Abstract
Vitis vinif era L. cv Barlinka/Ramsey was irrigated with micro sprinklers at 10 % , 40 % and 60 % depletion of plant available water (PAW) in a field trial on a sandy soil in the Hex River Valley. A fourth treatment was trickle-irrigated at 40% PAW depletion. Irrigations were scheduled with tensiometers. A system which measures trunk diameter was used for automatic trickle irrigation of a fifth treatment. Measuring trunk growth continuously using linear variable differential transformers revealed no increase in diameter between budbreak and bloom. From bloom until veraison trunk diameter increased, whereafter it decreased slightly. Average seasonal trunk diameter increases were 0,8 mm, 1,2 mm and 2,1 mm, for the 60%, 40% and 10% PAW depletion levels, respectively. When well supplied with water, diurnal trunk contraction ranged between 0 mm and 0,01 mm per day. As water stress increased, trunk contraction increased curvilinearly to a maximum value of ca 0,1 mm per day. The most acceptable combination of growth, yield, berry size and eating quality was obtained by irrigation using micro sprinklers at 40% PAW depletion. Irrigation at 10% as well as 60% PAW depletion reduced berry taste and colour significantly. Root studies by means of the profile wall method showed that irrigation at 10 % PAW depletion limited fine root development in comparison to 40 % PAW depletion. Trickle irrigation stimulated development of fine roots within 500 mm of the grapevine as opposed to micro sprinklers. Trickle irrigation at 40% PAW depletion tended to increase water stress in comparison to micro sprinklers. This tended to improve grape quality, but reduced production and berry size. Although automatic irrigation held no significant advantages regarding yield and quality in comparison to manual scheduling with the aid of tensiometers, it did simplify irrigation management.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk diameter did not increase between budbreak and bloom.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Organ / stage
- budbreak and bloome0
- Outcome
- diametere0
- Direction
- no increasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Measuring trunk growth continuously using linear variable differential transformers revealed no increase in diameter between budbreak and bloom.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk diameter increased between bloom and veraison.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- bloom until veraisone0
- Outcome
- trunk diametere0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“From bloom until veraison trunk diameter increased, whereafter it decreased slightly.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk diameter decreased slightly after veraison.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Organ / stage
- veraisone0
- Outcome
- trunk diametere0
- Direction
- decreased slightlye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“From bloom until veraison trunk diameter increased, whereafter it decreased slightly.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal trunk diameter growth at 60% water depletion was 0,8 mm.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 60%e0
- Outcome
- trunk diameter increasese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 0,8 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average seasonal trunk diameter increases were 0,8 mm, 1,2 mm and 2,1 mm, for the 60%, 40% and 10% PAW depletion levels, respectively.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal trunk diameter growth at 40% water depletion was 1,2 mm.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 40%e0
- Outcome
- trunk diameter increasese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 1,2 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average seasonal trunk diameter increases were 0,8 mm, 1,2 mm and 2,1 mm, for the 60%, 40% and 10% PAW depletion levels, respectively.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal trunk diameter growth at 10% water depletion was 2,1 mm.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 10%e0
- Outcome
- trunk diameter increasese0
- Direction
- increasese0
- Value
- 2,1 mme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Average seasonal trunk diameter increases were 0,8 mm, 1,2 mm and 2,1 mm, for the 60%, 40% and 10% PAW depletion levels, respectively.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Well watered vines had daily trunk contraction of 0 to 0,01 mm.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- diurnal trunk contractione0
- Value
- 0 mm and 0,01 mm per daye0
- Qualifier
- well supplied with watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“When well supplied with water, diurnal trunk contraction ranged between 0 mm and 0,01 mm per day.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing water stress raised trunk contraction to about 0,1 mm per day.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- trunk contractione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- ca 0,1 mm per daye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“As water stress increased, trunk contraction increased curvilinearly to a maximum value of ca 0,1 mm per day.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Micro sprinkler irrigation at 40% depletion gave the most acceptable combined growth, yield, berry size and eating quality.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- irrigation using micro sprinklers at 40% PAW depletione0
- Outcome
- most acceptable combination of growth, yield, berry size and eating qualitye0
- Direction
- most acceptablee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The most acceptable combination of growth, yield, berry size and eating quality was obtained by irrigation using micro sprinklers at 40% PAW depletion.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 10% depletion significantly reduced berry taste and colour.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 10%e0
- Outcome
- berry taste and coloure0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation at 10% as well as 60% PAW depletion reduced berry taste and colour significantly.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 60% depletion significantly reduced berry taste and colour.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 60%e0
- Outcome
- berry taste and coloure0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Irrigation at 10% as well as 60% PAW depletion reduced berry taste and colour significantly.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation at 10% depletion limited fine root development relative to 40%.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- 10 % PAW depletione0
- Outcome
- fine root developmente0
- Direction
- limitede0
- Comparator
- 40 % PAW depletione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“irrigation at 10 % PAW depletion limited fine root development in comparison to 40 % PAW depletion.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation stimulated fine roots near the grapevine relative to micro sprinklers.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Trickle irrigatione0
- Outcome
- development of fine rootse0
- Direction
- stimulatede0
- Qualifier
- within 500 mme0
- Comparator
- micro sprinklerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trickle irrigation stimulated development of fine roots within 500 mm of the grapevine as opposed to micro sprinklers.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation at 40% depletion tended to increase water stress relative to micro sprinklers.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Trickle irrigation at 40% PAW depletione0
- Outcome
- water stresse0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- micro sprinklerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Trickle irrigation at 40% PAW depletion tended to increase water stress in comparison to micro sprinklers.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation tended to improve grape quality.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- grape qualitye0
- Direction
- improvee0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This tended to improve grape quality, but reduced production and berry size.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation tended to reduce production.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This tended to improve grape quality, but reduced production and berry size.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Trickle irrigation tended to reduce berry size.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- berry sizee0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This tended to improve grape quality, but reduced production and berry size.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Automatic irrigation had no significant yield or quality advantage over manual scheduling.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- automatic irrigatione0
- Outcome
- yield and qualitye0
- Direction
- no significant advantagese0
- Comparator
- manual scheduling with the aid of tensiometerse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“automatic irrigation held no significant advantages regarding yield and quality in comparison to manual scheduling with the aid of tensiometers”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
Claim · model-written summary
Automatic irrigation simplified irrigation management.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Outcome
- irrigation managemente0
- Direction
- simplifye0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it did simplify irrigation management.”
t0“Response of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Barlinka/Ramsey to Soil Water Depletion Levels with Particular Reference to Trunk Growth Parameters”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →irrigation · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 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.