Module 5: Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards

Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards

Author: Jennifer Hashim-Maguire, AUSCAL Viticulture

Rootstocks are required in many table grape-growing regions of the world due to soil pests, commonly
phylloxera and nematodes, and various soil health problems such as calcareous soils, salinity and others. This
paper summarises the origin and characteristics of rootstocks and rootstock hybrids and factors that should be
taken into consideration when choosing a rootstock for your table grape vineyard.

Species used as rootstocks or rootstock hybrid

There is only handful of grapevine species used as today’s current rootstocks or rootstock hybrids of choice.
Most of these belong to the genus Vitis, which is derived from the Latin word ‘viere’ ‘to attach’ alluding to the
tendrils and the climbing nature of plants in this genus. Without the discovery of phylloxera-resistant rootstocks
bred from North American Vitis species, the culture of Vitis vinifera varieties would be impossible in many
important grape-growing regions throughout the world. The following outlines the characteristics of six principal
North American species.
Vitis berlandieri. V. berlandieri was found in the limestone hills of central and south-western Texas, United
States. This species was imported to France during the late 1800’s for rootstock breeding due to its excellent
lime tolerance and good phylloxera resistance. It is extremely difficult to root and graft on its own and is used
exclusively for hybridization. V. berlandieri has been crossed with V. riparia, V. rupestris, and V. vinifera to
produce rootstocks with lime tolerance and phylloxera resistance. However, it is susceptible to root-knot and
dagger nematodes.
Vitis champinii. Also from central Texas, V. champinii is thought to be a natural hybrid between V. candicans
and V. rupestris. V. candicans, known among the Native Americans as the ‘Mustang’ grape, is drought tolerant
and found in abundance in Oklahoma and throughout Texas and Northern Mexico. V. champinii has been
used directly as a rootstock such as, ‘Dog Ridge’ and ‘Ramsey’, and has been hybridized to form the common
rootstocks ‘Freedom’ and ‘Harmony'. This species has good lime tolerance, moderate phylloxera and root-knot
nematode resistance. V. champinii rootstocks can be extremely vigorous in deep, fertile soils and may be
difficult to root and propagate.
Vitis longii. Known as the ‘Gully’ grape due to its presence in dry creek beds, V. longii is found in Central
Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Kansas, USA. This species is easy to root, has good drought tolerance,
moderate phylloxera resistance, and some accessions have nematode resistance.
Vitis riparia. Of all of the North American Vitis species, V. riparia is the most widespread. It is found
throughout Canada, Texas and Louisiana, USA. It grows naturally on river banks and is often near moist,
fertile soils. V. riparia was directly used as rootstock in Europe (‘Riparia Gloire’), but does not tolerate
calcareous soils. The species has strong resistance to phylloxera, roots and grafts well but does not generally
tolerate nematodes. Hybrids of V. riparia and V. berlandieri are among the most popular rootstocks in the
world today.
Vitis rupestris. V. rupestris is considered a rare species and its disappearance can be traced to cattle grazing
in the mid-west and southern USA. V. rupestris is distinct from the other species because it is unusually bushy
and rarely climbs. It is currently found near gravelly banks of streams in northern Arkansas, Missouri and
Tennessee, USA. V. rupestris is moderately resistant to phylloxera and grafts and roots and propagates well,
but it is highly susceptible to nematodes and lacks lime tolerance. The most common pure V. rupestris
rootstock is ‘St. George.’
Muscadinia rotundifolia. Native to the south-eastern USA, M. rotundifolia grows throughout eastern Texas
and central Arkansas. It is considered to be in a separate genus because it has two additional chromosomes
and is morphologically distinct as compared to Vitis. Its excellent characteristics of nematode and phylloxera

51
Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
resistance coupled with resistance to many fungal diseases, such as powdery mildew, make M. rotundifolia
highly desirable in breeding programs. This species does not root directly from cuttings.

Common rootstock selections for table grapes

Ramsey (V. champinii): Ramsey is well suited for sandy soils with low fertility. It imparts excellent salinity
tolerance. The rootstock is drought tolerant and has high water use efficiency. The outstanding properties of
this rootstock are its strong vigour and good root distribution/branching enables it to have a greater resistance
to problems related to drought. Its high vigour will increase canopy management costs, delay maturity and
reduce colour. In general the relative vigour of Ramsey can be described as -- Ramsey > Freedom > Harmony
(order influenced by soil type). Ramsey is highly productive and can generate large yields. It has strong
resistance to nematodes. However, it is susceptible to resistance breaking biotypes of root-knot nematode and
to dagger nematode. It is of moderate phylloxera resistance. Vines grafted to Ramsey tend have high levels of
nitrogen, phosphorus and zinc.
Freedom (V champinii x 1613C): Developed at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Fresno,
USA. Freedom is the primary rootstock used in table grape production in California due to its excellent
performance on sandy soils with relatively low fertility. It induces high vigour on fertile soils. Freedom has
excellent nematode resistance; however it is susceptible to resistance breaking biotypes of root-knot
nematode. In addition, it is particularly sensitive to virus-infected scion material which can lead to graft
incompatibility. Vines grafted to Freedom tend have high levels of nitrogen and potassium, but low levels of
zinc.
Harmony (V champinii x 1613C): Developed at the USDA-Fresno, USA. Harmony is used in table grape
production on coarse textured soils where lower vigour (compared to Ramsey and Freedom) is desired.
Harmony has strong resistance to root-knot nematodes, but is susceptible to resistance breaking biotypes. It
has poor resistance to phylloxera and is not recommended in infested sites.
1103 Paulsen (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris): 1103 Paulsen has strong drought tolerance, high lime tolerance
and excellent salinity tolerance. It is highly vigorous on fertile sites with ample irrigation and will increase
canopy management costs, delay maturity and reduce colour. 1103 Paulsen has a deep, strongly developed
root system. It has phylloxera resistance, but is susceptible to root-knot and dagger nematode. It exhibits
moderate resistance to citrus and root-lesion nematode.

140 Ruggeri (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris): 140 Ruggeri was selected for the droughty, limestone soils of Sicily
by Ruggeri. Italians consider it to be one of the most drought tolerant rootstocks. It is well suited to dry-farmed
sites and shallow, drought prone soils. In soils with good fertility, it will impart high vigour and is tolerant to
lime-based soils. 140 Ruggeri has good phylloxera resistance and is reported to have moderate resistance to
root knot nematode.

110 Richter (V. berlandieri x V. rupestris): 110 Richter has a long growth cycle, but shorter than Ramsey. It is
sometimes slow to establish, but its vigour improves as the vines age. The rootstock has a very good
resistance to drought, but on light sandy soils must be avoided. There are reports of potassium deficiency on
heavy soils. This rootstock has good phylloxera resistance, but is susceptible to root knot and dagger
nematodes.

101-14 Mgt (V. riparia x V. rupestris): 101-14 was produced in France by Millardet De Grasset. It has
moderate-low vigour and contributes to early ripening and better fruit colour in red cultivars. It may also
contribute to better fruit set, fuller/tighter bunches. It is sensitive to drought and fares well in heavier soils or
properly irrigated conditions. Because of its shallow root development, it prefers better soil types. The
rootstock is reported to have some difficulty in grafting. 101-14 has good phylloxera resistance and medium
tolerance to nematodes. It is not suitable for drought or high-lime soil conditions and is best suited for moist,
clay soils.

52
InnoGrape: Innovation in Table Grape Production
 Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
Schwarzmann ((V. riparia x V. rupestris): Schwarzmann has moderate vigour (higher than 101-14) and is well
suited for deep, fertile, sandy-loam soils. Like 101-14, it is sensitive to drought but has better tolerance to soil
salinity. Schwarzmann is reported to improve fruit colour in red cultivars. It has good phylloxera resistance
medium tolerance to nematodes.

5C Teleki (V. berlandieri x V. riparia): Teleki 5C is a good rootstock choice on clay-loam and clay soils. It has
broad nematode tolerance, good phylloxera resistance and good lime tolerance. It is low-medium in vigour and
has performed well in terms of yield and fruit quality of Crimson Seedless in loam soils in California. It is
sensitive to drought and is best suited to heavier soils or properly irrigated conditions.

5BB Kober (V. berlandieri x V. riparia): 5BB is similar to Teleki 5C, however it is a little more drought tolerant
than 5C but less so than 110R. 5BB is susceptible to Phytophthora root rot and sites with a history of ponding
water or Phytophthora should avoid this rootstock. 5BB has broad nematode tolerance, good phylloxera
resistance and good lime tolerance.

Factors that influence the choice of rootstock

Successful propagation and compatibility

Rootstocks differ greatly in their rate of rooting and callusing and ease of propagation. The success of bench-
grafted vines depends on three developments:
1. Growth of the bud;
2. Anatomical union of the scion (variety) and rootstock; and
3. Initiation of roots.
If any one of these fails, the graft will die. Grafts on easily rooted rootstocks will withstand much more neglect
during their development and still be more successful than those on slower rooting rootstocks. Vines grafted to
Ramsey are well-known for their slow-rate of rooting and callusing and thus propagation is much more difficult
in comparison to other rootstocks. In addition, grafts between different species of Vitis are usually successful
because they belong to the same genus, but there are also exceptions. Vitis vinifera (which includes most of
the scion varieties) grafts reasonably well onto V. berlandieri. In contrast to this, problems are experienced
when V. vinifera is grafted onto M. rotundifolia or V. riparia.
The definition of ‘compatibility’ is not-universally equivalent and often used differently by researchers and
growers. Good compatibility involves the successful union of a rootstock and a scion where all physiological
functions, including the movement of water and nutrients, take place normally.
When a graft combination is made and the union integrates poorly, the result is often observed at a very early
stage, usually as slow growth followed by die-back/death in the nursery. However, in a much more serious
case, the combination integrates anatomically, but is ‘incompatible’ for other reasons and might only become
visible after a couple of years. The reasons for incompatibility are sometimes unclear, but are often associated
with graft-transmissible virus or virus-like diseases. Some examples associated with rootstock/scion
incompatibilities include:
 Leafroll-associated viruses – GLRaV-2 (in combination with GVB) on Freedom, Harmony and
Schwarzmann causing severe stunting.
 Grapevine fleck virus —GFkV-A on a Ramsey clone* that may result in swelling at the graft union.
 Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 2 Red Globe (GLRaV-2RG) causing Red Globe grafted 5BB
Kober, 5C Teleki, 3309C and 1103 Paulsen to decline and die a couple of years after planting.
*A clone is a group of genetically identical individuals, having all been vegetatively propagated from the same
individual or ‘mother vine’.

53
InnoGrape
Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards

Adaptability to soil conditions

Biological soil factors -- Resistance to root pests. Roots of grapevines host numerous soil pests with grape
phylloxera and nematodes being the most damaging to production viticulture. Grape phylloxera
(Daktulosphaira vitifoliae), is an aphid-like insect that feeds on damages the roots of grapevines. It is native to
eastern North America and was inadvertently exported to France and England on the roots of American
grapevines. Since the mid to late 19th century, it has devastated vineyards across Europe, North America,
New Zealand, South Africa and parts of South America and Australia.
The pest damages the root systems of grapevines during feeding, causing the actively growing rootlets and
mature roots to swell, stunt and eventually dieback. The extent of damage to the root system depends on the
severity of infestation, vine age and vigour, soil type, temperature and drainage. For example, vigorous vines
or those grown on deep and well drained soils tolerate phylloxera infestations much better than vines that are
weak and grown on shallow, heavy and poorly drained soils. The swellings or galls caused by phylloxera
feeding impair the absorption of nutrients and water and affect the vine’s overall productivity.
In the warmer regions and where coarse-textured soils (sand, loamy sand and sandy loam) are prevalent, the
root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) are the most important of the root pests. It is estimated that these
nematodes can reduce grapevine yields by as much as 25%. Juvenile root-knot nematodes damage the roots
directly by penetrating the root tip to establish feeding sites. Penetration and subsequent development within
the root results in the formation of a gall. These galls or ‘knots’ may disrupt the root’s ability to take up water
and nutrients; but just as important, the adult female becomes a drain for vine energy. Additional damage may
occur to the root system, since nematode feeding provides an entry site for secondary pathogens.

Table 1. Common phylloxera-resistant rootstocks.

Rootstock Drought Effect on scion Other
tolerance Lime Vigour Mineral nutrition
tolerance
1103 Med- Med- Med- N: med-high Adapted to drought and saline
Paulsen High High High P,Mg: high conditions.
K, Zn: low-med
5BB Kober Medium Med- Medium N: med-high Well adapted to moist, heavy/clay
High P,K,Zn: medium soils.
5C Teleki Low Medium Low- N: low Well adapted to moist, heavy/clay
med P,K: med soils.
Zn: low-med
SO4 Low-med Medium Low- N: low-med
med P: med
K: med-high
110R High Medium Medium N: medium Recommended for hill-side
P: high vineyards and dry-farmed
K: low-med situations. May induce high
vigour on fertile soils.
101-14 Mgt Low-med Low-med Medium N,K: med-high
P,Mg,Ca: low
Zn: med
1616 C Low Low-med Low N: low Performs well on heavy, water
K: med-high logged soils.
Source: Adapted from Christensen, et al., (2003).

54
InnoGrape: Innovation in Table Grape Production
 Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
A common management practice to overcome the damaging effects of both nematodes and grape phylloxera
is to use resistant rootstocks (Table 1 and 2). All table grape varieties grown in Australia are of pure Vitis
vinifera parentage, and this species is particularly susceptible to attack by both phylloxera and nematodes.
Resistant rootstock species have unique resistance mechanisms to the aforementioned pests that may include
the ability to exude repellent biochemicals, the presence of physical barriers in the root that prevent
penetration, the stimulation of a hypersensitive response that inhibits pest development and feeding, or simply
the absence of nutrients required for pest development.

Table 2. Common nematode-resistant rootstocks.

Rootstock Drought Effect on scion Nematode resistance
tolerance Vigour Mineral Common Aggressive Dagger
nutrition Root-knot Root-knot X.index/X.
americanum
Freedom Medium High N,P,K: high Resistant Highly Resistant/Susceptible
Mg: susceptible
medium
Zn,Mn: low
Harmony Low- Medium- N: low Resistant Highly Resistant/Susceptible
medium High P: medium susceptible
K: high
Zn: medium
Ramsey Medium- High N,P: high Resistant Highly Some
high K: med- susceptible Resistance/Susceptible
high
Zn, Mg: low
Schwarzmann Medium Low- N,P: Some Resistant on Some Resistance/
Medium medium Resistance older roots Susceptible
K: med-
high
Mg: low
039-16 Low High N,K: high Susceptible Susceptible Resistant/ Slightly
P: low-med susceptible
Zn: low
RS-3 NA Medium NA Resistant Resistant Resistant/Susceptible
RS-9 NA Low NA Resistant Resistant Resistant/
Susceptible
Source: Adapted from Christensen et al., (2003).

Soil chemical factors. Some rootstocks tolerate adverse soil conditions better than others. These traits are
inherited from their parent’s adaptive ability to thrive in distinct geographical locations in North America. As
mentioned above, V. berlandieri was discovered growing in the limestone hills of Texas and as a result, many
hybrids of the berlandieri species (140 Ruggeri, 1103 Paulsen, 5C Teleki, 5BB Kober) perform well in
calcareous (lime) soils. In contrast, own-root V. vinifera, 101-14 or Schwarzmann are intolerant of lime and
often express iron chlorosis when grown in such soils, particularly when the spring is cold and wet.

55
InnoGrape
Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
Salinity in soils (and irrigation water) is a problem in many viticultural areas. Saline soils have excessive
soluble salts (chlorides and sulphates of sodium, calcium and magnesium) that adversely affect plant growth.
Grapevines do best when the electrical conductivity of soil saturation extract (ECe) measures less than
1.5dS/m (to a depth of 1.2m). Vine growth and yield decreases as ECe is increased over 2.5dS/m (Table 3).

Table 3. Guidelines on soil suitability for growing grapes.

Possible problem No problem Increasing problem Severe problem
(< 10% yield loss) (10-25% loss) (25-50% loss)
Salinity, total salts (ECe, 1.5 to 2.5 2.5 to 4 4 to 7
dS/m)
Toxicity
Chloride (meq/L) < 10 10 to 30 30
(mg/l or ppm) (350) (350-1060) (1060)

Boron (mg/L) <1 1 to 3 >3

Sodium (meq/L) - Above 30 (690 ppm) -

pH 5.5 to 8.5

Note: Guidelines should be modified when warranted by local experience, special conditions and method of
irrigation. Source: Peacock (1996).

While proper drainage and leaching is essential, certain rootstocks are more tolerant to soil salinity. Many trials
have been conducted in Australia and the relationship between rootstocks and soil salinity is well documented.
A summary of rootstock salt tolerance is provided in Table 4.

Table 4. Guide to soil salinity tolerance of a range of rootstocks.

Classification of salt Rootstock Threshold soil saturation
tolerance paste salinity above which
yield declines (dS/m)
Sensitive Own root (V. vinifera), 3309C, 1.8
Harmony, Freedom
Moderately sensitive 5BB Kober, 5C Teleki, 2.5
110-R, 99-R
Moderately tolerant 140-Ru, Schwarzmann, 3.3
101-14, Ramsey
Tolerant 1103-P 5.6

Source: Adapted from Whiting (2004).

56
InnoGrape: Innovation in Table Grape Production
 Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
Soil physical factors. While resistance to root pests is of the utmost importance, tolerance to soil chemical
and physical factors are secondary but also important considerations when choosing a rootstock. Soil depth,
soil fertility, compaction and drainage are factors that can improve or adversely impact vine growth, fruit yield
and quality and the choice of rootstock may exacerbate or lessen potential problems. In terms of soil
compaction and poor drainage, which often results in waterlogged conditions, 5BB Kober is especially
sensitive and is vulnerable to Phytophthora root rot. Luckily, few table grape vineyards are established on
heavier, wet soils and the occurrence of Phytophthora is not a particular problem.
There have been many observations on the performance of grafted table grape vines and their relative
suitability according to different soil types. For example, vines grafted to Ramsey are preferred on sandy,
infertile soils and 1103 Paulsen is adaptable to many soils, but performs well on hillsides and clay soils that
crack. Freedom and Harmony are of similar parentage, but Freedom is preferred on sandy soils, while
Harmony performs best on sandy-loam to loam soils with better water holding capacity. Schwarzmann
establishes well in sandy and medium loam soils, but not in heavy soils or soils that crack. Table 5 is a general
summary of rootstock suitability according to soil depth on irrigated land.

Table 5. General rootstock suitability according to soil depth on irrigated land.

Soil depth Rootstock
Shallow 110R, 140Ru, 1103-P, Kober 5BB, Teleki 5C,
Shallow sand, loam and clay Freedom, Ramsey
Restrictive duplex
Medium 110R, 140Ru, 1103-P, Kober 5BB, Teleki 5C, 101-
Calcareous sand, loam and clay 14, Schwarzmann, Freedom, Harmony, Ramsey
Non-restrictive duplex
Deep 110R, 140Ru, 1103-P, Teleki 5C, 101-14,
Uniform or gradational, deep sand, loam and clay Schwarzmann, Freedom, Harmony, Ramsey*
*except on red varieties that are difficult to colour.
Source: Adapted from Whiting (2004).

Drought tolerance
The ability to tolerate drought varies among the rootstock hybrids and is associated to water availability and
soil moisture in their parental native habitats. Variation can be observed in the characteristics associated with
water uptake, and one example is the distribution and density of the root system. Ramsey (V. champinii) has
an abundant, well branched root system and 1103-P (V. berlandieri) has a deep, developed root system and
consequently they are more capable of tolerating drought. Rootstocks derived from V. riparia (Riparia Gloire,
101-14), discovered growing naturally on river banks (near abundant water and fertile soil) are notably poor in
regard to drought tolerance. A summary of rootstock drought tolerance is presented in Table 5.

57
InnoGrape
Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
Table 5. Comparative grapevine drought tolerance.
Rating Rootstock
Sensitive Riparia Gloire
Less tolerant Kober 5BB, Teleki 5C, 3309C, 101-14, Schwarzmann
Tolerant 1103-P
Highly tolerant Ramsey, 110R, 140Ru

Adapted from Whiting(2004) and Christensen et al. (2003).

Rootstock-scion variety relationships

Influence on canopy density and vigour

Grapevine vigour is primarily influenced by soil type and irrigation management. However, it is well-reported
that there are differences in canopy growth between the rootstocks (Figure 1). In general, rootstocks with
V. riperia parentage (1616C, 420A) are ‘low vigour’ while those with V. champinii parentage (Ramsey,
Freedom) are termed ‘high vigour’. The relative vigour of common rootstock hybrids can be found in Tables 1
and 2.
The vigour imparted by rootstocks is of particular importance in table grape production as excessive vigour
can cause shading within the grapevine canopy that may result in a reduction in bud fruitfulness (yield), poor
colour development in red grapes and delayed berry ripening. Low vigour rootstocks are generally not
acceptable for table grapes, as they are typically grown in hot climates and do not provide adequate cover for
developing fruit, resulting in sunburn and discolouration of white fruit.

8.0
7.0
Pruning weight per vine (kg)

6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Ramsey

Freedom
Paulsen

Harmony

own root
1103

Figure 1. Flame Seedless Pruning Weights (2007). Vines planted to 2.44m x 3.66m spacing, bilateral
cordon trained, spur pruned on a double cross-arm trellis system.

Influence on fruit yield and quality

In addition to canopy growth, rootstocks influence the reproductive growth of the vine. The primary function of
rootstocks growth in different soil conditions or where soil pests are present is to maintain or increase vine
growth. In some cases, yield can be explained directly by rootstock effects on bud fertility, berry set or berry

58
InnoGrape: Innovation in Table Grape Production
 Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
size. Low yields might be explained by using rootstocks that induce excessive vegetative vigour -- fruit set is
poor and only a few well-formed bunches are left, and poor bud fertility (as the case occasionally of 'Menindee
Seedless/Sugraone' or 'Midnight Beauty' grafted to Ramsey). These conditions occur in cases in which shoot
growth is rapid during fruit set and flower cluster initiation. Dense canopies during flower cluster initiation can
worsen the problem, as insufficient penetration of sunlight is available for the development of fruitful buds.
Choice of rootstocks may also influence the harvest date and colour development of ripening berries – which
is important in table grape production. The goal is to achieve uniform and adequate colour without (or using
less) Ethephon (Ethrel) and s-ABA (Protone). As stated above, this is a particularly a problem with vigorous
rootstocks which often retard colouration and a delay maturity. Varieties grafted to Ramsey often develop
these problems. Figure 2 demonstrates this concept, where 'Crimson Seedless' grafted to 1103 Paulsen, 5BB
Kober and Freedom produced an acceptable packed yield of 1,000 (8.6 kg) boxes per acre (2,470 boxes per
hectare), while Ramsey only produced a pack-out of 875 boxes per acre and 5 tonne of fruit was discarded
due to poor colour – a pack-out of only 60%.

1800.0
Estimated no. of 8.6 kg boxes per acre

Cull
1600.0
# 2 & #3 Boxes
1400.0
#1 Boxes
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
Paulsen

Kober

Ramsey

Freedom
5BB
1103

Figure 2. Influence of rootstock on the packable yield and waste (cull) of Crimson Seedless (2004).

Influence on mineral nutrition

As the roots primary function is to take up water and minerals, it makes sense that rootstock could impact
mineral nutrient uptake. Leaf petiole analysis from research trials have shown differences between rootstocks
indicting differential uptake of minerals that may require different nutrition strategies for different rootstocks
(Table 6). Vines grafted to Freedom and Ramsey tend to be effective in nitrogen (N) uptake and may reduce
or eliminate the need for additional fertilisers. However, it could also contribute to N toxicity or other related
problems, such as early bunch stem necrosis, stem necrosis and waterberry, in very fertile soils and those
where well water is high in nitrates.
Potassium (K) uptake in own-root table grape varieties ('Flame Seedless', sultana and 'Red Globe') is very low
and significantly enhanced with rootstocks. Freedom, Harmony, Ramsey, Schwarzmann and 101-14 tend to
have higher levels of K and the need for fertiliser would be less. The potential for K deficiency would be
expected in 1103 Paulsen, 5BB Kober and own-root vines, requiring additional inputs.
Low phosphorus (P) is a common problem in Australian soils where fertilisers have not been applied and in
calcareous-alkaline soils, where P binds to calcium, forming insoluble compounds. At sites where low P status

59
InnoGrape
Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards
has been observed, table grapes grafted to Ramsey, Freedom and 1103 Paulsen may be useful as a deterrent
to P deficiency.
Soils with zinc (Zn) deficiency problems can expect greater problems with Freedom, 1103 Paulsen, 5BB Kober
and 5C Teleki. Because ungrafted V. vinifera vines are generally higher in Zn compared to grafted vines, this
suggests that growers should be watchful for Zn deficiency when using any rootstocks and supplement with
foliar sprays when necessary.
Sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) are associated with alkali and salinity problems as discussed above. Rootstock
trial data is useful in demonstrating which rootstocks tend to accumulate or exclude salts. The majority of
rootstock hybrids result in lower levels of Na and Cl, however 1103 Paulsen and Ramsey are specifically used
in saline conditions (Table 4).

Table 6 Own root and grafted ‘Flame Seedless’ petiole analysis sampled at bloom.

Rootstock Total N No3-N K P Zn Na Cl

(ppm) (%) (%) (ppm) (ppm) (%)

Own root – Flame Seedless 0.83 167 1.03 0.49 53 1847 0.61

Freedom 1.59 4704 4.24 0.56 30 383 0.39

Harmony 1.06 1515 2.95 0.40 34 687 0.23

Ramsey 1.58 2506 2.06 0.55 44 301 0.20

1103 Paulsen 1.28 2105 1.76 0.61 37 246 0.13

Guide (adequate above) 0.8-1.1 500 1.5 0.15 26

Guideline (excessive above) 2500 3.0 1.0

Source: Luvisi and Schrader (2000).

Conclusion
The reasons for using a rootstock are to:
 Avoid problems of soil pests;
 Provide adaptability to soil and site conditions;
 Improve production of vegetative vigour, table grape yield and fruit quality); and
 Extend the life of the vineyard.
The successful choice of rootstock will require careful consideration of the purpose for which it is required and
conditions under which it is grown.
In choosing a rootstock, it is hard to make the perfect choice, but you want to avoid at all costs making a very
bad decision.

60
InnoGrape: Innovation in Table Grape Production
 Rootstock selection for table grape vineyards

Additional reading and references

Anwar, SA and McKenry,MV. 2000. Penetration, development and reproduction of Meloidogyne arenaria on
two new resistant Vitis spp. Nematropica. 30:9-17.
Anwar, SA; McKenry, MV and Ramming, D. 2002. A search for more durable grape rootstock resistance to
root-knot nematode. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture. 53(1):19-23.
Christensen, LP; Dokoozlian, NK; Walker, MA and Walker, JA. 2003. Wine Grape Varieties in California.
Publication 3419. University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Oakland, CA.
Cousins, P. 2005. Breeding rootstocks resistant to aggressive root-knot nematodes. Viticulture Research
Report 2004-2005. California Table Grape Commission. Volume XXXIII.
Galet, P. 1998. Grape Varieties and Rootstock Varieties. Oenoplurimedia, Chartre, France.
Grape Pest Management. 1992. 2nd Edition. Publication 3343. University of California Division of Agriculture
and Natural Resources. Oakland, CA.
Luvisi, DA and Schrader, PL. 2000. Rootstocks for table grape production. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on Table Grape Production, La Serena, Chile, 28 November - 1 December,
2000, pp. 145-185, INIA-Chile.
May, P. 1994. Using Grapevine Rootstocks - The Australian Perspective. Winetitles Pty Ltd, South Australia.
McCarthy, M. 2014. Sustainable Salinity Management in Australian Vineyards, Factsheet April 2014. Prepared
for Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation (GWRDC). Available online at
www.research.agwa.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Sustainable-Salinity-Management-in-Australian-
Vineyards.pdf.
Nicholas, P. Rootstock Characteristics, Technical Data Sheet No 2 – Chalmers Nurseries Pty Ltd. Primary
Industries South Australia, Loxton Centre. Available online at
www.chalmersnurseries.com/pdf/Rootstock_Data.pdf.
Peacock, B. 1996. The use of soil and water analysis.University of California, Tulare County Cooperative
extension Pub. IG3-96. Available online at: www.cetulare.ucanr.edu/files/82037.pdf.
Pongracz, DP. 1983. Rootstocks for Grapevines. David Phillip Publisher, Cape Province, South Africa.
Whiting, JR. 2004. Grapevine Rootstocks. In Dry, P.R and Coombe, B.G (Eds.), Viticulture Volume 1 –
Resources. 2nd Edition (pp 167-188). Winetitles Pty Ltd, South Australia.
Winkler, AJ; Cook, JA; Kliewer, WM and Lider, LA. 1974. General Viticulture. University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.

61
InnoGrape