Research Note Ampelographic and DNA Characterization of Local Grapevine Accessions of the Area (, )

Massimo Muganu , l * Gerald Dangl,2 Maui Aradhya,3 Manuela Frediani,4 Angela Scossa, 1 and Ed Stover'

Abstract: The presence of local vines in the Tuscia area (Latium region, Italy) was documented by historical sources. Ampelographic and molecular characterization (35 morphological descriptors and 16 microsatellite loci) was carried out on accessions belonging to the most frequently mentioned local vines. SSR markers have enabled us to distinguish cases of local synonymy and microsatellite profiles have permitted comparison with previously reported profiles indicating synonymy and divergence with vines in other collections. Ampelograpliic traits showed that some accessions of the same genotype differ in minor characteristics that can have a role in clonal evaluation. Key words: Vitis vinifera, germplasm, SSRs, grape quality

The Latium region, situated in the center of Italy. has graphic studies described several vines that contained the a varied grape germplasm and a winemaking tradition name Greco (Bullettino ampelografico 1881). In the Mid- that predates the Roman civilization. In the Tuscia area dle Ages, greco was an adjective that referred to sweet of Latium (province of ), seeds of the cultivated and long-lived wine, with high alcohol, and well-known grape Vitis vinijera saliva date to the 10th century ac, in Tuseia (Lanconelli 1994). In the 19th century, Pagadeb- testifying to the antiquity of grape consumption and pro- ito (also called Rornanesco and Scassadehito in Tuscia) duction (Delpino 2005). Wines produced in the Tuscia was one of the most cultivated varieties in the area, very area were popular and well-known during the Middle productive, and yielding wine in quantity (Cinelli 1884). Ages and the Renaissance (Baeei 1596). However, over Moscato was the variety used for the production of the the past century, the land used for viticulture in the Tus- most important wine of Tuscia during the Middle Ages cia area and the quality of its wines have declined, partly and Renaissance (Bacci 1596). because of decreased interest in local varieties. Conse- The preservation of gerinplasm involves many steps, quently, there is a risk that gerrnplasm with potential en- and the aim of this study was to obtain molecular and vironmental adaptations may be lost altogether (Natali ampelographic characterization of accessions belonging and Bignami 1988, Muganu et al. 2007). to local vines of the Tuscia area, to identify the genetic At present there is a campaign to revitalize wine pro- profile and morphologic characteristics of local vines, duction in Tuscia, beginning with the recovery of local and to clarify the presence of synonymies with other varieties, such as Cannaiola di Marta, Rossetto, Greco vines of the region. Pagadebito, and Moscato. Cannaiola di Marta (Cinelli 1884) is a vine used in table wine and presently grown in Materials and Methods Tuscia in limited areas. The historical importance of Ros- There has been a concerted effort to recover biotypes setto in the Tuscia has been documented (Gallesio 1833) of vines of the Tuscia area since 1987. The material has and it is described as one of the most cultivated vines, been cataloged as to town of origin, year, details of grow- late harvested, less susceptible to fungal pathogens, and ing location (private farms, old vineyards, vegetable gar- producing a long-lived wine (Cinelli 1884). Early ampclo- dens, gardens, single plants), and accession name supplied by the donor. In 1995 the different accessions were used to establish the DIPROV (Dipartimento di Produzione Ve- Dipartimento di Produzionc \'cgetalc, Universitâ della Tuscia, via S. Camillo de Lellis snc, 01100 Viterbo, Italy; 217oundation Plant Services. University getale) grape germplasm collection at the University of of California, Davis, CA 95616; 3USDA, ARS National Clonal Germplasm Tuscia experimental farm in Viterbo. Preliminary histori- Repository, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; and 4 Dipartirnento di cal and bibliographic research was conducted to document Agrobiologia ed Agrochimica, Università della Tuscia, 01100 Viterbo. Italy. the historical presence of the vine varieties in the area. *Corresponding author (email: [email protected]; tel: 39 0761 357325; fax: 0761 357531) Sampling and plant material. All ampelographic and Manuscript submitted May 2008, revised Sept 2008, accepted Dec 2008. phenological data and samples designated as DIPROV and Publication Costs of this article defrayed in part by page fees. that were used for DNA extraction were collected from Copyright L 2009 by the American Society for Etiology and Viticulture. All plants grown in the collection of the University of Tus- rights reserved. cia (]at. 42°25'21'N; long. 12°04'45'E). The vines were 110 Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009) Characterization of Tuscia Grapevine Accessions - 111

(Qiagen, Valencia, CA) following the manufacturer's grafted to 420A, Guyot-trained, and spaced 3 m x 1.5 in. protocol. Each accession was sampled twice. PCR am- All plants were subject to the same climatic and agro- plifications were performed on a GeneAmp PCR system nomical conditions, considering that morphological char- Thermal Cycler (model 9700 Applied Biosystems, Fos- acteristics may he influenced by environment or cultural ter City, CA) in total 20-iL volume reactions following techniques (I-linrichsen et al. 2001). Each genotype was typical protocols (Dangl et at. 2005). Each sample was repeated five times. Accessions selected for study were analyzed at 17 SSR loci: VVMD5, VVMD7. VVMD2I, Cannaiola di Marta (CM VT!) and Cannaiola Macchie di VVMD24, VVMD25, VVMD27, VVMD28, VVMD3I, Marta (CMM VT2), collected in two vineyards of differ- VVMD32. VVMD34, VVMD 36 (Bowers et. al. 1996, ent age and cataloged as distinct accessions according to 1999), VrZAG62, VrZAG79. VrZAG83, VrZAG93 (Sefc the different local names and descriptions supplied by the et al. 1999), and VVS2 and VVS29 (Thomas and Scott donors Greco (G VT1), Greco verde (G VT2), Pagadebito 1993). Six internationally adopted reference markers were (PG VT5), and Rossetto (RS VT6), collected in various included (This et al. 2004). Forward primers were labeled parts of Tuscia Canaiolo nero (CN VT), present in the with one of three fluorescent dyes. Fragment amplifica- same collection and used as a test cultivar listed in the tions were verified on 2% agarose gels. Samples were pre- Italian Register of Grape Varieties. In addition to these pared for capillary electrophoresis by diluting 1.0 iL am- genotypes, four accessions of the same or similar name plified product and 0.4 1iL internal-size standard 400UD in the collection at the USDA National Clonal Germplasm ROX (Applied BiosystemS) in 12 iL formamide. Typically. Repository, Davis. California (NCGR-D) were sampled products from three loci labeled with different fluorescent for the analysis of DNA only (Canaiolo nero, Greco hi- dyes were multiplexed. Amplified fragments were sepa- anco, Pagadebito. and Moscato bianco). One accession rated by electrophoresis on an ABI Prism 3100 Genetic of Moscato (MS VTI) from DIPROV was also sampled Analyzer (Applied Biosystems) using 22 cm capillary with (Figure 1; Table 1). 3100 POP-4 as the matrix (Dangl et al. 2005). DNA extraction and microsatellite analysis. Young The microsatellite profiles obtained were compared leaves from near the shoot tip of rapidly growing grape- with previously reported profiles of vines in collections at vines were collected and rapidly dried between blotting NCGR-D and INRA (Domaine de Vassal. France) (Dangl paper in sealed, labeled envelopes, which were placed in plastic bags with —20 grams Drierite (W.A. Hammond et al. 2001). AmpelograPhical description. Ampelographic data Drierite, Xenia, OH). Total DNA was extracted from were collected during 2005 and 2006 as specified by the —20 mg dried leaf tissue using a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit

Rossetto VT6 Greco VT1 Greco verde VT2

Pagadebito VT5 Cannaiola Marta VT1 Cannaiola M. Marta VT2 Leaf shapes of selected accessions used for ampelographic observations (obtained from real leaves). Figure 1

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009) 112— Muganu et al.

Table 1 Accessions and cultivars used in the study. Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Viii (OIV Accession Code Sourcea Origin (Italy) 1983). Thirty-five morphological descriptors were used, including the preliminar y minimal descriptors relative to Cannaiola di Marta CM VT1 DIPROV Marta (Tuscia) shoots, young leaves, mature leaves, vine shoots, inflo- Cannaiola Macchie di Marta CMM VT2 DIPROV Marta (Tuscia) rescence, hunches, berries, and seeds. Ten readings per Canaiolo nero CN VT DIPROV each descriptor were taken on five plants. Berry and seed Greco G VT1 DIPROV (Tuscia) measurements were made at harvest using 50 berries, Greco verde G VT2 DIPRDV Vignanello (Tuscia) from 10 bunches, taken between 3/5 and 4/5 of hunch axis. Data oil main phenological phases (Baillod and Pagadebito PG VT5 DIPRDV Montefiascone (Tuscia) Baggiolini 1993) were collected during the two years. Rossetto AS VT6 DIPRDV Montefiascone (Tuscia) Moscato MS Vii DIPADV Montefiascone (Tuscia) Results and Discussion Canaiolo nero U6434 NCGR-D Ampelographical data. The Tuscian varieties selected Pagadebito F090a NCGR-D for this study were those most frequently mentioned in Greco bianco D044b NCGA-D historical sources. These sources also indicated that syn- Moscato bianco U6547 NCGR-D onymies among these varieties are likely within the area aDIPRDV: Dipartimento di Produzione Vegetale; NCGR-D: National or in bordering zones. Ampelographical data presented Clonal Germplasm Repository, Davis. include morphological, using OIV descriptors (Table 2)

Table 2 Values of ampelographic characteristics relative to shoots, young leaves, mature leaves, vine shoots, inflorescence, clusters, berries, and seeds, according to the DIV descriptor list for grape varieties (DIV 1983). OIV code CM VT1 CMM VT2 CN VT G VT1 G VT2 PG VT5 RS VT6 DIV 001 5 5 3-5 3-5 3-5 3-5 7 DIV 003 1-3 3 3-5 3-5 3-5 3 5 DIV 004 7 7 7 5-7 5-7 7-9 5-7 01V 005 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DIV 006 3 1 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 3 01V 007 2 2 2 1 1 2-3 1 01V 008 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 01V 011 1 1 1 1 1 1 01V 016 1 1 1 1 1 1 I DIV 017 1-3 1-3 1-3 3-5 3 5-7 3 DIV 051 1-2 1-2 1 1 1-2 1-2 3 01V053 7 7 7 3 5 9 3-5 01V 054 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01V065 3 5 3 7 7 5 5-7 DIV 067 3 3-4 4 4 4 3 3-4 DIV 068 3 3 3 3-4 3-4 3-4 3-4 DIV 076 2 2 2 3 2-3 2 2-3 DIV 079 4 4-5 4 2-3 3 4 2 01V 081 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DIV 084 7 9 7 1-3 1 7-9 1-3 DIV 085 5-7 5-7 5 1 1 5 1 01V151 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 01V203 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DIV 204 5 3-5 3-5 7 5-7 7 5-7 01V 205 7 7 7 7 7 7 5-7 DIV 206 1 1 1 1 1-3 1-3 1 DIV 223 3 3-4 3-4 3 3 3-4 3 DIV 225 6 6 6 1-2 1-2 1 2 01V 238 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 01V 241 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DIV 243 5-7 5-7 5 3 3 5 1-3 01V 244 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DIV 502 3-5 3-5 3-5 5 5 5 3-5 01V 503 3 3 3 3-5 3 3 3

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009)

Characterization of Tuscia Grapevine Accessions - 113

revealed several accessions with different morphological quantitative, referring to hunch. berry. and seed measure- and productive characteristics, among which the vine Bel- and phenological (Table 4). ments (Table 3); lone, noteworthy for its vigor, call included (Mengarini Historical sources documented the presence of Can- 1888). Mancini (1893) described as synonyms the vines naiola di Marta in the Tuscia area and considered it syn- labeled RomanescO and Bello Velletrano. onymous with Canaiolo nero, which is grown iii Tuscany DNA analysis. DNA was amplified in all the acces- and other areas of central Italy (Mengarini 1888, Mancini sions at 16 loci. The locus VrZAG83 did not amplify 1893, Molon 1906). Other authors distinguish Cannaiola despite repeated attempts. Seven distinct microsatel- di Marta from Canaiolo nero, finding differences in leaf lite genotypes were obtained (Table 5). Microsatellite and seed characteristics (Cinelli 1884), vigor, and times analysis showed that Cannaiola di Marta VT1, Cannaiola of veraison and maturity (Bignami and Filippetti 2002). Macchie di Marta VT2, Canaiolo nero VT. and Canaiolo Some of these differences were apparent in this study. nero 1J6434 have the same genotype. Greco VTI. Greco While Cannaiola di Marta differed from the accession verde VT2, and Rossetto VT6 have the same genotype, Cannaiola Macchic di Marta in some descriptors of ma- different from Greco bianco D044h. Pagadebito VT5 has ture leaf. Canaiolo nero differed from CM VTI and CMM an autonOtiloLls genotype from all the others and dif- VT2 accessions by a different color of shoots and young ferent from Pagadebito F090a. while Moscato VT1 has leaves, a thicker density of erect and prostrate hairs on a microsatellite profile different from Moscato bianco the lower side of mature leaves, lower density of cluster, U6547.47. and smaller seeds (Tables 2 and 3). Furthermore, CM The microsatellite profiles obtained in this study per- VTI and CMM VT2 showed delayed date of hudhreak mitted comparison with previously reported profiles, in- compared with Canaiolo nero (Table 4). Rossetto is also dicating synonymy and divergence with vines in other grown in other areas of Latium and was known as Greco collections. While fingerprints of Greco, Greco verde, in some Tuscian villages (Mengarini 1888). The described and Rossetto from the DIPROV collection all matched accessions cataloged as Greco (G VTI, (i VT2) and Ros- each other, and did not match Greco bianco from NCGR- setto (RS VT6) have similar characteristics relative to D, none matched the Grec blanc or Grec rouge finger- young shoots, mature leaves (number of lobes, shape of prints at the INRA collection. Pagadebito VT5 has the petiole sinus) and berry shape; their dissimilar character- same tnicrosatel lite profile as Bel lone in the IN RA col- istics include color of young leaves, cluster dimension, lection, having never been reported to match any other and berry skin color (Tables 2 and 3). accession, while the Pagadehito NCGR-D SSR fingerprint The accession Pagadehito has different morphological also matches Pagadehito INRA. Moscato VTI has a mi- characteristics compared with the other white-berried va- crosatellite profile matching Malvasia bianca aromatica rieties analyzed. Pagadehito PG VT5 has a high density di Candia and is identical to two other Malvasia acces- of prostrate hairs on the shoots and young leaves; mature sions in Italian collections (G. Dangl, unpublished data, leaves have straight teeth and a greater density of erect 2007). Moscato bianco NCGR-D matches the accepted and prostrate hairs on the lower side. The cluster is com- SSR fingerprint for Muscat blanc in the INRA collection pact with lower pigmentation of berry skin. In comparing (G. Darigi, unpublished data, 2007). vines designated Bello Romanesco, Di Rovasenda (1877)

2005-2006 ± standard deviation) Average values of the quantitative parameters measured in bunch, berry, and seed (years Table 3 length Seed wt Berry wt Berry width Pedicel Bunch length Bunch wt Peduncle length 21± 04 357.3 158.2 17 09 CM VT1 152±21 5.4 ± 0.9 45 ± 5 2 3.2 ± 1.6 2.1 ± 0.3 14.2 ± 1.0 VT2 16.3 ± 3.1 ± 163 CMM 14.6 ± 0.8 5.8±0.8 38±4 338.9 ± 127.2 2.5 ± 0.8 1.9 ± 0.4 14.9 ± 2.7 CN VT 15.4 ± 0.9 7.0±0.8 33±5 474.8 ± 164.3 2.7 ± 1.4 2.6 ± 0.4 G VT1 15.5 ± 4.4 5.6±0.9 32±4 3.5 ± 1.7 2.6 ± 0.5 15.7 ± 1.2 16.6±1.8 363.1 ± 129.6 GVT2 15.0±1.1 6.7±1.1 47±5 450.1 ± 124.9 3.7 ± 1.5 2.3±0.5 PGVT5 16.7±2.1 14.9 ± 0.8 6.8±0.9 28±3 306.5 ± 127.7 2.7 ± 1.2 2.3 ± 0.5 RS VT6 14.6 ± 2.6

Table 4 Phenological phases of the different accessions.

III Apr flApr HApr I Apr III AprII Apr BudbreakIII Apr III May-I Jun I Jun I Jun I Jun I Jun III May-1 Jun Flowering I Jun I Aug I Aug I-Il Aug I Aug I I Aug AugI-Il Aug Veraison I Sep III Sep I-lI Sep III Sep II Sep Berry ripening I Sep Sep

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009)

114— Muganu et al.

C., a) a) 0) a) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) In our study set, SSR markers have enabled us to con- a) 0) a) a) CO CD CO CD 0) a) C) a) 0 CU 4 a) C) C) a) a) C) 0) 0) a) C) C) C) firm local synonymies, such as Canaiolo nero, Cannaiola N C) a) C) a) CD CO co CD 0) co co > CD di Marta, and Cannaiola Macchie di Marta accessions 0) N-- C) a) a) a) - -C) C) U) U) and Rossetto and Greco DIPROV accessions. The two ac- U) CD CD CD CD U) CD CD CD U) CD U) 0 Cd N N 4 C Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd cessions of Pagadebito (DIPROV and NCGR-D) showed a N a) CD CD CD CD CD CD IT CD CD CD CD U) > CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd different microsatellite profile. Pagadebito (or names with a) similar meaning) translates as "pays the bills," so it may CD CD CD CD U) .- CD '- U) - CD N- O 0 a) a) 0 0 a) a) a) 0 a) a) 0 Cd Cd Cd C N Cd Cd Cd C Cd C have been used in Italy for several very productive vine 4 th d 0) a) CD CD a) CD C) N- C-. N- N CD co CD CO C) a) O > N C) CD C) 02 CD varieties, resulting in homonymies. On the other hand, microsatellite analysis supported previous ampelographic CD CD CD co CD co co co CD CD C., CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD0 'U a Cd CU N N N N N cli N N N C observations regarding the similarity between Pagadebito CD 4 4 a) U' U' > CD CO CD CD CD CO CD CD CD U) (DIPROV) and vigorous vines such as Bel]one grown in > Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd CU CU Cd Cd Cd the province of . C,, O 0 a) a) a) a) a) a) Cd CD Cd a) U' U' It U' IT U' U' U' It U' It U' a Cd Cd C N C I N C C C N C While SSR markers revealed synonymies among the U' U' U' a) a) a) a) U' a) 0 a) > Cd Cd Cd CU IT It U' U' CU It U' It Tuscian accessions, ampelographic traits showed that > CU CU Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd CU CU Cd some accessions of the same genotype differed in minor a) C., co C') C') a) co co co co 0) a) CD a) N- N- N. N- N- N- CD N- U) CD CD N- characteristics, such as the density of leaf hairs, cluster a CU Cd C CU CU CU Cd CU CU CU Cd CU C) a) C a) a) CC C') N- - U) > U) CD CD CD CD CD CD CD U) density, and berry skin color. Slight differences among Cd Cd CU Cd Cd CU CU CU Cd CD U' CD Cd CU Cd accessions are not discriminated by microsatellite markers

CD CD CD CO CD CD CD CD CD CU Cd CD and likely represent mutations occurring between clonal a

Cd Cd Cd Cd CD CD CU CO Cd a) a) CU types (Sefc et al. 2001, Ibanez et al. 2003). Considering > > Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd that variation in morphological traits can play an impor-

co N co co co a) C') C) C) tant role in the improvement of grape and wine quality, CD CD CD CO CD CD a) CD CD co IT a Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd - ..- the ampelographic differences revealed among accessions -0) 0) a) N- N- N- C) > co CD CD CD co a) Cl) co a) a) co U' > CU CU Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd CU CU CU Cd in this study could be evaluated for clonal selection.

C.- a) C) 0) a) U' It CC U' 0) 0) CC) IT a) CD CD CD CD a) a) a CD C) N- CD CD C) Conclusion 11510 U) U) U) CD C U) 0)0) U) 0) > CD CD CO CO CD CD CD co N- N- CD N- > Genotyping, or DNA fingerprinting, of clonally propa-

Ln gated accessions is extremely valuable in managing ge- N N- N- co N- a) a) N. CD U) CD CD CD CD CD U' CD U' CD CD IT a CdCd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd netic resources, since synonymy and/or errors in nam- co co a) a) co co;a) U) N- CD > U' U' U' U' U' U' CD It > Cd Cd Cd CU CU Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd ing are frequent in such material. These problems are especially rampant in dealing with CO CD CD CO Vu/s vinifera acces- N U' U' U' U' a) CD 02 0) a sions that may have been grown for hundreds of years > U' U' U' U' a) a) U' a) a) CD CD U' and may have been distributed to many different areas of > Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd cultivation. The DNA analyses should be combined with a) a) a) C) a) a) a) a) a) a) 0) CD a) U' U' U' IT U' IT It U' U' U' C CD CD a C C C C Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd anipelographic descriptions in planning the selection of a) a) a) C) a) a) co co co C') 0) 0) > U' U' clones with desirable viticultural and enological value. > Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd

F- M a) C) a) C) co a) a) C-. C) co a) a V) C) a) co CO CD U' CD It co co It Literature Cited Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd CU C') co co co N- N- N-N- Q) > M C) C') C') > a) C) a) U' U' IT It co a) co co Bacci, A. 1596. Dc Naturali Vinorum historia. Annali viticoltura Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd 1876. G. Cometti, Milano.

U, a) a) a) a) CD CD CU CD Cd Cd co (0 a U' co a) co a) co co Cd a) C Cd Cd Cd Cd CU CU CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Baillod, M., and M. Baggiolini. 1993. Les stades de La vigne. Rev. co co > CD co CD CD CD CD CD CD CD co Suisse Vitic. Arboric. lIortic. 1:7-9. > Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd Cd CU Cd Bignami, C., and 1. Filippetti. 2002. Caratterizzazione di un

U) C) C4 CD CD CO CD N- N- N- ;7_ N- N- N- N- vitigno minore dell'Alto : La Cannaiola di Marta. ]talus

> Ilortus 9(4):10-14. > N- Bowers J., G. Dangl, R. Vignam, and C. Meredith. 1996. Isolation LO LOCD CD CL) U) ,- CD a) C') C') and characterization of new polymorphic simple sequence repeat a) a) a) C') a) CD CD CD CD U' U' 'C C') (I, > loci in grape (Vilis vinifra L.). d) d) C') a) C') C)C') Genome 39:628-633. > CD C) L. co M co co co 'C U' a) U' C') C) a) a) Bowers, J.E., G.S. Dangi, and C.P. Meredith. 1999. Development

Cd V. and characterization of additional microsatellite DNA markers I- C') > U' Ca N for grape. Am. J. Eno]. Vitic. 50:243-246. CO Cd C) U' > .o CD 0) U) cc Bullettino ampelografico. 1881. Primi studi anipelografici della -o Ca Ca Ca a) E' C ' > Sotto-Commissione di , Ministero dell'Agricoltura In- 0 Ca CU > - Ca dustria Commercio. Vol. 14. Italy. Ca Ca Ca 9 o o o V V Ca Ca Ca C c Ca CC) o o0) CC) CCC 0 C) 0 C C C C Ca U) CC) 0) 0)W CCC (C Ca Ca CCC co .- 0 CCC Ca 0 0 Cinclli, 0. 1884. La cantina sperimentale di Viterbo. Società 4 0000 C) C) C) cr o, Q tipografica, Bologna.

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 60:1 (2009) Characterization of Tuscia Grapevine Accessions - 115

Molon, G. 1906. Ampelografia. Uve da vino. uve da tavola, porta- Dangl, G.S., M.L. Mendum, B.H. Prins, M.A. Walker, C.P. Mer- innesti e produitori diretti. Vols. 1, 2. U. Hoepli, Milano. edith. and C.J. Simon. 2001. Simple sequence repeat analysis of a clonally propagated species: A tool for managing a grape Muganu, M., G.M. Balestra, P. Magro. G. Pettinari, and C. Bigna- Plasinopwa germplasm collection. Genome 44:432-438. mi. 2007. Susceptibility of local grape cultivars to and response to copper compounds with low cupric Dangl, G.S., K. Woeste, M.K. Aradhya, A. Koehnistedt, C. Simon, vit(coIa salts concentration in Latium (Central Italy). In Proceedings D. Potter, C.A. Leslie. and G. McGranahan. 2005. Character- of the International Workshop on Advances in Grapevine and ization of fourteen microsatellite markers for genetic analysis Wine Research. V. Nuzzo et al. (eds.). pp. 373-378. International and cultivar identification of walnut. I. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. Society for Horticultural Science, Belgium. 130:348-354. Natali, S.. and C. Bignami. 1988. Stato attuale e prospettive della Delpino, F. 2005. ViticoltLira, produzione e consumo del vino viticoltura dell'A Ito Lazio. Informatore Agrario 1:59-65. nell' protostorica. In Atti Convegno "Archeologia della vite e del vino in Etruria." A. Scienza (ed.). pp. 133-146. Città OIV (Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin). 1983. del Vino, Siena. Codes des caractères descriptifs des variétés et espèces de vitis. Di Rovasenda, G. 1877. Saggio di una ampelografia universale. A. Dedon, Paris. Loeseher. Torino. Sefc, K.M., F. Lelort, M.S. Grando, K.D. Scott, H. Steinkellner. and M.R. Thomas. 2001. Microsatellite markers for grapevine: Gallesio, C. 1833. 1 giornali dci viaggi. In Atti dell'Accademia dci In Molecular Biology & Biotechnology of the Georgofili. Trascrizione, note e commento di Enrico Baldini. A state of the art. Grapevine. K.A. Roubelakis-AngelakiS (ed.), pp. 433-456. Kluwer 1995. Supplemento a I Georgofili. Vol. 42, p. 478. Accademia Academic, Netherlands. dci Georgot'ili. Firenze. Set, KM., F. Regner, E. Turetsch, I. Gloessl, and H. Steinkeliner. I-Iinrichsen, P., C. Narváez. J.E. Bowers. J.M. Boursiquot, J. Va- 1999. Identification of microsatellile sequences in V,i.'s riparla lenzuela. C. Muñoz. and C.P. Meredith. 2001. Distinguishing and their applicability for genotyping of dif1rent Vitis species. Carmenère from similar cultivars by DNA typing. Am. I. Enol. Genome 42:367-373. Vitie. 52:396-399. This, P., et al. 2004. Development of a standard set of iii icrosatel- lháñez, I., M.T. de Andrés, A. Molino. and I. Borrego. 2003. Genetic lite reference alleles for identification of grape cultivars. Theor. study of key Spanish grapevine varieties using microsatellite AppI. Genet. 109:1448-1458. analysis. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 54:22-30. Thomas, MR.. and N.S. Scott. 1993. Microsatellite repeats in Lanconelli,A. 1994. La terra buona. Produzione, tecniche e rapporti grapevine reveal DNA polymorphism when analysed as sequence- di lavoro nell'agro viterbese fra 1200 e 1300. Clueb, Bologna. tagged sites (STSs). Thcor. Appi, Genet. 86:985-990. Mancini, C. 1893. 1 vitigni ed i vini del Lazio. Annuario generale di Vitic. Ed Enol.. anno II, . Mengarini. F. 1888. La viticoltura e l'enologia nel Lazio. Regia Accademia dci Lincei, Roma.

Am. J. Eno[. Vitic. 60:1 (2009)