Abstract
Drought stress has become a limiting factor for viticulture with climate change. The influence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) on grapevine Vitis vinifera L. cv. Ecolly’s leaf water content, chlorophyll concentration, photosynthesis activity, and chlorophyll fluorescence under drought stress was studied in the greenhouse. The experiment was designed as a randomized complete block with four treatments: AMF colonization, well-watered; non-AMF colonization, well-watered; AMF colonization with drought stress; and non-AMF colonization with drought stress. The grapevines inoculated with mycorrhiza had a higher water content in the leaves and higher chlorophyll concentration under drought stress than those without mycorrhiza inoculation. AMF colonization increased the dry biomass of shoots and roots, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate and decreased intercellular CO2 concentration. Mycorrhizal grapevines had higher non-photochemistry efficiency, higher photochemistry efficiency, and higher actual quantum yield than non-mycorrhizal grapevines. The results show that AMF alleviated the negative effects of drought stress on grapevines. The alleviation improved leaf water status, chlorophyll concentration, and photosynthetic capacity. Altogether, the results of our study indicate that AMF inoculation has the potential to protect grapevines under drought stress.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal grapevines under drought had more leaf water and chlorophyll than uninoculated vines.
- Treatment
- inoculated with mycorrhizae0
- Interactor
- mycorrhizae0symbiont
- Outcome
- water content in the leaves and higher chlorophyll concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- under drought stresse0
- Comparator
- without mycorrhiza inoculatione0
VitisOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grapevines inoculated with mycorrhiza had a higher water content in the leaves and higher chlorophyll concentration under drought stress than those without mycorrhiza inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF colonization raised grapevine shoot and root dry biomass, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration.
- Treatment
- AMF colonizatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- dry biomass of shoots and roots, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration ratee0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“AMF colonization increased the dry biomass of shoots and roots, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate and decreased intercellular CO2 concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF colonization decreased intercellular CO2 concentration.
- Treatment
- AMF colonizatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- intercellular CO2 concentratione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“AMF colonization increased the dry biomass of shoots and roots, photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and transpiration rate and decreased intercellular CO2 concentration.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mycorrhizal grapevines had higher non-photochemical and photochemical efficiency and actual quantum yield.
- Treatment
- Mycorrhizale0
- Outcome
- non-photochemistry efficiency, higher photochemistry efficiency, and higher actual quantum yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- non-mycorrhizal grapevinese0
Not reportedInteractor
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mycorrhizal grapevines had higher non-photochemistry efficiency, higher photochemistry efficiency, and higher actual quantum yield than non-mycorrhizal grapevines.”
The same questions in other papers
mycorrhiza · physiology: pigments · VitisResults differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →inoculation · physiology: pigments · VitisResults differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →infection · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
infection · physiology: gas exchange · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
mycorrhiza · physiology: gas exchange · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
mycorrhiza · physiology: photosynthesis · VitisResults agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- 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.