Literature DB >> 27859326

Factors influencing stomatal conductance in response to water availability in grapevine: a meta-analysis.

Anouk Lavoie-Lamoureux1, Dario Sacco1, Paul-André Risse1, Claudio Lovisolo1.   

Abstract

The main factors regulating grapevine response to decreasing water availability were assessed under statistical support using published data related to leaf water relations in an extensive range of scion and rootstock genotypes. Matching leaf water potential (Ψleaf ) and stomatal conductance (gs ) data were collected from peer-reviewed literature with associated information. The resulting database contained 718 data points from 26 different Vitis vinifera varieties investigated as scions, 15 non-V. vinifera rootstock genotypes and 11 own-rooted V. vinifera varieties. Linearised data were analysed using the univariate general linear model (GLM) with factorial design including biological (scion and rootstock genotypes), methodological and environmental (soil) fixed factors. The first GLM performed on the whole database explained 82.4% of the variability in data distribution having the rootstock genotype the greatest contribution to variability (19.1%) followed by the scion genotype (16.2%). A classification of scions and rootstocks according to their mean predicted gs in response to moderate water stress was generated. This model also revealed that gs data obtained using a porometer were in average 2.1 times higher than using an infra-red gas analyser. The effect of soil water-holding properties was evaluated in a second analysis on a restricted database and showed a scion-dependant effect, which was dominant over rootstock effect, in predicting gs values. Overall the results suggest that a continuum exists in the range of stomatal sensitivities to water stress in V. vinifera, rather than an isohydric-anisohydric dichotomy, that is further enriched by the diversity of scion-rootstock combinations and their interaction with different soils.
© 2016 Scandinavian Plant Physiology Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27859326     DOI: 10.1111/ppl.12530

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


  15 in total

1.  The Accumulation of miRNAs Differentially Modulated by Drought Stress Is Affected by Grafting in Grapevine.

Authors:  Chiara Pagliarani; Marco Vitali; Manuela Ferrero; Nicola Vitulo; Marco Incarbone; Claudio Lovisolo; Giorgio Valle; Andrea Schubert
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of vineyard techniques used to delay ripening.

Authors:  Pietro Previtali; Filippo Giorgini; Randall S Mullen; Nick K Dookozlian; Kerry L Wilkinson; Christopher M Ford
Journal:  Hortic Res       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 7.291

3.  Container volume affects drought experiments in grapevines: Insights on xylem anatomy and time of dehydration.

Authors:  Jose Carlos Herrera; Tadeja Savi; Joseph Mattocks; Federica De Berardinis; Susanne Scheffknecht; Peter Hietz; Sabine Rosner; Astrid Forneck
Journal:  Physiol Plant       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 5.081

4.  VvEPFL9-1 Knock-Out via CRISPR/Cas9 Reduces Stomatal Density in Grapevine.

Authors:  Molly Clemens; Michele Faralli; Jorge Lagreze; Luana Bontempo; Stefano Piazza; Claudio Varotto; Mickael Malnoy; Walter Oechel; Annapaola Rizzoli; Lorenza Dalla Costa
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 6.627

5.  Physiological and Transcriptional Responses to Saline Irrigation of Young 'Tempranillo' Vines Grafted Onto Different Rootstocks.

Authors:  Ignacio Buesa; Juan G Pérez-Pérez; Fernando Visconti; Rebeka Strah; Diego S Intrigliolo; Luis Bonet; Kristina Gruden; Maruša Pompe-Novak; Jose M de Paz
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-06-06       Impact factor: 6.627

Review 6.  Grape Composition under Abiotic Constrains: Water Stress and Salinity.

Authors:  José M Mirás-Avalos; Diego S Intrigliolo
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 5.753

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Hydroscapes: A Useful Metric for Distinguishing Iso-/Anisohydric Behavior in Almond Cultivars.

Authors:  Carolina Álvarez-Maldini; Manuel Acevedo; Manuel Pinto
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-19

10.  A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation.

Authors:  Megan C Shelden; Rebecca Vandeleur; Brent N Kaiser; Stephen D Tyerman
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 5.753

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.