Influence of Water Stress on Grapevines Growing in the Field: From Leaf to Whole-Plant Response

Abstract

A comparative study of soil-plant water relations was conducted on three grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L. cvv. carignane, merlot, shiraz) to investigate their adjustment to short-term and long-term water stress under field conditions. Adjustment was a function of the relative stability of the internal plant water status on diurnal and seasonal scales. On a diurnal scale, stomatal closure in response to water vapour pressure directly contributed to this stability. Indirect evidence suggested an influence of the soil water status on the diurnal stomatal activity. On a seasonal scale, sufficient leaf hydration required high whole-plant hydraulic conductance. This was achieved by either daily stomatal regulation or limitation of leaf area. Physiological adjustment to water stress through stomatal control was well developed in cv. carignane, which originated in a Mediterranean environment. However, cv. shiraz, which was of mesic origin, apparently adjusted to water stress by reducing leaf area. Our study demonstrates the utility of integrating data on stomatal conductance, leaf water potential and whole-plant hydraulic conductance to interpret whole plant adaptation to water stress, and elucidates two mechanisms by which genotypes differentially acclimate to water stress.

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

“…They are related more to ABA metabolism, hydraulic signals (cavitation), regulation of expression and activity of aquaporins, and/or electric signals, than changes in leaf water status, measured as leaf water potential. Indeed, with some exceptions, stem water potential has been described as a more preferable indicator of grapevine water status than leaf Correia et al (1990Correia et al ( , 1995, Dobrowski et al (2005), Downton et al (1987), Escalona et al (2003), Flexas et al (1999bFlexas et al ( , 2009), Gamon and Pearcy (1990), Gómez-del-Campo et al (2004), Liu et al (1978), Maroco et al (2002), Moutinho-Pereira et al (2004), Naor and Wample (1994), , Padgett-Johnson et al (2000), Patakas et al (2005), Poni et al (1993), Pou et al (2008), Quick et al (1992), Rodrigues et al (1993Rodrigues et al ( , 2008, Satisha et al (2006), Schultz (2003a), Sivilotti et al (2005), de Souza et al (2005a, 2005b, Winkel and Rambal (1993), Zufferey et al (2000).…”

Stomatal response of Quercus pyrenaica Willd to environmental factors in two sites differing in their annual rainfall (Sierra de Gata, Spain)

“…Stomatal behaviour with respect to humidity may be linear or nonlinear (Jarvis, 1976;Winkel and Rambal, 1990) Jarvis, 1976;Chambers et al, 1985;Winkel and Rambal, 1990;Jones, 1992 (Winkel and Rambal, 1993;Moreno et al, 1996), root water status (Meinzer, 1993) or the proportion of roots in dry soil (Turner, 1991) should be taken into account.…”

Analysis of the Relative Increase in Photosynthetic O2 Uptake When Photosynthesis in Grapevine Leaves Is Inhibited following Low Night Temperatures and/or Water Stress

“…The former has been shown to inhibit grapevine photosynthesis, plant growth, and fruit size and yield (Liu et al, 1978;Schultz andMatthews, 1988a, 1993;Winkel and Rambal, 1993;Greenspan et al, 1994;Delgado et al, 1995;Flexas et al, 1998Flexas et al, , 1999Escalona et al, 1999). There is evidence that, even at high light intensities, the effects of water stress on grapevine photosynthesis are mainly related to stomatal closure, although effects on Calvin-Benson cycle enzymes and PSII efficiency have been also reported (Correia et al, 1995;Chaumont et al, 1997;Escalona et al, 1999;Flexas et al, 1998Flexas et al, , 1999.…”