terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Roots and rhizosphere microbiota diversity is influenced by rootstock and scion genotypes: can this be linked to the development of the grafted plant?  

Roots and rhizosphere microbiota diversity is influenced by rootstock and scion genotypes: can this be linked to the development of the grafted plant?  

Abstract

Soil is a reservoir of microorganisms playing important roles in biogeochemical cycles and interacting with plants whether in the rhizosphere or in the root endosphere. Through rhizodeposition, plants regulate their associated microbiome composition depending on the environment and plant factors, including genotypes. Since the phylloxera crisis, Vitis vinifera cultivars are mainly grafted onto American Vitis hybrids. Rootstocks play a pivotal role in the grapevine development, as the interface between the scion and the soil. Our work was carried out in the GreffAdapt plot, a unique experimental vineyard, including 55 rootstocks grafted with five different scions. Roots and rhizospheres from ten scion × rootstock combinations were collected in May 2021. Rhizosphere bacteria and fungi were quantified using cultivable approaches and qPCR. The communities of bacteria, fungi, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the rhizosphere and the roots were analyzed by Illumina sequencing of 16S rRNA gene, ITS and 28S rRNA gene, respectively. Our results highlight that both rootstock and scion genotypes influence the community structure in the rhizosphere and root compartments. The metabarcoding approach shows dissimilarities among bacterial and fungal communities depending on the rootstock or the scion genotype, suggesting that the two partners influence the microbial composition of the rhizosphere and the roots, as well as the putative functions of the microbiome (inferred using Picrust2 and FUNGuild). Finally, the roles of the microbiome in plant development and adaptation will be discussed by correlating its composition with plant phenotypic traits, as well as nutrient content of petioles and roots.

DOI:

Publication date: June 13, 2024

Issue: Open GPB 2024

Type: Article

Authors

Vincent Lailheugue, Romain Darriaut, Anne Janoueix, Marine Morel, Joseph Tran, Elisa Marguerit, Virginie Lauvergeat*

EGFV, Univ. Bordeaux, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, INRAE, ISVV, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

grapevine, root system, metabarcoding, PICRUSt2, FUNGuild

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Open GPB | Open GPB 2024

Citation

Related articles…

Quantification of the production of hydrogen peroxide H2O2 during wine oxidation

Chemical studies aiming at assessing how a wine reacts towards oxidation usually focus on the characterization of wine constituents, such as polyphenols, or oxidation products. As an alternative, the key oxidation intermediate hydrogen peroxide H2O2 has never been quantified, although it plays a pivotal role in wine oxidation. H2O2 is obtained from molecular oxygen as the result of a first cascade of oxidation reactions involving metal ions and polyphenols. The produced H2O2 then reacts in a second cascade of oxidation to produce reactive hydroxyl radicals that can attack almost any chemical substrate in wine.

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Terroir and Typicity: proposed definitions for two essential concepts in the understanding of Geographical Indications and sustainable development

The content of this communication arises from the deliberations of a working group mandated within the framework of the INRA-INAO 2000-2003 research convention, which brought together INAO representatives and researchers who had worked on AOCs or PGIs, in disciplines from the sphere of the humanities (consumer science, marketing, rural development) and biotechnical sciences (agronomy, animal production science, technology, biochemistry).

NOVEL BENZENETHIOLS WITH PHENOLS CAUSE ASHY, SMOKE FLAVOR PERCEPTION IN RED WINES

Smoke impacts on wines are becoming a worldwide problem; the size and severity of wildfires increasing due to influences from changing climates.¹ For over a century, wines have been known to have a unique issue of absorbing chemical compounds derived from wildfire smoke wherein the flavor of the subsequent wine becomes ashy, rubbery, campfire-like, and smoky.² The economic impacts of a smoke-impacted wine can last for years depending on the grape varietal, costing Oregon and Washington states in the United States over a billion dollars from the 2020 wildfires, as an example.³ While years of research have indicated elevated concentrations of smoke-related compounds, such as guaiacol and syringol, in wines after smoke events, unfortunately, replicating the sensory experience using smoke-associated phenols has not had much success.⁴

Fining-Derived Allergens in Wine: from Detection to Quantification

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).