Effects of Deficit Irrigation on Some Morphological Characteristics of Grape (Vitis vinifera cv. ʽAsgariʼ) Symbiosis with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal

علوم باغبانی

Article 8, Volume 32, Issue 4, March 2019, Pages 581-592   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jhorts4.v32i4.70311

Authors

Masud Fattahi^* ; Abdorahman Mohammadkhani

shahrekord

Abstract

Introduction: Abiotic stresses, in particular drought, not only compromise crop quality and limit yield, but also restrict the geographical range over which crop production is viable. Plant species have evolved a number of physiological and molecular means to cope with adverse environmental conditions. Grapevine is a perennial crop grown in various areas around the world. It is highly responsive to local environmental conditions and viticultural practices. Abiotic stresses cause extensive losses to agricultural productivity. Grapevine is no exception to the rule and faces several abiotic stresses throughout its lifespan. Drought, salinity, or heavy metals are serious problems in many parts of the world. The potential of AMF to enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stress conditions has long been known, and their use in sustainable agricultural systems will be of tremendous importance for soil quality and crop productivity under severe edapho-climatic conditions. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), a kind of beneficial soil microorganism, can create a symbiotic association with plant roots forming arbuscular mycorrhizas (AMs), which play a role in the regulation of plant growth. This research was carried out in order to determine the effect of deficit irrigation on morphological characteristics of grapevine ʽAsgariʼ cultivar in greenhouse conditions in 2016.
Materials and Methods: The layout was as a factorial experiment in a completely randomized design with three replication and two factors, including Arbuscular mycorrhizal and irrigation regimes. Irrigation treatments were irrigation with 100% moisture content of field capacity (control), 70% moisture content between field capacity and permanent wilting point (MAD 30) and 40% moisture content between field capacity and permanent wilting point (MAD 60) and mycorrhizal treatments was including non-use of  mycorrhizal and use of Glomus mosseae, G. intraradices, G. etunicatum and G. verciform. Some morphological traits including height, root length, root volume and root density, fresh and dry weight of leaf, stem and root, leaf area, number of leaf damage, leaf area, leaf diameter and symbiosis percent of grape roots with fungi were measured.
Results and Discussion: The results showed that mycorrhizal and 100% irrigation treatments increased the fresh and dry weight of leaf, stem and root, leaf area and the percentage of mycorrhizal symbiosis. Due to irrigation, the indices measured in the experiment such as height, fresh and dry weight of root, leaf and stem decreased, so that the decrease in without mycorrhizal plants was more than the with mycorrhizal plants. Generally, the use of mycorrhiza in this research has reduced the damaging effects of water stress on the morphological characteristics of grapevine, which in between the G. verciform and G. etunicatum were better than the G. mosseae and G. intraradices.
Conclusion: Grapevine phosphorus deficiency is usually rarely observed, not only mainly because of limited phosphorus requirement, but also because of sufficient phosphorus richness in the majority of vineyard soils and remobilization from bark, wood, and roots during periods of high P demand. Nevertheless, P deficiency have been described in vineyards in Australia, France, Germany and USA. Phosphorus deficiency symptoms correspond to stunt shoot growth, decrease in dry matter, and berry clusters.
Mycorrhizal treatments helped in alleviation of drought stresses. Enhanced uptake and storage of P, beyond what is required for immediate vegetative growth may be of particular importance for heavily pruned crops like grapes, since most of the new shoot growth is removed every year. These results were achieved in the greenhouse under almost controlled conditions and can be difficult to suggest for applying in the field conditions. Such experiments may be organized in the field conditions.
Present-day vineyard practices place several constraints on the use of functions provided by mycorrhiza. The risk of large, costly, or irreversible changes is to be reduced or averted. Future (modern) agriculture should be based on the implementation of ecological management practices that deliberately maintain resilience of ecosystem services. This means integrating the development of vineyard management strategies that optimize the impact of beneficial microbes like mycorrhizal fungi on production. Furthermore, AMF vary in their ability to provide ecological services so that suitable tools have to be defined to fully assess their contribution. Molecular tools have considerably improved the possibility to identify and monitor mycorrhizal fungi in ecosystems, but a quick and reliable test for assessing their functionality is still lacking. For producers’ expectations to be met, a novel industry encompassing soil/mycorrhiza analyses and advice to producers/managers is needed. Additional barriers to rationally exploiting beneficial soil microbes like mycorrhizal fungi as ecosystem services range from economical, technical, and cultural aspects to legislative questions. In spite of this, considerable progress has been made in the last decade for crop plants in general, but also for grapevine, towards the use of AMF.

Keywords

drought; Leaf trait; Mycorrhiza; Vine

References

1- Abrisqueta J.M., Hernansaez A., and Franco J.A. 1994. Root dynamics of young almond tree under different drip irrigation rates. Journal of Horticultural Science, 69: 237–242.

2- Anjum S.A., Xie X.Y., Wang L.C., Saleem M.F., Man C., and Lei W. 2011. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to drought stress. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6: 2026-2032.

3- Atkinson D., and White G.C. 1980. In the mineral nutrition of fruit trees. Butterworth, pp. 241-254.

4- Bahar E., Carbonneau A., and Korkutal I. 2011. The effect of extreme water stress on leaf drying limits and possibilities of recovering in three grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6: 1151-1160.

5- Bayulo J.S., Debouck D.G., and Lynch J.P. 2003. Growth, gas exchange, water relations, and ion composition of Phaseolus species grown under saline condirion. Field Crops Research, 80:207-222.

6- Bowen P.A., and Kliewer W.M. 1990. Influence of clonal variation, pruning severity, and cane structure on yield component development in Cabernet Sauvignon grapevines. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci, 115(4): 530-534.

7- Cabuslay G.S., Ito O., and Alejal A.A. 2002. Physiological evaluation of responses of rice (Oryza sativa L.) to water deficit. Journal of Plant Science, 63: 815-827.

8- Colom M.R., and Vazzana C. 2001. Drought stress effects on three cultivars of Eragrostis curvula: Photosynthesis and water relations. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 34: 195-202.

9- Cornelissen J.H.C., Lavorel S., Garnier E., Diaz S., Buchmann N., Gurvich D.E., Relch P.B., Steegh H.T., and Morgan H.D. 2003. Handbook of protocols for standardized and easy measurement of plant functional traits worldwide. Australian Journal of Botany, 51: 335-380.

10- Davies W.J., Zhang J., Yang J., and Dodd I.C. 2010. Foresight projection global food and farming futures novel crop science to improve yield and resource use efficiency in water-limited agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science, 18 (6): 1-9.

11- Davis W.J., and Volkenburg E. 1995. The influence of water deficit on the factors controlling the daily pattern of growth of bean. Experimental Botany, 54: 987-999.

12- Du T.S., Kang S.Z., Zhang J.H., Li F.S., and Yan B.U. 2008. Water use efficiency and fruit quality of table grape under alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation. Agricultural Water Management, 95: 659–668.

13- Fttahi M., Shamshiri M.H., and Esmaeilizade M. 2014. Evaluation of Leaf Physiomorphological Responses of Three Pistachio Rootstocks inoculated with Arbuscular Mycorrhizae to Salt Stress. Iranian Horticulture, 15(5): 469-482.

14- Felten J., Kohler A., Morin E., Bhalerao R.P., and Palme K. 2009. The ectomycorrhizal fungus Laccaria bicolor stimulates lateral root formation in poplar and Arabidopsis through auxin transport and signaling. Plant Physiol, 151(4): 1991–2005.

15- Fernandez G.C.J. 1992. Effective selection criteria for assessing plant stress tolerance. P. 257-270, In: Kuo, C.G (ed), adaptation of food crop to temperature and water stress. AVRDC, Shanhua, Taiwan.

16- Karlberg L., Bengal A., Jansson P., and Shani U. 2006. Modelling transpiration and growth in salinity-stressed tomato under different climatic conditions. Ecology Modelling, 190: 15-40.

17- Kirnak H., Kaya C., Tas I., and Higgs D. 2001. The influence of water deficit on vegetative growth, physiology, fruit yield and quality in eggplants Bulgarian. Journal of Plant Physiology, 27(3–4): 34–46.

18- Levitt J. 1980. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Vol. II. Water radiation, salt and other stresses. Academic Press, New York.

19- Li T., Sun Y., Ruan Y., Xu L., Hu Y., Hao Z., Zhang X., Li H., Wang Y., Yang L., and Chen B. 2016. Potential role of D-myo-inositol-3-phosphate synthase and 14-3-3 genes in the crosstalk between Zea mays and Rhizophagus intraradices under drought stress. Mycorrhiza, Vol 48 pp142-158.

20- Liu Z., Lia Y., Maa L., Weic H., Zhangd J., Hee X., and Tiana C. 2014. Coordinated regulation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and soybean MAPK pathway genes improved mycorrhizal soybean 2 drought tolerance. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. pp153-174.

21- Munns, R. 2002. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell and Environment, 25: 239–250.

22- Nuzzo U., Xiloyannis C., Dichio B., Montanaro G., and Clleano G. 1997. Growth and yield in irrigated and non-irrigated olive tree cv. Coratina over four years after planting. Acta Horticultural, 449: 75-82.

23- Phillips J., and Hyman D. 1970. Improved procedures for cleaning roots and staining parasitic and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans Br Mycol Soc, 55: 158-161.

24- Ruiz-Canales A., Franco J.A., Plana V., and Abrisqueta J.M. 2006. Root distribution inapricot orchard (Prunus armeniaca L. ‘Bulida’) under trickle irrigation. International Society for Horticultural Science Acta Horticulturae, 717: 307–311.

25- Remy W., Taylor T.N., Hass H., and Kerp H. 1994. Four hundred-million-year-old vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizae. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 91: 11841–11843.

26- Sebastiana M., Vieira B., Lino-Neto T., Monteiro F., Figueiredo A., Sousa L., Salome´Pais M., Tavares R., and Paulo O. 2014. Oak Root Response to Ectomycorrhizal Symbiosis Establishment: RNA-Seq Derived Transcript Identification and Expression Profiling. PLOS ONE, 9(5): 1-13.

27- Ruiz-Lozano J.M., Aroca R., Zamarreno A.M., Molina S., Andreo-Jimenez B., and Porcel R. 2015. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis induces strigolactone biosynthesis under drought and improves drought tolerance in lettuce and tomato. Plant Cell and Environment, 5: 1-12.

28- Shamim A., Rashid A., Muhammad Y.A., Ashraf M., and Ejaz A.W. 2009. Sunflower (Heliantus annus L.) response to drought stress at germination and seedling growth stage. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 41: 647-654.

29- Thomas M.T., and Gausling T. 2000. Morphological and physiological responses of oak (Quercus petraea and Q. robur) to moderate drought. Annals for Sciences, 57: 325-333.

30- Xiong L., Lee H., Ishitani M., and Zhu J.K. 2002. Regulation of osmotic stress responsive gene expression by the LOS6/ABA1 locus in Arabidopsis. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 277: 8588–8596.