Paper · 2022 · Russian vine

EFFECT OF ORGANO-MINERAL FERTILIZER ON GRAPEVINE PRODUCTIVITY

N.O. Arestova; I.O. Ryabchun

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The results of studies on the effect of organo-mineral fertilizer on agrobiological and econom-ic indicators of Cabernet Sauvignon grapevine variety are presented. To determine the biologi-cal effectiveness of the fertilizer on grapevine, foliar feeding of Cabernet Sauvignon plants was carried out during the phase of inflo-rescence advancement and 15 days after. Foliar feeding of plants with organo-mineral fertilizer had a positive effect on the formation of berries and clusters, contributing to an increase in their mass. At the drug consumption rate of 5.0 l/ha and 7.0 l/ha, both the number of berries in a bunch and the weight of one berry significantly increased compared to the control. The use of organo-mineral fertilizer also contributed to bet-ter pollination and an increase in berries in bunches, which together contributed to an in-crease in yield, depending on the applied con-sumption rates, by 8.7‒11.6 %. Estimation of quality characteristics of berry juice during har-vesting showed its compliance with standard varietal conditions in all variants of the experi-ment, despite the significant differences in the mass concentration of sugars between the con-trol and variant 3 (7.0 l/ha). The acidity of berry juice differed insignificantly between the vari-ants and the control. When feeding plants with organo-mineral fertilizer, the growth activity of shoots significantly increased in all variants of the experiment compared to the control variant. An increase in the activity of growth processes led to a decrease in shoot maturation (73.2‒74.4 %) at all drug consumption rates compared to the control (84.9 %). However, the percentage of shoot maturation in all variants is high enough for successful overwintering of plants.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer increased berry number in a bunch at both rates.

Taxon
GRAPEVINEVitist0
Treatment
5.0 l/ha and 7.0 l/hae0
Outcome
number of berries in a bunche0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At the drug consumption rate of 5.0 l/ha and 7.0 l/ha, both the number of berries in a bunch and the weight of one berry significantly increased compared to the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–697 · show in text ↑
t0

“EFFECT OF ORGANO-MINERAL FERTILIZER ON GRAPEVINE PRODUCTIVITY”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer increased berry weight at both rates.

Taxon
GRAPEVINEVitist0
Treatment
5.0 l/ha and 7.0 l/hae0
Outcome
weight of one berrye0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“At the drug consumption rate of 5.0 l/ha and 7.0 l/ha, both the number of berries in a bunch and the weight of one berry significantly increased compared to the control.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–697 · show in text ↑
t0

“EFFECT OF ORGANO-MINERAL FERTILIZER ON GRAPEVINE PRODUCTIVITY”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–61 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer increased grape yield by 8.7–11.6% depending on rate.

Treatment
organo-mineral fertilizere0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
in-creasee0
Value
8.7‒11.6 %e0

Not reportedTaxonComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The use of organo-mineral fertilizer also contributed to bet-ter pollination and an increase in berries in bunches, which together contributed to an in-crease in yield, depending on the applied con-sumption rates, by 8.7‒11.6 %.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 698–926 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Fertilizer increased shoot growth activity relative to control.

Treatment
organo-mineral fertilizere0
Outcome
growth activity of shootse0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the control variante0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“When feeding plants with organo-mineral fertilizer, the growth activity of shoots significantly increased in all variants of the experiment compared to the control variant.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1301–1473 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Shoot maturation was lower with fertilizer than in control.

Treatment
all drug consumption ratese0
Outcome
shoot maturatione0
Direction
decreasee0
Value
73.2‒74.4 %e0
Qualifier
84.9 %e0
Comparator
the controle0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“An increase in the activity of growth processes led to a decrease in shoot maturation (73.2‒74.4 %) at all drug consumption rates compared to the control (84.9 %).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1474–1637 · show in text ↑

fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ

107 papers: 97 positive, 10 negative or no effect

96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

103 papers more in this group

See all 107 papers →

fertilization · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

51 papers: 43 positive, 8 negative or no effect

42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

47 papers more in this group

See all 51 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.