Abstract
Fertigation and conventional fertilisation were compared for a Bukettraube vineyard on sandy soil in the arid Olifants River region of South Africa. During the first stage (four years) of the experiment, all treatments received 120 kg N.ha-1.yr-1 and 80 kg K.ha-1.yr·I. The first treatment (C120) entailed conventional (broadcast) fertiliser applications at three-week intervals the second (F120) was fertigated at three-week invervals, while the third (1120) was fertigated twice per week. Yield and shoot growths were not affected significantly, indicating that conventional fertilisation was just as effective as fertigation (C120 vs F120). Furthermore, the fact that the application of N in regular, small increments (1120) held no advantage over larger applications at longer intervals (Fl20) suggested that leaching of nutrients did not occur, probably as a result of well-managed irrigation practices. During the second stage of the experiment (three years) 1120 was discontinued, while Cl20 and Fl20 were compared with a third treatment (F80), fertigated at 80 kg N.ha-1.yr-1 and 60 kg K.ha-1.yr-1. Irrigation for these three treatments was scheduled by means of tensionmeters and soil was replenished to field water capacity twice per week. In a fourth treatment (D120), fertigated at 120 kg N.ha-1.yr-1 and 80 kg K.ha-1.yr-1 , deficit irrigation was practised, with monthly water application being approximately 30 mm less in comparison to the other treatments. In general, no differences were observed between F120 and C120, while cane mass and yield for both these treatments were higher than those of F80 and D120. This indicated that 80 kg N.ha-1.yr-1 was insufficient and that suboptimal irrigation can have a marked negative effect on vines growing in a low-potential soil. The results suggested that K was still adequately supplied in the case of F80, and that reduced performance could be ascribed to N deficiency only. Annual application of 80 kg K.ha-1.yr-1 by means of fertigation (F120 and D120) was needlessly excessive and impaired Mg uptake. Fertigation showed no positive or negative effects on wine quality overall.
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
Conventional fertilisation and fertigation did not significantly differ in yield or shoot growth during stage one.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Yield and shoot growthse0
- Direction
- not affected significantlye0
- Comparator
- conventional fertilisatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield and shoot growths were not affected significantly, indicating that conventional fertilisation was just as effective as fertigation (C120 vs F120).”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
More frequent small N applications had no advantage over less frequent larger applications.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- N in regular, small incrementse0
- Outcome
- advantagee0
- Direction
- no advantagee0
- Comparator
- larger applications at longer intervalse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the application of N in regular, small increments (1120) held no advantage over larger applications at longer intervals (Fl20)”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
F120 and C120 showed no general difference in stage two.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- F120e0
- Outcome
- differencese0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- C120e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, no differences were observed between F120 and C120”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane mass under F120 and C120 exceeded F80 and D120.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- F120 and C120e1
- Outcome
- cane masse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- F80 and D120e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cane mass and yield for both these treatments were higher than those of F80 and D120.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“In general, no differences were observed between F120 and C120”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield under F120 and C120 exceeded F80 and D120.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- F120 and C120e1
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- F80 and D120e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cane mass and yield for both these treatments were higher than those of F80 and D120.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“In general, no differences were observed between F120 and C120”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors interpreted 80 kg N per hectare per year as insufficient for these vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- 80 kg N.ha-1.yr-1e0
- Direction
- insufficiente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This indicated that 80 kg N.ha-1.yr-1 was insufficient”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Suboptimal irrigation negatively affected vines on low-potential soil.
- Taxon
- vinese0
- Treatment
- suboptimal irrigatione0
- Outcome
- vines growing in a low-potential soile0
- Direction
- negative effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“suboptimal irrigation can have a marked negative effect on vines growing in a low-potential soil.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded potassium remained adequate under F80.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- F80e0
- Outcome
- Ke0
- Direction
- adequately suppliede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“K was still adequately supplied in the case of F80”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual 80 kg K per hectare fertigation impaired Mg uptake.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 80 kg K.ha-1.yr-1 by means of fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Mg uptakee0
- Direction
- impairede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Annual application of 80 kg K.ha-1.yr-1 by means of fertigation (F120 and D120) was needlessly excessive and impaired Mg uptake.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation had no overall effect on wine quality.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Fertigatione0
- Outcome
- wine qualitye0
- Direction
- no positive or negative effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Fertigation showed no positive or negative effects on wine quality overall.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →fertilization · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.