Paper · 2005 · HortScience

(383) Effect of Harmony and Freedom Rootstocks on Yield and Quality of `Red Globe' Table Grapes

Manuelde Jesus Valenzuela-Ruiz; Fabián Robles-Contreras; Raul Leonel Grijalva-Contreras; et al.

5
claims
15
verbatim quotes
3
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · public-domain

Abstract

The region of Caborca, Sonora, Mexico, is one of the main area producers of table grapes, in particular the cultivar Red Globe. However, the main problems in the region include shortage and high cost of water, nematode infestation, and salinity. The objective of the present research was to determine the behavior of `Red Globe' cultivated on the rootstocks Harmony and Freedom. This study was carried out in the INIFAP Caborca research station in the year 2002, and consisted of 10 plants for treatment (on each rootstock). When water was low, a drip irrigation system was used. There was a completely randomized statistical design. We observed no differences among the two rootstocks in the different phonological stages (budbreak, flowering, and harvest time). The results indicated statistical differences between the rootstocks. Yield was higher on Freedom rootstock, with 2120 boxes/ha (boxes of 10 kg), an average of 470 boxes/ha more than on Harmony rootstock. Freedom rootstock also improved the quality of the grape (better color, bigger size of berry, and clusters, and the foliage was also more developed with this rootstock). In both rootstocks, nematode control was 100%, 30% in water consumption, and no fertilizer was used.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed public-domain. 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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phenological stages did not differ between rootstocks.

Taxon
table grapest0
Material
Red Globet1
Outcome
phonological stages (budbreak, flowering, and harvest time)e0
Direction
no differencese0
Comparator
the two rootstockse0

Verbatim

e0

“We observed no differences among the two rootstocks in the different phonological stages (budbreak, flowering, and harvest time).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 634–763 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 83–95 · show in text ↑
t1

“Red Globe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–81 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Freedom rootstock produced a higher yield than Harmony.

Taxon
table grapest0
Material
Red Globet1
Treatment
Freedom rootstocke0
Outcome
Yielde0
Direction
highere0
Value
2120 boxes/hae0
Qualifier
an average of 470 boxes/ha moree0
Comparator
Harmony rootstocke0

Verbatim

e0

“Yield was higher on Freedom rootstock, with 2120 boxes/ha (boxes of 10 kg), an average of 470 boxes/ha more than on Harmony rootstock.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 834–968 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 83–95 · show in text ↑
t1

“Red Globe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–81 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Freedom rootstock improved grape color, berry and cluster size, and foliage development.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Freedom rootstocke0
Outcome
quality of the grape (better color, bigger size of berry, and clusterse0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Freedom rootstock also improved the quality of the grape (better color, bigger size of berry, and clusters, and the foliage was also more developed with this rootstock).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 969–1138 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 83–95 · show in text ↑
t1

“Red Globe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–81 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both rootstocks achieved complete nematode control.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
both rootstockse0
Interactor
nematodeNematodae0pathogen
Outcome
nematode controle0
Value
100%e0

Verbatim

e0

“In both rootstocks, nematode control was 100%, 30% in water consumption, and no fertilizer was used.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1239 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 83–95 · show in text ↑
t1

“Red Globe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–81 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both rootstocks were associated with 30% water consumption.

Taxon
table grapest0
Outcome
water consumptione0
Value
30%e0

Verbatim

e0

“In both rootstocks, nematode control was 100%, 30% in water consumption, and no fertilizer was used.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1139–1239 · show in text ↑
t0

“Table Grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 83–95 · show in text ↑
t1

“Red Globe”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 72–81 · show in text ↑

grafting · yield · VitisResults differ

28 papers: 21 positive, 7 negative or no effect

20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

24 papers more in this group

See all 28 papers →

grafting · quality: postharvest · VitisPositive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive
See all 4 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.