Next Article in Journal
Disease Detection in Apple Leaves Using Deep Convolutional Neural Network
Previous Article in Journal
Role of Camel Husbandry in Food Security of the Republic of Kazakhstan
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Yield and Berry Chemical Composition of in Field Grown “Cabernet Sauvignon” Grapevines (V. vinifera L.)

1
Department of Viticulture and Enology, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb University, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Institute for Adriatic Crops and Karst Reclamation, 21000 Split, Croatia
3
Polytechnic in Požega, Studia Superiora Posegana, 34000 Požega, Croatia
4
Department of Plant Nutrition, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagreb University, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(7), 615; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070615
Received: 19 May 2021 / Revised: 26 June 2021 / Accepted: 27 June 2021 / Published: 30 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Technology)

Abstract

:
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the application of mycorrhizal fungal inoculum on “Cabernet Sauvignon” (Vitis vinifera L.) leaf gas exchange, yield parameters, as well as grape berry composition, especially regarding phenolic compounds. The experiment was conducted over two years under natural vineyard conditions of the Zagreb wine-growing area, the continental region of Croatia. “Cabernet Sauvignon” grapevines were grafted on SO4 rootstock, both being commonly used in all wine production areas in Croatia. Results obtained demonstrated that symbiotic grapevines, in general, expressed improved leaf gas exchange parameters and higher yield parameters, especially regarding the number of clusters per vine. It should be emphasized that mycorrhizal fungi affected higher total flavan-3-ols, total anthocyanins, and total polyphenols in berry skin in both experimental years. Despite variation in some yield parameters, generally, it is possible to obtain higher yields together with the improved phenolic composition of grapes.

1. Introduction

Mycorrhizal fungi live in symbiosis with plant roots. During this mutualism, mycorrhizal fungus helps the plant to acquire water and mineral nutrients from the soil, gaining photosynthetic products from a plant in return [1]. Mycorrhizal symbiosis plays a key role in nutrient cycling in the ecosystem and also protects plants against environmental stress and enhances plant resistance to pests and diseases [2,3,4]. Mycorrhizal fungi also increase tolerance to adverse soil conditions [1]. Most tree species are in symbiosis with endomycorrhizal or arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi, or both [5]. AM fungi form tree-like hyphal structures (arbuscules) within root cells. The other association formed by ECM fungi is characterized by hyphal growth and the “Hartig net” formation and a sheath (mantle) around the root tips [1].
AM fungi can improve the nutritional quality of edible parts of crops and play essential roles in the maintenance of host plant fitness under stressed environments [6]. Previous studies have shown that inoculation of grapevines with AM fungi increased shoot and root growth [7,8,9,10]; Fe and chlorophyll concentrations in the leaves [11]; photosynthesis rate [12]; N, P, Mn, and Cu concentrations in leaf fresh matter [7,9,13]; as well as increased phenol content in leaf tissues as compared to control grapevines [14]. Furthermore, the AM fungi improved the plants’ water status; induced an improvement in the photosynthetic performance that increased the water use efficiency; promoted the uptake of phosphorus (P), potassium (K), and calcium (Ca); and led to a mobilization of starch reserves in the apex in winter, which was possibly responsible for enhancing root development. Moreover, inoculated plants had significantly increased yield and improved quality of grapes, which led to early grape maturation [15,16]. Although the variations in photosynthesis and transpiration rates coupled with chlorophyll fluorescence-derived parameters provide a quick way to characterize the plant response to water stress, comparison of photosynthetic characteristics of 20 cultivars of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) showed high variability for gas-exchange parameters (net CO2 assimilation, stomatal conductance, and intrinsic water use efficiency) but not for chlorophyll fluorescence parameters [17]. Phenolic compounds, which are present in grape berries and wines in quite low concentrations, play a very important role in wine quality and sensory attributes. They strongly contribute to the color, bitterness, and astringency of red wines [18,19]. They are also important because of great health benefits due to antioxidant action in the human body [20,21,22].
The vast majority of experiments with AM fungi effect on grapevines were conducted under controlled soil and/or climatic conditions, where grapevines were inoculated and planted in pots. There are only a few research works with AM fungi conducted under field (vineyard) conditions [23,24,25], and even fewer of them [8,26,27,28,29] are concerned with the chemical composition of Vitis vinifera L. grapes and wines. To our knowledge, there are little known researches dealing with mycorrhizal fungi impact on grapevine physiology, vegetative growth, and grape quality in field conditions.
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of the application of mycorrhizal fungal inoculum on “Cabernet Sauvignon” (Vitis vinifera L.) photosynthetic rate, yield parameters, as well as grape composition, especially regarding phenolic compounds. The experiment was conducted over two years under natural vineyard conditions of the Zagreb wine-growing area, the continental region of Croatia. “Cabernet Sauvignon” grapevines were grafted on SO4 rootstock, both being commonly used in all wine production areas in Croatia.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Vineyard Site and Plant Material

A two-year experiment (2016–2017) was conducted on “Cabernet Sauvignon” cultivar (Vitis vinifera L.) at Jazbina experimental field (University of Zagreb, Faculty of Agriculture, lat. 45°51′ N, long. 16°0′ E), which is characterized by a moderately warm and rainy continental climate. Experimental vines were planted in 2005 on the spacing of 1.2 × 2.0 m (4167 vines/ha). Rows were east–west oriented. Vines were grafted on SO4 rootstock and double Guyot trained, leaving 24 buds per vine. The fruit-bearing wire was set up to 80 cm above ground, with the addition of two sets of catch wires at 40 cm intervals from the bearing wire. The maximum canopy height was 180 cm.
Meteorological data during two consecutive growing seasons (1 April–31 October) are presented in Table 1. Soil type was anthropogenic pseudogley with a clay texture. The vines received no fertilization in 2015. Soil analysis was done in the first experimental year (March 2016) and showed that it was very acid with a surface pH (in KCl) of 4.26 (0 to 30 cm depth). The soil was poor in organic matter, ranging from 1.14% (0 to 30 cm depth) to 1.28% (30 to 60 cm depth). The deep horizon of soil was richer in organic matter due to the trenching of soil up to 60 cm depth, performed prior to the planting of vines. Available P and K were very low ranging from 8.6 mg of P2O5/100 g soil and 20.0 mg of K2O/100 g soil, respectively. The soil was moderately supplied with nitrogen, ranging from 0.10% (0 to 30 cm depth) to 0.13% (30 to 60 cm depth). Three soil samples were pooled together to get the average data analysis.
Viticultural practices were performed as usual for this viticultural area. This includes the application of glyphosate beneath the vine rows (0.6 m wide strip) to keep the soil weed-free. Shoots exceeding the height of the trellis were hedged to 20 cm above the last wire, 4 weeks before veraison. Vines were not irrigated, and no fertilization was applied during the experiment.

2.2. Mycorrhiza Inoculation and Experimental Design

There were two treatments: (1) non-inoculated control (C) and (2) inoculation with commercial inoculum Mykoflor (Mykoflor, Polland). In June 2015, 40 vines of “Cabernet Sauvignon” were inoculated with fungal inoculum. Inoculation was performed by injecting 20 mL of suspension under the vine roots, containing about 2000 propagules of live fungal mycelium. Control vines were located at a distance of ~50 m to avoid potential contamination with inoculated fungi. There were three replications within treatment, with 10 consecutive vines in each replication, so there were 30 vines in each treatment. The experiment had a total of 6 units (plots), distributed in two rows.

2.3. Root Sampling and Mycorrhizal Assessment

Young roots were sampled only in 2016 at ten control and ten inoculated vines, from different parts of the vineyard. After washing under tap water, they were stained with Trypan blue and analyzed under light microscopy (magnification, 200×) [30]. One-hundred-and-fifty root intersections per plant were analyzed to determine colonization rate, according to the magnified intersections method [31], with the percentage of arbuscules, vesicles, only hyphal and total colonization quantified.

2.4. Yield Components and Grape Juice Analysis

Grapes were harvested at their full maturity when the total soluble solids (°Brix) of 100 randomized collected berries remained constant for a few days, which was on 30 September 2016 [274 days of the year (DOY)] and 3 October 2017 (277 DOY). Both treatments were harvested on the same day and processed separately. The number of clusters and yield (g) per vine were counted and weighed in the vineyard, so cluster weight (g) was calculated based on collected data. Immediately after harvest, 100 randomized chosen berries per treatment and repetition were collected and weighed to obtain the average berry weight. Clusters were separately destemmed and crushed for each experimental plot and submitted to juice analysis. Sugar content in musts was determined by refractometer (expressed in °Brix) and titratable acidity of the must (g L−1) was by titration with 0.1 M NaOH according to the O.I.V. method (2013). pH was measured with an electronic pH meter (850 LAB, Schott, Germany).

2.5. HPLC Analysis

Acetonitrile HPLC grade was purchased from J. T. Baker (Deventer, The Netherlands). Formic acid and 85% orthophosphoric acid were obtained from Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland).
The concentration of tartaric, malic, and citric acids (g L−1) was determined by HPLC in a sample of fresh juice obtained from 100 g of berries as described above. Analyses were performed isocratically at a 0.6 mL min−1 flow and 65 °C column temperature with a 300 × 7.8 mm i.d. Aminex HPX-87H cation exchange column and a Cation H+ Microguard cartridge (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA), using 0.065% H3PO4 as the mobile phase and Agilent Diode Array Detector (Series 1100; Agilent, Palo Alto, CA) set to 210 nm. Data analysis was carried out using the ChemStation chromatography data system (Agilent, Palo Alto, CA, USA).
The berry skins were manually removed from the pulp and seeds and freeze-dried in an Alpha 1–2 Ldplus freeze-dryer (Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungaslangen GmbH, Osterode am Harz, Germany). Dry skins were ground (Coffee Grinder SMK150, Gorenje, Slovenia), and the powder obtained was immediately extracted and analyzed. The extraction was performed according to the method described by Tomaz et al. [32]. In brief, grape skin powder (160 mg) was extracted by a 10 mL of 20% aqueous acetonitrile containing 1% formic acid for 1 h at 50 °C on the magnetic stirrer. The extract was centrifuged in an LC-321 centrifuge (Tehtnica, Železnik, Slovenia) for 20 min at 5000 rpm at room temperature. The supernatant was removed and brought to a final volume of 10 mL with eluent A (water: phosphoric acid, 99.5:0.5, v/v). The extract was filtered with Phenex-PTFE 0.20 μm syringe filter (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA) and analyzed by HPLC. The separation, identification, and quantification of flavonoids from grape skin extracts were performed according to the method described by Tomaz and Maslov [33] on an Agilent 1100 Series system (Agilent, Germany). The separation was performed with a reversed-phase column Luna Phenyl-Hexyl (4.6 × 250 mm; 5 μm particle (Phenomenex, Torrance, CA, USA)). The solvents were water:phosphoric acid (99.5:0.5, v/v, eluent A) and acetonitrile:water:phosphoric acid; 50:49.5:0.5, v/v/v, eluent B). Using DAD, flavonol glycosides were detected at 360 nm, and anthocyanins at 518 nm. Using FLD, flavan-3-ols were detected at λex = 225 nm and λem = 320 nm. Quantification was obtained from calibrating curves of external standards All analyses were performed in triplicate. The results are expressed in mg kg−1 of dry weight (d.w.) of grape skin.

2.6. Leaf Gas-Exchange Parameters

Leaf gas-exchange parameters (net photosynthetic rate (A), transpiration rate (E), stomatal conductance (gs), and intercellular CO2 concentration (Ci), were measured with an LCpro portable photosynthesis system (ADC, Bio Scientific Ltd., Hoddesdon, UK) equipped with a 6.25 cm2 clamp-on leaf cuvette. The chlorophyll content index (CCI) was determined using a Chlorophyll content meter (CCM-200 by Opti-Sciences, Inc., Hudson, OH, USA). Measurements were taken three times during the growing period: berries setting (end of flowering), berries pea size (berry growth), and berries with intermediate sugar values (berry ripening), which represent stages 27, 31, and 36 according to modified Eichorn and Lorenz system [34]. Measurements were performed on three fully developed and undamaged leaves opposite to clusters from three vine plants per treatment. Average values were calculated from nine recorded measurements per treatment. Measurements were taken on cloudless days between 9:30 and 11:30 h a.m. at 1200 µmol m−2 s−1 photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and 380 ± µmol−1 CO2 concentration. WUE (water use efficiency) was calculated as net photosynthetic rate (A)/transpiration rate (E).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

All analyses were performed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with year, treatment, and year*treatment interaction as independent variables in a model. Multiple tests of differences between means of the significant factor levels (p < 0.05) were performed using Bonferroni correction. When the interaction year*treatment was found significant in the model, multiple comparisons were made between means of different treatments within the same year with appropriate Bonferroni correction. Data were analyzed using SAS statistical software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

3. Results

This mycorrhizal colonization was relatively high in inoculated vines (79–82%), similar to the average values in the region [35]. Although control plants had a significantly lower percentage of the total (t = −4.671, p = 0.001) and arbuscular (t = −4.843, p < 0.001) root colonization (t = −4.361, p = 0.003), they also developed a high level of colonization (48–74%), being spontaneously mycorrhized by the native AMF present in the vineyard soil (Figure 1).
Mean values for gas-exchange parameters and CCI are shown in Table 2. In the first year of research, significant differences were determined during the second measurement for Ci, E, and gs, and in the third measurement for Ci. At the verasion stage, Myc treatment had significantly higher values for Ci (145.67 μmol mol−1), E (4.21 mmol H2O m−2 s−1), and gs (0.16 mol H2O m−2 s−1). However, at the beginning of ripening, a significantly higher value for Ci was determined in the control treatment (161.78 μmol mol−1). In the second year, significant differences were found in all measurements: in the first measurement for all parameters, in the second for Ci E, gs, and in the third for A and WUE. At the berry setting stage, Myc had significantly higher values for Ci (191.44 μmol mol−1), E (4.80), and gs (0.22 mol H2O m−2 s−1). However, at the berry growth stage, those values were significantly higher on the control treatment (Ci = 128.56 μmol mol−1; E = 2.92 mmol H2O m−2 s−1; gs = 0.06 mol H2O m−2 s−1). A significant effect for A; WUE and LUE were determined in the second year at the berry setting stage where Myc had significantly lower values (A = 20.00 µmol CO2 m−2 s−1; WUE = 4.17; LUE = 0.0167). However, at berry ripening stage had significantly higher values for these parameters (A = 11.8 µmol CO2 m−2 s−1, WUE = 10.71; LUE = 0.0098). Although CCI at Myc treatment was higher in all measurements, significant differences were not determined.
Table 3 presents the yield parameters of “Cabernet Sauvignon” for both experimental years. The effect of Myc fungi on grapevine yield components became apparent already in the first experimental year, but only regarding the number of clusters per vine. Yield generally decreased in the second year, but all yield components were affected by Myc fungi. Myc fungi inoculation increased yield per vine, number of clusters per vine, and cluster weight. On the other hand, berry weight significantly decreased in Myc treatment. There was an effect of the experimental year on all measured yield components. The interaction between year and treatment was observed for cluster and berry weight.
The effect of Myc fungi on grape juice quality was not consistent among experimental years (Table 4). In 2016, Myc affected higher soluble solids, lower titratable acidity, and higher pH value thus implying enhanced grape ripening. In 2017, Myc affected lower soluble solids, titratable acidity, and pH value, which was expected regarding significantly higher yield parameters in Myc grapevines. The concentration of tartaric acid was higher in grapes of Myc treatment in both years, while the concentration of malic acid varied between experimental years.
The effect of ECM fungi inoculation on berry skin flavonols, flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, as well as total polyphenols is presented in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7. Regarding flavonols, Myc treatment affected the higher concentration of quercetin-glucuronide, quercetin-glucoside, and finally total flavonols, but only in 2016. In the second year of the experiment, the concentration of all flavonols was higher in Myc treatment but without statistical significance. Only isorhamnetin concentration was significantly higher in the 2016 year when compared to 2017. Flavanols responded more strongly to Myc treatment, which affected a higher concentration of all measured flavanols in 2016. A similar effect was observed in 2017, but differences in concentration of epigallocatechin and epicatechin were not statistically significant. There was a strong effect of the experimental year, causing higher concentrations of flavanols in the 2016 year. The interaction between year and treatment was observed for catechin, procyanidin b2, and total flavanols. Myc treatment also affected a higher concentration of all berry skin anthocyanins and total polyphenols in 2016. In 2017, Myc treatment affected a higher concentration of delphinidin-3-glucoside, as well as total anthocyanins and polyphenols concentration. The effect of the experimental year was not observed for cyanidin-3-glucoside, petunidin-3-glucoside, and peonidin-3-glucoside, while the effect of interaction between year and treatment was the opposite.

4. Discussion

The Myc treatment had higher CCI in all measurements, although without statistical significance. This is in accordance with Ambrosini et al. [36] and Mikiciuk et al. [37] who found no effect of AM fungi on chlorophyll content. Eftekhari et al. [38] claimed that AM fungi inoculation improved or at least maintain chlorophyll content. Generally, our results are similar to Zufferey et al. [39] who investigated water stress on grapevines. Major reductions in gas exchange (A, E) and gs were measured from the end of July, and very low levels of gs, A, and E were recorded during the grape ripening phase (August–September). The different transpiration rate by each year is probably caused by differences in the air to leaf vapor pressure deficit (VPD) in these two years, which caused a higher transpiration rate whereas did not significantly affect the rate of photosynthesis. Namely, due to the different concentration gradients and the size of the molecules, water vapor and CO2 molecules have different diffusion rates, and there is a much higher concentration gradient between leaf and air for water vapor than for CO2 molecules [40]. Thus, small changes in stomatal conductance caused by different VPD would have a more considerable effect on transpiration rate than on CO2 diffusion and consequently on Ci and A. Martín et al. reported that inoculated plants during the first and second year had higher values of A and gs, while significant higher WUE values were found only in the second year of investigation [16]. Furthermore, Nikolaou et al. [9] reported that mycorrhizal inoculation had a beneficial effect on CO2 assimilation in drought-stressed plants, but not for most of the irrigated plants. Nicolás et al. claimed that AM fungi improved photosynthetic performance and water use efficiency of grapevines [15]. Mycorrhizal fungi can increase the photosynthetic rate as a large proportion of assimilates are translocated toward the roots of plants infected with mycorrhizae [41]. Finally, Myc treatment had a positive effect on A and WUE values but only in the second experimental year and at the ripening stage. On the other hand, a positive effect of Myc treatment on gs values was observed in the first experimental year at the berry growth stages and the second year at the berry setting stage. This is in accordance with Mikiciuk et al. who found that mycorrhizal fungi increased the intensity of CO2 assimilation, transpiration, and stomatal conductance [37].
The ability of mycorrhizal fungi to enhance grapevine growth has been previously confirmed [23,42], but mostly in greenhouse conditions [43]. It is well known that mycorrhizal fungi can make a significant contribution to phosphorus (P) uptake from the soil [26,36,44]. Fertilization with P affects the increase in grapevine yield and cluster number [45]. The number of berries per cluster was higher in Myc treatment in the second year and this could be the reason for significantly lower berry weight. The described effect was not observed in the first experimental year. Nicolás et al. reported that grapevines inoculated with AM fungi had significantly increased yield [15].
Karagiannidis et al. [26] reported that non-mycorrhizal berries tended to have higher titratable acidity, which is in accordance with the present work. The same authors found no significant differences in soluble solids between mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal vines. Nicolás et al. [15] found improved quality of Crimson seedless grapes inoculated with AM fungi, which led to early grape maturation. Improved quality referred to increased soluble solids and reduced acid concentration in grapes.
According to Torres et al. [29], several studies reported enhanced polyphenols synthesis of mycorrhizal grapevines. This is very important regarding grapes and wine quality as well as vine tolerance to the environmental conditions. Previous works reported that inoculation of grapevines with AM fungi improves grapes’ phenolic composition, especially anthocyanins content [28,29]. Gabriele et al. [27] found that symbiotic Sangiovese wines had a significantly higher level of total polyphenols and flavonols when compared to conventional wines. However, the same authors found significantly lower levels of monomeric anthocyanins in symbiotic wines than in conventional ones. On the contrary, they found a higher level of malvidin in symbiotic wines compared to conventional ones.
In the present study, the differences between experimental years are also obvious. This could be explained by the extremely hot summer of 2017 (June–August), which led to enhanced berry ripening. The summer of 2016 was slightly colder than the summer of 2017 (by 1.9 °C on average), which was not enough for a late variety like “Cabernet Sauvignon” to reach optimal maturity. On the other hand, extremely hot weather conditions, probably accompanied by high UV radiation, resulted in a decrease in anthocyanin concentration in 2017, which is in accordance with previous findings of [46].

5. Conclusions

In the present study, the influence of mycorrhizal fungi on the in-field “Cabernet Sauvignon” (Vitis vinifera L.) vines was investigated. Although both inoculated and non-inoculated vines did develop symbiosis, mycorrhizal inoculation induced higher root colonization. Briefly, our result demonstrated that inoculated grapevines, in general, expressed improved leaf gas exchange parameters and higher yield parameters. Note that mycorrhizal inoculum resulted in an increase of total flavanols, total anthocyanins, and total polyphenols in berry skin in both experimental years. Therefore, it seems possible to obtain improved phenolic composition of grapes. This has yet to be confirmed by further investigations, in which the impact of yield indicators should be minimized. Besides, further investigation should focus on the nutritional and sanitary status of mycorrhized grapevines. Positive findings could confirm the use of mycorrhizal fungi in vineyards as an efficient tool for organic grape and wine production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K., T.R., J.M. and M.O.; methodology, M.K., T.R., Ž.A., D.S. and I.T.; formal analysis, T.R., I.T., T.K. and M.P. (Marko Petek); investigation, M.K., T.R., T.K., M.A. and M.O.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K., T.R., Ž.A., I.T., T.K. and M.O.; writing—review and editing, M.K., Ž.A., I.T. and M.O.; supervision, B.L. and M.P. (Milan Poljak). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Smith, S.E.; Read, D.J. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  2. Barea, J.M.; Jeffries, P. Arbuscular mycorrhizas in sustainable soil plant systems. In Mycorrhiza Structure, Function, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology; Varma, A., Hock, B., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; pp. 521–560. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gehring, C.A.; Whitman, T.G. Mycorrhizae–herbivore interactions: Population and community consequences. In Mycorrhizal Ecology; Van der Heijden, M.G.A., Sanders, I.R., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2002; pp. 295–320. [Google Scholar]
  4. Whipps, J.M. Prospects and limitations for mycorrhizas in biocontrol of root pathogens. Can. J. Bot. Rev. Can. Bot. 2004, 82, 1198–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harley, J.L.; Smith, E. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Academic Press: London, UK, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  6. Torres, N.; Antolin, M.C.; Goicoechea, N. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis as a Promising Resource for Improving Berry quality in Grapevines Under Changing Environments. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  7. Biricolti, S.; Ferrini, F.; Rinaldelli, E.; Tamantini, I.; Vignozzi, N. VAM fungi and soil lime content influence rootstock growth and nutrient content. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1997, 48, 93–99. [Google Scholar]
  8. Karagiannidis, N.; Nikolaou, N. Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on heavy metal (Pb and Cd) uptake, growth, and chemical composition of Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Razaki). Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 51, 269–275. [Google Scholar]
  9. Nikolaou, N.; Angelopoulos, K.; Karagiannidis, N. Effects of drought stress on mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal Cabernet sauvignon grapevine, grafted onto various rootstocks. Exp. Agric. 2003, 39, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Ozdemir, G.; Akpinar, C.; Sabir, A.; Bilir, H.; Tangolar, S.; Ortas, I. Effect of Inoculation with Mycorrhizal Fungi on Growth and Nutrient Uptake of Grapevine Genotypes (Vitis spp.). Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 75, 103–110. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bavaresco, L.; Fogher, C. Lime-induced chlorosis of grapevine as affected by rootstock and root infection with arbuscular mycorrhiza and Pseudomonas fluorescens. Vitis 1996, 35, 119–123. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bavaresco, L.; Pezzutto, S.; Fornaroli, A.; Ferrari, F. Grapevine Iron-Chlorosis Occurence and Stilbene Root Concentration as Affected by the Rootstock and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Infection. Acta Hortic. 2003, 603, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bavaresco, L.; Fogher, C. Effect of root infection with Pseudomonas fluorescens and Glomus mossae in improving Fe-efficiency of grapevine ungrafted rootstocks. Vitis 1992, 31, 163–168. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eftekhari, M.; Alizadeh, M.; Ebrahimi, P. Evaluation of the total phenolics and quercetin content of foliage in mycorrhizal grape (Vitis vinifera L.) varieties and effect of postharvest drying on quercetin yield. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2012, 38, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Nicolas, E.; Maestre-Valero, J.F.; Alarcon, J.J.; Pedrero, F.; Vicente-Sanchez, J.; Bernabe, A.; Gomez-Montiel, J.; Hernandez, J.A.; Fernandez, F. Effectiveness and persistence of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the physiology, nutrient uptake and yield of Crimson seedless grapevine. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 1084–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  16. Martín, F.F.; Molina, J.J.; Nicolás Nicolás, E.; Alarcón, J.J.; Kirchmair, M.; García, F.J.; Bernabe Garcia, A.J.; Bernal, C. Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizae Glomus iranicum var. tenuihypharum var. nova in Intensive Agriculture: A Study Case. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. B 2017, 7, 221–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bota, J.; Flexas, J.; Medrano, H. Genetic variability of photosynthesis and water use in Balearic grapevine cultivars. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2001, 138, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hufnagel, J.C.; Hofmann, T. Orosensory-directed identification of astringent mouthfeel and bitter-tasting compounds in red wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 1376–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Keller, M. The Science of Grapevines: Anatomy and Physiology; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  20. Cimino, F.; Sulfaro, V.; Trombetta, D.; Saija, A.; Tomaino, A. Radical-scavenging capacity of several Italian red wines. Food Chem. 2007, 103, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fernandez-Pachon, M.S.; Villano, D.; Garcia-Parrilla, M.C.; Troncoso, A.M. Antioxidant activity of wines and relation with their polyphenolic composition. Anal. Chim. Acta 2004, 513, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Minussi, R.C.; Rossi, M.; Bologna, L.; Cordi, L.; Rotilio, D.; Pastore, G.M.; Duran, N. Phenolic compounds and total antioxidant potential of commercial wines. Food Chem. 2003, 82, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Camprubi, A.; Estaun, V.; Nogales, A.; Garcia-Figueres, F.; Pitet, M.; Calvet, C. Response of the grapevine rootstock Richter 110 to inoculation with native and selected arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and growth performance in a replant vineyard. Mycorrhiza 2008, 18, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nogales, A.; Luque, J.; Estaun, V.; Camprubi, A.; Garcia-Figueres, F.; Calvet, C. Differential Growth of Mycorrhizal Field-Inoculated Grapevine Rootstocks in Two Replant Soils. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2009, 60, 484–489. [Google Scholar]
  25. Schreiner, R.P. Mycorrhizal colonization of grapevine rootstocks under field conditions. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2003, 54, 143–149. [Google Scholar]
  26. Karagiannidis, N.; Nikolaou, N.; Ipsilantis, I.; Zioziou, E. Effects of different N fertilizers on the activity of Glomus mosseae and on grapevine nutrition and berry composition. Mycorrhiza 2007, 18, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gabriele, M.; Gerardi, C.; Longo, V.; Lucejko, J.; Degano, I.; Pucci, L.; Domenici, V. The impact of mycorrhizal fungi on Sangiovese red wine production: Phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 72, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Torres, N.; Goicoechea, N.; Morales, F.; Antolin, M.C. Berry quality and antioxidant properties in Vitis vinifera cv. Tempranillo as affected by clonal variability, mycorrhizal inoculation and temperature. Crop Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 961–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  29. Torres, N.; Goicoechea, N.; Antolin, M.C. Influence of irrigation strategy and mycorrhizal inoculation on fruit quality in different clones of Tempranillo grown under elevated temperatures. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 202, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Phillips, J.M.; Hayman, D.S. Improved procedures for clearing roots and staining parasitic and vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infection. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1970, 55, 158–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. McGonigle, T.P.; Miller, M.H.; Evans, D.G.; Fairchild, G.L.; Swan, J.A. A new method which gives an objective-measure of colonization of roots by vesicular arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. New Phytol. 1990, 115, 495–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tomaz, I.; Maslov, L.; Stupic, D.; Preiner, D.; Asperger, D.; Kontic, J.K. Solid-liquid Extraction of Phenolics from Red Grape Skins. Acta Chim. Slov. 2016, 63, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  33. Tomaz, I.; Maslov, L. Simultaneous Determination of Phenolic Compounds in Different Matrices using Phenyl-Hexyl Stationary Phase. Food Anal. Methods 2016, 9, 401–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Coombe, B.G. Adoption of a system for identifying grapevine growth stages. Aust. J. Grapevine Wine Res. 1995, 1, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Likar, M.; Hancevic, K.; Radic, T.; Regvar, M. Distribution and diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in grapevines from production vineyards along the eastern Adriatic coast. Mycorrhiza 2013, 23, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ambrosini, V.G.; Voges, J.G.; Canton, L.; Couto, R.D.; Ferreira, P.A.A.; Comin, J.J.; de Melo, G.W.B.; Brunetto, G.; Soares, C. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on young vines in copper-contaminated soil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2015, 46, 1045–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  37. Mikiciuk, G.; Sas-Paszt, L.; Mikiciuk, M.; Derkowska, E.; Trzcinski, P.; Ptak, P.; Chylewska, U.; Statkiewicz, M.; Lisek, A. Physiological Response of Three Grapevine Cultivars Grown in North-Western Poland to Mycorrhizal Fungi. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2019, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  38. Eftekhari, M.; Alizadeh, M.; Mashayekhi, K.; Asghari, H.R. In vitro propagation of four Iranian grape varieties: Influence of genotype and pretreatment with arbuscular mycorrhiza. Vitis 2012, 51, 175–182. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zufferey, V.; Spring, J.L.; Verdenal, T.; Dienes, A.; Belcher, S.; Lorenzini, F.; Koestel, C.; Rosti, J.; Gindro, K.; Spangenberg, J.; et al. Influence of water stress on plant hydraulics, gas exchange, berry composition and quality of Pinot noir wines in Switzerland. Oeno One 2017, 51, 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E. Plant Physiology, 4th ed.; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  41. Jakobsen, I.; Rosendahl, L. Carbon flow into soil and external hyphae from roots of mycorrhizal cucumber plants. New Phytol. 1990, 115, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aguin, O.; Mansilla, J.P.; Vilarino, A.; Sainz, M.J. Effects of mycorrhizal inoculation on root morphology and nursery production of three grapevine rootstocks. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2004, 55, 108–111. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rosa, D.; Pogiatzis, A.; Bowen, P.; Kokkoris, V.; Richards, A.; Holland, T.; Hart, M. Performance and Establishment of a Commercial Mycorrhizal Inoculant in Viticulture. Agriculture 2020, 10, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Smith, S.E.; Jakobsen, I.; Gronlund, M.; Smith, F.A. Roles of Arbuscular Mycorrhizas in Plant Phosphorus Nutrition: Interactions between Pathways of Phosphorus Uptake in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Roots Have Important Implications for Understanding and Manipulating Plant Phosphorus Acquisition. Plant Physiol. 2011, 156, 1050–1057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  45. Skinner, P.W.; Cook, J.A.; Matthews, M.A. Responses of grapevine cvs chenin blanc and chardonnay to phosphorus-fertilizer applications under phosphorus-limited soil-conditions. Vitis 1988, 27, 95–109. [Google Scholar]
  46. Spayd, S.E.; Tarara, J.M.; Mee, D.L.; Ferguson, J.C. Separation of sunlight and temperature effects on the composition of Vitis vinifera cv. Merlot berries. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2002, 53, 171–182. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Percentage of arbuscules, vesicles, hyphae only, and total colonization of AMF in control and mycorrhized treatments. Means with different letters are significantly different within treatments (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviation.
Figure 1. Percentage of arbuscules, vesicles, hyphae only, and total colonization of AMF in control and mycorrhized treatments. Means with different letters are significantly different within treatments (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05). Error bars represent standard deviation.
Agriculture 11 00615 g001
Table 1. Average temperature (°C) and precipitation sum (mm) during the growing season, Zagreb, 2016–2017.
Table 1. Average temperature (°C) and precipitation sum (mm) during the growing season, Zagreb, 2016–2017.
YearAverage Temperature (°C)Precipitation Sum (mm)
201618.0518.9
201718.2596.0
Table 2. Leaf gas-exchange measurements in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 2. Leaf gas-exchange measurements in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Parameters 1CCICi
(μmol mol−1)
E
(mmol H2O
m−2 s−1)
gs
(mol H2O
m−2 s−1)
A
(µmol CO2 m−2 s−1)
WUE
Treatments 2/Year2016
21 JuneC32.5483.113.640.1419.035.23
Myc33.63157.224.180.1420.814.98
Signif. 3nsnsnsnsnsns
19 JulyC26.97105.673.690.1418.095.23
Myc30.29145.674.210.1616.874.98
Signif.ns***nsns
23 AugustC19.90161.782.810.099.783.48
Myc22.28146.932.790.099.823.52
Signif.ns*nsnsnsns
Treatments/Year2017
16 JuneC25.80163.894.280.2021.495.02
Myc29.94191.444.800.2220.004.17
Signif.ns*****
17 JulyC27.00128.562.920.0810.773.68
Myc28.94108.892.410.069.213.82
Signif.ns***nsns
5 SeptemberC29.5034.781.130.049.548.44b
Myc29.7442.111.100.0611.8010.71
Signif.nsnsnsns**
Year
201627.60133.403.550.1315.734.44
201728.71111.612.800.1113.805.98
Signif.nsns*nsns*
Treatment * Year nsnsnsnsnsns
1 CCI indicates chlorophyll content index; Ci indicates intracellular CO2 concentration; E indicates transpiration rate; gs indicates stomatal conductance; A indicates net photosynthetic rate; WUE indicates water use efficiency. 2 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 3 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05).
Table 3. Yield components in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 3. Yield components in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Yield (g/Vine)Clusters/VineCluster Weight (g)Berry Weight (g)
Treatments 1
2016C3744.431.1122.61.13
Myc3762.243.291.01.09
Signif. 2ns**ns
2017C2676.729.491.01.22
Myc3443.336.594.31.09
Signif.****
Year
20163753.337.2106.81.11
20173060.033.092.71.15
Signif.****
Treatment * Yearnsns**
1 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 2 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05).
Table 4. Grape juice quality in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 4. Grape juice quality in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Soluble Solids (°Brix)Titratable Acidity
(g L−1)
pHTartaric
Acid (g L−1)
Malic Acid (g L−1)Citric Acid (g L−1)
Treatments 1
2016C21.29.22.925.83.90.1
Myc21.68.92.966.32.50.2
Signif. 2******
2017C24.86.63.214.30.70.1
Myc23.06.43.195.10.80.1
Signif.*****ns
Year
201621.49.02.946.13.20.2
201723.96.53.204.70.80.1
Signif.******
Treatment * Year*ns****
1 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 2 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant, respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05).
Table 5. Berry skin flavonols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 5. Berry skin flavonols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
MyricetinQuercetin-GlucuronideQuercetin-GlucosideKaempferolIsorhamnetinTotal Flavonols
Treatments 1
2016C369.177.9656.5115.675.51294.6
Myc426.696.8785.1150.080.11538.5
Signif.2ns**nsns*
2017C420.6100.3783.6128.844.01477.5
Myc519.8119.21005.3132.857.11834.2
Signif.nsnsnsnsnsns
Year
2016397.887.4720.8132.877.81416.6
2017470.2109.8894.5130.850.681655.8
Signif.nsnsnsns*ns
Treatment * Yearnsnsnsnsnsns
1 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 2 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant, respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05).
Table 6. Berry skin flavanols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 6. Berry skin flavanols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Procyanidin b1EpigallocatechinCatechinProcyanidin b2EpicatechinTotal Flavan-3-ols
Treatments 1
2016C18.585.068.338.135.0243.9
Myc27.2129.0144.978.446.1425.7
Signif. 2******
2017C8.552.936.531.118.3147.4
Myc15.677.563.333.825.9216.1
Signif.*ns**ns*
Year
201622.4107.0106.658.240.6334.8
201712.165.249.932.422.1181.7
Signif.******
Treatment * Yearnsns**ns*
1 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 2 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05).
Table 7. Berry skin anthocyanins and total polyphenols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Table 7. Berry skin anthocyanins and total polyphenols (mg kg−1 of the dry weight of grape skin) in mycorrhized and control treatments.
Dp-3-g 3Cy-3-gPt-3-gPn-3-gMv-3-gTotal AnthocyaninsTotal Polyphenols
Treatments 1
2016C4383.2201.2998.5376.012,586.018,545.020,083.0
Myc1,0651.1438.62226.7618.421,649.035,584.037,548.0
Signif. 2*******
2017C3144.0284.21089.6408.110,053.014,979.016,604.0
Myc7323.0258.91605.3399.515,635.025,222.027,272.0
Signif.*nsnsnsns**
Year
20167517.1319.91612.6497.217,117.027,064.028,815.0
20175233.4271.61347.5703.812,844.020,100.021,938.0
Signif.*nsnsns***
Treatment * Yearns***nsnsns
1 C indicates control treatment without mycorrhizal inoculation. Myc indicates treatment with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation. 2 Results of analysis of variance: * and ns indicate significance at p = 0.05 and not significant, respectively, within treatments and years (mean separation by Bonferroni correction at p ≤ 0.05). 3 Abbreviations: Dp-3-g: delphinidin-3-glucoside; Cy-3-g: cyaniding-3-glucoside; Pt-3-g: petunidin-3-glucoside; Pn-3-g: peonidin-3-glucoside; Mv-3-g: malvidin-3-glucoside.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karoglan, M.; Radić, T.; Anić, M.; Andabaka, Ž.; Stupić, D.; Tomaz, I.; Mesić, J.; Karažija, T.; Petek, M.; Lazarević, B.; Poljak, M.; Osrečak, M. Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Yield and Berry Chemical Composition of in Field Grown “Cabernet Sauvignon” Grapevines (V. vinifera L.). Agriculture 2021, 11, 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070615

AMA Style

Karoglan M, Radić T, Anić M, Andabaka Ž, Stupić D, Tomaz I, Mesić J, Karažija T, Petek M, Lazarević B, Poljak M, Osrečak M. Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Yield and Berry Chemical Composition of in Field Grown “Cabernet Sauvignon” Grapevines (V. vinifera L.). Agriculture. 2021; 11(7):615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karoglan, Marko, Tomislav Radić, Marina Anić, Željko Andabaka, Domagoj Stupić, Ivana Tomaz, Josip Mesić, Tomislav Karažija, Marko Petek, Boris Lazarević, Milan Poljak, and Mirela Osrečak. 2021. "Mycorrhizal Fungi Enhance Yield and Berry Chemical Composition of in Field Grown “Cabernet Sauvignon” Grapevines (V. vinifera L.)" Agriculture 11, no. 7: 615. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070615

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop