Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the effect of root pruning in fertigation on the growth, flowering, fruit ripening and yield in 5-year-old ‘Campbell Early’ grapevines under protected cultivation. Shoot length in the fertigation was greater than that in the no fertigation, and the shoot growth was much limited when the roots were pruned all around vines. Beginning and shedding of flowers and the rates of berry shattering in the no fertigation were significantly higher than in fertigation but increased with strong root pruning regardless of the fertigation. Cluster weight in the fertigation was higher than in the no fertigation and increased with strong root pruning in the fertigation but no significant differences were shown in root pruning method in the no fertigation. There was no difference among root pruning treatments in soluble solids regardless of fertigation. The rates of cracking in the no fertigation were higher than those in the fertigation and increased with heavy root pruning in the no fertigation but no significant differences were shown in the root pruning treatments in the fertigation. A start of harvest was quicker in the root pruning both in the fertigation or no fertigation than control. Harvesting period was shorter with heavy root pruning and shortened harvesting period when roots were pruned all around vine. The rate of standard cluster was higher in the fertigation than in the no fertigation, and the root pruning treatment between vines showed highest regardless of fertigation. Yield showed the same tendency on the rate of standard cluster.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation increased grapevine shoot length.
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Shoot length in the fertigation was greater than that in the no fertigation”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning roots all around vines limited shoot growth.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the shoot growth was much limited when the roots were pruned all around vines”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower beginning and shedding were higher without fertigation and increased with strong root pruning.
- Treatment
- no fertigatione0
- Outcome
- Beginning and shedding of flowerse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- fertigatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beginning and shedding of flowers and the rates of berry shattering in the no fertigation were significantly higher than in fertigation but increased with strong root pruning regardless of the fertigation.”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry shattering was higher without fertigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the rates of berry shattering in the no fertigation were significantly higher than in fertigation”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong root pruning increased flower beginning, shedding and berry shattering irrespective of fertigation.
- Treatment
- strong root pruninge0
- Outcome
- Beginning and shedding of flowers and the rates of berry shatteringe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Beginning and shedding of flowers and the rates of berry shattering in the no fertigation were significantly higher than in fertigation but increased with strong root pruning regardless of the fertigation.”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation increased cluster weight.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cluster weight in the fertigation was higher than in the no fertigation”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Strong root pruning increased cluster weight under fertigation.
- Treatment
- strong root pruninge0
- Outcome
- Cluster weighte1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- in the fertigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased with strong root pruning in the fertigation”
e1“Cluster weight in the fertigation”
e2“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning method showed no significant cluster weight difference without fertigation.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences were shown in root pruning method in the no fertigation”
e1“Cluster weight”
e2“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning treatments showed no difference in soluble solids.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There was no difference among root pruning treatments in soluble solids regardless of fertigation.”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Berry cracking was higher without fertigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rates of cracking in the no fertigation were higher than those in the fertigation”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Heavy root pruning increased cracking without fertigation.
- Treatment
- heavy root pruninge0
- Outcome
- rates of crackinge1
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- no fertigatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased with heavy root pruning in the no fertigation”
e1“rates of cracking”
e2“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning treatments did not differ significantly in cracking under fertigation.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences were shown in the root pruning treatments in the fertigation”
e1“rates of cracking”
e2“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Root pruning advanced harvest onset with and without fertigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A start of harvest was quicker in the root pruning both in the fertigation or no fertigation than control.”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Heavy root pruning shortened harvesting period.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Harvesting period was shorter with heavy root pruning”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning all around the vine shortened harvesting period.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“shortened harvesting period when roots were pruned all around vine”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertigation increased the standard cluster rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The rate of standard cluster was higher in the fertigation than in the no fertigation”
e1“grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield followed the same pattern as standard cluster rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield showed the same tendency on the rate of standard cluster.”
e1“grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →fertilization · yield · VitisResults differ
96 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 papers →pruning · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →fertilization · growth · VitisPositive and negative results
42 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →fertilization · molecular: metabolites · VitisPositive and negative results
44 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →pruning · yield · VitisPositive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
103 papers more in this group
See all 107 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.