Abstract
Abstract: The effect of various physio-biochemical parameters on the water use efficiency (WUE) of grape varieties, rootstocks and budded vines was studied in 3 separate experiments at 3 levels of irrigation (100%, 50 % and no irrigation) for 14 days of stress cycle. None of the varieties or rootstocks could survive beyond 4 days under the no irrigation treatment. Considerable genetic variability was observed for WUE with respect to photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio, abscisic acid, zeatin riboside, carbon isotope discrimination etc. among grape rootstocks, viz., Dogridge, 1613 C, Salt Creek, St. George and Vitis champinii (VC) clone, and varieties, viz., Flame Seedless, Thompson Seedless, Sharad Seedless and Tas-A-Ganesh under 50 % moisture stress. Among the rootstocks Dogridge was the most efficient water user, followed by Salt Creek and VC clone, while among the varieties Flame Seedless was the most efficient water user, followed by Thompson Seedless and Sharad Seedless at 50 % moisture stress. Sharad Seedless on its own root, which was the least efficient water user under 50 % soil moisture stress, increased its WUE when budded on efficient water using rootstocks like Dogridge and Salt Creek. A strong positive correlation was observed between WUE and photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio and abscisic acid, while a negative correlation was observed with cytokinin and transpiration rate. The regression model revealed photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate as the major contributing factors for variation in WUE of rootstocks, varieties and budded grape vines under moisture stress conditions.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
No tested grape variety or rootstock survived more than four days without irrigation.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“None of the varieties or rootstocks could survive beyond 4 days under the no irrigation treatment”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Grape materials had considerable genetic variation in water use efficiency under 50% moisture stress.
Verbatim
e0“Considerable genetic variability was observed for WUE with respect to photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio, abscisic acid, zeatin riboside, carbon isotope discrimination etc. among grape rootstocks, viz., Dogridge, 1613 C, Salt Creek, St. George and Vitis champinii (VC) clone, and varieties, viz., Flame Seedless, Thompson Seedless, Sharad Seedless and Tas-A-Ganesh under 50 % moisture stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Dogridge was the most efficient rootstock water user under 50% moisture stress.
Verbatim
e0“Among the rootstocks Dogridge was the most efficient water user, followed by Salt Creek and VC clone, while among the varieties Flame Seedless was the most efficient water user, followed by Thompson Seedless and Sharad Seedless at 50 % moisture stress”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Flame Seedless was the most efficient variety water user under 50% moisture stress.
Verbatim
e0“among the varieties Flame Seedless was the most efficient water user, followed by Thompson Seedless and Sharad Seedless at 50 % moisture stress”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Budding Sharad Seedless on Dogridge increased water use efficiency relative to its own roots.
Verbatim
e0“Sharad Seedless on its own root, which was the least efficient water user under 50 % soil moisture stress, increased its WUE when budded on efficient water using rootstocks like Dogridge and Salt Creek”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Budding Sharad Seedless on Salt Creek increased water use efficiency relative to its own roots.
Verbatim
e0“Sharad Seedless on its own root, which was the least efficient water user under 50 % soil moisture stress, increased its WUE when budded on efficient water using rootstocks like Dogridge and Salt Creek”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency correlated positively with photosynthesis, stomatal conductance, root-to-shoot length ratio, and abscisic acid.
Verbatim
e0“A strong positive correlation was observed between WUE and photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio and abscisic acid”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency correlated negatively with cytokinin.
Verbatim
e0“A strong positive correlation was observed between WUE and photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio and abscisic acid, while a negative correlation was observed with cytokinin and transpiration rate”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency correlated negatively with transpiration rate.
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Verbatim
e0“A strong positive correlation was observed between WUE and photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, root to shoot length ratio and abscisic acid, while a negative correlation was observed with cytokinin and transpiration rate”
t0“grape varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
The regression identified photosynthetic and transpiration rates as major contributors to variation in water use efficiency.
Not reportedValue
Verbatim
e0“The regression model revealed photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate as the major contributing factors for variation in WUE of rootstocks, varieties and budded grape vines under moisture stress conditions”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · survival · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
salinity · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →grafting · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.