Abstract
The active substances in volatiles from two Allium species, Chinese chive (A. tuberosum Rottler) and rakkyo (A. chinense G. Don), responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines, were investigated. Among several gas-chromatographic peaks, two major ones in Chinese chive and one in rakkyo were detected. Based on a comparison of the retention time with authentic chemicals and GC-MS analysis, the compounds were identified as methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) and allyl mercaptan (CH2=CHCH2SH) in Chinese chive, and dimethyl disulfide (CH3SSCH3) in rakkyo. Dormant 'Kyoho' grape cuttings were exposed for different durations to these and related compounds at varying concentrations in late November, late December and mid January. Methyl mercaptan promoted budbreak in late December and mid January, although a lower concentration resulted in a uniform rate of budbreak. Allyl mercaptan was effective in late December but inhibitory in mid January. The effect of dimethyl disulfide seemed to vary with concentration, time and duration of exposure. In late November, 24-hr exposure to 99% dimethyl disulfide greatly promoted budbreak, whereas 12-hr exposure had a slight effect. Moreover, no budbreak was observed in cuttings exposed to 30% dimethyl disulfide for 12 or 24 hr. In late December, a 24-hr exposure to the 10% suspension of the same compound promoted budbreak but the same exposure to a 75% suspension inhibited it. Therefore, it is highly probable that these substances are effective for breaking dormancy of grapevine buds but their time course effects and optimum concentrations remain to be investigated in relation to the dormancy stages.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Chinese chive volatiles contained methyl mercaptan and allyl mercaptan.
Verbatim
e1“the compounds were identified as methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) and allyl mercaptan (CH2=CHCH2SH) in Chinese chive, and dimethyl disulfide (CH3SSCH3) in rakkyo”
Claim · model-written summary
Rakkyo volatiles contained dimethyl disulfide.
Verbatim
e1“the compounds were identified as methyl mercaptan (CH3SH) and allyl mercaptan (CH2=CHCH2SH) in Chinese chive, and dimethyl disulfide (CH3SSCH3) in rakkyo”
Claim · model-written summary
Methyl mercaptan promoted budbreak of grapevine cuttings in late December and mid January.
- Treatment
- Methyl mercaptane2
- Outcome
- budbreake2
- Direction
- promotede2
- Setting
- late December and mid Januarye2
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e2“Methyl mercaptan promoted budbreak in late December and mid January”
Claim · model-written summary
A lower concentration of methyl mercaptan gave a uniform rate of budbreak in grapevine cuttings.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e3“although a lower concentration resulted in a uniform rate of budbreak”
Claim · model-written summary
Allyl mercaptan was effective in promoting budbreak of grapevine cuttings in late December.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e4“Methyl mercaptan promoted budbreak in late December and mid January, although a lower concentration resulted in a uniform rate of budbreak. Allyl mercaptan was effective in late December but inhibitory in mid January”
Claim · model-written summary
Allyl mercaptan inhibited budbreak of grapevine cuttings in mid January.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e4“Methyl mercaptan promoted budbreak in late December and mid January, although a lower concentration resulted in a uniform rate of budbreak. Allyl mercaptan was effective in late December but inhibitory in mid January”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of dimethyl disulfide on grapevine budbreak seemed to vary with concentration, time and duration of exposure.
- Treatment
- dimethyl disulfidee5
- Outcome
- effecte5
- Qualifier
- seemed to vary with concentration, time and duration of exposuree5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e5“The effect of dimethyl disulfide seemed to vary with concentration, time and duration of exposure”
Claim · model-written summary
A 24-hr exposure to 99% dimethyl disulfide greatly promoted budbreak in late November, whereas 12-hr exposure had a slight effect.
- Treatment
- 24-hr exposure to 99% dimethyl disulfidee6
- Outcome
- budbreake6
- Direction
- promotede6
- Comparator
- 12-hr exposuree6
- Setting
- late Novembere6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e6“In late November, 24-hr exposure to 99% dimethyl disulfide greatly promoted budbreak, whereas 12-hr exposure had a slight effect”
Claim · model-written summary
No budbreak was observed in cuttings exposed to 30% dimethyl disulfide for 12 or 24 hr.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e7“no budbreak was observed in cuttings exposed to 30% dimethyl disulfide for 12 or 24 hr”
Claim · model-written summary
A 24-hr exposure to a 10% dimethyl disulfide suspension promoted budbreak in late December.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e1“In late December, a 24-hr exposure to the 10% suspension of the same compound promoted budbreak but the same exposure to a 75% suspension inhibited it”
Claim · model-written summary
A 24-hr exposure to a 75% dimethyl disulfide suspension inhibited budbreak in late December.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“responsible for breaking bud dormancy in grapevines”
e1“In late December, a 24-hr exposure to the 10% suspension of the same compound promoted budbreak but the same exposure to a 75% suspension inhibited it”
The same questions in other papers
dimethyl disulfide · phenology · VitisResults differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- 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.