A rapid dehydration leaf assay reveals stomatal response differences in grapevine genotypes

Horticulture Research

Volumn 1, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Hopper, Daniel W ^a   Ghan, Ryan ^a   Cramer, Grant R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010455227     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20527276     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/hortres.2014.2     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Sirichandra C, Wasilewska A, Vlad F, Valon C, Leung J. The guard cell as a single-cell model towards understanding drought tolerance and abscisic acid action. J Exp Bot 2009; 60: 1439-1463.
2. Tuberosa R. Phenotyping for drought tolerance of crops in the genomics era. Front Physiol 2012; 3: 347.
3. Chaves MM, Zarrouk O, Francisco R et al. Grapevine under deficit irrigation: hints from physiological and molecular data. Ann Bot 2010; 105: 661-676.
4. Lovisolo C, Perrone I, Carra A et al. Drought-induced changes in development and function of grapevine (Vitis spp.) organs and in their hydraulic and non-hydraulic interactions at the whole-plant level: A physiological and molecular update. Funct Plant Biol 2010; 37: 98-116.
5. Padgett-Johnson M, Williams LE, Walker MA. Vine water relations, gas exchange, and vegetative growth of seventeen VITIS species grown under irrigated and nonirrigated conditions in California. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 2003; 128: 269-276.
6. Schultz HR. Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near-isohydric and anisohydric behaviour of two field-grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought. Plant Cell Environ 2003; 26: 1393-1405.
7. Stocker O. Die Abhängigkeit der Transpiration von den Umweltfaktoren. In: Ruhland W (ed.) Encyclopedia of PLANT PHYSIOLOGY. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1956.
8. Hochberg U, Degu A, Fait A, Rachmilevitch S. Near isohydric grapevine cultivar displays higher photosynthetic efficiency and photorespiration rates under drought stress as compared with near anisohydric grapevine cultivar. Physiol Plant 2013; 147: 443-452.
9. Soar CJ, Speirs J, Maffei SM, Penrose AB, McCarthy MG, Loveys BR. Grape vine varieties Shiraz and Grenache differ in their stomatal response to VPD: Apparent links with ABA physiology and gene expression in leaf tissue. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2006; 12: 2-12.
10. Tardieu F, Simonneau T. Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours. J Exp Bot 1998; 49(Special Issue): 419-432.
11. Lowe KM, Walker MA. Genetic linkage map of the interspecific grape rootstock cross Ramsey (Vitis champinii)3Riparia Gloire (Vitis riparia). Theor Appl Genet 2006; 112: 1582-1592.
12. Abràmoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ. Image processing with ImageJ. Biophotonics Int 2004; 11: 36-42.
13. Chen LIN, Dodd IC, Davies WJ, Wilkinson S. Ethylene limits abscisic acid-or soil drying-induced stomatal closure in aged wheat leaves. Plant Cell Environ 2013 ; 36: 1850-1859.
14. Cramer GR, Urano K, Delrot S, Pezzotti M, Shinozaki K. Effects of abiotic stress on plants: A systems biology perspective. BMC Plant Biol 2011; 11: 163.
15. Jones HG. Monitoring plant and soil water status: established and novel methods revisited and their relevance to studies of drought tolerance. J Exp Bot 2007; 58: 119-130.
16. Vandeleur RK, Mayo G, Shelden MC, Gilliham M, Kaiser BN, Tyerman SD. The role of plasma membrane intrinsic protein aquaporins in water transport through roots: diurnal and drought stress responses reveal different strategies between isohydric and anisohydric cultivars of grapevine. Plant Physiol 2009; 149: 445-460.
17. Vandeleur RK, Sullivan W, Athman A et al. Rapid shoot-To-root signalling regulates root hydraulic conductance via aquaporins. Plant Cell Environ; e-pub ahead of print 8 September 2013; doi:10.1111/pce.12175.
18. This P, Lacombe T, Thomas MR. Historical origins and genetic diversity of wine grapes. Trends Genet 2006; 22: 511-519.
19. Schultz HR. Water relations and photosynthetic responses of two grapevine cultivars of different geographical origin during water stress. Acta Hort 1996; 427: 251-266.
20. Pantin F, Monnet F, Jannaud D et al. The dual effect of abscisic acid on stomata. New Phytol 2013; 197: 65-72.
21. Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K. A novel cis-Acting element in an Arabidopsis gene is involved in responsiveness to drought, low-Temperature, or high-salt stress. Plant Cell 1994; 6: 251-264.
22. Hethzerington S, Smillie R. Humidity-sensitive degreening and regreening of leaves of Borya nitida Labill. As followed by changes in chlorophyll fluorescence. Funct Plant Biol 1982; 9: 587-599.
23. Taiz L, Zeiger E. Plant PHYSIOLOGY. Sanderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc., 2010.
24. Pantin F, Simonneau T, Muller B. Coming of leaf age: control of growth by hydraulics and metabolics during leaf ontogeny. New Phytol 2012; 196: 349-366.
25. Boyer JS, Wong SC, Farquhar GD. CO2 and water vapor exchange across leaf cuticle (epidermis) at various water potentials. Plant Physiol 1997; 114: 185-191.
26. Carbonneau A. The early selection of grapevine rootstocks for resistance to drought conditions. Am J Enol Viticult 1985; 36: 195-198.
27. McCarthy MG, Cirami RM, Furkaliev DG. Rootstock response of Shiraz (Vitis vinifera) grapevines to dry and drip-irrigated conditions. Aust J Grape Wine Res 1997; 3: 95-98.
28. Soar CJ, Dry PR, Loveys BR. Scion photosynthesis and leaf gas exchange in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Shiraz: mediation of rootstock effects via xylem sap ABA. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2006; 12: 82-96.
29. Stevens RM, Pech JM, Gibberd MR, Walker RR, Nicholas PR. Reduced irrigation and rootstock effects on vegetative growth, yield and its components, and leaf physiological responses of Shiraz. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2010; 16: 413-425.
30. Zabadal TJ. A water potential threshold for the increase of abscisic acid in leaves. Plant Physiol 1974; 53: 125-127.
31. Wilkinson S, Kudoyarova GR, Veselov DS, Arkhipova TN, Davies WJ. Plant hormone interactions: innovative targets for crop breeding and management. J Exp Bot 2012; 63: 3499-3509.
32. Kurahashi Y, Terashima A, Takumi S. Variation in dehydration tolerance, ABA sensitivity and related gene expression patterns in D-genome progenitor and synthetic hexaploid wheat lines. Int J Mol Sci 2009; 10: 2733-2751.
33. Cramer GR, Quarrie SA. Abscisic acid is correlated with the leaf growth inhibition of four genotypes of maize differing in their response to salinity. Funct Plant Biol 2002; 29: 111-115.
34. Soar CJ, Speirs J, Maffei SM, Loveys BR. Gradients in stomatal conductance, xylem sap ABA and bulk leaf ABA along canes of Vitis vinifera cv. Shiraz: molecular and physiological studies investigating their source. Funct Plant Biol 2004; 31: 659-669.
35. Deluc L, Quilici D, Decendit A et al. Water deficit alters differentially metabolic pathways affecting important flavor and quality traits in grape berries of Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay. BMC Genomics 2009; 10: 212.