Abstract
Grapevines grown in low-phosphorus (P) soils typical of western Oregon vineyards may benefit from additional P applied to the canopy using foliar sprays. Alternatively, vines may be negatively affected by foliar P sprays because lower root colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) could reduce uptake of other nutrients or increase vine water stress. The impact of foliar P sprays on vine growth, vine nutrient and water status, AMF colonization, and fruit yield and quality was studied in two ‘Pinot noir’ vineyards with a history of low vine P status over 3 years. Three foliar spray treatments [phosphite, phosphate, water (control)] were applied to vines three times each season using a standard air-blast sprayer at a commercial vineyard. Two foliar spray treatments (phosphite, water) were applied using a hand sprayer at a smaller research vineyard. Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade and petiole P concentrations and reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard, but neither phosphate nor phosphite significantly affected these variables at the commercial vineyard. Foliar P sprays had no effect on vine growth, vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance), yield, or fruit quality attributes at either site. These results indicate that there is little benefit to spraying the canopy of grapevines with P, even in vineyards with low P status.
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
Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade P concentration at the research vineyard.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade and petiole P concentrations and reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard”
e1“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphite sprays increased petiole P concentration at the research vineyard.
- Treatment
- Phosphite sprayse0
- Outcome
- petiole P concentrationse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Setting
- research vineyarde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade and petiole P concentrations and reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard”
e1“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphite sprays reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard.
- Treatment
- Phosphite sprayse0
- Interactor
- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie2symbiont
- Outcome
- arbuscular colonization of rootse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Setting
- research vineyarde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade and petiole P concentrations and reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard”
e1“Grapevines”
e2“arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither phosphate nor phosphite significantly affected P concentrations or root colonization at the commercial vineyard.
- Treatment
- phosphate nor phosphitee0
- Interactor
- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie2symbiont
- Outcome
- leaf blade and petiole P concentrationse1
- Setting
- commercial vineyarde0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but neither phosphate nor phosphite significantly affected these variables at the commercial vineyard”
e1“Phosphite sprays increased leaf blade and petiole P concentrations and reduced arbuscular colonization of roots at the research vineyard”
e2“arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”
e3“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar P sprays did not affect vine growth at either site.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar P sprays had no effect on vine growth, vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance), yield, or fruit quality attributes at either site.”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar P sprays did not affect vine water relations at either site.
- Taxon
- vinee0
- Treatment
- Foliar P sprayse0
- Outcome
- vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance)e0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Setting
- either sitee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Foliar P sprays had no effect on vine growth, vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance), yield, or fruit quality attributes at either site.”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar P sprays did not affect yield at either site.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar P sprays had no effect on vine growth, vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance), yield, or fruit quality attributes at either site.”
e1“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar P sprays did not affect fruit quality attributes at either site.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Foliar P sprays had no effect on vine growth, vine water relations (leaf water potential and stomatal conductance), yield, or fruit quality attributes at either site.”
e1“Grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that canopy P spraying offers little benefit in low P vineyards.
- Outcome
- little benefit to spraying the canopy of grapevines with Pe0
- Qualifier
- vineyards with low P statuse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there is little benefit to spraying the canopy of grapevines with P, even in vineyards with low P status”
The same questions in other papers
application · quality: grain · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →phosphorus · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →application · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 papers →application · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 50 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →application · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 80 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
83 papers more in this group
See all 87 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.