Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Early Access

Anatomical comparison of stems and leaves in local and introduced grape (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12715
Submitted
13 November 2025
Published
05-03-2026

Abstract

Grapes are economically significant and widely cultivated, with various types found in Iraq, including Ajami, Dis Anz, Halwani, Kamali, Al-Yaqut and Red Glabe. This study compares the anatomical structures of these six cultivars using microscopic techniques revealing distinct characteristics. Al-Yaqut exhibited the greatest thickness in peripheral epidermis, cuticle, vascular bundles and xylem vessels, while Des Anz showed the highest epidermal thickness in leaf blades. Kamali's upper epidermis walls were notably thicker. Stomata were anomocytic, with guard cells varying in shape. Crystal types included acicular, prismatic and star-shaped across different varieties. Overall, the study identified distinct anatomical variations among cultivars, which may hold functional and genetic significance for future research.

References

  1. 1. Pawlus AD, Waffo-Téguo P, Shaver J, Mérillon JM. Stilbenoid chemistry from wine and the genus Vitis: a review. Oeno One. 2012;46(2):57–111. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2012.46.2.1512
  2. 2. lland P, Dry P, Proffitt T, Tyreman S, Collins C, Pagay V, Steel C. The grapevine: from the science to the practice of growing vines for wine. 2nd ed. Adelaide: Patrick Iland Wine Promotions; 2024.
  3. 3. Parihar S, Sharma D. A brief overview on Vitis vinifera. Sch Acad J Pharm. 2021;10(12):231–39. https://doi.org/10.36347/sajp.2021.v10i12.005
  4. 4. Akkurt M, Tahmaz H, Veziroğlu S. Recent developments in seedless grapevine breeding. S Afr J Enol Vitic. 2019;40(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.21548/42-2-3342
  5. 5. Suter B, Destrac Irvine A, Gowdy M, Dai Z, van Leeuwen C. Adapting wine grape ripening to global change requires a multi-trait approach. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:624867. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.624867
  6. 6. Solairaj D, Legrand NNG, Yang Q, Liu J, Zhang H. Microclimatic parameters affect Cladosporium rot development and berry quality in table grapes. Hortic Plant J. 2022;8(2):171–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpj.2021.07.002
  7. 7. Keller M, Zhang Y, Shrestha PM, Biondi M, Bondada BR. Sugar demand of ripening grape berries leads to recycling of surplus phloem water via the xylem. Plant Cell Environ. 2015;38(6):1048–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12465
  8. 8. Zhang Y, Keller M. Discharge of surplus phloem water may be required for normal grape ripening. J Exp Bot. 2017;68(3):585–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw476
  9. 9. Coneva V, Frank MH, Balaguer MAdL, Li M, Sozzani R, Chitwood DH. Genetic architecture and molecular networks underlying leaf thickness in desert-adapted tomato Solanum pennellii. Plant Physiol. 2017;175(1):376–91. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00790
  10. 10. Bota J, Tomás M, Flexas J, Medrano H, Escalona J. Differences among grapevine cultivars in their stomatal behavior and water use efficiency under progressive water stress. Agric Water Manag. 2016;164:91–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.07.016
  11. 11. Tortosa I, Escalona JM, Bota J, Tomás M, Hernández E, Escudero EG, et al. Exploring the genetic variability in water use efficiency: evaluation of inter- and intra-cultivar genetic diversity in grapevines. Plant Sci. 2016;251:35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.05.008
  12. 12. Levin AD, Williams LE, Matthews MA. A continuum of stomatal responses to water deficits among 17 wine grape cultivars (Vitis vinifera). Funct Plant Biol. 2019;47(1):11–25. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP19073
  13. 13. Bertolino LT, Caine RS, Gray JE. Impact of stomatal density and morphology on water-use efficiency in a changing world. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10(225):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00225
  14. 14. Tombesi S, Nardini A, Farinelli D, Palliotti A. Relationships between stomatal behavior, xylem vulnerability to cavitation and leaf water relations in two cultivars of Vitis vinifera. Physiol Plant. 2014;152(3):453–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12180
  15. 15. Hochberg U, Rockwell FE, Holbrook NM, Cochard H. Iso/anisohydry: a plant–environment interaction rather than a simple hydraulic trait. Trends Plant Sci. 2018;23(2):112–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.002
  16. 16. Gago P, Conejero G, Martínez MC, This P, Verdeil JL. Comparative anatomy and morphology of the leaves of Grenache noir and Syrah grapevine cultivars. S Afr J Enol Vitic. 2019;40(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.21548/40-2-3031
  17. 17. Monteiro A, Teixeira G, Lopes CM. Comparative leaf micromorphoanatomy of Vitis vinifera ssp. vinifera red cultivars. Ciência Téc Vitiv. 2013;28(1):19–28.
  18. 18. Najmaddin C. Leaf anatomy and palynological differences among selected cultivars of Vitis vinifera and Parthenocissus quinquefolia (Vitaceae). History. 2014;9(21):6–12.
  19. 19. Johansen DA. Plant microtechnique. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1940.
  20. 20. Hutchinson EP. Sectioning methods for moss leaves. The Bryologist. 1954;57(2):175–76.
  21. 21. Al-Hadeethi MA, Ali JK, Al-Moussawi Z. Anatomical characters of Corchorus olitorius L. (Malvaceae) cultivated in Iraq. Int J Pharm Res. 2020;12(1). https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.12.01.041
  22. 22. Al-Khazraji T, Aziz F. Practical in plant anatomy and microscopic preparations. Erbil: University of Salahuddin Press; 1989. p. 321.
  23. 23. Stace CA. Plant taxonomy and biosystematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1989.
  24. 24. Al-Rawi K, Khalaf Allah A. Design and analysis of agricultural experiments. Mosul: Faculty of Agriculture, University of Mosul; 2000.
  25. 25. Keshavarzi M, Esna-Ashari M. Anatomical changes in root and aerial organs of grapevine (Vitis vinifera cv. Yaghooti) affected by salinity. Plant Productions. 2022;45(2):169–80. https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2022.39886.2009
  26. 26. Ennajeh M, Vadel A, Cochard H, Khemira H. Comparative impacts of water stress on the leaf anatomy of a drought-resistant and a drought-sensitive olive cultivar. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol. 2010;85(4):289–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2010.11512670
  27. 27. Doupis G, Bosabalidis A, Patakas A. Comparative effects of water deficit and enhanced UV-B radiation on photosynthetic capacity and leaf anatomy traits of two grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) cultivars. Theor Exp Plant Physiol. 2016;28(1):131–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40626-016-0055-9
  28. 28. Álvarez R, Ferreira BG, Moreno-González V, Alonso-Redondo R, Penas Á, del Río S. Leaf anatomy of varieties of Vitis vinifera from DO León (Spain) and its relationship to susceptibility to Plasmopara viticola. Flora. 2022;292:152077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2022.152077
  29. 29. Gerzon E, Biton I, Yaniv Y, Zemach H, Netzer Y, Schwartz A, et al. Grapevine anatomy as a possible determinant of isohydric or anisohydric behavior. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 2015;66(3):340–47. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2015.14090
  30. 30. Yan W, Zhong Y, Shangguan Z. Contrasting responses of leaf stomatal characteristics to climate change: a considerable challenge to predict carbon and water cycles. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(9):3781–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13654
  31. 31. Espinoza S, Ortega-Farías S, Ahumada-Orellana L. Characterization of stomatal density and size of different Vitis vinifera L. cultivars growing in Mediterranean climate conditions. Ciência e Técnica Vitivinícola. 2024;39(1):14–18. https://doi.org/10.1051/ctv/ctv2024390114
  32. 32. Murria S, Kaur N, Arora A, Arora NK. Microscopic and ultrastructural studies of grape cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.) with variable susceptibilities to anthracnose. Indian Phytopathol. 2019;72(2):261–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42360-019-00140-x
  33. 33. Nassuth A, Rahman M, Nguyen T, Ebadi A, Lee C. Leaves of more coldhardy grapes have a higher density of small, sunken stomata. Vitis. 2021;60(2):63–67. https://doi.org/10.5073/vitis.2021.60.63-67
  34. 34. Güler S, Kunter B, Şehit A. Stomatal density, type and their relationships with leaf morphological traits in Vitis vinifera L. varieties. Int J Agric Environ Food Sci. 2023;8(1):78–87. https://doi.org/10.31015/jaefs.2024.1.9
  35. 35. Liu Y, Li X, Chen G, Li M, Liu M, Liu D. Epidermal micromorphology and mesophyll structure of Populus euphratica heteromorphic leaves at different developmental stages. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0137701. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137701

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.