4.7 Article

Diurnal cycles of embolism formation and repair in petioles of grapevine (Vitis vinifera cv. Chasselas)

Journal

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
Volume 62, Issue 11, Pages 3885-3894

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/err081

Keywords

grapevines (Vitis vinifera L; ); hydraulic conductivity; stomatal conductance; water relations; xylem embolism

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The impact of water deficit on stomatal conductance (g(s)), petiole hydraulic conductance (K-petiole), and vulnerability to cavitation (PLC, percentage loss of hydraulic conductivity) in leaf petioles has been observed on field-grown vines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chasselas). Petioles were highly vulnerable to cavitation, with a 50% loss of hydraulic conductivity at a stem xylem water potential (Psi(x)) of -0.95 MPa, and up to 90% loss of conductivity at a Psi(x) of -1.5 MPa. K-petiole described a daily cycle, decreasing during the day as water stress and evapotranspiration increased, then rising again in the early evening up to the previous morning's K-petiole levels. In water-stressed vines, PLC increased sharply during the daytime and reached maximum values (70-90%) in the middle of the afternoon. Embolism repair occurred in petioles from the end of the day through the night. Indeed, PLC decreased in darkness in water-stressed vines. PLC variation in irrigated plants showed the same tendency, but with a smaller amplitude. The Chasselas cultivar appears to develop hydraulic segmentation, in which petiole cavitation plays an important role as a 'hydraulic fuse', thereby limiting leaf transpiration and the propagation of embolism and preserving the integrity of other organs (shoots and roots) during water stress. In the present study, progressive stomatal closure responded to a decrease in K-petiole and an increase in cavitation events. Almost total closure of stomata (90%) was measured when PLC in petioles reached > 90%.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available