Abstract
Abstract The effect of evaporative cooling on budbreak and yield of Vitis vinifera L. (‘Perlette’ and ‘Thompson Seedless’) vines grown in the southern Jordan Valley in Israel was investigated. Overhead microsprinklers were operated from 0600 to 1800 hr daily during the autumn and winter months, either alone or in combination with cyanamide sprays after pruning. Evaporative cooling decreased the temperature of buds exposed to direct sunlight from 30° to 16°C and that of shaded buds from 25° to 13°. Evaporative cooling induced an early uniform budbreak. However, when evaporative cooling was combined with cyanamide spray, its effect was evident only during the initial phase of bud emergence. In 1985 cyanamide spray and evaporative cooling alone increased yield of ‘Perlette’ by 6% and 6% to 24%, respectively, and by 17% to 46% when both treatments were combined. In 1986 prolonged evaporative cooling increased the yield of ‘Perlette’ by 25% but, in combination with cyanamide, by only 11.6% over the unwetted cyanamide-treated control. In both years, evaporative cooling with or without cyanamide advanced fruit maturation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Evaporative cooling decreased buds exposed to direct sunlight temperature from 30° to 16°C.
- Organ / stage
- buds exposed to direct sunlighte0
- Treatment
- Evaporative coolinge0
- Outcome
- temperaturee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 30° to 16°Ce0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaporative cooling decreased the temperature of buds exposed to direct sunlight from 30° to 16°C and that of shaded buds from 25° to 13°”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Evaporative cooling decreased shaded buds temperature from 25° to 13°.
- Organ / stage
- shaded budse0
- Treatment
- Evaporative coolinge0
- Outcome
- temperaturee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 25° to 13°e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaporative cooling decreased the temperature of buds exposed to direct sunlight from 30° to 16°C and that of shaded buds from 25° to 13°”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Evaporative cooling induced early uniform budbreak.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Evaporative cooling induced an early uniform budbreak”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined cooling and cyanamide affected bud emergence only in its initial phase.
- Treatment
- evaporative cooling was combined with cyanamide spraye0
- Outcome
- bud emergencee0
- Qualifier
- only during the initial phasee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“when evaporative cooling was combined with cyanamide spray, its effect was evident only during the initial phase of bud emergence”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1985 cyanamide spray increased Perlette yield by 6%.
- Material
- ‘Perlette’e0
- Treatment
- cyanamide spraye0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6%e0
- Qualifier
- 1985e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1985 cyanamide spray and evaporative cooling alone increased yield of ‘Perlette’ by 6% and 6% to 24%, respectively, and by 17% to 46% when both treatments were combined”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1985 evaporative cooling increased Perlette yield by 6% to 24%.
- Material
- ‘Perlette’e0
- Treatment
- evaporative coolinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6% to 24%e0
- Qualifier
- 1985e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1985 cyanamide spray and evaporative cooling alone increased yield of ‘Perlette’ by 6% and 6% to 24%, respectively, and by 17% to 46% when both treatments were combined”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1985 both treatments were combined increased Perlette yield by 17% to 46%.
- Material
- ‘Perlette’e0
- Treatment
- both treatments were combinede0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17% to 46%e0
- Qualifier
- 1985e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1985 cyanamide spray and evaporative cooling alone increased yield of ‘Perlette’ by 6% and 6% to 24%, respectively, and by 17% to 46% when both treatments were combined”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1986 prolonged evaporative cooling increased Perlette yield by 25%.
- Material
- ‘Perlette’e0
- Treatment
- prolonged evaporative coolinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Qualifier
- 1986e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1986 prolonged evaporative cooling increased the yield of ‘Perlette’ by 25% but, in combination with cyanamide, by only 11.6% over the unwetted cyanamide-treated control”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1986 in combination with cyanamide increased Perlette yield by 11.6%.
- Material
- ‘Perlette’e0
- Treatment
- in combination with cyanamidee0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 11.6%e0
- Qualifier
- 1986e0
- Comparator
- unwetted cyanamide-treated controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1986 prolonged evaporative cooling increased the yield of ‘Perlette’ by 25% but, in combination with cyanamide, by only 11.6% over the unwetted cyanamide-treated control”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Evaporative cooling advanced fruit maturation in both years.
- Treatment
- evaporative cooling with or without cyanamidee0
- Outcome
- fruit maturatione0
- Direction
- advancede0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years, evaporative cooling with or without cyanamide advanced fruit maturation”
t0“Grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
cyanamide · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →cyanamide · phenology · VitisPositive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →processing · soil: physics · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
processing · phenology · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →processing · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →application · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 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.