GTD_for_Vine_Pathology_2014.pdf

7/26/2019 GTD_for_Vine_Pathology_2014.pdf

1/55

GRAPEVINE TRUNK

DISEASE3rdDecember, 2014

Jim Newsome

[email protected]


2/55

www.veni-

vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December2014

Introduction

Why the hype?

Specific diseases, their symptoms, lifecycle & epidemiology Botryosphaeria Esca Eutypa Black Foot

Phomopsis Young Vine Decline

Complexity & Treatment

Control

Nurseries & propagation

Current & future research

Overview

2

This presentation, Grapevine Trunk Disease by Jim Newsome, Veni Vidi Viti Ltd. is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) Creative Commons License. You are free to copy, distribute and transmit thework under the following conditions. You must attribute the work to Veni Vidi Viti Ltd. (but not in any way that suggests that theyendorse you or your use of the work). You may not use this work for commercial purpose. You may not alter, transform, or buil dupon this work. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. For full details seehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0


3/55

www.veni-

vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December2014 Vine damage

Reduced yield

Unhealthy vines

Poor establishment

Premature vine death

High profile

Increasing incidence Sodium arsenite

Increased demand

Lack of treatments

Why are GTDs important?

3


4/55

www.veni-

vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December2014

4


5/55

www.veni-

vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December2014

5


6/55

www.veni-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December2014

6


7/55


GrapevineTrunkDis

ease,

December20

14 France

11% of vineyard area unproductive -14m

Spain 320% infection rates

10.8m worldwide Shiraz/Syrah losses

AUS $6m (3.2m) per annum losses in Australia

@1% global replacement rate -1.132 billion

Global costs

7


8/55

SPECIFIC DISEASES

8


9/55


GrapevineTrunkDisease,

December20

14

Grapevine Trunk Diseases

9

GrapevineTrunkDisease

Young Vines(8 yrs old)

BotryosphaeriaDieback: Botryosphaeriaceae spp.

Eutypa Dieback: Diatrypaceae spp.(Eutypa lata)

BotryosphaeriaDieback: Botryosphaeriaceae spp.


10/55



December20

14

North America, Australia and New Zealand

Wood cankers (Bot. & Eutypa) YVD in new plantings

South America Wood cankers YVD likely (limited data)

China Wood cankers YVD likely (limited data)

Europe Esca complex Some YVD in new plantings

UK Esca complex? Some YVD in new plantings? Very limited data

Global distribution

10


11/55



December20

14

Botryosphaeria

11

21 different species, so far

Neofusicoccum parvum

Strong pathogen

Diplodia seriata

Ubiquitous Considered a weak pathogen

Also: Botryosphaeria dothidea

Diplodia mutila

Diplodia corticola Etc.

Aka: Black Dead Arm (BDA) in US


12/55



December20

14

http://tiny.cc/mc24t

Botryosphaeria

12

Symptoms: Bud mortality

Slow/stopped shoot growth

Necrotic stains in woodtissue (wedge-shaped,

spots, darkened pith)

Visible exterior cankers

Pycnidia (small black fruitingbodies) visible on exterior of

cankers, dead wood andlignified canes

Severe crop lossvinedeath


13/55



December20

14

Typically:

Phaeomoniellachlamydosporum Phaeoacremoniumaleophilum

Also Fomitiporia mediterranea

Fomitiporia punctata And others..

Aka: Grapevine Leaf Stripe Disease

(GLSD) Esca proper

Esca

13

Fischer & Kassemeyer 2003


14/55



December20

14

Symptoms Younger vineslight green inter-

veinal spots coalescing over seasonto red-brown tiger-striped leaves. GLSD

Older vineswhite rot with necroticareas + foliar symptoms Esca proper

Wilting leaves & poor shoot growth

Necrotic spots in x-section

Black/purple spotting on berries Berries can dry up & rot

Apoplexysudden vine death

Esca

14


15/55



December20

14

Eutypa lata Family Diatrypaceae

Dead Arm Symptoms similar to

Botryosphaeria:

Reduced shoot growth withcupped leaves

Exterior cankers & necroticwedges

Eutypa

15


16/55



December20

14

Ilyonectria spp.(aka Cylindrocarpon) and Campylocarponspp.,principally C. liriodendri, C. macrodidymumand C. destructans

Attacks vine roots via soil

Black Foot

16

Symptoms Woody necrosis visible

under root bark

Reduction of root biomass

Secondary root

development Poor/delayed budburst

Weak, low-yielding vines

Poor establishment ofyoung vines


17/55



December20

14

Phomopsis Viticola

Bleached canes with pycnidia

Brown scarring at base ofgreen shoots

Foliar symptomsbrown/black spots with yellowmargins

Petiole damage Berry symptoms (rare)

Phomopsis

17


18/55



December20

14 Greatest risk to UK & globally?

Infected plant material poor establishment and high vinefailure rates

Petri Disease

Esca pathogens infect xylem Black goo Vascular streaking

Black Foot pathogens

Poor root development Reduced growth/failure

Young Vine Decline

18


19/55

LIFECYCLE &EPIDEMIOLOGY

19


20/55



December20

14

(Gubler & Leavitt, 1992)

Generally similar for all TDfungi

Overwinter in diseased wood

Develop fruiting bodies inhigh humidity

Spores released by rainfall But present all year round in,

e.g. rainwater

Spread by wind/rain High concentrations 2m zone

around inoculum source

Can spread much further

36hr dispersal, 12 day cycle

Lifecycle & Epidemiology

20


21/55



December20

14

Exposed, unlignified wood

Pruning wounds Wound age Wound size

Time of pruning

Other wounds Bud rubbing

Undamaged tissue?

Other vectors for infection: Soil

Vineyard weeds Insects

Secateurs Evidence for pathogen DNA on secateurs, but non-viable and not likely to

be major source of infection


21

http://bit.ly/1zLOsAi


22/55



December20

14


22

(Amponsah et al. 2012)


23/55

www.veni

-vidi-viti.com


December20

14


23

(Amponsah et al. 2012)


24/55



December20

14

Lifecycle & Epidemiology - Phomopsis

24

Phomopsis life cycle Young shoot infection Slow spread

Inactive in dry summer


25/55



December20

14 Vulnerability

Xylem diameter Wider = greater susceptibility

Vine phenological stage Floweringrelevant?

Window for infection? Pruning wounds - 12 weeks, decreasing Green wounds1 week, decreasing

Spread within vine

0 to1.5 months post-inoculation = latent phase(Bot.) 1.5 to 2 months post-inoculation = Pathogenic

phase

Vulnerability & Spread

25Pouzoulet J, Pivovaroff A, et al 2014


26/55

COMPLEXITY

26


27/55


GrapevineTrunkDi

sease,

December20

14Grapevine trunk diseases: complex and still poorly understood

Bertsch et al. 2012

Taxonomic complexity

Symptomatic complexity e.g. Esca:

1. Asymptomatic but infected2. Symptomatic3. Never symptomatic healthy?

Analytical complexity Morphological vs. molecular

Species/location-specific behaviour

Multiple pathogens found in multiple diseases

Complexity

27


28/55



December20

14

Table demonstrating thecomplexity of therelationship betweensymptoms and causativeorganisms in differentregions.(Urbez-Torres, 2011)

28


29/55



December20

14

29

Table demonstrating thecomplexity of therelationship between woodnecrosis symptoms andcausative organisms.(Kuntzmann et al. 2010)


30/55



December20

14 Pathogenesis still not completely understood

Foliar symptoms vs. pathogens vs. wood symptomswhat is therelationship?

Enzyme production by fungicellular breakdown and lignification?

Cell necrosis caused by toxins produced by fungi and vineresponse?

Role of bacteria?

Environmental stress Stressthe traditional scapegoat, but in this case?

Q: Why do vines with similar fungal profiles express differing symptoms indifferent locations?

A: Because endophytic (i.e. latent) infections are activated by external factors

Complexity

30


31/55



December20

14

The Role of Stress

31

http://bit.ly/YeY30o

Flooded Vineyard By Fairv8 (Own work)

[CC-BY-SA-3.0 or GFDL] via WikimediaCommons

External stress reduces vines ability

to combat vascular infectionsMundy & M. Manning (2011)

Vine stress from partial defoliation led

to increased severity of black foot

infections and reduced root massBrown et al (2012)

Cant understand why my 3 yr. old

vines are dyingI got 14 tonnes/ha

off them last yearUnidentified vineyard owner,2014


32/55



December20

14 Marginal climate

Late season carbohydrate accumulation

Vigour & xylem diameterwater stress leads to narrowerxylems. Does excess water lead to wider xylem?

Heavy soils 73% Black Foot infection rates in heavy soils vs. 46% in lighter

Waterlogging increases risk further

Many new plantings

Second grade material?

Why the UK?

32


33/55

CONTROL

33


34/55



December20

14 GTDs are sneaky

Latent & widespread Treating on basis of expression of symptoms is ineffective

US50% to 75% control from year 3 led to economically significantincrease in yields and vineyard longevity.

In established vineyards

Intervention Thresholds

34http://www.mrc.org.nz/marlborough-trunk-disease-web/trunk-disease-cost-calculations/


35/55



December20

14

Effective but banned or not

available: Sodium arsenite

Benzimidazoles (Benomyl, Benlate)

Carbendazim

Boric acid effective but toxic

Chemical Control

35

Carbendazim (http://tiny.cc/tbcwb)

Benzimidazole (http://tiny.cc/qamab)


36/55



December20

14

Pruning paints/acrylic paints Greenseal (tebuconazole + boric acid +

octhilinone)

Nativo (trifloxystrobin and tebuconazole)shown to have some impact Spray optionsreconfigure & high rate

(400/600 L/ha)

Foliar treatments? Undergoing trials - calcium chloride and

magnesium nitrate

Phomopsis Mancozeb @ 50% budburst and 2 weeks

later Sulphur & copper?

Chemical Control

36


37/55



December20

14

Trichodermaout-competes pathogens T. harzianum(Vinevax)

T. atroviride(Esquive)

Trichoderma bio-plugs

Bio-fumigation?

Mustardisothiocyanates But, volatility

Biological Control Agents (BCAs)

37


38/55



December20

14

Varietal/clonal/rootstock selection?

Pruning technique/timing Gentle Pruning Rain is critical risk factor

Vineyard hygiene

Monitoring

Tag in summer (TD) or winter (Phomopsis) Monitor spread

Minimise stress Site selection

Cutting back & re-training 64% success on grafted 99% success on own roots

Layering

Grubbing up

Cultural Control

38

Burning prunings in a bonfirehttp://bit.ly/Wd6YkF
http://bit.ly/Wd6YkFhttp://bit.ly/Wd6YkFhttp://bit.ly/Wd6YkFhttp://bit.ly/Wd6YkF


39/55

NURSERIES, PROPAGATION& PLANTING

39


40/55



December20

14

Nurseries are a source of GTD infections

Nurseries, Propagation & Planting

40


41/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com


December2014

Nurseries are a source of GTD infections

Equipment hygiene Soaking (the good and the bad)

Burying newly grafted vines

Infected mother blocks Ground-trained

Overhead irrigation

Butwhat is the source of the infection? Exterior infections likely


41


42/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com


December2014 Hot Water Treatment (HWT)

Standard 30 minutes at 50 C Sensitivity:

30 minutes at 53 C kills buds

Climatic conditions

Hygiene (cooling tanks)

Only effective treatment but, difficultand expensive Must be validated locally

Dipping (tebuconazole &carbendazim?)


42

Hot water treatment (http://bit.ly/14rTfcp)


43/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com


December2014It seems likely that young nursery plants with latent infections can

decline and die when planted into the more stressful conditions ofvineyards. (Billones-Baaijens et al. 2012)

Grapevine Propagation; Principles and Methods for the

Production and Handling of High Quality Grapevine PlantingMaterial

Waite H., Gramaje D., Morton L.


43


44/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com


December2014

Key points

Nursery selection & ordering Quality accreditation scheme? Registered source blocks (traceability)

General hygiene, including treated water

Order in advance

Maintain contact

44

Potted vines and the warm rooms at a Merciernursery (http://bit.ly/Wz7bLk)


45/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

Key points

Pre-planting Prepare vineyard (irrigation (drainage), weed control, cultivation

completed)

Inspect vines on arrival Pleasant earthy aroma not winery, fermentative smells

Dissect a sample & look for wood discolouration

Check graft unions for strength Store correctly

Heel in upright in trench, roots covered (soil, sand, etc.) and moist notwet

Cold storage not recommended Short periods @ 1-2 C

Packaging allows air movement but no dehydration No standing water

Cross-contamination with ethylene or sprouting inhibitors

45


46/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

Key points

Planting

Cover bundles with a damp cloth not placed inbuckets of water

Trim roots (80-100 mm) to promote new growth &prevent J rooting

Do not return vines to cold store after trimming

46

New vines kept in a water bath

(http://bit.ly/VQX3Pv)

J rooted vines (http://bit.ly/X65m7Y)


47/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014 No obvious external symptoms

Testing is destructive When does a stain = an infection?

When does an infection = a failed vine?

Fit Vine on iOS (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8 ) Vine assessment (internal & external), record-keeping, how to

dissect a vine, etc.

Where to now for nurseries & vineyards?

47
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fit-vine/id928430666?mt=8


48/55

CURRENT & FUTURERESEARCH

48


49/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014 The big questions:

What do we have in the UK? Cell necrosis caused by toxins produced by fungi and vine

response? 2 vines, same fungal profile, different symptoms

Role of bacteria? Role of environmental stress?

Apoplexy (hot climates?) Foliar symptoms vs. pathogens vs. wood symptomswhat is the

relationship?

Key themes of current research

Genetic resistance Nuriootpa Research Centre

Practical Bio-Control Agents (BCAs) In depth understanding of hostpathogenenvironment disease

triangle

Current and Future Research

49


50/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014 International Council on Grapevine Trunk Disease

http://icgtd.ucr.edu/

US - http://treeandvinetrunkdiseases.org/

Europe - http://managtd.eu/en/

Further Information

50
http://icgtd.ucr.edu/http://treeandvinetrunkdiseases.org/http://managtd.eu/en/http://managtd.eu/en/http://managtd.eu/en/http://treeandvinetrunkdiseases.org/http://treeandvinetrunkdiseases.org/http://treeandvinetrunkdiseases.org/http://icgtd.ucr.edu/http://icgtd.ucr.edu/http://icgtd.ucr.edu/


51/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014Grapevine trunk diseases: complex and still poorly understood

(Bertsch et al. 2012)

Questions?

Conclusion

51


52/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

Agusti-Brisach, C. et al., 2011. Evaluation of Vineyard Weeds as Potential Hosts of Black-Foot and Petri Disease Pathogens. PlantDisease, (July), pp.803-810.

Alaniz, S et al., 2010. Susceptibility of grapevine rootstocks to Cylindrocarpon liriodendri and C. macrodidymum. ScientiaHorticulturae, 125, pp.305-308. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0304423810001639

Alaniz, S et al., 2007. Characterization of Cylindrocarpon Species Associated with Black Foot Disease of Grapevine in Spain. Plant

Disease, (September), pp.1187-1193. Available at: http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PDIS-91-9-1187. Alaniz, Sandra et al., 2011. Evaluation of fungicides to control Cylindrocarpon liriodendri and Cylindrocarpon macrodidymum in vitro,

and their effect during the rooting phase in the grapevine propagation process. Crop Protection, 30, pp.489-494. Available at:http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261219410003820

Amponsah, N.T. et al., 2012. Susceptibility of grapevine tissues to Neofusicoccum luteum conidial infection. Plant Pathology, 61(4),pp.719729.

Aroca, . et al., 2010. Evaluation of the grapevine nursery propagation process as a source of Phaeoacremonium spp. andPhaeomoniella chlamydospora and occurrence of trunk disease pathogens in rootstock mother vines in Spain. European Journal ofPlant Pathology, 126, pp.165-174. Available at: http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s10658-009-9530-3 [Accessed August 2,2011].

Amponsam E, et al. (2012) Susceptibility of grapevine tissues to Neofusicoccum luteum conidial Infection In: ICGTD (InternationalCouncil on Grapevine Trunk Disease) 8th International Workshop on Grapevine Trunk Disease. Valencia, Spain 18-21 June 2012

Bertsch, C.B. et al., 2012. Grapevine trunk diseases: complex and st ill poorly understood. Plant Pathology. Billones-Baaijens, R. et al., 2012. Inoculum sources of Botryosphaeriaceae species in New Zealand grapevine nurseries. European

Journal of Plant Pathology, 135(1), pp.159174. Bleach, C. et al., 2008. Impact of mycorrhizal colonisation on grapevine establishment in cylindrocarpon infested soil. New Zealand

Plant Protection, 61, pp.311-316. Bonfiglioli, R., 2008. The spores are out there?: Observations from the 6th International Workshop on Grapevine Trunk Diseases. The

Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, (538), pp.42-45.

Bonfiglioli, R. & McGregor, S., 2006. The Botryosphaeria conundruma New Zealand perspective. The Australian & New ZealandGrapegrower & Winemaker, 512(September), pp.49-53. Busch, J., 2012. Halt the march of Black Foot. NZ Winegrower.

Cabral, A. et al., 2012. Virulence and cross-infection potential of Ilyonectria spp. to grapevine. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 51(2),pp.340354.

Calzarano, F. & Di Marco, S., 2007. Wood discoloration and decay in grapevines with esca proper and their relationship with foliarsymptoms. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, pp.96-101.

Casieri, L. et al., 2009. Effect of hot-water treatment on the fungal com-munity of grapevine nursery-plants. PhytopathologiaMediterranea, 48(1), pp.182 -183 (Abstract).

Copes, W.E. & Hendrix, F.F., 2004. Effect of Temperature on Sporulation of Botryosphaeria dothidea, B . obtusa, and B . rhodina.Plant Disease, 88(3), pp.292-296.

References

52


53/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

Creaser, M.L. & Wicks, T.J., 2004. Short-term effects of remedial surgery to restore productivity to Eutypa lata infected vines.Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 43(1), pp.105-107.

Darrieutort, G. & Lecomte, P., 2007. Evaluation of a trunk injection technique to control grapevine wood diseases. PhytopathologiaMediterranea, 46, pp.50-57.

Dula, T. et al., 2007. Preliminary trials on treatment of esca-infected grapevines with trunk injection of fungicides. PhytopathologiaMediterranea, 46, pp.91-95.

Fischer, M. & Kassemeyer, H.H., 2003. Fungi associated with Esca disease of grapevine in Germany. Vitis, 42(3), pp.109-116.

Fleurat-Lessard, P. et al., 2010. Diagnosis of grapevine esca disease by immunological detection of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora.Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16(3), pp.455-463. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2010.00106.x [Accessed July 30, 2011].

Gramaje, D, Armengol, J, et al., 2009. Effect of hot -water treatments above 50C on grapevine viability and survival of Petri diseasepathogens. Crop Protection, 28, pp.280-285. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261219408002160 [AccessedAugust 2, 2011].

Gramaje, D. & Armengol, J., 2012. Effects of hot-water treatment, post-hot-water-treatment cooling and cold storage on the viability ofdormant grafted grapevines under field conditions.Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 18(2), pp.158163. Available at:http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2012.00185.x [Accessed December 3, 2012].

Gramaje, D, Garcia-Jimenez, J. & Armengol, J, 2010. Field Evaluation of Grapevine Rootstocks Inoculated with Fungi Associated withPetri Disease and Esca. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 61(4), pp.512-520. Available at:http://www.ajevonline.org/cgi/doi/10.5344/ajev.2010.10021 [Accessed October 11, 2011].

Gramaje, David, Aroca, ., et al., 2009. Evaluation of fungicides to control Petri disease pathogens in the grapevine propagationprocess. Crop Protection, 28, pp.1091-1097. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261219409001264 [AccessedAugust 2, 2011].

Gubler, W. et al., 2005. Grapevine trunk diseases in California. Practical Winery & Vineyard, (January/February), pp.1-9.

Gubler W & Leavitt G (1992) Eutypia Dieback of Grapevines in Flaherty D, Christensen L, et al. (ed.) Grape Pest Management (2nded.) Oakland:University of California p. 72

Halleen, F., Fourie, P. H. & Crous, P.W., 2007. Control of black foot disease in grapevine nurseries. Plant Pathology, 56(4), pp.637-645. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01613.x [Accessed August 2, 2011].

Halleen, F., Fourie, P H & Lombard, P.J., 2010. Protection of Grapevine Pruning Wounds against Eutypa lata by Biological andChemical Methods. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic, 31(2), pp.125-132.

Kuntzmann, P.K. et al., 2010. Esca , BDA and Eutypiosis?: foliar symptoms , trunk lesions and fungi observed in diseased vinestocksin two vineyards in Alsace. Vitis, 49(2), pp.71-76.

References

53


54/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

Lecomte, P. et al., 2003. Optimisation of pruning wound protection for the control of Eutypa dieback of grapevine in France. In C.Lozzia, ed. Proceedings of the Meeting Compte Rendu de la Runion. Volas: IOBC/WPRS, pp. 95-96. Available at: http://www.iobc-wprs.org/pub/bulletins/iobc-wprs_bulletin_2003_26_08.pdf.

Letousey, P. et al., 2010. Early events prior to visual symptoms in the apoplectic form of grapevine esca disease. Phytopathology,

100(5), pp.424-31. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20373962. Luque, J., Elena, G., Garcia-Figueres, F., Reyes, J., Barrios, G., & Legorburu, F. J. (2013). Natural infections of pruning wounds by

fungal trunk pathogens in mature grapevines in Catalonia (Northeast Spain).Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research Moyo, P., 2013. The role of arthropods in the dispersal of trunk disease pathogens associated with Petri disease and Esca. University

of Stellenbosch. Mugnai, L., Graniti, A. & G, S., 1999. Esca (Black Measles) and Brown Wood-Streaking?: Two Old and Elusive Diseases of

Grapevines. Plant Disease, 83(5), pp.404-417. Mundy, D.C. & Manning, M.A., 2010. Ecology and management of grapevine trunk diseases in New Zealand?: a review. New Zealand

Plant Protection, 63, pp.160-166.

Mundy, D.C. & Manning, M., 2011. Physiological response of grapevines to vascular pathogens: a review. The New Zealand Institutefor Plant & Food Research Limited, (5578). Munkvold, G. & Marois, J., 1995. Factors associated with variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa

lata. Phytopathology, 85(2), pp.249-256.

van Niekerk, J. et al., 2006. Botryosphaeria spp. as grapevine trunk disease pathogens. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 45, p.S43-S54.

Pitt, W. et al., 2008. Distribution and management of fungi associated with Botryosphaeria canker. The Australian & New ZealandGrapegrower & Winemaker, (539), pp.26-30.

Sosnowski, M & Loschiavo, A., 2010. Management of Eutypa dieback and Botryosphaeria canker in south-western Western Australianvineyards,

Sosnowski, M.R. et al., 2008. Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata. Australian Journal of Gra pe and

Wine Research, 14(2), pp.134-142. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00015.x [Accessed July 30, 2011]. Sosnowski, Mark et al., 2009. Managing eutypa dieback in grapevines. Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, (545),

pp.13-16.

References

54
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20373962http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20373962


55/55

www.ven

i-vidi-viti.com

GrapevineTrunkD

isease,

December2014

rbez-Torres, J.R. et al., 2009. Identification , Incidence , and Pathogenicity of Fungal Species Associated with Grapevine Dieback inTexas. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 60(4), pp.497-507.

Urbez-Torres, J. (2011). The status of Botryosphaeriaceae species infecting grapevines. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 50, S5-S45

Tello M, Gonzalez V, Andres P (2012) Survival and persistence of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora in vineyard soils; effect oftemperature, moisture and initial inoculum concentration In: ICGTD (International Council on Grapevine Trunk Disease) 8thInternational Workshop on Grapevine Trunk Disease. Valencia, Spain 18-21 June 2012

Waite, H., 2010. Trunk diseases and vine failure: The costs of poor quality propagating and planting material. The Australian & NewZealand Grapegrower & Winemaker, (555), pp.21-22.

Waite, H. & Morton, L., 2007. Hot water treatment , trunk diseases and other critical factors in the production of high-quality grapevineplanting material. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 46, pp.5-17.

Whiting, E.C., Khan, A. & Gubler, W.D., 2001. Effect of Temperature and Water Potential on Survival and Mycelial Growth ofPhaeomoniella chlamydospora and Phaeoacremonium spp. Plant Disease, 85(2), pp.195-201.

All photos unless otherwise marked are by J Newsome

References

Date post:	02-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	maricelly-jove-vildoso
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

GTD_for_Vine_Pathology_2014.pdf

Documents