Grapevines under drought do not express esca leaf symptoms.
abiotic–biotic interactions
carbon balance
drought
plant dieback
vascular disease
Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
ISSN: 1091-6490
Titre abrégé: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7505876
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 10 2021
26 10 2021
Historique:
accepted:
01
09
2021
entrez:
22
10
2021
pubmed:
23
10
2021
medline:
31
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the context of climate change, plant mortality is increasing worldwide in both natural and agroecosystems. However, our understanding of the underlying causes is limited by the complex interactions between abiotic and biotic factors and the technical challenges that limit investigations of these interactions. Here, we studied the interaction between two main drivers of mortality, drought and vascular disease (esca), in one of the world's most economically valuable fruit crops, grapevine. We found that drought totally inhibited esca leaf symptom expression. We disentangled the plant physiological response to the two stresses by quantifying whole-plant water relations (i.e., water potential and stomatal conductance) and carbon balance (i.e., CO
Identifiants
pubmed: 34675082
pii: 2112825118
doi: 10.1073/pnas.2112825118
pmc: PMC8639357
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Water
059QF0KO0R
Carbon
7440-44-0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no competing interest.
Références
Plant Cell Environ. 2016 Apr;39(4):726-44
pubmed: 26205849
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Feb 11;117(6):2864-2869
pubmed: 31988113
Plant Physiol. 1988 Nov;88(3):574-80
pubmed: 16666351
Ann Bot. 2010 May;105(5):661-76
pubmed: 20299345
Plant Physiol. 2020 Oct;184(2):881-894
pubmed: 32764130
Funct Plant Biol. 2011 Nov;38(11):856-866
pubmed: 32480943
Plant Physiol. 2019 Nov;181(3):1163-1174
pubmed: 31455632
Sci Adv. 2018 Jan 31;4(1):eaao6969
pubmed: 29404405
Plant Dis. 2012 Jul;96(7):924-934
pubmed: 30727208
Phytopathology. 2006 Oct;96(10):1060-6
pubmed: 18943493
Plant Physiol. 2003 Oct;133(2):838-49
pubmed: 12972664
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Nov 15;113(46):13098-13103
pubmed: 27807136
J Exp Bot. 2007;58(15-16):4019-26
pubmed: 18182420
Plant Physiol. 2014 Mar;164(3):1204-21
pubmed: 24474652
Ann Bot. 2017 Sep 1;120(3):427-436
pubmed: 28911018
Front Plant Sci. 2013 Apr 23;4:97
pubmed: 23630534
New Phytol. 2008;178(4):719-739
pubmed: 18422905
Tree Physiol. 2015 Nov;35(11):1146-65
pubmed: 26423132
Tree Physiol. 2000 May;20(9):579-589
pubmed: 12651422
Ecol Lett. 2017 Nov;20(11):1437-1447
pubmed: 28922708
J Exp Bot. 2021 May 4;72(10):3914-3928
pubmed: 33718947
Phytopathology. 2017 Jan;107(1):59-69
pubmed: 27819541
Phytopathology. 2017 Apr;107(4):444-454
pubmed: 27992306
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Oct 26;118(43):
pubmed: 34675082
Tree Physiol. 2020 Mar 11;40(3):377-390
pubmed: 32031662
New Phytol. 2014 Sep;203(4):1028-1035
pubmed: 24824859
Plant Physiol. 1990 Nov;94(3):1048-55
pubmed: 16667795
Tree Physiol. 2001 May;21(7):427-36
pubmed: 11340043
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Oct 7;111(40):14489-93
pubmed: 25246559
Bio Protoc. 2017 Mar 20;7(6):e2171
pubmed: 34458482
J Exp Bot. 2011 Mar;62(6):1715-29
pubmed: 21239376
J Exp Bot. 2020 Aug 6;71(16):4658-4676
pubmed: 32433735
Nature. 2012 Nov 29;491(7426):752-5
pubmed: 23172141
Int J Biometeorol. 2013 Nov;57(6):909-25
pubmed: 23306774
Plant Physiol. 1949 Jan;24(1):1-15
pubmed: 16654194