Paper · 2008

Effect of different organic manure applications on grapevine nutrient values

Gültekin Özdemir; Semih Tangolar; Sadettin Gürsöz; et al.

2
claims
6
verbatim quotes
8
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

This study was conducted to elucidate the effects of pruning residue of grapevine, farmyard manure, green manure plant (barley + vetch), straw mulch and combinations of these materials on nutrient uptake of grapevine (V. vinifera L. Cilores). Leaf samples were taken during full bloom and verasion periods and analyzed for concentrations (%) of macro elements N, P, K, Ca, Mg and micro elements (ppm) Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn per leaf. Results suggested that the applications led to significant increases in uptake of both macro (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) and micro elements (Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn) by grapevine leaves. The research showed that these environmentfriendly organic material applications help increasing nutrient level of grapevine.

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 2

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic material applications significantly increased macronutrient uptake by grapevine leaves.

Taxon
grapevineVitise0
Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
pruning residue of grapevine, farmyard manure, green manure plant (barley + vetch), straw mulch and combinations of these materialse1
Outcome
uptake of both macro (N, P, K, Ca and Mg)e0
Direction
increasese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Results suggested that the applications led to significant increases in uptake of both macro (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) and micro elements (Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn) by grapevine leaves.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 426–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Effect of different organic manure applications on grapevine nutrient values”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–76 · show in text ↑
e1

“pruning residue of grapevine, farmyard manure, green manure plant (barley + vetch), straw mulch and combinations of these materials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 53–184 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Organic material applications significantly increased micronutrient uptake by grapevine leaves.

Taxon
grapevineVitise0
Organ / stage
leavese0
Treatment
pruning residue of grapevine, farmyard manure, green manure plant (barley + vetch), straw mulch and combinations of these materialse1
Outcome
micro elements (Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn)e0
Direction
increasese0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Results suggested that the applications led to significant increases in uptake of both macro (N, P, K, Ca and Mg) and micro elements (Fe, Zn, Cu and Mn) by grapevine leaves.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 426–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Effect of different organic manure applications on grapevine nutrient values”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–76 · show in text ↑
e1

“pruning residue of grapevine, farmyard manure, green manure plant (barley + vetch), straw mulch and combinations of these materials”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 53–184 · show in text ↑

pruning · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results

9 papers: 5 positive, 4 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results

47 papers: 43 positive, 4 negative or no effect

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

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

43 papers more in this group

See all 47 papers →

organic · nutrient: content · VitisResults agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 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.