Paper · 2018 · International scientific and practical conference "Agro-SMART - Smart solutions for agriculture" (Agro-SMART 2018)

Effectiveness of Growth Regulators Application of Table Variety Moldovany Yield and Quality in Postharvest Storage During Fungicide Load Reduction

A. Batukaev; S. Levchenko; А. Batukaev; et al.

7
claims
8
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

The influence of growth regulators was studied based on yield and quality of table variety 'Moldova' and by the dynamics of post-harvest storage. The use of growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reduction enhances the weight of grapes and berries harvest by 11-14%, increases the mass concentration of sugar in juice and improves the sensory evaluation to 8.2-8.8 points. The yield of standard products in the experiment variants' was increased by 3.6 -7.7% compared to the control. The impact of growth regulators on sensory evaluation of table grapes and the value of the natural losses of a bunch mass during storage period are described. The results show that the use of growth regulators significantly improves the quality of 'Moldova' table variety. The study demonstrated that after 90 days of storage the natural cluster weight loss index was lower in the grapes that had been treated with the preparation as compared to control. Under treatments with different growth regulators, the sensory evaluation of Moldova variety rises up to 8.4-8.7 points. In addition, it is shown that these indicators were preserved over the long-term storage of grapes.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 7

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth regulators with 30% reduced fungicide load increased the weight of grape and berry harvest by 11-14%.

Taxon
grapese0
Treatment
growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reductione0
Outcome
weight of grapes and berries harveste0
Direction
enhancese0
Value
11-14%e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The use of growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reduction enhances the weight of grapes and berries harvest by 11-14%, increases the mass concentration of sugar in juice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 146–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth regulators with 30% reduced fungicide load increased the mass concentration of sugar in grape juice.

Taxon
grapese0
Treatment
growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reductione0
Outcome
mass concentration of sugar in juicee0
Direction
increasese0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The use of growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reduction enhances the weight of grapes and berries harvest by 11-14%, increases the mass concentration of sugar in juice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 146–322 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Growth regulators with 30% reduced fungicide load improved the sensory evaluation of grapes to 8.2-8.8 points.

Taxon
grapese0
Treatment
growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reductione0
Outcome
sensory evaluatione0
Direction
improvese0
Value
8.2-8.8 pointse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The use of growth regulators during 30% fungicide load reduction enhances the weight of grapes and berries harvest by 11-14%, increases the mass concentration of sugar in juice and improves the sensory evaluation to 8.2-8.8 points”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 146–376 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The yield of standard products in the experiment variants increased by 3.6-7.7% compared to the control.

Taxon
table grapese1
Outcome
yield of standard productse0
Direction
increasede0
Value
3.6 -7.7%e0
Comparator
the controle0

Not reportedTreatment

Verbatim

e0

“The yield of standard products in the experiment variants' was increased by 3.6 -7.7% compared to the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 378–487 · show in text ↑
e1

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 546–558 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After 90 days of storage the natural cluster weight loss index was lower in grapes treated with the preparation than in control.

Taxon
grapese0
Treatment
the preparatione0
Outcome
natural cluster weight loss indexe0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
after 90 days of storagee0
Comparator
controle0

Verbatim

e0

“after 90 days of storage the natural cluster weight loss index was lower in the grapes that had been treated with the preparation as compared to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–942 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under different growth regulator treatments the sensory evaluation of Moldova grapes rose to 8.4-8.7 points.

Taxon
Moldovae0
Treatment
different growth regulatorse0
Outcome
sensory evaluatione0
Direction
risese0
Value
8.4-8.7 pointse0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Under treatments with different growth regulators, the sensory evaluation of Moldova variety rises up to 8.4-8.7 points”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 944–1063 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The improved quality indicators were preserved over long-term storage of the grapes.

Taxon
grapese0
Outcome
indicators were preservede0
Qualifier
long-term storagee0

Verbatim

e0

“these indicators were preserved over the long-term storage of grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1095–1163 · show in text ↑

fungicide · quality: general · VitisPositive and negative results

4 papers: 2 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

fungicide · yield · VitisPositive and negative results

6 papers: 5 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

class · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results

9 papers: 8 positive, 1 negative or no effect

7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

class · yield · VitisPositive and negative results

13 papers: 10 positive, 3 negative or no effect

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

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

fungicide · molecular: metabolites · 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 →

class · quality: general · VitisResults agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 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.