Abstract
Background and Aims The objective of this study was to assess the effect of root pruning (RP) and annual under-trellis cover crops (UTCC) on vegetative growth and physiological processes in Cabernet Franc (Vitis vinifera L.) grapevines grafted on 3309C rootstock. Methods and Results Five root-zone management treatments, namely under-trellis vegetation-free strip control (C), RP and three distinct annual UTCC [annual ryegrass (AR), buckwheat, (BW) and turnip (TP)] were evaluated and compared over three seasons in a vigorous vineyard in the Northeastern USA. Root pruning had the greatest impact in reducing grapevine size; AR reduced the duration of shoot growth 2 out of 3 years. Competition between grapevine and AR and BW fine roots resulted in a lower grapevine fine root production in shallow soil layers and in a decrease in fine root lifespan. Conclusions Root pruning was effective in reducing grapevine size for 3 years; RP effectiveness, however, may vary greatly depending on site conditions. Annual UTCC hold potential for reducing grapevine size in vigorous plantings in regions with ample precipitation. Appropriate choice of cover crop species, however, remains unclear. Significance of the Study This work demonstrates that root-zone management practices impact grapevine vegetative growth and induce changes in root morphological traits.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning had the greatest effect in reducing grapevine size and remained effective for three years.
- Treatment
- Root pruninge0
- Outcome
- grapevine sizee0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Value
- 3 yearse1
- Setting
- Northeastern USAe2
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Root pruning had the greatest impact in reducing grapevine size”
e1“Root pruning was effective in reducing grapevine size for 3 years”
e2“in a vigorous vineyard in the Northeastern USA.”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual ryegrass reduced shoot growth duration in two of three years.
- Treatment
- ARe0
- Interactor
- annual ryegrasse1other
- Outcome
- duration of shoot growthe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 2 out of 3 yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR reduced the duration of shoot growth 2 out of 3 years.”
e1“annual ryegrass (AR)”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition with annual ryegrass roots lowered grapevine fine root production in shallow soil.
- Interactor
- annual ryegrasse1other
- Outcome
- grapevine fine root productione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- shallow soil layerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competition between grapevine and AR and BW fine roots resulted in a lower grapevine fine root production in shallow soil layers and in a decrease in fine root lifespan.”
e1“annual ryegrass (AR)”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition with buckwheat roots lowered grapevine fine root production in shallow soil.
- Interactor
- buckwheate1other
- Outcome
- grapevine fine root productione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- shallow soil layerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competition between grapevine and AR and BW fine roots resulted in a lower grapevine fine root production in shallow soil layers and in a decrease in fine root lifespan.”
e1“buckwheat, (BW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition with annual ryegrass roots decreased grapevine fine root lifespan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competition between grapevine and AR and BW fine roots resulted in a lower grapevine fine root production in shallow soil layers and in a decrease in fine root lifespan.”
e1“annual ryegrass (AR)”
Claim · model-written summary
Competition with buckwheat roots decreased grapevine fine root lifespan.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Competition between grapevine and AR and BW fine roots resulted in a lower grapevine fine root production in shallow soil layers and in a decrease in fine root lifespan.”
e1“buckwheat, (BW)”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning effectiveness may vary greatly with site conditions.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“RP effectiveness, however, may vary greatly depending on site conditions.”
t0“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Annual under-trellis cover crops have potential to reduce grapevine size in vigorous plantings with ample precipitation, but species choice remains unclear.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Annual UTCC hold potential for reducing grapevine size in vigorous plantings in regions with ample precipitation. Appropriate choice of cover crop species, however, remains unclear.”
Claim · model-written summary
Root-zone management induces changes in grapevine root morphological traits.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“root-zone management practices impact grapevine vegetative growth and induce changes in root morphological traits.”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 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.