Back

Eco-evo-devo implications and archaeobiological perspectives of wild and domesticated grapevines fruits covariating traits

Bonhomme, V.; Picq, S.; Ivorra, S.; Evin, A.; Pastor, T.; Bacilieri, R.; Lacombe, T.; Figueiral, I.; Terral, J.-F.; Bouby, L.

2020-03-31 plant biology
10.1101/513036 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The phenotypic changes that occurred during the domestication and diversification of grapevine are well known, particularly changes in seed morphology, but the functional causes and consequences behind these variations are poorly understood. Wild and domesticate grapes differ, among others, in the form of their pips: wild grapes produce roundish pips with short stalks and cultivated varieties have more elongated pips with longer stalks. Such variations of form are of first importance for archaeobotany since the pip form is, most often, the only remaining information in archaeological settings. This study aims to enlight archaeobotanical record and grapevine pip development by better understanding how size and shape (co)variates between pip and berry in both wild and domesticated Vitis vinifera. The covariation of berry size, number of seeds per berry ("piposity"), pip size and pip shape were explored on 49 grapevine accessions sampled among Euro-Mediterranean traditional cultivars and wild grapevines. We show that for wild grapevine, the higher the piposity, the bigger the berry and the more elongated the pip. For both wild and domesticated grapevine, the longer is the pip, the more it has a "domesticated" shape. Consequences for archaeobotanical studies are tested and discussed, and these covariations allowed the inference of berry dimensions from archaeological pips from a Southern France Roman site. This systematic exploration sheds light on new aspects of pip-berry relationship, in both size and shape, on grapevine eco-evo-devo changes during domestication, and invites to explore further the functional ecology of grapevine pip and berry and notably the impact of cultivation practices and human selection on grapevine morphology.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.5%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 7%
10.0%
4
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
6
Food Research International
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.6%
7
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 3%
3.1%
8
Annals of Botany
43 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
9
BMC Plant Biology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
10
Plants
39 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.1%
11
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
12
Horticulture Research
43 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
13
Journal of Experimental Botany
195 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
14
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 40%
1.8%
15
Planta
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.2%
16
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.9%
17
Plant Biology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.9%
18
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
20
Genes
126 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
21
AoB PLANTS
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
22
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 44%
0.7%
23
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Evolutionary Applications
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
25
Plant Physiology
217 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%