Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Grafting method had no significant effect on vegetative bud growth.

A claim from Performance of Different Grape Cultivars for Rooting and Grafting · 1999

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Grafting method had no significant effect on vegetative bud growth.

Taxon
grapet0
Treatment
grafting methode0
Outcome
vegetative bud growthe1
Direction
without any significant effecte0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

Verbatim

e0

“without any significant effect of grafting method or rootstocks in both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1010–1089
t0

“Grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 25–30
e1

“The vegetative bud growth of the graft varied among the different scion cultivars”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–1005

Title

Performance of Different Grape Cultivars for Rooting and Grafting

Hassan Abu-Qaoud An-Najah University Journal for Research - A (Natural Sciences) 1999. doi:10.35552/anujr.a.13.1.385

Other claims from this paper (12)

Record rev-e1bb38459d53d57e615deccf8669e05f7d59439b8044c00cfbbb4f82c383f50f · schema claims-v0.9 · position 10 in the model’s answer

grafting · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

31 papers: 20 positive, 11 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this claim · 20 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
    Tongue grafting had the highest grafting success, tree height, saleable stock percentage, and special-grade stock percentage.

    Influence of Grafting Methods on Production of Grape ‘Campbell Early’/3309C Nursery Stock · 2024

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  2. positive
    1103 P rootstock gave higher bud burst ratio, callus formation ratio and callus formation degree than 41B and SO4 rootstocks in grape.

    A Research on Grafted Vine Ratio and Vegetative Growth of ‘Ora’, ‘Prima’ And ‘Early Sweet’ Grape Cultivars Grafted on Certain Rootstocks · 2014 · compared with 41B and SO4

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  3. positive
    Rootstocks increased grapevine scion stem biomass relative to the auto-grafted control.

    Grafting with rootstocks induces extensive transcriptional re-programming in the shoot apical meristem of grapevine · 2013 · compared with auto-grafted control

    Opposite direction

  4. positive
    In calcareous soil 41 B produced twice the cluster dry matter of 3309 C.

    Grapevine Rootstock Effects on Lime‐Induced Chlorosis, Nutrient Uptake, and Source–Sink Relationships · 2003 · compared with 3309 C

    Opposite direction

  5. positive
    Low to moderate vigour rootstocks were reported to reduce shoot vigour.

    Plant management research: status and what it can offer to address challenges and limitations · 2009

    Opposite direction

  6. positive
    Healthy rootstocks caused earlier rootstock bud break and greater root fresh weight.

    Development, histological observations and Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus‐3 localisation in in vitro grapevine micrografts · 2017

    Opposite direction

  7. positive
    Grafted vines had more vigour.

    Response of ungrafted and grafted grapevine cultivans and rootstocks (Vitis sp.) to water stress · 2007

    Opposite direction

  8. positive
    Harmony rootstock increased berry mass and diameter.

    Rootstocks for the new seedless table grape ‘BRS Vitória’ under tropical semi-arid conditions of São Francisco Valley · 2020

    Opposite direction

22 papers more in this group

See all 31 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.