Content uploaded by Salimov Vugar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Salimov Vugar on Mar 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vitis 54 (Special Issue), 203–205 (2015)
Sanitary status of the Eurasian wild grapevine in the South Caucasian region
D. MAGHRADZE1), V. SALIMOV2), G., MELYAN3), M. MUSAYEV4), C. A. OCETE5), R. CHIPASHVILI1), O. FAILLA6) and R. OCETE5)
1) Institute of Horticulture, Viticulture and Oenology, Agricultural University of Georgia, Tbilisi, Georgia
2) Institute of Viticulture and Winemaking, Absheron, Azerbaijan
3) Scientific Center of Viticulture, Fruit-Growing and Wine-Making, Yerevan, Armenia
4) Genetic Resources Institute of the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Baku, Azerbaijan
5) Laboratorio de Entomología Aplicada, Universidad de Sevilla, Spain
6) Dipartamento di Scienze Agrarie e Ambientali, Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
Summary
A prospecting on the sanitary status of the aerial
organs and roots of the Eurasian wild grapevine, Vi-
tis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris (Gmelin) Hegi, was carried
out on 14 natural populations situated along river bank
forests, floodplains and colluvial positions in Georgia
(Marneuli, Mtskheta and Gori districts, Gardabani
Protected area and Lagodekhi Reserve), Armenia
(Akhtala and Tavoush regions) and Azerbaijan (Quba
region). These zones are included within the Holarctic
kingdom, Eurosiberian region, and to the Caucasian,
Euxine and Hyrcanian biogeographical provinces. The
results of study indicate that roots are free of symp-
toms caused by phylloxera, rot fungi and root-knot
nematodes. Symptoms caused by the erineum strain of
Colomerus vitis (Pagenstecher) and Calepitrimerus vi-
tis (Nalepa) (Acari, Eriophyidae) are frequent. On the
other hand, damages caused by powdery and downy
mildews, Erysiphe necator (Schweinitz) Burrill and
Plasmopara viticola (Berkeley and Curtis) Berlease and
de Toni), respectively, show an irregular intensity on
leaves belonging to different vines from each location.
Key words: Vitis sylvestris; mites; nematods; phyl-
loxera; Oidium; Mildew.
Introduction
Vitis vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris (Gmelin) Hegi consti-
tutes the only taxon of the cited genus growing in natural
ecosystems of Eurasia from Afghanistan to the Iberian pe-
ninsula (ARNOLD 2002) and the African Maghreb (OCETE et
al. 2007). Fossils of grapevine from Upper Pliocene were
found in the territory of Azerbaijan (NEGRUL 1959). The
South Caucasian region constituted a refuge for this dio-
ecious parental of grapevine during ice ages of the Pleis-
tocene (MUSAYEV and AKPAROV 2013).
The first confirmation of grape domestication is evi-
dent in the Shulaveri – Shomu Tepe culture (Georgia and
Azerbaijan) archaeological findings, where wine vessels
and seeds from cultivated grape, from around 8,000 B.P.
were discovered (CHILASHVILI 2004). This process of hu-
man selection developed almost 800-900 cultivars existing
in the South Caucasian area (NEGRUL 1970), considered the
region to be the main cradle of viticulture and winemak-
ing (VAVILOV 1926). Wild grapes still constitute a resource
for countryside people living in the region to produce
medicines, wine, including a flavored dessert one adding
aromatic male inflorescences at flowering time (BABAYEV
1988, OGANESYAN 2005, RIVERA et al. 2012). These inflo-
rescences are also used for artificial pollination of func-
tionally female cultivars (EFENDIYEV 1972, CHOLOKASHVILI
1983). The flowers are good honey organs (CHOLOKASH-
VILI 1983) and their boiled mixture has been suggested
as a method to preserve the wine by ALISHAN (1877). The
unripe fruits are used for preparation of a marinade (SOS-
NOWSKI 1947, CHOLOKASHVILI 1983) or for a special sauce
(PRUIDZE 1974).
The coexistence of such plant material with pests and
diseases for years could be a source of environmental ad-
aptation. So the aim of the present paper was to study the
sanitary status of wild grape populations situated in allu-
vial and colluvial positions in Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia with the idea to evaluate the current situation for
its protection in the South Caucasus.
Material and Methods
The sanitary prospection of natural populations of wild
grape was organized in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
in October 2013. These zones are included within the Hol-
arctic kingdom, Eurosiberian region, and to the Caucasian,
Euxine and Hyrcanian biogeoghraphical provinces. The
location based on GPS coordinates and the habitats of the
different populations studied is shown in Tab. 1. To detect
the presence of symptoms caused by parasitic organisms on
roots, they were unearthed up to 40 cm of depth - minimum
one plant per population was observed. Samples of fine
roots were observed under binocular in order to monitor
damages caused by phylloxera, Daktulosphaira vitifoliae
(Fitch) (Homoptera, Phylloxeridae), root-knot nematodes
and rot fungal diseases (Tab. 2). In the aerial part of the
all inspected vines, samples of 30 leaves per plant were
observed from the available shoots up to 4 m height to ex-
amine symptoms caused by parasitic species.
Correspondence to: Dr. D. MAGHRADZE, IHVO, Agricultural University of Georgia. David Aghmashenebeli Alley 13th km. 0159. Tbilisi.
Georgia. E-mail: d.maghradze@agruni.edu.ge.
204 D. MAGHRADZE et al.
S t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s : Chi-square test was
used to compare the categorical data within and between
groups in order to discern effects of pathogen infection and
between populations inside the countries or average for the
countries studied. Fisher’s exact test was applied where the
expected values were less than 5 in a 2 x 2 table.
Results and Discussion
No symptoms caused by phylloxera, root-knot nema-
todes and fungi were found on roots (Tab. 2). It has to be
remarked that Eurasian wild grape has no tolerance to the
root phase of this homopteran under artificial infestation in
the laboratory tests. So, the absence of the insect in these
habitats sampled seems due to the flooding of the soils sev-
eral months each year (Ocete et al., 2011). This edaphic
condition could also be responsible for the absence of dam-
ages caused by nematode species of Meloidogyne and root
rot fungal species of Armillaria.
The presence of the erineum strain of the mite Co-
lomerus vitis (Pagenstecher) (Acari, Eryophidae) is evident
on the majority of all the populations observed (Tab. 2),
as it was related before on another Georgian population
Table 1
Location of studded Vitis sylvestris populations in Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2013
Site name District River basin Interval of latitude Interval of longitude Position*
Georgia
Nakhiduri Marneuli Ktsia 41º29′26,5″ - 44º40′ 51″ 41º29′13,1″ - 44º41′22,6″ C
Gardabani protected area Gardabani Mtkvari 41º22′19″ - 45º4′6,3″ 45º4′37,8″ - 45º4′37,8″ Flood plain
Tsitsamuri Mtskheta Aragvi 41º52′28″ - 44º43′51,2″ 41º52′38,3″ - 44º43′ 57,3″ C
Tedotsminda Gori Liakhvi 42º2′4,1″ - 44º3′42,1″ 42º2′20,7″ - 44º3′19,4″ C
Skra Gori Mtkvari 41º59′11,7″ - 44º2′47,7″ 41º59′13,5″ - 44º2′47,3″ C
60s quarter of Lagodekhi presrv Lagodekhi Matmiskhevi 41º48′2,7″ - 46º19′12,2″ 41º48′45″ - 46º20′24,8″ A
Azerbaijan
Guruchai-1 Quba Guruchai 41º24′1,3″ 48º26′37,6″ Flood plain
Guruchai-2 Quba Guruchai 41º26′3,3″ - 48º 33′50,6″ 41º26′3,8″ - 48º33′ 41″ Flood plain
Qusarchai- 1 & 2 (Rostov road) Quba Qusarchai 41º28′6,3″ - 48º 33′ 59,9″ 41º28′9,8″ - 48º33′ 57″ Flood plain
Dellekkend Quba Guruchai 41º24′37,8″ 48º35′ 13″ Flood plain
Ağbil Quba Qusarchai 41º25′32″ - 48º34′4,7″ 41º25′35,4″ - 48º33′54″ Flood plain
Armenia
Akhtala Akhtala Debed 41º6′18,3″ - 44º42′23 41º7′15,8″ - 44º45′16,3″ C
Getahovit Tavush Getik 40º54′6″ - 45º7′53″ 40º54′ 8,7″ - 45º7′ 9,6″ C
* A means alluvial position (riverbank forest); C: colluvial position (slop of a hill).
Table 2
Number and percentage of affected plants (2013)
Site name N. plants Colomerus vitis Calepitrimerus
vitis
Erysiphe
necator
Plasmopara
viticola Phylloxera Nematodes Root rot
Skra 4 4 a 0 a 1 a 2 a 0 0 0
Tsitsamuri 7 6 a 2 a 1 a 7 a 0 0 0
Lagodekhi 9 8 a 0 a 0 a 0 a 0 0 0
Nakhiduri 11 1 c 0 a 0 a 1 a 0 0 0
Gardabani 12 8 a 10 c 5 a 10 a 0 0 0
Tedotsminda 19 16 a 0 a 6 a 19 b 0 0 0
Total GEO 62 43 A (69.4 %) 12 A (19.4 %) 13 A (21.0 %) 39 A (62 9 %) 0 0 0
Guruchai-1 4 4 a 4 a 0 a 4 a 0 0 0
Qusarchai-2 4 4 a 4 a 4 b 4 a 0 0 0
Dellekkend 5 5 a 3 a 4 b 5 a 0 0 0
Ağbil 8 8 a 7 a 8 c 8 a 0 0 0
Guruchai-2 11 11 a 9 a 1 a 11 a 0 0 0
Qusarchai-1 11 6 a 10 a 3 a 11 a 0 0 0
Total AZE 43 38 AB (88.4 %) 37 B (86.0 %) 20 B (46.5 %) 43 B (100 %) 0 0 0
Akhtala 16 14 a 10 a 11 a 16 a 0 0 0
Getahovit 8 7 a 6 a 4 a 7 a 0 0 0
Total ARM 24 21 A (87.5 %) 16 B (66.7 %) 15 B (62.5 %) 23 B (95.8 %) 0 0 0
Total all 129 102 (79.1 %) 65 (50.4 %) 48 (37.2 %) 105 (81.4 %) 0 0 0
Note: Small letters (a, b, c) show differences between country regions. Capital letters (A, B) show differences between countries.
When p < 0.05 interaction was considered as statistically significant.
Acknowledgements
The article is a joint publication of the COST Action FA1003
„East-West Collaboration for Grapevine Diversity Exploration
and Mobilization of Adaptive Traits for Breeding“.
References
ALISHAN G.; 1877: Book of geoponics (Girq vastakots). Venezia 100, 102
(in Armenian).
ARNOLD, C.; 2002: Ecologie de la Vigne Sauvage, Vitis vinifera L. ssp
silvestris. In: Geobotánica Helvetica. Academie Suisse des Sciences
Naturelles, Berne, Switzerland.
BABAYEV, T. A.; 1988: Azerbaijan is the Ancient Country of Viticulture.
Azerbaijan State Publishing House, Baku, Azerbaijan.
CHILASHVILI, L.; 2004: The Vine, Wine and the Georgians. Georgian Wines
and Spirits Company, Tbilisi, Georgia.
CHOLOKASHVILI, N.; 1983: Genus Vitis L. In: Flora of Georgia 8, 274-278.
Metsniereba, Tbilisi (in Georgian).
EFENDIEV, M. M.; 1972: Viticulture of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan State Pub-
lishing House, Baku (in Azerbaijanian).
MUSAYEV, M. K.; AKPAROV, Z.; 2013: Centuries-old results of cultivation
and diversity of genetic resources of grapes in Azerbaijan. In: D.
POLJUHA, R. H. SLADONYA (Eds): The Mediterranean genetic code:
grapevine and olive, 99-123. Intech, Croatia.
NEGRUL, A. M.; 1959: Viticulture with the basis of ampelography and
breeding.Agricultural Literature, Moscow. Moscow (in Russian).
NEGRUL, A. M.; 1970: Reference book for the Ampelography of the Soviet
Union. Pischepromizdat, Moscow (in Russian).
OCETE, R.; ARNOLD, C.; FAILLA, O.; LOVICU, G.; BIAGINI, B.; IMAZIO, S.;
LARA, M.; MAGHRADZE, D.; ANGELES LÓPEZ, M.; 2011: Considaration
on European wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L., ssp. sylvestris (Gme-
lin) Hegi) and Phylloxera infestation. Vitis 50, 97-98.
OCETE, R.; CANTOS, M.; LÓPEZ, M. A.; GALLARDO, A.; PÉREZ, M. A.; TRON-
COSO, A.; LARA, M.; FERRAGUT, F.; LIÑÁN, J.; 2007: Caracterización
y conservación del recurso fitogenético: vid silvestre en Andalucía.
Ed. Falcor. Sevilla.
OCETE, R.; OCETE, M. E.; OCETE, C. A.; PEREZ IZQUIERDO, M. A.; RUSTIONI,
L.; FAILLA, O.; CHIPASHVILIA, R.; MAGHRADZE, D.; 2012: Ecological
and sanitary characteristics of the Eurasian wild grapevine (Vitis
vinifera L. ssp. sylvestris (Gmelin) Hegi) in Georgia (Caucasian re-
gion). Plant Genet. Res. 10, 155-162.
OGANESYAN, D. G.; 2005: Green Pharmacy. Publ. by Zangak-97, Yerevan
(in Armenian).
PRUIDZE L.; 1974: Materials for viticulture and winemaking in Georgia.
Racha. Acad. of Sciences of Georgia, Tbilisi (in Georgian).
RIVERA, D.; MATILLA, G.; OBÓN, C.; ALCARAZ, F.; 2012: Plants and humans
in the Near East and the Caucasus, vol. 2. Editum, Ediciones de la
Universidad de Murcia, Spain.
SOSNOWSKI, D. N.; 1947: Wild grapevine of the Pambak gorge. Publ. by
the Institute of Viticulture and Winemaking of the Academy of Sci-
ence of Armenia, Yerevan (in Russian).
VAVILOV, N. I.; 1926: The centres of origin for cultivated plants. Proc.
Appl. Bot. Genet. Breed. 16, 133-137 (in Russian).
Sanitary status of the Eurasian wild grapevine in the South Caucasian region 205
(OCETE et al. 2012). In the case of the present study, the oc-
currence of this mite was registered in 79.1 % of the vines.
Its level of infestation shows small differences along the
different South Caucasian countries. Infestation caused
by Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa) (Acari, Eryophidae) af-
fected half the number of observed wild vines (50,4 %). Its
percentages of infestation varied from 19,4 % in Georgia,
66,7 % in Armenia to 86 % in Azerbaijan. Powdery mil-
dew, Erysiphe necator (Schweinitz), and downy mildew,
Plasmopara viticola (Berkely & Curtis) Berlease & de
Toni were observed in 37,1 % and 81,4 % of the vines, re-
spectively – so this study demonstrated that downy mildew
is more frequently found than powdery mildew on South
Caucasian wild grape. P. viticola is more widespread for
Armenia and Azerbaijan, and E. necator for Azerbaijan.
However, the presence of both monophagous eryophid
mites could indicate that they were transferred to cultivars
along the domestication process. On the contrary, mildews
were imported from North American grapevine species and
were transferred from vineyards to the wild habitats.
Conclusions
A prospecting on the sanitary status of the aerial or-
gans and roots of the Eurasian wild grape, Vitis vinifera
sylvestris, was carried out on 14 natural populations situat-
ed along river bank forests, floodplains and colluvial posi-
tions in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. The results indi-
cate that roots are free of symptoms caused by phylloxera,
rot fungi and root-knot nematodes. Symptoms caused by
the erineum strain of Colomerus vitis (Pagenstecher) and
Calepitrimerus vitis (Nalepa) (Acari, Eriophyidae) are fre-
quent. On the other hand, damages caused by powdery and
downy mildews, Erysiphe necator (Schweinitz) Burrill and
Plasmopara viticola (Berkeley and Curtis) Berlease and de
Toni), respectively, show an irregular intensity on leaves
belonging to different vines from each location. In case of
fungal diseases favorable climatic conditions (in majority)
plus some interaction of genotypes (for single genotypes)
can be considered due to low general resistance of V. vini-
fera towards the fungal deceases. However, the absence of
symptoms caused by Phylloxera, nematodes and root-rot
fungi could be due to edaphic conditions, not to a real tol-
erance/resitance of the vines. This fact is important to take
into account for the ex situ conservation of this taxon.
