Abstract
The effect of berry size and moderate water deficit on skin phenolic maturity and berry texture behaviour was studied on 'Portugieser' (Vitis vinifera L.) under green house conditions. In all berry weight categories (I: < 1.1 g; II: 1.11-1.4 g; III: 1.41-1.7 g; IV: 1.71-2 g; V: > 2,01 g) water deficit resulted in reduced sugar concentration due to decreased photosynthetic activity. Interestingly, lower phenolic concentration for unit skin mass was measured in the drought stressed treatment compared to the control, irrespective of berry size. However, the concentration of the phenolic components for one berry was lower in the well watered treatment. This phenomenon was due to the increased skin/flesh ratio of the water stressed vines. Berry skin hardness was probably in connection with its phenolic concentration for unit skin weight. Changes in several berry texture parameters were accompanied by changes in berry size. Berry hardness and skin elasticity increased with berry size in both treatments. On the other hand, skin break force, skin break energy, skin thickness showed increase/decrease only in the case of the stressed vines. This result suggests that texture properties of the water-stressed berries depend on berry size to a greater extent compared to the berries of the non-stressed vines. This phenomenon may be explained by the faster ripening of the smaller and of the water stressed berries.
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
Water deficit reduced berry sugar concentration across size categories.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- sugar concentratione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- In all berry weight categoriese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In all berry weight categories (I: < 1.1 g; II: 1.11-1.4 g; III: 1.41-1.7 g; IV: 1.71-2 g; V: > 2,01 g) water deficit resulted in reduced sugar concentration due to decreased photosynthetic activity”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reduced photosynthetic activity explained lower sugar concentration under water deficit.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- sugar concentratione0
- Qualifier
- decreased photosynthetic activitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In all berry weight categories (I: < 1.1 g; II: 1.11-1.4 g; III: 1.41-1.7 g; IV: 1.71-2 g; V: > 2,01 g) water deficit resulted in reduced sugar concentration due to decreased photosynthetic activity”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought stress lowered phenolic concentration per unit skin mass versus control, irrespective of berry size.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- drought stressed treatmente0
- Outcome
- phenolic concentration for unit skin masse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- irrespective of berry sizee0
- Comparator
- controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower phenolic concentration for unit skin mass was measured in the drought stressed treatment compared to the control, irrespective of berry size”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Phenolic concentration per berry was lower in the well-watered treatment.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- well watered treatmente0
- Outcome
- concentration of the phenolic components for one berrye0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the concentration of the phenolic components for one berry was lower in the well watered treatment”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
An increased skin-to-flesh ratio in water-stressed vines explained the phenolic concentration pattern.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water stressed vinese0
- Outcome
- skin/flesh ratioe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This phenomenon was due to the increased skin/flesh ratio of the water stressed vines”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry skin hardness was probably associated with phenolic concentration per unit skin weight.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Compound
- phenolic concentration for unit skin weighte0
- Outcome
- Berry skin hardnesse0
- Qualifier
- probablye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Berry skin hardness was probably in connection with its phenolic concentration for unit skin weight”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry texture parameters varied with berry size.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- berry sizee0
- Outcome
- berry texture parameterse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Changes in several berry texture parameters were accompanied by changes in berry size”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry hardness and skin elasticity increased with berry size in both treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- berry sizee0
- Outcome
- Berry hardness and skin elasticitye0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- both treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Berry hardness and skin elasticity increased with berry size in both treatments”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Skin break force, energy and thickness varied with berry size only in stressed vines; the direction is unspecified.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- skine0
- Treatment
- stressed vinese0
- Outcome
- skin break force, skin break energy, skin thicknesse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“skin break force, skin break energy, skin thickness showed increase/decrease only in the case of the stressed vines”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry texture depended more strongly on size under water stress than without stress.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- berry sizee0
- Treatment
- water-stressed berriese0
- Outcome
- texture propertiese0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- non-stressed vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“texture properties of the water-stressed berries depend on berry size to a greater extent compared to the berries of the non-stressed vines”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Faster ripening of smaller, water-stressed berries may explain their texture response.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- faster ripeninge0
- Qualifier
- smaller and of the water stressed berriese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This phenomenon may be explained by the faster ripening of the smaller and of the water stressed berries”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →drought · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.