Impaginato 249 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(4): 249-256 DOI: 10.13128/ahs-20686 ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted on three selected grapevine rootstocks grown on calcareous soil under diluted brackish water irrigation. I. Growth performances I.M. Qrunfleh 1 (*), T.G. Ammari 2, S. Abu-Romman 3 1 Department of Plant Production and Protection, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt 19117, Jordan. 2 Department of Water Resources and Environmental Management, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, Al-Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt 19117, Jordan. 3 Department of Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Technology, Al- Balqa Applied University, Al-Salt 19117, Jordan. Key words: alternate irrigation, chlorophyll content, 41B, leaf area, P1103, R110, salinity, shoot length. Abstract: Mixing brackish water with conventional quality water for irrigation in ratios to maintain satisfactory vigor of grapevines might be a feasible man- agement practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of three grape rootstocks that are used worldwide and locally; R110, 41B and P1103, irrigated with three salinity levels: 1.5, 3.0 and 5.0 dS m-1 in addition to the 0.8 dS m-1 control. A randomized complete block design was used with three blocks of 12 pots each. ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted on P1103 showed bet- ter performance regarding chlorophyll content, stem length and number of young leaves and even growth after bud break. It does seem that grapevine rootstocks that have either V. rupestris or V. berlandieri in their parentage are good candidates for salinity tolerance. It can be concluded that irrigation with diluted brackish water can be practiced for a certain period of time (two months from April to June); according to our findings under conditions of the experiment, to be followed by irrigation with good quality water in order to flush excessive salts out of the root zone. 1. Introduction Worldwide, during the last two decades, effluent and saline water reuse for irrigation purposes has been becoming an increasingly common practice (Bustan et al., 2005; Paranychianakis and Angelakis, 2008). However, effluent and saline water irrigation is also associated with potential disadvantages such as, spreading of infectious diseases, nutri- ents release to the environment and salt accumulation (Bustan et al., (*) Corresponding author: iqrunf@bau.edu.jo Citation: QRUnFLEH I.M., AMMARI T.G., ABU-ROMMAn S., 2017 - ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted on three select- ed grapevine rootstocks grown on calcareous soil under diluted brackish water irrigation. I. Growth performances. - Adv. Hort. Sci., 31(4): 249-256 Copyright: © 2017 Qrunfleh I.M., AmmarI T.G., Abu- Romman S. This is an open access, peer reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.net/index.php/ahs/) and distribuited under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Received for publication 24 May 2017 Accepted for publication 22 June 2017 AHS Advances in Horticultural Science Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(4): 249-256 250 2005; niu et al., 2008). Salt accumulation in the soil profile causes adverse effects on many crop yields; mainly by causing osmotic stress. Thus, salt tolerant crops, cultivars or genotypes must be chosen to ensure that salinity-induced damage and/or yield reduction are minimal. Mixing low quality water (e.g. brackish water) with conventional quality irrigation water in ratios to keep the salinity of the irrigated soils below the threshold of the target crop might be an acceptable management practice and was report- ed by many researchers (e.g. Abdel Gawad and Ghaibeh, 2001). Considerable yields were obtained using saline irrigation water (4-12 dS m-1) in crops that had been previously defined as moderately sensitive to salt stress (Bustan et al., 2004). In some crops (e.g., tomato) the reduction in the fresh yield was compen- sated by an increase in fruit dry weight and other quality parameters (Mizrahi et al., 1988). Bustan et al. (2005) reported that the combination of fresh irri- gation water (1.2 dS m-1) and brackish water (7 dS m- 1) increased the yield level of melon in comparison to that of fresh water plants. In addition to the effects of salinity on crop yield, growth, leaf chlorophyll and mineral content are also affected. In this regard, vines that were grafted showed less Cl- in the leaves compared to vines on their own roots (Walker et al., 2004). Among the rootstocks studied, P1103 was the best chloride excluder based upon the results of leaf chloride concentrations. On the other hand, despite that own rooted ‘Sultana’ vines accumulated more Cl- and na+ in the leaves, they were considered to better tolerate salinity conditions compared to those graft- ed based upon accumulating more dry matter (Fisarakis et al., 2001). There is great debate regarding the tolerance of grapevines to salinity. Moreover, contradictions can be found in the literature in terms of the salt toler- ance of grapevine rootstocks implying that different factors are involved, which eventually determine grapevine response to salt stress. Southey and Jooste (1991) found that American hybrids performed poor- ly in response to salinity when used as rootstocks for the cultivar ‘Colombard’. In addition, Cavagnaro et al. (2006) concluded that Argentinean cultivars per- formed better than European cultivars in an in vitro salinity evaluation study. Regarding differences in ranking rootstocks, Dardeniz et al. (2006) indicated that 41B was the most salt resistant rootstock, fol- lowed by 140Ru and P1103, and the least resistant was 5 BB. On the other hand, a previous study showed that the highest salt resistance was obtained when P1003 was used as a rootstock (Walker et al., 2002). Our hypothesis is that alternate irrigation with diluted brackish water followed by irrigation with good quality water could result in, on one hand, sav- ing fresh water for other uses and, on the other hand, establishing good vineyards. In addition, American rootstocks could perform differently under diluted brackish irrigation water. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the vigor perfor- mance of ‘Superior Seedless’ cultivar grafted on three pot grown rootstocks: P1103, R110 and 41B under different diluted brackish water irrigation lev- els to detect a suitable irrigation period with diluted brackish water, without showing adverse effects on growth. 2. Materials and Methods Plant and soil material Three grape rootstocks were evaluated in this study: R110 (Vitis berlandieri x V. rupestris), 41B (V. berlandieri x V. vinifera) and P1103 (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris). The rootstocks were purchased from Les Pépiniéristes du Comtat, Sarrians, France. After being imported, Vitis vinifera ‘Superior Seedless’ was grafted on the rootstocks in a local nursery; (Al- Bushra nurseries, May, 2013). Grafted plant materi- als were planted in polyethylene bags filled with peatmoss. The one year old grafted grapevine rootstocks were grown for several months to allow for the for- mation of a well-developed root system before applying treatments. Fertilizers and fungicides were applied as necessary. The soil was brought from the southern Jordan Valley. The soil was relatively saline with an EC of 3.88 dS m-1. Such soils are common in the Jordan Valley under the agricultural practices applied by farmers. Soil was crushed and sieved through 1 cm sieve and plastic pots (the working volume of the pots was 44 L) were filled with 50 kg each in order to roughly have a bulk density of 1.14 g cm-3. A soil sam- ple was taken to be analyzed for texture and some chemical properties (Table 1). The pots were placed in a controlled greenhouse. Grafted grapevines were transplanted in February and the growth was unified based on the number of buds and root length. The root system was cut back to 15 cm in length and the vegetative system was cut back to eight buds. Qrunfleh et al. - ‘Superior Seedless’ grown under diluted brackish water irrigation. I. Growth performances 251 Irrigation treatments and experimental design Brackish water was brought from Al-Karameh dam located in the Jordan Valley and stored in a galva- nized tank. A water sample was taken to be analyzed for some chemical properties (Table 2). Three levels of irrigation water salinity, in terms of electrical con- ductivity (EC), were applied: 1.5, 3.0 and 5.0 dS m-1 in addition to the 0.8 dS m-1 control. The treatments were prepared by mixing the dam water with tap water. A portable conductivity meter (Model Cond 3210, WTW, Germany) was used to measure the EC and to obtain the determined salinity levels. A ran- domized complete block design was used with three blocks of 12 pots each. The grafted grapevines start- ed to break the dormancy period during spring. Composite fertilizer (20: 20: 20), urea and ammoni- um sulfate were applied to the grapevines and growth was again unified before applying the assigned treatments. Irrigation with the assigned treatments started in May. All pots received the same amount of water whenever irrigation was applied. Each pot received a total amount of irriga- tion water equal to 446 mm. Irrigation was scheduled according to evaporation readings from free water surface (in mm) taken every 48 hours and corrected using proper grapevine crop coefficient of 0.30 (according to Food and Agriculture Organization of the United nations- FAO). Chlorophyll content and growth parameters A SPAD-502 purchased from Minolta CO., LTD, Japan, was used to measure the chlorophyll content of fully expanded matured leaves before irrigation with brackish water on April, 2014 and after irriga- tion with water on June, 2014 and november, 2014. Shoot length, leaf area and number of newly formed leaves were recorded three times during the growing season of 2014 on June, August and October. Leaf sampling and analysis Fully expanded mature leaf samples were taken in June, August and October, 2014. Leaf fresh and dry weights were determined. Leaf water percentage was determined gravimetrically. After being dried, the leaf samples (5 leaves/plant) were analyzed for K, P, na, Mg and Ca. Leaf area was also determined in november, 2014 by using a leaf area meter (AM300, Bioscientific Ltd., UK). A Cintra 5 spectrophotometer (GBC Scientific Equipment, Australia) was used for analyzing P. Flame photometer (Jenway, Germany) was used for analyzing K and na. Ca and Mg were analyzed by titration with EDTA. Chloride was ana- lyzed by titration with AgnO3. Digestion and analysis methods followed the procedures of Estefan et al. (2013). Soil analysis The soil was analyzed for P, K, Ca, Mg, na, Cl, pH and EC (1:1 soil: water extract) using the same previ- ously mentioned instruments and procedures. Statistical analysis All statistical analyses were performed using SAS/STAT Version 9.2 and Analysis of Variance (AnOVA) was conducted by the PROC GLIMMIX pro- cedure. 3. Results and Discussion Soil and water analysis One-year old grapevine rootstocks were grown on a calcareous clayey soil (45% CaCO3). Soil chemical properties are presented in Table 1. The soil used in the current study is saline with relatively high organic matter. Such soils are common under agricultural practices applied in the Jordan Valley. In the Jordan Valley, farmers used to annually add organic materi- als, a practice that contributed to elevated salinity level. Plants were regularly irrigated with diluted Table 1 - Chemical properties of the soil brought from the southern Jordan Valley Soil property Value Soil texture Clay pH 8.25 EC 1:1 3.88 dS m-1 Organic matter 1.99% Ca 761.52 mg kg-1 soil Mg 121.52 mg kg-1 soil CaCO 3 450.00 g kg-1 soil Soluble K 29.00 mg kg-1 soil Soluble na 85.00 mg kg-1 soil Olsen-P 5.99 mg kg-1 soil SO 4 27.73 mg kg-1 soil Cl 1489.66 mg kg-1 soil Table 2 - Chemical analysis of brackish water used for irrigation in the current research Water properties Value pH 8.62 EC 15.43 dS m-1 Cl 6098.00 mg l-1 Ca 801.60 mg l-1 Mg 710.53 mg l-1 K 144.45 mg l-1 na 2335.00 mg l-1 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(4): 249-256 252 brackish water at three salinity levels. The water chemical properties of the brackish water are pre- sented in Table (2). Brackish water used in the current study is extremely saline with total dissolved solids of approx- imately 9875 mg l-1. Chloride formed approximately 60% of the ionic composition of the brackish water (before dilution) followed by sodium, which formed approximately 23%. Such high EC and Cl and na con- centrations justified the use of diluted brackish water obtained by diluting the latter with tap water in order to prepare irrigation water with three salinity levels as previously mentioned. The maximum salini- ty level of irrigation water was 5 dS m-1 electrical con- ductivity to avoid the buildup of salts in the growth medium far beyond the threshold EC of grapevines, which is approximately 2-3 dS m-1. SPAD chlorophyll reading The analysis of variance of the chlorophyll content of fully expanded mature leaves showed no interac- tion effect among rootstock, salinity and time. Meanwhile, a significant rootstock by salinity interaction at (P≤0.05) was detected only in november as well as an expected salinity by time interaction (P≤0.05). Diluted brackish water effects on ‘Superior Seedless’ chlorophyll content were clearly observed in June and november (Table 3). In April, no interaction was noticed among rootstock- salinity combinations due to the fact that the soil used is originally saline and no considerable salt build up was expected yet as a result of irrigation. If non- saline soil was used, findings would not be of practi- cal significance. In addition, brackish water was dilut- ed before being used for irrigation. Salt build up could be expected if irrigation was practiced for longer period of time. However, salt build up is not favorable because it will adversely affect grape yield, which was not measured under the conditions of our experiment. As expected, chlorophyll content levels decreased for all three rootstocks (Table 3). However, ‘Superior Seedless’ showed higher chlorophyll content when grafted on P1103 compared to R110 and 41B in november at salinity level of 5.0 dS m-1 (Table 3). The highest reduction in ‘Superior Seedless’ chlorophyll content was observed when grafted on rootstock 41B, followed by R110 and the least reduction was observed for ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted on P1103. The influence of salinity levels varied with time and rootstock (Table 3). Chlorophyll content of R1 (P1103) and R2 (41B) was adversely affected in June particularly at S2 and S3. In november, the adverse effect of salinity levels on R1 and R2 at S2 and S3 was even more obvious. However, R3 (R110) was mainly affected by S3 particularly in november. This might suggest that diluted brackish water can be used for irrigation for a short period of time (i.e. from April to June) followed by irrigation with better quality irriga- tion water. This can be true mainly for R3 (R110) fol- lowed by R2 (41B) and for a longer period for R1 (P1103). Additional supply of Ca+2 can prevent the toxic effects of na+ on leaf photosynthesis (Montesano and Van Iersel, 2007). It was indicated that the effect of salinity on leaf chlorophyll content is ion-specific and not due to a decrease in the osmotic potential of the nutrient solution. In our study, ‘Superior Seedless’ showed higher calcium ion content in both plant tissues and soil when grafted on P1103 com- pared to R110 and 41B. The mean ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf Ca content (mg g-1 dry weight) grafted on the three rootstocks at 5.0 dS m-1 measured in October was 29.40 when grafted on P1103; whereas it was 26.00 and 19.80 when grafted onto 41B and R110, respectively (Table 4). Meanwhile, the soil Ca content (mg g-1 soil) for the three rootstocks at 5.0 dS m-1 measured in October were as follow: 5.2, 4.7 and 4.5 when grafted on P1103, 41B and R110, respectively. This might explain the relatively better performance of P1103 under the conditions of the current study. Moreover, ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted onto 41B showed a higher leaf Mg content in October, howev- er, the reduction magnitude in leaf Mg content in October compared to June was the least in ‘Superior R1 = P1103, R2 = 41B, R3 = R110. C = Control 0.8 dS m-1, S1 = 1.5 dS m-1, S2 = 3.0 dS m-1, S3 = 5.0 dS m-1. (z) = The number in parenthesis indicates the reduction in the SPAD reading compared to the reading before treatment in April. Table 3 - The effect of brackish water treatments on the aver- age ‘Superior Seedless’ chlorophyll content measured in June and november for the three rootstocks Treatment June november R1 C 28.5±1.0 27±1.0 R2 C 27.6±1.2 27.6±1.1 R3 C 25.8±1.9 24.6±1.5 R1 S1 25.7±1.2 24.1±1.3 R2 S1 26.8±1.3 25.8±1.3 R3 S1 26.6±2.2 23.7±0.6 R1 S2 23.1±1.8 (3.3) (z) 22.9±1.6 (3.5) R2 S2 23±1.3 (4.7) 22.5±1.0 (5.2) R3 S2 25.1±1.1 (3.9) 22.2±1.2 (6.8) R1 S3 20.5±0.7 (6.7) 18.8±0.7 (8.4) R2 S3 23.8±3.2 (4.9) 12.9±3.6 (15.8) R3 S3 23±2.7 (7.4) 18.1±0.5 (12.3) Qrunfleh et al. - ‘Superior Seedless’ grown under diluted brackish water irrigation. I. Growth performances 253 Seedless’ grafted onto P1103 in comparison with R110 and 41B (Table 5), which might also explain the relatively better performance of P1103. In addition, ‘Superior Seedless’ grafted onto P1103 showed a higher Mg leaf content at salinity level (S2) in October compared to June. Meanwhile, ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf Mg content decreased when grafted on 41B and R110 at the same level of salinity. Stem length and number of leaves The analysis of variance of stem length after irri- gation with brackish water measured in June, August and October detected no interaction effect. However, a salinity effect was observed slightly in October. At the highest salinity level, ‘Superior’ showed longer stem length when grafted on P1103 compared to R110 and 41B (Table 6). However, the longer ‘Superior Seedless’ stem was not significantly different when grafted onto R110 but were signifi- cantly different when grafted onto 41B. This indicates that ‘Superior Seedless’ bud grafted on P1103 showed more growth compared when grafted onto 41B. Another indication of the vigorosity and tolerance of P1103 was the total number of leaves counted in June, August and October. According to the analysis of variance, no interaction effect was detected. However, a main rootstock and salinity effect were detected in June, August and October. Generally, in the months of August and October and at the levels of S2 (3.0 dS m-1) and S3 (5.0 dS m- 1), ‘Superior Seedless’ bud showed more number of leaves when grafted onto P1103 followed by R110 and the least number was when grafted onto 41B (Table 7). This also supports the vigor and indication of tolerance of P1103. In addition, the results of the total counting coincide well with the shoot length R1 = P1103, R2 = 41B, R3 = R110. C = Control 0.8 dS m-1, S1 = 1.5 dS m-1, S2 = 3.0 dS m-1, S3 = 5.0 dS m-1. Table 4 - The effect of brackish water treatments on the aver- age ‘Superior Seedless’ Ca leaf content (mg g-1 dry weight) grafted on the three rootstocks measured in April, June and november Treatment June August October R1 C 40.6±2.9 50.0±6.7 25.2±4.5 R2 C 54.2±10.0 67.8±3.8 27.9±1.9 R3 C 43.0±4.1 46.8±3.3 19.5±2.0 R1 S1 42.5±1.5 42.5±5.0 24.2±1.3 R2 S1 55.8±4.9 56.4±5.1 21.8±5.0 R3 S1 36.1±0.0 41.7±3.7 24.0±1.4 R1 S2 47.8±6.2 58.3±16.0 21.8±4.0 R2 S2 52.9±2.9 74.5±0.8 23.5±3.4 R3 S2 40.9±3.0 46.5±3.4 23.4±3.0 R1 S3 38.2±6.4 59.9±12.9 29.4±9.7 R2 S3 44.9±12.7 72.2±9.4 26.0±5.0 R3 S3 42.5±1.0 56.9±4.0 19.8±1.7 R1 = P1103, R2 = 41B, R3 = R110. C = Control 0.8 dS m-1, S1 = 1.5 dS m-1, S2 = 3.0 dS m-1, S3 = 5.0 dS m-1. (z) = The number in parenthesis indicates the reduction in the SPAD reading compared to the reading before treatment in April. Table 5 - The effect of brackish water treatments on the aver- age ‘Superior Seedless’ Mg leaf content (mg g-1 dry weight) grafted on the three rootstocks measured in April, June and november Treatment June August October R1 C 18.1±3.0 19.3±1.2 7.6±1.9 R2 C 11.5±0.5 13.5±1.4 6.0±2.5 R3 C 11.5±1.9 18.1±3.5 7.9±0.8 R1 S1 12.8±1.1 12.8±4.9 7.6±2.6 R2 S1 13.6±3.3 12.5±1.1 7.5±0.9 R3 S1 14.6±2.2 14.8±0.5 7.9±1.1 R1 S2 11.5±0.2 13.6±1.4 13.6±3.2 R2 S2 12.5±1.6 11.7±0.7 10.2±0.8 R3 S2 10.2±2.2 15.4±3.8 7.8±0.9 R1 S3 11.0±1.0 14.8±1.9 9.2±2.3 (1.8) R2 S3 15.4±0.4 16.0±0.7 12.8±1.6 (2.6) R3 S3 11.2±1.8 17.3±2.1 8.4±1.1 (2.8) Different letters in a column indicate significant differences at P≤0.05 according to Fisher’s Protected LSD. Table 6 - The effect 5.0 dS m-1 on average stem length (cm) for the three rootstocks measured in October Table 7 - Effect of treatments on average number of ‘Superior Seedless’ leaves grafted on the three rootstocks count- ed in June, August and October Rootstock Stem length (cm) P1103 110±6.0 a 41B 89±5.0 b R110 100±10.0 ab R1 = P1103, R2 = 41B, R3 = R110. C = Control 0.8 dS m-1, S1 = 1.5 dS m-1, S2 = 3.0 dS m-1, S3 = 5.0 dS m-1. Treatment June August October R1 C 23.7±3.6 31±3.2 60.3±5.2 R1 S1 17.3±1.5 26.3±0.4 49±5.3 R1 S2 17±0.9 24.3±2.7 36.3±3.3 R1 S3 14.7±1.2 21.7±2.7 31.3±2.5 R2 C 22.3±0.7 27±1.4 51.3±3.6 R2 S1 18.3±1.0 23±1.2 41±5.6 R2 S2 16.7±0.8 20.3±1.8 31±3.9 R2 S3 14.3±0.4 18±0.7 30.7±2.5 R3 C 25.3±3.9 35.3±3.3 62.3±5.7 R3 S1 22.7±2.5 26.7±2.5 49.3±7.8 R3 S2 19.7±1.8 24±2.1 36±3.7 R3 S3 17± 1.2 20.7±1.5 33.7±2.9 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(4): 249-256 254 results presented in Table 6. Leaf area Regarding the ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf area, the analysis of variance revealed no interaction or root- stock effect but a salinity effect. The reduction of leaf area by water stress (Gomez-del-Campo et al., 2002) and by salinity treatments is very well documented on various crops such as tomatoes (Montesano and Van Iersel, 2007), olives (Al-Absi et al., 2003) and chrysanthemums (Lee and Van Iersel, 2008). The pre- vious studies indicated the effect of salinity on leaf area is mainly through the osmotic effect of the solu- tion which mainly depends on the total amounts of salts in the nutrient solution. Our findings are consis- tent with the previous mentioned studies. Leaf area decreased with increasing salinity levels (Fig. 1). However, relatively larger ‘Superior Seedless’ leaves were noticeable when grafted on P1103 compared to 41B and R110. It is worth mentioning that the reduc- tion of chlorophyll SPAD readings is attributed to the salinity effects, not to the leaf area since both para- meters, chlorophyll SPAD and leaf area, were reduced with increasing the salinity levels. The vigor of P1103 and higher chlorophyll con- tent, longer shoot and more leaves did not signifi- cantly increase the leaf fresh and dry weights (Figs. 2 and 3). Our findings also are in agreement with Walker et al. (1997) who found that leaf relative water contents were not affected by rootstock or salinity treatments. Figure 3 illustrates the effect of the three root- stocks and salinity levels on ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf water content. Except for salinity level 1 (1.5 dS m-1), ‘Superior Seedless’ leaves when grafted on P1103 showed relatively higher water content compared when grafted on 41B and R110. The P1103 rootstock seems to activate a certain mechanism at high soil salinity levels (particularly at S2 and S3). On the other side, 41B and R110 were not adversely affected by the salinity levels. Our findings are similar to those of Walker et al. (1997) who found that the relative water contents were not affected by rootstock or salinity treatments. A correlation analysis has been conducted to fig- ure out the major ions that had the greatest effect on soil salinity and consequently on rootstock perfor- mance. Results showed that the correlation between soil EC and the concentration of Cl, na, Ca and Mg ions were 0.97, 0.95, 0.83 and 0.5; respectively. This clearly proved that Cl, na and Ca were the major ions that influenced the response of rootstocks to soil salinity levels. Such results reflected well the chemi- cal composition of water used for irrigation (Table 2). Many researchers focused on Cl exclusion, such as Walker et al. (2004) who reported that P1103 was the best chloride excluder. Our focus will be on na exclusion by reporting the leaf K: na ratio. Concerning the leaf K:na ratio, as shown in figure 4, it can be seen that in August, the order of the root- stocks is as follows: R110>41B>P1103. However, na concentration in leaves became significantly higher than that of K (K:na ratio 1) for R110 and 41B, but particularly for 41B. On the other hand, in October, Fig. 1 - The effect of treatments on average ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf area (cm2) grafted on the three rootstocks mea- sured on november, 2014. Fig. 2 - The effect of the three rootstocks and salinity on the ratio of ‘Superior’ leaf fresh and dry weights (g) to leaf area (cm2). Fig. 3 - The effect of the three rootstocks and salinity levels on ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf water content. Qrunfleh et al. - ‘Superior Seedless’ grown under diluted brackish water irrigation. I. Growth performances 255 terms of leaves compared to the other two root- stocks (Fig. 5). Except for the control, there were sig- nificant differences between P1103 and the two other rootstocks at the three salinity levels (Fig. 5). This might indicate that P1103 was less affected by diluted brackish water irrigation. 4. Conclusions Scion is dependent on the rootstock for all things coming from the soil and there could be a consider- able effect of rootstock on the vine performance (Creasy and Creasy, 2009). Therefore, rootstock choice should be taken with careful consideration. P1103 (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris) rootstock seems to be a suitable choice for irrigating with diluted brackish water. Irrigating ‘Superior Seedless’ vines grafted on P1103 with diluted brackish water, up to 3.0 dS m-1, from April until June could be a practical procedure to be adopted by grape growers in the Jordan Valley. However, irrigation should be followed by irrigation with fresh water especially that by the end of the experiment the soil EC reached approxi- mately 6.0 dS m-1. In addition, our findings coincide well with the findings of many researchers such as (Troncoso et al., 1999; Walker et al., 2002). It does seem that grapevine rootstocks that have either V. rupestris or V. berlandieri in their parentage are good candidates for salinity tolerance. Acknowledgements This research was funded by the Scientific Research Support Fund under the number Agr/2/04/2011. We wish especially to acknowledge the help of Marrwa Atteyat and Ayah Awad for their technical assistance. References ABDEL GAWAD G., GHAIBEH A., 2001 - Use of low quality water for irrigation in the Middle East. - Proc. Symp. Sustainable Management of Irrigated Land for Salinity and Toxic Elements Control, US Salinity Laboratory Riverside, California, USA. AL-ABSI K., QRUnFLEH M., ABU-SHARAR T., 2003 - Mechanism of salt tolerance of two olive Olea europaea L. cultivars as related to electrolyte concen- tration and toxicity. - Acta Horticulturae, 618: 281-290. BUSTAn A., COHEn S., DE MALACH Y., ZIMMERMAnn P., 41B and R110 rootstocks particularly at salinity levels S2 (3.0 dS m-1) and S3 (5.0 dS m-1) showed higher na concentration in leaves than that of K (very low K:na ratio). This might indicate that none of the investigat- ed rootstocks is na excluder; particularly P1103. P1103, which seems to be na include, took up na in greater amounts than the other rootstocks starting from earlier stages of treatment applications. This mechanism (na uptake) could help the grapevine to relief the osmotic stress, by maintaining the water potential gradient and consequently increase water uptake. Jogaiah et al. (2014) found that the maxi- mum osmotic potential was recorded on P1103 root- stock. This might explain the relatively higher leaf water content observed in P1103 as mentioned above. Growth after bud break In order to obtain data regarding cumulative effects of the treatments on number of ‘Superior Seedless’ leaves after bud break, total numbers of leaves/vine were counted on April of the following year. Analysis of variance showed that there was no interaction effect however; rootstocks did show such an effect (P≤0.05). P1103 shows vigorous growth in Fig. 4 - ‘Superior Seedless’ leaf K:na ratio grafted on the three rootstocks at the different salinity levels measured in August and October. Fig. 5 - The effect of the salinity level treatments on the total number of leaves per grapevine counted in April of the following year for the three rootstocks. Adv. Hort. Sci., 2017 31(4): 249-256 256 GOLAn R., SAGI M., PASTERnAK D., 2005 - Effects of timing and duration of brackish irrigation water on fruit yield and quality of late summer melons. - Agric. Water Manag., 74(2): 123-134. BUSTAn A., SAGI M., DE MALACH Y., PASTERnAK D., 2004 - Effects of saline irrigation water and heat waves on potato production in an arid environment. - Field Crops Research, 90(2-3): 275-285. CAVAGnARO J., POnCE M., GUZMÁn J., CIRRInCIOnE M., 2006 - Argentinean cultivars of Vitis vinifera grow bet- ter than European ones when cultured in vitro under salinity. - Biocell, 30(1): 1-7. CREASY G., CREASY L., 2009 - Grapes. Crop production sci- ence in horticulture. - CABI, Cambridge, MA, USA, pp. 312. DARDEnIZ A., MÜFTÜOĞLU n., ALTAY H., 2006 - Determination of salt tolerance of some American grape rootstocks. - Bangladesh J. Bot., 35(2): 143-150. ESTEFAn G., SOMMER R., RYAn J., 2013 - Methods of soil, plant, and water analysis: A Manual for the West Asia and North Africa Region. - Third Edition. International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICAR- DA). FISARAKIS I., CHARTZOULAKIS K., STAVRAKAS D., 2001 - Response of Sultana vines (V. vinifera L.) on six root- stocks to NaCl salinity exposure and recovery. - Agric. Water Manag., 51(1): 13-27. GOMEZ-DEL-CAMPO M., RUIZ C., LISSARRAGUE J., 2002 - Effect of water stress on leaf area development, photo- synthesis, and productivity in Chardonnay and Airen grapevines. - American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 53(2): 138-143. JOGAIAH S., RAMTEKE S., SHARMA J., UPADHYAY A., 2014 - Moisture salinity stress induced changes in biochemical constituents and water relations of different grape rootstock cultivars. - Intern. J. Agron., 1-8. LEE M.K., VAn IERSEL M., 2008 - Sodium chloride effects on growth, morphology, and physiology of chrysanthe- mum (Chrysanthemum x morifolium). - HortScience, 43(6): 1888-1891. MIZRAHI Y., TALEISnIK E., KAGAn-ZUR V., ZOHAR Y., OFFEnBACH R., MATAn E., GOLAn R., 1988 - A saline irrigation regime for improving tomato fruit quality without reducing yield. - J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 113(2): 202-205. MOnTESAnO F., VAn IERSEL M., 2007 - Calcium can pre- vent toxic effects of Na+ on tomato leaf photosynthesis but does not restore growth. - J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 132(3): 310-318. nIU G., RODRIGUEZ D., AGUInIGA L., 2008 - Effect of saline water irrigation on growth and physiological responses of three rose rootstocks. - HortScience, 43(5): 1479- 1484. PARAnYCHIAnAKIS n., AnGELAKIS A., 2008 - The effect of water stress and rootstock on the development of leaf injuries in grapevines irrigated with saline effluent. - Agric. Water Manag., 95(4): 375-382. SOUTHEY J., JOOSTE J., 1991 - The effect of grapevine root- stock on the performance of Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Colombard) on a relatively saline soil. - S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic., 12(1): 32-41. TROnCOSO A., MATTE C., LAVEE S., 1999 - Evaluation of salt tolerance of in vitro grown grapevine rootstock varieties. - Vitis, 38(2): 55-60. WALKER R., BLACKMORE D., CLInGELEFFER P., CORRELL R., 2002 - Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana). 1. Yield and vigor inter-relationships. Australian J. Grape and Wine Res., 8: 3-14. WALKER R., BLACKMORE D., CLInGELEFFER P., CORRELL R., 2004 - Rootstock effects on salt tolerance of irrigated field grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana). 2. Ion concentrations in leaves and juice. Australian J. Grape and Wine Res., 10: 90-99. WALKER R., BLACKMORE D., CLInGELEFFER P., IACOnO F., 1997 - Effect of salinity and Ramsey rootstock on ion concentrations and carbon dioxide assimilation in leaves of drip-irrigated, field-grown grapevines (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sultana). - Australian J. Grape and Wine Res., 3: 66-74.