Abstract
The results of studies on the effect of fertilizer with a complex of macro- and microelements on the economically valuable indicators of Kunlean grapevine variety are presented. For this purpose, foliar feeding of Kunlean variety vine was carried out in the phases of the beginning of flowering and in the end of flowering. With foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/ha, there was an increase in the weight of berries and clusters, as well as the number of berries in a bunch, which contri-buted to an increase in yield, depending on the dose of fertilizer, by 21.2−22.6% compared to the control. Fertilizer feeding had a positive ef-fect on the quality of the crop. The mass concentration of sugars significantly increased in all experimental variants (3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/g) by 3−5% compared to the control. The significance of the differences was proven for the control and other options, as well as for options with a fertilizing dose of 3.0 and 5.0 l/ha. The mass concentration of titratable acids was lower in the variants with all doses of fertilizer, compared to the control by 1−4%, depending on the experimental variant. It is recommended to use a fertilizer dose of 4.0 l/ha, since increasing the dose to 5.0 l/ha does not lead to a significant improvement in the studied grapevine productivity indicators
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilizer increased berry weight.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/hae0
- Outcome
- weight of berriese0
- Direction
- increasee0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/ha, there was an increase in the weight of berries and clusters, as well as the number of berries in a bunch”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilizer increased cluster weight.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/hae0
- Outcome
- weight of berries and clusterse0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/ha, there was an increase in the weight of berries and clusters”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar fertilizer increased berry number per bunch.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/hae0
- Outcome
- number of berries in a bunche0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With foliar feeding with fertilizer in doses of 3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/ha, there was an increase in the weight of berries and clusters, as well as the number of berries in a bunch”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer increased grapevine yield by 21.2−22.6% relative to control, depending on dose.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- dose of fertilizere0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 21.2−22.6%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increase in yield, depending on the dose of fertilizer, by 21.2−22.6% compared to the control”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer significantly increased sugar concentration by 3−5% versus control.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- all experimental variants (3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/g)e0
- Outcome
- mass concentration of sugarse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 3−5%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mass concentration of sugars significantly increased in all experimental variants (3.0; 4.0; 5.0 l/g) by 3−5% compared to the control”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer lowered titratable acid concentration by 1−4% versus control.
- Material
- Kunleane1
- Treatment
- all doses of fertilizere0
- Outcome
- mass concentration of titratable acidse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 1−4%e0
- Comparator
- the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The mass concentration of titratable acids was lower in the variants with all doses of fertilizer, compared to the control by 1−4%”
e1“Kunlean grapevine variety”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend a fertilizer dose of 4.0 l/ha because 5.0 l/ha does not significantly improve the assessed productivity indicators.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It is recommended to use a fertilizer dose of 4.0 l/ha, since increasing the dose to 5.0 l/ha does not lead to a significant improvement in the studied grapevine productivity indicators”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →micronutrient · molecular: metabolites · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.