Abstract
The possibility to increase grapevine cane water content during the dormant period by applying overhead irrigation, and thereby increasing yield, was investigated in a semi-arid summer rainfall climate. A field trial was carried out with Sultanina grapevines in the Lower Orange River region over two seasons. During the 2000/2001 season control grapevines (Tl) that received no overhead irrigation in winter were compared to ones receiving overhead irrigation applied over a ca. 30-day period, starting either in July (T2), mid-July (T3), August (T4) or mid-August (TS). Overhead irrigation was applied as ten-minute pulses on the hour from 10:00 until 16:00. Due to the lack of winter rainfall, all treatments received normal, under-vine irrigation in winter to avoid severe water deficits. All treatments, except T2, were repeated during the 2001/2002 season. Two additional treatments which received no irrigation during winter were included during the second season. Of these two, T6 received overhead irrigation in August, whereas T7 received no overhead irrigation. Compared to the Tl control, overhead irrigation applied during August 2000 (T4) not only increased cane water content measured before bud break, i.e. early September, but also increased yield. The other overhead irrigation treatments did not affect cane water content or yield. During the second season overhead irrigation started in mid-July (T3) or in the beginning of August (T4) induced higher yields compared to grapevines that received overhead irrigation in the period before bud break (TS). Where available soil water depletion of 90% occurred, overhead irrigation (T6) seemed to negate the adverse effects of dry soil on yield. In contrast, cane water content and yield were considerably lower where neither normal nor overhead irrigation was applied (T7), compared to T3 and T4. These results confirmed that overhead irrigation can increase cane water content and yield, and that soil water deficits during the dormant period should be avoided. Overhead irrigation and/or water deficits during winter did not affect cane mass, as measured at the end of the following growing season.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
August overhead irrigation increased cane water content before budbreak versus the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Material
- Sultaninat0
- Organ / stage
- before bud breake0
- Treatment
- overhead irrigation applied during August 2000 (T4)e0
- Outcome
- cane water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Tl controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the Tl control, overhead irrigation applied during August 2000 (T4) not only increased cane water content measured before bud break, i.e. early September, but also increased yield.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
August overhead irrigation increased yield versus the control.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- overhead irrigation applied during August 2000 (T4)e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Tl controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the Tl control, overhead irrigation applied during August 2000 (T4) not only increased cane water content measured before bud break, i.e. early September, but also increased yield.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Other overhead irrigation timings did not affect cane water content or yield in the first season.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- other overhead irrigation treatmentse0
- Outcome
- cane water content or yielde0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The other overhead irrigation treatments did not affect cane water content or yield.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Mid-July overhead irrigation produced higher yields than irrigation before budbreak in season two.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- overhead irrigation started in mid-July (T3)e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- overhead irrigation in the period before bud break (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“overhead irrigation started in mid-July (T3) or in the beginning of August (T4) induced higher yields compared to grapevines that received overhead irrigation in the period before bud break (TS).”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Early-August overhead irrigation produced higher yields than irrigation before budbreak in season two.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- in the beginning of August (T4)e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- overhead irrigation in the period before bud break (TS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“overhead irrigation started in mid-July (T3) or in the beginning of August (T4) induced higher yields compared to grapevines that received overhead irrigation in the period before bud break (TS).”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
At 90% available soil water depletion, overhead irrigation appeared to mitigate dry-soil yield losses.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- overhead irrigation (T6)e0
- Outcome
- adverse effects of dry soil on yielde0
- Direction
- negatee0
- Qualifier
- available soil water depletion of 90%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Where available soil water depletion of 90% occurred, overhead irrigation (T6) seemed to negate the adverse effects of dry soil on yield.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Without winter irrigation, cane water content was lower than in T3 and T4.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- neither normal nor overhead irrigation was applied (T7)e0
- Outcome
- cane water contente0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- T3 and T4e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cane water content and yield were considerably lower where neither normal nor overhead irrigation was applied (T7), compared to T3 and T4.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Without winter irrigation, yield was lower than in T3 and T4.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- neither normal nor overhead irrigation was applied (T7)e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- T3 and T4e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cane water content and yield were considerably lower where neither normal nor overhead irrigation was applied (T7), compared to T3 and T4.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors advised avoiding soil water deficits in the dormant period.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- soil water deficits during the dormant period should be avoidede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soil water deficits during the dormant period should be avoided.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter irrigation or water deficits did not affect cane mass at the end of the next growing season.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Sultaninat0
- Treatment
- Overhead irrigation and/or water deficits during wintere0
- Outcome
- cane masse0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
- Qualifier
- at the end of the following growing seasone0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overhead irrigation and/or water deficits during winter did not affect cane mass, as measured at the end of the following growing season.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultanina”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · soil: physics · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
irrigation · yield · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
37 papers more in this group
See all 41 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.