Abstract
Salinity is one of the most important factors facing the expansion of grapevine agricultural production which leads to reducing growth, yield and cluster quality. So, a field experiment was conducted during 2016 and 2017 seasons in a private vineyard situated in Desouk, Kafr El-Sheikh Governorate, Egypt, to evaluate effects of Humic acid at 15g and 20g/vine, potassium silicate at 20g and 40g/vine, and biofertilizer containing three bacterial strains (Azotobacter chroococcum+ Azospirllium lipoferm+ Bacillus megatherium with cell density 1*108 CFU/ g) at 50g/ vine alone or in combinations on growth, fruit quality and yield of "Ruby seedless" grapevines grown under soil salinity conditions. The results revealed that the combination treatments were more effective to alleviate the adverse effects of soil salinity than the individual ones. The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer at low (Humic acid at 15g+ potassium silicate at 20g+ biofertilizer at 50g/ vine) and high (Humic acid at 30g+ potassium silicate at 40g+ biofertilizer at 50g/ vine) concentrations showed a superior effect on vegetative growth parameters such as leaf area, number of leaves per shoot, total chlorophyll, and vine vigor characters as lick cane length, coefficient of wood ripening, pruning’s weight, internodes length, and diameter as compared with control. Moreover, caused a significant increase in leaf N P K content, and reduced leaf proline content. Also, it enhanced berry physical parameters (berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berries) and chemical parameters (SSC%, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content) as well as cluster number, length and weight consequently increased the total yield per feddan. Moreover, these applications reduced soil EC and pH meanwhile, enhanced both soils available NPK and microorganisms activity.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Combination treatments of humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer were more effective than the individual treatments in alleviating the adverse effects of soil salinity on Ruby seedless grapevines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- combination treatmentse0
- Outcome
- adverse effects of soil salinitye0
- Direction
- more effectivee0
- Comparator
- individual onese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combination treatments were more effective to alleviate the adverse effects of soil salinity than the individual ones”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Combination treatments of humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer at low and high concentrations had a superior effect on leaf area, number of leaves per shoot and total chlorophyll of salinity-stressed grapevines compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizere0
- Outcome
- leaf area, number of leaves per shoot, total chlorophylle1
- Direction
- superior effecte1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer”
e1“showed a superior effect on vegetative growth parameters such as leaf area, number of leaves per shoot, total chlorophyll”
e2“as compared with control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination treatments had a superior effect on cane length, coefficient of wood ripening and pruning weight of grapevines compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizere0
- Outcome
- cane length, coefficient of wood ripening, pruning’s weighte2
- Direction
- superior effecte1
- Comparator
- controle3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer”
e1“showed a superior effect on vegetative growth parameters”
e2“vine vigor characters as lick cane length, coefficient of wood ripening, pruning’s weight”
e3“as compared with control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination treatments had a superior effect on internode length and diameter of grapevines compared with the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizere0
- Outcome
- internodes length, and diametere2
- Direction
- superior effecte1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer”
e1“showed a superior effect on vegetative growth parameters”
e2“internodes length, and diameter as compared with control”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination treatments significantly increased leaf nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content in salinity-stressed grapevines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizere0
- Outcome
- leaf N P K contente1
- Direction
- increasee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer”
e1“caused a significant increase in leaf N P K content”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The combination treatments reduced leaf proline content in salinity-stressed grapevines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizere0
- Outcome
- leaf proline contente1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The combinations treatments among Humic acid, potassium silicate and biofertilizer”
e1“reduced leaf proline content”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments enhanced berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berries.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berriese1
- Direction
- enhancede1
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“it enhanced berry physical parameters (berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berries)”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments enhanced berry soluble solids content, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- SSC%, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin contente1
- Direction
- enhancede1
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“it enhanced berry physical parameters (berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berries) and chemical parameters (SSC%, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content)”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments enhanced cluster number, length and weight.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- cluster number, length and weighte1
- Direction
- enhancede1
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“it enhanced berry physical parameters (berry diameter, weight and volume of 100 berries) and chemical parameters (SSC%, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content) as well as cluster number, length and weight”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatments increased the total yield per feddan.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- total yield per feddane1
- Direction
- increasede1
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“consequently increased the total yield per feddan”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The applications reduced soil EC and pH.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- applicationse1
- Outcome
- soil EC and pHe1
- Direction
- reducede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“these applications reduced soil EC and pH”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
The applications enhanced soil available N, P and K and microorganism activity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- applicationse2
- Outcome
- soils available NPK and microorganisms activitye1
- Direction
- enhancede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“enhanced both soils available NPK and microorganisms activity”
e2“these applications”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
The same questions in other papers
silicate(4-) · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
silicate(4-) · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
inoculation · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
potassium · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
inoculation · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →other · physiology: osmolytes · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
other · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
other · physiology: pigments · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.