4.7 Article

Phosphorus acquisition efficiency and phosphorus remobilization mediate genotype-specific differences in shoot phosphorus content in grapevine

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1742-1751

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/tpy074

关键词

P-32 labelling; Vitis vinifera; Vitis spp.

类别

资金

  1. French National Research Agency (Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)) [ANR-10-LABX-45]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crop productivity is limited by phosphorus (P) and this will probably increase in the future. Rootstocks offer a means to increase the sustainability and nutrient efficiency of agriculture. It is known that rootstocks alter petiole P concentrations in grapevine. The objective of this work was to determine which functional processes are involved in genotype-specific differences in scion P content by quantifying P uptake, P remobilization from the reserves in the cutting and P allocation within the plant in three grapevine genotypes. Cuttings of two American rootstocks and one European scion variety were grown in sand and irrigated with a nutrient solution containing either high P (0.6 mM) or low P (0 mM). The high P solution was labelled with P-32 throughout the experiment. The grapevine genotypes studied show variation in the inhibition of shoot and root biomass in response to low P supply, and P supply also affected shoot, but not root, P concentrations. Genotype-specific differences in total P content were related to differences in P acquisition and utilization efficiencies (PAE and PUE, respectively). Phosphorus allocation within the plant was not affected by genotype or P supply. The rootstock genotype known to confer high petiole P content in the vineyard was associated with a high PAE under high P, and a high PUE under low P. This suggests that the petiole P concentrations in the vineyard are related to genotype-specific differences in PAE and PUE, and that these traits could be used for rootstock selection programmes in the future.

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

4.7
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