Journal of Plant Research

, Volume 130, Issue 5, pp 873–883 | Cite as

Vascular development of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) inflorescence rachis in response to flower number, plant growth regulators and defoliation

  • Aude M. Gourieroux
  • Bruno P. Holzapfel
  • Margaret E. McCully
  • Geoffrey R. Scollary
  • Suzy Y. Rogiers
Regular Paper


The grapevine inflorescence is a determinate panicle and as buds emerge, shoot, flower and rachis development occur simultaneously. The growth and architecture of the rachis is determined by genetic and environmental factors but here we examined the role of flower and leaf number as well as hormones on its elongation and vascular development. The consequences of rachis morphology and vascular area on berry size and composition were also assessed. One week prior to anthesis, Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon field vines were exposed to manual flower removal, exogenous plant growth regulators or pre-bloom leaf removal. Manual removal of half the flowers along the vertical axis of the inflorescence resulted in a shorter rachis in both cultivars. Conversely, inflorescences treated with gibberellic acid (GA3) and the synthetic cytokinin, 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP) resulted in a longer rachis while pre-bloom removal of all leaves on the inflorescence-bearing shoot did not alter rachis length relative to untreated inflorescences. Across the treatments, the cross-sectional areas of the conducting xylem and phloem in the rachis were positively correlated to rachis girth, flower number at anthesis, bunch berry number, bunch berry fresh mass and bunch sugar content at harvest. Conversely, average berry size and sugar content were not linked to rachis vascular area. These data indicate that the morphological and vascular development of the rachis was more responsive to flower number and plant growth regulators than to leaf removal.


Bunch stem Gibberellic acid Grapevine Inflorescence Leaf removal Phloem Rachis Xylem 



This project was funded by a PhD scholarship to A. Gourieroux from Wine Australia. We would like to express our gratitude to Dr John Gray for helpful discussions during the initial stages of the project.


  1. Agüero C, Riquelme C, Tizio R (1995) Embryo rescue from seedless grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) treated with growth retardants. Vitis 34:73–76Google Scholar
  2. Alexander DM, Woodham RC (1962) Premature bursting of Sultana buds. Nature 194:206–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aloni R (1979) Role of auxin and gibberellin in differentiation of primary phloem fibers. Plant Physiol 63:609–614CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Aloni R (1995) The induction of vascular tissues by auxin and cytokinin. In: Davies PJ (ed) Plant hormones. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 531–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aloni R, Tollier MT, Monties B (1990) The role of auxin and gibberellin in controlling lignin formation in primary phloem fibers and in xylem of Coleus blumei stems. Plant Physiol 94:1743–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlson DR, Dyer DJ, Cotterman CD, Durley RC (1987) The physiological basis for cytokinin induced increases in pod set in IX93–100 soybeans. Plant Physiol 84:233–239CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Caspari HW, Lang A, Alspach P (1998) Effects of girdling and leaf removal on fruit set and vegetative growth in grape. Am J Enol Vitic 49:359–366Google Scholar
  8. Dal Santo S, Tornielli GB, Zenoni S, Fasoli M, Farina L, Anesi A, Guzzo F, Delledonne M, Pezzotti M (2013) The plasticity of the grapevine berry transcriptome. Genome Biol 14:54–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dražeta L, Lang A, Cappellini C, Hall AJ, Volz RK, Jameson PE (2004) Vessel differentiation in the pedicel of apple and the effects of auxin transport inhibition. Physiol Plantarum 120:162–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fennell A, Hoover E (1991) Photoperiod influences growth, bud dormancy, and cold acclimation in Vitis labruscana and V. riparia. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 116:270–273Google Scholar
  11. Friedman M (1997) Chemistry, biochemistry, and dietary role of potato polyphenols. A review. J Agr Food Chem 45:1523–1540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldy RG (1988) Variation in some yield determining components in muscadine grapes and their correlation to yield. Euphytica 39:39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gourieroux AM, McCully ME, Holzapfel BP, Scollary GR, Rogiers SY (2016) Flowers regulate the growth and vascular development of the inflorescence rachis in Vitis vinifera L. Plant Physiol Bioch 108:519–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gouthu S, O’Neil ST, Di Y, Ansarolia M, Megraw M, Deluc LG (2014) A comparative study of ripening among berries of the grape cluster reveals an altered transcriptional programme and enhanced ripening rate in delayed berries. J Exp Bot 65:5889–5902CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Hagiwara K, Ryugo K, Olmo HP (1980) Comparison between responsiveness of selected grape clones to gibberellin applications and their endogenous levels in breaking buds and maturing berries. Am J Enol Vitic 31:309–312Google Scholar
  16. Haynes PA, Sheumack D, Kibby J, Redmond JW (1991) Amino acid analysis using derivatisation with 9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate and reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr 540:177–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ikeda F, Ishikawa K, Yazawa S, Baba T (2004) Induction of compact clusters with large seedless berries in the grape cultivar ‘Fujimori’ by the use of streptomycin. gibberellins and CPPU. Acta Hortic 640:361–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iland P, Ewart A, Sitters J, Markides A, Bruer N (eds) (2000) Techniques for chemical analysis and quality monitoring during winemaking. Patrick Iland Wine Productions, CampbelltownGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson DI (1968) Gibberellin and the growth of peach and apricot fruits. Aust J Biol Sci 21:209–216Google Scholar
  20. Jackson DI, Lombard PB (1993) Environmental and management practices affecting grape composition and wine quality–a review. Am J Enol Vitic 44:409–430Google Scholar
  21. Khursid T, Jackson DI, Rowe RN (1992) Effect of plant growth regulators on flower development in the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. New Zeal J Crop Hort 20:351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lang A, Ryan KG (1994) Vascular development and sap flow in apple pedicels. Ann Bot Lond 74:381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lebon G, Brun O, Magné C, Clément C (2005) Photosynthesis of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) inflorescence. Tree Physiol 25:633–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan M (1993) Fruit to flower ratios and trade-offs in size and number. Evol Ecol 7:219–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mullins MG (1967) Morphogenetic effects of roots and of some synthetic cytokinins in Vitis vinifera L. J Exp Bot 18:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mullins MG (1968) Regulation of inflorescence growth in cuttings of the grape vine (Vitis vinifera L.). J Exp Bot 19:532–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ollat N, Gaudillere J-P (1998) The effect of limiting leaf area during stage I of berry growth on development and composition of berries of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon. Am J Enol Vitic 49:251–258Google Scholar
  28. Palliotti A, Cartechini A (2001) Developmental changes in gas exchange activity in flowers, berries, and tendrils of field-grown Cabernet Sauvignon. Am J Enol Vitic 52:317–323Google Scholar
  29. Peppi MC, Fidelibus MW (2008) Effects of forchlorfenuron and abscisic acid on the quality of ‘flame seedless’ grapes. HortScience 43:173–176Google Scholar
  30. Poni S, Casalini L, Bernizzoni F, Civardi S, Intrieri C (2006) Effects of early defoliation on shoot photosynthesis, yield components, and grape composition. Am J Enol Vitic 57:397–407Google Scholar
  31. Reynolds AG, Wardle DA, Zurowski C, Looney NE (1992) Phenylureas CPPU and Thidiazuron affect yield components, fruit composition, and storage potential of four seedless grape selections. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 117:85–89Google Scholar
  32. Skoog F, Strong FM, Miller CO (1965) Cytokinins. Science 148:532–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Snow R (1935) Activation of cambial growth by pure hormones. New Phytol 34:347–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Srinivasan C, Mullins MG (1981) Physiology of flowering in the grapevine—a review. Am J Enol Vitic 32:47–63Google Scholar
  35. Theiler R (1974) Einfluss von Blüten und Beeren auf das Wachstum der Traubenstiele, deren Abszession und die Stiellähmeanfälligkeit, Vitis vinifera L. Wein Wiss 29:26–45Google Scholar
  36. Theiler R, Coombe BG (1985) Influence of berry growth and growth regulators on the development of grape peduncles in Vitis vinifera L. Vitis 24:1–11Google Scholar
  37. Ursache R, Nieminen K, Helariutta Y (2013) Genetic and hormonal regulation of cambial development. Physiol Plantarum 147:36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Bel AJE, Hafke JB (2005) Physiochemical determinants of phloem transport. Vascular transport in plants. Elsevier Academy Press, Cambridge, pp 19–44Google Scholar
  39. Vidal-Lezama E, Holguin R, Diaz DH, Zepeda M, Hernandez A (2005) Effects of the application of cytokinin bioregulators on inflorescence development of table grapes. X international symposium on plant bioregulators in fruit production, pp 295–298Google Scholar
  40. Weaver RJ (1975) Effect of time of application of potassium gibberellate on cluster development of Zinfandel grapes. Vitis 14:97–102Google Scholar
  41. Weaver RJ, van Overbeek J, Pool RM (1966) Effect of kinins on fruit set and development in Vitis vinifera. Hilgardia 37:181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Werner T, Motyka V, Strnad M, Schmülling T (2001) Regulation of plant growth by cytokinin. Proc Natl A Sci 98:10487–10492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weyand KM, Schultz HR (2005) Physiological responses of minimal pruning to gibberellic acid. Acta Hortic 689:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Winkler AJ (1929) The effect of dormant pruning on the carbohydrate metabolism of Vitis vinifera. Hilgardia 4:153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Botanical Society of Japan and Springer Japan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Wine and Grape Industry Centre (NWGIC)Charles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  2. 2.Faculty of ScienceCharles Sturt UniversityWagga WaggaAustralia
  3. 3.NSW Department of Primary IndustriesWagga WaggaAustralia
  4. 4.Division of Plant IndustryCSIROCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Plant Science Division, Research School of BiologyThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  6. 6.School of ChemistryUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations