Intervention effectmodel-written summary

PRD increased hydrolytically released beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and TDN concentrations at harvest across two seasons.

A claim from Influence of Plant Water Status on the Production of C13-Norisoprenoid Precursors in Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Cabernet Sauvignon Grape Berries · 2007

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PRD increased hydrolytically released beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and TDN concentrations at harvest across two seasons.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Treatment
PRDe0
Outcome
concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalenee0
Direction
increasese0
Qualifier
fruit at harvest (24 degrees Brix) over two seasonse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“PRD consistently caused increases in the concentration of hydrolytically released C13-norisoprenoids beta-damascenone, beta-ionone, and 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in fruit at harvest (24 degrees Brix) over two seasons.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1353–1583
t0

“Vitis vinifera L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 85–102

Title

Influence of Plant Water Status on the Production of C13-Norisoprenoid Precursors in Vitis vinifera L. Cv. Cabernet Sauvignon Grape Berries

Keren A. Bindon; Peter R. Dry; Brian R. Loveys Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2007. doi:10.1021/jf063331p

Other claims from this paper (11)

Record rev-6412349a09e5af04b99ff06321769c5c4e24cb3b90da6a4784701d754813433e · schema claims-v0.9 · position 9 in the model’s answer

irrigation · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 15 positive, 6 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this claim · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect
  4. no effect
  5. negative
  6. no effect
  7. positive
  8. positive

12 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.