Abstract
Physiological effects of CCC on the growth of grapevine inflorescence differentiation, cytokinin activity in the xylem sap, and photosynthetic and respiratory activities of grape leaves were investigated by the application of CCC as a soil drench.1. Shoot elongation and dry weight of shoot were not affected by CCC treatment. However, CCC caused an increase in dry weight of roots without changing any external features of the roots.2. The top/root ratio of CCC-treated plants was reduced to about one-half that of the control plants. The volume of xylem sap of CCC-treated plants exceeded about two times that of controls.After separation of xylem sap by Sephadex LH-20 column chromatography, at least five cytokinin-like substances including zeatin and zeatin riboside were present in the sap of control plants. The main peak of cytokinin-like activity (Compound 1) in the sap was depressed by CCC treatment, whereas the sixth cytokinin-like substance (Compound 5) appeared in the chromatograms of the sap examined.3. Number of inflorescence differentiation in the lateral bud of CCC-treated plants was larger than that of controls. The number of inflorescence differentiation of lateral buds from the 3rd to the 5th node of the shoot was larger than that of the 8th to the 10th node of the shoot.4. Chlorophyll content of the leaves of CCC-treated plants was higher than that of controls, especially in young leaves. Photosynthetic activity of mature grape leaves was stimulated by CCC treatment, though dark respiration was not affected by the treatment. Photorespiration rate (PIB-1) and PR/DR ratio of mature leaves were increased by CCC treatment.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
CCC did not affect shoot elongation or shoot dry weight.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot elongation and dry weight of shoot were not affected by CCC treatment”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC increased root dry weight.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CCC caused an increase in dry weight of roots without changing any external features of the roots”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC did not change external root features.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without changing any external features of the roots”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC reduced the top/root ratio to about half that of controls.
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- top/root ratioe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- about one-halfe0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The top/root ratio of CCC-treated plants was reduced to about one-half that of the control plants”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC increased xylem sap volume to over twice the control level.
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- volume of xylem sape0
- Direction
- exceedede0
- Value
- about two timese0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The volume of xylem sap of CCC-treated plants exceeded about two times that of controls”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
At least five cytokinin-like substances including zeatin and zeatin riboside occurred in control xylem sap.
- Organ / stage
- sape0
- Outcome
- cytokinin-like substances including zeatin and zeatin ribosidee0
- Value
- at least fivee0
- Comparator
- control plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“at least five cytokinin-like substances including zeatin and zeatin riboside were present in the sap of control plants”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC depressed the main cytokinin-like activity peak.
- Organ / stage
- sape0
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- main peak of cytokinin-like activity (Compound 1)e0
- Direction
- depressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The main peak of cytokinin-like activity (Compound 1) in the sap was depressed by CCC treatment”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
A sixth cytokinin-like substance appeared after CCC treatment.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sixth cytokinin-like substance (Compound 5) appeared in the chromatograms of the sap examined”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC increased inflorescence differentiation in lateral buds.
- Organ / stage
- lateral bude0
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- Number of inflorescence differentiatione0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Number of inflorescence differentiation in the lateral bud of CCC-treated plants was larger than that of controls”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Inflorescence differentiation was greater at nodes 3–5 than nodes 8–10.
- Organ / stage
- lateral budse0
- Outcome
- number of inflorescence differentiatione0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- 8th to the 10th node of the shoote0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The number of inflorescence differentiation of lateral buds from the 3rd to the 5th node of the shoot was larger than that of the 8th to the 10th node of the shoot”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC increased leaf chlorophyll content, especially in young leaves.
- Organ / stage
- young leavese0
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- Chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- controlse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll content of the leaves of CCC-treated plants was higher than that of controls, especially in young leaves”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC stimulated photosynthetic activity in mature leaves.
- Organ / stage
- mature grape leavese0
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- Photosynthetic activitye0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthetic activity of mature grape leaves was stimulated by CCC treatment”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC did not affect dark respiration.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“dark respiration was not affected by the treatment”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC increased mature-leaf photorespiration rate and PR/DR ratio.
- Organ / stage
- mature leavese0
- Treatment
- CCCt0
- Outcome
- Photorespiration rate (PIB-1) and PR/DR ratioe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photorespiration rate (PIB-1) and PR/DR ratio of mature leaves were increased by CCC treatment”
t0“CCC on the Growth of Grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
chlormequat chloride · growth · VitisResults differ
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.