Paper · 2025 · Plant Science Today

Morphological and quality variability of white wine grape (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties under Pune conditions

Kumar Ausari Praveen; R G Somkuwar; P S Gharate; et al.

18
claims
35
verbatim quotes
0
citations
4
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

This study evaluated the ampelographical and bunch characteristics of 19 white wine grape varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) grafted on Dogridge rootstock at the National Active Germplasm Site, National Research Centre for Grapes, Pune, during 2023-24. The experiment was conducted on completely randomized block design comprising five vines per replication and three replications per cultivar. The results of the study revealed significant variability in the morphological characteristics of white wine grape varieties. The young shoot tip's opening with a high CV of 37.86 %, indicating substantial variation. The highest variability was observed for berry shape (CV 58.66 %) and berry color (CV 62.09 %), highlighted the diverse phenotypic traits among cultivars. Parameters such as bunch compactness and formation of seed showed lower variability, suggesting more consistency in these traits. Most cultivars had fully open young shoot tips. Tendril distribution was predominantly found sub-continuous, with unified tendrils. Young leaves were found mainly green colored with bronze spots (7). All cultivars exhibited bark peeling. The shoot attitude was primarily erect. Most mature leaves had large blades and pentagonal shapes. Berry density in bunches was generally compact, with round berries being the most common shape. Berry skin color was often green-yellow and all berries lacked anthocyanin coloration in the mesocarp. Time to bud burst ranged from 8.7 to 12.7 days after fruit pruning. Full bloom stage occurred between 34 and 44 days after fruit pruning. Flowering lasted 3.3 to 6.7 days. Veraison occurred from 95 to 114.67 days after fruit pruning and physiological berry maturity ranged from 122 to 147 days after fruit pruning. The results showed a range of correlations among various traits. Pruning biomass had a moderate positive correlation with 50 berry weight and berry skin thickness. Bunch weight showed strong correlations with bunch length and bunch width. TSS was negatively correlated with bunch weight and berry skin thickness. Total acids had a high positive correlation with malic acid. Ethanol content was positively correlated with TSS.

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 18

Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

White wine grape varieties varied significantly in morphology.

Taxon
white wine grapee0
Outcome
morphological characteristicse0

Verbatim

e0

“The results of the study revealed significant variability in the morphological characteristics of white wine grape varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 390–515 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Young shoot tip opening had a coefficient of variation of 37.86%.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
young shoot tip's openinge0
Value
37.86 %e0

Verbatim

e0

“The young shoot tip's opening with a high CV of 37.86 %”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 516–571 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Berry shape variation was 58.66%.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
berry shapee0
Value
58.66 %e0

Verbatim

e0

“berry shape (CV 58.66 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 648–672 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Berry color variation was 62.09%.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
berry colore0
Value
62.09 %e0

Verbatim

e0

“berry color (CV 62.09 %)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 677–701 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bunch compactness and seed formation varied less among varieties.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
bunch compactness and formation of seede0
Direction
lower variabilitye0

Verbatim

e0

“Parameters such as bunch compactness and formation of seed showed lower variability”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 762–845 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most cultivars had fully open young shoot tips, predominantly sub-continuous tendrils and green young leaves with bronze spots.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
fully open young shoot tipse0

Verbatim

e0

“Most cultivars had fully open young shoot tips. Tendril distribution was predominantly found sub-continuous, with unified tendrils. Young leaves were found mainly green colored with bronze spots (7).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 892–1091 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

All cultivars showed bark peeling; shoots were mainly erect and mature leaves mostly large and pentagonal.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
bark peelinge0

Verbatim

e0

“All cultivars exhibited bark peeling. The shoot attitude was primarily erect. Most mature leaves had large blades and pentagonal shapes.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1092–1228 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bunches were usually compact with round berries, green-yellow skin and no mesocarp anthocyanin.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Berry density in bunchese0

Verbatim

e0

“Berry density in bunches was generally compact, with round berries being the most common shape. Berry skin color was often green-yellow and all berries lacked anthocyanin coloration in the mesocarp.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1427 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bud burst occurred 8.7 to 12.7 days after fruit pruning.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Time to bud burste0
Value
8.7 to 12.7 dayse0
Qualifier
after fruit pruninge0

Verbatim

e0

“Time to bud burst ranged from 8.7 to 12.7 days after fruit pruning.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1428–1495 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Full bloom occurred 34 to 44 days after fruit pruning.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Full bloom stagee0
Value
34 and 44 dayse0
Qualifier
after fruit pruninge0

Verbatim

e0

“Full bloom stage occurred between 34 and 44 days after fruit pruning.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1496–1565 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Flowering lasted 3.3 to 6.7 days.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Floweringe0
Value
3.3 to 6.7 dayse0

Verbatim

e0

“Flowering lasted 3.3 to 6.7 days.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1566–1599 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Veraison occurred 95 to 114.67 days after fruit pruning.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Veraisone0
Value
95 to 114.67 dayse0
Qualifier
after fruit pruninge0

Verbatim

e0

“Veraison occurred from 95 to 114.67 days after fruit pruning”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1600–1660 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Physiological berry maturity occurred 122 to 147 days after fruit pruning.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
physiological berry maturitye0
Value
122 to 147 dayse0
Qualifier
after fruit pruninge0

Verbatim

e0

“physiological berry maturity ranged from 122 to 147 days after fruit pruning.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1665–1742 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pruning biomass correlated moderately and positively with berry weight and skin thickness.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
50 berry weight and berry skin thicknesse0
Direction
positivee0
Comparator
Pruning biomasse0

Verbatim

e0

“Pruning biomass had a moderate positive correlation with 50 berry weight and berry skin thickness.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1808–1906 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bunch weight correlated strongly with bunch length and width.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
bunch length and bunch widthe0
Comparator
Bunch weighte0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Bunch weight showed strong correlations with bunch length and bunch width.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1907–1981 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

TSS correlated negatively with bunch weight and berry skin thickness.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
bunch weight and berry skin thicknesse0
Direction
negativelye0
Comparator
TSSe0

Verbatim

e0

“TSS was negatively correlated with bunch weight and berry skin thickness.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1982–2055 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total acids correlated strongly and positively with malic acid.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Compound
malic acide0
Outcome
Total acidse0
Direction
positivee0

Verbatim

e0

“Total acids had a high positive correlation with malic acid.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2056–2116 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ethanol content correlated positively with TSS.

Taxon
white wine grapet0
Outcome
Ethanol contente0
Direction
positivelye0
Comparator
TSSe0

Verbatim

e0

“Ethanol content was positively correlated with TSS.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2117–2168 · show in text ↑
t0

“white wine grape”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 41–57 · show in text ↑