Paper · 2025 · EPPO Bulletin

Field sustainable management of apple scab disease using cane extract of Vitis vinifera

Thi‐Nga Nguyen; Caroline Cayzac; Jean Le Maguet; et al.

4
claims
7
verbatim quotes
2
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Abstract Grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) synthesizes many secondary metabolites within its woody tissues, which act as a chemical defence against pathogens. The annual pruning of mature woody shoots of grapevine (also referred to as grapevine canes) from vineyards represents a renewable source of natural fungicides. We produced an extract of grapevine cane waste (Antoferine®) to evaluate its efficacy on apple scab disease in the field over three seasons from 2018 to 2020. The application of grapevine cane extract ranging from 2.5 g/L (1.25 kg/ha) to 15 g/L (7.5 kg/ha) on cider‐apple trees significantly protected apple shoots and fruits from scab disease, regardless of application time at low or high Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) levels. Its efficacy was comparable to commonly used fungicides under moderate pathogen pressure in 2018 and 2019. Under a high pathogen pressure in 2020, its effect was lower than that of the commonly used fungicides while still providing protection against disease. An optimal dose of 5 g/L (2.5 kg/ha) of grapevine cane extract is suitable for use in crop protection from an industrial perspective. Under the financial support of the European Union, we submitted the dossier for approval of grapevine cane extract as a commercial biocontrol to contribute to sustainable agriculture.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Grapevine cane extract significantly protected apple shoots and fruits from scab disease, regardless of application time at low or high PAR levels.

Treatment
grapevine cane extracte1
Outcome
scab diseasee1
Direction
significantly protectede1
Qualifier
regardless of application time at low or high Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) levelse1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The application of grapevine cane extract ranging from 2.5 g/L (1.25 kg/ha) to 15 g/L (7.5 kg/ha) on cider‐apple trees significantly protected apple shoots and fruits from scab disease, regardless of application time at low or high Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) levels”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 476–756 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Efficacy of the cane extract was comparable to commonly used fungicides under moderate pathogen pressure in 2018 and 2019.

Treatment
cane extractt0
Outcome
efficacye2
Direction
comparablee2
Qualifier
under moderate pathogen pressure in 2018 and 2019e2
Comparator
commonly used fungicidese2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Field sustainable management of apple scab disease using cane extract of Vitis vinifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–87 · show in text ↑
e2

“Its efficacy was comparable to commonly used fungicides under moderate pathogen pressure in 2018 and 2019”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 758–863 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Under high pathogen pressure in 2020, the cane extract effect was lower than that of commonly used fungicides while still providing protection against disease.

Treatment
cane extractt0
Outcome
effecte3
Direction
lowere3
Qualifier
Under a high pathogen pressure in 2020e3
Comparator
commonly used fungicidese3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Field sustainable management of apple scab disease using cane extract of Vitis vinifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–87 · show in text ↑
e3

“Under a high pathogen pressure in 2020, its effect was lower than that of the commonly used fungicides while still providing protection against disease”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 865–1016 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

An optimal dose of 5 g/L (2.5 kg/ha) of grapevine cane extract is suitable for crop protection from an industrial perspective.

Treatment
grapevine cane extracte4
Outcome
suitable for use in crop protectione4
Value
5 g/L (2.5 kg/ha)e4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Field sustainable management of apple scab disease using cane extract of Vitis vinifera”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–87 · show in text ↑
e4

“An optimal dose of 5 g/L (2.5 kg/ha) of grapevine cane extract is suitable for use in crop protection from an industrial perspective”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1018–1150 · show in text ↑

botanical · control · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

botanical · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

39 papers: 36 positive, 3 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

35 papers more in this group

See all 39 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.