The Influence of Soil Properties on the Development of Grape Phylloxera Populations in Austrian Viticulture

Reisenzein, Helga; Pfeffer, Marc A.; Aust, G; Baumgarten, Andreas

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2007.733.1

Cited by 9 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roesleria subterranea has been reported from EUROPE: Austria (Berger and Andert 2003;Reisenzein et al 2007;Kirchmair et al 2008), Germany (Brendel and Hanff 1984;Höfer 1992;Huber et al 2006), Hungary (Véghelyi 1987;Véghelyi 1989), Scotland (Foister 1961), Luxemburg (Huber et al unpublished); France (Viala 1887;Delatour and Guillaumin 1985). NORTH AMERICA: USA (Anonymous 1960;Beckwith 1924;Miles and Schilder 2009), Canada (Anonymous 2007a).…”

Section: Host Range and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Roesleria subterranea a primary pathogen or a minor parasite of grapevines? Risk assessment and a diagnostic decision scheme

Neuhauser

Huber²,

Kirchmair

2011

Eur J Plant Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past the root rot pathogen Roesleria subterranea (Ascomycota) was generally considered as a minor parasite, a view with which we were often confronted during field work in German winegrowing regions where this ascomycete recently caused serious problems in established vineyards and at replant sites. To irrevocably demonstrate that R. subterranea is not a minor, but a primary pathogen of grapevines (and fruit trees) a pest risk analysis was carried out according to the guidelines defined by EPPO standard series PM 5, which defines the information needed, and contains standardised, detailed key questions and a decision support scheme for risk analysis. Following the provided decision scheme, it becomes apparent that R. subterranea must be considered as a serious, primary pathogen for grapevines and fruit trees that can cause massive economic losses. Based on the literature, the pathogen seems to be ubiquitous in wine growing regions in cool climates of the northern hemisphere. It is likely that because of its growth below ground, the small fruiting bodies, and ambiguous symptoms above ground, R. subterranea has been overlooked in the past and therefore, has not been considered as primary pathogen for grapevine. Available published information together with experience from field trials was implemented into a diagnostic decision scheme which will, together with the comprehensive literature provided, be the basis (a) to implement quick and efficient diagnosis of this pathogen in the field and (b) to conduct risk analysis and management in areas where R. subterranea has not established yet.

show abstract

Section: Host Range and Distributionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Roesleria subterranea a primary pathogen or a minor parasite of grapevines? Risk assessment and a diagnostic decision scheme

Neuhauser

Huber²,

Kirchmair

2011

Eur J Plant Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The apparent mechanism was that clay soils crack when dry, providing room for woolly apple aphids to crawl underground. Root populations of grape phylloxera ( Daktulosphaira vitifoliae [Fitch]), a pest on grape roots, are thought to be similarly suppressed by sandy soil [10,50,51]. Our study suggests mulches could have a similar suppressive effect as sand.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Effects of restricting movement between root and canopy populations of woolly apple aphid

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Movement of insect pests between spatially subdivided populations can allow them to recolonize areas where local extinction has occurred, increasing pest persistence. Populations of woolly apple aphid ( Eriosoma lanigerum [Hausmann]; Hemiptera: Aphididae), a worldwide pest of apple ( Malus domestica [Borkhausen]), occur both below- and aboveground. These spatially subdivided subpopulations encounter different abiotic conditions, natural enemies, and control tactics. Restricting movement between them might be an effective management tactic to decrease woolly apple aphid persistence and abundance. We examined this possibility in the field, using sticky barriers to restrict upward woolly apple aphid movement to tree canopies, and in the greenhouse, using mulches and sand amendments to restrict downward movement to roots. In the field, blocking aphid movement up tree trunks did not decrease the number of colonies in tree canopies. Instead, sticky-banded apple trees had higher aphid colony counts late in the study. Earwigs, which are woolly apple aphid predators, were excluded from tree canopies by sticky bands. In the greenhouse, fewer root galls (indicative of aphid feeding) occurred on trees in sandy potting media and on those with mulch (wood chips or paper slurry). Our results suggest that upward movement is less important than other factors that affect aboveground aerial woolly apple aphid population dynamics. In addition, apple orchards planted in sandier soils or with mulches may be partially protected from woolly apple aphid root feeding.

show abstract

“…The impact of soil properties on phylloxera continues to be debated. However, it is likely to be more complex than focusing on a single textural property such as the proportion of sand, as demonstrated by the very contrasting results obtained in different trials (Chitkowski and Fisher, 2005;Reisenzein et al, 2007).…”

Section: Suitability Of the Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health posed by Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch) in the EU territory, with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Panel on Plant Health conducted a pest risk assessment for the grapevine insect pest, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (an aphid species commonly known as phylloxera), in the European Union, identified risk reduction options and evaluated the effectiveness of the phytosanitary measures listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC. Entry was assessed as potentially very likely for plants intended for planting (although the pathway is closed by Article 15 of Annex III) and very unlikely for fruit for consumption because transport and transfer would be very difficult, even though phylloxera has a moderate likelihood of association with the pathway. Establishment is very likely as the pest is already very widespread in the risk assessment area, occurring almost everywhere Vitis plants are present. Successful eradication is very unlikely and small populations can persist undetected in the soil. Spread within the EU is considered to be very likely because there are no effective barriers, it can disperse up to a few kilometres aided by the wind and it can readily be moved long distances with planting material. Grafting with resistant rootstocks throughout the EU ensures that the production of fruit and plants for planting is rarely affected by phylloxera infestations and, if so, only at a limited level. The Panel considers that the IIAII measures for D. vitifoliae do not assist in preventing entry and are ineffective in preventing spread because detection is so difficult. Restricting movements of plants for planting to cuttings grafted on resistant rootstocks, in combination with treatments (e.g. particularly fungicides and hot water treatments), was found to be the most effective risk reduction option. Limitations in the Cyprus protected zone regulations were identified. SUMMARYFollowing a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (hereinafter the Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the pest risk of Daktulosphaira vitifoliae for the European Union (EU) territory and to identify risk management options and evaluate their effectiveness in reducing the risks to plant health posed by the organism. In particular, the Panel was asked to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the current EU requirements against D. vitifoliae, which are laid down in Council Directive 2000/29/EC, in reducing the risk of introduction of these pests into, and their spread within, the EU territory.The Panel conducted the pest risk assessment following the general principles of the ‗Guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of pest risk management options' (EFSA PLH Panel, 2010) and the ‗Guidance on methodology for evaluation of the effectiveness of options for reducing the risk of introduction and spread of organisms harmful to plant health in the EU territory' (EFSA PLH Panel, 2012). As D. vitifoliae is already present in 18 EU Member States (in some of which it has been present for more than a century) and has been regulated by the EU, the Pan...

show abstract

The Influence of Soil Properties on the Development of Grape Phylloxera Populations in Austrian Viticulture

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Is Roesleria subterranea a primary pathogen or a minor parasite of grapevines? Risk assessment and a diagnostic decision scheme

Is Roesleria subterranea a primary pathogen or a minor parasite of grapevines? Risk assessment and a diagnostic decision scheme

Effects of restricting movement between root and canopy populations of woolly apple aphid

Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health posed by Daktulosphaira vitifoliae (Fitch) in the EU territory, with the identification and evaluation of risk reduction options

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About