Rootstock effects on berry composition in the context of

climate change
N. Ollat, J-P Tandonnet, G.A. Gambetta, E. Marguerit
« Ecophysiology and Functional Genomics of GrapeVine »
ISVV- Bordeaux, France. nathalie.ollat@inrae.fr

Data integration for grapevine research in the context of environmental transition

Grafting : sustainable practice for pest control
and adaptation to adverse environments
o Since the 2d half of the 19th century, in most vineyards
worldwide, grapevines are grown grafted because of
Phylloxera. Scion

o Phylloxera + others pests, adaptation to to limiting Original graft

environments, control of vine development. interface

o A key tool in the context of climate change.

o Effects of both partners remain largely difficult to explain and

the mechanisms underlying these effects unknown.
Rootstock

Transversal section of a graft interface several

years after grafting (Photo: JP Tandonnet)

p. 2
Berry composition, a complex trait
Sugars Tannins
Wine Must Berry Organic acids
Anthocyanins
Secondary metabolites Flavonols
Water Aroma
Mineral content
Biochemical composition véraison

Grape heterogeneity

Skin = Pericarp
Cuticule
Epidermis Peripherical
Hypodermis
vascular
network

Carpel
chamber

Exocarp
Mesocarp Flesh
Endocarp

Tegument
Albumen Seed
Embryo

Peripherical Vascular
Central
Brush Ovular network
Pedicel

p. 3
Asynchroneous accumulation Compartimentation between tissues
Rootstock effects on wine quality
Prefered wines in a wine tasting (Cabernet Sauvignon)

Ollat et al., 2003

p. 4
4
 From the roots to the fruits
Carbon
uptake
P = f (S, RT, E)

A grafted plant = 2 genotypes

Scion
Fruit
Shoot growth
yield & quality
& physiology
Rootstocks modify scion vegetative
development (vigour), yield, biomass
Transport Signaling
Reserves
allocation, mineral and water uptake
There are direct and indirect effects
Rootstock on fruit composition
Root growth &
physiology
Minerals
& water uptake
p. 5
Rootstock effects on yield

Yield (kg per vine, 2004-2009 average)

Merlot grafted onto
80 accessions from
20 different species
of Vitis (plantation
1999).
Data recorded from
2004-2009.
R2= 0.69

Pruning weight (kg per vine, 2004-2009 average) Tandonnet et al., 2011

p. 6
 Rootstock effects on yield at a larger scale

Ten publications about rootstock vineyard experiments :

Clingeleffer et al. (2019); Li et al.(2019); Romero et al. (2018 et 2019); Marin et al (2019);
Walker et al. (2014; 2019); Tandonnet et al. (2011); Kidman et al. (2014); Keller et al.
(2012); Yuste et al. (2013); Wang et al. (2019)
Australia, Spain, France, United States, China
Chardonnay, Cabernet-Sauvignon, Syrah, Marselan, Petit Verdot, Tempranillo, Merlot,
Mourvèdre, and a large range of rootstocks

p. 7
 Rootstock contribution on various traits
Chardonnay et Cabernet Sauvignon, 15 rootstocks
5 year data,
- Year was the largest source of variation (especially on pruning weight, ravaz index and yield >
40%)
- Variety from 2 to 32% (the highest for berry size, cluster number, TA and SSC
- Rootstock about 9% (yield, berry weight, pruning weight and Ravaz index)

Migicovsky et al., 2020

p. 8
 Rootstock effects on reproductive versus vegetative balance

Migicovsky et al., 2020

Clingeleffer et al., 2018

p. 9
 Rootstock effects on reproductive versus vegetative balance

Cabernet-Sauvignon
on a gravely soil

Ollat et al., 2004

p. 10
A rootstock effect on bud fertility

Cox et al., 2012

p. 11
 What about berry composition ?
A meta-analysis from irrigation studies
in field-grown red and white grapevine varieties

- 48 published papers between 1979 and 2017 > 420 data points (298 red and 122
white)
- 20 different varieties (11 red and 9 white) Merlot and Tempranillo / Sauvignon blanc

The significant parameters to explain berry size and composition

- for the red varieties : cultivar, timing of water stress and ψstem
- for the white varieties : cultivar, rootstock, and ψstem

Miras-Avalos and Intrigliolo, 2017

p. 12
 On a large scale : scion and environmental conditions effects
Authors Combinations TSS AT/Ph/malic
Blank et al., 2022 Pinot noir/6 rootstocks no yes

Romero et al., 2018 Mourvèdre/5 rootstocks yes yes

Clingeleffer et al., Chardonnay, CS and Syrah / P=0,05 no/yes/yes

2019 7 rootstocks
Marin et al., 2019 Syrah, Tempranillo /12 yes no/yes/yes
rootstocks no/no/no
Walker et al., 2014 Chardonnay, Syrah / 10 yes yes
rootstocks
no
Keller et al., 2012 Merlot, Syrah, Chardonnay no no/yes
/ 6 rootstocks
Wang et al., 2019 CS/8 rootstocks no no

p. 13
 A global view of the effects in a given vineyard

2 scion varieties : CS and MN

3 rootstocks : RGM, 110R and SO4
2 soil fertility levels : +/- 100U N + water, in a gravely soil
Plantation in 2000: 4 random replicates of 5 consecutive vines
Measured traits from the plantation (from 2001 to 2006):
phenology, shoot growth, leaf area, pruning weight per vine, yield and
yield components per vine,
plant water potential and gas exchanges, mineral content, fruit
composition, carbohydrate content

p. 14
 1
Precocity diam1 pds40petioles
SUCRESTRAACS20 croisavantirri Early growth
0.8 and sugars Deg2002 spad12002 vmax2002
TART2002
Deg 02
amidon2002 K/Mg2002 and vigour
ver2003 1rogn 2rogn
0.6 ver2002
pdsbaies2002
flo28-05 K2002 boisII2002
spad1
Vmax bois2002 boisI2002
0.4
-- axe F2 (27 %) -->

pot12003 N/P2002 croisfinale2002

bois2001
cond stom
0.2 pot22002 croisfinale
pot32002 nbrmx2002
N2002
nbrameaux2003
lai2002 photo
pot32003 LAI2003
nbregrap2002
poidsrec03
spad22002
0 photo
3rogn
Water status bois2000 nbr03
-0.2 cond stom
Evapo
P2002
pot12002
pdsrec2002 Yield
-0.4 ph2002 poidbaies
N/K2002
-0.6
Ca2002
Mg2002 at2002
-0.8 MAL2002
at Acidity
-1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4
Mineral
-0.2
nutrition
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
-- axe F1 (41 %) -->

p. 15
 A global view of the effects
Individuals (axis F1 and F2 : 68 %)

Maturity Spring growth

6
MN SO4 F+
MN RGM
MN SO4
4 MN 110R F+
MN RGM F+
MN 110R
2
-- axe F2 (27 % ) -->

Water status
0
Vigour
Yield

-2

CS 110R
-4 CS RGM CS SO4
CS RGM F+ CS 110R F+
CS SO4 F+
Tandonnet et al., 2008
-6
-10 -5 0 5 10 p. 16
-- axe F1 (41 % ) -->
 General negative relationship between sugar content and yield
Gravesac
27

Merlot with 80 rootstocks Cabernet Sauvigon grafted on SO4

25 LINCECUM II 10988
berl 10094
aest 11051
200
berl 10607
SO4comp
berlcin
10455
10568
Y = -0,15x + 23,
190
R2 = 0,35
simI 10968

Juice sugar content (g/l)

berl 10184 rup rup ? PILLANS
( ° Br i x)
c ont e nt (Brix)

rub10594
3309ccomp LONGII
10913 10942
berl
amu rip 10203
rub berl 11184
10919
rup10307
PILLANS
rip 10709 10198
23 110rcomp
lab
rubamu 10151
10923 rip
rup rup 10334
10714
GANZIN 180
doan pia
101652164
bayRGM LONGII
10167 rip berl10096
cand
10525 11124
587 -rip
02 10705 140 R
rup 10400
BICOLOR rup
11219
10346
cin
berl10943
cin 11114
10139
rup M cali
ARTIN 10782
lab 10308 rup
doan 10179
berl
rup10733333
11134
10340 EM
SO4 10180
170
champC 10092 champ
S uga rcontent

3309
41 B rip 10567
rip
rub 10065 Fercal
21
10922
cin 10837
champ 10164
160
rup 10466?
C.S. 150
berl 10099
rup M ISSION
cand 10189 140
Juice sugar

rip 10202
19
130
rip 10128
berl 10122
lab 11056
120
17 110
100
0 2 4 6 8
15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Yield (kg/vine)
Yield
Yi el(kg per(kg/vi
d 2005 vine)ne) Ollat et al., 2017
Tandonnet et al., 2011
p. 17
Amino acids and secondary metabolites gave more consistent results
Pinot noir grafted onto 110R Cabernet Sauvignon grated
and 125 AA onto RGM and 110R

110R

RGM

Untargeted metabolomics on phenolic

Berdeja et al., 2015 Supervised-OPLS compounds with multivariate analyses

Habran et al., 2016

p. 18
 Underlying transcriptomic responses
Pinot / 1103P or 101-14 Mgt
Pinot / 110R or 125AA (in the vineyard) (or non grafted; in pots)
Most genes of the phenylpropanoid pathway
were differentially expressed between
rootstocks under water stress, but also in
stilbene and jasmonic acid metabolism.

Zombardo et al., 2020

Berdeja et al., 2015
p. 19
 From vines to wines, and a major role of N

Pinot noir grafted onto 6 rootstocks (Germany)

YAN FAN skin tannins total tannins skin anthocyanins wine tannins wine anthocyanins
mg/L mg/L mg CE/g BFW mg CE/g BFW mg M3OG g-1 BFW mg CE/L mg M3OG/L
Riparia 380 336 1,42 2,82 0,79 496 215
Schwarzmann 322 284 1,34 3,08 0,78 660 206
101-14 MGt 384 337 1,47 2,9 0,74 599 196
R110 346 300 1,6 3,06 0,86 624 227
SO4 375 318 1,63 3,25 0,76 539 216
125AA 428 372 1,52 2,88 0,67 505 182

Blank et al., 2022

p. 20
Rootstocks affect the ionome of aerial parts GreffAdapt : Cabernet-Sauvignon
grafted onto 13 rootstocks
Phosphorus Sulfur Magnesium

Potassium Manganese Iron

Gautier et al., 2020

p. 21
What about potassium?

Highly dependent of
scion and site

Chardonnay Syrah

pH
[K+]
Walker and Blackmore, 2012
p. 22
 And salt ?
Chlorure in juice Sodium in juice High yield and
vigour in the field

V. berlandieri best Cl-

excluder

Ramsey, Dog Ridge

Salt Creek
Harmony
143-B MGt
1045P
101-14Mgt
140Ru
1616C
13-5Evex

Walker et al., 2004

p. 23
Which choice of rootstocks to design a sustainable strategy of
adaptation ?

Productivity versus quality

Romero-Azorin and Garcia, 2020

p. 24
 Conclusions and take home messages
o Rootstocks have a large impact on vegetative and reproductive development,
which affect indirectly grape composition.

o Direct effects on primary metabolites are more random and depend highly on
scion varieties, growing practices and environmental parameters.

o Mineral nutrition, controlled by rootstocks, has probably the largest direct

contribution for several key parameters of berry composition and quality.

o In the context of climate change, rootstocks selection should integrate

sustainability criteria.

o A lot of rootstock experiments, but difficult to draw conclusions > collect large set
of data and analyse them globally > information system Silex porte-greffe
(http://vinnotec.supagro.inra.fr/public/Pg/)
p. 25
Thank you for your attention !

Thanks to the Integrape community !

p. 26
 Yield Sugar Anthocyanins GG Red free GG
(kg/vine) (° Brix) (µmol/g fresh (µmol/g fresh (µmol/g fresh
weight) weight) weight)
Gravely RG 1,59 20.6 ± 0.4 b 3.01 ± 0.24 a 3.99 ± 0.24 a 0.98 ± 0.16 a
101-14 2,93 23.6 ± 1.2 a 2.68 ± 0.10 b 3.6 ± 0.26 b 0.95 ± 0.18 a
SO4 3,13 19.9 ± 1.1 b 2.49 ± 0.18 c 3.28 ± 0.22 c 0.79 ± 0.11b
Sandy RG 2,28 20.05 ± 0.2 b 2.10 ± 0.20 d 2.79 ± 0.22 d 0.69 ± 0.13 c
101-14 2,52 20.0 ± 0.4 b 1.63 ± 0.35 e 2.14 ± 0.35 e 0.51 ± 0.09 d
SO4 2,35 19.1 ± 1.3 b 1.39 ± 0.08 f 2.05 ± 0.25 e 0.66 ± 0.22 c

Lafontaine et al., 2000

p. 27
 What about potassium? Cabernet Sauvignon,
in Australia
[K] petioles at pH Juice [K] (mg/L) Grape K per berry
flowering (µg)
(mg/100gDW)
1103P 2,64 ab 3,86 ab 2280 2247 ab

110R 1,71 bc 3,63 c 2039 2474 ab

140Ru 1,91 ac 3,65 bc 2037 2559 a

Borner 2,41 ab 3,84 ac 2124 1751 b

M5489 2,01 ac 3,64 bc 2107 2397 ab

M5512 1,25 c 3,66 bc 2115 2103 ab

Own 2,53 ab 3,94 a 2253 1841 ab

Ramsey 2,84 a 3,76 ac 2288 2407 ab

Xiao et al., p. 28
2020