Phenotypic deconstruction of dormant bud winter hardiness

Transcription

1 Phenotypic deconstruction of dormant bud winter hardiness XII International Conference on Grapevine Breeding and Genetics Université de Bordeaux 7/15/218-7/2/218 Jason P. Londo and Alisson P. Kovaleski

2 Temperature C Cold Hardiness: phenotyping 6-8 months of non-visual physiology Key Aspects: Cane, Trunk, Phloem, Xylem, Cambium, Compound Bud Cold Hardiness: minimum temperatures do not breach bud s defenses. Buds track temperature. Dormancy is critical: must be induced to gain cold hardiness, maintained to prevent damage. 11 C C Endodormancy Ecodormancy Chilling hour accumulation Timing is everything. -2 Insufficient Chilling Full Chilling -3 Maximum Hardiness -4 Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14

3 Voltage (V) Phenotyping dormant bud cold hardiness 6.E-4 5.E-4 HTE 4.E-4 3.E-4 Low Temperature Exotherm (LTE) 2.E-4 1.E-4.E+ Temperature ( C)

4 Degrees C Tracking Bud Survival Nov 7-Dec 6-Jan 5-Feb 7-Mar 6-Apr Nov 12-Dec 11-Jan 1-Feb 12-Mar 11-Apr Nov 12-Dec 11-Jan 1-Feb 12-Mar The type of winter determines bud cold hardiness: strong environmental component Buds do not gain maximum hardiness unless the winter conditions are severe. Phenotyping the entire winter is logistically challenging, we need to deconstruct the responses. V. riparia V. amurensis V. vinifera

5 Acclimation: Gaining Cold Hardiness σ T Changes in LTE based on mean and oscillation. Mean 7 C C oscillation Mean 7 C 3 C oscillation (4 to 1 C) Starting LTE: ~ - 12 C LTE: ~ - 12 C LTE: ~ - 12 C C 5 C Mean 7 C 5 C oscillation (2 to 12 C) LTE: ~ - 17 C Mean 2 C C oscillation Mean 2 C 5 C oscillation (-3 to 7 C) Starting LTE: ~ - 12 C LTE: ~ - 15 C LTE: ~ - 2 C 3 C 5 C 8 C Londo and Kovaleski 217

6 Acclimation: Gaining Cold Hardiness σ T - Significantly different between species. σ T Changes in LTE based on mean and oscillation. V. amurensis Response Strong V. riparia V. labrusca V. cinerea V. rupestris V. aestivalis V. vulpina Weak V. vinifera Londo and Kovaleski 217

7 Measured LTE values C LTE C Comparing cold hardiness response with statistics based models 43 different Vitis riparia 3-Oct 2-Nov 2-Dec 1-Jan 31-Jan 2-Mar 1-Apr 1-May No genotype effect Genotype effect σ T Aug 3-Sep 3-Oct 2-Nov 2-Dec 1-Jan 31-Jan 2-Mar 1-Apr 1-May31-May Londo and Kovaleski 218: in review All V. riparia respond to temperature fluctuations in the same way. Dormancy induction may modulate max LTE?

8 LTE C Deacclimation: Chilling and Losing Cold Hardiness Endodormancy Ecodormancy Chilling accumulation increases rate of deacclimation 1 C 22 C Chilling accumulates LTE ( C) LTE ( C) Time (day) Time (day) Days Time (day) Days Sep 17-Oct 16-Nov 16-Dec 15-Jan 14-Feb 16-Mar 15-Apr 15-May Kovaleski, Reisch and Londo 218: in review

9 Deacclimation potential Rate (%) Deacclimation and Chilling Deacclimation rates at different chilling and temperatures Rate (%) ~ Ψ deacc Endodormancy Chill Accumulated Accumulation Chill Accumulated Chill Ecodormancy 5 LTE ( C) k deacc ( C day -1 ) k deacc ( C/day) LTE ( C) LTE ( C) Full speed depends on the airplane 158 (97 %) 13 (6 %) 86 (3 %) 36 ( %) Rate of deacclimation depends on the temperature Temperature 1 ( C) Time 16(Day) Temperature ( C) Kovaleski, Reisch and Londo 218: in review T Temper ( C

10 Deacclimation rate, C/day What does this have to do with phenotyping? 3 Rate/Ratio V. amurensis 22 C 2.5 Slope: Dormancy transition speed V. riparia 22 C Deacclimation potential is driven by chilling and Inflection Point: 5% Deacclimating potential Riesling 22 C V. amurensis 1 C Cab. Sauv. 22 C V. riparia 1 C Deacclimation rate is temperature specific New high-throughput phenotypes for mapping populations Riesling 1 C.5 Cab. Sauv. 1 C Chill Accumulation

11 LTE C LTE C LTE C Deacclimation rate in 4 mapping families at 15 C Rate of loss C/day V. riparia family V. riparia V. amurensis V. cinerea V. vulpina X V. vinifera C.57 C/Day 4 C.7 C/Day -25 2/5 2/1 2/15 2/2 2/25-5 V. vulpina family T T4 T11 T21 Days in 15 C /5 2/1 2/15 2/2 2/25 15 C.29 C/Day 4 C.4 C/Day

12 Phenotypes in action: Integration of σ T and Σ deac predict cold hardiness Outcome: Breaking the curve into two portions identifies separate phenotypes: 1) Response potential: variation at species level = σ T -1 σ T 2) Dormancy/deacclimation resistance: variation at genotype level = Σ deac -2 Σ deac Combining these two traits increases prediction ability and can be used to help map the traits. -3 Aug-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jun-17

13 Phenotypes in action: Integration of σ T and Σ deac predict cold hardiness Outcome: Breaking the curve into two portions identifies separate phenotypes: 1) Response potential: variation at species level = σ T -1 σ T 2) Dormancy/deacclimation resistance: variation at genotype level = Σ deac -2 Σ deac Combining these two traits increases prediction ability and can be used to help map the traits. -3 Aug-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jun-17

14 Summary Understanding the complexity of the cold hardiness trait: Temperature variation is a strong contributor to acclimation ability - species level trait. Dormancy induction may determine max potential LTE - new phenotype goal. Deacclimation rate and potential is key to predicting frost risk and budbreak genotype level trait. Development of high(er)-throughput phenotyping for cold hardiness Ongoing development of a model for predicting behavior

15 Thank you for your attention. Questions? Kathleen Deys Hanna Martens Bill Srmack John Keeton Bob Martens Greg Noden Bruce Reisch Bill Wilsey Tim Martinson Lynn Johnson Ravines Wine Cellars Anthony Road Wine Co. Research Geneticist Jason Londo PhD Candidate Alisson Kovaleski Anne Fennell SDSU Krista Shelli USDA, Parma