USPP19981P2 - Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ - Google Patents
Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- USPP19981P2 USPP19981P2 US12/009,086 US908608V USPP19981P2 US PP19981 P2 USPP19981 P2 US PP19981P2 US 908608 V US908608 V US 908608V US PP19981 P2 USPP19981 P2 US PP19981P2
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- rootstock
- nematode
- root
- selections
- resistance
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Active
Links
- 235000014787 Vitis vinifera Nutrition 0.000 title claims abstract description 11
- 235000009754 Vitis X bourquina Nutrition 0.000 title claims abstract description 10
- 235000012333 Vitis X labruscana Nutrition 0.000 title claims abstract description 10
- 240000006365 Vitis vinifera Species 0.000 title claims description 11
- 241000244206 Nematoda Species 0.000 title abstract description 43
- 244000068697 Vitis rotundifolia Species 0.000 abstract description 6
- 244000070471 Vitis rupestris Species 0.000 abstract description 6
- 230000003902 lesion Effects 0.000 abstract description 6
- 241000207199 Citrus Species 0.000 abstract description 5
- 241000592374 Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Species 0.000 abstract description 5
- 235000020971 citrus fruits Nutrition 0.000 abstract description 5
- 235000004284 Vitis rupestris Nutrition 0.000 abstract description 4
- 241000219095 Vitis Species 0.000 abstract description 2
- 235000006359 Vitis rotundifolia var rotundifolia Nutrition 0.000 abstract description 2
- 241000243785 Meloidogyne javanica Species 0.000 description 17
- 239000002689 soil Substances 0.000 description 15
- 241000201421 Xiphinema index Species 0.000 description 14
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 12
- 235000013601 eggs Nutrition 0.000 description 11
- 241000196324 Embryophyta Species 0.000 description 8
- 241000734852 Vitis x champinii Species 0.000 description 8
- 241001075561 Fioria Species 0.000 description 7
- 241001516577 Phylloxera Species 0.000 description 7
- 241000412298 Harma Species 0.000 description 5
- 238000005520 cutting process Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 description 5
- 241000894007 species Species 0.000 description 5
- 241000209134 Arundinaria Species 0.000 description 4
- 241000723697 Grapevine fanleaf virus Species 0.000 description 4
- 241000227653 Lycopersicon Species 0.000 description 4
- 241000243786 Meloidogyne incognita Species 0.000 description 4
- 238000011081 inoculation Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000002054 inoculum Substances 0.000 description 4
- 241000537377 Fraxinus berlandieriana Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000243784 Meloidogyne arenaria Species 0.000 description 3
- 244000281309 Vitis aestivalis Species 0.000 description 3
- 244000223756 Vitis candicans Species 0.000 description 3
- 230000001488 breeding effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000001684 chronic effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000007850 degeneration Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000011156 evaluation Methods 0.000 description 3
- 208000015181 infectious disease Diseases 0.000 description 3
- 241000754798 Calophyllum brasiliense Species 0.000 description 2
- 206010061217 Infestation Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 235000007688 Lycopersicon esculentum Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 244000238051 Vitis monticola Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000607479 Yersinia pestis Species 0.000 description 2
- 201000010099 disease Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 208000037265 diseases, disorders, signs and symptoms Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 238000012216 screening Methods 0.000 description 2
- 208000024891 symptom Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 239000013598 vector Substances 0.000 description 2
- RZVAJINKPMORJF-UHFFFAOYSA-N Acetaminophen Chemical compound CC(=O)NC1=CC=C(O)C=C1 RZVAJINKPMORJF-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 241001124076 Aphididae Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000002566 Capsicum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001540472 Mesocriconema xenoplax Species 0.000 description 1
- 239000006002 Pepper Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000016761 Piper aduncum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000017804 Piper guineense Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000203593 Piper nigrum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000008184 Piper nigrum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000193943 Pratylenchus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000193966 Pratylenchus vulnus Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000332477 Scutellonema bradys Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001267621 Tylenchulus semipenetrans Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000700605 Viruses Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000219094 Vitaceae Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000216205 Vitis berlandieri Species 0.000 description 1
- 241001242944 Xiphinema americanum Species 0.000 description 1
- 238000003556 assay Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000009395 breeding Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000012677 causal agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 210000000349 chromosome Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 239000004927 clay Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003628 erosive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000002316 fumigant Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002068 genetic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000021021 grapes Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000002458 infectious effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000011835 investigation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000003973 irrigation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002262 irrigation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004519 manufacturing process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000005645 nematicide Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002085 persistent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000575 pesticide Substances 0.000 description 1
- ALZOLUNSQWINIR-UHFFFAOYSA-N quinmerac Chemical compound OC(=O)C1=C(Cl)C=CC2=CC(C)=CN=C21 ALZOLUNSQWINIR-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000004576 sand Substances 0.000 description 1
- 210000001519 tissue Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 210000003462 vein Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 239000002023 wood Substances 0.000 description 1
Images
Classifications
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01H—NEW PLANTS OR NON-TRANSGENIC PROCESSES FOR OBTAINING THEM; PLANT REPRODUCTION BY TISSUE CULTURE TECHNIQUES
- A01H6/00—Angiosperms, i.e. flowering plants, characterised by their botanic taxonomy
- A01H6/88—Vitaceae, e.g. Vitus [grape]
Definitions
- Botanical/commercial classification Vitis rupestris ‘A. de Serres’ ⁇ Muscadinia roundifolia ‘Cowart’. Variety Denomination: ‘8909-05’.
- Nematodes are important pests in vineyards around the world, and these soil-borne pests can be particularly problematic in California vineyards. Two factors intensify the impact of nematodes — the high value of grapes and of vineyard land. These factors force growers to ignore the steps of leaving land fallow and rotating crops, both of which reduce nematode build up and delay the selection of adapted strains. Nematicides and fumigants help control nematodes, but the use of these pesticides has been greatly restricted and their future use in doubt because they must be persistent and penetrate deeply through the soil profile to be highly effective. In addition, grape rootstocks were bred to resist grape phylloxera (a devastating root-feeding aphid), and were not selected for nematode resistance.
- the grape rootstocks ‘Freedom’ and ‘Harmony’ were released by the USDA/Fresno to provide resistance to Nematodes, but they are not resistant to grape phylloxera. More recently, McKenry at UC Riverside released two rootstocks, ‘RS3’ and ‘RS9’ (siblings of a ‘Schwarzmann’ ⁇ ‘Ramsey’ cross), designed to resist multiple nematode species and provide growers with nematode resistant rootstock alternatives. However, they have nematode resistance from a relatively narrow genetic base, which may promote the evolution of strains capable of feeding on them. Therefore, there is a need to develop nematode resistant grape rootstock.
- This invention relates to a new and distinct variety of grape rootstock with resistance to a broad array of soil-borne nematodes including root-knot, dagger, citrus, lesion, and ring nematodes.
- the variety also resists grape phylloxera.
- the variety is a cross of Vitis rupestris ‘A. de Serres’ ⁇ Muscadinia rotundifolia ‘Cowart’. The variety is recommended for vineyard sites with severe nematode infestations.
- Rootstock ‘8909-05’ is one of the rare sources of resistance to ring nematode. This plant has extremely strong and broad nematode resistance. ‘8909-05’ may also possess the same ability to control fanleaf degeneration that ‘O39-16’ does. ‘O39-16’ has strong resistance to Xiphinema index, the dagger nematode that vectors grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV), the causal agent of fanleaf degeneration. However, X. index is still able to vector GFLV into ‘O39-16’ roots while probing for feeding sites, and the virus moves into the scion where it replicates and spreads. However, fanleaf infection does not result in disease when scions are grafted onto ‘O39-16’.
- ‘O39-16’ induces fanleaf tolerance to the scions grafted on it.
- ‘O39-16’ is a V. vinifera ⁇ M. rotundifolia hybrid and its ability to induce fanleaf tolerance is probably a result of its M. rotundifolia parentage.
- ‘8909-05’ may also posses this ability, and it is a member of a group of Vitis species ⁇ M. rotundifolia selections being tested for their ability to induce fanleaf tolerance.
- FIG. 1 number of ring nematodes recovered off rootstock selections growing in 1 gal pots with three soils collected from the Gallo Livingston Collins, known to have severe and chronic nematode pressure. Results per soils are means of three replicate pots.
- FIG. 2 a photograph showing rootstock ‘8909-05’.
- a breeding program was initiated in 1990 at UC Davis to provide a group of rootstocks with broad and durable resistance to the nematodes found in California vineyards. This program commenced with an evaluation of selections that remained from breeding efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These selections from the late 1960s and early 1970s were previously screened against two root knot nematode species ( Meloidogyne incognita acrita and M. arenaria thamsei ), the lesion nematode ( Pratylenchus vulnus ), and the dagger nematode ( Xiphinema index ).
- the first phase of the selection process examined the progeny for their general vigor and horticultural characters such as internode length and the degree of lateral shoot formation.
- the best 1,000 progeny, selected from a large number of, were advanced to a rooting assay.
- Ten 2-node dormant cuttings of the best 1,000 were taken in December 1996 and tested for their ability to form roots. Rootstocks that root well generally graft well, thus this evaluation was a key indicator of their future success as rootstocks.
- One hundred of the progeny were selected, again with an effort to get a broad representation from the large number of families.
- the second phase of the selection process involved testing these 100 selections for resistance to M. incognita I3.
- This root-knot nematode isolate is capable of feeding on many rootstocks, but does not feed on rootstocks that derive their resistance from V. champini (‘Freedom’, ‘Harmony’, ‘Dog Ridge’ and ‘Ramsey’). All of the nematode testing in this breeding program utilized potted plants under greenhouse conditions with optimized soils and irrigation techniques to promote nematode feeding. Resistance to this isolate of root-knot nematode was evaluated by assaying the number of galls on the roots after inoculation with 1,000 J2 larvae (the free-living infectious stage of this nematode).
- the third phase of the selection process tested the 33 root-knot nematode resistant selections against two aggressive strains of root-knot nematode and against the dagger nematode, X. index.
- the two aggressive strains were selected in the Walker lab from soils provided by McKenry, from a declining ‘Harmony’ vineyard. Root-knot nematodes were extracted from this soil and the larvae were placed onto tomato plants with high susceptibility to root-knot nematodes. Two egg masses were collected from these infested plants and J2 larvae from each mass were put on a separate uninfested tomato plant to create new strains from a single egg mass (root-knot nematodes are parthenogenic).
- the 33 selections were then inoculated with each of the three nematode strains independently.
- the root-knot nematode screens used 1,000 J2 larvae to inoculate plants growing in 1,000 cm 3 plastic pots with a coarse sand/clay loam soil mix.
- the dagger nematode screens were done in the same pots and soils, but used 200 adult X. index as the inoculum.
- Fourteen selections did not produce egg masses when inoculated with the three root-knot nematode strains nor did they produce root tip galls after inoculation with X. index (Table 2).
- the 14 selections were subjected to a series of tests.
- the first was a combined inoculum of all four nematodes at once to determine the impact of simultaneous nematode feeding on resistance (Table 3). They were also tested against the four nematodes over a range of temperatures, 24, 27, 30 and 32° C. There was some erosion of resistance to ‘HarmA’ (the most aggressive strain of root-knot nematode) at this temperature, but 6 of the selections performed very well (Table 4). Root-knot nematode resistance is known to fail at about 28° C. in a wide range of species including tomato, pepper and plum.
- Grape phylloxera are capable of feeding and producing galls (nodosities) on the young roots of virtually all grape rootstocks and species. In order to gauge the phylloxera hosting ability of the final six selections, they were tested for the ability to support phylloxera on nodosities and compared to a set of commercial rootstocks. Three sets of young root pieces from each selection were inoculated with 10 phylloxera eggs collected from ‘101-14 Mgt’ rootstock roots. Over a 21 -day period, the number of eggs and juveniles that were produced were summed and divided by 10 (the original inoculum) to produce the average rate of increase. Table 5 presents these results for the six selections.
- ‘8909-05’ was originally thought to be too “ rotundifolia -like” to allow it to root well and because of this it was not included in either the Fresno or Santa Maria trial.
- the 2006-2007 winter was an exception; it did not root or graft at all from dormant cuttings. These cuttings were taken in early February 2007 after a very cold mid January 2007 (lows of 23° F.,-5° C.).
- ‘O39-16’ cuttings, taken at the same time also failed to root and graft.
- Mother vines of ‘8909-05’ have sterile flowers, moderately long shoots with shorter internodes and more laterals than the other 5 selections. Preliminary rooting tests found it to have moderately deep rooting angles.
- rootstock ‘8909-05’ The following is a further description of rootstock ‘8909-05’. All color descriptions are from the Munsell Color Chart for Plant Tissues with Hue Value/Chroma values. Measurements are averages from 5 mid cane leaves and presented as length of the main vein from the petiole to the end of the apical lobe ⁇ the width from lateral lobe to lateral lobe. Grape flowers are inconspicuous and never used to distinguish varieties or species except in the case of being staminate, pistillate or hermaphroditic. The size of the young leaves is strongly influenced by the environment and was not reported.
Landscapes
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Natural Medicines & Medicinal Plants (AREA)
- Physiology (AREA)
- Botany (AREA)
- Developmental Biology & Embryology (AREA)
- Environmental Sciences (AREA)
- Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)
Abstract
Rootstock ‘8909-05’ is a cross of Vitis rupestris ‘A. de Serres’×Muscadinia rotundifolia ‘Cowart’. This invention relates to a new and distinct variety of grape rootstock with resistance to a broad array of soil-borne nematodes including root-knot, dagger, citrus, lesion, and ring nematodes. The rootstock also resists grape phylloxera. Rootstock ‘8909-05’ is one of the rare sources of resistance to ring nematode. The rootstock has extremely strong and broad nematode resistance.
Description
Botanical/commercial classification: Vitis rupestris ‘A. de Serres’×Muscadinia roundifolia ‘Cowart’. Variety Denomination: ‘8909-05’.
Nematodes are important pests in vineyards around the world, and these soil-borne pests can be particularly problematic in California vineyards. Two factors intensify the impact of nematodes — the high value of grapes and of vineyard land. These factors force growers to ignore the steps of leaving land fallow and rotating crops, both of which reduce nematode build up and delay the selection of adapted strains. Nematicides and fumigants help control nematodes, but the use of these pesticides has been greatly restricted and their future use in doubt because they must be persistent and penetrate deeply through the soil profile to be highly effective. In addition, grape rootstocks were bred to resist grape phylloxera (a devastating root-feeding aphid), and were not selected for nematode resistance. The grape rootstocks ‘Freedom’ and ‘Harmony’ were released by the USDA/Fresno to provide resistance to Nematodes, but they are not resistant to grape phylloxera. More recently, McKenry at UC Riverside released two rootstocks, ‘RS3’ and ‘RS9’ (siblings of a ‘Schwarzmann’בRamsey’ cross), designed to resist multiple nematode species and provide growers with nematode resistant rootstock alternatives. However, they have nematode resistance from a relatively narrow genetic base, which may promote the evolution of strains capable of feeding on them. Therefore, there is a need to develop nematode resistant grape rootstock.
This invention relates to a new and distinct variety of grape rootstock with resistance to a broad array of soil-borne nematodes including root-knot, dagger, citrus, lesion, and ring nematodes. The variety also resists grape phylloxera. The variety is a cross of Vitis rupestris ‘A. de Serres’ ×Muscadinia rotundifolia ‘Cowart’. The variety is recommended for vineyard sites with severe nematode infestations.
Rootstock ‘8909-05’ is one of the rare sources of resistance to ring nematode. This plant has extremely strong and broad nematode resistance. ‘8909-05’ may also possess the same ability to control fanleaf degeneration that ‘O39-16’ does. ‘O39-16’ has strong resistance to Xiphinema index, the dagger nematode that vectors grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV), the causal agent of fanleaf degeneration. However, X. index is still able to vector GFLV into ‘O39-16’ roots while probing for feeding sites, and the virus moves into the scion where it replicates and spreads. However, fanleaf infection does not result in disease when scions are grafted onto ‘O39-16’. GFLV infects other X. index resistant rootstock/scion combinations, but only ‘O39-16’ induces fanleaf tolerance to the scions grafted on it. ‘O39-16’ is a V. vinifera×M. rotundifolia hybrid and its ability to induce fanleaf tolerance is probably a result of its M. rotundifolia parentage. ‘8909-05’ may also posses this ability, and it is a member of a group of Vitis species ×M. rotundifolia selections being tested for their ability to induce fanleaf tolerance.
FIG. 1: number of ring nematodes recovered off rootstock selections growing in 1 gal pots with three soils collected from the Gallo Livingston Ranch, known to have severe and chronic nematode pressure. Results per soils are means of three replicate pots.
FIG. 2: a photograph showing rootstock ‘8909-05’.
A breeding program was initiated in 1990 at UC Davis to provide a group of rootstocks with broad and durable resistance to the nematodes found in California vineyards. This program commenced with an evaluation of selections that remained from breeding efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s. These selections from the late 1960s and early 1970s were previously screened against two root knot nematode species (Meloidogyne incognita acrita and M. arenaria thamsei), the lesion nematode (Pratylenchus vulnus), and the dagger nematode (Xiphinema index). In 1990, these selections were evaluated for their ability to root and for growth habits such as brushy growth, internode length and the degree of lateral shoot production. In 1993 and 1994, the best of these selections were crossed to species chosen for their ability to reduce scion vigor or improve the rooting of the progeny. The parentage and species composition of the ‘8905-05’ and other crosses are listed in Table 1. About 5,000 progeny were planted in the vineyard and their evaluation for nematode resistance was initiated in 1996.
The first phase of the selection process examined the progeny for their general vigor and horticultural characters such as internode length and the degree of lateral shoot formation. The best 1,000 progeny, selected from a large number of, were advanced to a rooting assay. Ten 2-node dormant cuttings of the best 1,000 were taken in December 1996 and tested for their ability to form roots. Rootstocks that root well generally graft well, thus this evaluation was a key indicator of their future success as rootstocks. One hundred of the progeny were selected, again with an effort to get a broad representation from the large number of families.
The second phase of the selection process involved testing these 100 selections for resistance to M. incognita I3. This root-knot nematode isolate is capable of feeding on many rootstocks, but does not feed on rootstocks that derive their resistance from V. champini (‘Freedom’, ‘Harmony’, ‘Dog Ridge’ and ‘Ramsey’). All of the nematode testing in this breeding program utilized potted plants under greenhouse conditions with optimized soils and irrigation techniques to promote nematode feeding. Resistance to this isolate of root-knot nematode was evaluated by assaying the number of galls on the roots after inoculation with 1,000 J2 larvae (the free-living infectious stage of this nematode). Resistance was also evaluated by extracting the J2 nematodes in the pots after the root galls were counted. Later phases of the root-knot nematode screening evaluated resistance by counting the number of egg masses formed using a technique developed in the Walker lab (Cousins and Walker 2001 Plant Disease 85:1052-1054). There were no root galls on 33 of the 100 selections and the 33 selections were advanced to the next phase of screening.
The third phase of the selection process tested the 33 root-knot nematode resistant selections against two aggressive strains of root-knot nematode and against the dagger nematode, X. index. The two aggressive strains were selected in the Walker lab from soils provided by McKenry, from a declining ‘Harmony’ vineyard. Root-knot nematodes were extracted from this soil and the larvae were placed onto tomato plants with high susceptibility to root-knot nematodes. Two egg masses were collected from these infested plants and J2 larvae from each mass were put on a separate uninfested tomato plant to create new strains from a single egg mass (root-knot nematodes are parthenogenic). These new strains were multiplied on tomato and were then used to inoculate potted plants of ‘Harmony’ rootstock to verify their ability to feed aggressively on this resistant rootstock. These two strains were named ‘HarmA’ and ‘HarmC’. Later investigations determined that ‘HarmA’ was a strain of M. arenaria while ‘HarmC’ was a strain of M. incognita. The dagger nematodes were collected from several vineyards in the Napa Valley of California, which were known to have fanleaf degeneration.
The 33 selections were then inoculated with each of the three nematode strains independently. The root-knot nematode screens used 1,000 J2 larvae to inoculate plants growing in 1,000 cm3 plastic pots with a coarse sand/clay loam soil mix. The dagger nematode screens were done in the same pots and soils, but used 200 adult X. index as the inoculum. Fourteen selections did not produce egg masses when inoculated with the three root-knot nematode strains nor did they produce root tip galls after inoculation with X. index (Table 2).
In the fourth phase, the 14 selections were subjected to a series of tests. The first was a combined inoculum of all four nematodes at once to determine the impact of simultaneous nematode feeding on resistance (Table 3). They were also tested against the four nematodes over a range of temperatures, 24, 27, 30 and 32° C. There was some erosion of resistance to ‘HarmA’ (the most aggressive strain of root-knot nematode) at this temperature, but 6 of the selections performed very well (Table 4). Root-knot nematode resistance is known to fail at about 28° C. in a wide range of species including tomato, pepper and plum. The 14 selections were also evaluated for resistance to lesion (Pratylenchus vilnus), citrus (Tylenchulus semipenetrans) and ring (Mesocriconema xenoplax) nematodes (Table 3). From this series of tests a number of six rootstock selections were made, including ‘8909-05’. A summary of the ‘8909-05’ characteristics is presented below.
Grape phylloxera are capable of feeding and producing galls (nodosities) on the young roots of virtually all grape rootstocks and species. In order to gauge the phylloxera hosting ability of the final six selections, they were tested for the ability to support phylloxera on nodosities and compared to a set of commercial rootstocks. Three sets of young root pieces from each selection were inoculated with 10 phylloxera eggs collected from ‘101-14 Mgt’ rootstock roots. Over a 21 -day period, the number of eggs and juveniles that were produced were summed and divided by 10 (the original inoculum) to produce the average rate of increase. Table 5 presents these results for the six selections. Nodosity galling on young roots does not appear to damage grapevines, only feeding and galling on mature roots (tuberosities) leads to vine death. The high rate of phylloxera feeding, galling and reproduction on ‘101-14 Mgt’ (7.98 average rate of increase) has been observed in past tests. Most of the values were very low, although this ‘101-14 Mgt’ strain is well adapted to ‘9407-14’. Three of the selections were very resistant: ‘8909-05’, ‘9363-16’ and ‘9449-27’. The low values for ‘AXR#1’ demonstrate that the results of this test do not reflect field level or tuberosity level feeding and damage, and that phylloxera adapt independently to rootstock hosts.
It will take years to determine which sites each of these rootstock selections are best suited to, but they have unparalleled levels of resistance to nematodes and should excel in sites with single and mixed nematode species infestations. Four of the selections (‘9365-43’, ‘9365-85’, ‘9407-14’ and ‘9449-27’) were grafted to ‘Fiesta Seedless’ and planted in a Fresno rootstock trial in 2004. That year two of these selections (‘9365-43’ and ‘9365-85’) were also included in a Chardonnay rootstock trial in Santa Maria. The six rootstock selections in large pots using soils from the Gallo Livingston Ranch where nematode pressure from root-knot, lesion, ring and Xiphinema americanum, is known to be severe and chronic. This test was conducted to evaluate these selections under “field conditions” using infested soil without added inoculations. All of the selections performed very well against root-knot nematodes (Table 6) and two, ‘9407-14’ and ‘8909-05’, also performed very well against ring nematode (FIG. 1).
The appearance of ‘8909-05’ was originally thought to be too “rotundifolia-like” to allow it to root well and because of this it was not included in either the Fresno or Santa Maria trial. However, the variety has rooted and grafted at 80% success from dormant cuttings. The 2006-2007 winter was an exception; it did not root or graft at all from dormant cuttings. These cuttings were taken in early February 2007 after a very cold mid January 2007 (lows of 23° F.,-5° C.). ‘O39-16’ cuttings, taken at the same time also failed to root and graft. Mother vines of ‘8909-05’ have sterile flowers, moderately long shoots with shorter internodes and more laterals than the other 5 selections. Preliminary rooting tests found it to have moderately deep rooting angles.
The following is a further description of rootstock ‘8909-05’. All color descriptions are from the Munsell Color Chart for Plant Tissues with Hue Value/Chroma values. Measurements are averages from 5 mid cane leaves and presented as length of the main vein from the petiole to the end of the apical lobe×the width from lateral lobe to lateral lobe. Grape flowers are inconspicuous and never used to distinguish varieties or species except in the case of being staminate, pistillate or hermaphroditic. The size of the young leaves is strongly influenced by the environment and was not reported.
-
-
- Shoot tips.—The variety has exposed shoot tips with light green (2.5GY 6/10) expanding leaves with large broad angular teeth.
- Young leaves.—The variety has glabrous, light green (2.5GY 6/10) round to reniform young leaves with large broad angular teeth.
- Mature leaves.—The variety has small to medium sized (6.5×8.8 cm) green upper (5GY 4/8) and lower (5GY 5/6) surfaces, reniform to round in shape with relatively large and broad angular to convex teeth, and relatively short petioles. The upper surface is glabrous and waxy and folds slightly on itself, appearing more like Vitis rupestris than Muscadina rotundifolia, which it also resembles. The lower leaf surface is also glabrous, but less waxy. The petiolar sinus is a broad V shape with a slight V notch at the petiolar attachment.
- Canes.—The variety has brown (7.5YR 6/5) canes with lenticels and tightly adhering bark, relatively short internodes and relatively extensive lateral development (much like V. rupestris). The canes are round in cross-section, do not have a diaphragm and have green wood and green small dense pith (not spongy).
- Flowers.—The variety has flowers that appear to be hermaphroditic, but they have sterile as this hybrid has 2n=39 chromosomes.
-
| TABLE 1 |
| Parentage of the five nematode resistant grape rootstock selections. |
| Selection | Parentage |
| ‘8909-05’ | V. rupestris × M. rotundifolia |
| ‘9363-16’ | (V. rufotomentosa × (V. champinii ‘Dog Ridge’ × ‘Riparian |
| Gloire’)) × ‘Riparian Gloire’ | |
| ‘9365-43’ | (V. rufotomentosa × (V. champinii ‘Dog Ridge’ × ‘Riparian |
| Gloire’)) × V. champinii ‘c9038’ (probably V. candicans × V. | |
| monticola) | |
| ‘9365-85’ | (V. rufotomentosa × (V. champinii ‘Dog Ridge’ × ‘Riparian |
| Gloire’)) × V. champinii ‘c9038’ (probably V. candicans × V. | |
| monticola) | |
| ‘9407-14’ | (V. champinii ‘Ramsey’ × ‘Riparian Gloire’) × V. champinii |
| ‘c9021’ (probably V. candicans × V. berlandieri) | |
| TABLE 2 |
| Selections with broad resistance to four nematodes when inoculated |
| individually. |
| M. | M. | |||
| incognita | M. arenaria- | incognita- | ||
| Selection | X. index | I3 | HarmA | HarmC |
| ‘8909-05’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9317-06’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9332-43’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9344-03’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9363-16’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9365-43’ | R | R | R | R- |
| ‘9365-62’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9365-85’ | R- | R | R | R |
| ‘9403-35’ | R | R | R- | R- |
| ‘9403-107’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9407-14’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9449-23’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9449-25’ | R | R | R | R |
| ‘9449-27’ | R | R | R | R |
| Control Group: | ||||
| ‘1616C’ | S | R | R- | R- |
| ‘Harmony’ | S | R | S | S |
| ‘Colombard’ | S | S | S | S |
| R = Resistant, no gall symptoms or egg masses observed | ||||
| R- = Trace infection | ||||
| S = Susceptible, symptoms present, nematode reproduction supported | ||||
| TABLE 3 |
| Summary results for 14 nematode resistant selections when tested against |
| combined inoculum with three root-knot nematode (RKN) strains and dagger |
| nematode (Xi). Results of testing against citrus, lesion and ring are also reported. |
| Xi Galls in | RKN Egg Masses | ||||
| Combined | in Combined | ||||
| Genotypes | Testing | Testing | Citrus | Lesion | Ring |
| ‘8909-05’ | R | 0 | R | 0 | R | <100 | R | <10 | R | <1,000 |
| ‘9317-06’ | MS | <1 | S | <5 | R | <100 | R | <50 | HS | <20,000 |
| ‘9332-43’ | S | <5 | S | <5 | R | <100 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9344-03’ | S | <5 | MS | <1 | S | >400 | S | <200 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9363-16’ | R | 0 | R | 0 | S | >400 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9365-43’ | R | 0 | R- | <1 | R | <100 | R | <50 | MS | <5,000 |
| ‘9365-62’ | MS | <1 | S | <5 | R | <100 | R | <50 | MS | <5,000 |
| ‘9365-85’ | MS | <1 | R- | <1 | R | <100 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9403-107’ | R | 0 | S | <5 | R | <100 | R | <50 | MS | <5,000 |
| ‘9403-35’ | S | <5 | S | <5 | R | <50 | MS | <5,000 | ||
| ‘9407-14’ | R | 0 | R | 0 | R | <100 | R | <50 | LS | <3,000 |
| ‘9449-23’ | MS | <1 | R | 0 | R | <100 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9449-25’ | MS | <1 | R | 0 | R | <100 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘9449-27’ | MS | <1 | R- | <1 | R | <100 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| ‘1616C’ | S | >50 | S | <5 | S | >400 | S | <200 | HS | <20,000 |
| ‘Freedom’ | S | >10 | S | <10 | R | <100 | R | <50 | HS | <20,000 |
| ‘Colombard’ | S | >100 | S | >100 | S | <1000 | S | <300 | HS | <30,000 |
| ‘Harmony’ | S | >10 | S | <50 | S | <1000 | S | <200 | HS | <30,000 |
| ‘St. George’ | S | <100 | S | <50 | S | >400 | R | <50 | S | <10,000 |
| TABLE, 4 |
| Number of egg masses per potted plant and per gram of root after |
| inoculation with 1,000 M. arenaria ‘HarmA’ nematodes |
| and testing at 32° C. |
| Egg | Egg Mass/g | |||
| Genotype | Mass/Plant | Root | ||
| ‘Colombard’ | 442.50 | a | 155.86 | a | ||
| ‘Harmony’ | 156.00 | b | 123.28 | b | ||
| ‘9365-85’ | 32.25 | c | 16.49 | c | ||
| ‘9365-43’ | 7.25 | c | 6.04 | cd | ||
| ‘9363-16’ | 6.75 | c | 5.74 | cd | ||
| ‘9449-27’ | 0.25 | c | 0.22 | d | ||
| ‘9317-06’ | 0.00 | c | 0 | d | ||
| ‘8909-05’ | 0.00 | c | 0 | d | ||
| TABLE 5 |
| The average rate of population increase of phylloxera on nodosities |
| formed on young root tips of advanced rootstock selections and a set of |
| standard rootstocks. The phylloxera were selected from a vineyard |
| planted on ‘101-14 Mgt’ rootstock. |
| ‘8909-05’ | 0.59 | ||
| ‘9363-16’ | 0.89 | ||
| ‘9365-43’ | 1.86 | ||
| ‘9365-85’ | 1.99 | ||
| ‘9407-14’ | 9.83 | ||
| ‘9449-27’ | 0.30 | ||
| ‘1103P’ | 2.10 | ||
| ‘101-14 Mgt’ | 7.98 | ||
| ‘Teleki 5C’ | 1.38 | ||
| ‘AxR#1’ | 2.15 | ||
| ‘O39-16’ | 0.43 | ||
| TABLE 6 |
| Number of root-knot nematode egg masses recovered from rootstock |
| selections growing in 1 gal pots with soils collected from sites at the |
| Gallo Livingston vineyards. This vineyard is known to have severe and |
| chronic nematode pressure. Results per soils are means of three |
| replicate pots. |
| Selection | Soil 1 | |
Soil 3 | ||
| ‘Colombard’ | 69.02 | 89.8 | 74.6 | ||
| ‘Harmony’ | 31.2 | 0 | 2.8 | ||
| ‘St. George’ | 9.8 | 26.2 | 16.0 | ||
| ‘9365-85’ | 1 | 0 | 1.4 | ||
| ‘9407-14’ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| ‘9363-16’ | 0 | 0 | 1.4 | ||
| ‘9365-43’ | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | ||
| ‘9449-27’ | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | ||
| ‘8909-05’ | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Claims (1)
1. A novel and distinct variety of grape rootstock designated ‘8909-05’ having the characteristics described and illustrated herein.
Priority Applications (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US12/009,086 USPP19981P2 (en) | 2008-01-15 | 2008-01-15 | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
| Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
|---|---|---|---|
| US12/009,086 USPP19981P2 (en) | 2008-01-15 | 2008-01-15 | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ |
Publications (1)
| Publication Number | Publication Date |
|---|---|
| USPP19981P2 true USPP19981P2 (en) | 2009-05-12 |
Family
ID=40601727
Family Applications (1)
| Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| US12/009,086 Active USPP19981P2 (en) | 2008-01-15 | 2008-01-15 | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ |
Country Status (1)
| Country | Link |
|---|---|
| US (1) | USPP19981P2 (en) |
Cited By (1)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20090217422P1 (en) * | 2008-01-15 | 2009-08-27 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Nematode resistant grape rootstock '9407-14' |
-
2008
- 2008-01-15 US US12/009,086 patent/USPP19981P2/en active Active
Cited By (2)
| Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US20090217422P1 (en) * | 2008-01-15 | 2009-08-27 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Nematode resistant grape rootstock '9407-14' |
| USPP23532P3 (en) * | 2008-01-15 | 2013-04-16 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Nematode resistant grape plant rootstock ‘9407-14’ |
Similar Documents
| Publication | Publication Date | Title |
|---|---|---|
| Das et al. | Prunus diversity-early and present development: A review | |
| Ollat et al. | Grapevine rootstocks: origins and perspectives | |
| López‐Gómez et al. | Differential reproduction of Meloidogyne incognita and M. javanica in watermelon cultivars and cucurbit rootstocks | |
| Rubio-Cabetas et al. | Rootstock development. | |
| Esmenjaud et al. | Selection and application of resistant germplasm for grapevine nematodes management | |
| Eliwa et al. | Approach to New peach rootstocks resistant to root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species) selected from local Mit-Ghamer peach cultivar | |
| Nico et al. | Host suitability of the olive cultivars Arbequina and Picual for plant-parasitic nematodes | |
| Karayiannis et al. | Resistance to plum pox potyvirus in apricots 1 | |
| USPP19981P2 (en) | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘8909-05’ | |
| Cirulli et al. | Verticillium wilt: a threat to artichoke production | |
| USPP20051P2 (en) | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘9365-43’ | |
| USPP21358P3 (en) | Nematode resistant grapevine rootstock plant ‘9365-85’ | |
| USPP19993P2 (en) | Nematode resistant grape rootstock ‘9363-16’ | |
| USPP23532P3 (en) | Nematode resistant grape plant rootstock ‘9407-14’ | |
| Di Vito et al. | Response of wild and cultivated potato clones to Italian populations of root knot nematodes Meloidogyne spp. | |
| Rahemi et al. | Commercial grape rootstocks selections | |
| Wangai et al. | Reaction of selected coffee germplasm to root-knot nematodes in Kenya | |
| Jarvis-Shean et al. | Field testing of resistance of novel hybrid clonal walnut rootstocks to soilborne biotic stresses | |
| Skuhravý et al. | Gall midges (Dipt., Cecidomyiidae) associated with Populus tremula, P. tremuloides and their hybrid (Salicaceae) | |
| USPP22505P3 (en) | Peach tree rootstock named ‘HBOK 10’ | |
| Nesbitt | Breeding resistant grape rootstocks | |
| USPP22208P3 (en) | Peach rootstock named ‘HBOK 50’ | |
| McGranahan et al. | Walnut rootstock'RX1' | |
| Jose et al. | Phenotyping diversity population of black pepper for Phytophthora resistance | |
| USPP32999P2 (en) | Grapevine plant named ‘Errante Noir’ |
Legal Events
| Date | Code | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| AS | Assignment |
Owner name: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, CALIF Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:WALKER, ANDREW;OLMO (DECEASED), HAROLD P.;REEL/FRAME:021046/0914;SIGNING DATES FROM 20080506 TO 20080508 |