Abstract
The effects of moderate irrigation rates on vegetative growth, vine evapotranspiration, yield, and grape and wine composition were studied during six consecutive seasons in a mature vineyard planted with Vitis vinifera cv. Tempranillo in Requena, Spain. Vines were spur-pruned and trained to a bilateral cordon. Rain-fed vines received a yearly average rainfall of 368 mm, of which 169 mm occurred from April to harvest. Irrigated vines on average received 86 mm per year of additional water applications. Irrigation increased vegetative growth and vine evapotranspiration. As a result, yield was 31% higher in the irrigated vines. This increase in yield was primarily due to larger berry size and was correlated with vine evapotranspiration estimated by soil water balance. Irrigation did not alter the balance between the vine demand and the supply as indicated by the similar level of yield to pruning weight and leaf area to yield ratios observed in both irrigated and nonirrigated vines. On average over years irrigation had some minor negative effects on wine composition. It altered the balance between malic and tartaric acid, increasing the former and decreasing the latter. Irrigation also led to an increase in wine pH that together with a slight decrease in anthocyanin concentration reduced color intensity by 18%. However, the effects of irrigation on must and wine composition were largely different among years, probably because of the different rainfall amount and crop levels. Thus, under high crop level, irrigation tended to mitigate the negative effects of increasing yield on wine alcohol content.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased vegetative growth and vine evapotranspiration.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation increased vegetative growth and vine evapotranspiration.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigated vines had 31% higher yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As a result, yield was 31% higher in the irrigated vines.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield increase was primarily due to larger berry size.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This increase in yield was primarily due to larger berry size and was correlated with vine evapotranspiration estimated by soil water balance.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increase correlated with estimated vine evapotranspiration.
- Organ / stage
- berrye0
- Outcome
- increase in yielde0
- Qualifier
- correlated with vine evapotranspiration estimated by soil water balancee0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This increase in yield was primarily due to larger berry size and was correlated with vine evapotranspiration estimated by soil water balance.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation left yield to pruning weight and leaf area to yield ratios similar.
- Treatment
- irrigatede0
- Outcome
- yield to pruning weight and leaf area to yield ratiose0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- nonirrigatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation did not alter the balance between the vine demand and the supply as indicated by the similar level of yield to pruning weight and leaf area to yield ratios observed in both irrigated and nonirrigated vines.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation had minor negative effects on wine composition on average.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On average over years irrigation had some minor negative effects on wine composition.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased malic acid.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It altered the balance between malic and tartaric acid, increasing the former and decreasing the latter.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation decreased tartaric acid.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It altered the balance between malic and tartaric acid, increasing the former and decreasing the latter.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation increased wine pH.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation also led to an increase in wine pH that together with a slight decrease in anthocyanin concentration reduced color intensity by 18%.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation slightly decreased anthocyanin concentration.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation also led to an increase in wine pH that together with a slight decrease in anthocyanin concentration reduced color intensity by 18%.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation reduced color intensity by 18%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation also led to an increase in wine pH that together with a slight decrease in anthocyanin concentration reduced color intensity by 18%.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Effects of irrigation on must and wine composition varied greatly among years.
- Outcome
- effects of irrigation on must and wine compositione0
- Qualifier
- different rainfall amount and crop levelse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, the effects of irrigation on must and wine composition were largely different among years, probably because of the different rainfall amount and crop levels.”
t0“Grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
At high crop level, irrigation tended to mitigate yield-related reduction in wine alcohol content.
- Treatment
- irrigatione0
- Outcome
- wine alcohol contente0
- Direction
- mitigatee0
- Qualifier
- under high crop levele0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus, under high crop level, irrigation tended to mitigate the negative effects of increasing yield on wine alcohol content.”
t0“Grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →irrigation · yield · VitisResults differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →irrigation · quality: postharvest · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →irrigation · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →irrigation · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 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.