Abstract
ABSTRACT ‘BRS Vitória’ is the leading seedless table grape cultivar in tropical regions of Brazil, but there is a lack of information regarding suitable rootstocks for subtropical cultivation. This study aimed to evaluate the productive performance and nutrient cycling of ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines grafted onto rootstocks ‘IAC 572’, ‘IAC 766’, and ‘1103P’ under subtropical climate conditions. Crop yield, nutrient content, and weight of shoots and bunches were assessed over two growing seasons, along with nutrient removal via pruning and harvest and nutrient utilization efficiency. The ‘IAC 572’ rootstock promoted greater shoot biomass accumulation and crop yield compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’. Both nutrient content and nutrient accumulation were also higher in grapevines grafted onto the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock. Nevertheless, the amount of nutrients transported to the bunch was comparatively lower than in ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’. Given its superior productivity, nutrient accumulation capacity, and nutrient utilization efficiency, the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock is more suitable for ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines in subtropical regions.
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
IAC 572 increased shoot biomass accumulation and crop yield relative to IAC 766 and 1103P.
- Material
- ‘BRS Vitória’t0
- Treatment
- ‘IAC 572’ rootstocke0
- Outcome
- shoot biomass accumulation and crop yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’e0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The ‘IAC 572’ rootstock promoted greater shoot biomass accumulation and crop yield compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’.”
t0“‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
IAC 572 yielded higher nutrient content and accumulation than the other rootstocks.
- Material
- ‘BRS Vitória’t0
- Treatment
- ‘IAC 572’ rootstocke0
- Outcome
- nutrient content and nutrient accumulatione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both nutrient content and nutrient accumulation were also higher in grapevines grafted onto the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock.”
e1“compared to ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’”
t0“‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
IAC 572 transported less nutrients to grape bunches than IAC 766 and 1103P.
- Material
- ‘BRS Vitória’t0
- Treatment
- ‘IAC 572’ rootstocke1
- Outcome
- amount of nutrients transported to the bunche0
- Direction
- comparatively lowere0
- Comparator
- ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the amount of nutrients transported to the bunch was comparatively lower than in ‘IAC 766’ and ‘1103P’.”
e1“The ‘IAC 572’ rootstock promoted”
t0“‘BRS Vitória’ grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors judge IAC 572 more suitable for BRS Vitória in subtropical regions due to productivity, accumulation and nutrient use efficiency.
- Material
- ‘BRS Vitória’e0
- Outcome
- ‘IAC 572’ rootstock is more suitablee0
- Qualifier
- superior productivity, nutrient accumulation capacity, and nutrient utilization efficiencye0
- Setting
- subtropical regionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Given its superior productivity, nutrient accumulation capacity, and nutrient utilization efficiency, the ‘IAC 572’ rootstock is more suitable for ‘BRS Vitória’ grapevines in subtropical regions.”
The same questions in other papers
grafting · yield · VitisResults differ
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →grafting · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.