Gas exchange relations of ungrafted grapevines (cv. Carménère) growing under irrigated field conditions.

A study was carried out to evaluate the leaf gas exchange relations and water-use efficiency (WUE) of ungrafted Carmenere (Vitis vinifera L.) grapevines growing under field conditions and different levels of water stress. Stomatal conductance (g s ), transpiration (E), net CO 2 assimilation (A N ) and stem water potential (Ψs) were measured at midday in a drip-irrigated commercial vineyard located in the Maule Valley (Chile) during three growing seasons (2005 to 2009). In addition, the instantaneous (A N /E) and intrinsic (A N /g s ) water-use efficiencies and stomatal sensitivity factor (k) were estimated for the own-rooted grapevines. In this study a significant non-linear relationship was observed between A N and g s (r 2 = 0.82), with values of A N decreasing from 14.9 to 3.5 μmol/m 2/ sec as g s diminished from 0.5 to 0.05 mol/m 2 /sec. This resulted in a progressive increase in WUEi (intrinsic water use efficiency). A significant linear relationship was observed between Ψs and g s (r 2 = 0.39) for measurements taken before and after veraison, with an increasing scattering from -1.6 to -0.4 MPa. Finally, k decreased as water stress increased, with values of 234 and 120 for no and severe water stress respectively, while k ranged from 264 to 480 and 255 to 297 for the measurements taken before and after veraison respectively. Based on the results obtained in the present study, the cultivar Carmenere could be classified as drought tolerant at low water potentials, with a large range of physiological parameters changing in response to water stress.

[1]  J. Flexas,et al.  Drought-inhibition of photosynthesis in C3 plants: stomatal and non-stomatal limitations revisited. , 2002, Annals of botany.

[2]  Jaume Flexas,et al.  Effects of drought on photosynthesis in grapevines under field conditions: an evaluation of stomatal and mesophyll limitations. , 2002, Functional plant biology : FPB.

[3]  J E Begg,et al.  Water potential gradients in field tobacco. , 1970, Plant physiology.

[4]  Cornelis van Leeuwen,et al.  Stem Water Potential is a Sensitive Indicator of Grapevine Water Status , 2001 .

[5]  B. Loveys,et al.  Expression of ABA synthesis and metabolism genes under different irrigation strategies and atmospheric VPDs is associated with stomatal conductance in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv Cabernet Sauvignon) , 2013, Journal of experimental botany.

[6]  Alain Carbonneau,et al.  A multicriteria climatic classification system for grape-growing regions worldwide , 2004 .

[7]  M. M. Chaves,et al.  Grapevine under deficit irrigation: hints from physiological and molecular data. , 2010, Annals of botany.

[8]  P. F. Scholander,et al.  Sap Pressure in Vascular Plants , 1965, Science.

[9]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  Does homeostasis or disturbance of homeostasis in minimum leaf water potential explain the isohydric versus anisohydric behavior of Vitis vinifera L. cultivars? , 2012, Tree physiology.

[10]  João Maroco,et al.  Deficit irrigation in grapevine improves water‐use efficiency while controlling vigour and production quality , 2007 .

[11]  Krista C. Shellie,et al.  Water Productivity, Yield, and Berry Composition in Sustained versus Regulated Deficit Irrigation of Merlot Grapevines , 2014, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[12]  Samuel Ortega-Farías,et al.  Effects of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) water status on water consumption, vegetative growth and grape quality: An irrigation scheduling application to achieve regulated deficit irrigation , 2010 .

[13]  C. van Leeuwen,et al.  Different environmental conditions, different results: the role of controlled environmental stress on grape quality potential and the way to monitor it , 2007 .

[14]  J. Flexas,et al.  Regulation of photosynthesis of C3 plants in response to progressive drought: stomatal conductance as a reference parameter. , 2002, Annals of botany.

[15]  A. Carbonneau,et al.  Response of vine leaf water potential to quick variation in canopy exposure. Example of canopy opening manipulation of Merlot ( Vitis vinifera L.) , 2004 .

[16]  B. G. Coombe,et al.  Growth Stages of the Grapevine: Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages , 1995 .

[17]  J. Girona,et al.  Responses of “Chardonnay” to deficit irrigation applied at different phenological stages: vine growth, must composition, and wine quality , 2012, Irrigation Science.

[18]  Hans R. Schultz,et al.  Differences in hydraulic architecture account for near‐isohydric and anisohydric behaviour of two field‐grown Vitis vinifera L. cultivars during drought , 2003 .

[19]  Irrigation-management decision system ( IMDS ) for vineyards ( Regions VI and VII of Chile ) , 2006 .

[20]  François Tardieu,et al.  Variability among species of stomatal control under fluctuating soil water status and evaporative demand: modelling isohydric and anisohydric behaviours , 1998 .

[21]  J. Moutinho-Pereira,et al.  Leaf Gas Exchange and Water Relations of Grapevines Grown in Three Different Conditions , 2004, Photosynthetica.

[22]  A. Martínez-Cutillas,et al.  Physiological Thresholds for Efficient Regulated Deficit-Irrigation Management in Winegrapes Grown under Semiarid Conditions , 2010, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[23]  M. Mameli,et al.  Deficit irrigation strategies in "Vitis vinifera" L. cv. Cannonau under mediterranean climate. Part I. Physiological responses, growth yield and berry composition , 2016 .

[24]  D. Greer,et al.  Stomatal response of an anisohydric grapevine cultivar to evaporative demand, available soil moisture and abscisic acid. , 2012, Tree physiology.

[25]  J. Spring,et al.  Diurnal cycles of embolism formation and repair in petioles of grapevine (Vitis vinifera cv. Chasselas) , 2011, Journal of experimental botany.

[26]  Shaozhong Kang,et al.  Spatiotemporal variation of crown-scale stomatal conductance in an arid Vitis vinifera L. cv. Merlot vineyard: direct effects of hydraulic properties and indirect effects of canopy leaf area. , 2012, Tree physiology.

[27]  I. E. Woodrow,et al.  A Model Predicting Stomatal Conductance and its Contribution to the Control of Photosynthesis under Different Environmental Conditions , 1987 .

[28]  Francisco Jara-Rojas,et al.  Model Validation for Estimating the Leaf Stomatal Conductance in cv. Cabernet Sauvignon Grapevines , 2009 .

[29]  J. Flexas,et al.  Physiological tools for irrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): An open gate to improve water-use efficiency? , 2005 .

[30]  C. Jacobs,et al.  Stomatal behaviour and photosynthetic rate of unstressed grapevines in semi-arid conditions , 1996 .

[31]  W. Koblet,et al.  Influence of partial defoliation on gas exchange parameters and chlorophyll content of field-grown grapevines - Mechanisms and limitations of the compensation capacity , 2015 .

[32]  J. Flexas,et al.  Improving water use efficiency in grapevines: potential physiological targets for biotechnological improvement. , 2010 .

[33]  Eric Lebon,et al.  A model-based diagnosis tool to evaluate the water stress experienced by grapevine in field sites , 2006 .

[34]  W Hartung,et al.  The long-distance abscisic acid signal in the droughted plant: the fate of the hormone on its way from root to shoot. , 2001, Journal of experimental botany.

[35]  L. S. Pereira,et al.  Crop evapotranspiration : guidelines for computing crop water requirements , 1998 .

[36]  H. Ojeda,et al.  Stomatal behavior of different grapevine cultivars in response to soil water status and air water vapor pressure deficit , 2010 .