ArticlePloS one2025
Assessing the potential of seaweed extracts to improve vegetative, physiological and berry quality parameters in Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay under cool climatic conditions.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seaweed extracts are promising plant biostimulants for viticulture, but their effects on white winegrape cultivars grown under cool climates remain fairly undocumented. Furthermore, information is limited on the biostimulant potential of some brown seaweed species like Ecklonia maxima. This study evaluated the impact of two commercial extracts (derived from Ascophyllum nodosum and Ecklonia maxima) on Vitis vinifera cv. Chardonnay in Belgium during the 2021 and 2022 growing seasons. The extracts, alongside a water‑control and an NPK‑reference (NPK‑Ref) treatment (with nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium levels comparable to the extracts), were applied as foliar sprays five times at regular intervals, from flowering to ripening. In 2021 and 2022, A. nodosum significantly increased individual leaf area (+12% and +15%), while in 2021 A. nodosum‑treated vines had an increased chlorophyll content index (+12% CCI) and photosystem II (PSII) reaction centre density (+6%) relative to control vines. This corresponded with a small, but significant, improvement (+1.5%) in PSII maximum quantum yield (Fv∕Fm), whereas PSII electron transport efficiency (ΦE0) remained unchanged. Furthermore, increased berry size, mass, and sugar content were observed in A. nodosum‑treated vines during ripening in 2022, comparable to NPK‑Ref vines. Conversely, the E. maxima extract had limited effects on vegetative growth, physiology, and subsequent berry development. Yield increase from 2021 to 2022 varied by treatment, with a significant increase observed for E. maxima (+60%) and NPK‑Ref vines (+80%), relative to control vines. Our results indicate that seaweed extracts, specifically A. nodosum‑based, can enhance grapevine leaf area, CCI, and Fv∕Fm under cool climatic conditions. A. nodosum treatment was also associated with increased berry size and sugar content, while E. maxima treatment was associated with increased yield in the subsequent, warmer season. Altogether, our study highlights that the differential effects of seaweed extracts on grapevine development are modulated by species and environmental conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.