THE

Resistant Vine Question

FOR

CALIFORNIA

AND THE

California Vine or Anaheim
Disease

BY

H. HOOPS

WRIGHTS, CAL.

NO
"tf

CNJ
O

ita

GIFT ©F

THE

Resistant Vine Question

FOR

CALIFORNIA

AND THE

California Vine or Anaheim
Disease

BY

H. HOOPS

WRIGHTS, CAL.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1906, by H. Hoops, in the
office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D, C,

.-.: ;."•'... •;. 2'-'--:":.

Gift

CHAPTER I.
THE RESISTANT VINE QUESTION IN GENERAL.

The most important characteristic and the most consequential
in its effect in different ways, which all species of the grape vine
have in common, is their extreme and peculiar sensitiveness to
temperature conditions of the soil and the atmosphere and gen-
erally much more the 'sensitiveness to such conditions of the former
than of the latter. The scope of this sensitiveness of either the
root or top varies very much with the different species, varieties
and hybrids; in, fact there are no two of these which are exactly
alike in this respect, but it is always within well-defined boundaries.
In comparing this sensitiveness of the root with that of its top
of different vines, we find a multiplicity of combinations, which
are most remarkable and if it were possible, that they could be
well understood in every case, would remove obstacles, which at
the present time, appear almost unsurmountable.

My attention was first called to this some years ago^ when I
compared the behavior of certain varieties, planted on soils, pre-
senting different temperature conditions during spring and with
a surrounding atmosphere, which'' also showed a difference in
this respect. In one locality \)which; 1, shall call A, the soil is
gravelly and somewhat loose, and in "the, other locality, which I
shall call B, the soil is a clay-loam, capable of holding a great
amount of water in suspension;! during spring. But while at B,
the temperature of the overlying\atmosphere is uniform and gen-
erally warm during spring, A is Known as having cold and frosty
nights at that time, although during the middle of the day the
temperature of the two respective atmospheres is about the same.
A has a soil which warms up readily during spring, but an atmos-
phere which is exceedingly cold at times. B has an atmosphere
which is uniformly mild. Of the leading table grape varieties
the Tokay starts growth first at A and last at B. The Cornichon
starts growth first at B and last at A. The Lenoir
starts growth exceedingly early during spring at A and makes
almost all its seasonal growth within about a month after starting.
At B it starts growth later, but still slightly ahead of the Cornichon
and then grows steadily all summer. This should prove con-
clusively that the scope of sensitiveness of root or top of the
Lenoir, Tokay and Cornichon is not the same. In a similar

mannet every species, variety and hybrid possesses a scope of
sensitiveness of root and top to conditions of temperature, con-
sidered either separately or conjunctively, which is different from
that of any other species, variety or hybrid.

HABIT OF GROWTH.

The peculiar sensitiveness of the grape vine to temperature
-conditions would not deserve the amount of consideration, that
it does, if it did not exert its influence in other directions, which
makes it of the greatest consequence in regard to size, vigor,
hardiness and other qualities oft the grape vine. Its most im-
portant influence it probably has on the growth habit of a vine,
which seems to be principally governed by it. A vine which is
affected by a certain degree of coldness more than another one;
provided other things, as form of root system^ size of roots and
nature of soil, are the same, can not start growth during spring as
soon as the latter, but nlay become hardier in enduring drouth
and heat or less hardy, if its growth habit-incapacitates it in taking
full advantage of the most favorable moisture conditions of the
soil. It may become hardier in countries with long and dry
summers for the reason that its vital energy i? not so quickly
exhausted. A vine always suffers most from adverse conditions.
if these affect it after it has ceased its seasonal activity.

In regard to the growth habit of different vines, I have
divided the native American 'species into two classes, free and
sluggish growers. The difference between the two is in their
different scope of sensitiveness to temperature conditions of soil
and atmosphere and much more in that of their roots than of
their tops, or in other words, while there is little difference between
the tops of free and sluggish growers in this respect, the latter
have a root which is mare easily affected and retarded by a low
temperature than their tops. But possibly it is the other way.
Sluggish growers may have about the same degree of sensitiveness
in root and top. On account of the soil being colder where the
roots are than right near the surface eithqr below or above, the
roots can not be as active as the tops. Free growers possibly
have a root which is much less affected by the same low tempera-
ture than their tops. But the result would be the same. At
least the root of sluggish growers is much more easily retarded by
certain temperature conditions in the soil, than their top is by
those in the atmosphere, as both generally occur at the same time.

544154

This seems to be correct in regard to species and hybrids de-
veloped by nature in the southern States of the East, but does not
hold good with all vines of a sluggish growth, selected by French
experimenters, as the Berlandieri hybrids. Neither would such
vines be hardy enough that they could occur wild in regions where
Riparia, Rupestris and Berlandieri exist or even in intermediate
regions. The great difference between root and top of sluggish
growers as explained, is undoubtedly the reason why they do not
grow from cuttings. The facility of difficulty with which a vine
girows from cuttings, indicates therefore the extent of the differ-
ence between its root and top in regard to sensitiveness to tem-
perature conditions.

It is probably not entirely accurate to use the two terms free
and sluggish growers, as the latter in their native home have about
the same growth habit as free growers have in the northern States.
But in using these two terms, the effect, which is the most im-
portant in this connection, is pointed out more than the cause.
The greater sensitiveness to coldness in the soil of the root of a
sluggislr grower in comparison with with that of its top, serves
as a check to prevent it from exhausting its vitality in a region
which must be extremely favorable for a rank and vigorous
growth of the grape vine and so to save it from becoming a prey
to parasitic organisms. On the other hand the free-growing
Riparias and pure Rupestris, not easily affected by certain low
temperature conditions in the soil, ajre enabled through this to
thrive in the more northern States, where cold springs and short
summers prevail. Rupestris really occurs further south, but it
is enabled to succeed there, I believe, more on account of its
drouth-resistant' leaf and other qualities, which disappear after
grafting.

In most Viniferas and the" Californica we have a growth habit,
quite distinct from that of Riparia and Rupestris and also Candi-
cans and other sluggish growers, in that they start growth rather
late during spring and then grow very vigorously. The reason for
this is very likely, that at that time temperature conditions become
extremely favorable for root and top simultaneously. Growth
habit is the most variable characteristic of the grape vine, but
the least variation in this respect may be productive of the greatest
hardiness or the greatest weakness.

—5—

EFFECT OF GROWTH HABIT ON FORM OF ROOT

SYSTEM.

The ability of a vine to make use of moisture in the soil is
governed by the scope of its sensitiveness to coldness and warmth.
A vine can take advantage of favorable moisture conditions only,
if the soil at the same time has the proper degree of temperature,
as prescribed by its scope of sensitivesess. By this we must realize
what an influence the latter has on the direction the roots take
especially with vines having a variable root system. But it also
influences vines in this respect to some extent, which have a fixed
deep or shallow root system. A Champini and considering only
the scope of sensitiveness of its root, also the Lenoir would fail
in a cold soil, where a Rupestris St. George with its freer root
would succeed. But the Lenoir has an advantage over the other
two hybrids on such a soil in having a more variable and more
expansive root system and also a peculiar combination which it
appears can not be reproduced again in grafting on it. The
first-named two might also fail in a coarse gravelly soil even if
this is warm, because their root action is too sluggish to absorb
the quickly disappearing and settling moisture as well as a
Rnpestris St. George. Its peculiar scope of sensitiveness to tem-
perature conditions causes the Lenoir to make both deep and
horizontal main roots on the colder soils and on warm gravelly
ones mostly horizontal main roots and deep laterals, almost the
opposite to what Viniferas have on such soils. The form of root
system of the latter for these two different kinds of soils, horizontal
main roots for cold soils and deeper main roots for gravelly ones,
is productive of the largest growth, but is not the hardiest. The
ungrafted Lenoir has a better root system in this respect for clays
and the Rupestris St. George for gravelly soils. In order that a
vine with only vertical main roots should succeed well on a clay,
it must be an exceedingly free grower. Although the laterals
develop somewhat more, they never spread very far. Even the
Rupestris St. George's root growth is not free enough to go
down deeply in a stiff clay and not because its roots could not
force their way down early in the spring while the ground is
softened by spring moisture. Of course later in the season it
would require quite a stiff and active root to penetrate through
clay, while this is becoming drier.

Young Lenoir vines, if standing on a clay, should be exceed-
ingly well cultivated in order to bring as many roots up to the

surface as possible. This will give them a somewhat freer growth
after grafting, they will make deep roots anyhow on such a soil
on account of the later growth of the vines. With Lenoir and
all hybrids closely related to species which do* not grow well from
cuttings, short cuttings for propagation are the best for all close
or compact soils. This is not only for reasons following from the
above, but also for the reason, that a cold wet soil, packing tightly
around the stem of such vines, puts this in an unhealthy con-
dition. This seems to be the cause also of the dry rot which we
see sometimes on rooted Lenoir.

ADAPTATION

The growth habit, form of root system and size of roots are
principally the ruling factors in the vine's adaption, and from what
has been said it may easily be deduced that the first named is the
most important in this respect, as it influences the other two very
much. The only difference for instance between a Berlandieri
and a Cinerea, I think, is in their slightly different growth habits.
But while one occurs on high ridges, the other flourishes only on
the low and wet soils. Nevertheless, I don't think, ;that the
different adaptation to soil and climate of these two species, as
adaption is generally understood, alone is responsible for their
occurrence under conditions so remote. I believe. I shall be
able to prove in the next chapter that another agency has some-
thing to do with this.

With adaptation we generally mean the ability of
the vine to conform to the requirements of soil and
climate. But in its wider sense it would mean also immunity
from parasitic organisms, especially if these can not be success-
fully combated by any other means. How important adaptation
is, we can see by almost all plants occurring wild. As climatic
and soil conditions change sometimes within small areas, so dif-
ferent species and still more different varieties appear. Conditions
of soil and climate are much more severe for plants occurring wild
than for cultivated ones, which naturally makes the former hardier,
as nature selects the hardiest, but man selects for his own special
benefit and successfully overcomes the lack of hardiness in culti-
vated plants a good many times by other means, as substituting
hardy roots in place of their own.

Viniferas, at least a good many varieties, probably have the
best adaptation for California in regard to vigorous growth. But

while some of them require a warm gravelly soil to be satisfactory,
others do very well on the colder soils. All vines having a more
sluggish growth than Viniferas require a warmer, moister and
richer soil in California. If a vine's growth is exceedingly slug-
gish, it does not 'succeed at all, because it can not avail itself of
favorable moisture conditions during spring, the soil being too
cold. All vines with a freer growth than Viniferas require a
cooler and moister soil and a shorter growing season. This is
said without consideration of form of root system; a difference in
this respect might make quite a difference in adaptation. A deep-
rooting, free grower would have a much better show even in a
hot country than a shallow-rooting one, because in their lower
strata soils are cooler and generally moister. This is probably the
reason why the Rupestris St. George does so well in California,
because in a proper soil all its roots are down deeply. The. Ru-
pestris St. George, Lenoir and1 Champinis are exceedingly well
adapted to soils in California on account of their free spring
growth, long seasonal activity and deep roots. The last named
have less general adaptation than the first two on account of their
too 'sluggish root growth and fixed form of deep root system, being
adapted only to special soils, as exceedingly moist and warm
gravelly loams.

As in California all the moisture is retained in the soil by
cultivation during spring, that possibly can be held, as a case
of necessity, our soils are apt to be cold during the beginning of
the growing season, especially the close and compact ones. Every
interspace of these is filled up with moisture and the warm air
can not penetrate down readily. If soils have become somewhat
dry and are then thoroughly soaked up by a warm rain, we have
the greatest incentive to a vigorous and rapid plant-growth. Such
conditions occur in the southeastern States.

In setting out vines on close and compact soils, these should
be worked over deeply in order to make the interspaces larger,
so warm air can pass down readily and the roots penetrate them
without difficulty. Where 'such working over is not possible,
exceedingly deep holes should be made and a shovel full-of stable
manure mixed with earth put in their bottoms, if soils are either
clayey or gravelly and poor. If these are naturally rich, moist
and mellow, additional manure might hurt some vines like Ru-
pestris St. George and should be left out, but it will not easily
hurt a Lenoir or Champini even on the richer soils.

GRAFTING.

As has been stated above, every variety and every hybrid has
its own peculiar growth habit or peculiar combination of root and
top growth habits. The lines of demarkation in this respect in
regard to varieties belonging to different species or in regard to
different hybrids are generally distinctly drawn, but in regard to
varieties belonging to the 'same species are sometimes extremely
fine and can not be observed by the casual observer, but never-
theless are of the greatest importance. This sometimes becomes
exceedingly pronounced in grafted vines, from which we may
easily get an idea as to what it means in regard to adaptation and
hardiness by giving a vine a different root or a root a different
top. Grafting in itself should not make any difference, but it
makes a difference because we get a different combination of root
and top. By substituting a different root, the vine obtained has
therefore neither the adaptation of the root with its own top, nor
of the top with its own root, but an entirely new adaptation.

While roots can be selected which better a vine's adaptation
to a particular soil or climate, we have a good many
. examples in which the reverse is the case. In some
instances Viniferas grafted on other Viniferas have become
hardier against the Anaheim disease, in others they have suc-
cumbed more quickly. In grafting a variety on a variety of the
same species the difficulty is generally not so great. The effect
is much greater, either to the better or to the worse, if a variety
belonging to one species is grafted on a variety belonging
to another species. In grafting a Vinifera on a more
sluggish grower in California there is more or less loss of vigor and
productiveness. By doing the opposite, provided the new vine has
a fairly good adaptation to soil and climate and there is also a
good affinity and proper congeniality in regard to habit of growth,
greater vigor and productiveness is the result. But considering
that Viniferas have a good adaptation for California in regard to
size and vigor, either by forcing their growth in giving the vine
a more free-growing root (Riparia or Rupestris) or by retarding
their growth with a more sluggish root (Lenoir and Champirii),
the result can not be always satisfactory. As has been explained,
the grow*th habit of a vine is a most important factor. If it is
too free, the vine will exhaust its vitality, before the end of the
summer is reached and suffer a check in its energy; if it is too
sluggish, it can not avail itself of the favorable moisture conditions

— 9—

during spring. At the same time practical experience has proved,
that as a rule the difference between growth habit, of graft, and
growth habrt of ro,ot, should not be too great, lest there is lack
of harmony or congeniality between root and graft. A Vinifera
grafted on an exceedingly sluggish grower does not succeed at
all in California and if grafted on an exceedingly free grower it
becomes less vigorous and productive. • »

As the different Vinifera varieties vary somewhat in regard
to growth habit, a slightly forcing root for some would be bene-
ficial, while with others a slightly retarding root would have a
good effect, depending on conditions of soil and climate of a
locality. The above remarks have been made without reference
to form of root system and size of roots. A difference in 'this
respect would also make a difference with grafted vines.

Why it is that the Lenoir with its own top on most soils
appears to be an exceedingly free grower, while after being grafted
to Vinifera, it retards the latter's growth, would be difficult to
explain and more difficult to understand. But, I believe, an
understanding of it would be helped, by comparing 'it to tones in
music. While some of these quite a distance apart on the scale,
sound well together, others much closer to one another, make a
discord. Althpugh there is quite a difference in regard to sen-
sftiveness to temperature conditions between the root and top of
a Lenoir, their congeniality is perfect. A similar relationship of
root exists probably with some Viniferas, only less pronounced.
To embrace all the different Conditions of relationship between
stock and graft in the word affinity, is ex'tremely inadequate and
inaccurate. For instance a Berlandieri, grafted on a Vinifera
grows vigorously, but reverse it and it is a failure. The affinity
in grafting certainly is the same in both cases, but while a Vinifera
root has a good congeniality in growth habit to a Berlandieri top,
vice versa congeniality is entirely lacking.

It is well known from European viticulture! practice, that
the quality of the grape is much influenced by conditions of soil
and climate. The Riesling produces its most valuable product
along the Rhine, it is worthless in Spain or Italy. The Grenache
and Mataro have value only in southern France or northern
Spain. Grafting a Vinifera on a more free-grpwing root is the
same as transplanting the vine on its own root into a warmer
climate or soil. Grafting on a retarding root is the same as trans-
planting the vine on its own root into a cooler climate or soil.

—10—

While in some cases the quality of the fruit is improved through
grafting, in others it becomes inferior. This is said without re-
gard to form of ropt system. A difference in this respect would
make the effect either more or less pronounced. In grafting, the
character of the vine is changed and in consequence also the
character of the fruit.

It is generally considered that the root system of vines and
trees is commensurate of the size of their tops. This undoubtedly
holds good with most ungrafted trees and vines, but not always
is correct with grafted ones. In grafting on a more freely growing
root, the size of the root system may be much less in dimensions
than the top growth, but such a diminutive free root is perfectly
able to supply the larger top with nourishment, as long as mois-
ture is within reach. But this will become exhausted from such
a small space much sooner than from the large space covered by
a vine with a more expansive root system. Such a condition
exists with vines grafted on Rupestris St. George standing on
Stiff clays.

RESISTANCE TO THE PHYLLOXERA.

In regard to resistance tp the Phylloxera it must be remem-
bered, that the vine's ability to overcome the effect of the work
of the insect, does not depend only on its innate resistance, but
is much influenced also by adaptation and hardiness to other
diseases and with grafted vines also by affinity and congeniality.
Aestivalis, Candicans and Labrusca with a somewhat low resist-
ance thrive well in their respective localities. Their resistance is
entirely sufficient ,or nature would have developed a higher one, if
it was necessary. In fact Mr. T. V. Munson, of Denison, Texas,
considers the Candicans the hardiest American vine capable of
enduring the greatest drouth and heat. If this was unconditionally
correct, why does it not occur also in Georgia or Florida, where
climatic conditions for a large and vigorous growth of the grape
vine are certainly much more favorable than in Texas.
Birds carry grape seeds in all directions. On the other hand
Cordifolia and Rotundifolia with the highest resistance possible,
certainly must need this, or nature would not have developed it,
as it does not develop any qualities which are unnecessary for the
maintenance and survival of its products.

—11—

CHAPTER II.

THE CALIFORNIA VINE OR ANAHEIM DISEASE.

It is generally admitted that the disease is caused by a minute
living parasitic organism and is therefore contagious. But as long
as the organism is not found, an exact idea in regard to its nature
and manner of attack on the grape vine can not be formed. It is
only from its visible effect on the vine, the ensuing consequences
and other signs and symptoms, that we can draw our conclusions.
My observations during the last few years have led me to be
convinced that two kinds of infections may occur, through the
root and through parts of the foliage, and that the disease may
appear in five different forms or manners in which it affects the
vine.

Form I, the latent or incipient form. I am not entirely con-
vinced that it is proper and accurate to call this form latent. It
may be simply the first imperceptible attack on the root of the
vine by the disease, having so little consequence, that the vine
does not show any of its effect. But I am convinced that in
some cases Viniferas on their own roots in the Santa Cruz Moun-
tains, having obtained full size before the disease germs entered the
tissue of their wood and on favorable soil, may have this form
for ten years and show perfect health and thriftiness.

Form II. As soon as the vine is exposed to adverse con
ditions of one kind or another, weakening its vitality, Form I de-
velopes more or less rapidly into the more acute Form II. This
form in its beginning causes the vine sometimes to bear a heavier
crop as the first symptom of diminishing vigor. The heavier crop
in turn weakens the vine and favors the further development of
the disease. Form II generally shows itself in an unthrifty growth
of the vine, the latter setting a heavier crop than it can develop
properly, the grapes apparently mature, but are low in sugar.
The vines sometimes fail to make growth fr,om some spurs or
only short growth. Some which seemingly have made healthy
growth, occasionally die all at once during the latter part of the
summer or the following spring.

It appears that in this form the disease germs do not enter
the top of the vine, the latter probably dies from want of nourish-
ment, without showing any of the characteristic spots on the leaves
or showing only very indistinct ones late in the season. Young
vines which had the disease as Form I from the time they were

—12—

planted, generally succumb with Form II, if not perfectly hardy.
Some Viniferas develop this form more rapidly on the moister
soils, which favor a rank growth (Tokay), others on the poorer
and 'drier soils, on which the growth becomes impoverished.

Form III. In this form the disease enters the top of the
vine from the root, which almost always seems to occur while
the growth of the vine is rapid and exposed to great heat and a
dry atmosphere and transpiration through the foliage therefore
excessive. Vines which are not exceedingly vigorous, may also
show this form, but such vines always attained their full size before
the disease entered the tissue of their wood, which enabled them
to go through Form II without being killed. In grafting Lenoir,
Cordifolia, Candicans and ojthers, which have been considered re-
sistants unconditionally, ,on Riparia, having the disease as Form I,
and irrigating heavily, so vines make rapid growth, while the heat
is great, the grafts will readily develop Fprm III of the disease.
Similar cases can be seen also in the field sometimes; vines having
shown great vigor, rapidly develop Form III from Form I. The
characteristic symptoms of Form III have so often been described
as the only symptoms of the disease, as immature wood on the
•canes, especially the tips, short growth, failure of fruit to mature
and spots on the leaves, that it is not necessary to dwell on this
point. Rupestris St. George vines favor an acute development of
the disease mpre on the richer or moister soils and Lenoir and
Champini vines more on the poorer or drier. The above three
forms are simply different stages in the development of the disease
and lines of demarkation are not always plain. Whenever the disease
makes its presence known as Form III, we may be sure, that
most of the vines in the vineyard, however thrifty they may be,
have the disease as Form I, and a good many as
Form II. As I have recommended topping vines as a pre-
ventive of the disease, I must say at the present time,
that, while it seems to prevent Form III somewhat, it apparently
increases the chances of the disease as Form II. But if practiced
lightly in checking the growth of running canes by pinching, I
believe it has a good effect.

I have never seen an American vine on its own root in this
locality show Form III of the disease, but at its worst only the
beginning of Form II, which manifests itself with these vines in a
slight unthriftiness and by no other signs. Whenever a vine
shows unthriftiness, we < must conclude, that this disease, if not the

—13—

main cause, is at least an auxiliary cause, because as soon as the
vine is affected by adverse conditions, the disease also becomes
more active. But an American vine, ungrafted, (Rupestris St.
George, Lenoir, Champini and a few others) will recover from
Fprm II, if placed under more favorable conditions. A Vinifera-
grafted, hardy American vine may also recover after the top has
died, even if the latter should show Form III. I have a few
Rupestris St. George vines on the place as examples of this latter
possibility, which are exceedingly vigorous and healthy at the
present time. The extremely heavy bearing of a vine, induced
by too long pruning and exceptionally long dry summers are
probably the most fruitful causes for the development of the
disease into an acute stage.

There are two other forms of the disease, in both of which
infection seems to take place through parts of the vine above
ground, the bloom and some other portion of the foliage. These
two forms do not occur much and apparently affect only vines,
which have become considerably weakened by the root Form II.
They seem to occur mostly in such places, where on account of
the nature of the climatic conditions or the nature of the grafting
stock the stage of the disease as Form II is much prolonged.

My observations regarding the Anaheim disease have been
made in the Santa Cruz Mountains and if they should not corre-
spond with the behavior of the vines, attacked by it in other places,
allowance must be made on account of the probable difference
in the climatic conditions.

THE ANAHEIM DISEASE A NATIVE OF THE EASTERN

STATES.

It appears to me that the organism, causing the California
vine or Anaheim disease, must be a native of the eastern States,
but existing mostly as Form I, and the disease occurring occasion-
ally as Form II and causing the death of vines. Although the
evidence, which I can bring in support of this claim, is all cir-
cumstantial, I consider it exceedingly strong and after giving two
reasons, which have led me to think so, shall proceed from the
supposition that it is correct.

In the first place the manner in which American vines as
well as Viniferas die in the eastern States, reminds one very much
of the death of vines by Form II of the Anaheim disease in Cali-
fornia. Mr. T. V. Munson, to whom I am much indebted for in-

—14—

»

formation "concerning the behavior of native vines in the eastern
States, informs me that Riparia, Rupestris and Solonis, grafted
and ungrafted, on upland sandy s.oils in eastern Texas are
short-lived. They generally succumb after a season of a severe
drouth by what has been called root-rot by some. Why should
this be so? Our California experience, before we had this disease,
has taught us that these vines on such soils and under drouth
conditions much more severe than any occurring in the eastern
States were quite thrifty and long-lived, at least ungrafted most
anywhere. Considering our greater heat during the summer,
drier atmosphere and in consequence the more rapid transpiration
through the foliage of vines, this would be a singular phenomenon.
On Mr. Munson's nursery grounds Riparia Gloire de Montpelier
and Rupestris St. George are less vigorous than Solonis,
Doaniana and other native vines. This also is contrary
to our experience. What a difference for instance is
presented by ungrafted Riparia and Rupestric vines
in the Santa Clara Valley and such vines in the Santa Cruz Moun-
tains! While in the former they die off sometimes quite suddenly
after a few years' growth, in the latter this seldom occurs and it
is only the unthrifty growth of a vine here and there which leads
one to suspect as cause, either direct or indirect, the disease.
How much greater should be the difference between any part of
California and any of the eastern States where the heat is less
intense and the atmosphere less dry, in regard to the visible 'signs
of the disease.

In the second place the distribution of the native American
species over the eastern States can not be explained by adaptation
alone, accepting the word adaptation here in its narrow sense,
as it is generally understood. Wy should not the free-growing
Riparia and Rupestris flourish much better in Florida and Georgia
or adjoining States on sandy or gravelly creek beds than in those
regions, where they do occur and where climatic conditions for a
vigorous and rapid growth of the grape vine are much less favor-
able, if it was not for the fact that conditions for the developmnet
of the disease are also much more favorable in the former States.
The distribution of grape seeds through birds is unlimited, where-
ever there is land connection. Riparia and Labrusca are natives
of eastern States, where heavy frosts occur. Considering their
great hardiness to frost and the shallowness of their roots, it is
not unlikely that this assists them in fighting their battle for

—15—

existence with the disease. According to Mr. Munson the Ber-
landieri occurs mostly on the upper portions of limestone ridges,
but occasionally descends down into the bottoms of ravines and
creeks. Why is it not more numerous on the richer s.oils than on
the poorer and drier? From our experience, before we had this
disease, we know, that most any vine will succeed much better on
rich or moist soils than on the poorer or drier. Wherever a wild
vine is found most, there conditions for its best development are
most favorable. Why does the Berlandieri not inhabit Geprgia or
Florida, where summer rains are much more frequent and regular
than in western Texas? In the distribution of native vines over
the eastern States we find that almost every region and every
kind of soil has its own species of grape vine, or if more, related
species. We certainly have the same phenomenon also with other
annual and perennial plants. A good many species of wild plants
have their own restricted area, where they succeed well, while
in other places they are unthrifty and short-lived. But how do we
know, that in such unfavorable locations the death ,of such plants
is not hastened or caused directly by some minute organisms,
which have defied discovery by the closest microscopical investi-
gations?

ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN SPECIES.

I believe it is claimed that all existing grape species have de-
scended from an original or primordial form different from any
existing species. But this primordial form undoubtedly has been
much more like the Viniferas than any of the American species,
as the former are least hardy to any of the parasitic diseases of
the grape vine and also least hardy to extremes in climate. Nature
always developes the hardiest and it is not very likely that it
would make a retrograde movement in producing the Eupopean
species, at least not in regard to enduring extreme cold con-
ditions, as in the northern countries of Europe, where the Vini-
feras can not exist, climatic conditions are not any more severe
than in the northeastern United States or sputhern Canada. If
the original species had possessed any resistance to the
Phylloxera, some traces would be left of this in Vinifera, taken
into account its manifold types. In regard to resistance to the
Anaheim disease — this is a matter of adaptation. Considering
the fixedness of the forms of American species and their peculiar
distributions for special soils and over restricted areas, a good

—16—

many forms of the original species must have succumbed and only
the hardier ones, possessing a perfect adaptation to the soil on
which they stopd and. its climatic conditions remained. As the
Anaheim disease organism became gradually more effective in its
work the different specific forms also perfected themselves and
became more fixed and more uniform in their varietal types for
the different soils and climates.

The Vinifera species during this time, not being subjected to
such in influence, did not change much; it did not develop into
more specific forms, althpugh acquiring a good many varieties,
but which must be ascribed principally to the agency of man.

The difference between Vinifera and the American species is
not as great as one might suppose at first thought. The great
variety of growth habits and combinations Vinifera presents in its
different forms, although all in a slighter degree than with the
different American species, leads one almost to suspect that all of
the latter have descended from the former. In this case we would
have to look at different Vinifera varieties as the incipient forms
of American species. (See "Origin of Species" by Charles
Darwin.)

.Let us see now what special changes the grape vine under-
went in order to cope successfully with the Anaheim disease and
the severer climatic and special soil conditions. It has been
mentioned that the two principal species in the northern States,
Riparia and Labrusca, are exceedingly hardy to frost and shallow-
rooting and that the former, occurring more in the middle-west,
is extremely free-growing or is little affected in its growth by
coldness in the soil. In the southern States almost all species are
sluggish growers, more or less, which is indicated by the absence
of the rooting quality of their cuttings, besides they are mostly
deep-rooting. In the Rptundifolia we probably have the greatest
divergence from the original type, having lost all affinity in graft-
ing to other species and being entirely uniform in its varieties. It
occurs in a region where conditions for a rapid and rank growth
of the grape vine must be extremely favorable and therefore also
favorable for the development of the Anaheim disease. But it
could not inhabit the region or the soil where the wild Rupfestris
is found mostly; its too sluggish root-growth would incapaciate
it in the presence of the disease to draw sustenance from a coarse,
gravelly soil, in which the moisture settles down rapidly. The
Rupestris is a species of late development; its somewhat less uni-

—17—

form type proves this. It has probably originated through the
blending of Riparia with one or more southern species, possibly
the Monticola and Cordifolia, but taking after the first-named
entirely in growth habit. By a peculiar Combination of the quali-
ties of its parents it is enabled, although an exceedingly free
grower, to exist in a hot country. We know from our California
experience- that such deep and poor gravelly soils with, perpetual
moisture in their lower strata, on which it is found wild, are not
exceedingly favorable {or the Anaheim diseases.

It must strike us as peculiar that there are no intermediate
forms in regard to growth habit, excepting possibly some scattered
individual vines here and there, between Riparia and Labrusca
on one side and species occurring in the southern States (sluggish
growers) on the other side. Vinifera has the intermediate forms,
but these could not occur in intermediate regions on account of
the Phylloxera, Anaheim and other diseases. The phenomenon
is easily explainable by the climatic conditions of the East. The
change from the frost belt to the almost frostless belt is very
abrupt.

All American species, excepting the Californica and possibly
the Arizonica have developed by natural selection under the in-
fluence of the Anaheim disease in their respective areas and soils.
They are threfore all, with the one expectipn, perfectly hardy against
it in their own locality, but generally not perfectly hardy anywhere
else. The Californica very, likely has descended from a species
highly resistant to the Phylloxera, but as it came to California and
attained its present character, before the insect found its way here
through the agency of man, mpst of its resistance has been lost.
Resistance to the Phylloxera is not an original or generic quality
wth the grape vine. If it was, all vines would have about the
same resistance. A vine can not develop any of it without the
actual presence of the insect on its roots, but it may be there by
inheritance.

The Californica, with one .other possible one, Labrusca,
comes nearer having about the average growth habit of the Vini-
fras, than any other American species. After having been absent
in numerous transitional forms, the original growth habit of the
grape vine appears again, as the Californica developed with only
climate and soil exerting their influence and without the influence
of the Anaheim disease. It is not probable, that it has descended
directly from the Labrusca, as this species could not overleap the

—18—

barrier of the middle-west without diverging into other forms
first. The Californica is very likely a direct descendant of Can-
dicans. Although these two species resemble one another very
much in general aspect, what a variation the former presents from
the latter in growth habit. While with the Candicans the difler-
ence between root and top in this respect is exceedingly great,
in the Californica we have almost the same scope of sensitiveness
of root and top to temperature conditions.

HARDINESS OR RESISTANCE AGAINST THE ANAHEIM

DISEASE.

There is no innate resistance against the Anaheim disease in
any grape species, as we have it in the resistance to the
Phylloxera. A perfect adaptation is resistance, an adaptation,
which produces the healthiest growth, neither a rank growth nor
an impoverished growth. Through proper manipulation, as de-
scribed above, the disease can be caused to enter the wood of a
Lenoir or Candicans as readily as that of a Vinifera. Lack of
adaptation is not the prime cause of the disease, but it causes the
disease t,o become fatal to the grape vine. In the ungrafted
Rupestris St. George, Lenoir and Champini we have examples
of what is needed in California, as far as hardiness to the disease
is concerned. They are hybrids between free and sluggish
growers. We need such a combination with more or less of the
essential qualities of each class, in order to enable the vine to
take advantage of the spring moisture in the soil, while this is
cold and also to enable it to go unscathed through our long dry
summers. The size, vigor and hardiness of a vine are the result
of energy taken up and assimilated, while conditions are favorable,
minus the set-back it receives during the season through some
cause or other. If this latter is too great during the summer for
the vine to withstand or to overcome the following spring, it
becomes a failure sooner or later. A vine which makes !slow
growth in the beginning, but never receives any check to its pro-
gress, may s.oon outstrip a vine of quick free growth, but which
suffers at times from adverse conditions. Living organisms are
as a rule not adapted to extremes. Thpse which endure wet
conditions, can not endure dry conditions and vice versa. Stand-
ing in an exceeingly moist soil during spring, causes some species
to make rank and soft growth, which is apt to become unhealthy
during the heat and dryness of summer and (so creates favorable

—19—

conditions fjor the development of the disease. Vines, especially
those with a variable root-system, will become accustomed to
soils holding somewhat excessive moisture, if this is uniformly so
during the same season and one season after another, or to soils
holding scant moisture if it is the same continually. The moisture
conditions can be made more uniform by proper and intelligent
cultivation and by giving the vines ample space. This latter saves
money, labor and trouble.

Wherever the disease has made its appearance, it is some-
times difficult to start young vines. On account of the disease
germs entering the tissue of their wood, as soon as they begin to
grow and their roots not being down deep, where the soil remains
moist and cool, they are apt to suffer somewhat even on rich
ground and the disease soon developes. It is simply a question
whether the disease shall remain as the harmless Form I or de-
velope into the deadly Forms II and III. For this reason young
vines should receive careful and intelligent treatment in cultivat-
ing 1 the ground thoroughly, holding an abundant and
uniform moisture supply from the time they are planted. On coarse
gravelly soils or any soils, which are apt to become dry or heated
near the surface, it is well to give them some irrigation for the
first and second year in order to enable them to go through the
summer in the best condition. A gallon of water, applied in two
doses during June and July will help them along wonderfully.
Because a certain resistant has not been a success on a particular
soil, does in a good many instances not prove that it would not
have succeeded, if it had received proper treatment. Slipshod
methods in grape culture will not do, wherever the Anaheim dis-
ease is present.

Even where the Phylloxera has not made its appearance, but
the Anaheim disease has, it is extremely unwise to plant Viniferas
on their own roots, as for most any soil we have grafting stocks
at present, which will cause them to do much better and last much
longer than they will on their own roots. But considering the
great uniformity of all the varieties of any of the American species
we must realize how necessary it is that we get a certain type
of vine for a particular soil or locality in selecting not only the
proper root but also the proper graft. To choose the prpper
root is most important and to choose a proper graft is almost
equally important, because the tops of n,o two vines grow exactly
alike. But it is impossible to lay down exact rules for guidance
in either of the above requirements, because conditions of soil and

—20—

even of climate vary in California as well as in any country with
summer rains. It is for every vineyard owner himself to find
out, which is -best for his special conditions.

Of the resistants on hand at present the Rupestris St. George
is probably the one which has the greatest usefulness, at least
for the Coast mountain region, the only one, with which I have
acquaintance. . With the proper graft it seems to hold out well
on a good many kinds of soils, especially deep gravelly ones,
'excepting those exceedingly rich or moist, where its growth is
too rank, while the vine is healthy. Although it resists well
against the disease on clays, it is not a good success on such soils
for other reasons, as lack of vigor and inferior quality of fruit;
but with a favorable graft it will even do fairly well on clays, if
these are not overly stiff. Whenever a resistant stock has not
a perfect adaptation to a soil or climate, extreme care must be
taken in the selection of the graft; if the adaptation is perfect, then
this is not quite so essential. The Rupestris St. George has a
misleading name. It undoubtedly belongs to the Champini
group of vines, which are hybrids between Candicans, Monticola
and Rupestris, but not always showing their relation to each of
these species. While the other Champinis take considerably in
their growth habit after their sluggish-growing parents, the Ru-
pestris St. George has its growth habit almost entirely from Ru-
pestris, but with a much longer seasonal activity and with the
form of root system and the fleshy roots of the Champinis, as de-
veloped by nature.

With Riparia-Rupestris 3,306 I have but little acquaintance,
but if it is a hybrid between Riparia and Rupestris St. George,
it would explain its resistance to root-rot in France. Although
the Rupestris St. George has not this quality, some of its parents
have. If the origin, of Riparia-Rupestris 3,306 is as stated, it
will give this vine very likely value for the richer or moister
soils, on which the Rupestris St. George succumbs. The two
mentioned stocks are supposed to be perfect resistants against the
Phylloxera, although this would depend also on other conditions,
as explained above.

Of stocks which are more sluggish growers than the Viniferas,
we have the Lenoir and Champinis. The former ungrafted is
the hardiest and healthiest vine for California for all soils from
medium to rich. It has some value as a direct bearer, as it pro-
duces fairly good crops, its grapes containing a good deal of
coloring matter, useful in the making of red wines. As a grafting

—21—

;stock it has its best value for soils exceedingly rich and deep,
especially those somewhat close and compact, but which warm up
readily, as rich sandy and gravelly loams. It does well also on
somewhat cold clays, if the vines are not set down too deeply.
The butt end of a Lenoir or Champini cutting should not be more
than 8 or 10 inches below the surface, more or less deep according
to the nature of the soil.

The Champinis have a more restricted adaptation than either
the Lenoir ,or Rupestris St. George. Their best adaptation seems
to be for rich gravelly loams, holding an abundance of moisture.
The Barnes and De Grasset apparently are the hardiest of this
group. The latter will; grow on a soil less rich but not less moist
in its lower strata. The Barnes is the most vigorous of the
Champinis and will also do fairly well on clays.

The Lenoir and the Champinis have a resistance of 12 and
14 to the Phylloxera, which is generally not considered high
enough for grafting stocks. But what has been said above, that
grafting in itself does not weaken a vine, must be recalled here
also. It depends to a large extent on the soil, climate and graft,
what resistant will hold out the longest, whether the resistance is
12, 14 or 16. But it seems to be an established fact, that there
is a much greater choice of soils and grafts for the Rupestris St.
George than for the Lenoir and Champini, where both the Ana-
heim disease and the Phylloxera have to be considered. The
trouble with Rupestris St. George, Lenoir and Champini is, that
they are extremes in regard to growth habit for California con-
ditions. For this reason great care must be taken in choosing
the proper soil arid graft for them. The Lenoir root stands be-
tween the other two, but much closer to Champini than Rupestris
St. George. It would require a dozen hybrids or more, every one
of them with a root of a different growth habit to fill the space
between the Lenoir and Rupestris St. George.

In regard to grafts it appears, that in a good many cases new
varieties will take the place of old standard varieties. Our ex-
perience which we have made with vines on their own roots must
be almost entirely disregarded, because it is apt to mislead us.
Varieties which succumb readily to the Anaheim disease on their
own roots, may hold out much longer, if grafted on resistants,
than varieties which have proved hardy ungrafted. But with the
Lenoir as a grafting stock the latter kind are undoubtedly the best,
because we have a similar combination of root and top growths of
such vines grafted on this stock and ungrafted.

—22—

According to Prof. Newton B. Pierce, the Tokay, Grenache
and Malaga are hardiest on the Lenoir. With Mr. Wm Pfeffer of
Cupertino the Tannat and Petite Sirah have held out longest on
Champini of those Viniferas, which- he has had under cultivation.
With Rupestris St. George and other free-growing stocks I find
that such Viniferas, which do not do well on account of lack of
heat in soil and atmosphere, as the Emperor and Petite Sirah
with me, are the best success, not considering other requirements.
The choice of grafts would have to vary some according to special
conditions .of climate and soil. To almost every vineyard owner
the problem presents itself, to find for a given soil the right
resistant and for the latter the right graft. As a rule free-growers
with a deep vertical root-system, similar to Rupestris St. George,
for gravelly soils from medium to poor, and stocks of a somewhat
sluggish growth, similar to Lenoir, with both deep and horizontal
main roots, for the close and compact soils will give the best re-
sults; but there will be exceptions. We do not want to think that
there are maay 5-acre tracts* especially in mountain regions, where
the same stock, or if the same stock, the same graft will give the
best results.

From what has been said on the origin and development of
American species in the southern States of the East, it must not
be supposed that we need similar vines, or rather vines similar to
Lenoir, for our richer soils. Cultivation alters, and intelligent
cultivation improves conditions very much for the grape vine
against the disease. Young vines, on which the disease is most
severe, might not be able to get started at all on wild land in the.
East with regular summer rains and might do well in California
on cultivated ground and live a long life.. Cultivation should be
so that extremes in - the moisture contents of a soil are avoided
during the season and one season after another. Deep gravelly
soils on hillsides in the Coast mountain region hold the most con-
.stant m.oisture in their lower strata for a deep-rooting vine.

In the study of soils in regard to adaptation the moisture
•conditions are of the greatest importance. These do not depend
on the physical structure. alone but also on climate and cultivation.
The first-named does not mean only the mineral ingredients of a
soil, but includes also the humus contained in it, which latter
has the greatest influence on the soil's capacity for holding and
retaining moisture. There are principally three kinds of soils in
regard to moisture conditions, the .coarse gravelly ones, in which
the moisture settles down by gravity, the close and compact, in

—23—

which it rises to the surface and those half-ways between these two,
in which it is held well in suspension. In regard to temperature
conditions, dark colored soils warm up more readily than light
colored ones, and gravelly soils more readily than compact ones,
so gravelly or sandy loams, rich with humus, are the most favor-
able for both conditions and produce the rankest growth. In
California not only the surface soil requires consideration, but the
sub-soil is of prime importance, as all vines must make deep roots,
in order to be enduring of drouth and heat and so of disease.

While I think that, wherever the Anaheim disease is present,
the hardiest vines and in the quickest manner are obtained by
planting resistants in the field and by postponing the graft-
ing till the vines are nearly full size, cutting-grafting
or grafting very young vines in the field has
to be resorted to, if the stocks do not graft well
when of full size. Besides with the disease germs in the tissue
of their wood, it is extremely difficult to graft some resistants in
the' field, especially if the grafting is done late in the spring, be-
cause the disease developes, while the vines are without foliage and
so causes a good many failures or kills vines right out. But "
Lenoir and Champini should always be left ungrafted till they
are nearly full-sized, excepting possibly on soils which are ex-
tremely rich, moist and warm, as rich sandy or gravelly loams.

The greatest care must be taken in the selection of healthy
grafting wood for scions, as the disease works as a degeneration.
It is probably the same as what we call this with other plants.
Cuttings, to be used as scions, should be taken only from vigorous
but not rank-growing vines. It is safest to take the cuttings from
vines, grafted on hardy stocks with which the rules, as explained
above, have been complied with. Resistant cuttings intended for
propagating purposes require the same consideration. It is gen-
erally best to take these from vines on their own roots, standing
on the proper soil or any soil on which they make healthy, vigorous
growth. Rooted stocks, which are always preferable to cuttings
for planting, should be strong and healthy and it is best to dis-
card all weak and feeble ones.

As has been stated, the difference between the tops of differ-
ent species- in regard to growth habit is not nearly as great as
the difference between different roots. In fact the Vinifera
species offers about as much of a variety of top-growths as the
whole of the American species. It will therefore be just as easy

—24—

to find hardy stocks for varieties of the former as for hybrids
between Vinifera and so-called Anaheim-disease-resistant vines,
as long as grafting has to be done.

The difficulty in hybridization is, that, although resistance to
the Phylloxera, growth habit, form of root-system and size of
roots are variable qualities with the grape vine, these have be-
come so firmly established in their respective degrees and tied
to one another with the different American species through
selection by nature under the combined influence of the Anaheim
disease, Phylloxera and climatic and soil conditions of the particular
locality where each occurs, that they have become extremely fixed
and persistent. As the work of French experimenters has proven,
it is extremely difficult to separate them and combine again, each
in the proper degree. If one quality changes, the other qualities
change cprrespondingly. Still we have enough examples on hand
to convince us that this can be done. As long as we have not
found a way of giving medicine to the grape vine internally with
good effect, prevention of the disease will be possible only in the
manner as has been the object of the writer to explain in the
above treatise.

Press of "Sentinel," Santa Cruz, Cal,

THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE
STAMPED BELOW

AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS

WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN
THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY
WILL INCREASE TO 5O CENTS ON THE FOURTH
DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY

OVERDUE.

ft& 3 1

FEB a 194?

2UttlelV

„"" W

» ^ *» ^/

S2^S5

-

LD 21-100m-12,'43 (8796s)

I

!

PAT. JAM 21, 1908

544154

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY