Eutypa and grapevine trunk disease
Click on the links below to jump to a section on this page:
- About eutypa dieback
- Tools to assess and manage grapevine trunk disease
- Experiences in preventing and managing eutypa dieback
- Case studies – Barossa experiences
- Case studies – Clare Valley experiencess
About eutypa dieback
Eutypa dieback is caused by the fungus Eutypa lata and is one of the major trunk diseases of grapevines.
Eutypa occurs worldwide in wine regions that exceed an annual rainfall of 350mm. In Australia, eutypa was first detected in the 1930s and, apart from Western Australia, is now widespread, having a significant impact on the productivity and profitability of viticulture in this country. All major grapevine varieties grown in Australia are susceptible to eutypa infection. In South Australia, eutypa dieback is most pronounced in Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache. The varieties Riesling and Merlot are less susceptible to the disease.
Grapevines can become infected by eutypa through fresh cuts, such as those made during pruning or reworking, and is spread by airborne spores which are released from infected dead wood during rainfall. Spores infect exposed pruning wounds, with vines being most susceptible to infection in the first two weeks after pruning. The fungus grows slowly, causing stunted shoots and progressively killing spurs, cordons and trunks and eventually the entire affected vine.
Foliar symptoms of eutypa infection may not develop until 3-8 years after infection and are often only apparent on one cordon of an infected vine. Eutypa dieback is most obvious in spring when shoots are 30 to 70cm long (EL 12 – 17). Inspections after this timeframe can be more difficult, as canopy growth often conceals symptoms. Shoots appear stunted and the leaves yellow, often becoming cupped and tattered around the edges. Grape bunches on infected shoots ripen unevenly, are small and in severe cases shrivel and die. Cross-sections of cordons with stunted shoots reveal characteristic dark brown, wedge-shaped zones of dead wood. These zones can be traced back to cankers, which are sunken dead areas on the outside of cordons and trunks. Many years after infection, cordons begin to die and vines are killed when cankers girdle the trunk.
Yield losses are related to the severity of foliar symptoms, with losses up to 1500kg/ha reported in severely-affected red wine varieties. Vineyard productivity is also affected by eutypa dieback, with increased production costs and decreased vineyard longevity. In addition, uneven bunch ripening can reduce the quality of the resultant wine. Disease control can be achieved with preventative wound treatments and curative remedial surgery to remove infected wood.
Tools to assess and manage grapevine trunk disease
The Grapevine Trunk Disease Best Practice Management Guide is a comprehensive guide produced with Dr Mark Sosnowski on how to identify, assess and manage the grapevine trunk diseases eutypa dieback and botryosphaeria dieback in grapevines.
The Eutypa Dieback: Identification and Disease Cycle factsheet provides a two page summary of the disease symptoms, lifecycle and how it is spread.
Grapegrowers and viticulturists can also use the Grape Assess app to make an assessment of grapevine trunk diseases in the vineyard and then email the information, which includes GPS coordinates, to themselves to better target management of the disease.
The Grape Assess app can be freely downloaded from the Android and Apple app stores via the below links:
Experiences in preventing and managing eutypa dieback
Experiences with eutypa dieback
Discover how vineyard owners across several South Australian grapegrowing regions are dealing with eutypa dieback.
Case studies – Barossa experiences
Viticulturists and vineyard owners from the Barossa discussed their experiences in the below series of case studies and videos developed by the SA North Regional Program
Adrian Hoffman – Improving yield from 3.5 t/ha to 7.0 t/ha by reworking eutypa-affected vines (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Karl Schiller – Boosting yields from 2 t/ha to over 7 t/ha at cost of $2 per vine (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Warwick Murray – 25 years of better yield and quality after eutypa rework and soil health effort (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Wayne Ahrens – Cane layering rejuvenates 125-year-old Barossa vineyard (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Wayne Ahrens – Reworking eutypa affected Cabernet Sauvignon (2019) | Watch video | |
Steve Fiebiger – Doubling A-grade fruit production with boosted eutypa program (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Trevor March – Renewed focus on spraying to prevent eutypa reinfection (2019) |
Download case study | Watch video |
Case studies – Clare Valley experiences
Supported through the Wine Australia Regional Program for SA North, Clare Valley Wine and Grape Association developed the below video series exploring methods from identification and monitoring to reworking and prevention of infection.
Introduction and identification | Watch video |
Monitoring and surveying | Watch video |
Decision making – part one | Watch video |
Decision making – part two | Watch video |
Reworking – remedial surgery and vineyard hygiene | Watch video |
Reworking – an alternative approach | Watch video |
Reworking – vine training | Watch video |
Preventing infection – pruning measures | Watch video |
Preventing infection – fungicide spraying | Watch video |
The old days | Watch video |
With support from Wine Australia, Clare Valley Wine and Grape Association developed the below series of case studies exploring local experiences managing eutypa-affected vines.
Shiraz vineyards targeted for trunk renewal at Taylors Wines (2016) | Download case study |
Spog Weedon,Schobers Vineyards (2019) | Watch video |
Malcolm Parish, Wakefield Valley (Shiraz vines) (2019) | Watch video |
Malcolm Parish, Wakefield Valley (Cabernet vines) (2019) | Watch video |
Ben Mitchell, Taylors Wines (2019) | Watch video |
Five-year payback for eutypa reworking at Taylors Wines | Download case study |