriction did not markedly affect trunk diameter increment.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trunk diameter (TD) increment was markedly affected when water was restricted early, but not in the post-veraison period”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation from fruit set to veraison inhibited vegetative growth more than deficit irrigation from veraison to harvest.
- Treatment
- Deficit irrigation from fruit set to veraisone0
- Outcome
- vegetative growth (TD, canopy volume, and weight of pruned wood)e0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Comparator
- that applied from veraison to harveste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation from fruit set to veraison inhibited vegetative growth (TD, canopy volume, and weight of pruned wood) more than that applied from veraison to harvest”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was unaffected by irrigation or rootstock in both years.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield was unaffected by either irrigation or rootstock in both years”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI 1 produced the highest berry anthocyanin concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the RDI 1 treatment induced the highest berry anthocyanin concentration”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI 1 produced the lowest titratable acidity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the lowest titratable acidity (TA)”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
e1“the RDI 1 treatment induced the highest berry anthocyanin concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI 2 increased titratable acidity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“titratable acidity (TA), which, instead, increased in the RDI 2 treatment”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
Claim · model-written summary
RDI treatments did not modify berry dry weight, soluble solids or epicarp total phenols on either rootstock.
- Treatment
- RDI treatmentse0
- Outcome
- berry dry weight, soluble solid content, TA, anthocyanins, and epicarp total phenolse0
- Direction
- did not modifye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RDI treatments did not modify berry dry weight, soluble solid content, TA, anthocyanins, and epicarp total phenols in vines on both rootstocks”
t0“grapevines (cv. Sangiovese)”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 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.