Abstract
Grape growers in the southern San Joaquin Valley of California are increasingly concerned about production costs. Reduced demand for wine grapes from this district has resulted in low prices and a decline in grower profitability in recent years. Minimal pruning is a low-cost production system that was developed in Australia more than 20 years ago. This system offers complete mechanization of pruning and harvesting. In general, there is little information available on the use of minimal pruning in California vineyards. The propose of the experiment was to compare the effects of hand and minimal pruning on growth, yield, and fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines. This experiment was conducted in a commercial vineyard near Huron, Calif., during the 1993 and 1994 seasons. Minimally pruned vines had more shoots and fewer mature nodes than hand-pruned vines. Yield and components of yield were also significantly altered by pruning method. Minimal pruning produced the highest yield and number of clusters, while hand-pruning resulted in larger berry weight, cluster weight, and number of berries per cluster. Pruning method did not significantly affect fruit composition.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
minimally pruned Ruby Cabernet vines had more shoots than hand-pruned vines
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- Minimally pruned vinese1
- Outcome
- shootse1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- hand-pruned vinese1
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e1“Minimally pruned vines had more shoots and fewer mature nodes than hand-pruned vines”
Claim · model-written summary
minimally pruned Ruby Cabernet vines had fewer mature nodes than hand-pruned vines
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- Minimally pruned vinese1
- Outcome
- mature nodese1
- Direction
- fewere1
- Comparator
- hand-pruned vinese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e1“Minimally pruned vines had more shoots and fewer mature nodes than hand-pruned vines”
Claim · model-written summary
minimal pruning produced the highest yield and number of clusters compared with hand-pruning
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- Minimal pruninge2
- Outcome
- yield and number of clusterse2
- Direction
- higheste2
- Comparator
- hand-pruninge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e2“Minimal pruning produced the highest yield and number of clusters, while hand-pruning resulted in larger berry weight, cluster weight, and number of berries per cluster”
Claim · model-written summary
hand-pruning resulted in larger berry weight, cluster weight and number of berries per cluster than minimal pruning
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- hand-pruninge2
- Outcome
- berry weight, cluster weight, and number of berries per clustere2
- Direction
- largere2
- Comparator
- Minimal pruninge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e2“Minimal pruning produced the highest yield and number of clusters, while hand-pruning resulted in larger berry weight, cluster weight, and number of berries per cluster”
Claim · model-written summary
pruning method significantly altered yield and its components in Ruby Cabernet grapevines
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- pruning methode3
- Outcome
- Yield and components of yielde3
- Direction
- significantly alterede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e3“Yield and components of yield were also significantly altered by pruning method”
Claim · model-written summary
pruning method did not significantly affect fruit composition of Ruby Cabernet grapevines
- Material
- Ruby Cabernete0
- Treatment
- Pruning methode4
- Outcome
- fruit compositione4
- Direction
- did not significantly affecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fruit composition of `Ruby Cabernet' grapevines”
e4“Pruning method did not significantly affect fruit composition”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: general · VitisResults differ
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.