Abstract
The present study was undertaken for six years to appraise the responses of four-year-old established grapevines (Vitis vinifera L., cv. Perlette) to saline–sodic groundwater irrigation in relation to different amendments in a field experiment on non-saline, non-sodic calcareous sandy loam soil under a semi-arid climate at the research farm of Punjab Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Bathinda, Punjab, India. Different water quality treatments, viz., canal water or good-quality water (GQW), poor-quality saline–sodic groundwater (PQW), alternate irrigation of canal water and groundwater (GQW/PQW), PQW with 50% gypsum (CaSO4·2H2O) requirement (PQW + GR50), PQW with 100% gypsum requirement (PQW + GR100), and PQW with sulphitation pressmud (by-product of sugar industry) @ 6.6 t ha−1 on a dry weight basis (PQW + SPM), applied in furrows, were imposed in quadruplicate with a randomized block design. PQW with an electrical conductivity (EC) of 2.2–2.4 dS m−1, residual sodium carbonate (RSC) content of 6.21–6.44 mmolc L−1, and a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) from 23.1 to 24.8 (mmolc L−1)0.5 was used during the course of experimentation. The pooled mean 6-year data showcased that the treatments GQW/PQW, PQW + GR50, PQW + GR100, and PQW + SPM improved the berry yield by 28.3%, 11.3%, 21.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, when compared with PQW. Use of amendments, i.e., gypsum, sulphitation pressmud, and practice of GQW/PQW for irrigation in a cyclic mode, helped in reducing the pH, SAR, and bulk density (BD) of surface soil (0–15 cm) and enhancing the final infiltration rate (FIR) of soil and berry yield. A maximum water use efficiency (WUE) of 3.99 q ha−1-cm was recorded in the GQW treatment, followed by 3.93, 3.72, and 3.68 q ha−1-cm in the PQW + SPM, GQW/PQW, and PQW + GR100 treatments, respectively. Application of amendments alongside PQW evidenced a significant enhancement in total soluble solids (TSSs) and a decrease in the acidity of berries as compared to PQW. These results suggest that table grape yield (cv. Perlette) on calcareous sandy loam soil under saline–sodic groundwater irrigation can be sustained with the application of PQW + GR100, sulphitation pressmud, and GQW/PQW in already-established grapevines with minimal detrimental effects on soil health.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Alternating canal and groundwater irrigation increased berry yield by 28.3% relative to PQW.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“GQW/PQW, PQW + GR50, PQW + GR100, and PQW + SPM improved the berry yield by 28.3%, 11.3%, 21.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, when compared with PQW”
Claim · model-written summary
PQW + GR50 increased berry yield by 11.3% relative to PQW.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“GQW/PQW, PQW + GR50, PQW + GR100, and PQW + SPM improved the berry yield by 28.3%, 11.3%, 21.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, when compared with PQW”
Claim · model-written summary
PQW + GR100 increased berry yield by 21.2% relative to PQW.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“GQW/PQW, PQW + GR50, PQW + GR100, and PQW + SPM improved the berry yield by 28.3%, 11.3%, 21.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, when compared with PQW”
Claim · model-written summary
PQW + SPM increased berry yield by 31.0% relative to PQW.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“GQW/PQW, PQW + GR50, PQW + GR100, and PQW + SPM improved the berry yield by 28.3%, 11.3%, 21.2%, and 31.0%, respectively, when compared with PQW”
Claim · model-written summary
Amendments and cyclic irrigation reduced surface soil pH, SAR and bulk density.
- Taxon
- Grapet0
- Treatment
- gypsum, sulphitation pressmud, and practice of GQW/PQWe0
- Outcome
- pH, SAR, and bulk density (BD) of surface soile0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“Use of amendments, i.e., gypsum, sulphitation pressmud, and practice of GQW/PQW for irrigation in a cyclic mode, helped in reducing the pH, SAR, and bulk density (BD) of surface soil (0–15 cm)”
Claim · model-written summary
Amendments and cyclic irrigation increased soil infiltration rate.
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“enhancing the final infiltration rate (FIR) of soil and berry yield”
Claim · model-written summary
GQW produced maximum water use efficiency of 3.99 q ha−1-cm.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“A maximum water use efficiency (WUE) of 3.99 q ha−1-cm was recorded in the GQW treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
PQW + SPM water use efficiency was 3.93 q ha−1-cm.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“followed by 3.93, 3.72, and 3.68 q ha−1-cm in the PQW + SPM, GQW/PQW, and PQW + GR100 treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
GQW/PQW water use efficiency was 3.72 q ha−1-cm.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“followed by 3.93, 3.72, and 3.68 q ha−1-cm in the PQW + SPM, GQW/PQW, and PQW + GR100 treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
PQW + GR100 water use efficiency was 3.68 q ha−1-cm.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“followed by 3.93, 3.72, and 3.68 q ha−1-cm in the PQW + SPM, GQW/PQW, and PQW + GR100 treatments, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Amendments with PQW significantly increased berry soluble solids.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“Application of amendments alongside PQW evidenced a significant enhancement in total soluble solids (TSSs) and a decrease in the acidity of berries as compared to PQW”
Claim · model-written summary
Amendments with PQW decreased berry acidity.
Verbatim
t0“Grape”
e0“Application of amendments alongside PQW evidenced a significant enhancement in total soluble solids (TSSs) and a decrease in the acidity of berries as compared to PQW”
The same questions in other papers
salinity · yield · VitisResults differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →other · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.