Botryticides affect grapevine leaf photosynthesis without inducing defense mechanisms.
The effects of the two botryticides, fludioxonil (fdx) and fenhexamid (fhd), were investigated on grapevine leaves (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Pinot noir) following photosynthesis and defense mechanisms. Treatments were carried out in vineyard at the end of flowering. Phytotoxicity of both fungicides was evaluated by measuring variations of leaf photosynthetic parameters and correlated expression of photosynthesis-related genes. Results demonstrated that similar decrease in photosynthesis was caused by fdx and fhd applications. Moreover, the mechanism leading to photosynthesis alteration seems to be the same for both fungicides. Stomatal limitation to photosynthetic gas exchange did not change following treatments indicating that inhibition of photosynthesis was mostly attributed to non-stomatal factors. Nevertheless, fungicides-induced depression of photosynthesis was related neither to a decrease in Rubisco carboxylation efficiency and in the capacity for regeneration of ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate nor to loss in PSII activity. However, fdx and fhd treatments generated repression of genes encoding proteins involved in the photosynthetic process. Indeed, decreased photosynthesis was coupled with repression of PsbP subunit of photosystem II (psbP1), chlorophyll a/b binding protein of photosystem I (cab) and Rubisco small subunit (rbcS) genes. A repression of these genes may participate in the photosynthesis alteration. To our knowledge, this is the first study of photosynthesis-related gene expression following fungicide stress. In the meantime, defense responses were followed by measuring chitinase activity and expression of varied defense-related genes encoding proteins involved in phenylpropanoid synthesis (PAL) or octadecanoid synthesis (LOX), as well as pathogenesis-related protein (Chi4C). No induction of defense was observed in botryticides-treated leaves. To conclude, the photosynthesis is affected without any triggering of plant defense responses.
Petit
Anne-Noëlle
AN
Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, UFR Sciences, BP 1039, 51687, Reims Cedex 2, France.
Wojnarowiez
Geneviève
G
Panon
Marie-Laure
ML
Baillieul
Fabienne
F
Clément
Christophe
C
Fontaine
Florence
F
Vaillant-Gaveau
Nathalie
N
D000577:Amides / Q000633:toxicity*; D002688:Chitinases / Q000378:metabolism; D002734:Chlorophyll / Q000378:metabolism; D000077194:Chlorophyll A; D004149:Dioxoles / Q000633:toxicity*; D005453:Fluorescence; D005659:Fungicides, Industrial / Q000633:toxicity*; D015870:Gene Expression / Q000187:drug effects; D017343:Genes, Plant; D010788:Photosynthesis / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000235:genetics; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000187:drug effects / Q000502:physiology; D011758:Pyrroles / Q000633:toxicity*; D013312:Stress, Physiological / Q000235:genetics; D027843:Vitis / Q000187:drug effects* / Q000235:genetics / Q000502:physiology
D000577:Amides; D004149:Dioxoles; D005659:Fungicides, Industrial; D011758:Pyrroles; D002734:Chlorophyll; D002688:Chitinases; C108339:fludioxonil; C451426:N-(2,3-dichloro-4-hydroxyphenyl)-1-methylcyclohexanecarboxamide; D000077194:Chlorophyll A