Abstract
The respective influences of the bud and leaves on stimulation of acrotony phenomenon was studied. Defoliation (all leaves at the stage budbursted + 30 days) and various bud ablation were made : buds 9, 10 ; 7, 8, 9, 10 ; 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ; 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. Concerning the phenomen of acrotony, the role of apical bud and leaves developped on at 10 and 30 days after budburst were determined. The effect produced by excision of the apical buds shows that the two subadjacent buds were developped. All decapitation did not increase the percentage of budbreak. In all decapitations, the subadjacent buds were developped however, buds below were inhibed. The effect produced by excision of leaves in the second stage of development did not promote budbreak. On 10 bud canes, auxins synthesized in the developing young leaves seem to exercise their inhibiting effect on the budbreak of the subjacent buds. Cytokinins managed by the means of our operatory mode seem to reach the subjacents buds, modify the expression of the ramification of the canes with regard to the system usual acrotony and limit the inhibition basipetally. The budburst of the canes at a temperature of 18°C seems to be more important than that at 30°C day/ 20°night. Thus, the acrotony phenomenon decreases. When the apical branches are in second phase of growth, the size of the leaves become large. It seems that the leaves would exercise their inhibitions on the subjacent buds by the slant of the synthesized gibberillins and auxins. Cytokinins have no further role to play during this phase of growth and do not thwart anymore the inhibition. In the vineyard, the ANA treatment is totally inhibiting at 20 and 50 mg/l doses. In contrast, the 6BAP treatment at 20 mg/l shortly before budburst increases the budburst percentage for Muscatel of Italy. When the last treatment is performed during 25 days followed by a cytokinin treatment we notice budburst. The mechanism of these different growth regulators on the acrotony phenomenon has been discussed .
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Apical bud excision enabled the two subadjacent buds to develop.
VitisNot reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“excision of the apical buds shows that the two subadjacent buds were developped”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Decapitation did not increase budbreak percentage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All decapitation did not increase the percentage of budbreak”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
With decapitation, subadjacent buds developed while lower buds were inhibited.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In all decapitations, the subadjacent buds were developped however, buds below were inhibed”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Lower buds remained inhibited after decapitation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In all decapitations, the subadjacent buds were developped however, buds below were inhibed”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf excision at the second development stage did not promote budbreak.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“excision of leaves in the second stage of development did not promote budbreak”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Auxins from developing young leaves appear to inhibit subjacent budbreak.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“auxins synthesized in the developing young leaves seem to exercise their inhibiting effect on the budbreak of the subjacent buds”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Applied cytokinins appear to alter cane branching and limit basipetal inhibition.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cytokinins managed by the means of our operatory mode seem to reach the subjacents buds, modify the expression of the ramification of the canes with regard to the system usual acrotony and limit the inhibition basipetally”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane budburst appears greater at 18°C than at 30°C day/20°night.
- Treatment
- 18°Ce0
- Outcome
- budburst of the canese0
- Direction
- more importante0
- Comparator
- 30°C day/ 20°nighte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“budburst of the canes at a temperature of 18°C seems to be more important than that at 30°C day/ 20°night”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Acrotony consequently decreases at 18°C.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus, the acrotony phenomenon decreases”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaves in the second growth phase appear to inhibit lower buds through gibberellins and auxins.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaves would exercise their inhibitions on the subjacent buds by the slant of the synthesized gibberillins and auxins”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Cytokinins no longer counter inhibition during this growth phase.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cytokinins have no further role to play during this phase of growth and do not thwart anymore the inhibition”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
ANA at 20 and 50 mg/l completely inhibited vineyard budburst.
- Treatment
- ANA treatmente0
- Outcome
- totally inhibitinge0
- Direction
- totally inhibitinge0
- Value
- 20 and 50 mg/le0
- Setting
- vineyarde0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the vineyard, the ANA treatment is totally inhibiting at 20 and 50 mg/l doses”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
6BAP at 20 mg/l before budburst increased budburst percentage in Muscatel of Italy.
- Material
- Muscatel of Italye0
- Treatment
- 6BAP treatment at 20 mg/le0
- Outcome
- budburst percentagee0
- Direction
- increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“6BAP treatment at 20 mg/l shortly before budburst increases the budburst percentage for Muscatel of Italy”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The subsequent cytokinin treatment produced budburst.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When the last treatment is performed during 25 days followed by a cytokinin treatment we notice budburst”
t0“branch of one year grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
N-benzyladenine · phenology · VitisResults differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
pruning · phenology · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.