Abstract
In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of control methods against Botrytis bunch rot (BBR) and explored the integration of several control methods. Among the biological control agents, Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector) demonstrated the best efficacy, with an average reduction in BBR of 57% (86% reduction in BBR for the synthetic fungicides). With the exception of leaf removal at the fruit set stage (71 on the BBCH scale) on one row side only, leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71 and on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage (63 on the BBCH scale) significantly reduced the percent BBR at harvest (23.6, 21.8, and 15.1%, respectively) compared with the control without leaf removal (48.2%). Of the 10 BBR management programs, the programs that kept the BBR below the economic threshold of 5% bunch area diseased at harvest were, for the susceptible cultivar Seyval Blanc, trash management combined with leaf removal at stage 63 on both row sides combined with application of synthetic fungicides at fixed intervals (3.9%), synthetic fungicides applied based on risk of BBR (4.3%), or application of Botector according to the risks of BBR (4.5%). With respect to Vidal Blanc, a moderately susceptible cultivar, for these management programs, the severity of BBR at harvest was 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9%, respectively. The results showed that by using integrated BBR management it is possible to maintain the disease below 5% without synthetic fungicides or with a reduced number of applications. [Formula: see text] Copyright © 2025 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license .
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector) reduced Botrytis bunch rot by 57% on average.
- Treatment
- Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector)e1
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinerea
Botrytis cinereat0pathogen - Second interactor
- Aureobasidium pullulans
Aureobasidium pullulanse1biocontrol_agent - Outcome
- BBRe1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 57%e1
VitisNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“Among the biological control agents, Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector) demonstrated the best efficacy, with an average reduction in BBR of 57% (86% reduction in BBR for the synthetic fungicides)”
Claim · model-written summary
Synthetic fungicides reduced Botrytis bunch rot by 86%.
- Treatment
- synthetic fungicidese1
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- BBRe1
- Direction
- reductione1
- Value
- 86%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“Among the biological control agents, Aureobasidium pullulans (Botector) demonstrated the best efficacy, with an average reduction in BBR of 57% (86% reduction in BBR for the synthetic fungicides)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71 significantly reduced percent BBR at harvest compared with no leaf removal.
- Treatment
- leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71e1
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- percent BBR at harveste1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 23.6e1
- Comparator
- control without leaf removale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71 and on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage (63 on the BBCH scale) significantly reduced the percent BBR at harvest (23.6, 21.8, and 15.1%, respectively) compared with the control without leaf removal (48.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf removal on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage significantly reduced percent BBR at harvest, to 21.8% on one row side.
- Treatment
- on one and two row sides at the early flowering stagee1
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- percent BBR at harveste1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 21.8e1
- Comparator
- control without leaf removale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71 and on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage (63 on the BBCH scale) significantly reduced the percent BBR at harvest (23.6, 21.8, and 15.1%, respectively) compared with the control without leaf removal (48.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf removal on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage significantly reduced percent BBR at harvest, to 15.1% on two row sides.
- Treatment
- on one and two row sides at the early flowering stagee1
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- percent BBR at harveste1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- 15.1%e1
- Comparator
- control without leaf removale1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“leaf removal on both row sides at stage 71 and on one and two row sides at the early flowering stage (63 on the BBCH scale) significantly reduced the percent BBR at harvest (23.6, 21.8, and 15.1%, respectively) compared with the control without leaf removal (48.2%)”
Claim · model-written summary
Trash management with stage 63 leaf removal on both row sides and fixed-interval synthetic fungicides kept BBR below 5% in Seyval Blanc (3.9%).
- Material
- Seyval Blance1
- Treatment
- trash management combined with leaf removal at stage 63 on both row sides combined with application of synthetic fungicides at fixed intervalse2
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- BBRe1
- Direction
- belowe1
- Value
- 3.9%e2
- Qualifier
- the severity of BBR at harvest was 4.5e3
- Comparator
- economic threshold of 5%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“the programs that kept the BBR below the economic threshold of 5% bunch area diseased at harvest were, for the susceptible cultivar Seyval Blanc”
e2“trash management combined with leaf removal at stage 63 on both row sides combined with application of synthetic fungicides at fixed intervals (3.9%)”
e3“With respect to Vidal Blanc, a moderately susceptible cultivar, for these management programs, the severity of BBR at harvest was 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Synthetic fungicides applied based on BBR risk kept BBR below 5% in Seyval Blanc (4.3%).
- Material
- Seyval Blance1
- Treatment
- synthetic fungicides applied based on risk of BBRe2
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Outcome
- BBRe1
- Direction
- belowe1
- Value
- 4.3%e2
- Qualifier
- 4.7e3
- Comparator
- economic threshold of 5%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“the programs that kept the BBR below the economic threshold of 5% bunch area diseased at harvest were, for the susceptible cultivar Seyval Blanc”
e2“synthetic fungicides applied based on risk of BBR (4.3%)”
e3“With respect to Vidal Blanc, a moderately susceptible cultivar, for these management programs, the severity of BBR at harvest was 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Application of Botector according to BBR risk kept BBR below 5% in Seyval Blanc (4.5%).
- Material
- Seyval Blance1
- Treatment
- application of Botector according to the risks of BBRe2
- Interactor
- Botrytis cinereaBotrytis cinereat0pathogen
- Second interactor
- Botectore2biocontrol_agent
- Outcome
- BBRe1
- Direction
- belowe1
- Value
- 4.5%e2
- Qualifier
- 4.9e3
- Comparator
- economic threshold of 5%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“the programs that kept the BBR below the economic threshold of 5% bunch area diseased at harvest were, for the susceptible cultivar Seyval Blanc”
e2“application of Botector according to the risks of BBR (4.5%)”
e3“With respect to Vidal Blanc, a moderately susceptible cultivar, for these management programs, the severity of BBR at harvest was 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9%, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated BBR management can maintain disease below 5% without synthetic fungicides or with fewer applications.
- Outcome
- diseasee1
- Direction
- below 5%e1
- Qualifier
- without synthetic fungicides or with a reduced number of applicationse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Botrytis Bunch Rot of Grapevine Caused by Botrytis cinerea”
e1“The results showed that by using integrated BBR management it is possible to maintain the disease below 5% without synthetic fungicides or with a reduced number of applications”
The same questions in other papers
Botrytis · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
Aureobasidium pullulans · Botrytis cinerea · VitisResults agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
fungicide · disease · VitisPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →stage · Botrytis cinerea · VitisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
pruning · Botrytis cinerea · VitisResults agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
fungicide · Botrytis cinerea · VitisResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.