Buds of “Italia melhorada” grapevines grown under tropical conditions develop a quiescent state

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2019.103951Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Grapevine buds grown under tropical conditions develop a quiescent state and not an endodormancy state.

  • Quiescence is characterized by periderm development, downregulation of VvPHYA and VvFT and upregulation of VvPHYB genes.

  • Endodormancy in grapevine buds is characterized by a cell wall thickening of bud meristematic cells.

Abstract

A double cropping system for the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L) has been commercially adopted for use in regions where the tropical climate is characterized by high temperatures and small variations in daylength throughout the year. Under these climatic conditions, the use of hydrogen cyanamide (HC), a compound that breaks bud dormancy, is mandatory to produce homogeneous budbreak. However, it is unknown whether grapevine buds are capable of developing endodormancy (ED) under these climatic conditions. In this study, typical signals of ED, such as the number of nodes per cane, the development of periderm and the thickening of the cell wall of the bud meristematic cells, were analysed in vines of “Italia melhorada” grown in Mossoró, Brazil (5°12′16″S), under a natural (ND) photoperiod (12/12 h), a short-day (SD) photoperiod (10/14 h) and a long-day (LD) photoperiod (14/10 h). The abundance of phytochrome A (VvPHYA) and B (VvPHYB) and FLOWERING LOCUS T (VvFT) transcripts in the leaves and buds was also determined. The results showed a reduced number of nodes per cane and development of the periderm in the shoots of grapevines grown under ND and SD photoperiods. In addition, compared with that under the LD photoperiod, the expression of VvPHYA and VvFT under the ND and SD-photoperiod decreased, and the expression of VvPHYB increased. However, the thickness of the cell wall of the bud meristematic cells increased only in the grapevines exposed to the SD photoperiod. Therefore, we hypothesize that cell wall thickening is a characteristic of ED, while decreased expression of VvPHYA and VvFT and increased expression of VvPHYB are characteristic of quiescence. Consequently, under a tropical conditions, the grapevine buds would be in a quiescent state and not in a dormant state.

Introduction

The reproductive cycle of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L) cultivated in temperate climates span two consecutive seasons, separated by a period of dormancy or recess between late summer and early spring (Carmona et al., 2008; Li-Mallet et al., 2016). On the basis of data concerning the factors that inhibits bud outgrowth, dormancy has been divided into paradormancy (PD) in which bud outgrowth is inhibited by apical dominance or correlative inhibition, endodormancy (ED) in which bud outgrowth is inhibited by intrinsic factors located within the bud, and ecodormancy (ECD) in which bud outgrowth is inhibited by environmental cues such as low temperatures (Lang, 1987). However, Considine and Considine (2016) recently suggested the use of the terms “quiescence” and “dormancy” instead of para-, endo- and ecodormancy, and to look for association of these terms with physiological factors. In grapevine buds, ED is induced by the decreasing photoperiod during late summer (Kühn et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2013; Cragin et al., 2017), and is characterized by growth inhibition, arrested cell division (Vergara et al., 2017), reduced respiratory activity (Parada et al., 2017), cell wall thickening of meristematic cells (Rubio et al., 2016) and starch accumulation (Rubio et al., 2019). Although there are no visual signs indicating the state of bud ED (Lavee and May, 1997), the inhibition of cane growth and periderm development has been associated with the development of bud ED (Fennell and Hoover, 1991). The development of bud ED is part of the process by which the buds adapt to the unfavorable conditions of the winter, and its main functions is to avoid budbreak in response to a transient warm spell during the winter (Jian et al., 1997), and to promote cold acclimation induced by low temperatures (Cragin et al., 2013; Rubio et al., 2016). In a previous study, large differences in the sprouting of para- and endodormant grapevine buds were detected under forced conditions, and it was concluded that the paradormant buds are in a quiescent state, in which sprouting and growth can resume rapidly, while the endodormant buds are in a state of recess, which they have to leave before they can sprout (Pérez and Noriega, 2018).

In tropical climates, where variations in daylength and temperatures are minor throughout the year, budbreak can be achieved during the current growing season by pruning and applications of hydrogen cyanamide (HC), resulting in a double cropping system (Lin et al., 1985; Bai et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2012). The production of two crops of table grapes per year was achieved in Taiwan by combining pruning, defoliation and chemical treatment (Lin et al., 1985). Similarly, in the Brazilian Southeast Region and in southern China, double cropping strategies have been introduced (Favero et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2017). In Brazil, grape production is distributed from the southern extreme to the Northeast Region (Pommer et al., 2009). This double cropping strategy allows a geographical redistribution of viticulture in Brazil with the incorporation of new producing states such as Ceará (Camargo et al., 2011). However, a better understanding of bud dormancy, and other physiological aspects of the vine will help to effectively implement this new production strategy.

The light signals perceived by phytochromes (Phys) and cryptochromes (Crys) play a key role in the growth and development of plants, and in photoperiod-dependent processes such as flowering, tuberization, seasonal growth cessation and dormancy. In the vine, ED is induced by decreasing photoperiod (Kühn et al., 2009; Grant et al., 2013; Cragin et al., 2017), and Phys together with the FLOWERING LOCUS T (VvFT) gene play a crucial role in the development of bud-ED (Pérez et al., 2009, 2011).

In the double cropping system, the use of hydrogen cyanamide (HC), a compound that breaks bud dormancy, is mandatory (Bai et al., 2008; Gu et al., 2012). However, the underlying biochemical and molecular events that justify this agronomic management practice are unknown. In this study, we hypothesize that grapevine buds grown under tropical conditions develop ED, which would explain the need to apply HC to release the buds from ED (Shulman et al., 1983). To test this hypothesis, “Italia melhorada” grapevines grown in Mossoró, Brasil (5°12′16″S latitude) were subjected to different photoperiod regimens: natural (ND, 12/12 h), short day (SD, 10/14 h) and long day (LD, 14/10 h) photoperiods. After eight weeks of treatment, typical ED signals such as the number of nodes per cane, periderm development in the shoots and cell wall thickening of bud meristematic cells were assessed. Furthermore, because phytochromes and FLOWERING LOCUS T (VvFT) play a crucial role in the perception of the photoperiod, the transcript abundance of phytochrome A (VvPHYA) and B (VvPHYB) and of VvFT were in the leaves and buds of grapevines was determined.

Section snippets

Plant material and experimental conditions

Vitis vinifera L. “Itália melhorada” scions atop IAC 572 rootstock were grown at the Federal University of Rural Semi-arid (UFERSA), located in Mossoró, Brazil (5°12′16″S latitude, 18 m altitude). The seedlings were planted into a 1:1:1 (v:v:v) soil:sand:peat mixture in 5 L pots. As growth started, one shoot was allowed to develop on each plant. The plants were grown in an unshaded glasshouse, with a 31/29 °C temperature and 63/79 % relative humidity and a photosynthetic photon flux (PPF)

Effects of photoperiod on node number

Vitis vinifera L. cv. Italia melhorada plants grown under different photoperiod regimens: ND (12/12 h day/night), SD (10/14 h day/night) and LD (14/10 h day/night) differed in terms of the number of nodes that developed after eight weeks of treatment. It was observed that the average number of nodes developed by grapevines exposed to the ND and SD photoperiod was 26, while for grapevines exposed to the LD photoperiod, the number was 29; this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). (

Discussion

In tropical regions, where variations in daylength are small and temperatures are high throughout the year, a double cropping system have been adopted for grapevines (Chen et al., 2017). However, the use of HC, a compound that breaks bud ED (Or, 2009; Pérez et al., 2009), is mandatory for their commercial production under these climatic conditions. This agronomic management practice suggests that the grapevine buds under tropical conditions may develop ED since HC advances bud sprouting by

Conclusions

Our results provide evidence that the ND and SD-photoperiods reduce the expression of the VvPHYA and VvFT genes and increase the expression of VvPHYB in the leaves and buds of “Italia melhorada”, a phenomenon that was associated with the cessation of growth and quiescence, while the SD-photoperiod was the only treatment that produced a thickening of the cell wall of the meristematic cells of the buds, a phenomenon that was associated with ED. Additionally, our results also indicated that under

Author statements

DD mounted the photoperiod experiments and performed the morphological physiological and gene expression analysis. RBS contribute to plan the experiments. XN contribute to the gene expression analysis. FJP contribute to plan the experiments and wrote the manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

There is no conflict interest.

Acknowledgements

The financial support of Fondo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (FONDECYT), Chile Proyecto # 1190057 is gratefully acknowledged.

References (43)

  • U.A. Camargo et al.

    Progressos na viticultura brasileira

    Rev. Bras. Frutic.

    (2011)
  • M.J. Carmona et al.

    A molecular genetic perspective of reproductive development in grapevine

    J. Exp. Bot.

    (2008)
  • M.J. Considine et al.

    On the language and physiology of dormancy and quiescence in plants

    J. Exp. Bot.

    (2016)
  • S. Chang et al.

    A simple and efficient method for isolating RNA from pine trees

    Plant Mol. Biol. Rep.

    (1993)
  • W. Chen et al.

    Dissecting the variations of ripening progression and flavonoid metabolism in grape berries grown under double cropping system

    Front. Plant Sci.

    (2017)
  • K. Donohue et al.

    Diversification of phytochrome contributions to germination as a function of seed-maturation environment

    New Phytol.

    (2007)
  • A.C. Favero et al.

    Double pruning of Syrah grapevine, a management strategy to harvest wine during the winter in the Brazilian Southeast

    Vitis

    (2011)
  • A. Fennell et al.

    Photoperiod influences growth, bud dormancy and cold acclimation of Vitis labruscana and V. riparia

    J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci.

    (1991)
  • W.E. Finch-Savage et al.

    Dormancy release in Arabidopsis cvi by dry after ripening, low temperature, nitrate and light shows common quantitative patterns of gene expression directed by environmentally specific sensing

    Plant J.

    (2007)
  • J. Cragin et al.

    Dormancy and cold hardiness transition in wine grape cultivars chardonnay and cabernet sauvignon

    Am. J. Enol. Vitic.

    (2017)
  • T.N.L. Grant et al.

    Morphological physiological, and biochemical changes in Vitis genotype in responses to photoperiod regimes

    Am. J. Enol. Vitic.

    (2013)
  • Cited by (4)

    • Sucrose accumulation and endodormancy are synchronized events induced by the short-day photoperiod in grapevine buds

      2022, Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      ED is characterized by a delay in the response of the bud meristem to growth-promoting signals (Rohde and Bhalerao, 2007). At the physiological level, it is characterized by a decrease in bud respiration (Parada et al., 2016), by an arrest of cell division (Vergara et al., 2017), by the thickening of the cell wall of the bud meristematic cells (Dantas et al., 2020) and by an increase in the sucrose content and in the sucrose/glucose ratio as reported in this study. In temperate trees, carbohydrate reserves accumulate mainly in the branches and stem during the growing season and decrease during the dormant season (Furze et al., 2019).

    View full text