Advertisement

The Esca complex in German vineyards: does the training system influence occurrence of GLSD symptoms?

  • Christian KrausEmail author
  • Ralf T. Voegele
  • Michael Fischer
Article
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

The Esca complex is one of the most destructive grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs) worldwide. Several factors, such as plant age, grapevine cultivar, or pattern of precipitation have been identified as possible driving forces of the disease. In the present study, a 4-year monitoring of grapevine leaf stripe disease (GLSD) symptoms in vineyards located in three areas in Rhineland-Palatinate was conducted. Vineyards of different age and planted with different cultivars, both traditional and new ones tolerant against Powdery and Downy Mildew, were chosen. All vineyards were equally subdivided into minimally and intensively pruned sections. The following aspects with regard to the training system were investigated: i) the occurrence of GLSD over the season; ii) the possible influence of cultivar, plant age and precipitation on symptom development; and iii) the possible impact of the training system on the incidence of GLSD. The seasonal patterns of symptom appearance in general were identical for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2018, however, the maximum peak of newly affected vines was reached about 4 weeks earlier, which is probably linked to the fast phenological development of the vines in this particular year. The training system did not affect the seasonal symptom appearance. All investigated parameters, i.e. cultivar, plant age and precipitation, were shown to have at least some influence on symptoms incidence, even though some of the results were inconsistent over the period of monitoring. Concerning the influence of the training system, in 2015 no differences between minimally pruned (1.8%) and intensively pruned (1.9%) vines were found. However, in the following year minimally pruned vines (6.9%) expressed significantly more symptoms than intensively pruned vines (4.9%). In the years 2017 and 2018 the opposite was the case. 2.6% and 2.4%, respectively, of the minimally pruned vines showed GLSD symptoms, while for the intensively pruned vines the mean values were 4.5% and 3.6%, respectively. Our study represents the first systematic GLSD related data collection in German vineyards over an extended period of time.

Keywords

Esca Grapevine trunk diseases GLSD Monitoring Training systems Vitis vinifera 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Projektträger Jülich (PTJ) and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) for financial support. This work was funded by BMBF in the framework of the project novisys (FKZ 031A349D). Many thanks also go to the DLR Bad Kreuznach, in particular Oswald Walg, for allowing the surveys in their vineyards, as well as Dagmar D’Aguiar for her help during the GLSD monitoring. Dr. Anna Kicherer is thanked for providing the phenological data.

Funding

This work was funded by German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number FKZ 031A349D).

Compliance with ethical standards

All authors have no conflict of interests to declare. The research did not involve human participants or animals.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andolfi, A., Mugnai, L., Luque, J., Surico, G., Cimmino, A., & Evidente, A. (2011). Phytotoxins produced by fungi associated with grapevine trunk diseases. Toxins, 3, 1569–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armijo, G., Schlechter, R., Agurto, M., Muñoz, D., Nuñez, C., & Arce-Johnson, P. (2016). Grapevine pathogenic microorganisms: Understanding infection strategies and host response scenarios. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, A. (2010). Esca: Der Schnitt macht die Musik. Der Deutsche Weinbau, 1, 14–16.Google Scholar
  5. Bertsch, C., Ramírez-Suero, M., Magnin-Robert, M., Larignon, P., Chong, J., Abou-Mansour, E., Spagnolo, A., Clément, C., & Fontaine, F. (2012). Grapevine trunk diseases: Complex and still poorly understood. Plant Pathology, 62, 243–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruez, E., Lecomte, P., Grosman, J., Doublet, B., Bertsch, C., Fontaine, F., Ugaglia, A., Teissedre, P. L., Da Costa, J. P., Guerin-Dubrana, L., & Rey, P. (2013). Overview of grapevine trunk diseases in France in the 2000s. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 52, 262–275.Google Scholar
  7. Bruez, E., Vallance, J., Gerbore, J., Lecomte, P., Da Costa, J.-P., Guérin-Dubrana, L., & Rey, P. (2014). Analyses of the temporal dynamics of fungal communities colonizing the healthy wood tissues of Esca leaf-symptomatic and asymptomatic vines. PLoS One, 9, e95928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruez, E., Baumgartner, K., Bastien, S., Travadon, R., Guérin-Dubrana, L., & Rey, P. (2016). Various fungal communities colonise the functional wood tissues of old grapevines externally free from grapevine trunk disease symptoms. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 22, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clingeleffer P. R. (1984). Production and growth of minimal pruned Sultana vines. Vitis, 23, 42–54.Google Scholar
  10. Cloete, M., Fischer, M., Mostert, L., & Halleen, F. (2014). A novel Fomitiporia species associated with esca on grapevine in South Africa. Mycological Progress, 13, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crous, P. W., & Gams, W. (2000). Phaeomoniella chlamydospora gen. et comb. nov., a causal organism of Petri grapevine decline and esca. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 39, 112–118.Google Scholar
  12. Deepayan, S. (2008). Lattice: Multivariate data visualization with R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Díaz, G. A., & Latorre, B. A. (2013). Efficacy of paste and liquid fungicide formulations to protect pruning wounds against pathogens associated with grapevine trunk diseases in Chile. Crop Protection, 46, 106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2018). FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
  15. Fischer, M. (2002). A new wood-decaying basidiomycete species associated with esca of grapevine: Fomitiporia mediterranea (Hymenochaetales). Mycological Progress, 1, 315–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fischer, M. (2006). Esca der Weinrebe – eine Krankheit auf dem Vormarsch? Deutsches Weinbaujahrbuch, 57, 87–94.Google Scholar
  17. Fischer, M., & Kassemeyer, H. H. (2003). Fungi associated with esca disease of grapevine in Germany. Vitis, 42, 109–116.Google Scholar
  18. Fontaine, F., Gramaje, D., Armengol, J., Smart, R., Nagy, Z.A., Borgo, M., Rego, C. & Corio-Costet, M.-F. (2016). Grapevine trunk diseases. A review. OIV Publications, Paris. http://www.oiv.int/public/medias/4650/trunk-diseases-oiv-2016.pdf. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
  19. Fraga, H., Garcia de Cortazar-Atauri, I., Malheiro, A. C., & Santos, J. A. (2016). Modelling climate change impacts on viticultural yield, phenology and stress conditions in Europe. Global Change Biology, 22, 3774–3788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gramaje, D., Úrbez-Torres, J. R., & Sosnowski, M. R. (2018). Managing grapevine trunk diseases with respect to etiology and epidemiology: Current strategies and future prospects. Plant Disease, 102, 12–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guérin-Dubrana, L., Labenne, A., Labrousse, J. C., Bastien, S., Rey, P., & Gégout-Petit, A. (2013). Statistical analysis of grapevine mortality associated with esca or Eutypa dieback foliar expression. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 52, 276–288.Google Scholar
  22. Hofstetter, V., Buyck, B., Croll, D., Viret, O., Couloux, A., & Gindro, G. (2012). What if esca disease of grapevine were not a fungal disease. Fungal Diversity, 54, 51–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hothorn, T., Bretz, F., & Westfall, P. (2008). Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biometrical Journal, 50, 346–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Intrieri, C., Poni, S., Lia, G., & Del Campo, M. G. (2001). Vine performance and leaf physiology of conventionally and minimally pruned Sangiovese grapevines. Vitis, 40, 123–130.Google Scholar
  25. Intrieri, C., Filippetti, I., Allegro, G., Valentini, G., Pastore, C., & Colucci, E. (2011). The semi-minimal-pruned hedge: A novel mechanized grapevine training system. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 62, 312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kraus, C., Pennington, T., Herzog, K., Hecht, A., Fischer, M., Voegele, R. T., Hoffmann, C., Töpfer, R., & Kicherer, A. (2018). Effects of canopy architecture and microclimate on grapevine health in two training systems. Vitis, 57, 53–60.Google Scholar
  27. Kuntzmann, P., Villaume, S., Larignon, P., & Bertsch, C. (2010). Esca, BDA, Eutypiosis: Foliar symptoms, trunk lesions and fungi observed in diseased vinestocks in two vineyards in Alsace. Vitis, 49, 71–76.Google Scholar
  28. Kuntzmann, P., Barbe, J., Maumy-Bertrand, M., & Bertrand, F. (2013). Late harvest as factor affecting esca and Botryosphaeria dieback prevalence of vineyards in the Alsace region of France. Vitis, 52, 197–204.Google Scholar
  29. Larignon, P., & Dubos, B. (2000). Preliminary studies on the biology of Phaeoacremonium. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 39, 184–189.Google Scholar
  30. Lecomte, P., Darrieutort, G., Liminana, J. M., Comont, G., Muruamendiaraz, A., Legorburu, F. J., Choueiri, E., Jreijiri, F., El-Amil, R., & Fermaud, M. (2012). New insights into esca of grapevine: The development of foliar symptoms and their association with xylem discoloration. Plant Disease, 96, 924–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lorenz, D. H., Eichhorn, K. W., Bleiholder, H., Klose, R., Meier, U., & Weber, E. (1995). Growth stages of the grapevine: Phenological growth stages of the grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. 45 ssp. vinifera) – Codes and descriptions according to the extended BBCH scale. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 1, 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marchi, G. (2001). Susceptibility to esca of various grapevine (“Vitis vinifera”) cultivars grafted on different rootstocks in a vineyard in the province of Siena (Italy). Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 40, 27–36.Google Scholar
  33. Marchi, G., Peduto, F., Mugnai, L., Di Marco, S., Calzarano, F., & Surico, G. (2006). Some observations on the relationship of manifest and hidden esca to rainfall. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 45(Supplement), S117–S126.Google Scholar
  34. Mondello, V., Songy, A., Battiston, E., Pinto, C., Coppin, C., Trotel-Aziz, P., Clément, C., Mugnai, L., & Fontaine, F. (2018). Grapevine trunk diseases: A review of fifteen years of trials for their control with chemicals and biocontrol agents. Plant Disease, 102, 1189–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mugnai, L., Graniti, A., & Surico, G. (1999). Esca (black measles) and brown wood-streaking: Two old and elusive diseases of grapevines. Plant Disease, 83, 404–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Murolo, S., & Romanazzi, G. (2014). Effects of grapevine cultivar, rootstock and clone on esca disease. Australasian Plant Pathology, 43, 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pertot, I., Caffi, T., Rossi, V., Mugnai, L., Hoffmann, C., Grando, M. S., Gary, C., Lafond, D., Duso, C., Thiery, D., Mazzoni, V., & Anfora, G. (2017). A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture. Crop Protection, 97, 70–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pouzoulet, J., Pivovaroff, A. L., Santiago, L. S., & Rolshausen, P. E. (2014). Can vessel dimension explain tolerance toward fungal vascular wilt diseases in woody plants? Lessons from Dutch elm disease and esca disease in grapevine. Frontiers in Plant Science, 5, 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pouzoulet, J., Scudiero, E., Schiavon, M., & Rolshausen, P. E. (2017). Xylem vessel diameter affects the compartmentalization of the vascular pathogen Phaeomoniella chlamydospora in grapevine. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, 1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quaglia, M., Covarelli, L., & Zazzerini, A. (2009). Epidemiological survey on esca disease in Umbria, Central Italy. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 48, 84–91.Google Scholar
  41. Romanazzi, G., Murolo, S., Pizzichini, L., & Nardi, S. (2009). Esca in young and mature vineyards, and molecular diagnosis of the associated fungi. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 125, 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. RStudio Team (2016). RStudio: Integrated development for R. RStudio, Inc., Boston. URL http://www.rstudio.com/. Accessed 28 Feb 2018.
  43. Serra, S., Mannoni, M. A., & Ligios, V. (2008). Studies on the susceptibility of pruning wounds to infection by fungi involved in grapevine wood diseases in Italy. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 47, 234–246.Google Scholar
  44. Surico, G. (2009). Towards a redefinition of the diseases within the esca complex of grapevine. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 48, 5–10.Google Scholar
  45. Surico, G., Marchi, G., Braccini, P., & Mugnai, L. (2000). Epidemiology of esca in some vineyards in Tuscany (Italy). Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 39, 190–205.Google Scholar
  46. Surico, G., Mugnai, L., & Marchi, G. (2006). Older and more recent observations on esca: A critical review. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 45, S68–S86.Google Scholar
  47. Travadon, R., Lecomte, P., Diarra, B., Lawrence, D. P., Renault, D., Ojeda, H., Rey, P., & Baumgartner, K. (2016). Grapevine pruning system and cultivars influence the diversity of wood- colonizing fungi. Fungal Ecology, 24, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vasquez, S. J., Gubler, W. D., & Leavitt, G. M. (2007). Economic loss in California’s table grape vineyards due to measles. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 46, 118.Google Scholar
  49. White, C. L., Halleen, F., & Mostert, L. (2011). Symptoms and fungi associated with esca in south African vineyards. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 50(Supplement), S236–S246.Google Scholar
  50. Wickham, H. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Planteziektenkundige Vereniging 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Research Centre of Cultivated Plants, Plant Protection in Fruit Crops and ViticultureJulius Kühn-InstituteSiebeldingenGermany
  2. 2.Department of PhytopathologyUniversity of HohenheimHohenheimGermany

Personalised recommendations