Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to estimate the morphological and physiological effects of chitosan foliar spray and/or three irrigation levels of 100%, 60%, and 40% of field capacity on grapevines grown in plastic containers to simulate water shortage conditions. The results showed that water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content. Under well-watered condition, foliar-applied chitosan, in particular, 5 and 10 g·dm −3 increased plant growth and biomass production compared with untreated plants. Also, chitosan sprays during deficit irrigation conditions significantly improved plant tolerance to water deficit by enhancing the morphological and physiological parameters of grapevines. The results of this work suggest the opportunity to grow grapevines under deficit irrigation conditions using chitosan foliar spray. Increased plant biomass and root weight, and the positive impacts of chitosan as antitranspirant on increased ψ , RWC, and decreased ET c play the main role in drought stress avoidance mechanisms in grapevines raised under moderate deficit irrigation conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area in grapevines.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced trunk cross-sectional area in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced plant dry weight in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced root dry weight in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced relative chlorophyll content in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf total carbohydrates in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced catalase activity in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf midday water potential ( ψ ) in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced relative water content (RWC) in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit significantly reduced crop evapotranspiration (ET c ) in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Water irrigation deficit increased proline content in grapevines.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e0“water irrigation deficit significantly reduced leaf area, trunk cross-sectional area, plant dry weight, root dry weight, relative chlorophyll content, leaf total carbohydrates, catalase activity, leaf midday water potential ( ψ ), relative water content (RWC), and crop evapotranspiration (ET c ), but increased the proline content”
Claim · model-written summary
Under well-watered conditions, foliar chitosan at 5 and 10 g·dm −3 increased growth and biomass production.
- Treatment
- foliar-applied chitosane1
- Outcome
- plant growth and biomass productione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 5 and 10 g·dm −3e1
- Qualifier
- Under well-watered conditione1
- Comparator
- untreated plantse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e1“Under well-watered condition, foliar-applied chitosan, in particular, 5 and 10 g·dm −3 increased plant growth and biomass production compared with untreated plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Chitosan sprays significantly improved grapevine tolerance to deficit irrigation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e2“chitosan sprays during deficit irrigation conditions significantly improved plant tolerance to water deficit by enhancing the morphological and physiological parameters of grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors suggest growing grapevines under deficit irrigation using chitosan foliar spray.
- Outcome
- grow grapevines under deficit irrigation conditions using chitosan foliar spraye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e4“suggest the opportunity to grow grapevines under deficit irrigation conditions using chitosan foliar spray”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute drought avoidance under moderate deficit irrigation to increased biomass and root weight and chitosan-associated water relations.
- Treatment
- chitosane3
- Outcome
- drought stress avoidance mechanismse3
- Qualifier
- Increased plant biomass and root weighte3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Grapevines”
e3“Increased plant biomass and root weight, and the positive impacts of chitosan as antitranspirant on increased ψ , RWC, and decreased ET c play the main role in drought stress avoidance mechanisms in grapevines raised under moderate deficit irrigation conditions”
The same questions in other papers
chitosan · yield · VitisResults agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →chitosan · disease · VitisResults agree
20 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →irrigation · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
irrigation · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →irrigation · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →irrigation · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →irrigation · physiology: water · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
43 papers more in this group
See all 47 papers →application · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
52 papers more in this group
See all 56 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.