Phenotypic deconstruction of dormant bud winter hardiness

XII International Conference on Grapevine

Breeding and Genetics

Université de Bordeaux

7/15/2018-7/20/2018

Jason P. Londo and Alisson P. Kovaleski

Cold Hardiness: phenotyping 6-8 months of non-visual physiology

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

Nov-13 Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 Apr-14

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.

Timing is everything.

MaximumHardiness

0°C

11°CChilling hour accumulation

Endodormancy Ecodormancy

Tem

pe

ratu

re °

C

Full Chilling Insufficient Chilling

Phenotyping dormant bud cold hardiness

0.E+00

1.E-04

2.E-04

3.E-04

4.E-04

5.E-04

6.E-04

1.9

-2.1

-6.1

-10

.2-1

4.3

-18

.4-2

2.4

-26

.5-3

0.5

-34

.6

Vo

ltag

e (V

)

Temperature (°C)

Low Temperature

Exotherm (LTE)

HTE

Tracking Bud Survival

-35.00

-25.00

-15.00

-5.00

5.00

15.007-Nov 7-Dec 6-Jan 5-Feb 7-Mar 6-Apr

2012-2013

-35.00

-25.00

-15.00

-5.00

5.00

15.0012-Nov 12-Dec 11-Jan 10-Feb 12-Mar 11-Apr

2013-2014

-35.00

-25.00

-15.00

-5.00

5.00

15.0012-Nov 12-Dec 11-Jan 10-Feb 12-Mar

2014-2015

V. ripariaV. amurensisV. vinifera

• 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.

De

gre

es

C°

σ T – Changes in LTE based on mean and oscillation.

Starting LTE: ~ - 12°C

Mean 7°C0°C oscillation

Mean 7°C3°C oscillation (4 to 10°C)

Mean 7°C5°C oscillation (2 to 12°C)

Mean 2°C0°C oscillation

Mean 2°C5°C oscillation (-3 to 7°C)

LTE: ~ - 12°C

LTE: ~ - 12°C

LTE: ~ - 17°C

LTE: ~ - 15°C

LTE: ~ - 20°C

Starting LTE: ~ - 12°C3°C

5°C

5°C

8°C

0°C

Acclimation:Gaining Cold Hardiness

Londo and Kovaleski 2017

σ T – Changes in LTE based on mean and oscillation.

Acclimation:Gaining Cold Hardiness

Londo and Kovaleski 2017

V. amurensis

V. ripariaV. labruscaV. cinerea

V. rupestrisV. aestivalisV. vulpina

Strong

Weak

V. vinifera

Response

σ T - Significantly different between species.

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

4-Aug 3-Sep 3-Oct 2-Nov 2-Dec 1-Jan 31-Jan 2-Mar 1-Apr 1-May31-May

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

03-Oct 2-Nov 2-Dec 1-Jan 31-Jan 2-Mar 1-Apr 1-May

Me

as

ure

d L

TE v

alu

es

°C

2013-2014

43 different Vitis riparia

σ T

Comparing cold hardiness response with statistics based models

No genotype effect Genotype effect

LTE

°C

All V. riparia respond to temperature fluctuations in the same way. Dormancy induction may modulate max LTE?

Londo and Kovaleski 2018: in review

Deacclimation:Chilling and Losing Cold Hardiness

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

17-Sep 17-Oct 16-Nov 16-Dec 15-Jan 14-Feb 16-Mar 15-Apr 15-May

LTE

°C

−30

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (day)

LT

E (

°C

)360

860

1580

10 °C

−30

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (day)

LT

E (

°C

)

360

860

1580

22 °C

−30

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Time (day)

LT

E (

°C

)360

860

1580

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Days

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Days

Endodormancy Ecodormancy Chilling accumulation increases rate of deacclimation

Chilling accumulates

Kovaleski, Reisch and Londo 2018: in review

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 50 100 150

Time (Day)

LT

E (

°C)

Temperature (°C)

2

4

7

8

10

11

22

0

25

50

75

100

0 400 800 1200 1600

Accumulated Chill

Ra

te (

%)

4

22

0

25

50

75

100

0 400 800 1200 1600

Accumulated Chill

Ra

te (

%)

4

22

Deacclimation and Chilling

Chill Accumulation

~

De

acc

lim

ati

on

po

ten

tia

l

Endodormancy

Ecodormancy

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 50 100 150

Time (Day)

LT

E (

°C)

Temperature (°C)

2

4

7

8

10

11

22

−25

−20

−15

−10

−5

0

0 50 100 150

Time (Day)

LT

E (

°C

)

Temperature (°C)

2

4

7

8

10

11

22

Full speeddepends on the airplane

Rate of deacclimationdepends on the temperature

Ψdeacc

Deacclimation rates at different chilling and temperatures

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0 4 8 12 16 22 30

Temperature (°C)

kd

ea

cc (

°C

/day)

1580 (97 %)

1030 (60 %)

860 (30 %)

360 ( 0 %)

0

1

2

3

0 4 8 12 16 22 30

Temperature (°C)

kd

ea

cc (

°C

day

-1 )

860

1440

1580

Kovaleski, Reisch and Londo 2018: in review

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500

Cab. Sauv. 10°C

Riesling 10°C

Riesling 22°C

V. riparia 22°C

De

acc

lim

ati

on

rate

, °C

/da

y

Chill Accumulation

V. amurensis 22°C

V. amurensis 10°C

V. riparia 10°C

Cab. Sauv. 22°C

What does this have to do with phenotyping?

Deacclimation potential is driven by chilling

Deacclimation rate is temperature specific

New high-throughput phenotypes for mapping populations

Slope: Dormancy transition speed

and

Inflection Point: 50% Deacclimating potential

Rate/Ratio

Deacclimation rate in 4 mapping families at 15°C

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

V. riparia

V. amurensis

V. cinerea

V. vulpina

V. viniferaX

LTE

°C

Days in 15 °C

T0 T4 T11 T21

Rate of loss °C/day

0.57

0.51

0.30

0.29

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

2/5 2/10 2/15 2/20 2/25

V. riparia family

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

2/5 2/10 2/15 2/20 2/25

V. vulpina family

15°C0.29 °C/Day

15°C0.57 °C/Day

4°C0.07 °C/Day

4°C0.04 °C/Day

LTE

°C

LTE

°C

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Aug-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jun-17

Phenotypes in action: Integration of σ Tand Σdeac predict cold hardiness

σ T Σdeac

Outcome: Breaking the curve into two portions identifies separate phenotypes:

1) Response potential: variation at species level = σ T

2) Dormancy/deacclimation resistance: variation at genotype level = Σdeac

Combining these two traits increases prediction ability and can be used to help map the traits.

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Aug-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jun-17

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

Aug-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Jan-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 Jun-17

Phenotypes in action: Integration of σ Tand Σdeac predict cold hardiness

σ T Σdeac

Outcome: Breaking the curve into two portions identifies separate phenotypes:

1) Response potential: variation at species level = σ T

2) Dormancy/deacclimation resistance: variation at genotype level = Σdeac

Combining these two traits increases prediction ability and can be used to help map the traits.

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

Thank you for your attention. Questions?

Research GeneticistJason Londo

Kathleen DeysHanna MartensBill SrmackJohn KeetonBob MartensGreg Noden

Bruce ReischBill WilseyTim MartinsonLynn Johnson

Ravines Wine CellarsAnthony Road Wine Co.

Anne Fennell – SDSUKrista Shelli – USDA, Parma

PhD CandidateAlisson Kovaleski