Abstract
Grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV) negatively impacts vine physiology and fruit quality in Vitis vinifera L. by reducing photosynthetic rate, total soluble solids (TSS), and berry anthocyanin concentration. Currently, growers have few management strategies beyond removal of infected vines, which may be particularly costly in vineyards with high disease incidence. The present study was established in 2018 in a GRBV-infected Pinot noir vineyard in southern Oregon to investigate whether reducing vine stress with cultural practices could dampen the impact of the disease on vine physiology and fruit quality. The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years. Supplemental irrigation affected vine physiology and fruit composition in 2019 and 2020, but fertilization had no significant effect over three years. Photosynthetic rate, vegetative growth, vine yield, berry weight, TSS, and titratable acidity were increased with supplemental irrigation while disease severity (symptomatic leaves per vine) was reduced. Supplemental irrigation did not have consistent effects on secondary metabolites, though an increase in anthocyanin concentration was observed in 2020 despite an increase in berry size. Irrespective of applied water amounts, maintaining a higher vine water status effectively increased photosynthesis and canopy size, which resulted in greater sugar accumulation. Ultimately, these results suggest that maintaining a high vine water status (Ψstem > -0.8 MPa) may mitigate some of the negative effects of GRBV on vine physiology and fruit composition.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation affected vine physiology and fruit composition in 2019 and 2020.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- Supplemental irrigatione1
- Outcome
- vine physiology and fruit compositione1
- Qualifier
- in 2019 and 2020e1
- Comparator
- controle2
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Supplemental irrigation affected vine physiology and fruit composition in 2019 and 2020, but fertilization had no significant effect over three years”
e2“The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilization had no significant effect on the measured vine traits over three years.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- fertilizatione1
- Direction
- no significant effecte1
- Comparator
- controle2
Not reportedOutcome
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Supplemental irrigation affected vine physiology and fruit composition in 2019 and 2020, but fertilization had no significant effect over three years”
e2“The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased photosynthetic rate, vegetative growth and vine yield.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- supplemental irrigatione1
- Outcome
- Photosynthetic rate, vegetative growth, vine yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Photosynthetic rate, vegetative growth, vine yield, berry weight, TSS, and titratable acidity were increased with supplemental irrigation”
e2“The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased berry weight, TSS and titratable acidity.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- supplemental irrigatione1
- Outcome
- berry weight, TSS, and titratable aciditye1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Photosynthetic rate, vegetative growth, vine yield, berry weight, TSS, and titratable acidity were increased with supplemental irrigation”
e2“The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation reduced disease severity (symptomatic leaves per vine) of GRBV-infected vines.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- supplemental levels of irrigatione2
- Interactor
- Grapevine red blotch virusGrapevine red blotch viruse3pathogen
- Outcome
- disease severity (symptomatic leaves per vine)e1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- controle2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“disease severity (symptomatic leaves per vine) was reduced”
e2“The effects of control and supplemental levels of irrigation and fertilizer on vine growth and physiology, disease severity, and fruit composition were observed over three years”
e3“Grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV)”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation did not have consistent effects on secondary metabolites.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Supplemental irrigatione1
- Outcome
- secondary metabolitese1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Supplemental irrigation did not have consistent effects on secondary metabolites, though an increase in anthocyanin concentration was observed in 2020 despite an increase in berry size”
Claim · model-written summary
Supplemental irrigation increased anthocyanin concentration in 2020, despite an increase in berry size.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- Supplemental irrigatione1
- Outcome
- anthocyanin concentratione1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Qualifier
- observed in 2020 despite an increase in berry sizee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Supplemental irrigation did not have consistent effects on secondary metabolites, though an increase in anthocyanin concentration was observed in 2020 despite an increase in berry size”
Claim · model-written summary
A higher vine water status increased photosynthesis and canopy size, irrespective of applied water amounts.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- maintaining a higher vine water statuse1
- Outcome
- photosynthesis and canopy sizee1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Qualifier
- Irrespective of applied water amountse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Irrespective of applied water amounts, maintaining a higher vine water status effectively increased photosynthesis and canopy size, which resulted in greater sugar accumulation”
Claim · model-written summary
A higher vine water status was associated with greater sugar accumulation in berries.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- maintaining a higher vine water statuse1
- Outcome
- sugar accumulatione1
- Direction
- greatere1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Irrespective of applied water amounts, maintaining a higher vine water status effectively increased photosynthesis and canopy size, which resulted in greater sugar accumulation”
Claim · model-written summary
Maintaining a high vine water status (Ψstem > -0.8 MPa) may mitigate some negative effects of GRBV on vine physiology and fruit composition.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- maintaining a high vine water status (Ψstem > -0.8 MPa)e1
- Interactor
- GRBVe1pathogen
- Outcome
- negative effects of GRBV on vine physiology and fruit compositione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
e1“Ultimately, these results suggest that maintaining a high vine water status (Ψstem > -0.8 MPa) may mitigate some of the negative effects of GRBV on vine physiology and fruit composition”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · quality: sugar starch · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →irrigation · physiology: photosynthesis · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · quality: phytochemicals · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →irrigation · Grapevine red blotch virus · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.