rootstocks is a long-term solution for managing nematode

1

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

Fumigated Non-fumigated Non-fumigated,inoculated

Aver

age

Vine

Yie

ld (l

bs)

2018 Yield(Rootstocks Combined)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00Av

erag

e Vi

ne Y

ield

(lbs

)2017 Yield

(Soil Pretreatment Combined)

Rootstocks for Nematode Management in a Vineyard Replant Scenario -- An Update --

Michelle Moyer1, Katherine East2, Maria Mireles1, Bernadette Gagnier1, and Inga Zasada31Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture Research and Extension Center, Prosser, WA USA

2Michigan State University, Southwest Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, MI USA3United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service, Corvallis, OR USA

An older vineyard was prepared for replanting in Fall 2014 and sections of the vineyard fumigated (or non-fumigated) with drip-applied Vapam1. Vines were removed by Spring 2015, and replanted to Char-donnay grafted to different rootstocks (Table 1). Entire rows were dedicated to a single rootstock, and rootstocks were replicated 4 times. Fumigation was nested within a row; in non-fumigated sections 10 vines were inoculated with supplemental northern root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne hapla) at planting. The vineyard is commercially managed2,3 and vine performance has been monitored since 2015.

ACKNOWlEDGEMENTSFunding for this project has been provided by the Washington State Grape and Wine Research Program, the USDA-ARS, and USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project #1016563. The authors would like to thank Mimi Nye, Pedro Flores, Kari Smasne, Dr. Julie Tarara, and Melinda Garza of Ste. Michelle Wine Estates for their expertise and vineyard support. The authors would also like to thank Ashley Boren, Eric Gale, Margaret McCoy, Jensena Newhouse, and Jack Pinkerton for their technical assistance.

ADDITIONAl RESOURCES1. Moyer, M.M., A.N. Boren, and J.M. Tarara. 2017. Dual Fumigant and Herbicide Use Optimizes Replanting Preparation in a Virus and Nematode-Affected Vine-

yard. Catalyst: Discovery into Practice: 2: 55-61.2. Hoheisel, G.A. and M.M. Moyer. (eds). Pest Management Guide for Grapes in Washington. Updated annually. WSU Extension Publication # EB0762. 3. Moyer, M.M, and S. O’Neal. (eds). 2014. Field Guide for Integrated Pest Management in Pacific Northwest Vineyards: Pocket Version (Spanish-English). Pacific

Northwest Extension Publication #PNW654.

Table 1 - Rootstocks selected for the trial. Most nematode resistance testing and screens have been done against root-knot and dagger nematode species not found in Washington (M. incognita and X. index).

Rootstock Selection Reasoning Other Attributes*

Teleki 5C(berlandieri x riparia)

Decent nematode (except dagger) and phylloxera resistance.

Tends to moderate vigor, and earlier ripening. Medium salinity tolerance. Prefers moist, clay soils. Easily propagated.

101-14 MTG(riparia x rupestris)

Moderate to high nematode resistance. Bonus of phylloxera and reported crown gall resistance.

Tends to low vigor and earlier ripening. Lower drought resis-tance. Medium salinity tolerance. Easily propagated.

1103 Paulsen(berlandieri x rupestris)

Susceptible to dagger nematode, mod-erate to high root-knot nematode resis-tance. Phylloxera resistant.

Tends to high vigor, but is relatively drought resistant. Medium salinity tolerance. Easily propagated.

Harmony([solonis x Othello] x Dogridge)

Specifically bred for nematode resis-tance. It is not phylloxera resistant, but reported crown gall resistance.

Low-medium salinity tolerance. Prefers sandy loam to loamy sand soils. Medium to high propagation ease.

Own-Rooted(vinifera)

Current WA-industry standard. Sus-ceptible to nematodes and phylloxera.

Low salinity tolerance. Adapted to nuetral to more alkaline soils. Easily propagated.

Self-Grafted(vinifera)

Grafting control. Susceptible to nema-todes and phylloxera.

Low salinity tolerance. Adapted to nuetral to more alkaline soils. Easily propagated.

*Rootstock Resources: (1) http://iv.ucdavis.edu/files/24347.pdf (2) https://www.inlanddesert.com/category/rootstock/ (3) http://www.novavine.com/me-dia/11790/Rootstock-Chart-.pdf (4) https://www.sunridgenurseries.com/index.php/clonal-selections/rootstock-chart

Using rootstocks is a long-term solution for managing nematode-associated vine decline.

THE PROjECT THE ROOTSTOCKS

NEMATODES VIGOR YIElD

Teleki 5C 1103 P Self-grafted Own-rooted 101-14 MTG Harmony

Out with the old. In with the new. Observe and learn.

In 2019, neither soil pretreatment (p=0.08) or rootstock (p=0.22) influenced yield. These annual fluctations in yield highlight how management, such as crop adjustment and ir-rigation / nutrition regimes, likely influences yield more than rootstock genetics and pest pressure (nematodes) that have more indirect effects on fruit.

Soil pretreatment did not influence yield (p=0.55), but rootstock did (p=0.003).

Soil pretreatment influenced yield (p=0.02), but rootstock did not (p=0.06).

ab a

abab

b b

a abb

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Prun

ing

Wei

ghts

(lbs

)

Dormant Pruning Weights (2016-2017)

101-14 Mtg 1103 P Harmony Teleki 5C Self-Grafted Own-Rooted

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


Prun

ing

Wei

ghts

(lbs

)



0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00


Prun

ing

Wei

ghts

(lbs

)



0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

101-14 Mtg 1103 P Harmony Teleki 5C Own-Rooted Self-GraftedAdj

uste

d Pr

unin

g W

eigh

ts (k

g)


Rootstock (p<0.0001) and soil pretreatment (p=0.0009) influ-enced scion vigor in 2016. Har-mony was the most vigorous; Teleki 5C and the own-rooted vines were the least. Vines in the non-fumigated plots were more vigorous than vines in in-oculated plots.

Rootstock (p<0.0001) and soil pretreatment (p=0.0087) influ-enced scion vigor in 2017. Har-mony and 101-14 MTG were the most vigorous; own-rooted vines were the least. Vines in the inoculated plots were less vigorous than the others.

Rootstock (p<0.0001) and soil pretreatment (p=0.0006) influ-enced scion vigor in 2018. All rootstocks were more vigorous than the own-rooted vines. Har-mony was more vigorous than Teleki 5C. Vines in the inocu-lated plots were less vigorous than the others.

In 2019, vines were prepruned, which reduced data variability. Soil pretreatment did not influ-ence scion vigor (p=0.72), but rootstock did (p=0.0004). Har-mony and Teleki 5C were more vigorous than own-rooted. Oth-ers were intermediary.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Fall 2014 Fall 2015 Fall 2016 Fall 2017 Fall 2018 Fall 2019

#/25

0 g

soil

Dagger Nematode Fumigated 101-14 Mtg

1103 PHarmonyTeleki 5CSelf-GraftedOwn-Rooted

FumigationFall 2014

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


#/25

0 g

soil

Dagger Nematode Non-fumigated

101-14 Mtg1103 PHarmonyTeleki 5CSelf-GraftedOwn-Rooted

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


#/25

0 g

soil

Northern Root-KnotNon-fumigated


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


#/25

0 g

soil

Northern Root-KnotFumigated


FumigationFall 2014

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


#/25

0 g

soil

Northern Root-KnotNon-fumigated + Inoculated


InoculationSpring 2015

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600


#/25

0 g

soil

Northern Root-KnotNon-fumigated + Inoculated


InoculationSpring 2015

Dagger nematode is sensitve to fumigation and soil distur-bance. Five years post-fu-migation, dagger nematode populations are still reduced.

The rootstocks evaluated here do not have resistance to dag-ger nematode. However, the species of dagger nematode in Washington state is not a nematode of primary concern.

The effects of fumigation where gone by Spring 2016 (p=0.18). Rootstock differences in nema-tode host status were gone by Fall 2019 (p=0.08).

Despite this lack of differences in host status by Fall 2019, the rootstocks were still more vig-orous (higher pruning weights) than the own-rooted vines (see right). This might be the primary way these rootstocks mitigate the effects of nematode feeding; through enhanced vine vigor.

rootstocks is a long-term solution for managing nematode

Documents