↓ Skip to main content

A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Comparison of Petiole Hydraulics and Aquaporin Expression in an Anisohydric and Isohydric Cultivar of Grapevine in Response to Water-Stress Induced Cavitation
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.01893
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan C. Shelden, Rebecca Vandeleur, Brent N. Kaiser, Stephen D. Tyerman

Abstract

We report physiological, anatomical and molecular differences in two economically important grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars cv. Grenache (near-isohydric) and Chardonnay (anisohydric) in their response to water-stress induced cavitation. The aim of the study was to compare organ vulnerability (petiole and stem) to cavitation by measuring ultrasonic acoustic emissions (UAE) and percent loss of conductance of potted grapevines subject to the onset of water-stress. Leaf (ψL) and stem water potential (ψS), stomatal conductance (gs), transpiration (E), petiole hydraulics (KPet), and xylem diameter were also measured. Chardonnay displayed hydraulic segmentation based on UAE, with cavitation occurring at a less negative ψL in the petiole than in the stem. Vulnerability segmentation was not observed in Grenache, with both petioles and stems equally vulnerable to cavitation. Leaf water potential that induced 50% of maximum UAE was significantly different between petioles and stems in Chardonnay (ψ50Petiole = -1.14 and ψ50Stem = -2.24 MPa) but not in Grenache (ψ50Petiole = -0.73 and ψ50Stem = -0.78 MPa). Grenache stems appeared more susceptible to water-stress induced cavitation than Chardonnay stems. Grenache displayed (on average) a higher KPet likely due to the presence of larger xylem vessels. A close relationship between petiole hydraulic properties and vine water status was observed in Chardonnay but not in Grenache. Transcriptional analysis of aquaporins in the petioles and leaves (VvPIP1;1, VvPIP2;1, VvPIP2;2 VvPIP2;3, VvTIP1;1, and VvTIP2;1) showed differential regulation diurnally and in response to water-stress. VvPIP2;1 showed strong diurnal regulation in the petioles and leaves of both cultivars with expression highest predawn. Expression of VvPIP2;1 and VvPIP2;2 responded to ψL and ψS in both cultivars indicating the expression of these two genes are closely linked to vine water status. Expression of several aquaporin genes correlated with gas exchange measurements, however, these genes differed between cultivars. In summary, the data shows two contrasting responses in petiole hydraulics and aquaporin expression between the near-isohydric cultivar, Grenache and anisohydric cultivar, Chardonnay.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 21%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 48%
Engineering 6 9%
Environmental Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 18 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,616,813
of 23,207,489 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#2,781
of 20,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,766
of 331,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#81
of 485 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,207,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,945 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 485 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.