Abstract
Two field trials with 15 years old grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless (highly susceptible cultivar) were conducted at SadatCity, Menofyia governorate, Egypt. In these trials, treatments consisted of summer pruning, i.e. ( leaf removal , shoot removal , topping and the treatment with (leaf removal +shoot removal + topping) in addition to the control vines (without summer pruning) . An additional trial , compared the cluster thinning treatment with the control ( without cluster thinning).All plots were established in a split –plot design with or without fungicides or gibberellin application .The above mentioned treatments were applied during the growing season starting at full bloom till veraison stage ( the beginning of ripening ) in order to control grapevine bunch rot disease . The obtained results showed that the disease incidence and severity of bunch rot were best reduced by using any of the used gibberellin treatments compared to that of untreated vines . The greatest reduction in disease incidence and severity was occurred in the treatments with three sprays of gibberellin when the flower cluster was 10 cm3 long, Full Bloom and 6mm in berries diameter stage which summer pruning is done . In additional trial , cluster thinning also reduced disease incidence and severity in nonsprayed control compared to the nonsprayed control ( without cluster thinning). The greatest reduction in disease incidence and severity was recorded from the treatments with three sprays of the fungicide (Euparen M) at bloom, pre-close and veraison. Also, the produced fruit yield from treated vines was significantly higher during the first and the second seasons in comparison with that of untreated vines.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Gibberellin treatments reduced bunch rot incidence and severity compared with untreated vines.
- Treatment
- gibberellin treatmentse0
- Outcome
- disease incidence and severity of bunch rote0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The obtained results showed that the disease incidence and severity of bunch rot were best reduced by using any of the used gibberellin treatments compared to that of untreated vines .”
e1“grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless”
Claim · model-written summary
Three gibberellin sprays with summer pruning gave the greatest reduction in bunch rot incidence and severity.
- Treatment
- three sprays of gibberelline0
- Outcome
- disease incidence and severitye0
- Direction
- greatest reductione0
- Qualifier
- summer pruning is donee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The greatest reduction in disease incidence and severity was occurred in the treatments with three sprays of gibberellin when the flower cluster was 10 cm3 long, Full Bloom and 6mm in berries diameter stage which summer pruning is done .”
e1“grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster thinning reduced bunch rot incidence and severity relative to no thinning in nonsprayed plots.
- Treatment
- cluster thinninge0
- Outcome
- disease incidence and severitye0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- without cluster thinninge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cluster thinning also reduced disease incidence and severity in nonsprayed control compared to the nonsprayed control ( without cluster thinning).”
e1“grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless”
Claim · model-written summary
Three Euparen M sprays gave the greatest reduction in bunch rot incidence and severity.
- Treatment
- three sprays of the fungicide (Euparen M)e0
- Outcome
- disease incidence and severitye0
- Direction
- greatest reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The greatest reduction in disease incidence and severity was recorded from the treatments with three sprays of the fungicide (Euparen M) at bloom, pre-close and veraison.”
e1“grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless”
Claim · model-written summary
Treated vines had significantly higher fruit yield than untreated vines in both seasons.
- Treatment
- treated vinese0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- first and the second seasonse0
- Comparator
- untreated vinese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the produced fruit yield from treated vines was significantly higher during the first and the second seasons in comparison with that of untreated vines.”
e1“grapevines cv. Thompson Seedless”
The same questions in other papers
cluster · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
class · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →pruning · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
21 papers more in this group
See all 25 papers →fungicide · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 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 →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 →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.