Claim · model-written summary
Decapitation did not increase budbreak percentage.
VitisNot reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All decapitation did not increase the percentage of budbreak”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Title
Béchir Ezzili; M. Bejaoui OENO One 2001. doi:10.20870/oeno-one.2001.35.1.992
Other claims from this paper (13)
- Intervention effect Apical bud excision enabled the two subadjacent buds to develop.
- Observation With decapitation, subadjacent buds developed while lower buds were inhibited.
- Observation Lower buds remained inhibited after decapitation.
- Intervention effect Leaf excision at the second development stage did not promote budbreak.
- Mechanism Auxins from developing young leaves appear to inhibit subjacent budbreak.
- Mechanism Applied cytokinins appear to alter cane branching and limit basipetal inhibition.
- Intervention effect Cane budburst appears greater at 18°C than at 30°C day/20°night.
- Observation Acrotony consequently decreases at 18°C.
- Mechanism Leaves in the second growth phase appear to inhibit lower buds through gibberellins and auxins.
- Mechanism Cytokinins no longer counter inhibition during this growth phase.
- Intervention effect ANA at 20 and 50 mg/l completely inhibited vineyard budburst.
- Intervention effect 6BAP at 20 mg/l before budburst increased budburst percentage in Muscatel of Italy.
- Observation The subsequent cytokinin treatment produced budburst.