| Literature DB >> 30123231 |
Tommaso Frioni1, Dana Acimovic2, Sergio Tombesi1, Paolo Sivilotti3, Alberto Palliotti4, Stefano Poni1, Paolo Sabbatini2.
Abstract
Early leaf removal significantly alters the source-sink balance within grapevine shoots, leading to a reduction in fruit set. However, no research has previously examined the conditions controlling this process in terms of carbon allocation among major sink organs following defoliation. In this study, the impact of defoliation at bloom on the distribution dynamics of leaf assimilates among clusters and growing shoot apices was investigated onEntities:
Keywords: Vitis vinifera L; carbon discrimination; defoliation; fruit set; source-to-sink ratio
Year: 2018 PMID: 30123231 PMCID: PMC6085605 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Diagrammatic representation (A) of early leaf removal treatments and of the different organs sampled during the pulsing study:cluster (green), fully expanded leaf (gray), shoot apex (orange). Shoots were enclosed in mylar bags (B) and pulsed for 30 min with 13CO2, generated by the reaction of 800 mg of Ba13CO2 (98 atom %) with 5 mL of 85% lactic acid.
Impact of leaf removal on shoot leaf area and vine balance.
| LR-0 | 747 a | 0 c | 0 c | 747 a | 1326 a | 0.87 a |
| LR-6 | 766 a | 359 b | 47 b | 407 b | 965 b | 0.60 b |
| LR-10 | 724 a | 619 a | 86 a | 105 c | 449 c | 0.66 b |
Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 by Tukey's HSD test.
LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom.
Treatments were applied on 15 June (DOY 166), coinciding with full bloom. Trimming was executed on 14 July (DOY 195).
Figure 2Shoot length (A) and shoot leaf area (main leaves, B) in relation to different intensity of leaf removal. Each point is the mean of 48 values, vertical bars represent standard errors. The arrow represent grapevine full bloom phenological stage and the time of the leaf removal treatment. Leaf area was measured until the day before canopy trimming on July 14. Symbol (*) represent significant difference at P < 0.05. LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom; DOY, Day Of Year.
Impact of leaf removal on cluster components, basic fruit chemistry, and phenolic content.
| LR-0 | 425 a | 113 a | 1.08 a | 20.9 b | 3.46 b | 6.09 a | 0.34 a | 0.95 b |
| LR-6 | 442 a | 106 a | 1.04 a | 21.9 b | 3.49 b | 5.49 ab | 0.29 a | 0.86 b |
| LR-10 | 443 a | 73 b | 0.98 a | 24.0 a | 3.69 a | 4.95 b | 0.37 a | 1.20 a |
Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 by Tukey's HSD test.
LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom.
a.u. = absorbance units.
Figure 3Fruit-set (A), cluster weight (B), and yield (C) of vines subjected to different intensity of early leaf removal. Each point is the mean of 12 values. Different letters indicate significant effects of the treatment at P < 0.05 (Tukey's HSD test). LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom. Vertical bars represent standard deviation (n = 24).
Impact of early leaf removal on leaf assimilation (Pn) and stomatal conductance (gs), at 6 days after full bloom and leaf removal.
| LR-0 | 9.7 b | 241.7 b | 0.94 a |
| LR-6 | 10.9 b | 284.2 a | 0.69 b |
| LR-10 | 13.8 a | 301.6 a | 0.33 c |
Means values were based on 8 replicates. Means within the column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P < 0.05 by Tukey's HSD test.
LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom.
Figure 4Effects of early leaf removal on daily leaf net CO2 assimilation rate (A), stomatal conductance (B) and daily integral of Pn three weeks after full bloom (C). Means were based on 3 replicates. Error bars represent standard error of the mean (SE). Symbol (*) represent significant difference at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant effects of the treatment at P < 0.05 by Tukey's HSD test. LR-0, no leaves removed; LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes; LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom.
Figure 5Distribution (%) of 13C in leaf, shoot apex and cluster of grapevine subjected to different intensity of leaf removal from 1 to 168 h after 13CO2 pulsing. Each point represents the mean of 4 values ± SE. Hour 0 represents the moment of pulsing and correspond to 7 days after leaf removal and therefore 7 days after full bloom. Symbol (*) represent significant difference at P < 0.05. LR-0, no leaves removed (A); LR-6, leaves removed from 6 basal nodes (B); LR-10, leaves removed from 10 basal nodes at bloom (C).
Figure 6Hourly difference (Δ) between the pulsed 13C (P–13C) and 13C natural abundance (N–13C) in leaf (A), shoot apex (B), and cluster (C) after 1 to 168 h from 13CO2 pulsing in grapevines subjected to different leaf removal treatments. Each point represents the mean of 4 replicates ± SE. Zero hours from pulsing represents the moment of pulsing and correspond to 7 days after leaf removal and therefore 7 days after full bloom. Symbol (*) represent significant difference at P < 0.05.
Figure 7Linear regression between shoot apex sink strength and cluster fruit-set at harvest. Shoot apex sink strength was calculated as the mean of 13C percentage allocation during the pulsing study (from 7 to 14 days after bloom).
Figure 8Linear regression between shoot apex sink strength and shoot net photosynthesis (Pn/shoot). Shoot apex sink strength was calculated as the mean of 13C percentage allocation during the pulsing study (7 to 14 days after bloom).