Abstract
Abstract Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) stomata are highly sensitive to atmospheric changes and influence the tradeoff between water and carbon, as estimated by intrinsic water use efficiency (iWUE). The aim of this study was to examine how elevated CO2 concentrations and water deficit affect the iWUE and whole plant evapotranspiration of two grapevine varieties (cv. Cabernet Sauvignon and cv. Chardonnay). Dormant cuttings were collected from a vineyard in Temecula Valley, CA, and were grown in a growth chamber under one of two CO2 treatments: near ambient (410 ppm) or elevated (700 ppm). After 8 weeks of vegetative growth, grapevines were subjected to a well-watered (25% soil water content [SWC]) or gradual water-deficit treatment implemented over 12 days. We measured leaf gas exchange, including photosynthesis (Anet), stomatal conductance (gs), intercellular carbon (Ci), and calculated iWUE (Anet/gs), as well as daily cumulative evapotranspiration per unit leaf area (g cm−2 day−1). Vines were harvested to determine total dry weight, root mass fraction, and nitrogen content. We found that elevated CO2 and water deficit interactively increased the iWUE for both varieties, with Cabernet Sauvignon having 20% greater iWUE than Chardonnay at ~5% SWC. Chardonnay exhibited greater maximum conductance, and 43% more water transpired than Cabernet Sauvignon under a well-watered treatment. Chardonnay plants were also more impacted by elevated CO2 and water-deficit treatment than Cabernet Sauvignon, exhibiting greater stomatal sensitivity under these treatments. At ambient CO2, water deficit negatively impacted Chardonnay’s photosynthesis than Cabernet Sauvignon. However, this effect was not observed at elevated CO2. This study elucidates the intraspecific differences in stomatal behaviour, productivity, and water use of two V. vinifera L. genotypes (Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay), under elevated CO2 concentrations and short-term water deficit.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated CO2 and water deficit interactively increased intrinsic water use efficiency in both grapevine varieties.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferat0 - Treatment
- elevated CO2 and water deficite0
- Outcome
- iWUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“We found that elevated CO2 and water deficit interactively increased the iWUE for both varieties, with Cabernet Sauvignon having 20% greater iWUE than Chardonnay at ~5% SWC.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cabernet Sauvignon had 20% greater intrinsic water use efficiency than Chardonnay at about 5% SWC.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
- Outcome
- iWUEe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 20%e0
- Qualifier
- ~5% SWCe0
- Comparator
- Chardonnaye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cabernet Sauvignon having 20% greater iWUE than Chardonnay at ~5% SWC.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chardonnay had greater maximum conductance than Cabernet Sauvignon.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Chardonnaye0
- Outcome
- maximum conductancee0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chardonnay exhibited greater maximum conductance, and 43% more water transpired than Cabernet Sauvignon under a well-watered treatment.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chardonnay transpired 43% more water than Cabernet Sauvignon when well watered.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Chardonnaye0
- Outcome
- water transpirede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 43%e0
- Qualifier
- well-watered treatmente0
- Comparator
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chardonnay exhibited greater maximum conductance, and 43% more water transpired than Cabernet Sauvignon under a well-watered treatment.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
Chardonnay showed greater stomatal sensitivity than Cabernet Sauvignon under elevated CO2 and water deficit.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Chardonnaye0
- Treatment
- elevated CO2 and water-deficit treatmente0
- Outcome
- stomatal sensitivitye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Chardonnay plants were also more impacted by elevated CO2 and water-deficit treatment than Cabernet Sauvignon, exhibiting greater stomatal sensitivity under these treatments.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
At ambient CO2, water deficit impaired Chardonnay photosynthesis more than Cabernet Sauvignon photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Material
- Chardonnaye0
- Treatment
- water deficite0
- Outcome
- photosynthesise0
- Direction
- negatively impactede0
- Qualifier
- ambient CO2e0
- Comparator
- Cabernet Sauvignone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At ambient CO2, water deficit negatively impacted Chardonnay’s photosynthesis than Cabernet Sauvignon.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L.”
Claim · model-written summary
At elevated CO2, the stronger negative photosynthetic response of Chardonnay to water deficit was not observed.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferat0
- Treatment
- water deficitt0
- Outcome
- photosynthesise1
- Direction
- not observede0
- Qualifier
- elevated CO2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, this effect was not observed at elevated CO2.”
e1“At ambient CO2, water deficit negatively impacted Chardonnay’s photosynthesis than Cabernet Sauvignon.”
t0“Vitis vinifera L. varieties (cv. Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay) vary in leaf water flux in response to elevated CO2 growing conditions and a gradual water deficit”
The same questions in other papers
co2 · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →drought · physiology: photosynthesis · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →drought · physiology: water · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.