Developing pruning wound protection strategies for managing Eutypa dieback

Background and Aims Eutypa dieback is an economically important disease of grapevines and a major threat to vineyard longevity throughout the world. Developing effective preventative strategies offers the best means of control. In this study, pruning wound protectants and various spray applications were evaluated for their ability to prevent infection by ascospores of Eutypa lata. Methods and Results Fungicides and natural alternative treatments were applied by hand to grapevine pruning wounds in winter prior to inoculation with E. lata. In a series of greenhouse and field experiments, tebuconazole, pyraclostrobin, fluazinam, garlic extract and lactoferrin significantly reduced infection. A range of tractor-driven sprayers was used to apply tebuconazole to pruning wounds, and those which provided good coverage reduced infection by E. lata to a level similar to that when tebuconazole was applied with a paintbrush. Conclusion Eutypa dieback can be controlled with several fungicides and natural treatments. Tractor-driven sprayers, which by design or modification can efficiently deliver maximum possible coverage at high output rates, can be used for application of pruning wound treatments. Significance of the Study Results of this study contributed to registration of fungicides for use as pruning wound treatments to control E. lata in Australia. Demonstrating the ability of tractor-driven sprayers to apply treatments effectively has led to greater industry adoption of dormant treatments and may decrease the future impact of Eutypa dieback.

[1]  P. Fourie,et al.  Protection of Grapevine Pruning Wounds against Eutypa lata by Biological and Chemical Methods , 2016 .

[2]  E. Scott,et al.  Evaluating Treatments and Spray Application for the Protection of Grapevine Pruning Wounds from Infection by Eutypa lata. , 2013, Plant disease.

[3]  W. Gubler,et al.  Pathogenicity of Diatrypaceous Fungi on Grapevines in Australia. , 2013, Plant disease.

[4]  D. Gramaje,et al.  Efficacy of fungicides on mycelial growth of diatrypaceous fungi associated with grapevine trunk disease , 2012, Australasian Plant Pathology.

[5]  S. Rooney-Latham,et al.  Evaluation of Pruning Wound Susceptibility and Protection Against Fungi Associated with Grapevine Trunk Diseases , 2010, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[6]  R. Herche Control strategies for trunk diseases of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) , 2009 .

[7]  E. Scott,et al.  Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata , 2008 .

[8]  H. Oakey,et al.  Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritium , 2005, Australasian Plant Pathology.

[9]  W. Gubler,et al.  Use of Boron for the Control of Eutypa Dieback of Grapevines. , 2005, Plant disease.

[10]  R. Wong,et al.  Eutypa dieback in grapevines: differential production of acetylenic phenol metabolites by strains of Eutypa lata. , 2002, Journal of agricultural and food chemistry.

[11]  R. Tabacchi,et al.  Eutypine, a phytotoxin produced by Eutypa lata the causal agent of dying-arm disease of grapevine. , 1991 .

[12]  S. Australian Effect of the inoculum dose of three grapevine trunk pathogens on the infection of artificially inoculated pruning wounds , 2015 .

[13]  Ainara López,et al.  Measuring the Accuracy of a Pesticide Treatment by an Image Analyzer , 2013 .

[14]  T. Wicks,et al.  Yearly variation in Eutypa dieback symptoms and the relationship to grapevine yield , 2001 .

[15]  D. Ramsdell Winter air-blast sprayer applications of benomyl for reduction of eutypa dieback disease incidence in a Concord grape vineyard in Michigan , 1995 .

[16]  G. Munkvold,et al.  Reductions in yield and vegetative growth of grapevines due to Eutypa dieback , 1994 .

[17]  G. Munkvold,et al.  The effects of fungicides on Eutypa lata germination, growth, and infection of grapevines. , 1993 .

[18]  G. Munkvold,et al.  Efficacy of natural epiphytes and colonizers of grapevine pruning wounds for biological control of Eutypa dieback. , 1993 .

[19]  M. Carter The status of Eutypa lata as a pathogen. , 1991 .

[20]  C. L. Burton,et al.  Fungicidal control of Eutypa armeniacae infecting concord grapevine in Michigan , 1983 .

[21]  R. Pearson Protection of Grapevine Pruning Wounds from Infection byEutypa Armeniacaein New York State , 1982, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[22]  A. Kasimatis,et al.  Further evidence that Eutypa armeniacae-not Phomopsis viticola-incites dead arm symptoms on grape. , 1981 .

[23]  A. Kasimatis,et al.  Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from Eutypa dieback. , 1980 .

[24]  D. Ramos,et al.  Production and dispersal of ascospores of Eutypa armeniacae in California. , 1975 .

[25]  T. Price,et al.  Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae. III. A comparison of chemical, biological and integrated control , 1975 .

[26]  W. Moller,et al.  The quantity of inoculum required to infect apricot and other prunus species with Eutypa armeniacae , 1971 .

[27]  W. Moller,et al.  Production and Dispersal of Ascospores in Eutypa Armeniacae , 1965 .

[28]  M. Carter Eutypa armeniacae Hansf. & Carter, sp. nov., an airborne vascular pathogen of Prunus armeniaca L. in southern Australia , 1957 .