Dynamics of Carbohydrate Reserves in Cultivated Grapevines

Holzapfel, Bruno; Smith, Jason; Field, Stewart K.; Hardie, Jim

doi:10.1002/9780470543672.ch3

Cited by 51 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 107 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In cultivated grapevines the onset of restoration of carbohydrate reserves also varies somewhat around flowering (see Holzapfel et al 2010) and has been linked to susceptibility to flower abscission by several correlative studies (e.g. Winkler 1929;Zapata et al 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, that shoot growth also requires carbohydrates stored in all perennial parts, but most abundantly in the roots (see review by Holzapfel et al 2010;Yang and Hori 1979;Yang et al 1980). In contrast, increases in fruit set in pruned grapevines due to trunk or stem girdling (Coombe 1959;Weaver and McCune 1959;Caspari et al 1998) indicate a simultaneous demand for carbohydrate between the developing ovaries and perennial organs (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Soil temperature moderates grapevine carbohydrate reserves after bud break and conditions fruit set responses to photoassimilatory stress

Rogiers

Smith

Holzapfel

et al. 2011

Functional Plant Biol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In cultivated grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.), suboptimal photoassimilatory conditions during flowering can lead to inflorescence necrosis and shedding of flowers and young ovaries and, consequently, poor fruit set. However, before this study it was not known whether carbohydrate reserves augment fruit set when concurrent photoassimilation is limited. Carbohydrate reserves are most abundant in grapevine roots and soil temperature moderates their mobilisation. Accordingly, we grew potted Chardonnay grapevines in soil at 15 C (cool) or 26 C (warm) from bud break to the onset of flowering to manipulate root carbohydrate reserve status. Then to induce photoassimilatory responses we subjected the plants to low (94 mmol mol -1 ) CO 2 or ambient (336 mmol mol -1 ) CO 2 atmospheres during fruit setting. Analyses of photoassimilation and biomass and carbohydrate reserve distribution confirmed that fruit set was limited by concurrent photoassimilation. Furthermore, the availability of current photoassimilates for inflorescence development and fruit set was conditioned by the simultaneous demands for shoot and root growth, as well as the restoration of root carbohydrate reserves. Results indicate that great seasonal variability in grapevine fruit set is a likely response of cultivated grapevines to photoassimilatory stresses, such as shading, defoliation and air temperature and to variations in carbohydrate reserve status before flowering.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Soil temperature moderates grapevine carbohydrate reserves after bud break and conditions fruit set responses to photoassimilatory stress

Rogiers

Smith

Holzapfel

et al. 2011

Functional Plant Biol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Mutawila et al ) and could also explain the inconsistency of Trichoderma wound protection in previous studies (Halleen et al , Larignon ). The variation between cultivars can be explained by intrinsic wood properties such as nutrient content and availability and pH (Bates et al , Weyand and Schultz , Holzapfel et al ), and the vine's defence mechanisms which differ between cultivars. These wound properties would be expected to be expressed more in metabolically active grapevines than in dormant vines and hence the higher Trichoderma spp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…incidence in July than in August for Cabernet Sauvignon. The content of nitrogen and non‐structural carbohydrates in grapevine canes have been shown to be highest during dormancy but are then depleted to their lowest during budburst and initial shoot development (Bates et al , Weyand and Schultz , Holzapfel et al ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimisation of time of application ofTrichodermabiocontrol agents for protection of grapevine pruning wounds

Mutawila

Halleen

Mostert

2016

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims The application of Trichoderma species on grapevine pruning wound surfaces reduces wound infection from trunk pathogens that cause grapevine decline. The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of pruning wound treatments containing Trichoderma as influenced by the time of pruning and time of application following pruning. Methods and Results Cultivars Chenin Blanc and Cabernet Sauvignon were pruned early and late in the winter season, respectively, corresponding to the break from the winter dormancy period and the normal pruning time for these cultivars. After pruning, the wounds were treated immediately, 6, 24, 48 or 96 h after pruning with either T. atroviride or T. harzianum. Colonisation of grapevine pruning wounds by the Trichoderma spp. was dependent on the physiological state of the vines as well as the weather conditions at pruning. In dormant vines, colonisation remained high from immediate application up to 48 h after pruning. In vines at break of dormancy, colonisation was highest at 6 and 24 h after application. Natural wound infection was higher in wounds pruned in late winter compared with that in early winter. Conclusions Applying the biocontrol agent 6 h after pruning consistently resulted in a high incidence of Trichoderma spp. in both cultivars at either early or late pruning regardless of vine physiological state or the weather conditions. Significance of Study Pruning early in the season in combination with the application of Trichoderma spp. pruning‐wound agents approximately 6 h after pruning can significantly reduce wound infection by trunk pathogens.

show abstract

“…Ogg et al , Bhatti et al , Mohseni‐Moghadam et al ) despite an ever‐increasing use of herbicides world‐wide. Canopy functioning (leaf area and carbon assimilation) plays a vital role in grapevine productivity, affecting the efficiency of key processes, such as shoot growth, fruit sugar accumulation and late season carbohydrate reserve replenishment (Holzapfel et al , Rossouw et al ). Roots, in contrast, regulate water and nutrient supply to sink organs such as the fruit and shoots, and also store carbohydrate and nutrient reserves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repercussions of four herbicides on reproductive and vegetative development in potted grapevines

Rossouw

Holzapfel

Rogiers

et al. 2019

Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Aims Spring drift of herbicides can have devastating consequences on grapevines. The impact of 2,4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4‐D), dichloro‐2‐methoxybenzoic acid (Dicamba), 2‐methyl‐4‐chlorophenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) and glyphosate exposure on reproductive and vegetative development was investigated. Methods and Results Simulated herbicide drifts were applied to potted vines at the cessation of flowering. Leaf gas exchange and biomass, root structural biomass and carbohydrate reserves, fruit yield and compound bud necrosis were assessed, along with berry composition, including the primary metabolites, at fruit maturity. Fruit yield was reduced by 2,4‐D without any detriment to most aspects of berry composition. While root structural development was curtailed by 2,4‐D, Dicamba and MCPA, none of the herbicides altered the reserve level of root total non‐structural carbohydrates. Primary bud necrosis was evident following 2,4‐D and Dicamba exposure, especially in younger buds. Conclusions Exposure to 2,4‐D may be particularly damaging to fruit yield during the current season because of an increased risk of bunch necrosis. Bud fruitfulness can be impaired by 2,4‐D and Dicamba because of the increased potential for primary bud necrosis. Significance of the Study Auxin‐type herbicides can limit fruit yield during the current and next season. Compared to cane pruning, spur pruning may minimise the detrimental effects of these herbicides on fruitfulness.

show abstract

Dynamics of Carbohydrate Reserves in Cultivated Grapevines

Cited by 51 publications

References 107 publications

Soil temperature moderates grapevine carbohydrate reserves after bud break and conditions fruit set responses to photoassimilatory stress

Soil temperature moderates grapevine carbohydrate reserves after bud break and conditions fruit set responses to photoassimilatory stress

Optimisation of time of application ofTrichodermabiocontrol agents for protection of grapevine pruning wounds

Repercussions of four herbicides on reproductive and vegetative development in potted grapevines

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About