Abstract
Introduction: Green pruning or summer pruning completes winter pruning, and it is conducted during the growing season. The purpose of green pruning is to maximize yield of high quality grapes. Green pruning in fruit trees improves light penetration and increases the quality of fruits. The objectives of this research were to determine the influence of green pruning on fruit quantitative and qualitative attributes in grapevine cultivar 'keshmeshi'. Materials and Methods: The present research was undertaken in Shirvan, Northern Khorasan province. The vines were highly uniform, 17 years old and all had equal vegetative growth strength.The planting distances were 3 × 3 m. The present study was conducted on cultivar 'Keshmeshi' that is considered to be one of the best grapevine cultivars mostly used for raisin production as well as table fresh fruits. In order to evaluate the effect of green pruning on different quantitative and qualitative attributes of fruits in cultivar "keshmeshi", the experiment was carried out in two way randomized complete block design with 12 treatments and three replications. Vines were pruned three times including full bloom, two weeks after full bloom and veraison (eight weeks after full bloom). Pruning was carried out in three levels including tipping after two, four or six nodes above the final cluster. The characteristics studied were cluster weight, berry weight, cluster length and width, berry length and width, number of cluster and berry, vine yield, leaf area, soluble solid, total acidity, pH, berry color, berry sunscald and number of shot berry. The SAS software (SAS, version 9.1) was used for statistical analysis of the recorded data. The mean comparison was performed based on Duncan's multiple range tests at %5 and %1 levels. Results and Discussion: The results of this study indicate that the severity of green pruning has no significant effect on the number and width of berries. This treatment also had no significant effect on the number of cluster. However, there were some significant effects on the TSS (P < 0.05) and on other attributes at P< 0.01.The time of green pruning had some significant effects on almost all attributes at P< 0.01 and on cluster weight, pH and berry color at P < 0.05; but it showed no significant effect on the number of clusters, TSS and TA. The results showed the reciprocal effect of treatments had a significant impact on the length and width of clusters and the length of berries, weight of clusters and berries, number of berries and shotberries, leaf area and pH (P < 0.01). The reciprocal effect of treatments caused a significant effect on the TSS and berry color at P< 0.05; but it showed no significant effect on yield, number of clusters, TAand the percentage of sunburn. The maximum length of clusters (31.47 cm) and berries (16.80 mm), width of cluster (12.98 cm), weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments. The treatment of two and four nodes at full bloom and two weeks after that, reduced the leaf area and also the rate of photosynthesis, and the amount of carbohydrates will be decreased. Subsequently yield component will be decreased. Conclusion: According to the result of this study, green pruning improved fruit juice quality and increased grapevine yield. Six-nodes-pruning at verasion stage did not have any negative influence on yield compared to other treatments and increased the fruit quality compared to control. Two and four-nodes-pruning in full bloom decreased the yield components but increased soluble solid, pH and improved berry color.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning severity had no significant effect on berry number or width.
- Treatment
- severity of green pruninge0
- Outcome
- number and width of berriese0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“severity of green pruning has no significant effect on the number and width of berries”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning severity had no significant effect on cluster number.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This treatment also had no significant effect on the number of cluster”
e1“severity of green pruning”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning severity significantly affected TSS.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were some significant effects on the TSS (P < 0.05)”
e1“severity of green pruning”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning time significantly affected most measured attributes.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The time of green pruning had some significant effects on almost all attributes at P< 0.01”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning time had no significant effect on cluster number, TSS or TA.
- Treatment
- time of green pruninge1
- Outcome
- number of clusters, TSS and TAe0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed no significant effect on the number of clusters, TSS and TA”
e1“time of green pruning”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction of pruning treatments significantly affected cluster and berry dimensions, weight, berry counts, leaf area and pH.
- Treatment
- reciprocal effect of treatmentse0
- Outcome
- length and width of clusters and the length of berries, weight of clusters and berries, number of berries and shotberries, leaf area and pHe0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The results showed the reciprocal effect of treatments had a significant impact on the length and width of clusters and the length of berries, weight of clusters and berries, number of berries and shotberries, leaf area and pH (P < 0.01)”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment interaction significantly affected TSS and berry color.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reciprocal effect of treatments caused a significant effect on the TSS and berry color at P< 0.05”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatment interaction had no significant effect on yield, cluster count, TA or sunburn.
- Treatment
- reciprocal effect of treatmentse1
- Outcome
- yield, number of clusters, TAand the percentage of sunburne0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it showed no significant effect on yield, number of clusters, TAand the percentage of sunburn”
e1“The reciprocal effect of treatments caused a significant effect”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum cluster length of 31.47 cm.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- length of clusterse0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 31.47 cme0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum length of clusters (31.47 cm) and berries (16.80 mm), width of cluster (12.98 cm), weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum berry length of 16.80 mm.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- length of clusters (31.47 cm) and berriese0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- 16.80 mme0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The maximum length of clusters (31.47 cm) and berries (16.80 mm), width of cluster (12.98 cm), weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum cluster width of 12.98 cm.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- width of clustere0
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 12.98 cme0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“width of cluster (12.98 cm), weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
e1“The maximum length of clusters”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum cluster weight of 344.33 g.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- weight of clustere0
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 344.33 ge0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
e1“The maximum length of clusters”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum berry weight of 1.85 g.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berrye0
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 1.85 ge0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weight of cluster (344.33 g) and berry (1.85 g), number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
e1“The maximum length of clusters”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum 233.53 berries per cluster.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- number of berries/clustere0
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 233.53e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“number of berries/cluster (233.53) and leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
e1“The maximum length of clusters”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison yielded maximum leaf area of 193.20 cm2.
- Treatment
- six-nodes pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- leaf areae0
- Direction
- maximume1
- Value
- 193.20 cm2e0
- Comparator
- other treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf area (193.20 cm2) was observed following six-nodes pruning at verasion stage compared to other treatments”
t0“Grape Vines”
e1“The maximum length of clusters”
Claim · model-written summary
Two- and four-node pruning around full bloom reduced leaf area and photosynthesis.
- Treatment
- two and four nodes at full bloom and two weeks after thate0
- Outcome
- leaf area and also the rate of photosynthesise0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The treatment of two and four nodes at full bloom and two weeks after that, reduced the leaf area and also the rate of photosynthesis”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Green pruning improved fruit juice quality and increased grapevine yield.
- Treatment
- green pruninge0
- Outcome
- fruit juice quality and increased grapevine yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“green pruning improved fruit juice quality and increased grapevine yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Six-node pruning at veraison increased fruit quality versus control without harming yield.
- Treatment
- Six-nodes-pruning at verasion stagee0
- Outcome
- fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Six-nodes-pruning at verasion stage did not have any negative influence on yield compared to other treatments and increased the fruit quality compared to control”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Two- and four-node pruning at full bloom decreased yield components.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two and four-nodes-pruning in full bloom decreased the yield components but increased soluble solid, pH and improved berry color”
t0“Grape Vines”
Claim · model-written summary
Two- and four-node pruning at full bloom increased soluble solids and pH and improved berry color.
- Treatment
- Two and four-nodes-pruning in full bloome0
- Outcome
- soluble solid, pH and improved berry colore0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Two and four-nodes-pruning in full bloom decreased the yield components but increased soluble solid, pH and improved berry color”
t0“Grape Vines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · VitisResults differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →pruning · molecular: metabolites · VitisResults differ
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →pruning · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.