Search

The grapevine trunk-disease complex limits vineyard longevity in all major grape-growing regions. Although trunk diseases have been distinguished based on etiologies (e.g., Botryosphaeria-, Eutypa-, and Phomopsis dieback, Esca) and causal agents, mixed infections of trunk pathogens and other wood-colonizing fungi are frequent in grapevines. These diverse fungal communities in grapevine span four classes in the Pezizomycotina (Ascomycota) and 10 genera in the Hymenochaetales (Basidiomycota). Traditional identification based on morphology is largely untenable because of overlap in colony characteristics or spore dimensions, or lack of sporulation in culture. When based on DNA sequencing, searches of uncurated, public molecular databases can lead to misidentifications. The new molecular database TrunkDiseaseID.org is populated with accurate rDNA ITS sequences from 250 + isolates (pathogens and saprobes) and secondary DNA barcodes for delineating closely related species. Currently, no such comprehensive database exists for grapevine wood-colonizing fungi. In addition to ITS and secondary barcode sequences, this database provides a scientific reference, origin, and ecological status for each isolate, to aid diagnosticians in communicating results and recommendations to growers. Outreach through the National Plant Diagnostic Network and the US Department of Agriculture's Identification Technology Program will connect diagnosticians to this new database for grape. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grapevine trunk diseases threaten grape production worldwide. In California, preventative practices (delayed pruning, fungicide applications after pruning) that reduce infections of pruning wounds by pathogen spores produced with rain are timed during the dormant season, when high spore-trap counts of the causal fungi are reported from studies in mature, symptomatic vineyards. Similar studies in young, asymptomatic vineyards are lacking. Given infrequent usage by California growers of preventative practices in young vineyards, empirical data on spore detection may provide convincing evidence to start preventing trunk diseases before symptoms appear. Active and passive spore traps were examined after rain from December to March for four years (2013–2017) in six young, asymptomatic (<5-years-old in year 1) and six mature, symptomatic (13–18-years-old in year 1) vineyards, in Lodi and Napa, California, USA wine-grape regions. We compared detection of spores of causal fungi of Botryosphaeria-, Eutypa-, and Phomopsis diebacks, which are common and widespread trunk diseases in California. From 769 samples, we isolated 15 species in culture, with DNA sequencing of 2 bar-coding loci for species-level identification. Detections (defined as presence of a species at least once per timepoint per site) were sparse in years 1 and 2, and so statistical analyses of detections pooled across timepoints and sites were restricted to years 3 and 4. Most common among all 12 sites and both trap types were Diplodia seriata and Diaporthe chamaeropis. Our novel species-level detections of six Diaporthe species fill a gap in the knowledge of which species can spread during California's dormant season. Overall, detections in young sites in years 3 and 4 (10 and 29 detections, respectively) were significantly lower than those of mature sites (31 and 57 detections, respectively). The presence of spores in young sites, even with no symptomatic vines, suggests preventative practices are needed in young vineyards. Nonetheless, our findings of more detections in mature sites reinforces higher usage by growers of preventative practices in mature, symptomatic vineyards. [Display omitted] • Dispersal of trunk-disease spores has not been characterized in young vineyards. • Isolates of pathogenic fungi were identified by DNA sequencing of bar-coding loci. • Detection in young vineyards was a fraction of that in mature ones. • Detection in young vineyards has management implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In California's Mediterranean climate, management of grapevine trunk diseases (Botryosphaeria dieback, Eutypa dieback, Phomopsis dieback, Esca) focuses on protecting vines during the dormant season, when pruning coincides with rain-induced spore dispersal of the causal fungi ('trunk pathogens'). Applying protectants (fungicides, toxic barriers, sealants, biocontrol agents) after pruning can minimize infection of pruning wounds. For the dormant seasons of 2017–2019, in a 2-year-old Vitis vinifera 'Scarlet Royal' vineyard in the southern San Joaquin Valley, we evaluated tractor-spray applications of the following protectants labeled for table grapes: fluopyram + tebuconazole, pyraclostrobin + boscalid, thiophanate-methyl + myclobutanil, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. A comprehensive set of virulent and widespread trunk pathogens, including Diaporthe ampelina , Eutypa lata , Neofusicoccum parvum , and Phaeomoniella chlamydospora , were inoculated to pruning wounds post-application, with detection attempts after a 3 to 4-week incubation period (before budbreak). Consistently high efficacies of pyraclostrobin + boscalid (68–100% and 56–100%, respectively) and thiophanate-methyl + myclobutanil (64–77% and 91–100%, respectively) against Botryosphaeria-dieback pathogen N. parvum and Phomopsis-dieback pathogen D. ampelina suggest spray applications of these protectants could minimize infection by these common trunk pathogens. Low and variable detection rates of slow-growing Eutypa-dieback pathogen E. lata and Esca pathogen P. chlamydospora suggest that the incubation period should be longer or that more replication is needed. Low efficacy of B. amyloliquefaciens , especially with only 4 days in 2017 before pathogen inoculation, suggests this biological-control agent may need more time and/or repeated applications to become established on pruning wounds before being challenged by a pathogen. • Trunk diseases impact table grapes, but most research is done on wine grapes. • Pruning-wound protectants were tested in a California table-grape vineyard. • Two protectants were effective against Botryosphaeria and Phomopsis-dieback fungi. • A 1-month incubation may be too short for Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and Eutypa lata. • Biological-control agent Bacillus amyloliquefaciens may require repeated applications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]