Modifications of Grapevine Berry Composition Induced by Main Viral and Fungal Pathogens in a Climate Change Scenario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The grapevine is subject to high number of fungal and viral diseases, which are responsible for important economic losses in the global wine sector every year. These pathogens deteriorate grapevine berry quality either directly via the modulation of fruit metabolic pathways and the production of endogenous compounds associated with bad taste and/or flavor, or indirectly via their impact on vine physiology. The most common and devastating fungal diseases in viticulture are gray mold, downy mildew (DM), and powdery mildew (PM), caused, respectively by Botrytis cinerea , Plasmopara viticola , and Erysiphe necator . Whereas B. cinerea mainly infects and deteriorates the ripening fruit directly, deteriorations by DM and PM are mostly indirect via a reduction of photosynthetic leaf area. Nevertheless, mildews can also infect berries at certain developmental stages and directly alter fruit quality via the biosynthesis of unpleasant flavor compounds that impair ultimate wine quality. The grapevine is furthermore host of a wide range of viruses that reduce vine longevity, productivity and berry quality in different ways. The most widespread virus-related diseases, that are known nowadays, are Grapevine Leafroll Disease (GLRD), Grapevine Fanleaf Disease (GFLD), and the more recently characterized grapevine red blotch disease (GRBD). Future climatic conditions are creating a more favorable environment for the proliferation of most virus-insect vectors, so the spread of virus-related diseases is expected to increase in most wine-growing regions. However, the impact of climate change on the evolution of fungal disease pressure will be variable and depending on region and pathogen, with mildews remaining certainly the major phytosanitary threat in most regions because their development rate is to a large extent temperature-driven. This paper aims to provide a review of published literature on most important grapevine fungal and viral pathogens and their impact on grape berry physiology and quality. Our overview of the published literature highlights gaps in our understanding of plant-pathogen interactions, which are valuable for conceiving future research programs dealing with the different pathogens and their impacts on grapevine berry quality and metabolism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".