Abstract
Although deficit irrigation is used to improve fruit quality in healthy grapevines, it can potentially amplify negative effects of viral disease and reduce fruit quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus (GRBV) infected grapevines. Therefore, a two-year field experiment was conducted to understand the interaction between GRBV infection and water deficits on disease development and vine physiology. “Wet” vines were irrigated at 100% of estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc), while “Dry” vines received water at 66 and 50% ETc in 2017 and 2018, respectively. Healthy (GRBV-) and infected (GRBV+) vines were confirmed by PCR assays. There were no significant effects of water deficits on foliar symptom onset in either year, but more severe water deficits in 2018 resulted in a more rapid symptom progression. GRBV+ vines had a higher stem compared to GRBV-vines, but the effects of disease status only appeared post-veraison and corresponded to decreased leaf gas exchange. In general, vine vegetative and reproductive growth were not reduced in GRBV+ vines. Yields were highest in Wet/GRBV+ vines due to larger clusters containing larger berries. Consistent treatment effects on berry primary chemistry were limited to sugars, with no interactions between factors. Water deficits were able to somewhat increase berry anthocyanin concentration in GRBV+ fruit, but the effects were dependent on year. By comparison, disease status and water deficits interacted on skin tannins concentration such that they were decreased in Dry/GRBV+ vines, but increased in Dry/GRBV- vines. Water deficits had no effect on seed phenolics, with only disease status having a significant reduction. Although keeping GRBV+ vines well-watered may mitigate some of the negative effects of GRBD, these results suggest that water deficits will not improve overall fruit quality in GRBV+ vines. Ultimately, the control of fruit ripening imparted by GRBV infection seems to be stronger than abiotic control imparted by water deficits.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits had no significant effect on foliar symptom onset in either year.
- Treatment
- water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- foliar symptom onsete0
- Direction
- no significant effectse0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant effects of water deficits on foliar symptom onset in either year”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
More severe water deficits in 2018 accelerated symptom progression.
- Treatment
- more severe water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- symptom progressione0
- Direction
- more rapide0
Not reportedComparatorSetting
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“more severe water deficits in 2018 resulted in a more rapid symptom progression”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Infected vines had higher stem water potential after veraison.
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- steme0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- post-veraisone0
- Comparator
- GRBV-vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“GRBV+ vines had a higher stem compared to GRBV-vines, but the effects of disease status only appeared post-veraison”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Infection corresponded to decreased leaf gas exchange after veraison.
- Treatment
- disease statuse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- leaf gas exchangee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Qualifier
- post-veraisone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the effects of disease status only appeared post-veraison and corresponded to decreased leaf gas exchange”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Vegetative and reproductive growth were generally not reduced in infected vines.
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- vine vegetative and reproductive growthe0
- Direction
- not reducede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In general, vine vegetative and reproductive growth were not reduced in GRBV+ vines”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield was highest in wet infected vines.
- Treatment
- Wet/GRBV+e0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- higheste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were highest in Wet/GRBV+ vines due to larger clusters containing larger berries”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet infected vines had larger clusters.
- Treatment
- Wet/GRBV+e0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- clusterse0
- Direction
- largere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were highest in Wet/GRBV+ vines due to larger clusters containing larger berries”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Wet infected vines had larger berries.
- Treatment
- Wet/GRBV+e0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- berriese0
- Direction
- largere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields were highest in Wet/GRBV+ vines due to larger clusters containing larger berries”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Only sugars showed consistent treatment effects in primary berry chemistry.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Consistent treatment effects on berry primary chemistry were limited to sugars, with no interactions between factors”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits somewhat increased berry anthocyanin concentration in infected fruit, depending on year.
- Treatment
- Water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- berry anthocyanin concentratione0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- dependent on yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficits were able to somewhat increase berry anthocyanin concentration in GRBV+ fruit, but the effects were dependent on year”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits decreased skin tannins in infected vines.
- Treatment
- water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- skin tannins concentratione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“disease status and water deficits interacted on skin tannins concentration such that they were decreased in Dry/GRBV+ vines”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits increased skin tannins in uninfected vines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased in Dry/GRBV- vines”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e1“By comparison, disease status and water deficits interacted on skin tannins concentration such that they were decreased in Dry/GRBV+ vines, but increased in Dry/GRBV- vines. Water deficits had no effect on seed phenolics, with only disease status having a significant reduction.”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficits had no effect on seed phenolics.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water deficits had no effect on seed phenolics”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Disease status significantly reduced seed phenolics.
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- seed phenolicse1
- Direction
- reductione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“only disease status having a significant reduction”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
e1“By comparison, disease status and water deficits interacted on skin tannins concentration such that they were decreased in Dry/GRBV+ vines, but increased in Dry/GRBV- vines. Water deficits had no effect on seed phenolics, with only disease status having a significant reduction.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded water deficits will not improve overall fruit quality in infected vines.
- Treatment
- water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- overall fruit qualitye0
- Direction
- not improvee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“water deficits will not improve overall fruit quality in GRBV+ vines”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judged viral control of ripening stronger than water-deficit control.
- Treatment
- water deficitse0
- Interactor
- Grapevine Red Blotch VirusGrapevine red blotch virust0pathogen
- Outcome
- fruit ripeninge0
- Direction
- strongere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“control of fruit ripening imparted by GRBV infection seems to be stronger than abiotic control imparted by water deficits”
t0“Water Deficits Do Not Improve Fruit Quality in Grapevine Red Blotch Virus-Infected Grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: phytochemicals · VitisResults differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.