Abstract
Background and Aims: We investigated the effectiveness of shoot topping and 2-chlorethyltrimethyl-ammonium chloride (CCC) application on the control of fruitset and other yield components on the grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo at two sites over two or three seasons. Methods and Results: Treatments were applied before and during the flowering period. Fruitset and yield per vine increased in response to both shoot topping and CCC treatment, especially when shoot topping was applied between E–L stages 19 and 23, and when CCC was applied 1 week before flowering. All varieties at both locations responded to shoot topping to some degree: from 20 to 57% relative to the control for fruitset and from 16 to 97% for yield per vine. Conclusions: Fruitset, and, thus, yield, can be improved by cultural practices in all seasons, but the magnitude of the response may be greatest in those seasons when fruitset is lower than the average. Neither berry number per bunch nor the visual appearance of the bunches were reliable indicators of fruitset performance. Significance of the Study: Optimal timing of shoot topping and CCC application as cultural practices is critical to maximise the response. The ‘Coulure Index’ and the ‘Millerandage Index’, which are described for the first time, are novel and useful indicators of fruitset that have been developed to quantify the reproductive performance of grapevines.
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
Shoot topping increased fruitset and yield per vine in grapevines.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Fruitset and yield per vine increased in response to both shoot topping and CCC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
CCC treatment increased fruitset and yield per vine in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Fruitset and yield per vine increased in response to both shoot topping and CCC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in fruitset and yield per vine from shoot topping was especially large when topping was applied between E-L stages 19 and 23.
- Treatment
- shoot topping was applied between E–L stages 19 and 23e1
- Outcome
- Fruitset and yield per vinee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- especiallye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Fruitset and yield per vine increased in response to both shoot topping and CCC treatment, especially when shoot topping was applied between E–L stages 19 and 23”
Claim · model-written summary
The increase in fruitset and yield per vine from CCC was especially large when CCC was applied 1 week before flowering.
- Treatment
- CCC was applied 1 week before floweringe1
- Outcome
- Fruitset and yield per vinee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- especiallye1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Fruitset and yield per vine increased in response to both shoot topping and CCC treatment, especially when shoot topping was applied between E–L stages 19 and 23, and when CCC was applied 1 week before flowering”
Claim · model-written summary
All varieties at both locations responded to shoot topping with fruitset higher by 20 to 57% relative to the control.
- Treatment
- shoot toppinge1
- Outcome
- fruitsete1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- from 20 to 57%e1
- Qualifier
- All varieties at both locationse1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“All varieties at both locations responded to shoot topping to some degree: from 20 to 57% relative to the control for fruitset”
Claim · model-written summary
All varieties at both locations responded to shoot topping with yield per vine higher by 16 to 97% relative to the control.
- Treatment
- shoot toppinge1
- Outcome
- yield per vinee1
- Direction
- increaseinferrede1
- Value
- from 16 to 97%e1
- Qualifier
- All varieties at both locationse1
- Comparator
- the controle1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“All varieties at both locations responded to shoot topping to some degree: from 20 to 57% relative to the control for fruitset and from 16 to 97% for yield per vine”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that fruitset, and thus yield, can be improved by cultural practices in all seasons.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Fruitset, and, thus, yield, can be improved by cultural practices in all seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
The magnitude of the response may be greatest in seasons when fruitset is lower than the average.
- Outcome
- magnitude of the responsee1
- Qualifier
- greatest in those seasons when fruitset is lower than the averagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“the magnitude of the response may be greatest in those seasons when fruitset is lower than the average”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither berry number per bunch nor the visual appearance of bunches was a reliable indicator of fruitset performance.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Neither berry number per bunch nor the visual appearance of the bunches were reliable indicators of fruitset performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Optimal timing of shoot topping and CCC application is critical to maximise the response.
- Outcome
- Optimal timinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grapevine varieties Cabernet Sauvignon, Chardonnay and Tempranillo”
e1“Optimal timing of shoot topping and CCC application as cultural practices is critical to maximise the response”
Claim · model-written summary
The Coulure Index and the Millerandage Index are described for the first time as novel and useful indicators of fruitset to quantify the reproductive performance of grapevines.
- Outcome
- indicators of fruitsete0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“are novel and useful indicators of fruitset that have been developed to quantify the reproductive performance of grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
chlormequat chloride · yield · VitisResults differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
stage · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
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.