4.2 Article

Cultural Conditions and Propagule Type Influence Relative Chloride Exclusion in Grapevine Rootstocks

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ENOLOGY AND VITICULTURE
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 241-250

出版社

AMER SOC ENOLOGY VITICULTURE
DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2013.12073

关键词

chloride exclusion; grapevine; rootstock; salinity resistance; salt resistance

资金

  1. California Grape Rootstock Improvement Commission
  2. Fruit Tree, Nut Tree and Grapevine Improvement Advisory Board
  3. California Table Grape Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Breeding for salt resistance in grapevines and other crops has made slow progress despite decades of research. One factor contributing to this problem in grapevines is the weak or nonexistent correlation of field and greenhouse performance observed in some studies when salt resistance is assessed by chloride accumulation in leaf tissue. To develop a rapid chloride exclusion assay for use in rootstock breeding, multiple systems were tested. Results were obtained wherein the well-established field performance of specific genotypes was augmented, equalized, or reversed when in containerized culture. One assay using fritted clay media and herbaceous cuttings yielded a rank order and relative chloride uptake among the tested genotypes that was similar to published values from long-term studies in experimental vineyards. This assay used only 14 days of high salt exposure, was inexpensive, required relatively little space and maintenance, and has continued to provide reliable data in subsequent experiments. The results demonstrate the potential for considerable plasticity in chloride exclusion exhibited by ungrafted grapevines when assayed in containers. This underscores the importance of system design wherein genotypes of known capacity for chloride exclusion are accurately calibrated to their established field performance. This study describes an empirically derived assay that replicates these conditions closely enough to be used in a rootstock breeding program for improved chloride exclusion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据