Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Sep 2;11(9):1006.
doi: 10.3390/pathogens11091006.

Fungal Grapevine Trunk Diseases in Romanian Vineyards in the Context of the International Situation

Maria-Doinița Muntean  1 , Ana-Maria Drăgulinescu  2 , Liliana Lucia Tomoiagă  1 , Maria Comșa  1 , Horia-Silviu Răcoare  1 , Alexandra Doina Sîrbu  1 , Veronica Sanda Chedea  1
Affiliations
Review

Fungal Grapevine Trunk Diseases in Romanian Vineyards in the Context of the International Situation

Maria-Doinița Muntean et al. Pathogens. .

Abstract

Vitis vinifera, known as the common grape vine, represents one of the most important fruit crops in the world. Romania is a wine-producing country with a rich and long tradition in viticulture. In the last decade, increasing reports of damage caused by grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs) have raised concerns in all wine producing countries. Up to now, no study was performed regarding the GTDs situation in Romania, an important grapevine grower in Europe. In this study, we aim, after a comprehensive presentation of the fungal GTDs worldwide, to review the scientific information related to these diseases in Romania in order to open a national platform in an international framework. In order to achieve this, we consulted over 500 references from different scientific databases and cited 309 of them. Our review concludes that, in Romania, there is little amount of available literature on this matter. Three out of six fungal GTDs are reported and well documented in all of the Romanian viticultural zones (except for viticultural zone 4). These are Eutypa dieback, Phomopsis dieback, and Esca disease. Of the fungal pathogens considered responsible Eutypa lata, Phomopsis viticola and Stereum hirsutum are the most studied and well documented in Romania. Management measures are quite limited, and they mostly include preventive measures to stop the GTDs spread and the removal of affected grapevines.

Keywords: GTD management; Romanian vineyards; fungal pathogens; grapevine trunk diseases (GTDs).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Areas cultivated with grapevines in the world and in Romania during 2016–2020.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ratios of grape cultivated areas held by the first ten ranked countries in the world in 2020.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Illustrations of symptoms expression on different parts of the grapevines for the main GTDs observed in Romania: (A) Eutypa dieback symptoms on the entire vine; (B) Eutypa dieback symptoms on the shoots and leaves; (C) Eutypa dieback symptoms on berries/beaded berries; (D) Eutypa dieback symptoms on the canes; (E) Eutypa dieback symptoms on the trunk/cross-section of Eutypa dieback affected trunk; (F) Phomopsis dieback symptoms on entire vine; (G) Phomopsis dieback symptoms on leaves; (H) Phomopsis dieback symptoms on berries; (I) Phomopsis dieback symptoms on the canes; (J) Phomopsis dieback symptoms on multiannual wood; (K,P) Esca disease symptoms on the entire vine/K-acute form & P-chronic form; (L,Q) Esca disease symptoms on the leaves/L-white cultivar & R-red cultivar; (M,R) Esca disease symptoms on berries; (N,S) Esca disease symptoms on canes; (O,T) Esca disease symptoms on the trunk/(O) cross-section of Esca disease affected trunk and (T) Longitudinal section of Esca disease affected trunk.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Graphical representation of Eutypa dieback reports in Romania.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Graphical representation of Phomopsis dieback reports in Romania.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Pycnidia (a) and pycniospores (b) (α and β) of Phomopsis viticola.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Graphical representation of Esca disease reports in Romania.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Graphical representation of main GTDs reported in Romania.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gramaje D., Úrbez-Torres J.R., Sosnowski M.R. Managing Grapevine Trunk Diseases with Respect to Etiology and Epidemiology: Current Strategies and Future Prospects. Plant Dis. 2018;102:12–39. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-04-17-0512-FE. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kottek M., Grieser J., Beck C., Rudolf B., Rubel F. World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated. Meteorol. Z. 2006;15:259–263. doi: 10.1127/0941-2948/2006/0130. - DOI
    1. Irimia L.M., Patriche C.V., Roșca B. Climate Change Impact on Climate Suitability for Wine Production in Romania. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2018;133:1–14. doi: 10.1007/s00704-017-2156-z. - DOI
    1. Chiurciu I.-A., Zaharia I., Soare E. Production of Wine Grapes and Cultural Traditions Related to Vine in Romania. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2020;20:133–143.
    1. ANF-Autoritatea Naționlă Fitosanitară (Romanian national phytosanitary authority) Ghid Pentru Recunoașterea Și Combaterea Bolilor Și Dăunătorilor La Vița de Vie [Guide to Recognizing and Fighting Diseases and Pests of Grapevine RO] Autoritatea Naţională Fitosanitară; Voluntari, Romania: 2016.

LinkOut - more resources