Attempts by early European colonists in North America to establish imported V. vinifera vines met with disaster, presumably substantially because of phylloxera, to which they had no resistance—although at this time phylloxera had yet to be identified, and other American vine diseases such as pierce’s disease in Florida, downy and powdery mildew in all regions, and the very cold winters doubtless played a part. See united states, history, for more details.
How did phylloxera come to Europe? In the mid 19th century there was considerable importation of living plants into Europe. This trade was supported by wealthy people who could afford elaborate gardens, greenhouses, and conservatories, and encouraged by the Victorians’ keen interest in botany. Plants could be imported dormant, or kept alive and protected from salt spray by a glass container mounted on the ship’s deck, like a modern terrarium. In 1865 alone, 460 tons of plants worth 230,000 francs were imported into France, and this trade had grown to 2,000 tons by the 1890s. In 1875, 50 tons were imported from the US and much of this was vines. Jules Planchon, Professor of Pharmacy at montpellier University, noted that rooted American vines were imported in particularly significant quantities between 1858 and 1862, and sent to parts of Europe as far apart as Bordeaux, England, Ireland, Alsace, Germany, and Portugal. No doubt phylloxera was an unsuspected passenger on vine roots at the same time.
Just like the fungal disease powdery mildew, the first reporting of phylloxera was in England, in 1863, when Professor J. O. Westwood, an entomologist at Oxford University, received insect samples from a greenhouse in the London suburb of Hammersmith. Since the insects were in a leaf gall, the vine species was probably American, and these plants may even have been a source of introduction of the pest to England. In 1863, an unknown vine disease in France was being talked about, with two vineyards in the southern Rhône affected. The first printed report in France was a letter written by a veterinarian in 1867 about a vineyard planted in 1863 at St-Martin-de-Crau (only about 30 km/20 miles north east of the site of the University of montpellier’s 20th-century phylloxera-free vine collection on the Mediterranean coast, ironically), which developed unhealthy vines in summer 1866, failing to grow the following spring. It is likely that infection occurred several years beforehand. There were other reports from Narbonne in the Languedoc, and the Gard and Vaucluse départements in the southern Rhône in 1867, and from Bordeaux in 1869. (It was usually several years after the initial sighting that the louse’s predations had a serious effect; the Médoc, for example, was not commercially compromised until the late 1870s.)
The first of many committees formed to resolve the phylloxera question was a Commission instigated by the Vaucluse Agricultural Society. On 15 July 1868 it began its investigation of affected vineyards in the southern Rhône. One member of the Commission was Jules Planchon, who had good training to work on phylloxera. He had spent a period at Kew Botanical Gardens in England, and subsequently became the brother-in-law of J. Lichtenstein, an amateur entomologist. Planchon noticed that dying vines had small yellow insects on their roots and noted the resemblance to an aphid Phylloxera quercus living on oak trees. He named the insect believed to be ravaging vineyards Phylloxera vastatrix. The form previously described by A. Fitch as living in the leaf galls of American vines was established by Planchon to be the same insect and therefore, according to the rules of priority, it became known as Phylloxera vitifolii (Fitch).
The Hérault Commission made its findings public in August 1868 but these caused little interest in any but the local newspapers. There was a marked reluctance to accept that this little yellow insect could be causing such devastation. Other explanations current at the time were over-production, winter cold and other bad weather, weakening of the vineyards as a result of continued vegetative reproduction, soil exhaustion, and also God’s wrath at contemporary vices. Even eminent scientists of the time misdiagnosed the problem. The distinguished entomologist V. Signoret thought phylloxera was an effect not the cause, and Dr guyot thought its presence was due to over-severe pruning (the opposite of overcropping)! The debate was ended by the 1869 Commission of the Société des Agriculteurs de France headed by viticulturist L. Vialla, who gently but firmly debunked all false theories.
Total French wine production fell from a peak of 84.5 million hl/2,200 million gal in 1875 to a mere 23.4 million hl in 1889. But even by June 1873 the French government was sufficiently alarmed by the spread of phylloxera to offer a large prize (300,000 francs) for a remedy, which was to be verified by experimentation carried out by the School of Agriculture at Montpellier. Up to October 1876, 696 suggestions were forwarded to Professors Durand and Jeannenot at Montpellier and between 1872 and 1876 1,044 treatments were evaluated. Among the deluge of suggestions submitted were those verging on the ridiculous, which included burying a living toad under the vine to draw the poison, and irrigating the vines with white wine. Entries were received from other countries as different as Denmark and Singapore. All of this work, however, produced little benefit, as only two treatments based on the chemical application of various forms of sulfide appeared to show much advantage. Surprisingly, carbon bisulfide failed in the evaluation even though it was later used extensively.
Early attempts at commercial control of phylloxera included flooding, which was studied by the Commission in 1873. It was found that flooding in winter for weeks on end controlled the pest, but of course few vineyards were near enough to water supplies or sufficiently flat for this to be a widespread solution (although it is still used in parts of Argentina). Vineyards on sandy soils were noted to be immune, although this offered no control. The injection of the liquid carbon bisulfide was to become widespread, so that by 1888 some 68,000 ha/168,000 acres had been treated. The insecticidal properties of carbon bisulfide were found in 1854 on grain weevils, and Baron Paul Thénard evaluated it in Bordeaux in 1869. The first experiments used too high a dose, severely affecting the vines, but subsequently the practice of injecting it, mixed with water, into the soil, using about 30,000 holes per ha, became widespread.
By the time of the International Phylloxera Congress at Bordeaux in 1881, two distinct schools of thought on how the industry might be saved had emerged. The chemists considered salvation lay in carbon bisulfide or related chemicals, or in flooding. In opposition were the ‘Americanists’, who advocated grafting desired varieties on to American vine species used as rootstocks. Gaston Bazille had suggested grafting in 1869 and Leo Laliman of Bordeaux drew early attention to the resistance of these species to the phylloxera. Laliman had studied the resistance of American species to powdery mildew in a collection in his vineyards since 1840. (He subsequently tried to claim the prize for controlling phylloxera.)
Following successful demonstrations of the ability of American vines to withstand phylloxera, and the visit of Planchon to America in 1873, where his study was guided by the noted scientist C. V. Riley, state entomologist of Missouri, the use of grafted vines began, rising from 2,500 ha in 1880 to 45,000 ha in 1885. It was Riley who positively identified the unknown French insect as identical to the American one, a critical step in its eventual control; he was one of the first to suggest grafting European varieties to American rootstocks, and his authority and expertise on phylloxera gave weight to the suggestion. Initial American vine imports were from the north east, growing on acid soils. Vitis labrusca was found to lack resistance, but V. aestivalis, V. rupestris, and V. riparia were found to be most effective.
All was not plain sailing, however. Many American species could not tolerate the calcareous soils of France (see chlorosis). A second visit to the US by Vialla led to the intervention of Texas nurseryman, breeder, and ampelographer T. V. munson. The two met in 1878, and Munson guided Vialla to species resistant to calcareous soils, V. berlandieri, V. cordifolia, and V. cinerea. Munson was rewarded for his contribution to saving French viticulture by the medal of the French Legion of Honour, and a statue in Montpellier.
However, the transition to grafting was not simple. The amount of grafting to be done was almost overwhelming, and also there was a concern that the use of these foreign rootstocks (whose own wine is so often reviled for its foxy flavour) might affect wine quality. The latter objection is voiced by the uneducated even today, and in Burgundy the importation of American vines was prohibited until 1887, although the clandestine activities of growers anxious to save their vineyards forced its repeal.
Eventually rootstock use became the established method for the control of phylloxera and this has had a dramatic effect on vine nursery operations worldwide, and subsequently on the spread of virus and, more recently, trunk diseases. There was a period in the late 19th century, however, when it was thought that breeding hybrids of European with American vine varieties might produce vines with sufficient phylloxera resistance not to need grafting, whose wines were not marked by the undesirable foxy flavour of some American grapes. The class of varieties so created is loosely termed french hybrids or direct producers. These efforts were generally unsuccessful, however, in that the vines had inadequate phylloxera tolerance and produced lower-quality wine, although they became popular with growers because of their high yields and their tolerance of fungal diseases. While hybrids bred in this period were not destined to remain commercially viable, they did form a useful germplasm pool of disease tolerance for highly successful breeding projects in the latter part of the 19th century (see hybrids). Nevertheless, many of the rootstocks used today (see rootstocks for a detailed list) were bred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries—although hybrids with V. vinifera as one parent have been generally found to have insufficient tolerance to phylloxera.