Paper · 2017 · South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture

The Effect of Three Rootstock Cultivars, Potassium Soil Applications and Foliar Sprays on Yield and Quality of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle in South Africa

E. Avenant; J.H. Avenant; R.O. Barnard

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
6
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-nd

Abstract

The early black cultivar Ronelle is the major export table grape produced in the northern summer rainfall area of South Arica. In a rootstock trial at Roodeplaat near Pretoria, low yield, poor quality and low export mass as well as typical potassium (K) deficiency symptoms were observed for Ronelle grafted onto 110 Richter, despite K saturation percentages of 6,3% and 6,0% in the topsoil and subsoil respectively. The effect of 500 kg ha-1 and 1 000 kg ha-1 soil-applied K combined with a 0,02% foliar application of K was investigated for Ronelle grafted onto 110 R (V. rupestris x V. Berlandieri), 101-14 Mgt (Y. riparia x V. rupestris) and 143 B Mgt (v. riparia x V. vinifera). The K fertilizer treatments were applied only once, before budbreak. Three foliar sprays were applied annually, at two-week intervals, commencing at 15 cm shoot length. Results after two seasons showed that neither high levels of K fertilizer, nor K foliar sprays improved yield or quality of Ronelle on 110 R. The K content of leaves was not significantly affected by any of the K treatments. Leaf K levels of 110 R were significantly lower compared to those of 143 Mgt, but the leaf K content of all three graft combinations was above the minimum norm. Apparently there is no effective cure for established Ronelle/110 R vineyards with K deficiency problems and it is recommended that the Ronelle/110 R graft combination is not used in future.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ronelle on 110 Richter showed low yield, poor quality, low export mass and potassium deficiency symptoms.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Material
Ronellee0
Outcome
low yield, poor quality and low export masse0
Qualifier
potassium (K) deficiency symptomse0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“low yield, poor quality and low export mass as well as typical potassium (K) deficiency symptoms were observed for Ronelle grafted onto 110 Richter”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 177–324 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

High soil potassium did not improve yield or quality for Ronelle on 110 R.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Material
Ronelle on 110 Re0
Treatment
high levels of K fertilizere0
Outcome
yield or qualitye0
Direction
neithere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“neither high levels of K fertilizer, nor K foliar sprays improved yield or quality of Ronelle on 110 R”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–993 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium foliar sprays did not improve yield or quality for Ronelle on 110 R.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Material
Ronelle on 110 Re0
Treatment
K foliar sprayse0
Outcome
yield or qualitye0
Direction
neithere0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“neither high levels of K fertilizer, nor K foliar sprays improved yield or quality of Ronelle on 110 R”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–993 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium treatments did not significantly change leaf potassium content.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Treatment
K treatmentse0
Outcome
K content of leavese0
Direction
not significantly affectede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The K content of leaves was not significantly affected by any of the K treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 995–1076 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf potassium in 110 R was significantly lower than in 143 Mgt.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Material
110 Re0
Outcome
Leaf K levelse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
143 Mgte0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Leaf K levels of 110 R were significantly lower compared to those of 143 Mgt”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1078–1154 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf potassium of all three graft combinations exceeded the minimum norm.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Outcome
leaf K contente0
Direction
abovee0
Comparator
minimum norme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf K content of all three graft combinations was above the minimum norm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1164–1237 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend against future use of the Ronelle/110 R combination.

Taxon
Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
Outcome
Ronelle/110 R graft combination is not used in futuree0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis vinifera
Vitis vinifera · TaxonDarijanus · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it is recommended that the Ronelle/110 R graft combination is not used in future”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1348–1428 · show in text ↑
t0

“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ronelle”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–140 · show in text ↑

potassium · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

application · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

fertilization · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results

13 papers: 8 positive, 5 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 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.