Australasian Plant Pathology

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 569–575 | Cite as

Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritium

  • S. John
  • T. J. Wicks
  • J. S. Hunt
  • M. F. Lorimer
  • H. Oakey
  • E. S. Scott


Trichoderma harzianum applied to grapevine pruning wounds in a spore suspension and in the commercial formulations of Trichoseal, Trichoseal spray and Vinevax pruning wound dressing reduced recovery of Eutypa lata in the glasshouse and in the field. Recovery of E. lata was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) when fresh wounds were treated with viable T. harzianum 2 or 7 days before inoculation with ascospores of the pathogen in the glasshouse. In field experiments, recovery of E. lata was significantly reduced (P < 0.001) when fresh pruning wounds were treated with spores of T. harzianum, Fusarium lateritium or Vinevax 1 or 14 days before ascospores were applied. In general, a delay of 14 days between wounding and inoculation with ascospores of E. lata reduced recovery of the pathogen compared with inoculation on the day after wounding.

Additional keywords

biological control fungal antagonists grapevine trunk disease 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson PC, Brodbeck BV (1989) Chemical composition of xylem exudate from bleeding spurs of Vitis rotundifolia Noble and Vitis hybrid Suwanee in relation to pruning date. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 40, 155–160.Google Scholar
  2. Baker KF (1957) The U. C. system for producing healthy container-grown plants. California Agricultural Experiment Station Manual 23, 1–332.Google Scholar
  3. Biggs AR (1986) Prediction of lignin and suberin deposition in boundary zone tissue of wounded tree bark using accumulated degree days. Journal of the American Society for Horticulture Science 111, 757–760.Google Scholar
  4. Carter MV (1971) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11, 687–692. doi: 10.1071/EA9710687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter MV (1983) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 5. Guidelines for establishing routine wound protection in commercial apricot orchards. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 23, 429–436. doi: 10.1071/EA9830429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carter MV (1991) ‘The status of Eutypa lata as a pathogen.’ Phytopathological Paper No 32. (CAB International: Wallingford, UK)Google Scholar
  7. Carter MV, Moller WJ (1970) Duration and susceptibility of apricot pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 915–920. doi: 10.1071/AR9700915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter MV, Moller WJ (1971) The quantity of inoculum required for infection of apricot and other Prunus species by Eutypa armeniacae. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 11, 684–686. doi: 10.1071/EA9710684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carter MV, Price TV (1974) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 2. Studies of the interaction between Eutypa armeniacae and Fusarium lateritium and their relative sensitivities to benzimidazole chem icals. AustraHan JournaI of Agricultural Research 25, 105–119. doi: 10.1071/AR9740105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carter MV, Price TV (1975) Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae 3. A comparison of chemical, biological and integrated control. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 537–543. doi: 10.1071/AR9750537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chapius L, Richard L, Dubos B (1998) Variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa lata in South-western France. Plant Pathology 47, 463–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doster MA, Bostock RM (1988) Quantification of lignin formation in almond bark in response to wounding and infection by Phytophthora species. Phytopathology 78, 473–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ferreira JHS, Matthee FN, Thomas AC (1991) Biological control of Eutypa lata on grapevine by an antagonistic strain of Bacillus subtilis. Phytopathology 81, 283–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gendloff EH, Ramsdell DC, Burton CL (1983) Fungicidal control of Eutypa armeniacae infecting Concord grapevine in Michigan. Plant Disease 67, 754–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hjeljord LG, Stensvand A, Tronsmo A (2000) Effect of temperature and nutrient stress on the capacity of commercial Trichoderma products to control Botrytis cinerea and Mucor piriformis in greenhouse strawberries. Biological Control 19, 149–160. doi: 10.1006/bcon.2000.0859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. John S, Scott ES, Wicks TJ, Hunt JS (2004) Interactions between E. lata and Trichoderma harzianum. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 43, 95–104.Google Scholar
  17. Lifshitz R, Windham MT, Baker R (1986) Mechanisms of biological control of pre-emergence damping off of pea seed treatment with Trichoderma spp. Phytopathology 76, 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Binary data. In ‘Generalized linear models’, pp. 98–148. (Chapman and Hall: London)Google Scholar
  19. Moller WJ, Kasimatis AN (1978) Dieback of grapevines caused by Eutypa armeniacae. Plant Disease Reporter 62, 254–258.Google Scholar
  20. Moller WJ, Kasimatis AN (1981) Further evidence that Eutypa armeniacae — not Phomopsis viticola — incites dead arm symptoms on grape. Plant Disease 65, 429–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Munkvold GP, Marois JJ (1993a) Efficacy of natural epiphytes and colonizers of grapevine pruning wounds for biological control of eutypa dieback. Phytopathology 83, 6724–6729.Google Scholar
  22. Munkvold GP Marois JJ (1993b) The effect of fungicides on Eutypa lata germination, growth and infection of grapevines. Plant Disease 11, 50–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Munkvold GP, Marois JJ (1995) Factors associated with variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa lata. Phytopathology 85, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson EB, Harman GE, Nash GT (1988) Enhancement of Trichoderma-induced biological control of Pythium seed rot and pre-emergence damping off of peas. Soil Biology & Biochemistry 20, 145–150. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(88)90030-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ophel K, Nicholas PR, Magarey PA, Bass AW (1990) Hot water treatment of dormant grape cuttings reduces crown gall incidence in a field nursery. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 4, 325–329.Google Scholar
  26. Papavizas GC (1985) Trichoderma and Gliocladium. Biology, ecology and potential for biological control. Annual Review of Phytopathology 23, 23–54. doi: 10.1146/ 090185.000323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petzoldt CH, Moller WJ, Sail MA (1981) Eutypa dieback of grapevine: seasonal differences in infection and duration of susceptibility of pruning wounds. Phytopathology 71, 540–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramos EE, Moller WJ, English H (1975) Susceptibility of apricot pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa armeniacae. Phytopathology 65, 1359–1364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rolshausen PE, Gubler WD (2005) Use of boron for the control of Eutypa dieback of grapevines. Plant Disease 89, 734–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sosnowski MR, Creaser ML, Wicks TJ (2004) Evaluating fungicides as pruning wound treatments to control eutypa dieback. The Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower & Winemaker 485a, 51–53.Google Scholar
  31. Trese AT, Burton CL, Ramsdell DC (1982) Effects of winter and spring pruning and post inoculation cold weather on infection of grapevine by Eutypa armeniacae. Phytopathology 12, 438–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wicks TJ, Hall B (1997) Eutypa dieback, a serious disease. The Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker 405, 61–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Plant Pathology Society 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. John
    • 1
  • T. J. Wicks
    • 2
  • J. S. Hunt
    • 3
  • M. F. Lorimer
    • 4
  • H. Oakey
    • 4
  • E. S. Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.Discipline of Plant and Pest ScienceUniversity of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia
  2. 2.South Australian Research and Development InstituteAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Agrimm Technologies LtdChristchurchNew Zealand
  4. 4.BiometricsSAUniversity of Adelaide/SARDIGlen Osmond

Personalised recommendations