Poisoning Grapevines to Avoid the Risk of Grape Phylloxera Re-

Infection?
J.V. Herrmann
Bavarian State Institute for Viticulture and Horticulture, Herrnstrasse 8, D-97209
Veitshoechheim, Germany

Keywords: Vitis, Phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae FITCH), Roundup®

Abstract
Active control of radiculae phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) in vineyards
with chemical agents is environmentally problematic and is already or will soon be
banded in many countries. Apart from breeding rootstocks with a high resistance,
developing additional procedures to control phylloxera are urgently required, in
particular in replant situations. Once vines have been cleared, root pieces may
survive in the soil for many years. Radiculae phylloxera can feed on these root
pieces, survive the fallow period and rapidly spread to newly planted young vines. In
greenhouse and field trials it was investigated whether it is possible to kill roots of
old vines prior to clearing with the herbicide Roundup®. Such a method would
effectively prevent phylloxera from feeding, drastically reduce or even eliminate its
population and prevent young vines from being infected. After spraying Roundup®
to the leaves vineshoots rapidly began to die off and the vitality of the root systems
was significantly reduced. However during the 20-month trial period, the roots did
not die completely. After a Roundup® infiltrating into the trunk up to 85 % of the
root system died off within 20 months. Therefore, Roundup® infiltration into the
trunk is a potential method to kill vine roots effectively and prevent young freshly
planted vines from infection. Further investigations are necessary to improve the
herbicide effect of Roundup® on the vine roots and to establish a practical
procedure.

INTRODUCTION
At present, controlling radiculae phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae) with
chemical agents in vineyards is not allowed in many countries such as in Germany,
because of the potential eco-toxicological hazards of chemical control. In view of the
current spread of this pest it is essential to develop new strategies. Apart from improving
the resistance potential of rootstocks, it is also necessary to develop methods for the
indirect control of radiculae phylloxera. In this context, methods to prevent young vines
from being infected after being planted in a phylloxera infested site. After vines had been
cleared and after five years of fallow, we could still detect intact root pieces with vital
phylloxera. In such a situation newly planted, young vines were already infected with
radiculae phylloxera after one year.
If it would be possible to destroy vine roots completely, phylloxera could no
longer survive in the soil and could not infect the replanted young vines. In a preliminary
test, the question was examined, whether it is possible to destroy the roots of vines
intended for clearing with the herbicide Roundup® (glyphosate).
Since the introduction of glyphosate by Baird et al. (1972), glyphosate has proved
a promising means of control for many of the more persistent weeds as well as shrubs,
trees and vines (Heiligmann, pers. Com.; Hammer, 1996). There are many notes on the
responses of the aboveground parts of vines to glyphosate exposure (Lee, 1981; Wallinder
et al. 1983; Mohr, 1997; Mohr, 2000) but little is known of the effects of glyphosate
treatments to crop roots and root associated pathogens (Stapleton et. al., 1995).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In April 2000 rootstock vines of the variety 26 G, planted in rhizotrones (1.0 m x
1.0 m x 0.08 m) in 1996 and infected with radiculae phylloxera were treated in their 5 to

Proc. on Phylloxera Infested Vineyards

Eds: E.H. Rühl & J. Schmid 29
Acta Hort 617, ISHS 2003
9-leaf stage with the herbicide Roundup® (glyphosate) by leaf application and stem
infiltration. Two rhizotrones each were used for each treatment: Leaf application, stem
infiltration and the antreated control. There were three vines growing in each rhizotrone.
For the application, a total of 80 ml of a 10 % Roundup® solution was sprayed over the
entire 6 trial plants with a manual atomiser. For stem infiltration, an approx. 2 cm deep
hole was drilled all the way into the pith of the trunk with a 5 mm drill and 0.2 ml of pure
Roundup® was injected into each plant with a disposable syringe. The same type of holes
was drilled into the trunks of control vines, but no herbicide applied. All the drill holes
were sealed with parafilm "M" (American National Can). The plants were cultivated in
the greenhouse with sufficient water supply, but without additional light, temperature or
humidity control. Temperature ranged from 5 to 25o C.
As a result of the Roundup® leaf application, leaves and shoots died off
completely within two weeks. To obtain the same conditions, shoots of all trial plants
were cut off to two basal buds and were not further pruned until the trial was evaluated.
The trial was terminated after 15 months. The appearance and the mass of the
aboveground plant parts and roots as well as the occurrence of nodosities were evaluated.
The root systems were fractioned into two categories: main and fine roots. Roots
originating directly at the wooden cutting and with a distinct bark were called main roots,
the rest fine roots.

Field Trials
The tests were set up in a Mueller-Thurgau vineyard grafted on SO4 and planted
in 1978 in the vineyard location "Veitshoechheimer Woelflein". A 0.1 % Roundup®
solution was applied to the foliage of a total of 6 vines after harvest in 1999. At the same
time, Roundup® was infiltrated in different ways with a disposable syringe into drill holes
(5 mm diameter) in the trunk of randomly selected vines. Two vines each were infiltrated
with 1.0 ml Roundup® in the upper part of the trunk. Two other vines were treated with
0.5 ml each both in the upper and lower part of the trunk. The control were two vines that
had not been treated at all, as well as two others, where holes had been drilled in the
trunk, but no Roundup® infiltrated. All drill holes were sealed with Vaseline. Cultivation
was carried out in the usual way. At the end of May 2001, the shoot part of all test plants
was assessed for the appearance of new growth. At the same time, the root systems of
vines infiltrated with Roundup® as well as two vines of the Roundup® leaf treatment were
harvested with an excavator and separated into main and fine roots according to the
glasshouse trial. The vitality of the roots was determined by morphological
characteristics: The existence of fine roots (diameter less than 2 mm) as well as the
intensity of brown discoloration in the root cross sections and any a sign of decay were
recorded.

RESULTS
Greenhouse Trials
The untreated control plants developed normally. The average fresh weight of the
shoots was 134 g, while that of the roots was 64 g. The roots branched intensively and
displayed numerous nodosities. After Roundup® leaf application, the new vines shoots
showed chlorotic, stunted shoots and leaf deformation typical after Roundup® application.
With average shoot and root weights of 81 g and 31 g, respectively, the development of
these plants was considerably less than the control plants. The root system had noticeably
changed and was primarily comprised of main roots with stunted and slightly branched
lateral roots. No nodosities could be found on the roots.
The vines infiltrated with Roundup® did not have any shoots at all and were
completely dead. The main and fine roots were fully decomposed.
The drilled, but untreated vines, cultivated in the same rhizotrones as the
Roundup® infiltrated vines, displayed no nodosities. They developed similar to the
completely untreated control vines.

30
Field Trials
At the time of harvest, the vines of the untreated control had developed 7 to 9-
leafs per shoot. Vines in the Roundup® leaf application treatment had sprouted with some
buds after herbicide application in the spring of 2000. In 2001 canes were dead and
desiccated. Only one of the test plants showed some growth, limited to stunted shoots
growing in tufts, typical after Roundup® application. The two root systems of the
Roundup® leaf application treatment largely comprised of main roots only. Fine roots
were hardly found. Both main and fine roots were slightly branched. The fine roots were
viable and their cross sections were not discoloured. Of the total of 12 main roots, 4 had
discoloration in their cross section in the basal area near the trunk. Stunted fine roots,
growing in tufts, previously observed on the main roots in the greenhouse were not found
in the field trials.
The four vines with Roundup® infiltrated in the stem in autumn of 1999 had not
re-grown in 2000 and at the time of the examination the aboveground parts were
completely dead. Each plant had main roots, while all lacked fine roots without exeption.
In the two vines, where 1.0 ml of Roundup® had been infiltrated in the upper part of the
trunk, 7 out of the 13 main roots had been completely killed off, while 6 were discoloured
on the outside. The discoloured roots, however, did have a light colour in the basal area
and were therefore not completely killed off. In the two vines, which were infiltrated with
0.5 ml of Roundup® in the upper and lower stem areas, 18 out of the 21 main roots had
been destroyed completely, while 3 in the basal area were still of a light colour.
All vines, with holes drilled in the trunk, but not infiltrated with Roundup®, developed
normally without any difference to control vines.

DISCUSSION
Both leaf application as well as infiltration of Roundup® into the trunk induced
considerable physiological effects on treated vines.
In greenhouse studies, leaf application leads to a significant reduction of shoots
and deformed shoots and leafs, while in the field studies the aboveground plant parts
largely died off. The root systems of both, the field and the greenhouse treated plants,
were less branched and had less fine roots. However, the herbicide effect of the
Roundup® leaf application in the greenhouse as well as in field trials was evidently too
week to damage the root system to the degree required.
In comparison with leaf application, infiltration of Roundup® into the lignified
stems led to significant toxic effects on the root system. In the greenhouse trials, the vines
were completely dead as early as 15 months after infiltration. In field tests, the infiltration
carried out in autumn 1999 had killed the aboveground plant parts within a few months
till spring 2000. Irrespectively of the type of infiltration used, the root systems no longer
had any fine roots or root tips. This indicates that the roots as a whole were no longer
physiologically active. The black discoloration of the bark of the main roots also indicates
that the roots were dying. An infiltration of 0.5 ml Roundup® both into the upper and
lower stem areas killed 18 of a total of 21 main roots (= 85 %). An infiltration of 1.0 ml
into the upper stem area only, killed only 7 of the entire 14 main roots (= 53 %).
Compared to the field trials, the toxic effects of Roundup® appeared much faster
on greenhouse vines. However, it should be borne in mind that the stem axis and, above
all, the root system of the greenhouse vines were considerably shorter and more compact
than those of the field vines. It can be assumed that even with ten times the greater
Roundup® volume it will take longer for the active substance to translocate to the
extensive root system of the field vines and to reach a toxic concentration. In view of the
natural and often very extensive degradation in the wood of the vine stem, it appears,
moreover, very important to carry out infiltration into the viable wood as close as possible
to the root stem.
Apart from the quantity of the active substance and the infiltration location, the
time of application for translocating in the root system is certainly of decisive significance
as well. This time for leaf application and infiltration in field tests was selected according

31
to advices (Hammer, 1996; Heiligmann) and to knowledge about the relocation of
carbohydrate products from the vine's annual organs to its permanent organs (Koblet,
1972). Nevertheless the effects here were worse than in the greenhouse test, where
infiltration was done in spring. However, this might well be founded on the fact that vines
under artificial greenhouse conditions evolve different activity rhythms than field vines.
According to the present investigations, infiltration of Roundup® into the lignified
vine stem is one possibility of destroying the vines' root system in a sustained manner.
However, in order to improve the toxic effects of Roundup® on the vine roots and to keep
the time required for the roots' definitive destruction after infiltration as short as possible,
further tests are necessary. This applies particularly to optimize Roundup® dosage as a
function of the vegetative mass of the vines and the time of infiltration. Further
examination as to how the active substance glyphosate is translocated in the vine wood
and vine roots and in what way it leads to the roots degrading should be contucted. It is
important to set up this method economically and practically, in order to develop an
infiltration procedure that is as simple and efficient as possible.
Utilization for Roundup® as a control measure may be ideal due to the similar
method of reinfection presented by phylloxera, virus-transmitting nemtodes and other
soil-born pathogens.

Literature Cited
Hammer, A. 1996. Personal Communication.
http://www.hort.cornell.edu/department/faculty/weston/weedfacts/wdfct4a.html
Heiligmann, R. B. Controlling Undesirable Trees, Shrubs and Vines in your Woodland.
Ohio State University, Fact Sheet F-45, 19 pages. http://ohioline.osu.edu/for-
fact/0045.html
Koblet, W. 1972. Wanderung der Assimilate innerhalb der Rebe. Die Weinwissenschaft:
146-154
Lee, D.K., G.A. Cahoon. 1981. Glyphosate (Roundup) toxicity to Niagara grapevines.
Amen J. Eno. Vitic. 32:247-250
Mohr, H.D. 1997. Neue Schäden durch Roundup (Teil 1). Das Deutsche Weinmagazin
(9):39-41
Mohr, H.D. 1997. Symptome und neue Versuchsergebnisse (Teil 2). Das Deutsche
Weinmagazin (11):24-25
Stapleton, J.J., Ch. G. Summers, B.L. Teviotdale. P.B. Goodell, T.S. Prather, Editors.
1995. University of California, KAC Plant Protection Quarterly, Vol. 5 (4):1-10
Wallinder, C.J., R.E. Talbert, J.R. Morris. 1983. Response of „Concord“ Grapes to
Glyphosate Exposure: HortSci 18 (1): 57-59

32