Abstract
This study was undertaken during the seasons 2004 and 2005 to evaluate the effect of removing 1/3 flower cluster length (about 10 cm of cluster length) at full bloom or trunk girdling immediately after berry set each alone or in combination under bud load of 60 or 80 eyes/vine of Red Roumi grapevine .The data reveal that removing 1/3 flower cluster length or trunk girdling significantly increased the yield per vine. Yet, combined treatment (removing 1/3 flower length with trunk girdling) gave a higher significant yield than those obtained from each alone or the control. The increment in yield was almost higher in vines which having 80 eyes/vine. With regard to effect of cluster shape and berry quality, the data also presented that shortening cluster with trunk girdling gave a higher cluster weight than vine which having 60 eyes/vine. The increase of cluster weight may be due to this treatment produced a higher berry weight and size .Also, combined treatment with removing 1/3 flower cluster length with trunk girdling under 60 eyes/vine increased SSC and SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content so, improved the berry quality of the cluster.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Removing one third of flower cluster length significantly increased yield per vine.
- Material
- Red Roumie1
- Treatment
- removing 1/3 flower cluster lengthe0
- Outcome
- yield per vinee0
- Direction
- increasede0
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“removing 1/3 flower cluster length or trunk girdling significantly increased the yield per vine.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Trunk girdling significantly increased yield per vine.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“removing 1/3 flower cluster length or trunk girdling significantly increased the yield per vine.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined cluster shortening and girdling gave significantly higher yield than either alone or the control.
- Material
- Red Roumie1
- Treatment
- removing 1/3 flower length with trunk girdlinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- each alone or the controle0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combined treatment (removing 1/3 flower length with trunk girdling) gave a higher significant yield than those obtained from each alone or the control.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield increments were almost higher in vines carrying 80 eyes per vine.
- Material
- Red Roumie1
- Treatment
- 80 eyes/vinee0
- Outcome
- increment in yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- almoste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increment in yield was almost higher in vines which having 80 eyes/vine.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster shortening with girdling gave higher cluster weight than vines carrying 60 eyes per vine.
- Treatment
- shortening cluster with trunk girdlinge0
- Outcome
- cluster weighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 60 eyes/vinee0
- Comparator
- vinee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shortening cluster with trunk girdling gave a higher cluster weight than vine which having 60 eyes/vine.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined treatment produced higher berry weight and size.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase of cluster weight may be due to this treatment produced a higher berry weight and size”
e1“shortening cluster with trunk girdling”
e2“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher berry weight and size may explain the cluster weight increase.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The increase of cluster weight may be due to this treatment produced a higher berry weight and size”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined cluster shortening and girdling under 60 eyes per vine increased SSC, SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content.
- Treatment
- removing 1/3 flower cluster length with trunk girdling under 60 eyes/vinee0
- Outcome
- SSC and SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combined treatment with removing 1/3 flower cluster length with trunk girdling under 60 eyes/vine increased SSC and SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content so, improved the berry quality of the cluster.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The combined treatment under 60 eyes per vine improved berry quality.
- Treatment
- removing 1/3 flower cluster length with trunk girdling under 60 eyes/vinee0
- Outcome
- berry qualitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“combined treatment with removing 1/3 flower cluster length with trunk girdling under 60 eyes/vine increased SSC and SSC/acid ratio and anthocyanin content so, improved the berry quality of the cluster.”
e1“Red Roumi grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
cluster · yield · VitisResults differ
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →cluster · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cluster · quality: general · VitisResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →pruning · quality: general · VitisResults differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 papers →pruning · quality: phytochemicals · VitisPositive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 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.