Abstract
The recommended cultivars for top quality wines Riesling in the vineyards of Grocka is in full crop. It was grafted on Kober 5 BB stock and planted on the soil type cambysoil. The content of total nitrogen is 0.1-0.15%. Supply of easily available potassium varies between 12.3-15 mg/100g a.d.s.2, i.e. phosphorus 0.4-3.6 mg/100g a.d.s. in layer up to 40 cm. Microbiological fertilizer was used in the study - biological preparation prepared with mixed natural populations Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus circulons. The space in row is idle land and the space between rows was sown each year (March-April) with a mixture of field pea and barley and ploughed in the inflorescence phase of legumes. Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha. Microbiological fertilizer with Azotobacter had the highest yield and the control treatment had the lowest yield, where only grass mixture was sown. Extremely dry climatic conditions in the trial period caused the grape yield in cv. Riesling to be extremely low. In combination of fertilizers Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus circulons wine with the most ethanol, extracts and polyphenols was obtained. The wine obtained from the control treatment had a typical taste.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Grape yield varied between 8772 and 6804 kg/ha.
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e1“The recommended cultivars for top quality wines Riesling”
Claim · model-written summary
Microbiological fertilizer with Azotobacter gave the highest grape yield.
- Taxon
- grapee0
- Material
- Rieslinge1
- Treatment
- Microbiological fertilizer with Azotobactere2
- Interactor
- Azotobacter chroococcumAzotobacter chroococcume4symbiont
- Outcome
- yielde2
- Direction
- higheste2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e1“The recommended cultivars for top quality wines Riesling”
e2“Microbiological fertilizer with Azotobacter had the highest yield”
e4“mixed natural populations Azotobacter chroococcum, Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus circulons”
Claim · model-written summary
The control treatment with only grass mixture had the lowest grape yield.
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e3“the control treatment had the lowest yield, where only grass mixture was sown”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined Bacillus megaterium and Bacillus circulons fertilizers gave wine with the most ethanol, extracts and polyphenols.
- Taxon
- grapee0
- Treatment
- Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus circulonse5
- Interactor
- Bacillus megaterium
Priestia megateriume5symbiont - Second interactor
- Bacillus circulonse5symbiont
- Outcome
- ethanol, extracts and polyphenolse5
- Direction
- moste5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e5“In combination of fertilizers Bacillus megaterium + Bacillus circulons wine with the most ethanol, extracts and polyphenols was obtained”
Claim · model-written summary
Extremely dry climatic conditions caused extremely low grape yield in cv. Riesling.
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e6“Extremely dry climatic conditions in the trial period caused the grape yield in cv. Riesling to be extremely low”
Claim · model-written summary
Wine from the control treatment had a typical taste.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Grape yield varied between 8772-6804 kg/ha”
e7“The wine obtained from the control treatment had a typical taste”
The same questions in other papers
Azotobacter · yield · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 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.