Advertisement

RETRACTED ARTICLE: Physiological comparative study of six wild grapevine (Vitis sylvestris) accession responses to salinity

  • Hend AskriEmail author
  • Fatma Gharbi
  • Saloua Rejeb
  • Ahmed Mliki
  • Abdelwahed Ghorbel
ICIEM 2016
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Water Resource Management for Sustainable Development

Abstract

Salinity problems for vineyards are in concerns, especially in coastal areas where several aquifers are reported to be affected by seawater intrusion and agricultural contamination. Saline irrigation affects growth, yield, and fruit quality of grapevines. Exploring germplasm base through wild ancestors of the target species is a novel adopted strategy to increase crop tolerance to irrigation with saline water. The effects of salt on growth, organic and inorganic solute accumulations, and chlorophyll florescence were studied on 3-month-old plants of six Tunisian wild grapevines with the objective to identify salt tolerance mechanisms and select tolerant genotypes. Potted plants were grown under controlled conditions and irrigated for 14 days with 0, 100, and 150 mM NaCl nutrient solution. Parameters analyzed were related to growth, water relations, mineral nutrition, and chlorophyll fluorescence. Several processes are operating either at the whole plant or at cell level. They appear to be involved in salt tolerance of wild grapevines and are more efficient in tolerant accessions. Salt adversely affects plant growth and plant nutrition. Reductions of shoot growth rate (relative growth rate, day−1) reached 49% of control since 100 mM NaCl. They were assigned to stomatal closure and alteration of potassium nutrition and photochemistry. There were significant differences (P < 0.05) within accessions, Tebaba was the most tolerant and Houamdia the most sensitive, while the others were intermediate.

Keywords

Grapevine Saline irrigation Physiological mechanisms Crop tolerance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr. Zoghlemi Nejia from the Biotechnology Center of Borj Cedria for her valuable assistance in selecting the accessions of wild vines studied and sampling them in their natural site.

References

  1. Ashraf M (1999) Interactive effect of salt (NaCl) and nitrogen form on growth, water relations and photosynthetic capacity of sunflower (Helianthus annum L.) Ann Appl Biol 135(2):509–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Askri H, Daldoul S, Ben Ammar A, Rejeb S, Jardak R, Rejeb MN, Mliki A, Ghorbel A (2012) Short-term response of wild grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris) to NaCl salinity exposure: changes of some physiological and molecular characteristics. Acta Physiol Plant 34(2):957–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baker E, Rosenqvist NR (2004) Applications of chlorophyll fluorescence can improve crop production strategies: an examination of future possibilities. J Exp Bot 55:1607–1621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare D (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Binzel ML, Hess D, Bressan RA, Hasegawa PM (1988) Intracellular compartmentation of ions in salt adapted tobacco cells. Plant Physiol 86:607–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Björkman O, Demmig-Adams B (1994) Regulation of photosynthetic light energy capture, conversion, and dissipation in leaves of higher plants. In: Schulze CMM (ed) Ecophysiology of photosynthesis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 17–47Google Scholar
  7. Chartzoulakis KS, Therios IN, Misopolinos ND, Noitsakis BI (1995) Growth, ion content and photosynthetic performance of salt-stressed kiwifruit plants. Irrigat Sci 16:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choné X, Van Leeuwen C, Dubourdieu D, Gaudillere JP (2001) Stem water potential is a sensitive indicator of grapevine water status. Ann Bot 87:477–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daldoul S, Guillaumie S, Reustle GM, Krczal G, Ghorbel A, Delrot S, Mliki A, Höfer M (2010) Isolation and expression analysis of salt induced genes from contrasting grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Plant Sci 179:489–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dardeniz A, Müftuoglu NM, Altay H (2006) Determination of salt tolerance of some American rootstocks. Bangladesh J Bot 35(2):143–150Google Scholar
  11. Fisarakis I, Chartzoulakis J, Stavrakas D (2001) Response of Sultana vines (Vitis vinifera L.) on six rootstocks to NaCl salinity exposure and recovery. Agri Water Manage 51:13–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Genty B, Briantais JM, Baker NB (1989) The relationship between the quantum yield of photosynthetic electron transport and quenching of chlorophyll fluorescence. Biochim Biophys Acta 99:87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hasegawa PM, Bressan PA, Zhu J, Bohnert HJ (2000) Plant cellular and molecular responses to high salinity. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 51:463–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hunt R (1990) Basic growth analysis. Unwin Hyman, London, London 110 ppCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiang Q, Roche D, Monaco TA, Durham S (2006) Gas exchange, chlorophyll parameters and carbon isotop discrimination of 14 barley genetic lines in response to salinity. Field Crop Res 96:269–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johansen C, Edwards DG, Loneragan JF (1970) Potassium fluxes during potassium absorption by intact barley plants of increasing potassium content. Plant Physiol 45:601–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moutinho-Pereira JM, Magalháes N, Torres De Castro LF, Chaves MM, Torres-Pereira JM (2001) Physiological responses of grapevine leaves to Bordeaux mixture under light stress conditions. Vitis 40(3):117–121Google Scholar
  18. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schreiber U, Schliwa U, Bilger W (1986) Continuous recording of photochemical and non-photochemical fluorescence quenching with a new type of modulation fluorometer. Photosynth Res 10:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Schreiber U, Bilger W, Neubauer C (1995) Chlorophyll fluorescence as a non invasive indicator for rapid assessment of in vivo photosynthesis. In: Schulze, Caldwell MM (eds) Ecophysiology of photosynthesis. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 49–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Serraj R, Sinclair TR (2002) Osmolyte accumulation: can it really help increase crop yield under drought conditions? Plant Cell Environ 25:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shani U, Ben-Gal A (2005) Long-term response of grapevines to salinity: osmotic effects and ion toxicity. Am J Enol Vitic 56(2):148–154Google Scholar
  23. Sharp RE, Davies WJ (1979) Solute regulation and growth by roots and shoots of water stressed maize plants. Planta 147:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Staub AM (1963) Extraction, identification et dosages des glucides dans les extraits d’organes et les corps bactériens. In: Masson et Compagnie (Ed.) Techniques de laboratoire, Tome 1 et 2, Paris, 1307–1366Google Scholar
  25. Upreti KK, Murti GSR (2010) Response of grape rootstocks to salinity: changes in root growth, polyamines and abscisic acid. Biol Plant 54(4):730–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Urdanoz V, Aragüés R (2009) Three-year field response of drip-irrigated grapevine (Vitis vinifera L., cv. Tempranillo) to soil salinity. Plant Soil 324:219–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Saudi Society for Geosciences 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut National de Recherches en Génie Rural, Eaux et Forêts INRGREFArianaTunisia
  2. 2.Faculté des sciences de Tunis Campus UniversitaireTunisTunisia
  3. 3.Centre de Biotechnologie de Borj Cedria CBBCHammam-lifTunisia

Personalised recommendations