Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Effects of virus infection on growth and photosynthesis in Vitis vinifera L. cv Malvasia de Banyalbufar Carámbula C1, Sampol B1, Bota J1, Cifre J1, Medrano H1, Escalona J M2 1Laboratorio de Fisiología Vegetal, Departamento de Biología, Universidad de las Islas Baleares. Ctra. Valldemossa Km. 7,5. 07071. Palma de Mallorca. (España). 2Conselleria d´Agricultura i Pesca. Govern de les Illes Balears. c/Foners nº 10. 07006. Palma de Mallorca. (España) “Malvasia de Banyalbufar” is an autochthonous grapevine variety from Mallorca. The currently existing individuals proceed from a single survival stock which was infected by Grapevine Fan Leaf Virus (GFLV), Grapevine Leaf-Roll associated Virus (GLRaV), Grapevine Fleck Virus (GFkV) and Rugose Woody Complex (RgWC). In a previous work (Sampol et al., 2001) meristem tip “in vitro” culture enabled to obtain some virus-free plants and some others were still infected by GFLV and GLRaV. OBJETIVE: analyse the effect of virus infection on different parameters of vegetative growth and photosynthesis rate. Main Results Infection caused a was reduced by 44% reduction of accumulated shoot growth (fig. 1). Accumulated leaf appearance rate (leaf number per day) showed a clear reduction from 1 leaf/day for non-infected to 0,7 leaf/day for virus infected plants (fig.2). Figure 1:Accumulated Shoot growth Figure 2: Accumulated Leaf appearance rate Only, on exponential stage of leaf expansion curve there are highly significant differences between virus infected plants and non infected ones. (fig. 3). Photosynthesis rate showed significant differences between infected and noninfected plants on exponential growth stage (fig.4). Figure 3: Leaf Expansion Figure 4: Photosynthesis rate The reduction of net photosynthesis was between 20-30% in virus infected plants with respect to non-infected ones. Experiment References Bertamini, M., Muthuchelian,K., Nedunchezian,N. 2004. J. Phytopathology 152,145-152. Borgo, M. 1991. Riv. Vitic. Enol. 2, 21-30. Cabaleiro,C., Segura, A., García –Berríos, J.J. 1999. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 50, 40-43. Cifre,J., Sampol, B., Escalona, J.M., Riera, D., Raya, S., Medrano, H. 2003. XV Reunión de la Sociedad Española de Fisiología Vegetal & VIII Congreso Hispano-Luso. Palma de Mallorca. Clingeleffer, P.R., Krake, L.R. 1992. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 43, 31-37. Hoefert, L.L., Gifford Jr., E.M. 1967. Hilgardia 38, 403-426. Hoffmann, E.L. 1984.”. Wein-Wiss 39, 16-29. Sampol, B., Medrano, H., Juarez, J., Durán, N. 2001.. IV Congreso Ibérico de Ciencias Hortícolas. Cáceres, Mayo 2001. Acknowledgments: This work was financed by the project: Malvasia de Banyalbufar Recovery, Conselleria d´Agricultura i Pesca del Govern de les Illes Balears. Six virus infected plants (VI) and six non infected plants (NI) grown in 60 litre containers were used in this work, all of them coming from “in vitro” culture (Sampol et al., 2001). Two shoot length and total number of leaves were measured on each plant once a week during seven weeks. Length of six leaves was measured on each plant (1st or 2nd from apex) during 18 days. Shoot length was measured with a metal rule. Leaf elongation rate was calculated as the difference in leaf length between 2 consecutives samplings. The photosynthesis was determined by gas exchange using a Li-6400 (Li-Cor Inc., Lincoln, NE, USA). Six leaves were measured by treatment (VI and NI). Statistical analyses were performed with the SPSS for windows 10.0.