Abstract
Mature field-grown grapevines, Colombard on Ramsey rootstock, grown in a semi-arid climate were irrigated with saline water during any one of 4 growth stages within the season: pre-flowering, during berry development, during berry ripening, and post-harvest. At other times, plots were irrigated with river water (EC 0.5 dS/m) as was the control throughout the season. Saline water (EC 3.5 dS/m) with a high sodium absorption ratio was produced by addition of sodium chloride brine. Soil cation exchange capacity was 14 cmolc/kg, and at the end of the trial, the soil exchangeable sodium percentage in the control was 6%, in the treatment salinised pre-flowering 13%, during berry development 20%, during berry ripening 20%, and post-harvest 19%. Treatments were applied for 6 consecutive seasons. Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes. Saline irrigation caused significant, but small, declines in yield in 3 seasons, in pruning weights in 2 seasons, and in berry weights in 4 seasons. Effects on growth, once established, often persisted unchanged through one or more subsequent seasons of saline irrigation. The growth stage shown to be most sensitive to saline irrigation was berry development; saline irrigation during berry development reduced the yield by 7% and during berry ripening by 3%, and pre-flowering it reduced the berry weight by 1%, during berry development by 6%, and during berry ripening by 4%. The amounts of irrigation applied in each of the 4 growth stages were not equal, and hence, treatments did not receive equal additions of salt. Normalising data to remove this effect showed that the rate of yield decline per unit dS/m increase in the seasonal average salinity during berry development, 7%/dS.m, was 3-fold greater than the 2%/dS.m during berry ripening. We conclude that this scion/rootstock combination, grown under these conditions, can maintain high productivity despite ‘slugs’ of saline irrigation.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation during berry development reduced yield by 7% relative to the river-water control.
- Material
- Colombard on Ramsey rootstocke0
- Treatment
- saline irrigation during berry developmente1
- Outcome
- yielde1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 7%e1
- Comparator
- controle6
- Setting
- semi-arid climatee0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e0“Mature field-grown grapevines, Colombard on Ramsey rootstock, grown in a semi-arid climate”
e1“saline irrigation during berry development reduced the yield by 7% and during berry ripening by 3%”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation during berry ripening reduced yield by 3% relative to the control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e1“saline irrigation during berry development reduced the yield by 7% and during berry ripening by 3%”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation before flowering reduced berry weight by 1% relative to the control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e2“pre-flowering it reduced the berry weight by 1%, during berry development by 6%, and during berry ripening by 4%”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation during berry development reduced berry weight by 6% relative to the control.
- Treatment
- during berry developmente2
- Outcome
- berry weighte2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- 6%e2
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e2“pre-flowering it reduced the berry weight by 1%, during berry development by 6%, and during berry ripening by 4%”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation during berry ripening reduced berry weight by 4% relative to the control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e2“pre-flowering it reduced the berry weight by 1%, during berry development by 6%, and during berry ripening by 4%”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield decline per unit salinity increase was 7%/dS.m during berry development, 3-fold greater than 2%/dS.m during berry ripening.
- Treatment
- during berry developmente4
- Outcome
- rate of yield decline per unit dS/me4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Value
- 7%/dS.me4
- Qualifier
- 3-folde4
- Comparator
- during berry ripeninge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e4“the rate of yield decline per unit dS/m increase in the seasonal average salinity during berry development, 7%/dS.m, was 3-fold greater than the 2%/dS.m during berry ripening”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation caused a significant but small decline in yield in 3 seasons.
- Treatment
- Saline irrigatione3
- Outcome
- yielde3
- Direction
- declinese3
- Value
- 3 seasonse3
- Qualifier
- significant, but smalle3
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e3“Saline irrigation caused significant, but small, declines in yield in 3 seasons, in pruning weights in 2 seasons, and in berry weights in 4 seasons”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation caused a significant but small decline in pruning weights in 2 seasons.
- Treatment
- Saline irrigatione3
- Outcome
- pruning weightse3
- Direction
- declinese3
- Value
- 2 seasonse3
- Qualifier
- significant, but smalle3
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e3“Saline irrigation caused significant, but small, declines in yield in 3 seasons, in pruning weights in 2 seasons, and in berry weights in 4 seasons”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Saline irrigation caused a significant but small decline in berry weight in 4 seasons.
- Treatment
- Saline irrigatione3
- Outcome
- berry weightse3
- Direction
- declinese3
- Value
- 4 seasonse3
- Qualifier
- significant, but smalle3
- Comparator
- controle6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e3“Saline irrigation caused significant, but small, declines in yield in 3 seasons, in pruning weights in 2 seasons, and in berry weights in 4 seasons”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of saline irrigation on growth often persisted unchanged through one or more subsequent seasons.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e7“Effects on growth, once established, often persisted unchanged through one or more subsequent seasons of saline irrigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil exchangeable sodium percentage reached 20% under saline irrigation, compared with 6% in the control.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e5“the soil exchangeable sodium percentage in the control was 6%, in the treatment salinised pre-flowering 13%, during berry development 20%, during berry ripening 20%, and post-harvest 19%”
Claim · model-written summary
Average grape yield in the control was 62 t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e6“Vines were highly productive, with the average yield in the control equal to 62 t/ha of grapes”
Claim · model-written summary
The scion/rootstock combination can maintain high productivity despite saline irrigation applied at different growth stages.
- Outcome
- maintain high productivitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Irrigation of grapevines with saline water”
e1“We conclude that this scion/rootstock combination, grown under these conditions, can maintain high productivity despite”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · VitisResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →stage · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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.