"The Muscadine Grape: Botany, Viticulture, History, and Current

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

FEATURE The Muscadine Grape: Botany, Viticulture, History, and Current Industry William C. Olien1 U.S. Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Small Fruit Research Station, Box 287, Poplarville, MS 39470 The muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia grape found in India has similar characteristics is the name of a specific cultivar. Michx.) was the first American grape spe- to the Muscudinia (Syamal and Patel, 1953) The natural range of V. rotundifolia ex- cies to be cultivated. This fruit has a long and may reflect the pre-ice age distribution of tends from Delaware to central Florida and history in commercial and backyard culture. this group. along the Gulf of Mexico to eastern Texas Picking muscadines to enjoy as juice along Muscadinia grapes have 40 somatic chro- (L.H. Bailey Hortorium, 1976; Dearing, with muscadine pie on grandmother’s back mosomes (2x = 2n = 40) and are charac- 1938; Munson, 1909; Weaver, 1976). The porch has a strong place in childhood mem- terized by fruit borne in many clusters with species extends north along the Mississippi ories of many native Southerners. The oldest few berries per cluster, formation of an ab- River to Missouri and near the Appalachian and most consistent commercial interest in scission zone between the fruit and rachis, Mountains from the east and west. Temper- muscadines has been in wine, but juice and smooth thin bark that is adherent on young atures in this region seldom go lower than fresh fruit markets have also been devel- wood and separates in scales from older wood, - 12C and more rarely to - 18C (U.S. Dept. oped. Muscadines so differ from “bunch” unbranched tendrils, dense wood, and con- of Agriculture, 1973). These vines do best grapes genetically, anatomically,, physiolog- tinuous pith (L.H. Bailey Hortorium, 1976; on fertile sandy loams and alluvial soils, and ically, and in taste that they should be con- Einset and Pratt, 1975; Hedrick, 1908; Mun- grow poorly on wet and heavy soils. Natural sidered a separate fruit. son, 1909; Williams, 1923). In contrast, Eu- populations are found in shady, well-drained The muscadine industry is currently ex- vitis grapes have 38 somatic chromosomes bottom lands along rivers that are subject to panding throughout the southeastern U.S. as (2x = 2n = 38), branched tendrils, many neither extended drought nor waterlogging interest in grapes and wine increases nation- berries per fruit cluster, no abscission zone (Hedrick, 1908; Munson, 1909). ally. Commercial muscadine vineyards range between the berry and rachis, striated bark Wild V. rotundifolia vines are functionally in size from < 1 ha to hundreds of hectares, on young wood, thick rough bark that peels - dioecious (polygamous) due to incomplete sta- and may be a primary or secondary source in strips on old wood, less-dense wood than men formation in female vines and incomplete of income to the grower. There is particular Muscudinia, and pith interrupted by dia- pistil formation in male vines (Dearing, 1948; interest in this fruit for small and part-time phragms at nodes. Hedrick, 1908). Male vines account for 60% farm operations and as an alternative crop Muscudinia is a much smaller group than to 75% of the wild muscadine population for agronomic growers. An important recent Euvitis, and is comprised of three known (Dearing, 1938; Husmann and Dearing, 1916). development has been the establishment of species. Vitis munsoniana Simpson ex Mun- Female vines bear fruit in numerous clusters a major muscadine juice and processing plant son (common names Bird Grape, Everbear- of from one to 40, but more commonly four in Mississippi with a satellite plant in North ing Grape, Mustang Grape, Little Muscadine to 10, thick-skinned berries containing two to Carolina. Growth of the muscadine industry Grape) and V. popenoei Fennell (common six large seeds (Husmann and Dearing, 1916; is supported by research to improve vineyard name, Mexican Muscadine Grape) (Munson, Young, 1920). The vines are late in breaking management, processing methods, and cul- 1908; U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1973; bud in the spring and require a long season, tivars through breeding. Weaver, 1976; Winkler et al., 1974) are not generally > 100 days, to mature the fruit (Hed- important commercially, but are possible rick, 1908). BOTANICAL BACKGROUND sources of genetic variation for breeding pro- Most authorities divide Vitis into the subge- grams. Vitis munsoniana is likely a semi- EARLY MUSCADINE CULTIVARS nera Euvitis Planch. (the familiar European and tropical variant of V. rotundifolia, native to Muscadines have long been harvested from American bunch grapes that include V. vini- Florida and a narrow coastal band along the wild and semicultivated vines (Hedrick, fera L. and V. labrusca L.) and Muscadinia Gulf of Mexico from Florida to Texas (Hus- 1908). According to Hedrick, Native Amer- Planch. (sometimes referred to as berry grapes) mann and Dearing, 1916). Vitis munsoniana icans used the fruit, and the earliest Euro- (Dearing, 1938; Winkler et al., 1974). How- bears clusters of eight to 30 relatively small peans to reach America noted the abundance ever, there has been a long-standing contro- berries with thin skin and small seeds, but of V. rotundifolia. Captain John Hopkins re- versy, with some authors placing Muscadinia poor fruit quality (Dearing, 1947). Vitis po- ported that Spanish missionaries in Florida as a separate genus (Bouquet, 1980; Olmo, penoei is a tropical species native to southern were making muscadine wine in 1565. He 1986; Small, 1913). Fossil evidence suggests Mexico (Fennell, 1940). also noted that Amadas and Barlowe re- that Muscadinia was widely distributed over The third species, V. rotundifolia Michx. ported the abundance of these grapes in coastal the North American, European, and Asian (common names: Muscadine, Bullace, Bull North Carolina on their first voyage to this continents before the last ice age (Bouquet, Grape, Bullet Grape, Southern Fox Grape), continent in 1584. The latter described the 1980). Thus, Muscadinia may be an ancestral is the only commercial Muscadinia grape, land “so full of grapes . on the sand and genus that led to vitis, adapted to temperate and the name “muscadine” is reserved ex- on the green soil, on the hills as on the plains, climates,. and Ampelocissus, adapted to tropi- clusively for this species. The majority of V. as well as on every little shrub as also climb- cal climates, as the ice age receded. A wild rotundifolia vines in the wild bear dark fruit. ing towards the tops of tall cedars, that I A very old name for these grapes is “Bul- think in all the world the like abundance is lace” or “Bullis”, or less commonly “Bull” not to be found”. Received for publication 19 May 1989. The cost or “Bullet” grapes (Gohdes, 1983; Hedrick, Muscadines have been cultivated in vine- of publishing this paper was defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. Under postal regu- 1908). Light-colored bronze-fruited geno- yards since the mid-18th century (Reimer, lations, this paper therefore must be hereby marked types are occasionally found in the wild and 1909). The first cultivars were simply selec- advertisement tsolely to indicate this fact: are often referred to generically as “scup- tions propagated from the wild (Reimer, 1Present address: Dept. of Horticulture, Clemson pernongs”. However, there are many culti- 1909). Although there were 35 to 40 named Univ., Clemson, SC 29634-0375. vars of bronze muscadines, and ‘Scuppernong’ muscadine cultivars in 1920, only a few were 732 HORTSCIENCE, VOL. 25(7), JULY 1990 grown extensively (Young, 1920). Better- A second USDA-ARS muscadine breeding rootstocks for Euvitis grapes (Davidis and Olmo, known early cultivars and approximate dates program was conducted at Meridian, Miss., 1964; Husmann and Dearing, 1916; Winkler introduced were ‘Hopkins’ (1845), ‘Flow- from 1941-1965 by N.H. Loomis. Mus- et al., 1974). In contrast to Euvitis, musca- ers’ (1800), ‘James’ (1866), ‘Memory’ cadine breeding was initiated by the Geor- dines root poorly from woody cuttings (Goode (1868), ‘Mish’ (or ‘Meisch’) (1846), ‘Scup- gia Experiment Station in 1909 (Stucky, et al., 1982; Husmann and Dearing, 1916). pernong’ (mid-1700s), and ‘Thomas’ (1845) 1919). In addition, various private individ- Commercial practice is to propagate either by (Husmann and Dearing, 1916; Reimer, 1909). uals have conducted muscadine breeding layering (Woodroof, 1936) or by mist-propa- All early cultivars were female types and re- efforts, most notably the Euvitis x V. ro- gation of softwood cuttings (Goode and Lane, quired pollinator vines for optimum fruit set tundifolia hybridization efforts of T.V. 1983). 1H-indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) in- (Young, 1920). Munson (1909) in Texas, and Olmo (1986) creased root system quality of cuttings taken The cultivar eventually named ‘Scupper- and coworkers in California. Active mus- prior to July, but did not increase root initia- nong’ was the first native American grape to cadine breeding programs for fruiting cul- tion or shoot growth (Goode and Lane, 1983). be cultivated (Hedrick, 1908; Reimer, 1909). tivars are currently being conducted in Vines are sold bare-root or in “1-gallon” (3.8- ‘Scuppernong’ was the dominant cultivar Florida (Bates et al., 1980; Mortensen, liter) nursery pots. Micropropagation methods ‘grown from the mid-18th century until as 1971), Georgia (Lane, 1978), and North are currently being developed by several groups recently as 1947, and it remains the most Carolina (Goldy, 1988; Goldy et al., 1988). (Gray and Fisher, 1985; Griffin and Graves, widely known muscadine (Reimer, 1909; Progress in breeding up to the early 1970s 1989; Lee and Wetzstein, 1989; Sudarsono Dearing, 1947; Woodroof, 1934). Popular was summarized by Einset and Pratt (1975) and Goldy, 1988). culture often gives credit for discovery of the and Schwartz (1976). ‘Hunt’ was intro- Planting and establishment. General rec- original ‘Scuppernong’ vine to Sir Walter duced in 1920 by the Georgia Experiment ommendations on site selection, soil prepara- Raleigh’s colony when they landed on Roa- Station (Stucky, 1919) and had improved tion, planting methods, and vineyard noke Island, N.C.
Recommended publications
  • Wine Grape Terminology- the Lingo of Viticulture
    Wine Grape Terminology- The Lingo of Viticulture Dr. Duke Elsner Small Fruit Educator Michigan State University Extension Traverse City, Michigan 2014 Wine Grape Vineyard Establishment Conference Viticulture Terminology Where to start? How far to go? – Until my time runs out! What are grapes? “…thornless, dark-stemmed, green- flowered, mostly shreddy-barked, high-climbing vines that climb by means of tendrils.” Cultivated species of grapes Vitis labrusca – Native to North America – Procumbent shoot growth habit – Concord, Niagara, dozens more Vitis vinifera – Eastern Europe, middle east – Upright shoot growth habit – Riesling, Chardonnay, Pinot Noir, Gewurztraminer, etc. Other important species of grapes Vitis aestivalis Summer grape Vitis riparia Riverbank grape Vitis rupestris Sand grape Vitis rotundifolia Muscadine grape Vitis cinerea Winter grape Variety A varient form of a wild plant that has been recognized as a true taxon ranking below sub- species. Cultivar A variety of a plant species originating and continuing in cultivation and given a name in modern language. Hybrid Cultivar A new cultivar resulting from the intentional crossing of selected cultivars, varieties or species. Hybrid Cultivar A new cultivar resulting from the intentional crossing of selected cultivars, varieties or species. Clone (clonal selection) A strain of grape cultivar that has been derived by asexual reproduction and presumably has a desirable characteristic that sets it apart from the “parent” variety. Pinot Noir = cultivar Pinot Noir Pommard = clone Grafted vine A vine produced by a “surgical” procedure that connects one or more desired fruiting cultivars onto a variety with desired root characteristics. Scion Above-graft part of a grafted vine, including leaf and fruit-bearing parts.
    [Show full text]
  • The Muscadine Grape (Vitis Rotundifolia Michx)1 Peter C
    HS763 The Muscadine Grape (Vitis rotundifolia Michx)1 Peter C. Andersen, Ali Sarkhosh, Dustin Huff, and Jacque Breman2 Introduction from improved selections, and in fact, one that has been found in the Scuppernong River of North Carolina has The muscadine grape is native to the southeastern United been named ‘Scuppernong’. There are over 100 improved States and was the first native grape species to be cultivated cultivars of muscadine grapes that vary in size from 1/4 to in North America (Figure 1). The natural range of musca- 1 ½ inches in diameter and 4 to 15 grams in weight. Skin dine grapes extends from Delaware to central Florida and color ranges from light bronze to pink to purple to black. occurs in all states along the Gulf Coast to east Texas. It also Flesh is clear and translucent for all muscadine grape extends northward along the Mississippi River to Missouri. berries. Muscadine grapes will perform well throughout Florida, although performance is poor in calcareous soils or in soils with very poor drainage. Most scientists divide the Vitis ge- nus into two subgenera: Euvitis (the European, Vitis vinifera L. grapes and the American bunch grapes, Vitis labrusca L.) and the Muscadania grapes (muscadine grapes). There are three species within the Muscadania subgenera (Vitis munsoniana, Vitis popenoei and Vitis rotundifolia). Euvitis and Muscadania have somatic chromosome numbers of 38 and 40, respectively. Vines do best in deep, fertile soils, and they can often be found in adjacent riverbeds. Wild muscadine grapes are functionally dioecious due to incomplete stamen formation in female vines and incom- plete pistil formation in male vines.
    [Show full text]
  • Testing Phylloxera-Resistant Grape Stocks in the Vinifera Regions of the United States
    2 5 1.0 :; 1111/2.8. 11111 . 1.0 3 2 Ii.,· 11111 . .2 W J.:.: ~ii£ I.IA.O :itL;:. IUiU I _2.0 '- " 1.1 1.1 LL:.&.:. I 1.8 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST GHART NAtiONAL BUREAU 1)[ srANDARDS·I96l·A NATIONAL aURE/,U OF STANDARDS-1963·A ==========~==~~~~~========== TECHNICAL BULLETIN No, 14G ~ FEBRUARY, 1930 UNITED STATES DEPAR TMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D, C, TESTING PHYLLOXERA-RESISTANT GRAPE STOCKS IN THE VINIFERA REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES By GEOHGEl C, HUSMANN, Pomolof/ist in ('harge of Grape Investigations, OJlice of Horticultural Crops and Diseases, Bureau of Plant Industry CONTENTS PUg't' Pugo lulrotiucliotL ________ "__ ._. __ " 1 C'oopt'ratiw exprritllPut Yinr~'arrls-Cotltd, j'hrllo'"n' itl ClIliruruia lIlId in Enrol'''__ ;1 Ot'.Y~{,f\·ilIl' l\.xJlerim('nL viuf.lyard ..... __ MM. 12 E{u'lynllt'mpt~al rp('ul1:o;trttl'(iou uCviuc~'nrds :1 ' (lU~l~ri CX~)(\rillll'Ht \·irll'yurd. _______ .. _.... ~ 12 1+'.1('tOI':-; iII re:--istum'p ~_. _' .. _~ :; l..l\"Pl·U10rl' l'Xpl'rilllent. \~iIleynrd .. ~ __ ~_ .. __ 13 Kutllrc or ph~-lIo"'rn injnrr utHI iubcr,-;lt Lotli (-'.xpl.-'rimeut \·iucynrd___ ~~_, .. ~~~ ___ _ 13 ('!turaptl'l' of tItt' \'iltl~s _ . ~ ~ r ••' ••• __ • _ •• ~[uuntnin Yiew (-'xpcrime!lL vinl'yurd ___ _ H AdHpt:!I!OU to soil, clinmt", lind oUll'" Oakyi1l(' ('xpl-'rimeut. vineranL .... ________ _ 11 ('uud It lUn!, _ _~ ". _ . _ _, _ ~ ~ ~ _.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Program ASEV-ES Full.Pub
    American Society for Enology and Viticulture-Eastern Section 45th Annual Conference Virtual July 7-8, 2021 Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.asev-es.org/ Conference Overview Eastern Standard Time Wednesday, July 7, 2021 Preconference 9:30-10:00 am Introductions and Welcome 10:00-10:15 am Invited Speaker 10:15-11:00 am Encouraging Promotion and Success in Grape and Wine Industries Doniella Winchell, Ohio Wine Producers ASEV-ES Technical Sessions & Student Presentation Competition 11:00 am-12:00 pm Break and View/Judge Posters 12:00-12:30 pm ASEV-ES Business Meeting 12:30-1:30 pm Break and View/Judge Posters 1:30-2:00 pm ASEV-ES Technical Sessions & Student Presentation Competition 2:00-3:30 pm ASEV-ES Poster Flash Talks & Poster Summaries 3:30-4:00 pm Concurrent Poster Sessions Breakout 4:00–5:00 pm Thursday, July 8, 2021 Preconference 9:30-10:00 am Introductions and Welcome 10:00-10:15 am Invited Panel 10:15 am-12:00 pm Future Grape Cultivars for Eastern North American Growers Panel: Dr. Matthew Clark, University of Minnesota, Dr. Joseph Fiola, University of Maryland Extension, Dr. Oliver Trap, Institute for Grapevine Breeding, and Dr. Daniel Ward, Rutgers University Break and View/Judge Posters 12:00-12:30 pm ASEV-ES Technical Sessions & Student Presentation Competition 12:30-1:30 pm Break and View Posters 1:30-2:00 pm ASEV-ES Technical Sessions & Student Presentation Competition 2:00-3:30 pm ASEV-ES Poster Flash Talks & Poster Summaries 3:30-4:00 pm Wines of the East Virtual Reception and Awards 4:00-5:00 pm ASEV-ES Conference Sponsors Sponsors are recognized throughout the program.
    [Show full text]
  • Science Sixtyfirst61 National Conference a Platform for Progress
    science sixtyfirst61 national conference a platform for progress 61st ASEV National Conference June 20–24, 2010 Washington State Convention Center Seattle, Washington USA TECHNICAL ABSTRACTS american society for enology and viticulture 2010 National Conference Technical Abstracts Oral Abstracts (Research Reports) Wednesday, June 23 Wine Microbiology ...............................................................................................41–43 Cultural Practices ..................................................................................................44–46 General Enology ....................................................................................................47–48 Irrigation/Soils/Nutrition ......................................................................................49–51 Thursday, June 24 Phenolics ...............................................................................................................52–54 Vine Composition and Environmental Viticulture ................................................55–57 Wine Aroma/Sensory ............................................................................................58–59 General Viticulture ................................................................................................60–61 Poster Abstracts (Research Reports) Wednesday, June 23 and Thursday, June 24 Enology .................................................................................................................62–72 Viticulture ............................................................................................................73–90
    [Show full text]
  • The Geography of Wine in North Carolina: Terroir, Site Selection Efficacy, and Implications for Pierce’S Disease Resistant Grape Varieties in the Southeastern U.S
    NOWLIN, JOHN W., Ph.D. The Geography of Wine in North Carolina: Terroir, Site Selection Efficacy, and Implications for Pierce’s Disease Resistant Grape Varieties in the Southeastern U.S. (2017) Directed by Dr. Rick Bunch 138 pp. North Carolina has a broad range of physical environments that produce wine from a breadth of grape species/varietals. Its wine industry has grown rapidly for over a decade and the nature of its climates, soils, and topography are varied and unique in the wine world, yet North Carolina remains relatively unknown outside of the Southeastern portion of the United States. In this study, North Carolina’s vineyards and their specific site characteristics were considered both on the basis of their terroir and the extent to which they followed extension agency advice on site selection. One characteristic risk of growing grapes in the Southeastern U.S. is a plant illness known as Pierce's Disease, which is deadly to the vines of Vitis vinifera parentage. This research used a novel method to reveal the dividing line between V. vinifera and Pierce’s Disease resistant grape variety suitability zones across the Southeast. The quantification of the physical elements of terroir and test of the effectiveness of vineyard site selection has revealed the character of North Carolina’s wine regions and commercial vineyards. In addition, the modeling of the Southeastern U.S. Pierce's Disease zone provided clarification on where Pierce’s Disease resistant winegrapes might present new wine industry options for vineyards across the Southeastern U.S. KEYWORDS: Wine, North Carolina; Southeastern U.S.; Terroir; GIS; Applied Geography; Viticulture; Site Selection; Site Suitability THE GEOGRAPHY OF WINE IN NORTH CAROLINA: TERROIR, SITE SELECTION EFFICACY, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PIERCE’S DISEASE RESISTANT GRAPE VARIETIES IN THE SOUTHEASTERN U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Abstracts
    52nd Annual Meeting Technical Abstracts Oral and Poster Presentations The American Society for Enology and Viticulture San Diego, California June 28 - 30, 2001 Copyright © 2001. All abstracts herein appear as submitted by the author(s). The American Society for Enology and Viticulture is not responsible for incorrect listings or typographical errors. The ASEV Annual Meeting and related documents are the property of the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. Reproduction of any part of the ASEV Annual Meeting in any form without written consent is strictly prohibited. All presentations of any form are exclusive and released only to the ASEV and its recording contractor for reproduction in any format including electronic/internet distribution. The ASEV is not responsible for statements or opinions printed in its publications; they represent the views of the authors or persons to whom they are credited and are not binding on the ASEV as a whole. The mention of products or services in the ASEV 52nd Annual Meeting Technical Abstracts does not imply endorsement of these or other products. Alphabetical Listing of Presenting Authors These abstracts in approximate order of presentation as noted in our conference program. There are no abstracts for the Experimental Design Workshop. *indicates Poster Presentation Agosin, E. ............................................. 43 Kupina, S. ........................................... *54 Agüero, C. ............................... *74, *75 López, I............................................... *65
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Drivers of Muscadine Wine Purchase Decisions
    beverages Article Consumer Drivers of Muscadine Wine Purchase Decisions Bonnie Canziani *, Erick T. Byrd and James S. Boles Department of Marketing, Entrepreneurship, Hospitality, and Tourism, Bryan School of Business and Economics, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27402, USA; [email protected] (E.T.B.); [email protected] (J.S.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +01-336-334-4471 Received: 5 October 2018; Accepted: 28 November 2018; Published: 3 December 2018 Abstract: Muscadine wine, fresh muscadine grapes, and other derivatives have enjoyed a heritage niche for decades in the Southeast. Muscadine growers in North Carolina in the United States (US) have asked whether the purchase of muscadine wine is linked to consumption of the fruit itself or even familiarity with other muscadine-based products in terms of spillover effects. The authors explored the interdependency between the market for fresh muscadine grapes and muscadine wine purchase. Consumer panel data were obtained from a State of North Carolina agency with oversight of the grape and wine industry; the agency contracted quota sampling of online consumers from six states in the US South. A total of 543 cases were used in the present study. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)® was employed in analysis. Results show that prior muscadine wine knowledge and knowledge of other muscadine products, e.g., jams, juices, smoothies, sauces, and health/beauty products were significant factors associated with buying muscadine wine. Beliefs about muscadine grapes as a healthy ingredient showed a slight influence, while direct experience with fresh muscadines and consumer attitudes towards buying local or US products were insignificant.
    [Show full text]
  • Muscadine (Vitis Rotundifolia Michx., Syn
    agriculture Review Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia Michx., syn. Muscandinia rotundifolia (Michx.) Small): The Resilient, Native Grape of the Southeastern U.S Cain C. Hickey 1,*, Erick D. Smith 2, Shanshan Cao 2 and Patrick Conner 2 1 Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Athens, 322 Hoke Smith Building, Athens, GA 30602, USA 2 Department of Horticulture, University of Georgia, Tifton Campus, 2360 Rainwater Road, Tifton, GA 31793, USA; [email protected] (E.D.S.); [email protected] (S.C.); [email protected] (P.C.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-706-542-1774 Received: 19 April 2019; Accepted: 15 June 2019; Published: 22 June 2019 Abstract: Angiosperms are well adapted to tolerate biotic and abiotic stresses in their native environment. However, the growth habit of native plants may not be suited for cultivation and their fruits may not be desirable for consumption. Adapting a plant for cultivation and commercial appeal through breeding and selection may accentuate weaknesses in pest tolerance. The transition of muscadine from a wild, native plant to a cultivated crop has taken place over the last 150 years. Early production primarily involved cloning elite wild selections; few pest management inputs were needed since the material was genetically similar to the native plant. Over time, emphasis was placed on the refinement of pruning, trellising, and other cultural inputs to increase productivity and commercial implementation. In turn, breeders developed newer cultivars with greater productivity and commercial appeal. Many modern muscadine cultivars remain tolerant to biotic pests and are adapted to a hot and humid climate. The primary focus of this review is to provide a descriptive context of muscadine as a native American, perennial fruit crop that requires minimal pest management in hot, humid climates relative to recently introduced European bunch grapes.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Grape Chitinase Activities in Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon with Vitis Rotundifolia Cv
    Research Note Comparison of Grape Chitinase Activities in Chardonnay and Cabernet Sauvignon with Vitis rotundifolia cv. Fry Steven Van Sluyter,l Michael J. D~rako,~and Christopher J. Halkides3* Abstract: Fungal resistance in Euvitis is generally correlated with levels of pathogenesis-related proteins such as chitinase. Vitis rotundifolia is resistant to many pathogens that affect Vitis vinifera; therefore, grape chitinase ac- tivities were compared in V rotundifolia cv. Fry and V vinifera cvs. Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay. Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay chitinase activities were approximately 130-fold and 80-fold higher than Fry activi- ties, respectively. Thus, the high pathogen resistance of Fry may be a result of factors other than chitinase. By sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), Fry berries had two chitinase isoforms, and at least one was not found in the V vinifera berries. Cabernet Sauvignon and Chardonnay had four and five chitinase isoforms, respectively. Key words: chitinase, muscadine, pathogenesis, protein Vitis rotundifolia grapevines, commonly called musca- proteins consistently identified as chitinases and thau- dines, are native to the southeastern United States and are matin-like proteins (Derckel et al. 1998, Hayasaka et al. resistant to many diseases that affect Vitis vinifera, such 2001, Pocock et al. 2000, Salzman et al. 1998, Tattersall et as Xylella fastidiosa, Botrytis cinerea, and Plasmopara al. 1997). In comparisons among Euvitis cultivars of vary- viticola (Galet and Morton 1988, Staudt and Kassemeyer ing fungal susceptibility, positive correlations between 1995). The most striking physical differences between V. fungal resistance in the field and chitinase activities rotundifolia and V vinifera are that muscadine grapes are against synthetic substrates have been observed (Busam large with thick skins and that they grow in loose clusters et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule Overview
    Schedule Overview Date Time Session Topic Sunday August 1 6:00-9:00 PM Welcome reception (at Smith Opera House) Monday August 2 8:30-8:40 AM Opening Comments 8:40-10:05 AM Oral Session 1 Pest and Disease Resistance I 10:35-12:30 PM Oral Session 2 Pest and Disease Resistance II 12:30-1:30 PM (lunch at Scandling Center) 1:30-3:00 PM Poster Session 1 Berry quality; Adaptation to soils and climates; Genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics; and Transgenic research 3:00-5:40 PM Oral Session 3 Grapevine Breeding: Techniques, Goals, and Strategies Tuesday August 3 8:00-10:10 AM Oral Session 4 Genomics, Transcriptomics, Proteomics and Metabolomics I 10:40-12:35 PM Oral Session 5 Genomics, Transcriptomics, Proteomics and Metabolomics II 12:15-1:15 PM (lunch at Scandling Center) 1:30-6:00 PM Field Tour of NYS Agricultural Experiment Station, USDA-ARS units 6:30 PM- ? "Dinosaur Bar B Que" at Station Pavilion Wednesday August 4 8:00-10:10 AM Oral Session 6 Abiotic and Biotic Stress Tolerance 10:40-12:35 PM Oral Session 7 Genetics of Fruit Quality & Transgenic Research 12:35-1:30 PM (lunch at Scandling Center) 1:30-3:00 PM Poster Session 2 Grapevine germplasm: Conservation and analysis; Breeding techniques, goals and strategies; Pest and disease resistance 4:00 PM Departure for evening banquet; winery stop en route 6:00 PM Arrival at Watkins Glen Harbor Hotel, reception, wine tasting 7:00 PM Dinner, entertainment by "Cool Club" 10:00 PM Return to Geneva Thursday August 5 8:00-10:00 AM Oral Session 8 Grapevine Genetic Resources - Parentage,
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Viticulture in World, Serbia and Region
    UDC: 634.8-114.7 COBISS.SR-ID: 228213260 Original research paper Acta Agriculturae Serbica, Vol. XXI, 42 (2016); 155-1661 Organic viticulture in world, Serbia and region Vera Vukosavljević1, Dragoljub Žunić2, Slavica Todić2, Saša Matijašević2 1University of Kragujevac, Faculty of Agronomy, Cara Dusana 34, 32000 Cacak, Republic of Serbia ( e-mail: [email protected]) 2University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, Belgrade, Nemanjina 6, 11080 Zemun, Serbia; Abstract - Organic production is a process that develops a viable and legitimate agricultural ecosystems. The link between man, agriculture and local environmental conditions, provides quality food for people, plants and animals in a healthy environment. There are a few basic principles and ideas that explain the production of organic food in the ecosystem. The organic viticulture production in which there is a balance between environmental conditions, varieties and methods of cultivation. The two main factors that determine the choice of location concepts and establishing assortments. Organic viticulture is widespread mainly in the Mediterranean countries of Europe such as Italy, France and Spain. The Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and constant air currents limiting the development of pests and diseases on grapevines. The same concept can be seen in California, USA and South Africa. In the wine-growing countries with humid climates apply to another concept of organic viticulture, and that is the use of varieties resistant to pests and diseases. In Romania, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland and northern France are represented interspecific hybrids and new resistant varieties. In the north-east of America, on the border with Canada, grown varieties Vitis labrusca and Vitis species in the south rotundifolia.
    [Show full text]