Abstract
Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period. Yields ranged from 5.2 to 12.4 t/ha in 2008 and from 4.0 to 9.3 t/ha in 2009, while crop loads (yield/pruning weight) ranged from 2.9 to 8.7 in 2008 and 2.9 to 9.9 in 2009. By 2010, yield and crop load (yield/pruning weight) did not differ among treatments. Cluster weight was unaffected by CT in 2008 and 2009 but in 2010 control clusters weighed 39% less than low crop. There was little or no CT effect on berry size, pH, titratable acidity, pruning weight, cluster light exposure, or bud cold hardiness. Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.2 Brix in control to 22.3 Brix in low crop in 2008, from 18.9 to 22.1 Brix, respectively, in 2009, and from 20.5 to 22.0 Brix, respectively, in 2010. A consumer wine aroma sorting trial revealed that the low crop wine, and the low and medium crop wines, differed in aromatic attributes from the other treatments in 2008 and 2009, respectively. Grower financial net return per hectare ranged from $2,832 in low crop to $16,055 in control in 2008, from −$115 to $8,596, respectively, in 2009, and from $1,938 to $4,242, respectively, in 2010. Financial losses associated with CT could be recouped only by increases of up to 143% over base market price for grapes.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 18
Claim · model-written summary
Riesling yields ranged from 5.2 to 12.4 t/ha in 2008 across crop levels.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Yields ranged from 5.2 to 12.4 t/ha in 2008”
Claim · model-written summary
Riesling yields ranged from 4.0 to 9.3 t/ha in 2009 across crop levels.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Yields ranged from 5.2 to 12.4 t/ha in 2008 and from 4.0 to 9.3 t/ha in 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load ranged from 2.9 to 8.7 in 2008 across crop levels.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“crop loads (yield/pruning weight) ranged from 2.9 to 8.7 in 2008”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load ranged from 2.9 to 9.9 in 2009 across crop levels.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“crop loads (yield/pruning weight) ranged from 2.9 to 8.7 in 2008 and 2.9 to 9.9 in 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
By 2010, cluster thinning did not change yield or crop load relative to nonthinned control vines.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e2“By 2010, yield and crop load (yield/pruning weight) did not differ among treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning did not change cluster weight in 2008 and 2009.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Cluster weight was unaffected by CT in 2008 and 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
In 2010, control clusters weighed 39% less than low-crop clusters.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Cluster weight was unaffected by CT in 2008 and 2009 but in 2010 control clusters weighed 39% less than low crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning had little or no effect on berry size, pH and titratable acidity.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“There was little or no CT effect on berry size, pH, titratable acidity, pruning weight, cluster light exposure, or bud cold hardiness”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning had little or no effect on pruning weight, cluster light exposure and bud cold hardiness.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“There was little or no CT effect on berry size, pH, titratable acidity, pruning weight, cluster light exposure, or bud cold hardiness”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.2 Brix in control to 22.3 Brix in low crop in 2008.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.2 Brix in control to 22.3 Brix in low crop in 2008”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.9 to 22.1 Brix in 2009.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.2 Brix in control to 22.3 Brix in low crop in 2008, from 18.9 to 22.1 Brix, respectively, in 2009”
Claim · model-written summary
Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 20.5 to 22.0 Brix in 2010.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Soluble solids at harvest ranged from 18.2 Brix in control to 22.3 Brix in low crop in 2008, from 18.9 to 22.1 Brix, respectively, in 2009, and from 20.5 to 22.0 Brix, respectively, in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
In a consumer wine aroma sorting trial in 2008, low crop wine differed in aromatic attributes from the other treatments.
- Taxon
- Rieslinge0
- Treatment
- low crop winee1
- Outcome
- aromatic attributese1
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse1
- Setting
- 2008e1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“A consumer wine aroma sorting trial revealed that the low crop wine, and the low and medium crop wines, differed in aromatic attributes from the other treatments in 2008 and 2009, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
In a consumer wine aroma sorting trial in 2009, low and medium crop wines differed in aromatic attributes from the other treatments.
- Taxon
- Rieslinge0
- Treatment
- low and medium crop winese1
- Outcome
- aromatic attributese1
- Comparator
- the other treatmentse1
- Setting
- 2009e1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“A consumer wine aroma sorting trial revealed that the low crop wine, and the low and medium crop wines, differed in aromatic attributes from the other treatments in 2008 and 2009, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Grower net return per hectare in 2008 ranged from $2,832 in low crop to $16,055 in control.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Grower financial net return per hectare ranged from $2,832 in low crop to $16,055 in control in 2008, from −$115 to $8,596, respectively, in 2009, and from $1,938 to $4,242, respectively, in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
Grower net return per hectare in 2009 ranged from −$115 to $8,596.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Grower financial net return per hectare ranged from $2,832 in low crop to $16,055 in control in 2008, from −$115 to $8,596, respectively, in 2009, and from $1,938 to $4,242, respectively, in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
Grower net return per hectare in 2010 ranged from $1,938 to $4,242.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Grower financial net return per hectare ranged from $2,832 in low crop to $16,055 in control in 2008, from −$115 to $8,596, respectively, in 2009, and from $1,938 to $4,242, respectively, in 2010”
Claim · model-written summary
Financial losses from cluster thinning could be recouped only by grape price increases of up to 143%.
Verbatim
e0“Crop levels of 1 (low), 1.5 (medium), and 2 (high) clusters per shoot established by cluster thinning (CT) were compared to nonthinned (control) Riesling vines over a three-year period”
e1“Financial losses associated with CT could be recouped only by increases of up to 143% over base market price for grapes”