English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Understanding the physiological basis underlying the water stress responses in grapevine is becoming increasingly topical owing to the challenges that climate change will impose to grapevine agriculture. Here we used cv. Pinot gris (clone H1), grafted on a series of tolerant (1103Paulsen; P), sensitive (SO4) and recently selected (Georgikon28; G28, Georgikon121; G121, Zamor17; Z17) rootstocks. Plants were either subjected to reduced water availability (WS) or maintained at pot capacity (WW). Photosynthetic (light response curves), stomatal and in vivo gas exchange analysis were carried out as well as dynamics of daily water use (WU), leaf area accumulation with affordable RGB imaging pipelines and leaf water potential. Significant genotypic variation was recorded between rootstocks for most of the traits analyzed under optimal conditions with P and SO4 showing a more vigorous growth, higher CO2 assimilation rate, stomatal conductance and stomatal density per unit of leaf area than G28, G121, Z17 (p &lt; 0.001). Under WS, rootstocks induced different water stress response in Pinot gris, with G28 and G121 showing a higher sensitivity of water use to reduced water availability (WS) (p = 0.021) and no variation for midday leaf water potential until severe WS. P, Z17 and to some extent SO4 induced a pronounced near-anisohydric response with a general WU maintenance followed by reduction in leaf water potential even at high levels of soil water content. In addition, G28 and G121 showed a less marked slope in the linear relationship between daily water use and VPD (p = 0.008) suggesting elevated sensitivity of transpiration to evaporative demand. This led to an insensitivity for total dry weight biomass of G28 and G121 under WS conditions (p &lt; 0.001). This work provides: (i) an in-depth analysis for a series of preferable traits under WS in Pinot gris; (ii) a characterization of Pinot gris × rootstock interaction and a series of desirable traits under WS induced by several rootstocks; (iii) the potential benefit for the use a series of affordable methods (e.g., RGB imaging) to easily detect dynamic changes in biomass in grapevine and quickly phenotype genotypes with superior responses under WS. In conclusion, the near-isohydric and conservative behavior observed for G28 and G121 coupled with their low vigor suggest them as potential Pinot gris rootstock candidates for sustaining grapevine productivity in shallow soils likely to develop terminal stress conditions.

Rootstock Genotypes Shape the Response of cv. Pinot gris to Water Deficit