Varietal Response to Sour Bunch Rot in Polish Grapevine Genetic Resources
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site, Grapevines and Cultivars Characteristics
2.2. Assessment of Infestation and Cultivar Features
- -
- very little and little resistance (1–4 = many wilted or rotten berries on all clusters, all clusters are attacked, some of them can be slightly affected);
- -
- medium (5–6 = large percentage of wilted or rotten clusters (up to 20%)—most clusters are moderately attacked, only a few clusters are attacked more severely);
- -
- high and very high (7–9 = only a few wilted or rotten berries on all clusters, only single clusters are slightly attacked).
- -
- density of bunch (OIV, character 204)—1 (very loose) = berries clearly separated, many visible pedicels; 3 (loose) = berries in loose contact with each other with some visible pedicels; 5 (medium) = densely distributed berries, pedicels not visible, berries are movable; 7 (dense) = berries not readily movable; 9 (very dense) = berries deformed by compression;
- -
- thickness of berry skin (OIV, character 228)—1 (very thin); 3 (thin); 5 (medium); 7 (thick); 9 (very thick). The evaluation was carried out in relation to reference cultivars;
- -
- time of beginning of berry ripening (veraison) (OIV, character 303)—1 (very early); 3 (early); 5 (medium); 7 (late); 9 (very late);
- -
- single bunch weight (OIV, character 502) 1 (very low) = up to about 100 g; 3 (low); 5 (medium) = about 500 g; 7 (high); 9 (very high) = about 900 g and more;
- -
- single berry weight (OIV, character 503)—1 (very low) = up to about 1 g; 3 (low); 5 (medium) = about 5 g; 7 (high); 9 (very high) = about 9 g and more.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gustafsson, J.G.; Mårtensson, A. Potential for extending Scandinavian wine cultivation. Acta Agric. Scand. B 2005, 55, 82–97. [Google Scholar]
- Rayne, S.; Forest, K.; Friesen, K.J. Projected climate change impacts on grape growing in the Okanagan Valley, British Columbia, Canada. Nature Preced. 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gravot, E.; Blancard, D.; Fermaud, M.; Lonvaud, A.; Joyeux, A. Sour rot 1—Etiology: Research into causes of this form of rot in Bordeaux vineyards. Phytoma 2001, 543, 36–39. [Google Scholar]
- Guerzoni, M.E.; Marchetti, R. Analysis of yeast flora associated with grape sour rot and of the chemical disease markers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987, 53, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McFadden-Smith, W.; Gubler, W.D. Sour Rot. In Compendium of Grape Diseases, Pests, and Disorders, 2nd ed.; Wilcox, W.F., Gubler, W.D., Uyemoto, J.K., Eds.; APS Press: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2015; pp. 87–90. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.E.; Loeb, G.M.; Cadle-Davidson, L.; Evans, K.J.; Wilcox, W.F. Grape sour rot: A four-way interaction involving the host, yeast, acetic acid bacteria, and insects. Phytopatology 2018, 108, 1429–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bisiach, M.; Minervini, G.; Zerbetto, F. Possible integrated control of grapevine sour rot. Vitis 1986, 25, 118–128. [Google Scholar]
- Barata, A.; Pais, A.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. Influence of sour rotten grapes on the chemical composition and quality of grape must and wine. Eur. Food Res.Technol. 2011, 233, 183–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchetti, R.; Guerzoni, M.E.; Gentile, M. Research on the etiology of a new disease of grapes: Sour rot. Vitis 1984, 23, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
- Loureiro, V.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M. Spoilage yeasts in the wine industry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 86, 23–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barata, A.; Santos, S.C.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. New insights into the ecological interaction between grape berry microorganisms and Drosophila flies during the development of sour rot. Microb. Ecol. 2012, 64, 416–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renouf, V.; Claisse, O.; Lonvaud-Funel, A. Understanding the microbial ecosystem on the grape berry surface through numeration and identification of yeast and bacteria. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 316–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raspor, P.; Milek, D.M.; Polanc, J.; Mozina, S.S.; Cadez, N. Yeasts isolated from three varieties of grapes cultivated in different locations of the Dolenjska vine-growing region, Slovenia. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 109, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barata, A.; Seborro, F.; Belloch, C.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. Ascomycetous yeast species recovered from grapes damaged by honeydew and sour rot. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1182–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barata, A.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. Changes in sour rotten grape berry microbiota during ripening and wine fermentation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barata, A.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. The microbial ecology of wine grape berries. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, C. Etiology and Management of Grape Sour Rot. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept of Biological Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gadoury, D.M.; Seem, R.C.; Wilcox, W.F.; Henick-Kling, T.; Conterno, L.; Day, A.; Ficke, A. Effects of diffuse colonization of grape berries by Uncinula necator on bunch rots, berry microflora, and juice and wine quality. Phytopathology 2007, 97, 1356–1365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rombaut, A.; Guilhot, R.; Xuéreb, A.; Benoit, L.; Chapuis, M.P.; Gibert, P.; Fellous, S. Invasive Drosophila suzukii facilitates Drosophila melanogaster infestation and sour rot outbreaks in the vineyards. R. Soc. 2017, 4, 170117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vogel, A.; Breeden, S.; Brannen, P.; Blaauw, B.; Hickey, C. Grape Sour Rot. UGA Cooperative Extension Circular 1212. 2020. Available online: https://site.extension.uga.edu/viticulture/files/2020/09/Sour-Rot-Fact-Sheet.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Sarig, P.; Zutkhi, Y.; Lisker, N.; Shkelerman, Y.; Ben-Arie, R. Natural and induced resistance of table grapes to bunch rots. Acta Hortic. 1998, 464, 65–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gabler, F.M.; Smilanick, J.L.; Mansour, M.; Ramming, D.W.; Mackey, B.E. Correlations of morphological, anatomical and chemical features of grape berries with resistance to Botrytis cinerea. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 1263–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vail, M.E.; Marois, J.J. Grape cluster architecture and the susceptibility of berries to Botrytis cinerea. Phytopatology 1991, 81, 188–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso-Villaverde, V.; Boso, S.; Santiago, J.L.; Gago, P.; Martínez, M.C. Relationship between susceptibility to Botrytis bunch rot and grape cluster morphology in the Vitis vinifera L. cultivar Albariño. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2008, 8, 251–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zoecklein, B.W.; Williams, J.M.; Duncan, S.E. Effect of sour rot on the composition of white Riesling (Vitis vinifera) grapes. Small Fruits Rev. 2000, 1, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bordelon, B. Grapes: The sour rot situation. In Facts for Fancy Fruits, 16-11; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2016; pp. 1–4. Available online: https://fff.hort.purdue.edu/article/grapes-the-sour-rot-situation/ (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- Theocharis, A.; Hand, P.; Pole, J.; Cevik, V.; Fisarakis, I.; Henderson, J. Study of genetic diversity among inter-intraspecific hybrids and original grapevine varieties using AFLP molecular markers. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2010, 4, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Vitis International Variety Catalogue. Available online: www.vivc.de (accessed on 16 June 2021).
- OIV. OIV Descriptor List for Grape Varieties and Vitis Species, 2nd ed.; OIV: Paris, France, 2001; p. 232. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.E.; Loeb, G.M.; Wilcox, W.F. Control of sour rot using chemical and canopy management techniques. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2018, 69, 342–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duncan, R.A.; Stapleton, J.J.; Leavitt, G.M. Population dynamics of epiphytic microflora and occurrence of bunch rots of wine grapes as influenced by leaf removal. Plant Pathol. 1995, 44, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFadden-Smith, W.; Huber, C.; Inglis, D. Summary of Results for Grape Sour Rot Project. Available online: http://www.grapegrowersofontario.com/node/454 (accessed on 26 July 2021).
Year | Average Monthly Air Temperature at the Height of 2.0 m (°C) | Monthly Sum of Rainfall (mm) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jun | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | |
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 | 16.4 18.2 17.5 18.2 21.6 17.9 | 19.2 18.7 18.2 20.1 18.2 18.2 | 21.3 17.9 18.9 19.9 19.7 19.1 | 14.6 14.9 13.3 14.9 13.8 14.4 | 6.8 7.1 9.6 9.5 10.2 9.9 | 40.0 150.9 149.8 39.4 46.2 105.2 | 45.4 103.8 51.8 118.8 55.4 0.0 | 4.2 0.2 71.8 60.6 77.8 0.0 | 2.8 0.8 249.4 76,0 82.8 0.0 | 64.4 32.6 77.6 0,4 21.6 127.6 |
Average 1991–2010 | 16.8 | 19.2 | 18.2 | 13.9 | 8.2 | 67.3 | 68.2 | 54.2 | 46.5 | 37.6 |
Cultivar | Colour of Berry Skin * | Origin ** | Country of Breeding | Mean Severity of Sour Rot–Cluster Area with Sour Rot (%) | Class of Resistance to Bunch Sour Rot *** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Siegerrebe Phoenix Pinot Noir Silvaner Riesling Calandro Seyval Reberger Veltliner Frührot Domina Pinot Blanc Villaris Tauberschwarz Cabernet Cortis Solaris Rondo Johanniter Pinot Gris Pinot Meunier Hibernal Felicia Traminer Rot Bianca Regent Prior Souvignier Gris Marechal Foch Cabernet Cantor | R B N B B N B N R N B B N N B N B R N B B R B N N R N N | Vin IIH Vin Vin Vin IIH IH IIH Vin Vin Vin IIH Vin IIH IIH IIH IIH Vin Vin IIH IIH Vin IH IIH IIH IIH IH IIH | Germany Germany France Austria Germany Germany France Germany Austria Germany France Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany Germany France France Germany Germany France Hungary Germany Germany Germany France Germany | 53.0 ±8.54 t 1 40.6 ±9.61 s 31.2 ±7.57 r 28.2 ±6.81 qr 25.2 ±5.13 pq 23.5 ±5.03 op 22.2 ±5.13 n-p 21.2 ±5.69 m-o 20.4 ±6.43 l-o 19.8 ±5.00 l-n 18.6 ±3.51 lm 17.3 ±5.57 kl 17.2 ±3.06 kl 15.4 ±5.03 jk 14.7 ±5.57 i-k 13.2 ±4.16 h-j 12.1 ±4.58 hi 11.5 ±4.04 gh 9.5 ±3.06 fg 8.8 ±3.00 f 4.6 ±1.53 e 2.9 ±1.00 d 1.9 ±1.00 cd 1.5 ±1.15 c 0.4 ±0.58 b 0.1 ±0.58 ab 0.1 ±0.58 ab 0.0 ±0.00 a | VL (1) L (2) L (3) L (3) L (3) L (4) L (4) L (4) L (4) M (5) M (5) M (5) M (5) M (5) M (6) M (6) M (6) M (6) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) VH (8) VH (8) VH (8) VH (8) VH (8) VH (9) |
Cultivar | Colour of Berry Skin * | Origin ** | Country of Breeding | Mean Severity of Sour Rot–Cluster Area with Sour Rot (%) | Class of Sour Rot Resistance *** |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rusven Piesnia Krasotka Argo Galbena Nou Reliance Galanth Aron Evita Sophie Garantos Antracyt Palatina Nero Arkadia Price Muscat Bleu Vostorg Jupiter Chasselas Dore Suzi Somerset Sdl Festivee Alden NY Muscat | B B R R B R N B B B B N B N B N N B R-N B B R N N R-N | IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH IH Vin IH IH IH IH IH | Russia Russia Russia Ukraine Russia USA Germany Hungary Austria Hungary Germany Russia Hungary Hungary Ukraine USA Switzerland Russia USA France Hungary USA Canada USA USA | 62.2 ±10.5 n 1 55.8 ±13.0 mn 54.1 ±9.54 lm 49.7 ±11.6 lm 48.0 ±10.4 l 39.6 ±8.62 k 37.9 ±9.17 k 26.2 ±11.6 j 22.8 ±7.00 ij 19.5 ±5.03 hi 16.5 ±4.51 gh 12.3 ±2.52 fg 9.9 ±1.53 f 8.6 ±2.08 ef 8.3 ±1.53 ef 5.6 ±1.53 de 4.9 ±1.00 cd 4.6 ±1.53 cd 3.6 ±1.53 b-d 3.3 ±0.58 b-d 2.9 ±1.00 bc 2.6 ±1.15 bc 1.5 ±1.15 b 0.2 ±1.15 a 0.0 ±0.00 a | VL (1) VL (1) VL (1) L (2) L (2) L (3) L (3) L (3) L (4) M (5) M (5) M (6) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) H (7) VH (8) VH (9) VH (9) |
Cultivar | Bunch Density | Thickness of Berry Skin | Time of Veraison Beginning | Single Bunch Weight | Single Berry Weight | Additional Features |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Siegerrebe Phoenix Pinot Noir Silvaner Riesling Calandro Seyval Reberger Veltliner Frührot Domina Pinot Blanc Villaris Tauberschwarz Cabernet Cortis Solaris Rondo Johanniter Pinot Gris Pinot Meunier Hibernal Felicia Traminer Rot Bianca Regent Prior Souvignier Gris Marechal Foch Cabernet Cantor | 5 5 7 9 7 7 7 5 7 8 7 5 5 6 6 6 9 7 9 7 6 6 5 4 7 7 3 2 | 3 3 3 6 5 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 7 4 6 | 1 2 3 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 5 3 4 4 2 5 4 4 4 5 2 4 | 1.4 1.9 1.0 1.5 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.7 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.0 1.2 | 2.4 2.9 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.2 2.3 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 2.1 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.0 1.3 | c c, d d - d - b, d d c d d c, d d d c, d d d - - d c, d - d - - - - - |
Cultivar | Bunch Density | Thickness of Berry Skin | Time of Veraison Beginning | Single Bunch Weight | Single Berry Weight | Additional Features |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rusven Piesnia Krasotka Argo Galbena Nou Reliance Galanth Aron Evita Sophie Garantos Antracyt Palatina Nero Arkadia Price Muscat Bleu Vostorg Jupiter Chasselas Dore Suzi Somerset Sdl Festivee Alden NY Muscat | 6 5 3 3 5 5 6 7 5 6 6 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 2 | 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 6 6 6 | 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 3 5 2 3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 5 5 3 | 2.5 3.5 2.5 2.8 3.5 1.4 2.9 5.4 3.5 4.5 2.3 3.8 2.2 1.8 3.5 1.0 3.2 3.5 2.0 1.5 3.5 1.0 1.9 2.8 1.6 | 5.0 6.0 5.1 5.9 5.5 2.5 2.6 4.5 3.7 4.7 3.1 5.2 2.5 2.6 5.4 3.1 4.9 4.9 4.5 3.0 4.3 1.5 5.5 4.7 3.4 | b, c c b b, c c, d a, b, c c, d - c, d - c, d c c, d c d a, b, c c d a - - - - - - |
Varietal Trait | Pearson’s Linear Correlation Coefficient (r) | |
---|---|---|
Wine Cultivars | Table Cultivars | |
Bunch density Thickness of berry skin Time of beginning of veraison Single bunch weight Single berry weight | 0.18 –0.67 –0.37 0.17 0.46 | 0.23 –0.65 –0.33 0.23 0.34 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lisek, J.; Lisek, A. Varietal Response to Sour Bunch Rot in Polish Grapevine Genetic Resources. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081537
Lisek J, Lisek A. Varietal Response to Sour Bunch Rot in Polish Grapevine Genetic Resources. Agronomy. 2021; 11(8):1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081537
Chicago/Turabian StyleLisek, Jerzy, and Anna Lisek. 2021. "Varietal Response to Sour Bunch Rot in Polish Grapevine Genetic Resources" Agronomy 11, no. 8: 1537. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11081537