Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritium

  • Published:
Australasian Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract.

Trichoderma harzianum applied to grapevine pruning wounds in a spore suspension and in the commercial formulations of Trichoseal, Trichoseal spray and Vinevax pruning wound dressing reduced recovery of Eutypa lata in the glasshouse and in the field. Recovery of E. lata was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) when fresh wounds were treated with viable T. harzianum 2 or 7 days before inoculation with ascospores of the pathogen in the glasshouse. In field experiments, recovery of E. lata was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) when fresh pruning wounds were treated with spores of T. harzianum, Fusarium lateritium or Vinevax 1 or 14 days before ascospores were applied. In general, a delay of 14 days between wounding and inoculation with ascospores of E. lata reduced recovery of the pathogen compared with inoculation on the day after wounding.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson PC, Brodbeck BV (1989) Chemical composition of xylem exudate from bleeding spurs of Vitis rotundifolia Noble and Vitis hybrid Suwanee in relation to pruning date. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 40, 155–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker KF (1957) The U. C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants. California Agricultural Experiment Station Manual 23, 1–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggs AR (1986) Prediction of lignin and suberin deposition in boundary zone tissue of wounded tree bark using accumulated degree days. Journal of the American Society for Horticulture Science 111, 757–760.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV (1971) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11, 687–692. doi: 10.1071/EA9710687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV (1983) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 5. Guidelines for establishing routine wound protection in commercial apricot orchards. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 23, 429–436. doi: 10.1071/EA9830429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV (1991) ‘The status of Eutypa lata as a pathogen.’ Phytopathological Paper No 32. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV, Moller WJ (1970) Duration and susceptibility of apricot pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 915–920. doi: 10.1071/AR9700915

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV, Moller WJ (1971) The quantity of inoculum required for infection of apricot and other Prunus species by Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11, 684–686. doi: 10.1071/EA9710684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV, Price TV (1974) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 2. Studies of the interaction between Eutypa armeniacae and Fusarium lateritium and their relative sensitivities to benzimidazole chem icals. AustraHan JournaI of Agricultural Research 25, 105–119. doi: 10.1071/AR9740105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carter MV, Price TV (1975) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 3. A comparison of chemical, biological and integrated control. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 537–543. doi: 10.1071/AR9750537

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapius L, Richard L, Dubos B (1998) Variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa lata in South-western France. Plant Pathology 47, 463–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doster MA, Bostock RM (1988) Quantification of lignin formation in almond bark in response to wounding and infection by Phytophthora species. Phytopathology 78, 473–477.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ferreira JHS, Matthee FN, Thomas AC (1991) Biological control of Eutypa lata on grapevine by an antagonistic strain of Bacillus subtilis. Phytopathology 81, 283–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gendloff EH, Ramsdell DC, Burton CL (1983) Fungicidal control of Eutypa armeniacae infecting Concord grapevine in Michigan. Plant Disease 67, 754–756.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hjeljord LG, Stensvand A, Tronsmo A (2000) Effect of temperature and nutrient stress on the capacity of commercial Trichoderma products to control Botrytis cinerea and Mucor piriformis in greenhouse strawberries. Biological Control 19, 149–160. doi: 10.1006/bcon.2000.0859

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John S, Scott ES, Wicks TJ, Hunt JS (2004) Interactions between E. lata and Trichoderma harzianum. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 43, 95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lifshitz R, Windham MT, Baker R (1986) Mechanisms of biological control of pre-emergence damping off of pea seed treatment with Trichoderma spp. Phytopathology 76, 720–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Binary data. In ‘Generalized linear models’, pp. 98–148. (Chapman and Hall: London)

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller WJ, Kasimatis AN (1978) Dieback of grapevines caused by Eutypa armeniacae. Plant Disease Reporter 62, 254–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moller WJ, Kasimatis AN (1981) Further evidence that Eutypa armeniacae — not Phomopsis viticola — incites dead arm symptoms on grape. Plant Disease 65, 429–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold GP, Marois JJ (1993a) Efficacy of natural epiphytes and colonizers of grapevine pruning wounds for biological control of eutypa dieback. Phytopathology 83, 6724–6729.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold GP Marois JJ (1993b) The effect of fungicides on Eutypa lata germination, growth and infection of grapevines. Plant Disease 11, 50–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munkvold GP, Marois JJ (1995) Factors associated with variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa lata. Phytopathology 85, 249–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson EB, Harman GE, Nash GT (1988) Enhancement of Trichoderma-induced biological control of Pythium seed rot and pre-emergence damping off of peas. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 20, 145–150. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90030-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ophel K, Nicholas PR, Magarey PA, Bass AW (1990) Hot water treatment of dormant grape cuttings reduces crown gall incidence in a field nursery. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 4, 325–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papavizas GC (1985) Trichoderma and Gliocladium. Biology, ecology and potential for biological control. Annual Review of Phytopathology 23, 23–54. doi: 10.1146/annurev.py.23. 090185.000323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petzoldt CH, Moller WJ, Sail MA (1981) Eutypa dieback of grapevine: seasonal differences in infection and duration of susceptibility of pruning wounds. Phytopathology 71, 540–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos EE, Moller WJ, English H (1975) Susceptibility of apricot pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa armeniacae. Phytopathology 65, 1359–1364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolshausen PE, Gubler WD (2005) Use of boron for the control of Eutypa dieback of grapevines. Plant Disease 89, 734–738.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sosnowski MR, Creaser ML, Wicks TJ (2004) Evaluating fungicides as pruning wound treatments to control eutypa dieback. The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 485a, 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trese AT, Burton CL, Ramsdell DC (1982) Effects of winter and spring pruning and post inoculation cold weather on infection of grapevine by Eutypa armeniacae. Phytopathology 12, 438–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wicks TJ, Hall B (1997) Eutypa dieback, a serious disease. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 405, 61–62.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Discipline of Plant and Pest Science, University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, PMB 1, 5064, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia

    S. John & E. S. Scott

  2. South Australian Research and Development Institute, GPO Box 397, 5001, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    T. J. Wicks

  3. Agrimm Technologies Ltd, PO Box 13-245, Christchurch, New Zealand

    J. S. Hunt

  4. BiometricsSA, University of Adelaide/SARDI, PMB 1, 5064, Glen Osmond, SA, Australia

    M. F. Lorimer & H. Oakey

Authors
  1. S. John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. J. Wicks
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. S. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. F. Lorimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. Oakey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. S. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. S. Scott.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

John, S., Wicks, T.J., Hunt, J.S. et al. Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritium . Australasian Plant Pathology 34, 569–575 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1071/AP05075

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/AP05075

Additional keywords

Search

Navigation