Abstract
A study to assess the effects of the Partial Rootzone Drying (PRD) irrigation strategy in comparison to other irrigation systems was carried out in southern Portugal in two field-grown grapevines varieties, Moscatel and Castelão. We addressed the question of whether by regulating growth and plant water use, the PRD system would enable an equilibrated vegetative development, leading to a favourable capture of solar radiation for photoassimilate production and, at the same time to provide an optimum environment for fruit maturation. Three irrigation schemes were applied in addition to the non-irrigated (NI) vines: partial root drying (PRD), 50% of crop evapotranspiration (ETc), supplied to only one side of the root system while the other one was allowed to dry, alternating sides every 15 days; deficit irrigated (DI), 50% ETc supplied, half to each side of the root system and full irrigated (FI, 100% ETc). During the whole season FI plants of both varieties exhibited a high leaf predawn water potential (?pd , ca –0.2 MPa) while a progressive decline was observed in NI plants, reaching ?pd values near –0.7 MPa at the end of August. PRD and DI presented intermediate values. PRD vines exhibited a stronger control over vegetative growth as compared with DI and FI plants. This was expressed by lower values of total leaf area at harvest, leaf layer number, canopy wideness and water shoots number, allowing a higher light interception at the cluster zone that induced an improvement in some berry quality characteristics. Watering had no significant effects on sugar accumulation in the berries but led to a favourable increase in the must titratable acidity, mainly in Castelão. Whereas in DI and FI treatments berry skin anthocyanins and phenols content were always lower than in NI, in PRD there was either no reduction or the reduction was much lower than in the other irrigation treatments. Water use efficiency (WUE) was increased by about 80% in PRD and DI when compared with FI, as a result of almost similar yields in the three treatments. Yield gains of irrigated plants in relation to NI were modest, explained by the rainy spring in both years.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Fully irrigated grapevines maintained high predawn leaf water potential near –0.2 MPa.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“During the whole season FI plants of both varieties exhibited a high leaf predawn water potential (?pd , ca –0.2 MPa)”
Claim · model-written summary
Non-irrigated grapevines declined to predawn leaf water potential near –0.7 MPa by late August.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“a progressive decline was observed in NI plants, reaching ?pd values near –0.7 MPa at the end of August”
e1“leaf predawn water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD and DI grapevines had intermediate predawn water potential.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“PRD and DI presented intermediate values”
e1“leaf predawn water potential”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD reduced total leaf area, leaf layer number, canopy width and water shoots relative to DI and FI.
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- total leaf area at harvest, leaf layer number, canopy wideness and water shoots numbere0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- DI and FIe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“PRD vines exhibited a stronger control over vegetative growth as compared with DI and FI plants. This was expressed by lower values of total leaf area at harvest, leaf layer number, canopy wideness and water shoots number”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased light interception at the grape cluster zone.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“allowing a higher light interception at the cluster zone”
e1“PRD vines exhibited a stronger control over vegetative growth as compared with DI and FI plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher cluster-zone light under PRD improved some grape berry quality characteristics.
- Outcome
- berry quality characteristicse0
- Direction
- improvemente0
- Qualifier
- light interception at the cluster zonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“a higher light interception at the cluster zone that induced an improvement in some berry quality characteristics”
Claim · model-written summary
Watering did not significantly affect sugar accumulation in berries.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Watering had no significant effects on sugar accumulation in the berries”
Claim · model-written summary
Watering increased must titratable acidity, mainly in Castelão.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Watering had no significant effects on sugar accumulation in the berries but led to a favourable increase in the must titratable acidity, mainly in Castelão”
Claim · model-written summary
DI reduced berry skin anthocyanin content relative to non-irrigated vines.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Whereas in DI and FI treatments berry skin anthocyanins and phenols content were always lower than in NI”
Claim · model-written summary
FI reduced berry skin anthocyanin and phenol content relative to non-irrigated vines.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Whereas in DI and FI treatments berry skin anthocyanins and phenols content were always lower than in NI”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD caused no reduction or a much smaller reduction in berry skin anthocyanins and phenols than DI or FI.
- Treatment
- PRDe0
- Outcome
- berry skin anthocyanins and phenols contente1
- Direction
- no reduction or the reduction was much lowere0
- Comparator
- other irrigation treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“in PRD there was either no reduction or the reduction was much lower than in the other irrigation treatments”
e1“berry skin anthocyanins and phenols content”
Claim · model-written summary
PRD increased water use efficiency by about 80% relative to FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Water use efficiency (WUE) was increased by about 80% in PRD and DI when compared with FI”
Claim · model-written summary
DI increased water use efficiency by about 80% relative to FI.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Water use efficiency (WUE) was increased by about 80% in PRD and DI when compared with FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Yields were almost similar among PRD, DI and FI treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“almost similar yields in the three treatments”
e1“in PRD and DI when compared with FI”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated grapevines had modest yield gains relative to non-irrigated vines.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“grapevines ( Vitis vinifera )”
e0“Yield gains of irrigated plants in relation to NI were modest”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- positive
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.