Literature DB >> 24597791

Relationships between stomatal behavior, xylem vulnerability to cavitation and leaf water relations in two cultivars of Vitis vinifera.

Sergio Tombesi1, Andrea Nardini, Daniela Farinelli, Alberto Palliotti.   

Abstract

Current understanding of physiological mechanisms governing stomatal behavior under water stress conditions is still incomplete and controversial. It has been proposed that coordination of stomatal kinetics with xylem vulnerability to cavitation [vulnerability curve (VC)] leads to different levels of isohydry/anisohydry in different plant species/cultivars. In this study, this hypothesis is tested in Vitis vinifera cultivars displaying contrasting stomatal behavior under drought stress. The cv Montepulciano (MP, near-isohydric) and Sangiovese (SG, anisohydric) were compared in terms of stomatal response to leaf and stem water potential, as possibly correlated to different petiole hydraulic conductivity (k(petiole)) and VC, as well as to leaf water relations parameters. MP leaves showed almost complete stomatal closure at higher leaf and stem water potentials than SG leaves. Moreover, MP petioles had higher maximum k(petiole) and were more vulnerable to cavitation than SG. Water potential at the turgor loss point was higher in MP than in SG. In SG, the percentage reduction of stomatal conductance (PLg(s)) under water stress was almost linearly correlated with corresponding percentage loss of k(petiole) (PLC), while in MP PLg(s) was less influenced by PLC. Our results suggest that V. vinifera near-isohydric and anisohydric genotypes differ in terms of xylem vulnerability to cavitation as well as in terms of k(petiole) and that the coordination of these traits leads to their different stomatal responses under water stress conditions.
© 2014 Scandinavian Plant Physiology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24597791     DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12180

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Plant        ISSN: 0031-9317            Impact factor:   4.500


  16 in total

Review 1.  Stomatal Biology of CAM Plants.

Authors:  Jamie Males; Howard Griffiths
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  Evidence for Hydraulic Vulnerability Segmentation and Lack of Xylem Refilling under Tension.

Authors:  Guillaume Charrier; José M Torres-Ruiz; Eric Badel; Regis Burlett; Brendan Choat; Herve Cochard; Chloe E L Delmas; Jean-Christophe Domec; Steven Jansen; Andrew King; Nicolas Lenoir; Nicolas Martin-StPaul; Gregory Alan Gambetta; Sylvain Delzon
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 8.340

3.  Measurement of Gross Photosynthesis, Respiration in the Light, and Mesophyll Conductance Using H218O Labeling.

Authors:  Paul P G Gauthier; Mark O Battle; Kevin L Griffin; Michael L Bender
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Plant performance on Mediterranean green roofs: interaction of species-specific hydraulic strategies and substrate water relations.

Authors:  Fabio Raimondo; Patrizia Trifilò; Maria A Lo Gullo; Sergio Andri; Tadeja Savi; Andrea Nardini
Journal:  AoB Plants       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 3.276

5.  Stomatal closure is induced by hydraulic signals and maintained by ABA in drought-stressed grapevine.

Authors:  Sergio Tombesi; Andrea Nardini; Tommaso Frioni; Marta Soccolini; Claudia Zadra; Daniela Farinelli; Stefano Poni; Alberto Palliotti
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2015-07-24       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Distinct transcriptome responses to water limitation in isohydric and anisohydric grapevine cultivars.

Authors:  Silvia Dal Santo; Alberto Palliotti; Sara Zenoni; Giovanni Battista Tornielli; Marianna Fasoli; Paola Paci; Sergio Tombesi; Tommaso Frioni; Oriana Silvestroni; Andrea Bellincontro; Claudio d'Onofrio; Fabiola Matarese; Matteo Gatti; Stefano Poni; Mario Pezzotti
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Drought will not leave your glass empty: Low risk of hydraulic failure revealed by long-term drought observations in world's top wine regions.

Authors:  Guillaume Charrier; Sylvain Delzon; Jean-Christophe Domec; Li Zhang; Chloe E L Delmas; Isabelle Merlin; Deborah Corso; Andrew King; Hernan Ojeda; Nathalie Ollat; Jorge A Prieto; Thibaut Scholach; Paul Skinner; Cornelis van Leeuwen; Gregory A Gambetta
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2018-01-31       Impact factor: 14.136

8.  Contrasting dynamics of leaf potential and gas exchange during progressive drought cycles and recovery in Amorpha fruticosa and Robinia pseudoacacia.

Authors:  Weiming Yan; Shuxia Zheng; Yangquanwei Zhong; Zhouping Shangguan
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Grapevine acclimation to water deficit: the adjustment of stomatal and hydraulic conductance differs from petiole embolism vulnerability.

Authors:  Uri Hochberg; Andrea Giulia Bonel; Rakefet David-Schwartz; Asfaw Degu; Aaron Fait; Hervé Cochard; Enrico Peterlunger; Jose Carlos Herrera
Journal:  Planta       Date:  2017-02-18       Impact factor: 4.116

10.  Gas exchange and hydraulics during drought in crops: who drives whom?

Authors:  Jaume Flexas; Marc Carriquí; Miquel Nadal
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2018-07-18       Impact factor: 6.992

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.