Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Lardner, B. Stummer, Mark Sosnowskip, E. Scott (2005)
Molecular identification and detection of Eutypa lata in grapevine.Mycological research, 109 Pt 7
J. Hunt (2004)
Trichoderma and trunk disease fungi: Prospects for new protective management optionsThe Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker
Moller (1969)
A preliminary observation on apricot dieback prevention with chemicalsPlant Disease Reporter, 53
M. Carter, T. Price (1974)
Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae. II. Studies of the interaction between E. armeniacae and Fusarium lateritium, and their relative sensitivities to benzimidazole chemicals.Crop & Pasture Science, 25
Halleen (2005)
Protection of grapevine pruning wounds against fungal infectionsPhytopathologia Mediterranea, 44
M. Carter (1991)
The status of Eutypa lata as a pathogen.
G. Munkvold, J. Duthie, J. Marois (1994)
Reductions in yield and vegetative growth of grapevines due to Eutypa diebackPhytopathology, 84
T. Wicks, M. Creaser (2001)
Yearly variation in Eutypa dieback symptoms and the relationship to grapevine yieldThe Australian & New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker
M. Carter (1960)
Further studies on Eutypa armeniacae Hansf. & Carter.Crop & Pasture Science, 11
W. Moller, A. Kasimatis (1980)
Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from Eutypa dieback.Plant Disease, 64
Pascoe (1999)
Grapevine trunk diseases black goo decline, esca, Eutypa dieback and othersThe Australian Grapegrower and Winemaker, 429
W. Moller, M. Carter (1965)
Production and Dispersal of Ascospores in Eutypa ArmeniacaeAustralian Journal of Biological Sciences, 18
G. Munkvold, J. Marois (1993)
The effects of fungicides on Eutypa lata germination, growth, and infection of grapevines.Plant Disease, 77
E. Gendloff, D. Ramsdell, C. Burton (1983)
Fungicidal control of Eutypa armeniacae infecting concord grapevine in MichiganPlant Disease, 67
G. Munkvold, J. Marois (1993)
Efficacy of natural epiphytes and colonizers of grapevine pruning wounds for biological control of Eutypa dieback.Phytopathology, 83
Bourbos (2005)
Study of the possibility to control eutypa lata (Pers. Fr.) Tul. in grapevinePhytopathologia Mediterranea, 44
C. Petzoldt, W. Moller, M. Sall (1981)
Eutypa dieback of grapevine: seasonal differences in infection and duration of susceptibility of pruning woundsPhytopathology, 71
John (2005)
Protection of grapevine pruning wounds from infection by Eutypa lata using Trichoderma harzianum and Fusarium lateritiumAustralasian Plant Pathology, 34
G. Munkvold, J. Marois (1995)
Factors associated with variation in susceptibility of grapevine pruning wounds to infection by Eutypa lataPhytopathology, 85
M. Carter (1957)
Eutypa armeniacae Hansf. & Carter, sp. nov., an airborne vascular pathogen of Prunus armeniaca L. in southern AustraliaAustralian Journal of Botany, 5
M. Carter, T. Price (1975)
Biological control of Eutypa armeniacae. III. A comparison of chemical, biological and integrated controlCrop & Pasture Science, 26
A. Spiers, D. Brewster (1997)
Evaluation of chemical and biological treatments for control of Chondrostereum purpureum infection of pruning wounds in willows, apples, and peachesNew Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 25
A. Feinberg, B. Vogelstein (1983)
A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity.Analytical biochemistry, 132 1
R. Pearson (1982)
Protection of Grapevine Pruning Wounds from Infection byEutypa Armeniacaein New York StateAmerican Journal of Enology and Viticulture
R. Molyneux, N. Mahoney, P. Bayman, R. Wong, K. Meyer, N. Irelan (2002)
Eutypa dieback in grapevines: differential production of acetylenic phenol metabolites by strains of Eutypa lata.Journal of agricultural and food chemistry, 50 6
P. Tey-Rulh, I. Philippe, J. Renaud, G. Tsoupras, P. Angelis, J. Fallot, R. Tabacchi (1991)
Eutypine, a phytotoxin produced by Eutypa lata the causal agent of dying-arm disease of grapevine.Phytochemistry, 30
D. Ramos, W. Moller, H. English (1975)
Production and dispersal of ascospores of Eutypa armeniacae in California.Phytopathology, 65
W. Moller, A. Kasimatis (1978)
Dieback of grapevines caused by Eutypa armeniacae.Plant disease reporter, 62
Melanson (2002)
Molecular detection of Phomopsis taxa 1 and 2 in grapevine canes and budsAustralasian Plant Pathology, 31
J. Ferreira, F. Matthee, A. Thomas (1991)
Biological control of Eutypa lata on grapevine by an antagonistic strain of Bacillus subtilisPhytopathology, 81
W. Moller, A. Kasimatis (1981)
Further evidence that Eutypa armeniacae-not Phomopsis viticola-incites dead arm symptoms on grape.Plant Disease, 65
P. Rolshausen, W. Gubler (2005)
Use of Boron for the Control of Eutypa Dieback of Grapevines.Plant disease, 89 7
Siebert (2001)
Eutypa: The economic toll on vineyardsWines and Vines
Background and Aims: Eutypa dieback is a major threat to the sustainability and productivity of the viticulture industry worldwide. The fungicide benomyl has been the most effective treatment to protect wounds against infection by ascospores of Eutypa lata and to control eutypa dieback. However, because of the withdrawal of benomyl from the market, there is a need to develop alternatives to protect pruning wounds. Methods and Results: Twenty‐five compounds were evaluated in laboratory experiments and field trials. A selection of the compounds effective at inhibiting germination and/or mycelial growth in the laboratory were further evaluated in the field. Of the 15 fungicides tested, carbendazim was the most effective in reducing colonisation of pruning wounds by E. lata in the field. Other fungicides, including fluazinam, pyrimethanil and pyraclostrobin, reduced colonisation of wounds by E. lata but require further evaluation at higher concentrations. Physical barriers such as acrylic paint (with or without fungicides) and a commercial tree wound paste formulated with fungicides (Garrison) also protected pruning wounds from infection by E. lata. Conclusions: Fungicides and physical barriers have been identified for the control of eutypa dieback in grapevines. The registration of Bavistin (carbendazim) and Garrison is being sought for use on pruning wounds on grapevines in Australia. Significance of the Study: Protection of pruning wounds is essential for the management of eutypa dieback in grapevines. Identification of alternative methods for disease control will provide significant economic benefits for the grapegrowing industry.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research – Wiley
Published: Jul 1, 2008
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.