| Literature DB >> 33167584 |
Amaia Nogales1, Hugo Ribeiro2, Julio Nogales-Bueno2,3, Lee D Hansen4, Elsa F Gonçalves1, João Lucas Coito1, Ana Elisa Rato2, Augusto Peixe2, Wanda Viegas1, Hélia Cardoso5.
Abstract
Heat stress negatively affects several physiological and biochemical processes in grapevine plants. In this work, two new methods, calorespirometry, which has been used to determine temperature adaptation in plants, and near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy, which has been used to determine several grapevine-related traits and to discriminate among varieties, were tested to evaluate grapevine response to high temperatures. 'Touriga Nacional' variety grapevines, inoculated or not with Rhizoglomus irregulare or Funneliformis mosseae, were used in this study. Calorespirometric parameters and NIR spectra, as well as other parameters commonly used to assess heat injury in plants, were measured before and after high temperature exposure. Growth rate and substrate carbon conversion efficiency, calculated from calorespirometric measurements, and stomatal conductance, were the most sensitive parameters for discriminating among high temperature responses of control and inoculated grapevines. The results revealed that, although this vine variety can adapt its physiology to temperatures up to 40 °C, inoculation with R. irregulare could additionally help to sustain its growth, especially after heat shocks. Therefore, the combination of calorespirometry together with gas exchange measurements is a promising strategy for screening grapevine heat tolerance under controlled conditions and has high potential to be implemented in initial phases of plant breeding programs.Entities:
Keywords: Vitis vinifera L.; arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; chlorophyll fluorescence; membrane permeability; relative chlorophyll content; stomatal conductance; stress tolerance
Year: 2020 PMID: 33167584 PMCID: PMC7694551 DOI: 10.3390/plants9111499
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Neighbor-joining tree of nuclear large subunit (LSU) ribosomal RNA gene sequence. The tree shows the phylogenetic relationships among the tree operational taxonomic units (OTUs) identified in original grapevine root samples proceeding from the nursery, the two arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) present in the inocula used in the experiment, and other representative species and isolates of Glomeromycota phylum. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 1.93277612 is shown. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches [65]. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Tamura–Nei method [66] and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. All positions containing gaps and missing data were eliminated. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA7 [67]. Taxon names used in the neighbor-joining tree were adapted according to the latest nomenclature of AMF published at Mycobank.
Root mycorrhizal colonization rate three months after inoculation (n = 3) and ten months after inoculation (n = 5) in ‘Touriga Nacional’ variety vines grafted onto 1103 Paulsen rootstock. Data represent the average values ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences in group means for each time point according to Duncan’s a posteori test. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
| Inoculation Treatment | 3 Months after Inoculation | 10 Months after Inoculation |
|---|---|---|
| Non-inoculated | 0.78 ± 0.007 a | 0.81 ± 0.296 a |
| Inoculated with | 0.63 ± 0.008 b | 0.75 ± 0.164 b |
| Inoculated wit | 0.70 ± 0.039 ab | 0.76 ± 0.379 ab |
Figure 2Normalized difference vegetation index in ‘Touriga Nacional’ variety vine plants grafted onto 1103 Paulsen rootstock measured along the first growing season. Bars indicate the average value (n = 5) ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences in group means according to pairwise multiple comparisons conducted using the simulation method of Edwards and Berry [70]. Values within the box indicate the p-value for the significance of the main factors and their interaction. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
Figure 3Total leaf area per plant in ‘Touriga Nacional’ variety vine plants grafted onto 1103 Paulsen rootstock. Bars indicate the average value (n = 5) ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences in group means according to Duncan’s a posteriori test. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
P-values of the test for the analysis of the effects of the different factors and their interactions. Statistical analysis was done by fitting a linear model considering two fixed factors (mycorrhizal inoculation and long-term heat stress exposure), their interaction, and an error covariance matrix allowing correlation among observations from the same plant exposed to the different treatments. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
| Effects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relative Electrolite Leakage | Stomatal Conductance | Ratio of Variable to Maximum Chlorophyll Fluorescence | Relative Chlorophyll Content | |
| Long-term heat stress exposure | 0.004 | <0.001 | 0.325 | <0.001 |
| Mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.638 | 0.006 | 0.959 | 0.675 |
| Long-term heat stress exposure x Mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.276 | 0.061 | 0.907 | 0.586 |
Measurements of physiological parameters in plants inoculated or not with mycorrhizal fungi and exposed or not to a long-term heat stress treatment. Values indicate mean ± standard error (n = 5). Different letters indicate significant differences in group means according to pairwise multiple comparisons conducted using the simulation method of Edwards and Berry [70]. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
| Mycorrhizal Treaments | Relative Electrolite Leakage (%) | Stomatal Conductance (mmol. m2.s−1) | Ratio of Variable to Maximum Chlorophyll Fluorescence (Ratio) | Relative Chlorophyll Content (SPAD Units) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before Stress | After 5-Day Exposure to Heat Stress | Before Stress | After 5-Day Exposure to Heat stress | Before Stress | After 5-Day Exposure to Heat Stress | Before Stress | After 5-Day Exposure to Heat Stress | |
| Non-inoculated | 4.51 ± 0.438 | 3.63 ± 0.121 | 67 ± 8.5 b | 119 ± | 0.7587 ± 0.0046 | 0.7579 ± 0.0047 | 4.24 ± 0.327 | 5.47 ± 0.282 |
| Inoculated with | 5.11 ± 0.583 | 3.81 ± 0.255 | 58 ± 1.8 b | 228 ± | 0.7625 ± 0.0077 | 0.7574 ± 0.0031 | 4.32 ± 0.186 | 5.91 ± 0.303 |
| Inoculated with | 4.21 ± 0.219 | 3.90 ± 0.160 | 65 ± 7.8 b | 190 ± | 0.7606 ± 0.0046 | 0.7552 ± 0.0046 | 4.69 ± 0.259 | 5.67 ± 0.478 |
Figure 4Apical leaves of a ‘Touriga Nacional’ grapevine plant. (a) Before plant exposure to 5 days of heat stress; (b) After plant exposure to heat stress for 5 days.
P-values of the test for the effects of the different factors and their interactions. Statistical analysis was done by fitting a linear model considering three fixed factors (mycorrhizal inoculation short-term heat stress and long-term heat stress), their interaction, and an error covariance matrix allowing correlation among observations from the same plant exposed to the different treatments. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
| Effects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Metabolic Heat Rate (Rq) | Respiratory Rate | Structural Biomass Formation Rate | Carbon use Efficiency | |
| Long-term heat stress exposure | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.0003 |
| Short-term heat stress exposure | <0.0001 | 0.3799 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
| Mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.1069 | 0.1602 | 0.6960 | 0.4647 |
| Long-term heat stress exposure x mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.5035 | 0.9855 | 0.8484 | 0.3530 |
| Short-term heat stress exposure x mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.8677 | 0.9479 | 0.6674 | 0.1634 |
| Long-term heat stress exposure x short-term heat stress exposure | 0.5035 | 0.7915 | 0.0556 | 0.9512 |
| Long-term heat stress exposure x short-term stress x mycorrhizal inoculation | 0.2361 | 0.7279 | 0.8596 | 0.7685 |
Figure 5Calorespirometric parameters. (a) Metabolic heat rate, Rq; (b) CO2 production rate, Rco2; (c) Structural biomass formation rate, Rbiomass; (d) Carbon use efficiency, Ɛ. Bars represent the average of five samples ± standard error. Different letters indicate significant differences according to pairwise multiple comparisons conducted using the simulation method of Edwards and Berry [70]. Significant effect, p-value < 0.05.
Figure 6Score plot of plant samples in the plane defined by principal components 1 (PC1) and 2 (PC2) considering (a) exposure to elevated temperatures, before and after five days heat stress exposure, or (b) different mycorrhizal inoculation treatments, i.e., non-inoculated, inoculated with R. irregulare or inoculated with F. mosseae.
Main statistical descriptors for the modified partial least squares (PLS) models developed in the near infrared reflectance zone close to 1100–2300 nm.
| Spectral Pre-Treatments | Reference Variables | N | PLS Factors | Mean | SD | SEC | RSQ | SECV | SECV (%) | SEP | SEP (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNV + detrend 2,5,5,1 | Fv/Fm1 | 27 | 2 | 0.76 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.72 | 0.01 | 1.81 | 0.01 | 0.66 |
| Detrend 0,0,1,1 | EL2 | 25 | 4 | 3.94 | 0.51 | 0.22 | 0.81 | 0.33 | 8.43 | 0.20 | 5.05 |
| SNV 2,10,10,1 | ChlC3 | 28 | 4 | 5.05 | 0.98 | 0.30 | 0.91 | 0.67 | 13.37 | 0.27 | 5.35 |
| MSC 0,0,1,1 | Ɛ4 | 16 | 3 | 0.66 | 0.17 | 0.10 | 0.67 | 0.14 | 20.78 | 0.08 | 12.60 |
| SNV + detrend 0,0,1,1 | Rq5 | 25 | 2 | 5343.0 | 1530.57 | 1117.66 | 0.47 | 1229.66 | 23.01 | 1048.46 | 19.62 |
| SNV 2,5,5,1 | Rco26 | 28 | 3 | 12.02 | 6.19 | 2.37 | 0.85 | 4.76 | 31.14 | 2.20 | 14.38 |
| MSC 2,10,10,1 | gs7 | 27 | 1 | 112.37 | 62.92 | 49.14 | 0.39 | 56.83 | 37.74 | 47.29 | 31.41 |
| MSC 0,0,1,1 | Rbiomass8 | 16 | 3 | 45.69 | 26.65 | 16.21 | 0.63 | 24.39 | 38.82 | 14.04 | 22.34 |
1 Ratio of variable fluorescence and maximum fluorescence, unitless; 2 relative electrolyte leakage, in percentage units; 3 relative chlorophyll content, in SPAD relative units; 4 carbon use efficiency, ratio; 5 metabolic heat rate, in mJ s−1 g−1 dry weight; 6 respiratory rate, in nmol CO2 s−1 g−1 dry weight; 7 stomatal conductance, in mmol m2 s−1; 8 structural biomass formation rate, in nmol C s−1 g−1 dry weight. Spectral pretreatments are denoted by four numbers, i.e., first number, the number of the derivative; second number, gap over which the derivative is calculated; third number, the number of data points in a running average or smoothing; and fourth number, second smoothing according to [71]. N, number of samples used to obtain the calibration equation after eliminating samples for chemical reasons (T criterion); SD, standard deviation; SEC, standard error of calibration; RSQ, coefficient of determination; SECV, standard error of cross-validation (8 cross-validation groups); SEP, standard error of prediction (internal validation).
Figure 7Comparison between the predicted data (ANL) and the data obtained experimentally (LAB) for the reference variables. (a) Fv/Fm; (b) Relative electrolyte leakage; (c) Relative chlorophyll content; (d) Carbon use efficiency. RSQ, coefficient of determination; SEP, standard error of prediction (internal validation); SEP(C), standard error of prediction corrected for the bias.