Paper · 2018 · International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

Effects of Foliar Fertilizations in the Vitis vinifera L. Species

Amelot Grori; Ariola Bici; Renata Kongoli; et al.

2
claims
4
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc-sa

Abstract

Nutrition in the grapevine is a specific agrotechnical measure affecting the quantity and quality of grape production and its products. Proper nutrition has a great influence on the many biochemical and physiological processes that happen in various grapevine organs. Among the macro-elements, potassium has a very important role in the development of the vital processes of the vine. This element has the most important influence on maturation processes and increases the resistance of the vine to low winter temperatures. Results achieved in a 2-year (2016-17) study with seven different pleural treatments (along with the control) showed that fertilization with K reduced Mg almost half compared to untreated vineyards, resulting in chlorosis in the basal leaves. High K / Mg Report, determining the low absorption of Mg, did not sit on our test as from leafy fertilization as from irrigation and fertilization both (injection with drop irrigation) with MgSO4 solution. On the other hand, the application of Mg except Fe supply had the same effect on the absorption of Zn soils and its accumulation in leaves and leaf tails. For more, foliar fertilization with Fe has increased Fe levels on leaves, on berry and on one measure smaller in ripening too.

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

Claim · model-written summary

Potassium fertilisation reduced leaf magnesium in grapevine by almost half compared with untreated vineyards.

Taxon
grapevineVitise0
Treatment
fertilization with Ke1
Outcome
Mge1
Direction
reducede1
Value
almost halfe1
Comparator
untreated vineyardse1

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

“Nutrition in the grapevine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–26 · show in text ↑
e1

“fertilization with K reduced Mg almost half compared to untreated vineyards, resulting in chlorosis in the basal leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 646–765 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar iron fertilisation increased iron levels in grapevine leaves and berries.

Taxon
grapevineVitise0
Organ / stage
berrye2
Treatment
foliar fertilization with Fee2
Outcome
Fe levels on leaves, on berrye2
Direction
increasede2

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

“Nutrition in the grapevine”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 0–26 · show in text ↑
e2

“For more, foliar fertilization with Fe has increased Fe levels on leaves, on berry and on one measure smaller in ripening too”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1128–1253 · show in text ↑

iron atom · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results

11 papers: 8 positive, 3 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

application · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results

37 papers: 35 positive, 2 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive

33 papers more in this group

See all 37 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. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

43 papers more in this group

See all 47 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.