AJEV
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 52:4:304-309 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McKenry, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Anwar, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McKenry, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Anwar, S. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by McKenry, M. V.
Right arrow Articles by Anwar, S. A.

Interactions of Selected Rootstocks with Ectoparasitic Nematodes

M. V. McKenry 1, J. O. Kretsch 1, and S. A. Anwar 1

1 Department of Nematology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521

Email: mckenry{at}uckac.edu

The reaction of grape rootstocks on the population growth of three ectoparasitic nematodes was studied in microplots. After 18 months in sandy loam soil, most grape cultivars had grown larger in the presence of Xiphinema americanum than where it was absent. In the presence of Xiphinema index, only Freedom rootstock displayed a significant growth increase, but no grape cultivars received significant damage by its presence. In the presence of Mesocriconema xenoplax, only Schwarzmann rootstock grew significantly larger and most rootstocks were significantly damaged by its presence in sandy soil. Longer exposure periods are necessary for the measurement of tolerance to Xiphinema spp. VR 039-16, Schwarzmann, and Freedom rootstocks were rated as resistant against X. index on the basis of reproduction and vine growth. All other rootstocks were found susceptible to all three nematodes. Resistance to X. index was relatively easy to assess, whereas resistance to X. americanum and M. xenoplax was less clear, perhaps a result of our relatively high nematode inoculation levels.

Key words: Grape cultivars, host status, Mesocriconema xenoplax, nematodes, reproduction, Xiphinema americanum, Xiphinema index




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
S. M. Schneider, H. Ajwa, and T. J. Trout
Chemical Alternatives to Methyl Bromide for Nematode Control under Vineyard Replant Conditions
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., June 1, 2006; 57(2): 183 - 193.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Enol. Vitic.Home page
J. N. Pinkerton, M. C. Vasconcelos, T. L. Sampaio, and R. G. Shaffer
Reaction of Grape Rootstocks to Ring Nematode Mesocriconema xenoplax
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., December 1, 2005; 56(4): 377 - 385.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture.