Abstract
Performance of Sultanina grapevines irrigated at 60% plant-available water depletion (Tl) were compared to situations where water deficits were induced at budbreak (T2), before flowering (T3), after flowering (T4), at pea size (TS) and during ripening (T6). The field trial was performed on a fine sandy soil at Upington in the Lower Orange River region in South Africa. Treatments Tl to T6 were irrigated at 60% plant-available water (PAW) depletion during the post-harvest period and winter. A further four treatments were irrigated at 60% PAW depletion from budbreak until irrigation was terminated three weeks (T7), seven weeks (TS), eleven weeks (T9) and fifteen weeks (TlO) after harvest, respectively. The periods of water stress induced during the various pre-harvest phenological phases were too short to have a significant effect on vegetative growth. Water deficits during the early season (T2, T3 and T4) tended to affect yield more negatively than deficits applied between pea size and harvest (TS and T6). Yield reduction was associated with tendencies toward reduced bunch differentiation, berry shed and smaller berries. Berry size was significantly reduced by water deficits induced after flowering (T4). Water deficits had no significant effect on juice sugar content or on total titratable acids. No choice-grade sun-dried raisins could be produced when grapevines were subjected to water deficits during ripening (T6). In comparison to continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletion and water deficits induced up to pea size, significant browning of dipped raisins produced from TS and T6 grapevines occurred during some seasons. In combination with low relative humidity, water deficits between pruning and budbreak (T7 to TlO) reduced yields significantly compared to continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletion throughout the post-harvest period. Low relative humidity and dry soil also induced delayed budbreak and stimulated excessive shoot growth after harvest to such an extent that cane mass was significantly higher compared to irrigation at 60% PAW depletion. Neither water deficits nor significant shoot regrowth during the post-harvest period had any effect on cane starch content at pruning.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits during the early season tended to affect yield more negatively than deficits applied between pea size and harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina
Vitis viniferat0 - Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- Water deficits during the early season (T2, T3 and T4)e1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- more negativelye1
- Comparator
- deficits applied between pea size and harvest (TS and T6)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e1“Water deficits during the early season (T2, T3 and T4) tended to affect yield more negatively than deficits applied between pea size and harvest (TS and T6)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reduction was associated with reduced bunch differentiation, berry shed and smaller berries.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- bunche2
- Outcome
- bunch differentiatione2
- Direction
- reducede2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e2“Yield reduction was associated with tendencies toward reduced bunch differentiation, berry shed and smaller berries”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits induced after flowering (T4) significantly reduced berry size.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficits induced after flowering (T4)e3
- Outcome
- Berry sizee3
- Direction
- significantly reducede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e3“Berry size was significantly reduced by water deficits induced after flowering (T4)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits had no significant effect on juice sugar content.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Water deficitse4
- Outcome
- juice sugar contente4
- Direction
- no significant effecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e4“Water deficits had no significant effect on juice sugar content or on total titratable acids”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits had no significant effect on total titratable acids.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Water deficitse4
- Outcome
- total titratable acidse4
- Direction
- no significant effecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e4“Water deficits had no significant effect on juice sugar content or on total titratable acids”
Claim · model-written summary
No choice-grade sun-dried raisins could be produced from grapevines with water deficits during ripening.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficits during ripening (T6)e5
- Outcome
- choice-grade sun-dried raisinse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e5“No choice-grade sun-dried raisins could be produced when grapevines were subjected to water deficits during ripening (T6)”
Claim · model-written summary
Significant browning of dipped raisins from TS and T6 grapevines occurred during some seasons compared with continued irrigation.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- TS and T6e6
- Outcome
- browning of dipped raisinse6
- Direction
- occurrede6
- Qualifier
- during some seasonse6
- Comparator
- continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletione6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e6“In comparison to continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletion and water deficits induced up to pea size, significant browning of dipped raisins produced from TS and T6 grapevines occurred during some seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits between pruning and budbreak significantly reduced yields compared with continued irrigation.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficits between pruning and budbreak (T7 to TlO)e7
- Outcome
- yieldse7
- Direction
- reducede7
- Qualifier
- In combination with low relative humiditye7
- Comparator
- continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletion throughout the post-harvest periode7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“In combination with low relative humidity, water deficits between pruning and budbreak (T7 to TlO) reduced yields significantly compared to continued irrigation at 60% PAW depletion throughout the post-harvest period”
Claim · model-written summary
Low relative humidity and dry soil delayed budbreak of Sultanina grapevines after harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Low relative humidity and dry soile7
- Outcome
- budbreake7
- Direction
- delayede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“Low relative humidity and dry soil also induced delayed budbreak and stimulated excessive shoot growth after harvest to such an extent that cane mass was significantly higher compared to irrigation at 60% PAW depletion”
Claim · model-written summary
Low relative humidity and dry soil stimulated excessive shoot growth after harvest.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Low relative humidity and dry soile7
- Outcome
- excessive shoot growthe7
- Direction
- stimulatede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“Low relative humidity and dry soil also induced delayed budbreak and stimulated excessive shoot growth after harvest to such an extent that cane mass was significantly higher compared to irrigation at 60% PAW depletion”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane mass was significantly higher under low relative humidity and dry soil than under irrigation at 60% PAW depletion.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Low relative humidity and dry soile7
- Outcome
- cane masse7
- Direction
- significantly highere7
- Comparator
- irrigation at 60% PAW depletione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“Low relative humidity and dry soil also induced delayed budbreak and stimulated excessive shoot growth after harvest to such an extent that cane mass was significantly higher compared to irrigation at 60% PAW depletion”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither water deficits nor shoot regrowth after harvest had any effect on cane starch content at pruning.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficitse7
- Outcome
- cane starch contente7
- Direction
- had any effecte7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“Neither water deficits nor significant shoot regrowth during the post-harvest period had any effect on cane starch content at pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress in the pre-harvest phenological phases was too short to significantly affect vegetative growth.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L. cv. SultaninaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- periods of water stress induced during the various pre-harvest phenological phasese7
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe7
- Direction
- too short to have a significant effecte7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
e7“The periods of water stress induced during the various pre-harvest phenological phases were too short to have a significant effect on vegetative growth”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →drought · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 papers →humidity · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
stage · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →drought · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →pruning · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
53 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 papers →climate site · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
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.