Literature DB >> 26160580

Differential responses of grapevine rootstocks to water stress are associated with adjustments in fine root hydraulic physiology and suberization.

F H Barrios-Masias1, T Knipfer1, A J McElrone2.   

Abstract

Water deficits are known to alter fine root structure and function, but little is known about how these responses contribute to differences in drought resistance across grapevine rootstocks. The ways in which water deficit affects root anatomical and physiological characteristics were studied in two grapevine rootstocks considered as low-medium (101-14Mgt) and highly (110R) drought resistant. Rootstocks were grown under prolonged and repeated drying cycles or frequent watering ('dry' and 'wet' treatments, respectively), and the following parameters were evaluated: root osmotic and hydrostatic hydraulic conductivity (Lp os and Lp hyd, respectively), suberization, steady-state root pressure (P rs), sap exudation rates, sap osmotic potential, and exosmotic relaxation curves. For both rootstocks, the 'dry' treatment reduced fine root Lp, elicited earlier root suberization and higher sap osmotic potential, and generated greater P rs after rewatering, but the rootstocks responded differently under these conditions. Lp os, Lp hyd, and sap exudation rates were significantly higher in 110R than in 101-14Mgt, regardless of moisture treatment. Under 'dry' conditions, 110R maintained a similar Lp os and decreased the Lp hyd by 36% compared with 'wet' conditions, while both parameters were decreased by at least 50% for 101-14Mgt under 'dry' conditions. Interestingly, build-up of P rs in 110R was 34% lower on average than in 101-14Mgt, suggesting differences in the development of suberized apoplastic barriers between the rootstocks as visualized by analysis of suberization from fluorescence microscopy. Consistent with this pattern, 110R exhibited the greatest exosmotic Lp os (i.e. Lp os of water flowing from roots to the soil) as determined from relaxation curves under wet conditions, where backflow may have limited its capacity to generate positive xylem pressure. The traits studied here can be used in combination to provide new insights needed for screening drought resistance across grapevine rootstocks. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Drought resistance; Lp; Vitis.; fine root conductivity; root hydraulics; traits

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26160580      PMCID: PMC4615816          DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erv324

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Bot        ISSN: 0022-0957            Impact factor:   6.992


  22 in total

Review 1.  Transport barriers made of cutin, suberin and associated waxes.

Authors:  Lukas Schreiber
Journal:  Trends Plant Sci       Date:  2010-07-23       Impact factor: 18.313

2.  Spring filling of xylem vessels in wild grapevine.

Authors:  J S Sperry; N M Holbrook; M H Zimmermann; M T Tyree
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 8.340

3.  Effects of Salinity on Water Transport of Excised Maize (Zea mays L.) Roots.

Authors:  H Azaizeh; E Steudle
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Root pressure and beyond: energetically uphill water transport into xylem vessels?

Authors:  Lars H Wegner
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 6.992

5.  Water uptake by roots: effects of water deficit.

Authors:  E Steudle
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 6.992

6.  Osmotic responses of maize roots : Water and solute relations.

Authors:  E Steudle; J Frensch
Journal:  Planta       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 4.116

7.  Water uptake along the length of grapevine fine roots: developmental anatomy, tissue-specific aquaporin expression, and pathways of water transport.

Authors:  Gregory A Gambetta; Jiong Fei; Thomas L Rost; Thorsten Knipfer; Mark A Matthews; Ken A Shackel; M Andrew Walker; Andrew J McElrone
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2013-09-18       Impact factor: 8.340

8.  Seasonal changes of whole root system conductance by a drought-tolerant grape root system.

Authors:  Maria Mar Alsina; David R Smart; Taryn Bauerle; Felicidad de Herralde; Carme Biel; Christine Stockert; Claudia Negron; Robert Save
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 6.992

9.  The role of aquaporin RWC3 in drought avoidance in rice.

Authors:  Hong-Li Lian; Xin Yu; Qin Ye; Xiaodong Ding; Yoshichika Kitagawa; Sang-Soo Kwak; Wei-Ai Su; Zhang-Cheng Tang; Xiao-Song Ding
Journal:  Plant Cell Physiol       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.927

10.  During measurements of root hydraulics with pressure probes, the contribution of unstirred layers is minimized in the pressure relaxation mode: comparison with pressure clamp and high-pressure flowmeter.

Authors:  Thorsten Knipfer; Debasish Das; Ernst Steudle
Journal:  Plant Cell Environ       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 7.228

View more
  16 in total

1.  Mechanical Failure of Fine Root Cortical Cells Initiates Plant Hydraulic Decline during Drought.

Authors:  Italo F Cuneo; Thorsten Knipfer; Craig R Brodersen; Andrew J McElrone
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2016-09-12       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  Predicting Stomatal Closure and Turgor Loss in Woody Plants Using Predawn and Midday Water Potential.

Authors:  Thorsten Knipfer; Nicolas Bambach; M Isabel Hernandez; Megan K Bartlett; Gabriela Sinclair; Fiona Duong; Daniel A Kluepfel; Andrew J McElrone
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2020-08-06       Impact factor: 8.340

3.  Herb and conifer roots show similar high sensitivity to water deficit.

Authors:  Ibrahim Bourbia; Carola Pritzkow; Timothy J Brodribb
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Root pressure-volume curve traits capture rootstock drought tolerance.

Authors:  M K Bartlett; G Sinclair; G Fontanesi; T Knipfer; M A Walker; A J McElrone
Journal:  Ann Bot       Date:  2022-03-23       Impact factor: 5.040

5.  The sequence and thresholds of leaf hydraulic traits underlying grapevine varietal differences in drought tolerance.

Authors:  Silvina Dayer; José Carlos Herrera; Zhanwu Dai; Régis Burlett; Laurent J Lamarque; Sylvain Delzon; Giovanni Bortolami; Hervé Cochard; Gregory A Gambetta
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2020-07-06       Impact factor: 6.992

6.  Controversies in Midday Water Potential Regulation and Stomatal Behavior Might Result From the Environment, Genotype, and/or Rootstock: Evidence From Carménère and Syrah Grapevine Varieties.

Authors:  Luis Villalobos-González; Mariana Muñoz-Araya; Nicolas Franck; Claudio Pastenes
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 5.753

7.  Drought tolerance of the grapevine, Vitis champinii cv. Ramsey, is associated with higher photosynthesis and greater transcriptomic responsiveness of abscisic acid biosynthesis and signaling.

Authors:  Noé Cochetel; Ryan Ghan; Haley S Toups; Asfaw Degu; Richard L Tillett; Karen A Schlauch; Grant R Cramer
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2020-02-04       Impact factor: 4.215

8.  Tetraploidy Enhances Boron-Excess Tolerance in Carrizo Citrange (Citrus sinensis L. Osb. × Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf.).

Authors:  Marta Ruiz; Ana Quiñones; Belén Martínez-Alcántara; Pablo Aleza; Raphaël Morillon; Luis Navarro; Eduardo Primo-Millo; Mary-Rus Martínez-Cuenca
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2016-05-25       Impact factor: 5.753

9.  Tandem mass tag-based (TMT) quantitative proteomics analysis reveals the response of fine roots to drought stress in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).

Authors:  Shuang Xiao; Liantao Liu; Yongjiang Zhang; Hongchun Sun; Ke Zhang; Zhiying Bai; Hezhong Dong; Yuchun Liu; Cundong Li
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2020-07-11       Impact factor: 4.215

Review 10.  Facing Climate Change: Biotechnology of Iconic Mediterranean Woody Crops.

Authors:  Carlos De Ollas; Raphaël Morillón; Vasileios Fotopoulos; Jaime Puértolas; Patrick Ollitrault; Aurelio Gómez-Cadenas; Vicent Arbona
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.753

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.