Tolerance to Lime - Induced Chlorosis and Drought in Grapevine Rootstocks - Abiotic Stress: Plant Responses and Applications in Agriculture - page 295

Cregg (2004) stated that to compare the relative tolerance among different genotypes, the
variables to evaluate are as follows: survival potential, growth capacity, and water use
efficiency based of morphological and physiological adaptations that might occur in the plant.

The most drought-tolerant grapevine species are V. arizonica, V. californica, V. champinii, V.
doaniana, V. gidriana, and V. longii. The lowest tolerance was observed in V. berlandieri, V.
cinerea, V. lincecumii, V. riparia, and V. solonis. V. rupestris showed only a moderate tolerance
to drought (Padgett-Johnson, et al., 2003).

V. cinerea can assure not only a complete phylloxera resistance; it also shows a positive
influence on scion performance especially in shallow, gravely, and consequently dry soils.
Phylloxera-resistant V. cinerea hybrids are therefore recommended for vineyards established
in sites with generally dry conditions. In dry locations V. riparia x V. cinerea hybrids represent
a valuable expansion of the range of rootstocks currently available in Germany. Particularly
on steep slopes and in seasons with rare rainfall the results obtained with these hybrids were
superior (Schmidt et al ., 2005).

Basing on the evaluation of all traits of tolerance to drought of research in the Czech Republic
it is possible to conclude that the highest number of drought-tolerant hybrids originated from
the crossing of Binova x Börner so that there is a very good chance to use the rootstock Börner
and Vitis cinerea for further breeding and selection of rootstock resistant to drought stress.
However, hybrids with Vitis rupestris and Vitis amurensis in their pedigrees show only a
medium resistance to drought stress. (Pavloušek, 2011b).

The occurrence of drought is also very closely correlated with the overall soil conditions of the
site. For that reason it is recommended to select individual rootstocks with regard to the type
of soil and also to contents of loamy, clayey and sandy particles within the soil profile.

White (2009) arranged rootstocks with regard to their drought tolerance and pedological
conditions of the site in the following manner (Table 7):

Soil profile characteristics Vineyard water status Recommended rootstocks

Dry soil 110 Richter, 140 Ruggeri, 1103 Paulsen

Soil depth < 20 cm: sand, loam or clay
including any root-impeding subsoil

Irrigated soil 110 R, 140 Ru, 1103 P, Ramsey

Dry soil 99R, 110R, 140 Ru, 1103P, Ramsey, Kober 5 BB

Soil depth 20-75 cm, sands, loams or
clays, with no root-impeding subsoil.

99R, 110R, Ramsey, Kober 5BB, Teleki 5C,
Schwarzmann, SO4, 420A, 101-14 (in loams and
clays).

Irrigated soil

Dry soil 99R, 110R, 1103P, Ramsey (in sand), Kober 5BB.

Soil depth"/> 75 cm, uniform or
gradational profile of sand, loam or clay.

SO4, 101-14, Teleki 5C, Schwarzmann, 3306 a 3309
Couderc, 420A.

Irrigated soil

Table 7. Dependence of tolerance drought and chlorosis of rootstocks on soil conditions (WHITE, 2009).