Paper · 2023 · Агрознање

Effect of foliar calcium and nitrogen treatments on yield and fruit quality of table grapes cv. ‘Cardinal‘

Hristina Poposka; Dusko Mukaetov; Dusko Nedelkovski; et al.

11
claims
23
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

The foliar fertilization has been used as an important agrotechnical measure to avoid deficiencies and to improve quality. During the three consecutive years, a study has been performed on Vitis vinifera L. (cv. ‘Cardinal’) to examine whether a yield and grape berry quality have been affected by the foliar application of Ca and N fertilizers. A liquid mineral fertilizer containing 40% Ca(NO₃)₂ as Variant I and 31% N with 0,015 % Fe-chelate; 0,01 % Mg – chelat as Variant II (in text) has been sprayed four times during the growing period (before and after blooming, buckshot berries, and verasion). Results showed that foliar application of calcium and nitrogen increased the yield of table grapes in all three years of research, in comparison with a control variant. The highest yields of grapes in all three years of investigations were achieved in Variant II – 4.57 kg/vine (14.85 t/ha). During the tree years of investigations, the largest mass of grape bunch and berries were recorded in Variant II (382g and 368.68g), while the lowest cluster weight was in the control variant (344g and 330.92g). With a reference to the mechanical properties of the grape berries, the highest resistance to pressure (2229.70g) and breaking resistance (364.52g) were found in Variant I, treated with Ca fertilizer. The foliar application significantly affects the mechanical properties (resistance of the berry to pressure and breaking), especially in Variant I. The application of different types of foliar fertilizers did not have any significant effect on sugar contents and total acids, compared with the control variant.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar calcium and nitrogen application increased table grape yield in all three years relative to control.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
foliar application of calcium and nitrogene0
Outcome
yield of table grapese0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
control variante0

Verbatim

e0

“foliar application of calcium and nitrogen increased the yield of table grapes in all three years of research, in comparison with a control variant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 623–770 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Variant II produced the highest grape yield in all three years, 4.57 kg per vine or 14.85 t/ha.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Variant IIe0
Outcome
yields of grapese0
Direction
higheste0
Value
4.57 kg/vine (14.85 t/ha)e0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The highest yields of grapes in all three years of investigations were achieved in Variant II – 4.57 kg/vine (14.85 t/ha)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 772–893 · show in text ↑
e1

“31% N with 0,015 % Fe-chelate; 0,01 % Mg – chelat as Variant II”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 414–477 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Variant II yielded the largest grape bunch mass, 382g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Variant IIe0
Outcome
mass of grape bunche0
Direction
largeste0
Value
382ge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the largest mass of grape bunch and berries were recorded in Variant II (382g and 368.68g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 936–1026 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Variant II yielded the largest berry mass, 368.68g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Variant IIe0
Outcome
mass of grape bunch and berriese0
Direction
largeste0
Value
368.68ge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the largest mass of grape bunch and berries were recorded in Variant II (382g and 368.68g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 936–1026 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Control vines had the lowest cluster weight, 344g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
control variante0
Outcome
cluster weighte0
Direction
loweste0
Value
344ge0

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest cluster weight was in the control variant (344g and 330.92g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1034–1105 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The control variant also had a reported berry mass of 330.92g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
control variante0
Outcome
cluster weighte0
Value
330.92ge0

Verbatim

e0

“the lowest cluster weight was in the control variant (344g and 330.92g)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1034–1105 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Variant I calcium treatment gave the highest berry pressure resistance, 2229.70g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Variant I, treated with Ca fertilizere0
Outcome
resistance to pressuree0
Direction
higheste0
Value
2229.70ge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the highest resistance to pressure (2229.70g) and breaking resistance (364.52g) were found in Variant I, treated with Ca fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1306 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Variant I calcium treatment gave the highest berry breaking resistance, 364.52g.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
Variant I, treated with Ca fertilizere0
Outcome
breaking resistancee0
Direction
higheste0
Value
364.52ge0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“the highest resistance to pressure (2229.70g) and breaking resistance (364.52g) were found in Variant I, treated with Ca fertilizer”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1175–1306 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Foliar fertilizer significantly affected berry resistance to pressure and breaking, especially in Variant I.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
foliar applicatione0
Outcome
resistance of the berry to pressure and breakinge0
Qualifier
especially in Variant Ie0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The foliar application significantly affects the mechanical properties (resistance of the berry to pressure and breaking), especially in Variant I.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1308–1455 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Different foliar fertilizers had no significant effect on sugar content relative to control.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
application of different types of foliar fertilizerse0
Outcome
sugar contentse0
Direction
did not have any significant effecte0
Comparator
control variante0

Verbatim

e0

“The application of different types of foliar fertilizers did not have any significant effect on sugar contents and total acids, compared with the control variant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1456–1617 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Different foliar fertilizers had no significant effect on total acids relative to control.

Taxon
table grapest0
Treatment
application of different types of foliar fertilizerse0
Outcome
total acidse0
Direction
did not have any significant effecte0
Comparator
control variante0

Verbatim

e0

“The application of different types of foliar fertilizers did not have any significant effect on sugar contents and total acids, compared with the control variant”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1456–1617 · show in text ↑
t0

“table grapes”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 79–91 · show in text ↑

calcium atom · disease · VitisPositive and negative results

12 papers: 9 positive, 3 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

calcium atom · yield · VitisResults agree

11 papers: 11 positive, 0 negative or no effect

10 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

nitrogen · yield · VitisResults differ

33 papers: 25 positive, 8 negative or no effect

24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

29 papers more in this group

See all 33 papers →

fertilization · disease · VitisPositive and negative results

13 papers: 12 positive, 1 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

application · disease · VitisPositive and negative results

56 papers: 50 positive, 6 negative or no effect

49 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

52 papers more in this group

See all 56 papers →

application · yield · VitisPositive and negative results

87 papers: 80 positive, 7 negative or no effect

79 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

83 papers more in this group

See all 87 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.