Variability of mesophyll conductance in grapevine cultivars under water stress conditions in relation to leaf anatomy and water use efficiency
Article first published online: 12 MAR 2014
© 2014 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research
Volume 20, Issue 2, pages 272–280, June 2014
How to Cite
Tomás, M., Medrano, H., Brugnoli, E., Escalona, J.M., Martorell, S., Pou, A., Ribas-Carbó, M. and Flexas, J. (2014), Variability of mesophyll conductance in grapevine cultivars under water stress conditions in relation to leaf anatomy and water use efficiency. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 20: 272–280. doi: 10.1111/ajgw.12069
- Issue published online: 23 MAY 2014
- Article first published online: 12 MAR 2014
- Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology. Grant Numbers: AGL2008–04525-C02-01, BFU2008-01072, BFU2011–23294
- a pre-doctoral fellowship of the program JAE (CSIC)
Figure S1. The relationship between mesophyll diffusion conductance (gm) measured with the Harley method and gm modelled with anatomical parameters using different values for the membrane permeability of the plasmalemma (gpl) and chloroplast stroma (gstr) conductances. In (a) gpl and gstr were assumed constant (0.0035 m/s) for both water treatments and varying cell wall porosity (pi) across cultivars of grapevine, in (b) gpl and gstr were assumed to be 0.0035 m/s for irrigated plants and 0.0008 m/s in water-stressed plants and constant the effective porosity (0.1). The table shows the different values of gpl and gstr used in order to obtain modelled and measured gm values as similar as possible keeping the effective porosity constant (0.1). Data are means ± SE of three replicates for gm modelled and six for gm Harley. The data were fitted by linear regression. Broken lines correspond to the 1:1 relationship. Symbols are the same as in Figure 4.
Table S1. Midday leaf water potential in four cultivars measured on two days during the experiments in 2008, 2009 and 2010 under irrigation and drought conditions.
Table S2. Net photosynthesis, stomatal conductance to CO2, mesophyll conductance according to the Harley et al. method and CO2 drawdown from substomatal cavities to the chloroplasts are values averaged of six replicates ± SE, measured for the cultivars Cabernet Sauvignon, Grenache, Malvasia and Tempranillo in the experiments undertaken in 2008, 2009 and 2010 under drought and irrigated conditions.
Table S3. Leaf anatomical traits measured for the cultivars Cabernet Sauvignon, Escursac, Grenache, Malvasia, Manto Negro, Pinot Noir, and Tempranillo in the last experimental year (2010) under drought and irrigated conditions. Leaf thickness of mesophyll layers and mesophyll porosity measured from light microscopic images. Mesophyll surface area exposed to intercellular, airspace, chloroplast surface area exposed to intercellular airspace and the ratio.
Table S4. Leaf anatomical traits, cell wall thickness, cytoplasm thickness, chloroplast length and chloroplast thickness, measured from transmission electron micrographs in Cabernet Sauvignon, Escursac, Grenache, Malvasia, Manto Negro, Pinot Noir and Tempranillo under drought and irrigated conditions in the last experimental year (2010).
Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.