Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Shading, water deficit and crop load shape plant development in a very plastic way. They directly influence the plant's carbon supply and demand to and from the different organs via metabolic, hydraulic and hormonal mechanisms. However, how the multiple environmental factors combine through these mechanisms and how they interplay with carbon status, vegetative and reproductive development and carbon assimilation of the plant needs to be investigated in the context of current climatic and technological constraints. METHODS: With this aim, two experiments were conducted on potted grapevines, subjected to ten combinations of treatments. Leaf area growth rates, berry characteristics at harvest (weight, number and total soluble content) and a series of leaf traits (gas exchanges, non-structural carbohydrate contents, water potential and SPAD [Soil-Plant Analysis Development] values) were measured. KEY RESULTS: Grapevine development showed different responses corresponding to different sink priorities: under shade, vegetative development was maintained at the expense of berries, whereas under high crop load and water deficit, berry growth was the priority sink. These responses were accompanied by changes in specific leaf area in agreement with the shade avoidance syndrome. These different strategies affected plant carbon status as estimated through starch content in leaves. Leaf starch content was not affected by shade, while it decreased under water deficit and crop load conditions. Carbon assimilation was decreased under water deficit, low crop load and shading conditions. Hydraulic properties and leaf nitrogen content correlated with this decrease while plant carbon status had a very low impact. Finally, no major interaction between the different types of constraint was observed on both morphological and functional variables. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on the type of abiotic constraints, grapevine exhibits specific morphogenetic responses at plant and leaf levels. The absence of interaction between the different constraints showed that grapevine is able to exhibit independent responses to shade and water deficit. This result is of major importance for the further design of new agricultural systems facing multiple abiotic constraints, such as those in agroforestry and agrivoltaic systems.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Shade maintained vegetative development at the expense of berries.
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under shade, vegetative development was maintained at the expense of berries”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
With high crop load and water deficit, berry growth was the priority sink.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under high crop load and water deficit, berry growth was the priority sink”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Specific leaf area changed consistently with shade avoidance.
- Outcome
- specific leaf areae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These responses were accompanied by changes in specific leaf area in agreement with the shade avoidance syndrome.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Shade did not affect leaf starch.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf starch content was not affected by shade”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit decreased leaf starch.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it decreased under water deficit and crop load conditions”
t0“grapevine”
e1“Leaf starch content was not affected by shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop load decreased leaf starch.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it decreased under water deficit and crop load conditions”
t0“grapevine”
e1“Leaf starch content was not affected by shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Water deficit decreased carbon assimilation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon assimilation was decreased under water deficit, low crop load and shading conditions.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Low crop load decreased carbon assimilation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon assimilation was decreased under water deficit, low crop load and shading conditions.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading decreased carbon assimilation.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Carbon assimilation was decreased under water deficit, low crop load and shading conditions.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Hydraulic properties and leaf nitrogen correlated with reduced assimilation.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydraulic properties and leaf nitrogen content correlated with this decrease while plant carbon status had a very low impact.”
t0“grapevine”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant carbon status had very low impact on reduced carbon assimilation.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“plant carbon status had a very low impact”
t0“grapevine”
e1“These responses were accompanied by changes in specific leaf area in agreement with the shade avoidance syndrome.”
Claim · model-written summary
The abiotic constraints showed no major interaction on morphology and function.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no major interaction between the different types of constraint was observed on both morphological and functional variables”
t0“grapevine”
The same questions in other papers
drought · quality: sugar starch · VitisResults differ
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisResults differ
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
32 papers more in this group
See all 36 papers →shade · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →shade · quality: sugar starch · VitisPositive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.