Online First

 Preview Page

Research Article

Responses of Grapevine Rootstocks at Physiological, Biochemical, and Molecular Levels to Waterlogging Stress
Emmie Mauligen12
,
Essam Elatafi123
,
Basma Elhendawy12
,
Yang Siling12
,
Li Shaonan12
,
Sabir Iqbal12
,
Abdul Hakeem12
,
Wang Lei4
,
Jinggui Fang2*
1College of Horticulture, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 210095, China
2Fruit Crop Genetic Improvement and Seedling Propagation Engineering Center of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing 210095, China
3Department of Pomology, Faculty of Agriculture, Mansoura University, Mansoura 35516, Egypt
4Collaborative Innovation Center for Wine Industry Technology of Ningxia Helan Mountain Eastern Foothills, Yinchuan 750000, China
*Corresponding Author
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

This study investigated the tolerance mechanisms of grapevine rootstocks (SO4 and 101–14) to waterlogging stress during 28 days. Waterlogging severely impaired morphological traits (roots, height, stem, leaves) in both. However, SO4 exhibited significantly greater tolerance than the highly sensitive 101–14. Morphologically, SO4 maintained healthy leaves for 14 days (similar to controls), with damage only appearing after 21–28 days, and developed adaptive adventitious roots despite browning. In contrast, 101–14 showed severe leaf damage (etiolation, chlorosis, wilting) by day 14, complete leaf abscission by day 28, and suffered root loss, necrosis, and disintegration. Physiologically and biochemically, SO4 maintained moderate gas exchange (stomatal conductance, transpiration, CO2 uptake, photosynthesis) and better retained photosynthetic characteristics (carotenoids and chlorophyll). SO4 also activated antioxidant processes (SOD, CAT, POD, APX) earlier and more strongly, resulting in controlled levels of malondialdehyde and hydrogen peroxide, indicating lower levels of oxidative damage. Proline and sugars also increased more in SO4. Conversely, 101–14 experienced severe declines in these areas and exhibited the highest MDA/H2O2 levels. A molecular analysis (qPCR) revealed that the distinct tolerance of SO4 involved significantly higher upregulation of seven stress-responsive genes related to anaerobic metabolism (ADH1), ROS homeostasis (RBOH, POD), protein/membrane stabilization (Stress-Induced Protein, LEA), and stress signaling (KEG, CML). This coordinated response underpinned SO4’s sustained energy, efficient antioxidants, reduced oxidative damage, chlorophyll retention, and its maintenance of photosynthesis. The limited gene activation in 101–14 aligned with its physiological collapse. Therefore, the SO4 rootstock demonstrates superior adaptive capacity to waterlogging and is recommended for cultivation under such conditions.

Keywords
adventitious roots
antioxidant enzymes
flooding
oxidative stress
photosynthesis
Vitis
References
1

Alonso-Forn D, Buesa I, Flor L, Sabater A, Medrano H, Escalona JM (2025) Implications of root morphology and anatomy for water deficit tolerance and recovery of grapevine rootstocks. Front Plant Sci 16:1541523. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1541523

10.3389/fpls.2025.154152340182539PMC11966617
2

Calabritto M, Mininni AN, Di Biase R, Petrozza A, Summerer S, Cellini F, Dichio B (2025) Physiological and image-based phenotyping assessment of waterlogging responses of three kiwifruit rootstocks and grafting combinations. Front Plant Sci 16:1499432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1499432

10.3389/fpls.2025.149943239974725PMC11835816
3

Chen D, Shao Q, Yin L, Younis A, Zheng B (2019) Polyamine function in plants: Metabolism, regulation on development, and roles in abiotic stress responses. Front Plant Sci 9:1945. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01945

10.3389/fpls.2018.0194530687350PMC6335389
4

Chen Y, Fei Y, Howell K, Chen D, Clingeleffer P, Zhang P (2024) Rootstocks for grapevines now and into the future: Selection of rootstocks based on drought tolerance, soil nutrient availability, and soil pH. Aust J Grape Wine Res 2024:6704238. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6704238

10.1155/2024/6704238
5

Danquah A, De Zélicourt A, Colcombet J, Hirt H (2014) The role of ABA and MAPK signaling pathways in plant abiotic stress responses. Biotechnol Adv 32:40-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.09.006

10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.09.006
6

Delrot S, Grimplet J, Carbonell-Bejerano P, Schwandner A, Bert P-F, Bavaresco L, Costa LD, Di Gaspero G, Duchêne E, et al. (2020) Genetic and genomic approaches for adaptation of grapevine to climate change. In Genomic designing of climate-smart fruit crops. Springer, pp 157-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97946-5_7

10.1007/978-3-319-97946-5_7
7

Dhindsa RS, Plumb‐Dhindsa PL, Reid DM (1982) Leaf senescence and lipid peroxidation: Effects of some phytohormones, and scavengers of free radicals and singlet oxygen. Physiol Plant 56:453-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1982.tb04539.x

10.1111/j.1399-3054.1982.tb04539.x
8

Edwards E, Betts A, Clingeleffer P, Walker R (2022) Rootstock‐conferred traits affect the water use efficiency of fruit production in Shiraz. Aust J Grape Wine Res 28:316-327. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12553

10.1111/ajgw.12553
9

Elatafi E, Elhendawy B, Elshahat A, Iqbal S, Yauha R, Xuxian X, Wentao L, Feiyue L, Shaoxiao F, et al. (2025a) A comprehensive analysis of cadmium contamination in viticulture: From soil and grape to ecological risks and remediation. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 25:1401-1431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-025-02210-8

10.1007/s42729-025-02210-8
10

Elatafi E, Elhendawy B, Iqbal S, Ali S, Elshahat A, Hakeem A, Shaonan L, Ibrahim A, Shangguan L, et al. (2025b) Physicochemical, metabolite, osmolyte synthesis, and enzymatic alterations of grapevine rootstocks in response to cadmium stress. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 25:9902-9920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-025-02765-6

10.1007/s42729-025-02765-6
11

Elatafi E, Fang J (2022) Effect of silver nitrate (AgNO3) and nano-silver (Ag-NPs) on physiological characteristics of grapes and quality during storage period. Horticulturae 8:419. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8050419

10.3390/horticulturae8050419
12

Hafez EM, Alharbi K, Gharib HS, Omara AE-D, Elatafi E, Hamada MM, Rashwan E, Alshaal T (2024) Synergistic effect of sugarcane bagasse and zinc oxide nanoparticles on eco-remediation of cadmium-contaminated saline soils in wheat cultivation. Plants 14:85. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14010085

10.3390/plants1401008539795345PMC11722730
13

Hakeem A, Li S, Iqbal S, Elatafi E, Aziz RB, Mauligen E, Liu S, Chen X, Zhang R, et al. (2025a) Effects of salt stress on growth, physio-biochemical traits, and tolerance mechanism of grapevine rootstocks. Euphytica 221:122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-025-03574-9

10.1007/s10681-025-03574-9
14

Hakeem A, Li S, Nasiru MM, Mustafa G, Elatafi E, Shangguan L, Fang J (2025b) Methyl jasmonate acts as a crucial player in abiotic stress responses in grape. Stresses 5:40. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses5020040

10.3390/stresses5020040
15

Hu D, Xu Q, Wang Y (2021) The current state of the vitivinicultural sector in mainland China. REALIS: Revista de Estudos AntiUtilitaristas e Pos-Coloniais 11:92-143. https://doi.org/10.51359/2179-7501.2021.252153

10.51359/2179-7501.2021.252153
16

Iqbal S, Elatafi E, Shaonan L, Ali S, Hakeem A, Badar Aziz R, Mauligen E, Tariq K, Elhendawy B, et al. (2025a) Drought stress and the modulation of physiochemical parameters and antioxidant enzymes in grapevine rootstocks: Insights into the protective role of methyl jasmonate. Horticulturae 11:164. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11020164

10.3390/horticulturae11020164
17

Iqbal S, Elatafi E, Tariq K, Ali S, Hakeem A, Shaonan L, Aziz RB, Mauligen EQ, Fang J (2025b) Drought stress in viticulture: An update review of the effects, mechanisms, tolerance strategies, and mitigation approaches. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 25:9049-9091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-025-02712-5

10.1007/s42729-025-02712-5
18

Iqbal S, Elatafi E, Tariq K, Liu W, Elhendawy B, Shaonan L, Wang Y, Li W, Yu H, et al. (2026) Methyl jasmonate enhances physiological and biochemical indicators and alleviates drought stress in grapevines through the activation of genes VvNCED1 and VvABF1. J Plant Growth Regul pp 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-025-12016-8

10.1007/s00344-025-12016-8
19

Jian S, Shili R, Jinchen L, Jiming L, Jianbo F, Xiao Z (2023) Current situation and development trend of wine industry in china. In BIO Web of Conferences, Vol 68. EDP Sciences, p 03011. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20236803011

10.1051/bioconf/20236803011
20

Kang SB, Lee IB, Park JM, Lim TJ (2010) Effect of waterlogging conditions on the growth, root activities and nutrient content of ‘Campbell Early’ grapevine. Korean J Hortic Sci Technol 28:172-179

21

Krishankumar S, Hunter JJ, Alyafei M, Souka U, Subramaniam S, Ayyagari R, Kurup SS, Amiri K (2025) Influence of different scion-rootstock combinations on sugars, polyamines, antioxidants and malondialdehyde in grafted grapevines under arid conditions. Front Plant Sci 16:1559095. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1559095

10.3389/fpls.2025.155909540655552PMC12246978
22

Lichtenthaler HK, Wellburn AR (1983) Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. In. Portland Press Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1042/bst0110591

10.1042/bst0110591
23

Liu H, Stone SL (2010) Abscisic acid increases Arabidopsis ABI5 transcription factor levels by promoting KEG E3 ligase self-ubiquitination and proteasomal degradation. The Plant Cell 22:2630-2641. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.076075

10.1105/tpc.110.07607520682837PMC2947163
24

Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods 25:402-408. https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262

10.1006/meth.2001.1262
25

Longbottom M, Richard Fennessy PP (2022) Managing Waterlogged Vineyards. Australian Wine Research Institute, Nov. 2022, www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Managing-waterlogged-vineyards.pdf

26

Mudasir M, Shahzad A (2025) Decoding plant responses to waterlogging: from stress signals to molecular mechanisms and their future implications. Plant Mol Biol 115:1-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-025-01611-8

10.1007/s11103-025-01611-8
27

Mustapha A, Hakeem A, Li S, Mustafa G, Elatafi E, Fang J, Zhou C (2025) Grapevine rootstocks and salt stress tolerance: mechanisms, omics insights, and implications for sustainable viticulture. Int J Plant Biol 16:129. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb16040129

10.3390/ijpb16040129
28

Nakano Y, Asada K (1981) Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate-specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiol 22:867-880. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076232

10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076232
29

Pandey AK, Singh AG, Gadhiya AR, Kumar S, Singh D, Mehta R (2021) Current approaches in horticultural crops to mitigate waterlogging stress. Stress Toler Hortic Crops pp 289-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822849-4.00014-0

10.1016/B978-0-12-822849-4.00014-0
30

Patterson BD, MacRae EA, Ferguson IB (1984) Estimation of hydrogen peroxide in plant extracts using titanium (IV). Anal Biochem 139:487-492. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(84)90039-3

10.1016/0003-2697(84)90039-3
31

Prinsi B, Simeoni F, Galbiati M, Meggio F, Tonelli C, Scienza A, Espen L (2021) Grapevine rootstocks differently affect physiological and molecular responses of the scion under water deficit condition. Agronomy 11:289. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020289

10.3390/agronomy11020289
32

Rozen S, Skaletsky H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. In Bioinformatics methods and protocols. Springer, pp 365-386. https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-192-2:365

10.1385/1-59259-192-2:365
33

Ruperti B, Botton A, Populin F, Eccher G, Brilli M, Quaggiotti S, Trevisan S, Cainelli N, Guarracino P, et al. (2019) Flooding responses on grapevine: A physiological, transcriptional, and metabolic perspective. Front Plant Sci 10:339. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00339

10.3389/fpls.2019.0033930972087PMC6443911
34

Salazar-Tortosa D, Castro J, De Casas RR, Viñegla B, Sánchez-Cañete E, Villar-Salvador P (2018) Gas exchange at whole plant level shows that a less conservative water use is linked to a higher performance in three ecologically distinct pine species. Environ Res Lett 13:045004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aab18f

10.1088/1748-9326/aab18f
35

Scalet M, Federico R, Guido M, Manes F (1995) Peroxidase activity and polyamine changes in response to ozone and simulated acid rain in Aleppo pine needles. Environ Exp Bot 35:417-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/0098-8472(95)00001-3

10.1016/0098-8472(95)00001-3
36

Sood M (2025) Reactive oxygen species (ROS): plant perspectives on oxidative signalling and biotic stress response. Discov Plant 2:187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44372-025-00275-4

10.1007/s44372-025-00275-4
37

Stevens R, Harvey G (1995) Effects of waterlogging, rootstock and salinity on Na, Cl and K concentrations of the leaf and root, and shoot growth of sultana grapevines. Aust J Agric Res 46:541-551. https://doi.org/10.1071/AR9950541

10.1071/AR9950541
38

Wang W, Zhang X, Deng F, Yuan R, Shen F (2017) Genome-wide characterization and expression analyses of superoxide dismutase (SOD) genes in Gossypium hirsutum. BMC Genomics 18:376. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3768-5

10.1186/s12864-017-3768-528499417PMC5429560
39

Wang X, Liu C, Jia N, Yin Y, Han B, Sun Y, Han S, Guo Y, Li M (2025) Rootstock-mediated effects on vine performance and quality composition of ‘Miguang’under protected cultivation in northern China. Eur J Hortic Sci 90. https://doi.org/10.1079/ejhs.2025.0007

10.1079/ejhs.2025.0007
40

Wang X, Yan L, Wang B, Qian Y, Wang Z, Wu W (2021) Comparative proteomic analysis of grapevine rootstock in response to waterlogging stress. Front Plant Sci 12:749184. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.749184

10.3389/fpls.2021.74918434777428PMC8589030
41

Yan H, Elatafi E, Iqbal S, Yingchun C, Guowei Y, Yilin Z, Xiujie L, Bo L, Kai L, et al. (2026) Transcriptomic analysis reveals a coordinated stress response and metabolic reprogramming in ‘Muscat Hamburg’grape berries subjected to partial root-zone irrigation. Sci Hortic 356:114612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2026.114612

10.1016/j.scienta.2026.114612
42

Zhang B, Sun M, Liu W, Lian M, Yang S, Peng F, Xiao Y (2023) Waterlogging resistance and evaluation of physiological mechanism of three peach (Prunus persic a) rootstocks. Protoplasma 260:1375-1388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00709-023-01850-w

10.1007/s00709-023-01850-w
43

Zhang Y, Chen X, Geng S, Zhang X (2025) A review of soil waterlogging impacts, mechanisms, and adaptive strategies. Front Plant Sci 16:1545912. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2025.1545912

10.3389/fpls.2025.154591240017819PMC11866847
44

Zhu X, Li X, Jiu S, Zhang K, Wang C, Fang J (2018) Analysis of the regulation networks in grapevine reveals response to waterlogging stress and candidate gene-marker selection for damage severity. R Soc Open Sci 5:172253. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.172253

10.1098/rsos.17225330110413PMC6030322
Information
  • Publisher :KOREAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE
  • Publisher(Ko) :한국원예학회
  • Journal Title :Horticultural Science and Technology
  • Journal Title(Ko) :원예과학기술지
  • Received Date : 2025-09-17
  • Revised Date : 2026-02-18
  • Accepted Date : 2026-02-19
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.7235/HORT.20260007
Journal Informaiton Horticultural Science and Technology Horticultural Science and Technology
Online Submission
  • scopus
  • NRF
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close