| Literature DB >> 32668754 |
Tommaso Frioni1, Sergio Tombesi1, Paolo Sabbatini2, Cecilia Squeri1, Nieves Lavado Rodas3, Alberto Palliotti4, Stefano Poni1.
Abstract
In many viticulture regions, multiple summer stresses are occurring with increased frequency and severity because of warming trends. Kaolin-based particle film technology is a technique that can mitigate the negative effects of intense and/or prolonged drought on grapevine physiology. Although a primary mechanism of action of kaolin is the increase of radiation reflection, some indirect effects are the protection of canopy functionality and faster stress recovery by abscisic acid (ABA) regulation. The physiological mechanism underlying the kaolin regulation of canopy functionality under water deficit is still poorly understood. In a dry-down experiment carried out on grapevines, at the peak of stress and when control vines zeroed whole-canopy net CO2 exchange rates/leaf area (NCER/LA), kaolin-treated vines maintained positive NCER/LA (~2 µmol m-2 s-1) and canopy transpiration (E) (0.57 µmol m-2 s-1). Kaolin-coated leaves had a higher violaxanthin (Vx) + antheraxanthin (Ax) + zeaxanthin (Zx) pool and a significantly lower neoxanthin (Nx) content (VAZ) when water deficit became severe. At the peak of water shortage, leaf ABA suddenly increased by 4-fold in control vines, whereas in kaolin-coated leaves the variation of ABA content was limited. Overall, kaolin prevented the biosynthesis of ABA by avoiding the deviation of the VAZ epoxidation/de-epoxidation cycle into the ABA precursor (i.e., Nx) biosynthetic direction. The preservation of the active VAZ cycle and transpiration led to an improved dissipation of exceeding electrons, explaining the higher resilience of canopy functionality expressed by canopies sprayed by kaolin. These results point out the interaction of kaolin with the regulation of the VAZ cycle and the active mechanism of stomatal conductance regulation.Entities:
Keywords: VAZ cycle; Vitis vinifera L.; abscisic acid; drought; particle film technology; xanthophylls
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32668754 PMCID: PMC7404328 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21144950
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) reflected and transmitted at 1:00 p.m. by kaolin.
| Reflected PAR | Transmitted PAR | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (% of Total PAR) | (% of Total PAR) | |||||
| Control | 10.10% | ± | 0.88 b | 8.30% | ± | 0.02 a |
| Kaolin | 15.14% | ± | 0.45 a | 6.86% | ± | 0.41 b |
Different letters mean significant difference per p < 0.05 (t-test).
Figure 1(A)Trends for air (Tamb) and leaf (Tleaf) temperature; (B)midday stem water potential (ΨMD); (C) whole-canopy transpiration (E/LA) and (D) specific whole-canopy net CO2 exchange rate/leaf area (NCER/LA), according to a progressive water shortage (DOY 209–217) and subsequent re-watering (at DOY 218), in vines subjected to the kaolin treatment and in controls. Bars represents standard error (SE), n = 3. Asterisks indicate dates within which differences among treatment were significant (p < 0.05). DOY: day of the year.
Figure 2Correlation between whole-canopy transpiration rate/leaf area (E/LA) and midday stem water potential (ΨMD).
Figure 3(A) Trends for leaf violaxanthin (Vx) + antheraxanthin (Ax) + zeaxanthin (Zx) content, (B) de-epoxidation state, (C) neoxanthin (Nx) content and (D) abscisic acid (ABA) concentration, according to a progressive water shortage (DOY 209–217) and subsequent re-watering (at DOY 218), in vines subjected to the kaolin treatment and in controls. Bars represents standard error, n = 3. Asterisks indicate dates within which differences among treatment were significant (p < 0.05). DOY: day of the year.
Figure 4(A) Course of leaf violaxanthin (Vx) content at dawn; (B) midday to dawn Vx differences and (C) zeaxanthin (Zx) content at midday over the experiment, according to a progressive water shortage (DOY 209–217) and subsequent re-watering (at DOY 218), in vines subjected to the kaolin treatment and in controls. Bars represents standard error, n = 3. Asterisks indicate dates within which differences among treatment were significant (p < 0.05). DOY: day of the year.
Figure 5Correlation between whole-canopy transpiration rate/leaf area (E/LA) and leaf abscisic acid (ABA) content.
Figure 6Correlation between leaf abscisic acid (ABA) content and leaf temperature (Tleaf).