What is Wrong with 101-14?

13 May, 2008

As Technical Consultant for Corbans Viticulture Total Vineyard Solutions I am often asked why 101-14 doesn’t perform as well as other widely planted rootstocks and in some instances I am even told that 101-14 is “no good”. But is this most widely used rootstock variety in New Zealand deserving of such bad press?

Marlborough rootstock trial

A Marlborough rootstock trial spanning eight years included 101-14 with other common rootstock varieties (Neal et al., 2004). Yield data available for Sauvignon Blanc vines grown on 101-14 versus 3309 rootstock in Marlborough, concluded that there was no difference in yield per vine in six of the eight trial seasons. Likewise, in four of the five season’s data on yields of Pinot Noir grown on 101-14 compared to other types of rootstock, there was also no difference in yield.

Higher brix levels were recorded for Sauvignon Blanc vines on 101-14 in the first five years of the experiment than for vines on 3009. For two of the seasons the yield for vines on 3309 was higher, which could explain the lower brix in those seasons as higher yield can result in delayed veraison and hence later ripening to the same brix. However, for the other three seasons 101-14 would appear to provide an advantage over 3009 in terms of brix levels.

HortResearch investigation into the deaths of grapevines planted on 101-14 rootstock in Marlborough

The perception that vines on 101-14 may be more prone to disease and/or other viral problems pre-empted an investigation in Marlborough into the disease susceptibility of all the commonly planted rootstocks - 3309, SO4, 5C and 101-14 (Mundy 2003). Several factors were found to cause death of the vines, including grass grub damage, root rot, wood degrading fungi, water stress, frost and mechanical damage. Some vineyards involved in the survey had no problems with 101-14 suggesting there may have been some management issues such as poor drainage. The key findings of subsequent investigations concluded that grass grubs attacked the root systems of all four rootstocks equally; that vine root and shoot growth in the first season were highly dependent on rootstock and that mycorrhizal (beneficial) root fungi could colonise the root systems of all four rootstocks to high levels (Mundy 2003, Mundy et al. 2005).

In 2005, Lincoln University conducted a nationwide survey on the susceptibility of different rootstocks to the root rot disease Black foot, caused by the group of soil fungi called Cylindrocarpon. The highest incidence of the disease was in Marlborough and 101-14 was more susceptible than 3309, Riparia, Schwarzman and SO4 (Jaspers, 2005) but heavy, poorly drained soils contribute to this disease (Gubler et al., 2004). Some of the least susceptible rootstocks such as Ruggeri 140, Paulsen 1103, Rupestris are of little use for Sauvignon Blanc production especially in Marlborough.

Survival in the nursery and vineyard during vine establishment

Young vines are more prone to death or disease than established vines so the below nursery statistics provide a good indication of inherent weaknesses in different scion:rootstock combinations. Historical data over the last seven years on the survival rate of Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir on 101-14 in the nursery, is comparable to other rootstock varieties such as 5C, Riparia and Schwarzman, slightly lower than 3309 and better than Riparia. Similar results have been shown in field trials conducted at Corbans Viticulture nursery. The table below shows the survival during the first year in the nursery of the different scion:rootstock combinations. In each case, there were 4 x 30 replicates for each combination. The survival of the juvenile vines was comparable between rootstock with no inherent weakness shown in the 101-14 variety.

Table 1. Survival of Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir on different rootstock during nursery propagation.

Rootstock used	Survival of Sauvignon Blanc vines (%)	Survival of Pinot Noir vines (%)
101-14	99 ± 2	99 ± 2
3309	100 ± 0	100 ± 0
Riparia	96 ± 3	96 ± 7
Schwarzman	96 ± 3	96 ± 7
5C	98 ± 3	N/A

Two sets of vineyard field trials have been conducted to compare vine establishment of Sauvignon Blanc and Pinot Noir on different rootstock varieties. The first trial was conducted in Auckland and three replicates of 25 vines were used for each scion:rootstock combination. All of the scion:rootstock combinations had a similar survival rate and all groups had some vines that were slower to establish.

Figure 1. Survival of 1st grade Sauvignon Blanc vines grafted on different rootstock during vine establishment ( survival, and vines with shoots not reaching the 2nd wire four months after planting)

A second trial spanning over two years of plantings in a vineyard in Hawkes Bay showed similar results with only a few vines failing to establish in the vineyard. Each scion:rootstock combination had 90 vines planted in the first year and a further 60 in the second year.

Table 2. Survey of the establishment of Sauvignon Blanc vines grafted onto different rootstock in a vineyard trial

Rootstock	Dead vines (Year 1)	Stunted vine (Year 1)	Dead vines (Year 2)	Stunted vine (Year 2)
101-14	0	7	0	2
3309	2	5	1	1
Schwarzman	2	7	0	0
SO4	0	10	1	0

Again the survival and number of stunted vines is comparable between scion:rootstock combinations with no inherent weakness evident in 101-14 compared with the other rootstock varieties.

Rootstock quality and disease incidence

A trial was conducted over a two-year period using 101-14 rootstock sourced from healthy and poor quality rootstock vines. The results of the trial are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Percentage of vines grafted with healthy and poor- health rootstock that survived a second year of growth

 

Scion cultivar and rootstock health	No. of 1st grade vines after one year in the nursery1	No. of 1st grade vines after one year in the vineyard	Survival of 1st grade vines after 2 years (%)
Sauvignon Blanc on healthy rootstock	91	88	97%
Sauvignon Blanc on poor-health rootstock	70	18	26%

Most of the Sauvignon Blanc vines grafted with healthy rootstock cuttings survived a second year in the vineyard. In contrast, approximately one quarter of the Sauvignon Blanc vines that had been grafted onto poor-quality rootstock survived the second year in the vineyard. This supports advice given in industry journals on the importance of using high quality planting material (Davidson, 2003, Graham, 2007).

During this trial the rootstock vines were virus tested and found negative for Leafroll III. However, a number of fungal pathogens were found in the poor quality vines including Botryosphaeria, Phaeomoniella chlamydospora (Petri disease), Cylindrocarpon (Blackfoot disease), Phomopsis viticola and Elsinoe ampelina (Blackspot). Several scientific studies have found these pathogens in rootstock vines and the evidence is mounting that these diseases can be transferred into the young vines through the use of infected grafting material (Fourie & Halleen, 2004, Whiteman et al., 2006, Graham, 2007). Nurseries are more aware of the importance of management of fungal diseases inside the vine and there are options available for them such as hot water treatment to reduce the chances of selling infected vines.

Survey of one year old vines from different nurseries

A survey was conducted in 2007 comparing Sauvignon Blanc grafted onto 101- 14 from several nurseries. During the survey, fungal pathogens were tested using PCR and isolation techniques. Eight composite tests were carried out with a total of 20 vines tested from each nursery.

Table 4 shows the pathogens found in each composite test. Most of the vines tested were free of pathogens, but the incidence of fungal pathogens was comparable to that found in Australia (Edwards & Pascoe, 2004, Qui et al. 2007) and California (Gubler et al., 2005) with most of the samples tested containing more than one pathogen. These pathogens are found in a range of rootstock varieties, and not just 101-14 (Edwards et al., 2003, Fourie & Halleen, 2004).

Table 4. Fungal pathogens found in one year-old Sauvignon Blanc on 101-14 rootstock from different nurseries in New Zealand

Pathogen	Nursery 1	Nursery 2	Nursery 3	Nursery 4	Nursery 5
Phaeomoniella chlamydospora	0	3	0	0	1
Botryosphaeria lutea	4	4	1	1	1
Botryosphaeria parva	1	2	0	2	0
Phomopsis viticola	1	0	0	0	0
Cylindrocarpon destructans	1	1	1	2	2
Cummulative frequency of pathogens	7	10	2	5	4

Each rootstock seems to have its own Achilles heel, with 3309 more susceptible to Blackspot and Phomopsis, 5C and SO4 to Crown gall, 101-14 to Petri disease whilst Riparia generally has the most inconsistent nursery and vineyard establishment.

As the above pathogens are regarded as relatively mild pathogens, placing the vines under additional stress may cause failure during vineyard establishment or gradual decline in vine productivity. Young vines regardless the rootstock do not have large pools of reserves, and will often more readily express stress symptoms caused by poor rootstock choice, viticulture management and/or environmental factors. It is very important to minimise stress during vine establishment in order to produce young healthy vines that will be the framework for the economic and productive life of the vine.

Choosing the right rootstock for your site is vital

There is no one rootstock that is a sure bet for every grower. 101-14 has been planted extensively over the years, particularly in Marlborough. If other common rootstocks were planted as extensively and in the varying range of environments as 101-14 has been, there may not have been similar reports of death, disease and decline in some vineyards.

Vineyard development has become much more sophisticated and there is a lot more local knowledge and understanding of both rootstock, vine management specific to variety and soil types:

 

• Rootstocks will behave and perform differently in different soil conditions e.g. wet or poor drained soils, soils of differing pH and saline soils etc.
• Rootstocks will have an influence on vine physiology e.g vigour and phenology such as budburst, flowering, veraison and maturity
• Different rootstocks also tend to have different abilities to uptake nutrients.
• Information available from international rootstock recommendations should be used as information only as local conditions will be different so seek local knowledge as well.

 

The message from the information provided above is clear: There is a lot more to choosing your scion:rootstock combination than simply copying what the neighbour is doing across the fence. Seek advice in choosing the right rootstock for the conditions, and don’t discount 101-14 as an option as it just may be the variety most suitable for your site. Current vineyard developments are occurring in areas considered marginal, with greater potential for environmental stress on young vines. Therefore, gathering information about your site and then choosing the right rootstock is vital. This should be followed by good site preparation then be followed up with buying the best quality vines (Davidson, 2003).

So, let’s go back to the original question. What is wrong with 101-14? Not a hell of a lot I think. – Mart Verstappen

Davidson D (2003) The importance of using high quality planting material. The Australian Grapegrower & Winemaker 471, 28-29.

Edwards J, Pascoe IG (2004) Occurrence of Phaeomoniella chlamydospora and Phaeoacremonium aleophilum associated with Petri disease and esca in Australian grapevines. Australasian Plant Pathology 33, 273-279.

Fourie PH, Halleen F (2004) Occurrence of grapevine trunk disease pathogens in rootstock mother plants in South Africa. Australasian Plant Pathology 33, 313-315.

Graham (2007) Are nursery quality management systems adequate to prevent spread of disease? The Australian and New Zealand Grapegrower and Winemaker 521, 18-21.

Gubler WD, Rolshausen PE, Trouillase FP, Urbez JR, Voegel T, Leavitt GM, Weber EA (2005) Grapevine trunk diseases in California. Practical Winery & Vineyard (Jan/Feb), 6-20.

Neal S, Greven M, Roberts M and West B (2004). Rootstock evaluation for premium wine. Report no. 18930. HortResearch, Marlborough Research Centre.

Whiteman SA, Stewart A, Ridgway HJ and Jaspers MV (2007) Infection of rootstock mother-vines by Phaeomoniella chlamydospora results in infected young grapevines. Australasian Plant Pathology 36, 198-203.