Abstract
Efficient nitrogen fertilisation in viticulture has the dual challenge of enhancing grape quality while reducing the environmental impacts associated with nitrogen use. This three-year field study evaluated different nitrogen fertilisation forms and application methods for the perennial fruit crops Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling, including foliar, topsoil, and subsoil applications at a rate of 50 kg N ha ⁻¹. The study focused on the impact of nitrogen fertilisation on nitrogen content, nitrogen use efficiency and amino acid concentrations in grape berries and must. Results show that foliar fertilisation with urea is particularly effective, improving nitrogen levels in berries, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and amino acid composition as well as overall yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in all three test years. N fertilisation by fertigation enhanced N levels in the berries and leaves as well as overall YAN and amino acid composition in two of the study years but to a lesser extent than foliar fertilisation with urea. Fertilisation with controlled uptake long-term nutrition process positively affected berry N, amino acid composition and total YAN in one year. While N fertilisation with ENTEC® increased N concentration in the berries in one year, no other effects were observed. No effects on berry N, YAN or amino acid composition were observed when grapevines were fertilised with calcium ammonium nitrate, but an increase in soil nitrate was observed after the season in November 2013. Fertilisation with compost did not result in any improvement of the tested parameters and NUE compared to the unfertilised control was negative in all 3 years. Foliar fertilisation with urea demonstrates a notable potential for maintaining adequate yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN) - essential for healthy fermentation - in grape must, even under dry conditions. This potential is increasingly prevalent under projected climate scenarios of increased water limitation. Findings suggest that foliar urea application can support fermentation quality in winemaking while offering a sustainable nitrogen management strategy adaptable to varying viticultural conditions.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar urea fertilisation improved berry nitrogen levels and nitrogen use efficiency in all three years.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera
Vitis viniferat0 - Material
- Rieslingt0
- Organ / stage
- berriese1
- Treatment
- foliar fertilisation with ureae1
- Outcome
- nitrogen levels in berries, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE)e1
- Direction
- improvinge1
- Qualifier
- in all three test yearse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e1“foliar fertilisation with urea is particularly effective, improving nitrogen levels in berries, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and amino acid composition as well as overall yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in all three test years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar urea fertilisation improved amino acid composition and overall YAN in all three years.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- foliar fertilisation with ureae1
- Outcome
- amino acid composition as well as overall yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN)e1
- Direction
- improvinge1
- Qualifier
- in all three test yearse1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e1“foliar fertilisation with urea is particularly effective, improving nitrogen levels in berries, nitrogen use efficiency (NUE), and amino acid composition as well as overall yeast assimilable nitrogen (YAN) in all three test years”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation enhanced berry and leaf nitrogen levels in two years, less than foliar urea did.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Organ / stage
- berries and leavese2
- Treatment
- N fertilisation by fertigatione2
- Outcome
- N levels in the berries and leavese2
- Direction
- enhancede2
- Qualifier
- in two of the study years but to a lesser extente2
- Comparator
- foliar fertilisation with ureae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e2“N fertilisation by fertigation enhanced N levels in the berries and leaves as well as overall YAN and amino acid composition in two of the study years but to a lesser extent than foliar fertilisation with urea”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation enhanced overall YAN and amino acid composition in two years, less than foliar urea did.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- N fertilisation by fertigatione2
- Outcome
- overall YAN and amino acid compositione2
- Direction
- enhancede2
- Qualifier
- in two of the study years but to a lesser extente2
- Comparator
- foliar fertilisation with ureae2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e2“N fertilisation by fertigation enhanced N levels in the berries and leaves as well as overall YAN and amino acid composition in two of the study years but to a lesser extent than foliar fertilisation with urea”
Claim · model-written summary
Controlled-uptake long-term nutrition positively affected berry N, amino acid composition and total YAN in one year.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- controlled uptake long-term nutrition processe3
- Outcome
- berry N, amino acid composition and total YANe3
- Direction
- positively affectede3
- Qualifier
- in one yeare3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e3“Fertilisation with controlled uptake long-term nutrition process positively affected berry N, amino acid composition and total YAN in one year”
Claim · model-written summary
ENTEC fertilisation increased berry N concentration in one year.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- N fertilisation with ENTEC®e4
- Outcome
- N concentration in the berriese4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- in one yeare4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e4“While N fertilisation with ENTEC® increased N concentration in the berries in one year, no other effects were observed”
Claim · model-written summary
ENTEC fertilisation had no other effects on the tested variables.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- N fertilisation with ENTEC®e4
- Outcome
- other effectse4
- Direction
- noe4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e4“While N fertilisation with ENTEC® increased N concentration in the berries in one year, no other effects were observed”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium ammonium nitrate had no effect on berry N, YAN or amino acid composition.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- calcium ammonium nitratee5
- Outcome
- berry N, YAN or amino acid compositione5
- Direction
- No effectse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e5“No effects on berry N, YAN or amino acid composition were observed when grapevines were fertilised with calcium ammonium nitrate”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium ammonium nitrate increased soil nitrate after the 2013 season.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- calcium ammonium nitratee5
- Outcome
- soil nitratee6
- Direction
- increasee6
- Qualifier
- after the season in November 2013e6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e5“No effects on berry N, YAN or amino acid composition were observed when grapevines were fertilised with calcium ammonium nitrate”
e6“an increase in soil nitrate was observed after the season in November 2013”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost fertilisation did not improve the tested parameters of Riesling grapevines.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- composte7
- Outcome
- tested parameterse7
- Direction
- did not result in any improvemente7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e7“Fertilisation with compost did not result in any improvement of the tested parameters and NUE compared to the unfertilised control was negative in all 3 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Compost fertilisation gave negative nitrogen use efficiency compared with the unfertilised control in all 3 years.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- composte7
- Outcome
- NUEe7
- Direction
- negativee7
- Qualifier
- in all 3 yearse7
- Comparator
- unfertilised controle7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e7“Fertilisation with compost did not result in any improvement of the tested parameters and NUE compared to the unfertilised control was negative in all 3 years”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar urea has a notable potential to maintain adequate YAN in grape must, even under dry conditions.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Material
- Rieslingt0
- Treatment
- Foliar fertilisation with ureae1
- Outcome
- yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN)e1
- Direction
- maintaininge1
- Qualifier
- even under dry conditionse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e1“Foliar fertilisation with urea demonstrates a notable potential for maintaining adequate yeast-assimilable nitrogen (YAN) - essential for healthy fermentation - in grape must, even under dry conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Foliar urea application is recommended to support fermentation quality in winemaking.
- Taxon
- Vitis viniferaVitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- foliar urea applicatione1
- Outcome
- fermentation qualitye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling”
e1“Findings suggest that foliar urea application can support fermentation quality in winemaking while offering a sustainable nitrogen management strategy adaptable to varying viticultural conditions”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
application · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →fertilization · nutrient: content · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 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.