Rootstock Screening for Phylloxera Resistance Under Controlled Conditions Using Selected Phylloxera Clonal Lineages

Korosi, G.A.; Carmody, B.M.; Powell, Kevin

doi:10.17660/actahortic.2011.904.4

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the insect population could not be observed on the roots of 50% of plants. The issue of Kober 5BB vulnerability to phylloxera has been controversially discussed in the literature and the rootstock has been recently denoted as resistant [1,3] tolerant [4,10] and even highly susceptible [8]. Our results confirm the tolerance of the rootstock Kober 5BB to the specific phylloxera strain used for inoculations, but we are aware that the environmental conditions [5] and the insect aggressiveness play important roles in the host-plant interaction and can significantly modulate it [1,6] Hence, speculations on what caused the failure of infection on roots of some plants are difficult to test particularly in view of the fact that neighboring R + L plants were successfully root infected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kober 5BB is a breed between American native species V. berlandieri and V. riparia. It has gained worldwide importance thanks to phylloxera-tolerance and its adaptability to a wide range of soil types [4,7]. Note that, in general, tolerance does not mean resistance.…”

Section: Experimental Design and Plant Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is also affected by the parentage (of resistant and susceptible species) of the often complex hybrids employed as rootstocks or grapevine cultivars. Furthermore, environmental conditions (diverse biotic-abiotic stress factors) and phylloxera strain play important roles in the plant-insect dyad [1,[3][4][5]. The roots of American Vitis species (e.g., V. riparia, V. berlandieri, etc.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Grafted plants with American parentage have been efficiently used for decades in buffering the damage caused by root feeding [7]. However, recent observations report breakdowns of rootstock resistance in commercial vineyards, as well as substantial damage of leaf-feeding phylloxera on formerly resistant scions [4,[8][9][10]. The effects of root-feeding phylloxera on plant metabolism have been largely addressed [5,[11][12][13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Leaf vs. Whole-Plant Biotic Attack: Does Vine Physiological Response Change?

Savi

Herrera

Forneck

2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phylloxera is one of the most invasive and widespread insects in viticulture. An increase in populations feeding on leaves and/or roots of formerly resistant grapevines has been observed, but information on leaf and whole plant phylloxera infestation effects is lacking. We monitored the water and carbon metabolism of vines (one rootstock x scion combination) inoculated with insects’ eggs on leaves (L) or both leaves and roots (R+L). Nonstructural carbohydrates (NSC) in infested and noninfested tissue of different organs and plant biomass were measured at the end of the experiment. At the peak of the biotic stress treatment, the plants reduced transpiration by about 30% compared to control, while photosynthesis remained unaffected. Lower soluble NSC were measured in infested than in the nearby noninfested tissue of both L and R+L groups, suggesting sugar consumption by the insect, while infested roots increased starch content by fivefold. NSC were depleted in noninfested roots of R+L plants as well, giving strength to the hypothesis of intense metabolites translocation in favor of the insect. A more distinct physiological depression in R+L vines compared to L was highlighted, even if the total biomass reduction was more marked in L plants. Our preliminary results suggest that the insect reprograms plant metabolism stimulating a more conservative water use, while competing with the host plant for carbon resources. Further studies should validate current results and quantify the NSC invested in the plant’s defense against the pest.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Design and Plant Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Leaf vs. Whole-Plant Biotic Attack: Does Vine Physiological Response Change?

Savi

Herrera

Forneck

2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As complex hybrids were utilized for mapping phylloxera resistance loci in MN1264 and MN1246 [26], it is difficult to predict the biotype(s) used in their screening assay. Using the in planta -potted bioassay, Börner was shown to be resistant to G1 and G4, as well as four other Australian genetic strains [3, 34]; however, it is not clear if this broad spectrum of resistance to the six genetic strains is mediated by RDV1 . In addition, preliminary results indicate that V. cinerea C2-50 provides resistance to the G30 genetic strain (Smith HM and Powell KS, unpublished), but whether this is mediated by RDV2 is unclear.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic identification of SNP markers linked to a new grape phylloxera resistant locus in Vitis cinerea for marker-assisted selection

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundGrape phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch) is a major insect pest that negatively impacts commercial grapevine performance worldwide. Consequently, the use of phylloxera resistant rootstocks is an essential component of vineyard management. However, the majority of commercially available rootstocks used in viticulture production provide limited levels of grape phylloxera resistance, in part due to the adaptation of phylloxera biotypes to different Vitis species. Therefore, there is pressing need to develop new rootstocks better adapted to specific grape growing regions with complete resistance to grape phylloxera biotypes.ResultsGrapevine rootstock breeding material, including an accession of Vitis cinerea and V. aestivalis, DRX55 ([M. rotundifolia x V. vinifera] x open pollinated) and MS27-31 (M. rotundifolia specific hybrid), provided complete resistance to grape phylloxera in potted plant assays. To map the genetic factor(s) of grape phylloxera resistance, a F1 V. cinerea x V. vinifera Riesling population was screened for resistance. Heritability analysis indicates that the V. cinerea accession contained a single allele referred as RESISTANCE TO DAKTULOSPHAIRA VITIFOLIAE 2 (RDV2) that confers grape phylloxera resistance. Using genetic maps constructed with pseudo-testcross markers for V. cinerea and Riesling, a single phylloxera resistance locus was identified in V. cinerea. After validating SNPs at the RDV2 locus, interval and linkage mapping showed that grape phylloxera resistance mapped to linkage group 14 at position 16.7 cM.ConclusionThe mapping of RDV2 and the validation of markers linked to grape phylloxera resistance provides the basis to breed new rootstocks via marker-assisted selection that improve vineyard performance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12870-018-1590-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract