Abstract
Maintaining grapevine health and resilience under climate change demands an understanding of how multiple stresses interact. Climate change has led to more frequent and intense droughts and heat waves, which often occur together and may affect disease pressure. Here, we explored a complex multi-stress framework by combining drought and heat stress with downy mildew infection in grapevine, determining their possible interactions (synergistic or antagonistic) on pathogenesis, and detailing their effects on grapevine leaf physiology. We subjected grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) to drought, heat stress or a combination of both, subsequently inoculating leaves with Plasmopara viticola (Berk. & Curt. Ex de Bary). In these same leaves we quantified their physiological responses and changes in defense-related metabolite (H2O2 and phenols) concentrations. Our results revealed common and distinct responses to the multi-stress interactions. Drought and drought-heat treatments led to low stomatal conductance (a reduction in stomatal aperture), which acted as a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entry and resulting in a lower P. viticola sporulation rate. Defense-related metabolites were differentially regulated according to the stress combination, suggesting a role in the biochemical mechanism against the P. viticola infection. Stilbene concentration increased by 36, 57 and 113% in response to drought, heat and drought-heat, respectively. Flavonoids and phenolic acids exhibited distinct patterns in response to different stress treatments. These results shed light on the mechanisms that drive complex interactions between abiotic and biotic stressors, enhancing our understanding of multi-stress resilience and allowing us to better predict how grapevines will respond to the changing climate.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Drought reduced grapevine stomatal conductance and aperture.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.
Vitis viniferae1 - Organ / stage
- stomatal aperturee0
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- lowe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought and drought-heat treatments led to low stomatal conductance (a reduction in stomatal aperture), which acted as a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entry and resulting in a lower P. viticola sporulation rate.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined drought and heat reduced grapevine stomatal conductance and aperture.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- drought-heat treatmentse0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductancee0
- Direction
- lowe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought and drought-heat treatments led to low stomatal conductance (a reduction in stomatal aperture), which acted as a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entry and resulting in a lower P. viticola sporulation rate.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought restricted P. viticola entry and lowered sporulation through reduced stomatal aperture.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- Droughte0
- Interactor
- P. viticola
Plasmopara viticolae0pathogen - Outcome
- P. viticola sporulation ratee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entrye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought and drought-heat treatments led to low stomatal conductance (a reduction in stomatal aperture), which acted as a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entry and resulting in a lower P. viticola sporulation rate.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined drought and heat restricted P. viticola entry and lowered sporulation through reduced stomatal aperture.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- drought-heat treatmentse0
- Interactor
- P. viticolaPlasmopara viticolae0pathogen
- Outcome
- P. viticola sporulation ratee0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drought and drought-heat treatments led to low stomatal conductance (a reduction in stomatal aperture), which acted as a biophysical mechanism restricting P. viticola entry and resulting in a lower P. viticola sporulation rate.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Defense related metabolites were differentially regulated across stress combinations.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Interactor
- P. viticolaPlasmopara viticolae0pathogen
- Outcome
- Defense-related metabolitese0
- Direction
- differentially regulatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Defense-related metabolites were differentially regulated according to the stress combination, suggesting a role in the biochemical mechanism against the P. viticola infection.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Drought increased stilbene concentration by 36% in grapevine.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- droughte0
- Outcome
- Stilbene concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 36e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stilbene concentration increased by 36, 57 and 113% in response to drought, heat and drought-heat, respectively.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Heat increased stilbene concentration by 57% in grapevine.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- heate0
- Outcome
- Stilbene concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 57e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stilbene concentration increased by 36, 57 and 113% in response to drought, heat and drought-heat, respectively.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined drought and heat increased stilbene concentration by 113% in grapevine.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- drought-heate0
- Outcome
- Stilbene concentratione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 113%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Stilbene concentration increased by 36, 57 and 113% in response to drought, heat and drought-heat, respectively.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Flavonoids and phenolic acids had distinct responses to the stress treatments.
- Taxon
- Vitis vinifera L.Vitis viniferae1
- Treatment
- different stress treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Flavonoids and phenolic acidse0
- Direction
- distinct patternse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flavonoids and phenolic acids exhibited distinct patterns in response to different stress treatments.”
t0“grapevine”
e1“grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.)”
The same questions in other papers
heat · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →drought · molecular: metabolites · Vitis vinifera (wine grape)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
15 papers more in this group
See all 19 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.