See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/223190546

Double Pruning of Grapevines: A Cultural Practice to Reduce Infections by

Eutypa lata

Article in American Journal of Enology and Viticulture · March 2007

DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2007.58.1.61

CITATIONS READS
80 1,046

3 authors, including:

Florent P. Trouillas Walter Gubler

University of California, Davis University of California, Davis
164 PUBLICATIONS 2,191 CITATIONS 346 PUBLICATIONS 7,827 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Walter Gubler on 17 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Double Pruning to Reduce Eutypa lata Infection – 61

Double Pruning of Grapevines: A Cultural Practice to

Reduce Infections by Eutypa lata
Edward A. Weber,1* Florent P. Trouillas, 2 and W. Douglas Gubler3

Abstract: Double pruning of grapevines was evaluated as a cultural management practice for reducing infections
by Eutypa lata in spur-pruned vineyards. Double pruning involves two pruning passes through the vineyard. Vines
are first prepruned by nonselectively trimming canes to a uniform height, generally 30 to 45 cm above spur posi-
tions, then pruned to traditional two-bud spurs in late winter when Eutypa infections are less likely to occur. In
large vineyards, double pruning may allow for more final pruning in late winter, potentially reducing the number
of infected spurs if Eutypa infections on prepruning wounds do not develop beyond the point where final prun-
ing will occur. To evaluate double pruning, Chardonnay and Merlot grapevines were prepruned monthly from October
to February with final pruning in March for three seasons. Eutypa lata spores were inoculated onto wounds at
the time of prepruning in two seasons. Examination of inoculated canes after final pruning showed mean lengths
of vascular discoloration below prepruning wounds of 0.29 to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay and 0.14 to 3.07 cm in Merlot,
with maximum length of discoloration of 14 cm and 12 cm, respectively. Isolations for E. lata were made at vari-
ous locations along the length of the discolored vascular tissue. Eutypa lata was not recovered from isolations made
more than 4 cm below the point of inoculation, indicating that infections of prepruning wounds should all be eliminated
during final pruning, as long as prepruning occurs 30 to 45 cm above the final pruning cuts. No impacts on viticultural
performance were observed, including yield, pruning weight, and time of budbreak. By allowing for more final pruning
to occur in March, double pruning should greatly reduce the number of Eutypa infections that occur each year.
Key words: prepruning, canker disease

Eutypa dieback, caused by the Diatrypaceous fungus the costs of application, growers rarely treated more than
Eutypa lata (Pers.) Tul. & C. Tul (= E. armeniacae Hansf. once and generally saw little reduction in disease. Produc-
& M.V. Carter), affects grapevines (Vitis spp.) in many tion and sale of benomyl was halted by the manufacturer
parts of the world (Carter et al. 1983). Ascospore infec- in 2001.
tions of fresh pruning wounds lead to the development of Boron was proven to be effective as an alternative con-
perennial cankers that kill portions of the vine. The pro- trol method against Eutypa dieback (Rolshausen and
duction of phytotoxins is responsible for foliar symptoms Gubler 2005), although some applications of boron corre-
including stunting and distortion of shoots and leaves lated with bud failure at the first node below the treated
(Molyneux et al. 2002, Mahoney et al. 2003). The economic wound. The use of biological control agents to protect
consequences of Eutypa dieback include productivity loss, pruning wounds has been investigated (Munkvold and
management costs, and reduced longevity of vineyards Marois 1993b), but few commercial products are registered
(Munkvold et al. 1994). Losses to California growers from for this use.
Eutypa dieback were estimated to exceed US$260 million in Growers in California rely in large part on cultural prac-
1999 (Siebert 2001). tices to reduce the chances of infection by E. lata, prima-
Effective control measures for Eutypa dieback are still rily by delaying pruning as long as possible. Ascospores
lacking. Treatment of pruning wounds with the fungicide are released from perithecia soon after rainfall. By delay-
benomyl was a recommended practice in California for ing pruning until late February or March, the chances for
many years (Gubler and Leavitt 1992); however, multiple rainfall to occur following pruning are reduced. Spore
applications were required to protect most wounds until loads will likely be reduced due to depletion of ascospores
fully healed (Munkvold and Marois 1993a). Because of from discharges during the previous months. In addition,
pruning wounds made in February or March are suscep-
tible to infection for a shorter period of time than infec-
1
Farm advisor, University of California Cooperative Extension, 1710 Soscol tions made earlier in the winter (Petzoldt et al. 1981,
Avenue #4, Napa, CA 94559; 2Graduate research assistant and 3Extension Chapuis et al. 1998). All of these factors make delayed
specialist, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, One
Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616.
pruning a general recommendation for Eutypa management
*Corresponding author (email: eaweber@[Link])
in California.
Acknowledgments: The authors thank Martin Mochizuki and Walsh Vine-
However, late pruning is not possible in all vineyards.
yards Management for their assistance and access to vineyards. Vineyard managers with a limited labor force often need to
Manuscript submitted June 2006; revised August 2006 start pruning early in the winter to ensure completion of
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. work before budbreak. Many vineyards are farmed by
All rights reserved. management companies that need to schedule their labor
61

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

62 – Weber et al.

force throughout the winter months in order to complete donnay vineyard planted in 1990. The second site was a
pruning for all their clients. Finishing all pruning before Merlot vineyard planted in 1989. All vines were cordon
budbreak may be difficult in larger vineyards if vines are trained and spur-pruned. Two trials were established at
left unpruned until late in the winter. each vineyard location: one to study the movement of
Double pruning is a practice that can be used in spur- Eutypa lata in canes following prepruning, the other to
pruned vineyards to allow more final pruning to occur late evaluate viticultural impacts of double pruning.
in the winter (late February and March). It involves two To study the movement of E. lata following prepruning,
pruning passes through the vineyard. The first pruning trials were established in the Chardonnay and Merlot vine-
(prepruning) is usually made in November or December yards, each with a randomized complete block design. The
after leaf fall but before heavy rains begin. At this time, five treatments were prepruning and inoculation with E.
the vines are trimmed to a uniform height, generally 30 to lata midmonth in October, November, December, January,
45 cm above the spurs, removing most of the previous or February. These trials were conducted in the winter of
year’s growth, and leaving short canes containing 6 to 10 2000/01 and repeated in 2002/03.
buds. This pruning is nonselective and can be done by On each treatment date, four vines in each of four rep-
hand with pruning shears, with hand-held power trimmers, lications were prepruned. Prepruning involved nonselec-
or by tractor-mounted equipment. A second pruning is tively cutting the previous year’s canes to a height ~45 to
made in late February or March, at which time vines are 60 cm above the spurs. All prepruning wounds (~25 per
rapidly and selectively pruned to their final desired bud vine) were inoculated with E. lata by applying 10 μL of an
count. These final cuts are made late in the winter when ascospore suspension (200 ascospores/μL) directly onto
opportunities for Eutypa infections are reduced. the surface of freshly cut one-year-old canes using a mi-
Because most of the brush is removed in the first prun- cropipette. Inoculum consisted of ascospores obtained
ing pass, the final pruning can be completed in consider- from stromata of E. lata collected from grapevine using
ably less time than if the vines had not been prepruned. If the technique described by Carter (1991). Stromata were
prepruning has already occurred, then a given number of soaked in water for 1 to 2 hr and fixed on the lid of a ster-
workers can do more of the final pruning in late winter. By ile petri dish so the discharged ascospores could accumu-
having more of the final pruning cuts made late in the dor- late in sterile water in the base of the dish. Ascospores
mant season, the number of Eutypa infections that occur were then transferred to a sterile Eppendorf tube and the
each year should be greatly reduced. concentration was adjusted using a haemocytometer.
We initiated double-pruning trials to evaluate the utility A final pruning of each of the inoculation treatments
of this practice for reducing the risk of Eutypa infections was made in mid-March to traditional two-bud spurs. The
and to assess its viticultural impacts, if any. Our goal was pruned-off cane pieces were bundled and brought to the
to determine how far E. lata could move down one-year- lab for examination and isolation of E. lata. Ten cane
old canes in the time between prepruning and final prun- pieces from each replicate of each treatment date of both
ing. If, during the intervening months, E. lata could move varieties were examined in both years of the trial and the
beyond the point where final pruning cuts were to be extent of vascular discoloration was determined. After re-
made, then double pruning would not be useful as a dis- moving bark and phloem tissues, canes were dissected
ease management tool. On the other hand, if the pathogen longitudinally to reveal xylem necrosis. The length of vas-
could not move the distance to the final two-bud spur cular discoloration was measured from the top of the prun-
position, then this cultural practice should be an excellent ing wound down through the cane.
method to reduce the potential for E. lata infections. The progression of the pathogen was estimated by the
Additionally, we were interested in learning how early frequency of recovery of E. lata from along these necrotic
vines can be safely prepruned without impacting the fol- lesions. Necrotic tissues were isolated on potato dextrose
lowing year’s growth and productivity. Prepruning in Oc- agar amended with 100 mg/L tetracycline. In 2001/02, isola-
tober or November before the onset of heavy rains could tions were made from necrotic tissue collected in the first
be accomplished by tractor-mounted equipment while soils cm below the inoculated prepruning wound and at the
are still relatively dry. The efficiency of this mechanical bottom of the observed discoloration. In 2002/03, isola-
operation could reduce the overall costs of pruning. Some tions were made at 1-cm intervals along the length of the
possible consequences of fall prepruning include earlier vascular discoloration starting at the inoculated pre-
budbreak the following spring (and a greater risk of frost pruning wound. Positive recovery of E. lata was based on
damage) and lowered growth or productivity in future development of typical E. lata colonies in petri dishes fol-
years due to reduced carbohydrate storage in cases where lowing isolations. The percentage of infected canes was
early prepruning eliminated leaves before natural leaf fall. calculated for each prepruning date for both varieties.
To study the viticultural effects of prepruning, two ad-
ditional trials were established in the same Chardonnay
Materials and Methods
and Merlot vineyards. At each site, a randomized complete
Trials were established in 2000 in two mature vineyards block design was used with five replications of six prun-
in the Napa Valley, California. The first site was a Char- ing treatments, with four vines in each individual replicate.

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

 Double Pruning to Reduce Eutypa lata Infection – 63

The six pruning treatments included prepruning (as previ-

ously described) midmonth in October, November, Decem-
ber, January, or February (all with final pruning in March)
and a control treatment of March pruning without any
prepruning.
Viticultural trials began with prepruning in October 2000
and continued through harvest 2003. Individual vine prun-
ing weights were measured on the date of the prepruning
treatments and at the final pruning in March. Prepruning
and final pruning weights were combined for the pre-
pruning treatments. If leaves were still present at the time
of prepruning, they were stripped off before weighing.
Prior to harvest, a 100-berry sample was collected from
each replicate, then weighed and analyzed for Brix, pH,
and total acidity. At harvest, vines were individually
picked, clusters per vine were counted, and crop weight
per vine was measured. Average cluster weights and ber-
ries per cluster were calculated. Vines were observed in
early spring each year to see if prepruning influenced the
date of budbreak.
Data were analyzed with SAS system software (SAS
Institute, Cary, NC) using ANOVA and Tukey’s (HSD) t-
test to compare means.
Figure 1 Percent recovery of E. lata from necrotic tissue in one-year-
old canes inoculated at prepruning wounds. Canes of Chardonnay
Results (A) and Merlot (B) were prepruned and inoculated midmonth from
October 2000 to February 2001 and collected mid-March 2001. Means
Nearly all cane pieces of Chardonnay and Merlot col- not followed by the same letter differ significantly according to Tukey’s
lected following final pruning showed vascular discolora- (HSD) t-test (p < 0.05).
tion; however, we were not able to isolate E. lata from
many of these samples. Eutpa lata was reisolated from
Chardonnay in 40% of canes inoculated in October 2000,
50% from November and December inoculations, 60% from
January 2001, and only 10% from February 2001 (Figure
1A). From Merlot samples, E. lata was reisolated from
65% of canes inoculated in October 2000, 47.5% from No-
vember, 52.5% from December, 60% from January 2001, and
only 7.5% from February (Figure 1B).
In the 2002/2003 trial, E. lata was reisolated from Char-
donnay in 57.5% of the canes inoculated in October and
November 2002, 15% from December, 47.5% from January
2003, and 10% from February (Figure 2A). From Merlot, E.
lata was reisolated from 82.5% of the canes inoculated in
October 2002, 52.5% from November, 5% from December,
12.5% from January 2003, and 2.5% from February (Figure
2B). Variance analysis on the percentage of reisolation re-
vealed a strong date effect for 2000/01 and 2002/03 on
both Merlot and Chardonnay (F value < 0.0001).
Mean lengths of vascular discoloration for the various
pruning and inoculation dates in 2000/01 varied from 2.70
to 4.67 cm in Chardonnay (Figure 3A) and from 1.98 to
3.07 cm in Merlot (Figure 3B). In 2002/03, mean lengths of
discoloration varied from 0.29 to 2.83 cm in Chardonnay
(Figure 4A) and 0.14 to 1.85 cm in Merlot (Figure 4B). Figure 2 Percent recovery of E. lata from necrotic tissue in one-year-
In Chardonnay, the maximum length of vascular discol- old canes inoculated at prepruning wounds. Canes of Chardonnay
(A) and Merlot (B) were prepruned and inoculated midmonth from
oration observed in 2000/01 was 14 cm. However, E. lata
October 2002 to February 2003 and collected mid-March 2003. Means
was never reisolated farther than 4 cm down from the not followed by the same letter differ significantly according to Tukey’s
inoculated prepruning wound in any of the samples. In (HSD) t-test (p < 0.05).

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

64 – Weber et al.

Figure 4 Mean length of vascular discoloration in one-year-old canes

Figure 3 Mean length of vascular discoloration in one-year-old canes inoculated with E. lata at prepruning wounds. Canes of Chardonnay
inoculated with E. lata at prepruning wounds. Canes of Chardonnay (A) and Merlot (B) were prepruned and inoculated midmonth from
(A) and Merlot (B) were prepruned and inoculated midmonth from October 2002 to February 2003 and collected mid-March 2003. Means
October 2000 to February 2001 and collected mid-March 2001. Means not followed by the same letter differ significantly according to Tukey’s
not followed by the same letter differ significantly according to Tukey’s (HSD) t-test (p < 0.05).
(HSD) t-test (p < 0.05).

2002/03, the maximum length of discoloration in Char- per vine, average cluster weight, berries per cluster, aver-
donnay was 4 cm, and E. lata was not reisolated farther age berry weight, or in any of the berry sample juice
than 3 cm down from any inoculated prepruning wound. analyses (data not shown).
In Merlot, the maximum length of vascular discoloration Weekly observations of vines following final March
was 12 cm in 2000/01. However, E. lata was not recovered pruning in 2001, 2002, and 2003 revealed no differences in
from isolations made more than 4 cm below the inoculation the date of budbreak and early shoot growth among the
point. In 2002/03 the maximum length of discoloration in pruning treatments in either variety (data not shown). All
Merlot was 3 cm, and E. lata was not reisolated farther vines within each trial began growing at approximately the
than 3 cm away from the inoculated prepruning wound. same time.
Among all the positive recoveries in both Chardonnay
and Merlot, E. lata was primarily reisolated from the first 1
Discussion
to 2 cm below the inoculated prepruning wound. The far-
thest distance from a prepruning wound that we were able The Merlot vineyard was harvested in mid-September
to recover E. lata in Chardonnay cane pieces was 4 cm each year and the October prepruning treatment occurred
from the inoculations in October, December, and January three to five weeks later. Green leaves were still present on
2000/01 and 3 cm from inoculations in October 2002. In the Merlot vines when prepruned in October 2000 and
Merlot, the maximum distance of recovery of E. lata was 4 2001. In October 2002, some green leaves were present at
cm in October 2000 samples and 3 cm from inoculations in prepruning but most had begun to senesce and were turn-
October 2002. ing yellow. The canes in October were all brown and ligni-
There were no significant differences in mean yield and fied where prepruning cuts were made, although the ends
pruning weight data for the Chardonnay and Merlot trials of some canes were still green. No functioning Merlot
among the treatments in any year (Table 1, Table 2). The leaves were still present on any of the November pre-
date of prepruning did not influence vine growth the fol- pruning dates and canes were fully lignified. The Char-
lowing year (as measured by pruning weights) or crop donnay vineyard was located in a cool site and historically
yield. Similarly, there were no significant differences has been one of the last to be harvested each year. The
among treatments in any year in either variety for clusters time between harvest and the October prepruning was

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

 Double Pruning to Reduce Eutypa lata Infection – 65

Table 1 Effect of prepruning date (with final pruning in March) Table 2 Effect of prepruning date (with final pruning in March)
on following season yield. on average pruning weight.

Chardonnay Merlot Chardonnay Merlot

(kg/vine) (kg/vine) (kg/vine) (kg/vine)

Treatment 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 2000/ 2001/ 2002/ 2000/ 2001/ 2002/
Treatment 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003
October preprune 7.01 6.70 4.33 4.09 5.17 4.98
November preprune 7.19 7.45 4.85 4.36 4.87 4.83 October preprune 1.13 1.02 0.81 0.93 0.63 0.81
December preprune 7.13 7.30 5.11 3.83 4.58 4.76 November preprune 1.26 1.23 0.94 0.87 0.65 0.78
January preprune 6.90 7.50 4.38 4.48 4.97 5.34 December preprune 1.22 1.10 0.87 0.87 0.63 0.81
February preprune 6.98 7.27 5.06 3.86 4.58 5.16 January preprune 1.17 1.15 0.93 0.83 0.66 0.89
March prune 6.76 7.14 4.71 4.17 5.00 5.21 February preprune 1.14 1.12 0.86 0.86 0.60 0.79
Signifa ns ns ns ns ns ns March prune 1.23 1.11 0.84 0.94 0.66 0.84
Signifa ns ns ns ns ns ns
a
ns indicates means are not significantly different at the p = 0.05
level. a ns indicates means are not significantly different at the p = 0.05
level.

only one to six days during the course of this trial. Green
leaves were still present on the Chardonnay vines on all December) as compared with 7.5 to 10% of the vines in-
October prepruning dates. Canes were mostly lignified, oculated in February (Figure 1). Similar results were seen
but some were still green near the ends. By the November in 2002/03 with the exception of low recovery rates in De-
prepruning dates, the Chardonnay leaves had fallen or cember (both varieties) and in January for Merlot (Figure
were yellow and senescing and the canes were fully ligni- 2). These data concur with previous work (Petzoldt et al.
fied. 1981) that indicates delayed pruning alone can be an ef-
Despite early leaf removal from the October prepruning fective cultural means of reducing the number of Eutypa
treatments, no viticultural impacts from double pruning infections.
were observed. There were no reductions in fruit produc- Vascular streaking and discoloration were observed in
tion or pruning weights in subsequent years. There was no almost every cane examined and extended as far as 14 cm
impact on budbreak, presumably because all vines had fi- from prepruning wounds. However, E. lata was not recov-
nal pruning occur on the same date in March. ered from any sample farther than 4 cm below the pre-
New Zealand Chardonnay vines that were defoliated pruning wound. Xylem vessels in grapevines can be
(75%) at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after bloom had reductions in longer than 30 cm (Thorne et al. 2006). Vascular discolora-
overwintering carbohydrate reserves and lower yields the tion may be part of the vine’s physiological response to
following season (Bennett et al. 2005). In Australia, har- wounding and alone is not indicative of E. lata infection.
vest pruning of Sultana vines for raisin production re- Final pruning in March left two-bud spurs 7 to 10 cm
duced leaf area by ~60% and led to yield reductions of in length. On prepruned vines, the cane pieces removed at
~10% the following season (May and Scholefield 1972, final pruning were ~35 to 50 cm long. Since the farthest
Scholefield et al. 1977). However, this loss of leaf area oc- downward growth of E. lata that we detected was 4 cm,
curred three months before leaf fall. double pruning should effectively eliminate all E. lata in-
In our study, vines prepruned in October lost 50 to fections that may have occurred during the period be-
60% of their leaf area, but this defoliation occurred very tween prepruning and final pruning.
late in the growing season (~22 weeks after bloom). Nor- Double pruning will not provide complete protection
mal leaf fall occurred in these vineyards three to five against Eutypa infections because final pruning wounds
weeks after the October prepruning. If there were reduc- are still susceptible to infection, although at a much re-
tions in overwintering carbohydrate reserves as a result of duced rate than wounds made earlier (Petzoldt et al. 1981).
defoliation from October prepruning, they were not large If traditional pruning can be delayed until March, then
enough to affect the following year’s growth or productiv- double pruning would not provide any additional protec-
ity. The loss of leaf area resulting from double pruning in tion. Additionally, spore-trapping data and scouting for E.
October was of a relatively short duration, and it occurred lata perithecia (Trouillas and Gubler 2000, unpublished
late in the growing season. In October and early Novem- data) showed that in years with light winter rainfall, Eu-
ber, carbohydrate accumulation rates should be lower than typa inoculum was still available for release with March
in previous months because of shorter day lengths, cooler and April rains.
temperatures, and a preponderance of older leaves that Treatment of pruning wounds with a fungicide may still
are less photosynthetically active (Kriedemann et al. 1970, be necessary following final pruning in March, especially
Alleweldt et al. 1982). in years with light rainfall in February that would other-
In 2000/01, E. lata was recovered from 40 to 65% of the wise help to deplete E. lata ascospores. Because of the
wounds inoculated early in the winter (October through rapid wound healing that occurs during the spring, wound

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

66 – Weber et al.

treatments should be very effective at protecting vines Carter, M.V., A. Bolay, and F. Rappaz. 1983. An annotated host
since susceptibility to infections occurs for only a short list and bibliography of Eutypa armeniacae. Rev. Plant Pathol. 62:
period. In many cases, bleeding (heavy oozing of xylem 251-258.
fluid) occurs following pruning in March, making effective Chapuis, L., L. Richard, and B. Dubos. 1998. Variation in suscep-
application of wound treatments difficult. However, bleed- tibility of grapevine pruning wound to infection by Eutypa lata
ing alone may provide some wound protection by flush- in south-west France. Plant Pathol. 47:463-472.
ing away spores. Gubler, W.D., and G.M. Leavitt. 1992. Eutypa dieback of grape-
Double pruning is not appropriate in vineyards that are vines. In Grape Pest Management, 2d ed. D.L Flaherty et al. (Eds.),
cane-pruned because of the need to retain long one-year- pp. 71-75. Publication 3343. University of California Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources, Oakland.
old canes for adequate fruit production.
Kriedemann, P.E., W.M. Kliewer, and J.M. Harris. 1970. Leaf age
and photosynthesis in Vitis vinifera L. Vitis 7:97-104.
Conclusions
Mahoney, N., R. Lardner, R.J. Molyneux, E.S. Scott, L.R. Smith,
If prepruning maintains cane pieces that extend 30 to and T.K. Schoch. 2003. Phenolic and heterocyclic metabolite pro-
45 cm beyond the point where final pruning will occur, files of the grapevine pathogen Eutypa lata. Phytochemistry 64:
then any Eutypa infections that might occur on these 475-484.
wounds will be fully removed during final pruning, thus May, P., and P.B. Scholefield. 1972. Long term response of Sultana
indicating that double pruning can be an effective cultural vines to harvest pruning. Vitis 11:296-302.
practice to reduce the incidence of Eutypa infections in Molyneux, R.J., N. Mahoney, P. Baymen, R.Y. Wong, K. Meyer,
spur-pruned vineyards. In large operations or in vineyards and N. Ireland. 2002. Eutypa dieback in grapevines: Differential
with a limited labor force, double pruning should allow for production of acetylenic phenol metabolites by strains of Eutypa
more final pruning to be delayed until late February or lata. J. Agric. Food Chem. 50:1393-1399.
March, thereby reducing the likelihood that Eutypa infec- Munkvold, G.P., and J.J. Marois. 1993a. The effects of fungicides
tions will occur. on Eutypa lata germination, growth, and infection of grapevines.
This study indicates that growers could begin pre- Plant Dis. 77:50-55.
pruning in the late fall before the onset of heavy rains, Munkvold, G.P., and J.J. Marois. 1993b. Efficacy of natural epi-
even if leaves are still present on the vines. Because ac- phytes and colonizers of grapevine pruning wounds for biologi-
cess to vineyards with heavy equipment is still possible at cal control of Eutypa dieback. Phytopathology 83:624-629.
this time, mechanical prepruning with tractor-mounted Munkvold, G.P., J.A. Duthie, and J.J. Marois. 1994. Reductions in
equipment becomes a more feasible option. Growers could yield and vegetative growth of grapevines due to Eutypa dieback.
likely use this equipment on enough acreage in late Octo- Phytopathology 84:186-192.
ber and November in most years to justify the purchase Petzoldt, C.H., W.J. Moller, and M.A. Sall. 1981. Eutypa dieback
price. Growers concerned about fall wood maturity due to of grapevine: Seasonal differences in infection and duration of sus-
high crop levels or potential cold climate effects should ceptibility of pruning wounds. Phytopathology 71:540-543.
delay prepruning until after leaf fall. Rolshausen, P.E., and W.D. Gubler. 2005. Use of boron for the con-
trol of Eutypa dieback of grapevines. Plant Dis. 88:734-738.
Literature Cited Scholefield, P.B., P. May, and T.F. Neales. 1977. Harvest-pruning
and trellising of ‘Sultana’ vines. I. Effects on yield and vegetative
Alleweldt, G., R. Eibach, and E. Ruhl. 1982. Investigations on gas growth. Sci. Hortic. 7:115-122.
exchange in grapevine. I. Influence of temperature, leaf age and
daytime on net photosynthesis and transpiration. Vitis 21:93-100. Siebert, J.B. 2001. Eutypa: The economic toll on vineyards. Wines
& Vines (April):50-56.
Bennett, J., P. Jarvis, G.L. Creasy, and M.C.T. Trought. 2005. In-
fluence of defoliation on overwintering carbohydrate reserves, re- Thorne, E.T., B.M. Young, G.M. Young, J.F. Stevenson, J.M. Laba-
turn bloom, and yield of mature Chardonnay grapevines. Am. J. vitch, M.A. Matthews, and T.L. Rost. 2006. The structure of xylem
Enol. Vitic. 56:386-393. vessels in grapevine (vitaceae) and a possible passive mechanism
for the systemic spread of bacterial disease. Am. J. Bot. 93:497-
Carter, M.V. 1991. The status of Eutypa lata as a pathogen. Mono- 504.
graph, Phytopathological Paper 32. Commonwealth Agricultural
Bureau, International Mycological Institute, Oxon, UK.

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 58:1 (2007)

View publication stats