Abstract
Recently, the crop forcing technique (summer pruning that “forces” the vine to start a new cycle) has proven to be effective in delaying the harvest date and increasing must acidity, but also reducing the yield. However, recent information on deficit irrigation strategies combined with the crop forcing technique reveals that the crop forcing technique reduces irrigation water use efficiency. Two experiments were conducted. Experiment 1 was a 4-year trial to test the effect of the forcing pruning date on the phenology, yield, yield components and water requirements when post-veraison water stress is applied. In this experiment, the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst. The harvest date was delayed 34 (F1) and 66 (F2) days increasing the must acidity and malic acid concentration in the forced treatments. However, both forced treatments had a reduced yield (36% in F1 and 49% in F2) and irrigation water use efficiency (12% in F1 and 65% in F2). Experiment 2 was a 2-year trial in which irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruning in F1 (F1-Pre) and F2 (F2-Pre) and after veraison. The yield, yield components, must quality and irrigation were compared to forced vines with irrigation suppression only after veraison (F1-RDI and F2-RDI). For the entire experiment, both treatments in which irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruning reduced the amount of irrigation supplied (10% in F1-Pre and 30% in F2-Pre) with no negative effects on the yield, yield components or must quality when compared to F-RDI treatments.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
The forcing pruning at about 70 days after budburst (F1) delayed harvest by 34 days compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Material
- Tempranillot0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse2
- Outcome
- harvest datee2
- Direction
- delayede2
- Value
- 34 (F1)e2
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e2“The harvest date was delayed 34 (F1) and 66 (F2) days increasing the must acidity and malic acid concentration in the forced treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The forcing pruning at about 100 days after budburst (F2) delayed harvest by 66 days compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Tempranillot0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse2
- Outcome
- harvest datee2
- Direction
- delayede2
- Value
- 66 (F2)e2
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e2“The harvest date was delayed 34 (F1) and 66 (F2) days increasing the must acidity and malic acid concentration in the forced treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Forced treatments increased must acidity and malic acid concentration compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse2
- Compound
- malic acide2
- Outcome
- must acidity and malic acid concentratione2
- Direction
- increasinge2
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e2“The harvest date was delayed 34 (F1) and 66 (F2) days increasing the must acidity and malic acid concentration in the forced treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing pruning reduced yield by 36% in F1 compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 36%e3
- Qualifier
- in F1e3
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e3“both forced treatments had a reduced yield (36% in F1 and 49% in F2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing pruning reduced yield by 49% in F2 compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 49%e3
- Qualifier
- in F2e3
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e3“both forced treatments had a reduced yield (36% in F1 and 49% in F2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing pruning reduced irrigation water use efficiency by 12% in F1 compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse3
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye4
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 12%e4
- Qualifier
- in F1e4
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e3“both forced treatments had a reduced yield (36% in F1 and 49% in F2)”
e4“irrigation water use efficiency (12% in F1 and 65% in F2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Forcing pruning reduced irrigation water use efficiency by 65% in F2 compared with unforced vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- forced treatmentse3
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiencye4
- Direction
- reducede3
- Value
- 65%e4
- Qualifier
- in F2e4
- Comparator
- unforced vines (UF-RDI)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e1“the treatments were unforced vines (UF-RDI) and forced vines with a forcing pruning date about 70 (F1-RDI) and 100 (F2-RDI) days after budburst”
e3“both forced treatments had a reduced yield (36% in F1 and 49% in F2)”
e4“irrigation water use efficiency (12% in F1 and 65% in F2)”
Claim · model-written summary
Suppressing irrigation before forcing pruning in F1 (F1-Pre) reduced irrigation supplied by 10% compared with F-RDI treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruninge5
- Outcome
- amount of irrigation suppliede5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Value
- 10%e5
- Qualifier
- in F1-Pree5
- Comparator
- F-RDI treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e5“both treatments in which irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruning reduced the amount of irrigation supplied (10% in F1-Pre and 30% in F2-Pre)”
e6“with no negative effects on the yield, yield components or must quality when compared to F-RDI treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Suppressing irrigation before forcing pruning in F2 (F2-Pre) reduced irrigation supplied by 30% compared with F-RDI treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruninge5
- Outcome
- amount of irrigation suppliede5
- Direction
- reducede5
- Value
- 30%e5
- Qualifier
- in F2-Pree5
- Comparator
- F-RDI treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e5“both treatments in which irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruning reduced the amount of irrigation supplied (10% in F1-Pre and 30% in F2-Pre)”
e6“with no negative effects on the yield, yield components or must quality when compared to F-RDI treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Suppressing irrigation before forcing pruning had no negative effects on yield, yield components or must quality compared with F-RDI treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruninge5
- Outcome
- yield, yield components or must qualitye6
- Direction
- no negative effectse6
- Comparator
- F-RDI treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Tempranillo (Vitis vinifera L.) Vines”
e5“both treatments in which irrigation was suppressed before the forcing pruning reduced the amount of irrigation supplied (10% in F1-Pre and 30% in F2-Pre)”
e6“with no negative effects on the yield, yield components or must quality when compared to F-RDI treatments”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.