Abstract
In the last decade climate change has impacted viticulture and water deficit has become a major concern in fruit production. Many studies have been carried out to determine the grapevine response to environmental changes and to identify key genetic traits to be used in grapevine breeding. However, in order to better manage climate-related risks, novel viticultural practices are urgently needed. A promising solution for a more sustainable model of viticulture involves the use of biostimulants. In this study, the effectiveness of a novel biostimulant (APR®) belonging to the group of protein thermal hydrolysates was tested on grapevine plants subjected to progressive water deficit conditions. Our results showed that this compound applied to roots before imposing water deprivation mitigates the consequences of stress by sustaining the growth of the younger vegetative organs and limiting the extent of cell dehydration; this positive impact on the plant’s physiological state persisted during the recovery phase. Furthermore, at the end of the growing season, plants treated with the biostimulant, both in optimal water conditions and under water stress, exhibited a greater accumulation of biomass in the aerial part (6.8% and 21.3 %, respectively) and a higher berry diameter (3.4 % and 9.5 %, respectively). Additional work through field trials will be necessary to further substantiate these results and to translate this knowledge into specific practices that grape growers can easily adopt.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
A protein hydrolysate biostimulant applied to grapevine roots before water deprivation mitigated stress consequences by sustaining the growth of the younger vegetative organs.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- this compound applied to roots before imposing water deprivatione0
- Outcome
- growth of the younger vegetative organse1
- Direction
- sustaininge1
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“this compound applied to roots before imposing water deprivation”
e1“sustaining the growth of the younger vegetative organs”
Claim · model-written summary
The biostimulant applied to grapevine roots before water deprivation limited the extent of cell dehydration.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- this compound applied to roots before imposing water deprivatione0
- Outcome
- extent of cell dehydratione1
- Direction
- limitinge1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“this compound applied to roots before imposing water deprivation”
e1“limiting the extent of cell dehydration”
Claim · model-written summary
The positive impact of the biostimulant on the physiological state of grapevine plants persisted during the recovery phase.
- Outcome
- positive impact on the plant’s physiological statee0
- Qualifier
- persisted during the recovery phasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“this positive impact on the plant’s physiological state persisted during the recovery phase”
Claim · model-written summary
At the end of the season, biostimulant-treated grapevines under optimal water conditions had greater biomass in the aerial part (6.8%) than untreated plants.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- the biostimulante0
- Outcome
- biomass in the aerial parte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 6.8%e0
- Qualifier
- optimal water conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“plants treated with the biostimulant, both in optimal water conditions and under water stress, exhibited a greater accumulation of biomass in the aerial part (6.8% and 21.3 %, respectively) and a higher berry diameter (3.4 % and 9.5 %, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
At the end of the season, biostimulant-treated grapevines under water stress had greater biomass in the aerial part (21.3%) than untreated plants.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- the biostimulante0
- Outcome
- biomass in the aerial parte0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 21.3 %e0
- Qualifier
- under water stresse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“plants treated with the biostimulant, both in optimal water conditions and under water stress, exhibited a greater accumulation of biomass in the aerial part (6.8% and 21.3 %, respectively) and a higher berry diameter (3.4 % and 9.5 %, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
At the end of the season, biostimulant-treated grapevines under optimal water conditions had higher berry diameter (3.4%) than untreated plants.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- the biostimulante0
- Outcome
- berry diametere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3.4 %e0
- Qualifier
- optimal water conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“plants treated with the biostimulant, both in optimal water conditions and under water stress, exhibited a greater accumulation of biomass in the aerial part (6.8% and 21.3 %, respectively) and a higher berry diameter (3.4 % and 9.5 %, respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
At the end of the season, biostimulant-treated grapevines under water stress had higher berry diameter (9.5%) than untreated plants.
- Material
- cv Sauvignon Blanct0
- Treatment
- the biostimulante0
- Outcome
- berry diametere0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 9.5 %e0
- Qualifier
- under water stresse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevine (Vitis Vinifera L., cv Sauvignon Blanc)”
e0“plants treated with the biostimulant, both in optimal water conditions and under water stress, exhibited a greater accumulation of biomass in the aerial part (6.8% and 21.3 %, respectively) and a higher berry diameter (3.4 % and 9.5 %, respectively)”
The same questions in other papers
other · growth · VitisResults agree
20 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.