Abstract
This study was aimed to examine the effect of some materials namely humic acid, Uni-sal, magnetic iron and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to avoid or minimize salt hazard on grapevines growth and production during 2010 and 2011 seasons. This study was applied in a private vineyard at Al-Alamine district on five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines that irrigated using drip irrigation system and planted in saline sandy soil (Ec= 4.2 ds/m) at 2 x 3 meters apart. All grapevines were pruned and trellised by Gable system. Eight treatments were done as follows: control (untreated vines): humic acid (6 and 9 liter/feddan) and (Uni-sal 4 and 6 liter/feddan). All treatments were applied equal batches three times, firstly, at growth start, secondly, after berry set, thirdly, three weeks later after setting. While magnetic iron (100 and 150 kg / feddan) and Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) (175 kg/Feddan) were added once just after carrying out winter pruning. The obtained results appeared that all treatments were very effective in stimulating growth parameters (main shoot length), total leaf area/vine and coefficient of wood ripening. Chlorophyll, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and iron percentages in leaves and total carbohydrates in the canes were also increased. On the contrary, leaf proline amino acid, sodium and chloride content was decreased by increasing the rates of any treatment. Yield expressed in weight and numbers of cluster/vine, cluster weight, berry weight and size, total soluble solids, total soluble solids/total acidity were increased. Whereas total acidity was reduced affecting by high rates of any treatment. The results also indicated that increasing rates of treatment had reduced Ec of soil. Application of humic acid and Uni-sal were more effecting in reducing salinity of soil, improving growth, yield and berry quality characters. Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal. The both treatments were more effective in reducing Ec from 4.2 ds/m in soil to (1.8 humic acid and 1.9 Uni-sal) ds/m, respectively and avoiding the adverse effects of soil salinity on growth and fruiting of vines comparing with other treatments used. Also, Yield and berries quality were promoted these promising materials.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments increased main shoot length, leaf area and wood ripening.
- Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- main shoot length), total leaf area/vine and coefficient of wood ripeninge0
- Direction
- stimulatinge0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all treatments were very effective in stimulating growth parameters (main shoot length), total leaf area/vine and coefficient of wood ripening”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased chlorophyll and leaf mineral percentages.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and iron percentages in leaves and total carbohydrates in the canes were also increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased potassium, calcium and magnesium percentages in leaves.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chlorophyll, nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium and iron percentages in leaves and total carbohydrates in the canes were also increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased leaf iron percentage and cane carbohydrates.
- Treatment
- treatmentse1
- Outcome
- iron percentages in leaves and total carbohydrates in the canese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“iron percentages in leaves and total carbohydrates in the canes were also increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher treatment rates decreased leaf proline, sodium and chloride content.
- Treatment
- increasing the rates of any treatmente0
- Outcome
- leaf proline amino acid, sodium and chloride contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf proline amino acid, sodium and chloride content was decreased by increasing the rates of any treatment”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased cluster yield weight and cluster number per vine.
- Treatment
- treatmentse1
- Outcome
- Yield expressed in weight and numbers of cluster/vine, cluster weighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield expressed in weight and numbers of cluster/vine, cluster weight, berry weight and size, total soluble solids, total soluble solids/total acidity were increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased berry weight and size.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“berry weight and size, total soluble solids, total soluble solids/total acidity were increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Treatments increased total soluble solids and their ratio to acidity.
- Treatment
- treatmentse1
- Outcome
- total soluble solids, total soluble solids/total aciditye0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total soluble solids, total soluble solids/total acidity were increased”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher rates of treatments reduced total acidity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total acidity was reduced affecting by high rates of any treatment”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing treatment rates reduced soil Ec.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing rates of treatment had reduced Ec of soil”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Humic acid and Uni-sal were more effective at lowering salinity and improving growth, yield and berry quality.
- Treatment
- humic acid and Uni-sale0
- Outcome
- reducing salinity of soil, improving growth, yield and berry quality characterse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of humic acid and Uni-sal were more effecting in reducing salinity of soil, improving growth, yield and berry quality characters”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Nine liter per feddan humic acid reduced soil Ec to 1.8 ds/m.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The both treatments were more effective in reducing Ec from 4.2 ds/m in soil to (1.8 humic acid and 1.9 Uni-sal) ds/m”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Six liter per feddan Uni-sal reduced soil Ec to 1.9 ds/m.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The both treatments were more effective in reducing Ec from 4.2 ds/m in soil to (1.8 humic acid and 1.9 Uni-sal) ds/m”
t0“Vineyards”
e1“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify 9 liter per feddan humic acid as a best treatment.
- Outcome
- 9 liter/feddan humic acide0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identify 6 liter per feddan Uni-sal as a best treatment.
- Outcome
- 6 liter/feddan Uni-sale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Generally, the best treatments were 9 liter/feddan humic acid or 6 liter/feddan Uni-sal”
t0“Vineyards”
e2“five years old Thompson Seedless grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
other · soil: chemistry · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- 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.