Abstract
Improving viticulture ecosystems sustainability over the application of organic fertilizers with various bio-safe stimulants is the main objective of this work to obtain high yield and quality with high income. Therefore, this trial was conducted in 2020 and 2021 after a preliminary season 2019 to highlight the role of the organic fertilizer Vermicompost (VC) associated with two types of biostimulants namely ArbuscularMycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) at 150 & 300 g/vine, and three Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterial (PGPR) strains at 50% &100%, or the natural fertilizer Potasssium Humate Gel (PHG) at 50 &100 %. All combinations were applied in the presence of 50% of the vineyard basic mineral fertilization on seven years-old Flame Seedless cv. grapevines planted in a sandy loamy soil in a private degraded vineyard located at 58 km Cairo- Alexandria desert road, Egypt. Moreover, all the treated vines were sprayed twice with VC extract at two phonological stages, when cluster length about 10-15 cm and when berry diameter reached about 7-8 mm for boosting vegetative growth, nutritional status, yield and fruit quality. The obtained results indicated that VC associated with various stimulators half doses 50% or fully ones 100% had an affirmative role in improving all the parameters over the control vines. The clear superiority of these responses were scored by mixing VC soil applications plus with PGPR 100% which was more favorable in stimulating growth parameters, physical and chemical characteristics of berries, yield and nutritional status. However, the co-application of VC plus 100% PHG had distinctive effect on total leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD). Thus, there is a wide range of organic and biostimulants products which considered as a valuable choice to be investigated for decreasing the harmful impact of synthetic fertilizers with high inputs for providing food security and matching the overpopulation.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Vermicompost combined with various stimulators at half or full doses improved all measured parameters of Flame Seedless grapevines relative to the control vines.
- Material
- Flame Seedless cv.e1
- Treatment
- VC associated with various stimulatorse0
- Outcome
- all the parameterse0
- Direction
- improvinge0
- Comparator
- the control vinese0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“VC associated with various stimulators half doses 50% or fully ones 100% had an affirmative role in improving all the parameters over the control vines”
e1“seven years-old Flame Seedless cv. grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
VC soil application plus 100% PGPR was most favorable in stimulating growth parameters and the physical and chemical characteristics of berries.
- Material
- Flame Seedless cv.e1
- Treatment
- VC soil applications plus with PGPR 100%e0
- Outcome
- growth parameterse0
- Direction
- stimulatinge0
- Qualifier
- physical and chemical characteristics of berriese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The clear superiority of these responses were scored by mixing VC soil applications plus with PGPR 100% which was more favorable in stimulating growth parameters, physical and chemical characteristics of berries, yield and nutritional status”
e1“seven years-old Flame Seedless cv. grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
VC soil application plus 100% PGPR was most favorable in stimulating yield and nutritional status.
- Material
- Flame Seedless cv.e1
- Treatment
- VC soil applications plus with PGPR 100%e0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- stimulatinge0
- Qualifier
- nutritional statuse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The clear superiority of these responses were scored by mixing VC soil applications plus with PGPR 100% which was more favorable in stimulating growth parameters, physical and chemical characteristics of berries, yield and nutritional status”
e1“seven years-old Flame Seedless cv. grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Co-application of VC plus 100% PHG had a distinctive effect on total leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD).
- Material
- Flame Seedless cv.e1
- Treatment
- the co-application of VC plus 100% PHGe0
- Outcome
- total leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD)e0
- Direction
- distinctive effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the co-application of VC plus 100% PHG had distinctive effect on total leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD)”
e1“seven years-old Flame Seedless cv. grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →inoculation · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →fertilization · physiology: pigments · VitisPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →inoculation · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →fertilization · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- 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.