Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L.

Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments
Vasile Rzvan FILIMON1*), Roxana FILIMON1), Liliana ROTARU1)

University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Ion Ionescu de la Brad 3, Mihail Sa-
doveanu Alley, 700490, Iai, Romania.
Coresponding author, e-mail: razvan_f80@yahoo.com

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

Print ISSN 1843-5254, Electronic ISSN 1843-5394

Chlorophyll content in leaves of 11 Vitis vinifera L. indigenous varieties (Iasi vineyard, Romania)
was determined by two independent methods: spectrophotometry (extraction) and with a Opti-
Sciences CCM-200 plus chlorophyll content meter (non-destructive method) with the aim of
comparing the results. Also, this study was conducted to establish the values of chlorophyll a/
chlorophyll b and chlorophyll/carotenoid ratio in middle leaves of vine stocks, in the phenophase of
progressive growing of shoots. Area and perimeter of leaves in this phenophase were determined.
Total chlorophyll concentration in leaf extract varied from 0.670.01 mg/g f.w. to 1.000.03 mg/
g f.w., being highly correlated with the chlorophyll content index values (CCI) recorded by CCM-200
(R2=0.9839; p<0.001). Similar situation was identi ied in the case of the chlorophyll b and CCI correlation
(R2=0.9638; p<0.001). Chlorophyll a/b ratio in leaf extract varied signi icantly depending on variety,
ranging from 1.060.01 to 2.430.01, with a chlorophyll/carotenoid ratio reaching up to 3.190.08.
Compared to spectrophotometry, CCM-200 plus affords fast, reliable, economical, non-destructive
chlorophyll content measurement, however, providing no details regarding chlorophyll components and

Keywords: chlorophyll content meter, chlorophyll a/b ratio, chlorophyll/carotenoid ratio,

spectrophotometry, Vitis vinifera L.

INTRODUCTION adapted to sunny conditions (Lichtenthaler et al.,

First isolated by Caventou and Pelletier in 1982). In V. vinifera L. leaves chlorophyll a/b ratio
1817, chlorophyll (gr. chloros green; phyllon is maximum at the beginning of the vegetation
leaf) is a biomolecule critical in photosynthesis period, reaching 3/1 and decreases during grape
(gr. photos light; synthesis building a whole), maturation, while the chlorophyll/carotenoids
which allow plants to absorb energy from light ratio may reach up to 4/1(Keller, 2010; Toma
(Davies, 2004). Chlorophyll a and chlorophyll and Jitreanu, 2007). Variation of chlorophyll
b are the major types of chlorophylls found in a/b and chlorophyll/carotenoids ratio can be an
plants (Wilows, 2004). They have a characteristic indicator of senescence, stress, and damage to the
green colour due to strong absorbance of blue photosynthetic apparatus, but can also provide
and red light. The increased proportion of distinctive informations on plant phenophase.
chlorophyll b is due to its absorption in the 450 Modi ication of chlorophyll a/chlorophyll b ratio is
480 nm range, capturing effectively light at low determined mainly by the decrease of chlorophyll
intensity (Lichtenthaler and Wellburn, 1983). a concentration during leaf vegetation (Burzo et
The chlorophyll a/b ratio varies from 2.03.2 al., 2005).
for shade adapted plants to 3.54.9 for plants
Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L. Indigenous Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments 247

Carotenoids are a large group of deeply red grafted on Kober 5 BB (Berlandieri Riparia).
or yellow fat-soluble pigments (Pfander, 1992). Planting distances were 2.2 m (between rows)/1.2
Carotenoids are found in all photosynthetic m (between plants), half-high training system,
organisms, beeing involved in photosystem bilateral cordon, with pruning in fructi ication
assembly and contribute to light harvesting by rings providing an average load of 4045 buds/
absorbing light energy in a region of the visible vine. Soil maintenance was black ield and
spectrum where chlorophyll absorption is lower technological operations were speci ic to industrial
and by transferring the energy to chlorophyll. Also, vineyard ecosystem.
carotenoids provide protection from excess light, Designed to non-destructively measure of
free radical detoxi ication and limiting damage to chlorophyll concentration in leaf tissue without the
membranes (Cuttriss and Pogson, 2004). need to detach and grind a sample, Opti-Sciences
Determinations carried out on V. vinifera L. CCM-200 plus exploits that total chlorophyll has
varieties showed that carotenoid concentration several distinct optical absorbance characteristics,
in leaves varied from 7.72 mg/100 g to 17.26 in order to determine relative chlorophyll
mg/100 g f.w., with a gradual accumulation during concentration. Chlorophyll content index (CCI)
leaf maturation (Burzo et al., 2005; Mendes-Pinto represents the ratio between transmittance at 931
et al., 2005). nm and transmittance at 653 nm. One wavelength
The Opti-Sciences CCM-200 plus chlorophyll falls within the chlorophyll absorbance range while
content meter is an instrument which provides the other serves to compensate for mechanical
fast and accurate chlorophyll content index differences such as tissue thickness. Calibration is
(CCI) readings on the intact leaves of plants, required every time is started a new experiment
without the need for destructive chlorophyll (Gandia et al., 2004). The Opti-Sciences CCM-
assays. The measurement is rapid and simple 200 chlorophyll content index (CCI) values were
to obtain compared to chlorophyll extraction registered simultaneously, on the same leaves
and spectrophotometric reading (Biber, 2007). considered for extraction.
Previous research conducted on different species Leaf samples (5) for extraction were har-
showed signi icantly linear correlation of total vested manually, in the morning, from the
chlorophyll (by spectrophotometry) and CCI middle third of vine shoots, rapidly frozen (in
values (by chlorophyll content meters), however 10 minutes) and analyzed in same day. Frozen
with large differences in terms of data correlation leaf samples (0.5 g) were ground in a mortar
(Callejas et al., 2013; Ghasemi et al., 2011; Khaleghi using sieved inert sand as a grinding aid. Solvent
et al., 2012; Richardson et al., 2002; Schaper and of 99.98% acetone (10 mL) was used to extract
Chacko, 1991; van den Berg and Perkins, 2004). the photosynthetic pigments from the leaf
Currently, the lack of a more consistent relationship tissue. The extract was placed in the refrigerator
between chlorophyll concentrations estimated overnight to minimize phototransformation of
by the extraction method and by the chlorophyll chlorophyll and to complete extraction (Biber,
meter at V. vinifera L. for different genotypes and 2007). Small amount of MgCO3 (0.5 mg) was
at different growth stages, limits the potential use added during extraction to neutralize plant acids
of CCM-200 plus for this species. responsable for the formation of pheophytin a
from chlorophyll a (Lee and Schwartz, 2005).
MATERIALS AND METHODS Supernatant was transferred into 1 cm path length
The research has been carried out on the quartz cuvettes. The analytical determination
young leaves of 11 Vitis vinifera L. indigenous was conducted using a UV-vis Shimadzu 1700
varieties (Gelu, Milcov, Cetuia, Napoca, Somean, Pharmaspec Spectrophotometer at the following
Splendid, Transilvania, Coarn neagr, Coarn wavelengths: 662 and 645 nm, for chlorophyll a
neagr selecionat, Purpuriu and Radames), and b and 470 nm for carotenoids (xanthophylls
growing in the Ampelographic Collection of the and carotenes) as part of a full scan of the sample
University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary (400-800 nm). Turbidity (haze) can be checked
Medicine Iasi, Romania, in the phenophase of by measuring absorbance (A) at 710 nm. For a
progressive growing of shoots (20 days after bud fully transparent leaf pigment extract, A710750
burst). Grapevines varieties were 25 years old nm should equal zero, since chlorophylls a (Chl

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

248 FILIMON et al

a) and b (Chl b) and carotenoids do not absorb in lower than 0.05 (p<0.05) were considered to be
this region (Lichtenthaler and Buschmann, 2001; signi icant.
Spectranomics Protocol, 2011). Photosynthetic Statistical measure of the dispersion of data
pigment content was calculated in mg/g fresh points around the mean was conducted using the
weight (f.w.) to allow comparison among species, coef icient of variation (CV), which represents the
using the three trichromatic equations sugested ratio of the standard deviation (St. dev.) to the
by Lichtenhaler (1987) and Lichtenthaler and mean (%).
Buschmann (2001) and improved by Carnegie
Institution for Science through Spectranomics RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Protocol, 2011: Determination of moisture is an essential
Chl a (g mL-1) = 11.24 (A662 A710) 2.04 step in vegetal tissue analysis, high proportion of
(A645A710); water causing a poor stability of samples, favoring
Chl b (g mL ) = 20.13 (A645A710) 4.19
microbiological and enzymatic activity, and
(A662A710); hydrolysis reactions (Beceanu et al., 2011; Maltini
Carotenoids (g mL-1) = (1000 (A470A710) 1.90 et al., 2003). In a typical grapevine leaf water
Chl a 63.14 Chl b)/214. content depends on the physiological condition,
age and intensity of plant metabolism, ranging
Area, length, width and perimeter of the leaf from 70 to 85% (Boyer et al., 1997; Mustea, 2004).
was measured (by scanning) with a portable ADC In studied romanian varieties leaves moisture
BioScienti ic AM 300 Area meter (non-destructive content was high, speci ic to the phenophase
method). (shoot growing), and varying from 76.32% to
A one-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) 81.43%, with a mean of 78.61% (Tab. 1).
test was initiated to investigate signi icant Total dry matter of leaves (%), represented by
differences between methods. The method used all their constituents excluding water, is naturally
to discriminate among the means was Fischers correlated with the moisture content of samples.
least signi icant difference procedure at 95% According to the absorbance spectra in
con idence level. Simple regression analysis was the 400800 nm range (Fig. 1), was calculated
performed to look for relationships between data the amount of chlorophyll (a and b) and total
registered by two independent methods. P values carotenoids in leaf extracts.

Tab. 1. Moisture and dry matter content (%) in leaves of indigenous V. vinifera varieties

Moisture St. Total dry matter St.

(%) dev. (%) dev.
Cetuia 76.32000 1.50 23.68*** 1.50
Somean 76.4500 1.21 23.55** 1.21
Coarn neagr 77.75NS 0.89 22.25NS 0.89
Coarn neagr selecionat 77.88NS 1.54 22.12NS 1.54
Radames 78.03NS 0.90 21.97NS 0.90
Napoca 78.05NS 1.02 21.95NS 1.02
Milcov 78.98NS 1.10 21.02NS 1.10
Purpuriu 79.59NS 1.80 20.41NS 1.80
Splendid 80.03NS 1.65 19.97NS 1.65
Transilvania 80.18NS 0.94 19.82NS 0.94
Gelu 81.43*** 1.12 18.57000 1.12
Mean 78.61 1.59 21.39 1.59
CV% 2.02 7.4
Note: Data expressed as mean values with standard deviation (n = 3). NS, *, **, *** - indicate nonsigni icant and positive signi icant at p0.05, 0.01,
0.001, respectively; o, oo, ooo - negative signi icant at p0.05, 0.01, 0.001.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L. Indigenous Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments 249

Previous research reported that new leaves leaves of romanian V. vinifera L. varieties studied
usually have a low photosynthetic activity, is shown in Tab. 2, as mean values with standard
concentration of assimilatory pigments reaching deviation (signi icant differences to the mean are
maximum values in leaves at the age of 2030 days, noted).
furthermore, with a continuous accumulation until Concentration of chlorophyll a in extracts
grape veraison (Burzo et al., 2005; Keller, 2010; presented small variation between varieties, with
Lovisolo et al., 1996). Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll a negative statistical signi icance (p<0.05) in the
b and carotenoid concentration in fresh young case of Purpuriu variety (0.470.01 mg/g f.w.).

Fig. 1. Absorption spectra of leaf extracts of V. vinifera L. indigenous varieties

Tab. 2. The content of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids (mg/g f.w.) and ratios between them
in leaves of indigenous V. vinifera L. varieties

Chl St. Chl St. Carote- St. Total St. St. Chl/ St.
Variety a/
a dev. b dev. noids dev. Chl dev. dev. Caroten. dev.
Chl b
Cetuia 0.52NS 0.02 0.37NS 0.02 0.31NS 0.01 0.89NS 0.96 1.43NS 0.01 2.87NS 0.04
Coarn neagr 0.52NS 0.01 0.41NS 0.01 0.33NS 0.02 0.93NS 1.00 1.27000 0.02 2.87NS 0.07
Coarn neagr
0.51NS 0.03 0.40NS 0.01 0.32NS 0.01 0.91NS 0.89 1.29000 0.01 2.87NS 0.07
Gelu 0.52NS 0.02 0.43NS 0.01 0.31NS 0.01 0.95*** 0.96 1.21000 0.02 3.04*** 0.01
Milcov 0.52NS 0.01 0.49*** 0.03 0.32NS 0.01 1.01*** 0.67 1.06000 0.01 3.19*** 0.08
Napoca 0.52NS 0.02 0.44NS 0.02 0.32NS 0.02 0.96*** 0.88 1.18000 0.01 2.97** 0.07
Purpuriu 0.470 0.01 0.20000 0.01 0.28NS 0.01 0.67000 0.92 2.43*** 0.03 2.42000 0.02
Radames 0.51 NS
0.03 0.37 NS
0.01 0.29 NS
0.01 0.88 NS
0.87 1.39 NS
0.02 3.02 ***
Somean 0.52NS 0.01 0.40NS 0.01 0.32NS 0.01 0.92NS 0.94 1.33000 0.01 2.8400 0.07
Splendid 0.53NS 0.01 0.35NS 0.02 0.31NS 0.02 0.88NS 0.91 1.52*** 0.03 2.79000 0.04
Transilvania 0.52NS 0.02 0.40NS 0.01 0.32NS 0.01 0.92NS 0.92 1.29000 0.01 2.91NS 0.07
Mean 0.52 0.02 0.39 0.07 0.31 0.01 0.90 0.09 1.40 0.36 2.89 0.19
CV% 3.92 17.95 3.22 10.00 25.71 6.57

Note: Data expressed as mean values with standard deviation (n = 3). NS, *, **, *** - indicate nonsigni icant and positive signi icant at p0.05, 0.01,
0.001, respectively; o, oo, ooo - negative signi icant at p0.05, 0.01, 0.001.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

250 FILIMON et al

Chlorophyll b content of young V. vinifera L. leaves photosystem (PS) 1 has a chlorophyll a/b ratio of
varied widely compared to chlorophyll a, with a about 4/1, and PS 2 contains 50 to 60% of the total
high value of coef icient of variability between chlorophyll, with a chlorophyll a/b ratio of about
data (CV=17.95%), and reaching a maximum of 1.2, most of the chlorophyll b and carotenoids
0.490.03 mg/g f.w. at Milcov variety. (xanthophyll). These data along with those reported
Chlorophyll a/b ratio was speci ic to each by Jiang et al. (2005) and Jiang et al. (2006), which
variety, and varied within the range of 1.060.01 shows that the probability for energy transfer
(Milcov variety) to 2.430.03 (Purpuriu variety), among PS 2 units in newly initiating vine leaves was
with a mean of 1.400.36. distinctly higher than in mature ones and that only
According to Gross (1991) and Wilows (2004), a few functional PS 1 were developed at the initial
in mature leaves chlorophyll a is the major pigment stages of leaf growth, could also explain the low
and chlorophyll b is accessory pigment which exist in values of the chlorophyll a/b ratio in young leaves
a ratio of approximately 3 to 1. It has been generally of analysed varieties.
reported that chlorophyll a/b ratio of leaves is Burzo et al. (2005) reported that the carote-
maximum at the beginning of vegetation period noid content of grapevine leaves has a speci ic
(Lichtenthaler et al., 1981; Toma and Jitreanu, accumulation, with lower values at the beginning
2007). Chlorophyll a/b ratio in leaves of romanian of vegetation period. Carotenoid pigments (caro-
grapevine varieties studied in the phenophase of tenes and xanthophylls) were present in lower
progressive growing of shoots had lower values concentration in grapevine young leaves compared
than those presented in international literature, to chlorophylls, without exceeding 0.330.01 mg/g
but comparable to data presented by researchers f.w., with a proper chlorophyll/carotenoid ratio of
from Romania, from 1.3 to 1.4 (Acatrinei and Andor, 2.420.02 3.190.08 (Tab. 2). These values are
2006; Coovanu et al., 2012). Thereby, lower values within the published range for V. vinifera L. leaves
of chlorophyll a/b ratio could be a peculiarity of presented by Burzo et al. (2005), but are slightly
romanian indigenous vine varieties, especially for lower than those reported by Young and Britton
those growing in N-E of the country, an areal with (1993) and Bertamini and Nedunchezhian (2003),
continental climate characterized by alternating where chlorophyll/carotenoid ratio was in the
hot and cold days, with frequent moisture de icit range of 3 to 4.
especially to the hills, that can frequently cause Chlorophyll content index (CCI) in leaves of
blockages of photosynthesis processes (Teodorescu V. vinifera L. varieties, determined by means of
et al., 1987; Cotea et al., 2000). On the other hand, hand held CCM-200 plus, ranged from 4.100.19
according to Hopkins and Hner (2009), typically to 6.260.17 (Tab. 3).

Tab. 3. Chlorophyll content index (CCI) in leaves of indigenous V. vinifera L. varieties analysed

Variety Minimum Maximum Mean St. dev.

Purpuriu 3.90 4.40 4.10000 0.19
Splendid 4.20 5.70 5.20NS 0.59
Radames 5.20 5.80 5.54NS 0.26
Cetuia 5.40 5.90 5.60NS 0.23
Coarn neagr selecionat 5.20 6.40 5.64NS 0.48
Transilvania 5.40 5.80 5.66NS 0.24
Somean 5.60 5.80 5.76 NS 0.21
Napoca 5.80 6.10 5.92NS 0.13
Coarn neagr 5.50 6.20 5.98NS 0.29
Gelu 5.40 6.10 6.00NS 0.60
Milcov 5.40 6.40 6.26** 0.17
Mean 5.18 5.87 5.61 0.31
CV% 11.35 9.30 10.23
Note: Data expressed as mean values with standard deviation (n = 5). NS, *, **, *** - indicate nonsigni icant and positive signi icant at p0.05, 0.01,
0.001, respectively; o, oo, ooo - negative signi icant at p0.05, 0.01, 0.001.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L. Indigenous Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments 251

Fig. 2. Correlation of total chlorophyll and CCI values in leaves of V. vinifera L.

indigenous varieties in the phenophase of progressive shoot growing

Fig. 3. Correlation of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b with CCI values in

leaves of V. vinifera L. indigenous varieties in the phenophase of progressive shoot growing

According to Van den Berg and Perkins (2004) (p < 0.001) of the variation was explained by the
and Yamamoto et al. (2002) small differences model obtained (Fig. 3).
in the structures of the two main chlorophylls However, for most CCI values, it appears that
produce differences in the absorption maxima of the chlorophyll meter CCM-200 plus is able to
chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b, which helps in provide a relative estimate of total chlorophyll in
their individual analysis. This fact can be exploited grapevine leaves based on a linear model, at least
spectrophotometrically (by extraction), but not by for the phenological phase under study.
a chlorophyll content meter. Variety in luences photosynthesis process
The relationship between total extractable through both photosynthetic pigment content and
chlorophyll (a + b) and CCI values was signi icantly leaf morphological particularities. The elements
linear, with R2 indicating that 98% (p < 0.001) of that compose the leaf structure (e.g. thickness
the variation was explained by a linear model, with of mesophyll), and leaf shape and area have an
conversion equation: y = 6.4995x 0.2475 (Fig. 2). important role in the process of photosynthesis
Chlorophyll a and CCI values correlation and are speci ic to each variety (Lebon et al.,
in young leaves of V. vinifera L. romanian 2005). Also, technological factors such as
varieties resulting in a weak relationship training system, type of pruning, number of buds,
(R2 = 0.6296), while chlorophyll b and CCI rootstock used, along with fertilization, irrigation,
values was signi icantly linear, similar to total soil tillage, attack of diseases and pests, affect the
chlorophyll content, with R2 indicating that 96% accumulation of photosynthetic pigments and

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

252 FILIMON et al

certainly their determination (Keller, 2010; Rotaru graphic characters is the most reduced. Generally,
et al., 2011). leaves from the base and the top of shoots have
In order to determine whether the chlorophyll a lower content of assimilatory pigments and a
and carotenoid content of leaves is in luenced lower photosynthetic activity, leaves between
by their biometric characteristics, leaf size and nodes 510 being the most photosynthetically
shape (area and perimeter) were determinated active (Mustea, 2004).
by an AM-300 portable instrument (Tab. 4). Leaf area ranged from 290756 mm (Transil-
Measurements are made optically using a simple vania variety) to 6792125 mm (Coarn neagr
scanning process. Both measurements and the selecionat variety), with a mean of 5210 mm
scanned shape were stored and transferred to a and a standard deviation between varieties of
personal computer. 1157 mm. A high value of coef icient of variability
Leaves selected for the measurements were between data was calculated in the analysis of
collected from the middle of the vine stock (the leaf perimeter (CV=31.7%), as a result of an high
middle third of shoots), where, according to Rotaru variability between varieties in respect to this
and rdea (2002), the variability of ampelo- parameter.

Tab. 4. Area and shape of leaves of indigenous V. vinifera L. varieties in the phenophase of shoot growing

Area St. Length St. Width St. Perimeter St.

Variety dev. dev. dev. dev. Scanned image
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Cetuia 3903000 64 71.6000 8.9 77.5NS 6.8 528.700 28.1

Coarn neagr 6401*** 101 95.5* 12.5 95.0NS 4.9 684.2*** 14.3

Coarn neagr
6792*** 125 103.1*** 14.8 94.7NS 10.4 527.300 15.1

Gelu 5885*** 124 94.2* 9.4 88.1NS 11.2 516.400 18.9

Milcov 5714*** 59 95.0* 8.7 90.2NS 8.6 597.1** 10.4

Napoca 4864000 102 87.6NS 11.4 83.8NS 7.4 402.1000 19.2

Purpuriu 4196000 96 83.100 11.6 86.1NS 10.8 594.3NS 20.7

Radames 5237NS 147 92.7NS 10.4 87.1NS 10.2 486.3000 16.1

Somean 5465*** 88 91.7NS 9.4 84.6NS 6.5 1018.6*** 11.1

Splendid 5943*** 197 100.1*** 8.2 87.9NS 9.3 670.5*** 12.4

Transilvania 2907000 56 72.9000 11.0 62.7000 7.4 310.8000 10.6

Mean 5210 1157 89.8 10.2 85.2 8.9 576.0 182.8

CV% 22.2 11.3 10.4 31.7
Note: Data expressed as mean values with standard deviation (n = 3). NS, *, **, *** - indicate nonsigni icant and positive signi icant at p0.05, 0.01,
0.001, respectively; o, oo, ooo - negative signi icant at p0.05, 0.01, 0.001.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L. Indigenous Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments 253

Tab. 5. Correlation of photosynthetic pigments concentration, CCI values and biometric data of leaves of
indigenous V. vinifera L. varieties

Total chl Leaf Leaf

V. vinifera L. Chl a Chl b Carotenoids CCI
(a+b) Area perimeter
Chl a 1
Chl b 0.7877 1
Total chl (a+b) 0.8522 0.9936 1
Carotenoids 0.7389 0.7786 0.7966 1
CCI 0.7934 0.9817 0.9791 0.7838 1
Leaf Area 0.2304 0.3177 0.3120 0.2974 0.3220 1
Leaf perimeter 0.0493 -0.0753 -0.0549 0.1178 -0.0299 0.4331 1

Note: Bolded values suggests that correlation coef icients are statistically signi icant in ANOVA test (p<0.05)

Pearsons correlation (Data analisys, Microsoft of chlorophyll concentration, but with no details
Excel), between area and perimeter of leaves, regarding chlorophyll components and ratios.
extractable photosynthetic pigment content and The data in this study indicate that chlorophyll
CCI values, reported that there was no positive or meter CCM-200 plus appears to be able to provide
negative relationship between experimental data a relative estimation of extracted chlorophyll in
(Tab. 5). Vitis vinifera L. young leaves based on a linear
However, a linear relationship was noticed model (by an equation of conversion). Once this
between chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll with relationship is established, the CCM can become
a correlation coef icient of 0.9936 (p < 0.001), and an eective tool in plant management (e.g. plant
was also con irmed the correlation between total health status, assessment of physiological changes
chlorophyll content and CCI values (r = 0.9791; p over time, or in treatments affecting plant growth
< 0.001). and development).

CONCLUSION Acknowledgments. This paper was published

In young leaves of Vitis vinifera L. varieties under the frame of European Social Fund, Human
native to Romania, concentration of photosynthetic Resources Development Operational Programme
pigments and the relationship between them was 20072013,projectno.POSDRU/159/1.5/S/132765.
speci ic to each variety. Low chlorophyll a/b ratio
may be a peculiarity of indigenous grapevine REFERENCES
varieties from Romania and can be attributed 1. Acatrinei L and Andor I (2006). Physiological researches
at varieties of grapes in Cotnari vineyards under
to the speci ic climatic conditions and/or to the
pesticides treatments. Scienti ic Papers U.A.S.V.M. Iai,
phenophase considered (progressive growing of Serie Horticulture. 49(1): 317322.
shoots). This relation shall be established in the 2. Bartley GE and Scolnik PA (1995). Plant carotenoids:
further studies. pigments for photoprotection, visual attraction, and
Carotenoid pigments were present in low human health. The Plant Cell. 7: 10271038.
concentration in grapevine leaves compared to 3. Bertamini M and Nedunchezhian N (2003). Photosynthetic
chlorophylls, with a chlorophyll/carotenoids functioning of individual grapevine leaves (Vitis vinifera
L. cv. Pinot noir) during ontogeny in the ield. Vitis. 42(1):
ratio that falls within the published range for this 1317.
species, from 2.4 to 3.2.
4. Beceanu D, Anghel R and Filimon VR (2011). Materii
Compared to spectrophotometry (that re- prime horticole mai importante pentru industria
quire extraction of assimilatory pigments), Opti- alimentar: struguri, fructe, legume. Edit. PIM Iai, Romania.
Sciences CCM-200 plus chlorophyll content meter 5. Biber PD (2007). Evaluating a chlorophyll content meter
provide fast, reliable, economical measurement on three coastal wetland plant species. J. of Agricultural
Food and Environmental Sciences. 1(2): 111.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

254 FILIMON et al

6. Boyer JS, Wong SC and G.D. Farquhar (1997). CO2 and cence. Tree Physiology. Heron Publishing-Victoria,
water vapor exchange across leaf cuticle (epidermis) at Canada. 25: 633639.
various water potentials. Plant Physiology. 114: 185191 22. Lee JH and Schwartz SJ (2005). Analysis of Carotenoids
7. Burzo I, Dejeu L, erdinescu A and Bdulescu L (2005). and Chlorophylls in Foods. In Methods of Analysis of
Fiziologia plantelor de cultur. Vol. III. Fiziologia viei de Food Components and Additives (ed. tles S.). CRC Press,
vie. Edit. Elisavaros, Bucureti. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL. pp. 179198.
8. Callejas R., Kania E, Contreras A, Peppi C and Morales L 23. Lichtenhaler HK (1987). Chlorophylls and carotenoids:
(2013). Evaluation of a non-destructive method to pigments of photosynthetic membranes. Methods
estimate the concentration of chlorophyll in leaves of Enzymol. 148: 350382.
table grape cv. Idesia (Chile). 31(4): 1926. 24. Lichtenthaler HK and Wellburn AR (1983).
9. Cotea DV, Barbu N, Grigorescu C and Cotea VV (2000). Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a
Podgoriile i vinurile Romniei. Editura Academiei, and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Bioch. Society
Bucureti. Transactions. 11: 591592.
10. Coovanu Filimon R, Rotaru L, Cule R and Filimon VR 25. Lichtenthaler HK, Kuhn G, Prenzel U, Buschmann C and
(2012). Variation of photosynthetic pigments content Meier D (1982). Adaptation of chloroplast-ultrastructure
under the in luence of treatments with biostimulating and of chlorophyllprotein levels to high-light and low-
substances at some table grape varieties grown in Iassy light growth conditions. Z. Naturforsch. 37(c): 464475.
vineyard area. Scienti ic Papers U.A.S.V.M. Iai, Serie 26. Lichtenthaler HK and Buschmann C (2001).
Horticulture. 55(1): 309314. Chlorophylls and Carotenoids: Measurement and
11. Cuttriss A. and Pogson B (2004). Carotenoids. In Plant Characterization by UV-VIS Spectroscopy. In Current
pigments and their manipulation. Vol. 14 (ed. Davies K. Protocols in Food Analytical Chemistry (ed. Wrolstad
M.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 5792. R.E.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., F4.3.1F4.3.8.
12. Davies KM (2004). Plant pigments and their 27. Lovisolo C, Schubert A and Restagno M (1996).
manipulation. Annual plant reviews. Vol. 14, CRC Press, Photosynthesis of grapevine leaves of different age at high
Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 123. and low light intensity. ISHS Acta Hort. 427: 9193.
13. Gandia S, Fernndez G, Garca JC and Moreno J (2004). 28. Maltini E, Torreggiani D, Venir E, Bertolo G (2003).
Retrieval of vegetation biophysical variables from Chris/ Water activity and the preservation of plant foods. Food
Proba data in the sparc campaing. Proc. of the 2nd CHRIS/ Chemistry. 82: 7986.
Proba Workshop, ESA/ESRIN, Frascati, Italy. http://earth. 29. Mendes-Pinto MM, Ferreira ACS, Caris-Veyrat C
esa.int/workshops/chris_proba_04/papers/12_ Gandia. and De Pinho GP (2005). Carotenoids, Chlorophyll, and
pdf. Chlorophyll-Derived Compounds in Grapes and Port
14. Ghasemi M, Arzani K, Yadollahi A, Ghasemi S and Wines. J. Agric. Food Chem. 53: 1003410041.
Sarikhani SK (2011). Estimate of leaf chlorophyll and 30. Mustea M (2004). Viticultur. Bazele biologice,
nitrogen content in asian pear (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) by n iinarea i ntreinerea plantaiilor tinere de vii
CCM-200. Notulae Scientia Biologicae. 3(1): 9194. roditoare. Edit. Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Iai.
15. Gross J (1991). Pigments in Vegetables: Chlorophylls and 31. Pfander H (1992). Carotenoids: an overview. Meth.
Carotenoids. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Enzymol. 213: 313.
16. Hopkins WG and Hner PAN (2009). Introduction to 32. Richardson AD, Duigan SP and Berlyn GP (2002).
Plant Physiology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA. An evaluation of noninvasive methods to estimate foliar
17. Jiang CD, Gao HY, Zou Q, Jiang GM and Li LH (2005). chlorophyll content. New Phytologist. 153: 185194.
Enhanced photoprotection at the early stages of leaf 33. Rotaru L and rdea C (2002). Folosirea analizei cluster
expansion in ield-grown soybean plants. Plant Sci. 168: n ampelogra ie pentru stabilirea asemnrilor fenotipce
911919. la soiurile de vi de vie. Scienti ic Papers U.A.S.V.M. Iai,
18. Jiang CD, Shi L, Gao HY, Schansker G, Tth SZ and Serie Horticulture. 45(1): 189193.
Strasser RJ (2006). Development of photosystems 2 and 34. Rotaru L, Stoleru V, Filipov F, Mustea M and Petrea G
1 during leaf growth in grapevine seedlings probed by (2011). The in luence of the Terroir Concerning the
chlorophyll a luorescence transient and 820 nm Quantity and Quality of Grapes Yield at White Grapevine
transmission in vivo. Photosynth. 44(3): 454463. Varieties Growing in the Iasi Vineyard. Jornal of Life
19. Keller M (2010). The science of grapevines: anatomy and Sciences. 5(8): 646653.
physiology. Academic Press, Elsevier Inc. 35. Schaper H and Chacko EK (1991). Relation between
20. Khaleghi E, Arzani K, Moallemi N and Barzegar M extractable chlorophyll and portable chlorophyll meter
(2012). Evaluation of chlorophyll content and chlorophyll readings in leaves of eight tropical and subtropical fruit-
luorescence parameters and relationships between tree species. J. of Plant Physiology. 138(6): 674677.
chlorophyll a, b and chlorophyll content index under 36. Teodorescu , Popa AI and Sandu GN (1987). Oenoclimatul
water stress in Olea europaea cv. Dezful. World Academy Romniei: Vinurile Rom niei i climatul lor caracteristic.
of Science, Engineering and Technology. 6: 21122115. Ed. tiini ic i Enciclopedic, Bucharest, Romania.
21. Lebon G, Brun O, Magn C and Clment C (2005). 37. Toma LD and Jitreanu D (2007). Fiziologie vegetal.
Photosynthesis of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera) in lores- Edit. Ion Ionescu de la Brad, Iai, Romania.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014

Characterization of some Vitis vinifera L. Indigenous Varieties by Analysis of Leaf Photosynthetic Pigments 255

38. Van den Berg AK and Perkins TD (2004). Evaluation of a tent in leaves of Sorghum and Pigeonpea determined by
portable chlorophyll meter to estimate chlorophyll and extraction method and by chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502).
nitrogen contents in sugar maple (Acer saccharum Marsh.) J. of Plant Nutrition. 25(10): 22952301.
leaves. Forest Ecology and Management. 200: 113117. 41. Young A and Britton G (1993). Carotenoids in
39. Willows RD (2004). Chlorophylls. In Plant pigments photosynthesis. Springer Science Business Media
and their manipulation. Annual plant reviews. Vol. 14 (ed. Dordrecht. Published by Chapman & HalI.
Davies K. M.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp. 42. *** (2011). Spectranomics Protocol: Chlorophylls and
2357. Carotenoids. Carnegie Institution for Science 260 Panama
40. Yamamoto A, Nakamura T, Adu-Gyam i JJ and Saigusa Street, Stanford, USA. http://spectranomics.stanford.
M (2002). Relationship between chlorophyll con- edu/technical_information. attachment/105.

Bulletin UASVM Horticulture 71(2) / 2014