[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Botrytis bunch rot of grapes is mainly controlled by applying fungicides at three crop growth stages: the end of flowering (BBCH 68), bunch closure (BBCH 77) and the beginning of veraison (BBCH 81). The hydroxyanilide derivative fenhexamid is among the most effective fungicides registered to control Botrytis cinerea. Its effectiveness was examined in relation to spray timing, fungicide resistance and defense responses of grapevine. Overall, the earlier fenhexamid was applied, the more effective it was at controlling B. cinerea. Frequencies of B. cinerea strains which were resistant to fungicides were evaluated at harvest. The frequencies of resistant phenotypes were similar among treatments and years with the exception of a class of multidrug resistant strain (MDR 2) whose frequency appeared to increase after fenhexamid applications. If current spray programs including fenhexamid appear to control bunch rot at the current MDR frequency, a propagation of MDR 2 strains might lead to a decline in disease control. Finally, defense responses were studied in grapevine flowers/berries following fenhexamid application. None of the defense processes tested was induced in flowers/berries at stages 68 and 77. Only an increase in chitinase activity was observed in treated-berries at stage 81, suggesting that fenhexamid effectiveness was not related to a stimulation of defense responses.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: 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.