| Literature DB >> 35893628 |
Anna Molnár1, József Geml1,2, Adrienn Geiger1,3, Carla Mota Leal2,3, Glodia Kgobe3, Adrienn Mária Tóth4, Szabolcs Villangó4, Lili Mézes1, Márk Czeglédi1, György Lőrincz4, Zsolt Zsófi4.
Abstract
Improving our knowledge on biotic and abiotic factors that influence the composition of the grapevine mycobiome is of great agricultural significance, due to potential effects on plant health, productivity, and wine characteristics. Here, we assessed the influence of scion cultivar on the diversity and composition of fungal communities in the berries and leaves of three different cultivars. We generated DNA metabarcoding data, and statistically compared the richness, relative abundance, and composition of several functional groups of fungi among cultivars, which are partly explained by measured differences in chemical composition of leaves and berries and physiological traits of leaves. Fungal communities in leaves and berries show contrasting patterns among cultivars. The richness and relative abundance of fungal functional groups statistically differ among berry and leaf samples, but less so among cultivars. Community composition of the dominant functional groups of fungi, i.e., plant pathogens in leaves and saprotrophs in berries, differs significantly among cultivars. We also detect cultivar-level differences in the macro- and microelement content of the leaves, and in acidity and sugar concentration of berries. Our findings suggest that there appears to be a relatively diverse set of fungi that make up the grapevine mycobiome at the sampled terroir that spans several cultivars, and that both berry and leaf mycobiomes are likely influenced by the chemical characteristics of berries and leaves, e.g., pH and the availability of nutrients and simple carbohydrates. Finally, the correlation between fungal community composition and physiological variables in leaves is noteworthy, and merits further research to explore causality. Our findings offer novel insights into the microbial dynamics of grapevine considering plant chemistry and physiology, with implications for viticulture.Entities:
Keywords: Vitis; endophytic fungi; gas exchange; microbiome; viticulture; water potential
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893628 PMCID: PMC9331551 DOI: 10.3390/plants11151924
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Boxplots showing the ASV richness and the rarefied read abundance of dominant fungal genera among all samples, based on the rarefied dataset. Means were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests, with letters denoting significant differences within each boxplot. Abbreviations: F—Furmint, K—Kadarka, S—Syrah, B—grape berry sample, L—leaf sample.
Figure 2Boxplots showing the ASV richness and the rarefied read abundance of functional groups of fungi among all samples, based on the rarefied dataset. Means were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests, with letters denoting significant differences within each boxplot. Abbreviations: F—Furmint, K—Kadarka, S—Syrah, B—grape berry sample, L—leaf sample.
Figure 3Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination plots showing the differences in community composition of various functional groups of fungi among berry and leaf samples. The ordinations were based on a Bray–Curtis distance matrix generated from the Hellinger-transformed abundance table. Ellipses show the standard deviation of the compositional differences among samples from the same cultivar. R2 values indicate the explained variance of compositional differences among samples explained by the cultivar, based on PerMANOVA analyses (only statistically significant results are shown).
Figure 4Boxplots showing the total beta diversity and its replacement and nestedness components in various functional groups of fungi, based on pairwise comparisons of samples within and between cultivars. Means were compared using ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests, with letters denoting significant differences within each boxplot. Abbreviations: F—Furmint, K—Kadarka, S—Syrah.
Figure 5Correlation of total beta diversity and its replacement and nestedness components of the total fungal community, with pairwise differences in measured physiological characteristics factors in leaf samples. Asterisks indicate significance levels: *: p < 0.05 and ***: p < 0.001.
The list of indicator ASVs significantly associated with berries or leaves of a specific scion cultivar with the corresponding p-value, matching species hypothesis, ITS2 rDNA sequence similarity (%), taxonomic classification, and assigned functional guild of the most similar matching sequence in the UNITE+INSD dynamic species hypotheses database (version released on 10 May 2021).
| ASV |
| SH | % | Matching Taxon | Class | Function |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Berry | ||||||
| Furmint | ||||||
| ASV01064 | 0.016 | SH1646443.08FU | 95.4 | Agaricomycetes | ||
| ASV00648 | 0.015 | SH1559713.08FU | 99.6 | Dothideomycetes | ||
| ASV00359 | 0.031 | SH1189171.08FU | 99.7 | Microbotryomycetes | MP | |
| ASV00229 | 0.025 | SH1524265.08FU | 99.6 | Dothideomycetes | ||
| ASV00731 | 0.023 | SH1517815.08FU | 99.7 |
| Agaricomycetes | WOOD |
| ASV00470 | 0.032 | SH1185123.08FU | 99.7 |
| Microbotryomycetes | SAP |
| ASV00712 | 0.040 | SH1575129.08FU | 100 |
| Microbotryomycetes | MP |
| ASV00279 | 0.037 | SH2232205.08FU | 99.7 |
| Dothideomycetes | LITTER |
| ASV00441 | 0.037 | SH1646414.08FU | 98.8 | Agaricomycetes | ||
| ASV00355 | 0.045 | SH2232205.08FU | 100 |
| Dothideomycetes | LITTER |
| ASV00270 | 0.042 | SH1610160.08FU | 99.6 |
| Sordariomycetes | PPATH |
| Kadarka | ||||||
| ASV00212 | 0.026 | SH1635391.08FU | 98.2 |
| Dothideomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV00061 | 0.017 | SH1507512.08FU | 98.3 |
| Dothideomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV00366 | 0.014 | SH1188671.08FU | 95.2 |
| Dothideomycetes | COM |
| ASV00027 | 0.024 | SH1528219.08FU | 98.9 | Tremellomycetes | SAP | |
| Syrah | ||||||
| ASV00266 | 0.024 | SH1564713.08FU | 98 |
| Dothideomycetes | WOOD |
| Leaf | ||||||
| Furmint | ||||||
| ASV00142 | 0.013 | SH1609774.08FU | 99.6 |
| Tremellomycetes | LITTER |
| ASV00012 | 0.016 | SH1515148.08FU | 99.3 |
| Dothideomycetes | SAP |
| ASV02203 | 0.046 | SH1575129.08FU | 100 |
| Microbotryomycetes | MP |
| ASV00908 | 0.022 | SH1540544.08FU | 96.3 |
| Exobasidiomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV03652 | 0.038 | SH1615186.08FU | 96.7 |
| Ustilaginomycetes | PPATH |
| Kadarka | ||||||
| ASV00352 | 0.001 | SH1562822.08FU | 100 |
| Leotiomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV00051 | 0.011 | SH1575708.08FU | 96.9 | Pleosporaceae sp. | Dothideomycetes | |
| ASV00257 | 0.016 | SH1505878.08FU | 96.8 | Dothideomycetes | WOOD | |
| ASV00454 | 0.013 | SH1560734.08FU | 100 | Herpotrichiellaceae sp. | Eurotiomycetes | |
| ASV01091 | 0.028 | SH2337384.08FU | 99.6 |
| Dothideomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV00010 | 0.001 | SH1171505.08FU | 99 | Ascomycota sp. | unidentified | |
| ASV00084 | 0.030 | SH2131097.08FU | 99.3 |
| Dothideomycetes | PPATH |
| Syrah | ||||||
| ASV00702 | 0.011 | SH1565276.08FU | 100 |
| Agaricomycetes | WOOD |
| ASV00947 | 0.006 | SH1155568.08FU | 98.7 |
| Sordariomycetes | WOOD |
| ASV00178 | 0.041 | SH2176172.08FU | 97.6 |
| Dothideomycetes | LITTER |
| ASV00477 | 0.002 | SH1246647.08FU | 99.4 |
| Agaricomycetes | SAP |
| ASV00168 | 0.021 | SH1599074.08FU | 99.3 |
| Agaricomycetes | WOOD |
| ASV00521 | 0.025 | SH2568050.08FU | 98.4 |
| Leotiomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV02168 | 0.013 | SH1574527.08FU | 100 |
| Tremellomycetes | SAP |
| ASV00847 | 0.039 | SH1515148.08FU | 99 |
| Dothideomycetes | SAP |
| ASV04003 | 0.043 | SH1555460.08FU | 99 |
| Sordariomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV02439 | 0.038 | SH1643363.08FU | 99.6 |
| Dothideomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV04868 | 0.043 | SH1572518.08FU | 99.7 |
| Pucciniomycetes | PPATH |
| ASV01105 | 0.039 | SH1539608.08FU | 98.5 |
| Sordariomycetes | SAP |
| ASV01832 | 0.044 | SH1542846.08FU | 99.7 |
| Dothideomycetes | WOOD |
| ASV01602 | 0.045 | SH1509408.08FU | 99 |
| Ustilaginomycetes | PPATH |
Abbreviations for functional guilds: COM = commensalist, LITTER = litter decomposer, MP = mycoparasite, PPATH = plant pathogen, SAP = generalist saprotroph, WOOD = wood decomposer.
Chemical parameters of leaf and berry samples from the three investigated grapevine cultivars: Furmint (F), Kadarka (K), and Syrah (S).
| Furmint | Kadarka | Syrah | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| P ** | 1627.80 ± 151.84 b | 1923.57 ± 84.79 a | 1407.17 ± 75.19 b |
| Fe * | 76.47 ± 11.42 a | 65.77 ± 3.20 ab | 53.43 ± 1.25 b |
| Zn | 151.43 ± 9.49 | 138.50 ± 18.79 | 132.47 ± 1.33 |
| Ca ** | 24,795.57 ± 1650.34 b | 23,770.10 ± 2531.14 b | 30,613.27 ± 967.30 a |
| Cu | 11.20 ± 4.62 | 9.57 ± 4.61 | 5.77 ± 1.03 |
| B | 115.20 ± 14.13 | 93.67 ± 19.61 | 94.33 ± 4.34 |
| K | 6897.20 ± 321.18 | 6903.80 ± 614.66 | 6083.83 ± 466.27 |
| Mn | 132.10 ± 26.69 | 163.73 ± 3.01 | 163.50 ± 5.09 |
| Mg ** | 4584.60 ± 176.31 b | 4110.17 ± 99.94 b | 5604.50 ± 597.11 a |
| Al | 162.20 ± 97.33 | 93.40 ± 20.20 | 122.13 ± 1.91 |
| Na | 975.07 ± 45.35 | 1003.90 ± 89.86 | 1075.10 ± 18.53 |
| N ** | 1.94 ± 0.07 b | 1.98 ± 0.08 b | 2.34 ± 0.01 a |
| C | 42.78 ± 0.53 | 42.38 ± 0.45 | 42.94 ± 0.33 |
| S | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.19 ± 0.02 |
|
| |||
| Brix index *** | 24.50 ± 0.00 a | 23.53 ± 0.45 b | 21.00 ± 0.00 c |
| Total acid *** | 7.33 ± 0.06 a | 4.57 ± 0.12 b | 4.07 ± 0.06 c |
| Malic acid | 2.63 ± 0.90 | 3.37 ± 0.02 | 3.46 ± 0.01 |
| Alpha-amino nitrogen ** | 117.00 ± 2.65 b | 125.67 ± 4.93 ab | 133.33 ± 3.51 a |
| pH *** | 3.15 ± 0.01 c | 3.37 ± 0.02 b | 3.46 ± 0.01 a |
Macro- and micro-nutrient contents in leaves were determined with MP-AES and CNS, while sugar, total acid, and alpha-amino nitrogen contents, as well as pH, of berries were measured with a WineScan™ FT. Values are given as mean ± standard deviation. Significance was determined using one-way ANOVA (* = significant at p < 0.05; ** = significant at p < 0.1, *** = significant at p < 0.001). Values are expressed in ppm, in % dry weight for N, C, and S, and in g/L and in mg/L for acid concentrations. Within each row, letters denote significant differences based on Tukey’s HSD test.
Viticultural characteristics of the investigated grapevine varieties [47,48,49].
| Cultivar | Furmint | Kadarka | Syrah |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin |
|
|
|
| Time of bud burst (OIV 301) a | medium | late | early/medium |
| Time of full bloom (OIV 302) | late/very late | late | medium/late |
| Time of the onset of berry ripening (veraison (OIV 303) | medium | late | medium |
| Time of full physiological maturity of berry (OIV 304) | medium | late/very late | medium |
| Bunch: density (OIV 204) | dense | dense/very dense | medium/dense |
| Bunch: single bunch weight (OIV 502) | very low/low | medium/high | medium |
| Berry: single berry weight (OIV 503) | low | medium/high | low |
| Yield per m2 (OIV 504) | low/medium | high | high |
a based on standard grapevine descriptors of the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV).