Abstract
This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions. It was hypothesized that the DI could enhance crop water productivity and fruit quality, especially when integrated with grafting, without a significant reduction in fruit yield. DI included five irrigation treatments: full irrigation (control), 75% of full irrigation over the season (D1), 75% of full irrigation except during the berries enlargement stage (principal growth stage 7, or BBCH 71-79), received water equivalent to the control (D2), 50% of full irrigation (D3), and 50% of full irrigation except during the berries enlargement stage, received water equivalent to control (D4), with and/or without grafting. The grapevines under deficit irrigation produced the highest crop water productivity, fruit soluble solid content (SSC), and total anthocyanins without significant impacts on fruit yield, except for D4 (severe deficit). Deficit irrigation applications saved 25%, 13%, 50%, and 26% of the water used for D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively, compared with the control, resulting in decreased power consumption during vineyard irrigation and, subsequently, reduced irrigation costs. Moreover, soil porosity and hydraulic conductivity remained unaffected. In addition, grafted grapevines produced lower vegetative growth parameters but improved most fruit quality parameters without significantly affecting fruit yield. The present study confirmed that deficit irrigation could effectively save water and improve fruit quality without affecting fruit yield for grapevines in arid and semiarid regions. Furthermore, grafting on specific rootstock should be used as a practical approach for managing water deficit conditions.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation produced the highest crop water productivity.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grapevines under deficit irrigation produced the highest crop water productivity, fruit soluble solid content (SSC), and total anthocyanins without significant impacts on fruit yield, except for D4 (severe deficit).”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation produced the highest fruit soluble solid content.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grapevines under deficit irrigation produced the highest crop water productivity, fruit soluble solid content (SSC), and total anthocyanins without significant impacts on fruit yield, except for D4 (severe deficit).”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation produced the highest total anthocyanins.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grapevines under deficit irrigation produced the highest crop water productivity, fruit soluble solid content (SSC), and total anthocyanins without significant impacts on fruit yield, except for D4 (severe deficit).”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation did not significantly affect fruit yield except under D4.
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione1
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- without significant impactse0
- Qualifier
- except for D4 (severe deficit)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without significant impacts on fruit yield, except for D4 (severe deficit).”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
D1 saved 25% of irrigation water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation applications saved 25%, 13%, 50%, and 26% of the water used for D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively, compared with the control”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
D2 saved 13% of irrigation water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation applications saved 25%, 13%, 50%, and 26% of the water used for D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively, compared with the control”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
D3 saved 50% of irrigation water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation applications saved 25%, 13%, 50%, and 26% of the water used for D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively, compared with the control”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
D4 saved 26% of irrigation water.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Deficit irrigation applications saved 25%, 13%, 50%, and 26% of the water used for D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively, compared with the control”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation decreased power consumption.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulting in decreased power consumption during vineyard irrigation and, subsequently, reduced irrigation costs.”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced irrigation costs.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“resulting in decreased power consumption during vineyard irrigation and, subsequently, reduced irrigation costs.”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil porosity and hydraulic conductivity were unaffected.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil porosity and hydraulic conductivity remained unaffected.”
t0“Deficit irrigation and grafting effects on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, and quality of ‘Crimson Seedless’ grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafted grapevines had lower vegetative growth parameters.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafted grapevines produced lower vegetative growth parameters but improved most fruit quality parameters without significantly affecting fruit yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting improved most fruit quality parameters.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafted grapevines produced lower vegetative growth parameters but improved most fruit quality parameters without significantly affecting fruit yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Grafting did not significantly affect fruit yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafted grapevines produced lower vegetative growth parameters but improved most fruit quality parameters without significantly affecting fruit yield.”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors recommend grafting on specific rootstock to manage water deficit.
- Outcome
- grafting on specific rootstock should be usede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grafting on specific rootstock should be used as a practical approach for managing water deficit conditions.”
e1“This study evaluated the combined effects of grafting and deficit irrigation (DI) on soil attributes, vegetative growth, yield components, fruit quality, and water productivity of 'Crimson Seedless' grapevines under semiarid conditions.”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →grafting · yield · VitisResults differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · pest · VitisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
irrigation · soil: physics · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →grafting · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
27 papers more in this group
See all 31 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.