Abstract
Our study focuses on the physiological responses and berries phenolic maturity of Tannat and Duras red wine grape cultivars, which are autochthonous from the southern France, under water stress condition from pre-véraison to harvest by limiting water availability to 30% of the control well-watered. Methode and result : Predawn and midday leaf water potentials served as an indicator to maintain water stress level compared to the control. The seasonal reduction of leaf net assimilation rate under saturating irradiance (An) under water stress over six weeks stress period versus well-watered was 60% for Tannat and Duras as compared to 64 and 46% for leaf stomatal conductance (gs) for Tannat and Duras cultivars respectively. These responses qualify Tannat as a good candidate for adapting to limited water availability. For both Tannat and Duras cultivars, relationships between the fresh mass, skin and flesh in six different berry size categories, ranged from about 0.5 to 2.0 g, were assessed on ripe fruit from grapevines subjected to well-watered and water stressed treatments. Fresh mass components for both treatments varied significantly depending on the grape cultivar and water availability. Tannat showed that seed represented around 6%, skin around 12%, and flesh about 82% of the berry total fresh weight. The Duras cultivar showed that seed represented around 3%, skin around 12% and flesh around 85%. Exact proportion of seed, skin and flesh varied according to berry size category. There was an increase in total seed mass per berry to water stress treatment. Anthocyanin content and the seed tannin concentration varied depending on the grape variety and water stress treatment. In comparison with skin tannin or anthocyanin content, seed tannin varied more with berry size and less with vine water status. Tannat variety showed a positive effect of water stress on anthocyanin content but not Duras. At last, seed and skin tannin concentrations decreased with berry fresh weight.
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
Water stress reduced leaf net assimilation rate by 60% in Tannat versus well-watered plants.
Verbatim
e0“The seasonal reduction of leaf net assimilation rate under saturating irradiance (An) under water stress over six weeks stress period versus well-watered was 60% for Tannat and Duras”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced leaf net assimilation rate by 60% in Duras.
Verbatim
e0“The seasonal reduction of leaf net assimilation rate under saturating irradiance (An) under water stress over six weeks stress period versus well-watered was 60% for Tannat and Duras”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced stomatal conductance by 64% in Tannat.
- Taxon
- VITIS VINIFERA L.t0
- Material
- Tannate0
- Treatment
- water stresse1
- Outcome
- leaf stomatal conductancee0
- Value
- 64e0
- Comparator
- well-waterede1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“64 and 46% for leaf stomatal conductance (gs) for Tannat and Duras cultivars respectively”
e1“under water stress over six weeks stress period versus well-watered”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress reduced stomatal conductance by 46% in Duras.
- Taxon
- VITIS VINIFERA L.t0
- Material
- Durase0
- Treatment
- water stresse1
- Outcome
- leaf stomatal conductancee0
- Value
- 46%e0
- Comparator
- well-waterede1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“64 and 46% for leaf stomatal conductance (gs) for Tannat and Duras cultivars respectively”
e1“under water stress over six weeks stress period versus well-watered”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry fresh mass components varied significantly by cultivar and water availability.
Verbatim
e0“Fresh mass components for both treatments varied significantly depending on the grape cultivar and water availability.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Tannat seed, skin and flesh represented about 6%, 12% and 82% of berry fresh weight.
Verbatim
e0“Tannat showed that seed represented around 6%, skin around 12%, and flesh about 82% of the berry total fresh weight.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Duras seed, skin and flesh represented about 3%, 12% and 85% of berry fresh weight.
Verbatim
e0“The Duras cultivar showed that seed represented around 3%, skin around 12% and flesh around 85%.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed, skin and flesh proportions varied with berry size.
Verbatim
e0“Exact proportion of seed, skin and flesh varied according to berry size category.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress increased total seed mass per berry.
- Taxon
- VITIS VINIFERA L.t0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- total seed mass per berrye0
- Direction
- increasee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“There was an increase in total seed mass per berry to water stress treatment.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Anthocyanin content and seed tannin concentration varied by variety and water stress treatment.
Verbatim
e0“Anthocyanin content and the seed tannin concentration varied depending on the grape variety and water stress treatment.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed tannin varied more with berry size and less with vine water status than skin tannin or anthocyanin.
Verbatim
e0“In comparison with skin tannin or anthocyanin content, seed tannin varied more with berry size and less with vine water status.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress had a positive effect on anthocyanin content in Tannat.
- Taxon
- VITIS VINIFERA L.t0
- Material
- Tannate0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- anthocyanin contente0
- Direction
- positivee0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Tannat variety showed a positive effect of water stress on anthocyanin content but not Duras.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Duras did not show the positive anthocyanin response to water stress seen in Tannat.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Tannat variety showed a positive effect of water stress on anthocyanin content but not Duras.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Seed and skin tannin concentrations decreased as berry fresh weight rose.
Verbatim
e0“seed and skin tannin concentrations decreased with berry fresh weight.”
t0“GRAPEVINE CULTIVARS (VITIS VINIFERA L.)”
The same questions in other papers
drought · physiology: gas exchange · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →drought · growth · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →drought · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 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.