Paper · 2021 · Plant Health Progress

Evaluation of Biological and Chemical Pruning Wound Protectants to Control Grapevine Trunk Disease Pathogens Eutypa lata and Neofusicoccum parvum

Robert Blundell; Akif Eskalen

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
16
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Grapevine trunk diseases, caused by many different fungal pathogens, are among the most economically important diseases affecting the grapevine industry worldwide. Pruning wounds are the main point of entry for these fungal pathogens and, thus, disease control is focused on preventative pruning wound protection by chemical products or biological control agents (BCAs). In this study, we evaluated a broad variety of chemical products and BCAs already registered or at the experimental stage in greenhouse and in field trials for the protection of table- and wine-grape vines against infection by Eutypa lata and Neofusicoccum parvum, major pathogens responsible for Eutypa and Botryosphaeria dieback, respectively. Our study showed that Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsii consistently provided pruning wound protection in greenhouse and field trials, with a mean percent disease control (MPDC) of 88 and 100% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, when compared with the water-treated inoculated positive control (P < 0.05). The chemical protectants thiophanate-methyl + myclobutanil, fluopyram, and trifloxystrobin were also able to effectively protect wounds, with a MPDC of up to 86% when compared with the water-treated inoculated positive control (P < 0.05). When biological treatments were evaluated for recovery from treated canes at the end of the growing season, Trichoderma-based treatments had a rate of recovery between 0 and 100%, Aureobasidium-based treatments had a recovery rate between 25 and 100%, and Bacillus-based treatments had a recovery rate between 0 and 25%.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsii protected grapevine pruning wounds against E. lata with 88% mean disease control.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsiie0
Interactor
E. lataEutypa latae0pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsiiTrichoderma asperellumTrichoderma gamsiie0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease control (MPDC)e0
Direction
protectione0
Value
88e0
Comparator
water-treated inoculated positive controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma asperellum
Trichoderma asperellum · Second interactorTashkoskip · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsii consistently provided pruning wound protection in greenhouse and field trials, with a mean percent disease control (MPDC) of 88 and 100% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, when compared with the water-treated inoculated positive control (P < 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 739–1030 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsii protected grapevine pruning wounds against N. parvum with 100% mean disease control.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsiie0
Interactor
N. parvumNeofusicoccum parvume0pathogen
Second interactor
Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsiiTrichoderma asperellumTrichoderma gamsiie0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
disease control (MPDC)e0
Direction
protectione0
Value
100%e0
Comparator
water-treated inoculated positive controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma asperellum
Trichoderma asperellum · Second interactorTashkoskip · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma asperellum and T. gamsii consistently provided pruning wound protection in greenhouse and field trials, with a mean percent disease control (MPDC) of 88 and 100% for E. lata and N. parvum, respectively, when compared with the water-treated inoculated positive control (P < 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 739–1030 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Thiophanate-methyl plus myclobutanil, fluopyram, and trifloxystrobin protected grapevine wounds with up to 86% mean disease control.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
thiophanate-methyl + myclobutanil, fluopyram, and trifloxystrobine0
Outcome
MPDCe0
Direction
protecte0
Value
up to 86%e0
Comparator
water-treated inoculated positive controle0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The chemical protectants thiophanate-methyl + myclobutanil, fluopyram, and trifloxystrobin were also able to effectively protect wounds, with a MPDC of up to 86% when compared with the water-treated inoculated positive control (P < 0.05).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1031–1269 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Trichoderma treatments were recovered from treated grapevine canes at rates of 0 and 100%.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
Trichoderma-based treatmentse0
Interactor
TrichodermaTrichodermae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
rate of recoverye0
Value
0 and 100%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Trichoderma
Trichoderma · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma-based treatments had a rate of recovery between 0 and 100%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1378–1448 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aureobasidium treatments were recovered from treated grapevine canes at rates of 25 and 100%.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
Aureobasidium-based treatmentse0
Interactor
AureobasidiumAureobasidiume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
recovery ratee0
Value
25 and 100%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Aureobasidium
Aureobasidium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)This image was created by user Tom Volk (TomVolk) at Mushroom Observer , a source for mycological images. You can contact this user here . · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aureobasidium-based treatments had a recovery rate between 25 and 100%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1450–1520 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Bacillus treatments were recovered from treated grapevine canes at rates of 0 and 25%.

Taxon
GrapevineVitist0
Treatment
Bacillus-based treatmentse0
Interactor
Bacilluse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
recovery ratee0
Value
0 and 25%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vitis
Vitis · Taxon · picture of the genus (one of its species)Victor M. Vicente Selvas · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacillus-based treatments had a recovery rate between 0 and 25%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1526–1589 · show in text ↑
t0

“Grapevine Trunk Disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 75–98 · show in text ↑

thiophanate-methyl · control · VitisResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

trifloxystrobin · control · VitisResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

myclobutanil · control · VitisResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.