Morphological, physiological and dormancy responses of three Vitis genotypes to short photoperiod

Abstract

Dormancy is initiated by decreasing photoperiod or temperature in many woody species. We investigated the effect of photoperiod on the induction of dormancy in Vitis. Three genotypes (Vitis riparia, Vitis spp. cv. Seyval Blanc and a F1 hybrid [V. ripariaבSeyval Blanc’]) were monitored for morphological and physiological dormancy responses during 6 weeks of short (8 h, SD) and long (15 h, LD) photoperiod treatments. V. riparia became dormant after 4 weeks of SD as indicated by several morphologic changes. Cane elongation ceased, terminal meristems began to abscise, and primary dormant buds failed to grow after pruning and returning to LD. There was also a pronounced decrease in bud water content in response to SD. ‘Seyval Blanc’, in contrast, maintained actively growing meristems with no terminal abscission throughout SD treatment, and little delay in budbreak after pruning and returning to LD. Moderate decreases in bud water content were observed after 6 weeks of SD treatment in ‘Seyval Blanc’. F1 plants displayed intermediate responses to SD treatment, but more closely paralleled that of the V. riparia parent. Growth cessation, terminal meristem abscission and absence of budbreak occurred in the F1 after 6 weeks of SD. Ten percent discontinuous SDS‐PAGE protein profiles demonstrated SD‐induced changes in polypeptide accumulation. A 19‐kDa polypeptide increased 2–3‐fold in response to SD in all genotypes. A 17‐kDa polypeptide appeared at 4 weeks of SD, and represented 2.5–5% of all proteins visualized on the gels by 6 weeks of SD. These increases in polypeptides appear to be a general response to SD. This experimental system with heritable morphological and physiological variations in SD responsiveness will be valuable for studying dormancy initiation and maintenance in Vitis.

Relationship Between Endodormancy and Cold Hardiness in Grapevine Buds

“…In tree species with photoperiodically-induced dormancy such as birch (Betula pendula), the perception of decreasing day-length results in growth cessation, development of a terminal bud, and progression to a dormant and more freezing-tolerant state (Rinne and others 2001). In contrast, species of Vitis do not set a terminal bud in response to SD-photoperiod and the shoot apical area does not enter into ED nor cold acclimates; however, upon reaching a critical day-length (CDL), other hallmark phenotypes such as periderm development, growth cessation, and latent bud dormancy are induced (Fennell and Hoover 1991;Wake and Fennell 2000;Sreekantan and others 2010;Grant and others 2013). Freezing tolerance or cold hardiness (CH) also develops in grapevine buds in response to low non-freezing temperatures, a phenomenon known as cold acclimation (Thomashow 1999;Mills and others 2006;others 2011, 2014).…”

Foliar Application of Abscisic Acid Increases Freezing Tolerance of Field-Grown Vitis vinifera Cabernet franc Grapevines

“…Dormancy was estimated as the number of days to 50% budburst (D50BB). The higher D50BB, the more buds are dormant (Wake and Fennell 2000).…”

Short day-photoperiod triggers and low temperatures increase expression of peroxidase RNA transcripts and basic peroxidase isoenzyme activity in grapevine buds

“…In Vitis, as in other woody perennials, shortening the photoperiod and decreasing temperatures during autumn induce bud endodormancy (ED), initiates cold acclimation and, thereby, enhances bud tolerance to freezing (Fennell and Hoover, 1991;Wake and Fennell, 2000;Arora et al, 2003;Faust et al, 1997). Nevertheless, the joint effects of short days (SD) and low temperatures on the parallel development of freezing tolerance and bud-ED make it difficult to separate the two phenomena (Arora et al, 2003;Heggie and Halliday, 2005).…”