Asking and motivation of Georgia for participation in the COST Action FA1003 on grapevine

Transcription

1 Asking and motivation of Georgia for participation in the COST Action FA1003 on grapevine David Maghradze Institute of Horticulture, Viticulture and Oenology

2 Asking for Participation in the COST Project REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION OF INSTITUTIONS FROM NON-COST COUNTRIES COST ACTION FA1003: EAST-WEST COLLABORATION FOR GRAPEVINE DIVERSITY EXPLORATION AND MOBILIZATION OF ADAPTIVE TRAITS FOR BREEDING Name of Institution from non-cost country Presentation of the Institute Background Information Description of mutual benefits Benefits for COST and for the COST Action Benefits for not COST country Institution Brief description of targeted scientific activities, including Working Groups selected for cooperation

3 Institute of Horticulture, Viticulture and Oenology 6 Marshal Gelovani Avenue. Tbilisi. Georgia The history of the Institute was started since Sakara Testing Station (est.1890). In the same 1890 was established the first grapevine collection In the 30 th of XX century it became the lieder institute of the Soviet Union and A. Negrul worked at the Institute In the same 30th of XX century the staff of the Institute collected Georgian grapevine Germplasm in Telavi collection The Institute established several grapevine collection in the XX century. Recently it has grapevine collections in Skra and Sakara Testing stations The staff of the institute participated in investigation of local germplasm and in preparing of Ampelographies

4 Benefits for COST and for the COST Action Georgia can involve to the Action old autochthonous and local breeding varieties, protected in the country Forms of wild grapevine, available in the territory of our country and described by our institute can be also involved in the research Researchers of the institute can participate in: mobilization and conservation of grape genetic resources; identification, investigation and characterisation of local germplasm; establishment of core-collection; in dissemination of the Action s result within Georgia. Archaeobotanical investigation within country can be stimulated

5 Benefits for the Non-COST Country Institution The main benefit for the institution will be collaboration with multidisciplinary, multifunctional international scientific teams studding widest spectrum of genetic resources. Collections managers of the IHVO will obtain an improved knowledge of the genetic value of the resources under their management, which will allow them to facilitate their use in a more effective way, and this will ensure an improved understanding of the genetic value of the resources. Involving in the Action the staff of the institution will have possibility to participate in fellowships and trainings, which help to those especially to young researchers to enlarge their knowledge and qualification in the management and investigation of grapevine genetic resources.

6 The South Caucasus - the Oldest Center of Origin and Domestication on Grapevine H.J. de Blji 1983 P. McGovern, 2003 V I V IIb Ib IV III Ia IIa G. Forni, 2005

7 The Caucasus the Centre of Grape Origin The first authors indicated the Caucasus as a center of grapevine origin were V. Hehn (1870) and A. De Candolle (1883). N. I. Vavilov Based on result of investigation wild and cultivated grapevine of the Caucasus N. Vavilov (1931) concludes: All existing data indicates that the Caucasus is the main hearth of origin of wild and cultivated grapevine. Great number of various autochthonous varieties in Georgia, which have striking diversity of colour and shape of berries and seeds indicate about concentration the processes of form origin here. The Caucasus as a centre of grapevine origin was also recognized by E. Shiemann (1932), A. Negrul (1946), P. Zhukovski (1962), A. Winkler (1962), H. Olmo (1976, 1996), C. Mathon (1981), B.Reisch e C. Pratt (1996), R.Ramishvili (2001), McGovern (2003), This at al (2008),.

8 Chronology of Pipe and Pollen Fossils Archaeological data of Georgia N. FOSSIL SITE PERIOD REFERENCES TYPE 1 macrofossil Shulaveri Neolithic Lisicyna et al macrofossil Khramis Didi Gora Neolithic Gorg.,Rusishv macrofossil Dangreuli-Gora Neolithic Gorg.,Rusishv macrofossil Badaani Early Bronze Age Rusishvili pollen Vale 1 Early Bronze Age Kvavadze 2004a 6 pollen Nachivchavi Early Bronze Age Kvavadze 2004c 7 macrofossil Kvackhelebi Early Bronze Age Ramishvili macrofossil Chizanaant Gora Early Bronze Age Schultz Motel 1988; Ramishvili pollen Tkemlara 1,2,3 Middle Bronze Age Kvavadze et al pollen Ai-Ilia Middle Bronze Age Kvavadze 2004b 11 pollen Vale 2 Middle Bronze Age Kvavadze 2004a 12 macrofossil Gudoy Midle Bronze Age Rukhadze macrofossil Bedeni Middle Bronze Age Ramishvili macrofossil Anaklia Middle Bronze Age Ramishvili macrofossil Nosiri Middle Bronze Age Ramishvili pollen Naomari Gora Late Bronze Age Kvavadze pollen Tetri Ckaro Late Bronze Age Kvavadze, Rusishvili pollen Vale 3 Late Bronze Age Kvavadze 2004a 19 macrofossil Sukhumi 1 Late Bronze Age Rukhadze macrofossil Treligora (Dighomi) L B A - VIII-VII c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Uplistsikhe X-IX c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Samtavro (Mtskheta) X-IX c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Gienos VIII-VII c. BC Rusishvili macrofossil Ergeti VII-VI c. BC Rusishvili pollen Tabackuri VII-VI c. BC Kvavadze macrofossil Digomi VII-VI c. BC Schultz Motel macrofossil Sukhumi VI - III c. BC Schultz Motel 1988; Ramishvili macrofossil Tsikhiagora IV-III c. BC Zkitishvili 1995; Ramishvili macrofossil Nastaki (Ksani) IV-III c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Sagaredjo III c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Urbnisi II-I c. BC Ramishvili macrofossil Eshera II-I c. BC Kvavadze, Rukh macrofossil Urbnisi V-VI c. AD Ramishvili macrofossil Urbnisi VII-VII c. AD Ramishvili macrofossil Mtskheta Medieval Period Ramishvili macrofossil Mokva Medieval Period Rukhadze macrofossil Duab Medieval Period Rukhadze pollen Tkemlara 4 Medieval Period Kvavadze, Rusishvili macrofossil Jinvali Medieval Period Ramishvili macrofossil Rustavi Medieval Period Ramishvili macrofossil Mlashebis Gora Medieval Period Ramishvili macrofossil Iaghsara Medieval Period Ramishvili 1983 Costantini, Rusishvili, Kvavadze, 2006 Dangreuli gora (5-4 millennium BC) Shulaveris gora (5-4 millennium BC) Khizanaant gora (4 millennium BC) Urbnisi (3 millennium BC) Anaklia (2 millennium BC) Mtskheta X-XI cc. BC Uplistsikhe 1 millennia big. Sokhumi VI-IV cc. BC Nastaki IV-III cc. BC

9 Neolitic The Oldest Clay Vessels Culture of Shulaveri (6-4 millennium BC) Culture of Trialeti (2nd millennium BC) Khramis didi gora (6-5th millennium BC) Arukhlo (4th millennium BC) Badeni Trialeti Culture of Kura-Araxes (3rd millennium BC) 1st millenium BC Vessel with shape of grapevine leaf Khizannaant Gora Kvatskhelebi Berikldeebi Sioni 8-6th cent. BC Mtskheta 9th sent. BC

10 Wild Grapevine Wild Grapevine / VAZI, TQIS VAZI, USURVAZI, KRIKINA in Georgian/ V. vinifera ssp. silvestris Gmel., a wild ancestor of the cultural grapevine V. vinifera ssp. sativa D.C. is a typical representative of the Caucasus and Georgian flora among it. This plant is a lodger almost all woody regions, most part in forests on lowlands and rivers banks up to 1200 m above sea level in Georgia.

11 Biodiversity of Georgian Grapevine Germplasm Total number of Georgian autochthonous varieties, listed in the Ampelography of Georgia (1960), is 525. Ampelographic description most of varieteis are available since 1846 (Kolenati). 414 varieties are described in the Ampelography of the Soviet Union ( ). New breeding varieties and clones was added to this germplasm in the XX century Geography of origin Kakheti Kartli Imereti Ratcha Lechkhumi Samegrelo Guria Adjara Abkhazeti

12 Classification according to A. Negrul Vitis vinifera ssp. sativa D.C. PROLES pontica orientalis occidentalis SUB PROLES balcanica georgica caspica antasiatica galica iberica Georgian native varieties

13 Importance of Local Varieties for Georgia Recommended standard wine cultivars = 37 Georgian among those = 31 Rkarsiteli Saperavi Tavkveri Chinuri Kakhuri Mtsvane Tsolikouri Tsitska Odjaleshi, Aladasturi Krakhuna Alexandrouli Goruli Mtsvane and others Geo Area of Cultivated Varieties (ha%) (Agro census 2004) Introduced Others varieties 2% 4% Varietà raccomandate per la vinificazione in Georgia, % 5% 95% 1 2 (Agro Census 2004) The first 10 Georgian cultivars Variety Rkatsiteli (b) Tsolikouri (b) Saperavi (n) Tsitska (b) Chinuri (b) Dzelshavi (n) Mtsvane Kakhuri (b) Goruli Mtsvane (b) Alexandrouli (n) Ratschuli Tetra (b) Ha According to Galet (1990): Rkatsiteli: ha (7 th position) Saperavi: ha (86 th position) Georgian varieties 94% 193 new bred varieties from 13 Georgian varieties (parents) were obtained in 16 countries

14 The project coordinated by the International Plant Genetic Recourses Institute Bioversity International Period of the Project: Conservation and Sustainable Use of Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) Genetic Resources in the Caucasus and the Northern Black Sea Region Countries Azerbaijan Armenia Georgia Moldova Russia Ukraine

15 Fellowship and Research Supports Centre de Recherche Public Gabriel Lippmann, Luxembourg Università degli studi di Milano Dipartimento di Produzione Vegetale, Italy Istituto Italiano per l Africa e l orientale (IsIAQ), Italy The laboratory of archaeobotany Institute of grapevine breeding, Germany Partnership European Cooperative Program for Crop Genetic Resources Networks (ECP/GR) Working Group on Vitis

16 Aim and Motives of the Project The AIM is identifying, collecting, characterizing and conserving the rich diversity of grapevine genetic resources throughout the Caucasus and the Northern Black Sea region as a basis to improve local viticulture and wine making industry. The large number of traditional local varieties existing in the region; Significant relevant of these resources for the development of the European modern cultivars; The wild, Vitis vinifera ssp. silvestris, ancestor of the cultivated grapevine, still occurs throughout this region; Wine production is a major potential source of income for the local population.

17 Lats Projects Including Activities on Georgian Grapevine Germplasm French ECO-NET ( ): Molecular characterization of grapevine genetic resources from the Caucasus Participants: 6 Countries EU GrapeGen06 ( ): Conservation, characterization and management of grapevine genetic resources in Europe. Participants: 25 European institutions

18 Investigation of Georgian Germplasm Goal multidisciplinary characterization and evaluation of Georgian grapevine germplasm including autochthonous varieties and wild vines by using modern techniques of ampelography and molecular genetics Ampelographic and ampelometric investigation and compilation of ampelographical cards of varieties based on IPGRI, OIV and GENRES descriptors; Ripening profiling of grape; Chemo taxonomical characterization of berry skins and defining the anthocyanins profile of varieties on the basis of High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) for the technological condition; DNA fingerprinting to detect genetic variation with usage of 20 Microsatelite (SSR) markers. Georgian autochthonous varieties from 5 collections (Georgia, Italy, France) and wild grape from Georgia were involved in the research 135 Geo native varieties and 22 wild samples were involved in SSR research

19 Germplasm Preservation in Georgia The first collection Sakara 1892 Inventory Inventory of of Geo Geo Collections Collections /2004/ /2004/ The biggest collection Dighomi (1967)-3000 acc Σ = 875 The Database Dighomi Vashlidjvari Mukhrani Telavi Skra Dighomi Vashlidjvari Mukhrani Telavi Skra New Vashlijvari Collection-2003 Number of accessions 350 Number of plants per accession - 10

20 Building of New Collections Manavi Nursery: 500 genotypes Vashlijvari Locations: Skra Vatchebi Telavi Provinces: Kartli Imereti Kakheti

21 Preservation of Native Varieties in Georgia # Collection Year Accessions Status 1 Skra State 2 Vachebi State 3 Telavi State 4 Mukhrani State 5 6 Skra Telavi State Private Saguramo Center 7 Saguramo Private 8 Shumi Private 9 Kindzmarauli Private Total 2664 Number of original varieties 330 Protected from total (525) 62,9% Shumi collection

22 Ampelographic Descriptors RKATSITELI Vegetative organ Young shoot Shoot Young leaf Mature leaf Inflorescence Bunch Berry Characteristics of grape must TOTAL N Descriptors (OIV, IPGRI, GENRES) 001, 002, 003, 007, 008, , , 066-5, 068, 076, 079-1, 080, 081-2, 083-2, 084, 087, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605, 606, 607, 608, 609, 610, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, , 152, , 203, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209, , 220, 221, 222, 223, 225, 230, 241, 243, 244, 503, 505, 506, , 506, 508 Completely described varieties: Gorula and its Clone No23 (138 descriptors), Tavkveri (114 descriptors), Satsuravi (96 descriptors)

23 Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine C A S E Label Num ORBELURI ODJALESHI 92 TSQOBILA 95 ABSHILURI 66 NOSHRIO 84 AVASIRKHVA 8 MTSVANE AVREKHI 24 SHONURI 29 CHITISTVALA KAKHURI 49 KHIKHVI 38 SHAVI QUDRZENI 14 OKROULA 22 GHVINIS TSITELI 13 PANESHI 56 KAKHIS TETRA 126 KHARISTVALA KOLKHURI 85 SAPERAVI ATENIS 139 KVELOURI 114 MGALOBLISHVILI 78 KHUSHIA SHAVI 98 CHKHAVERI 86 ALEXANDROULI 93 OKHTOURA 103 BROLA 39 GOMIS TETRI 127 ALADASTURI 89 ALADASTURI 9 ZAKATALIS TETRI 131 SAKMEVELA 129 TSITELOURI 69 AMOTKHVIJ 70 KAMURI SHAVI 87 KISTAURIS SAGHVINE 104 TSOLIKOURI 128 KHUPISHIJ 11 KHAPSHIRA 55 ASPINDZURA 61 TQUPKVIRTA 23 RKO SHAVI 111 TAVKVERI 77 VERTQVITCHALIS SHAVI 105 TAMARIS VAZI 18 ARGVETULI SAPERE 102 SAMARKHI 63 BUERA 76 DZELSHAVI OBCHURI 107 TSIRKVALIS TETRI 6 KATCHITCHI 12 KUPRASHVILISEULI 106 ZAKATALIS TSITELI 21 KHARISTVALA SHAVI 137 GORULA 32 TSOLIKOURI MTSVIVANI 130 MSKHVILTVALA TETRI 50 IQALTOS TSITELI 101 TSITSKA 44 BZVANURA 62 TKVLAPA SHAVI 19 DONDGHLABI 41 MTSVANE KAKHURI 1 KURKENA 75 ZERDAGI 2 BUZA 17 TKBILI QURDZENI 25 BUA QURDZENI 4 GHRUBELA KARTLIS 58 GHRUBELA KAKHURI 57 TVALDAMTSVRISEULI 67 KTSIA 74 ASURETULI SHAVI 120 SAPENA 43 RKATSITELI 45 DJVARI 16 DANAKHARULI 97 ANANURA 136 VAZISUBNIS TSITELI 48 ENDELADZIS SHAVI 82 TSNORIS TETRA 30 RKATSITELI VARDISPER 40 BUDESHURI TSITELI 15 CHEKHARDANI 35 GORULI MTSVANE 31 AGHBIJ 71 MAGHLARI SHAVI 79 MARGULI SAPERE 80 UBAKLURI 53 AKHMETIS SHAVI 20 MTSVIVANI MSKHVILMAR 7 CHEKOBALI 47 TCHVITILURI 133 ODJALESHI 65 DJANI BAKHVIS 90 ADANASURI 108 MAGHLARI TVRINA 109 DJANI 88 DZIGANIDZIS SHAVI 112 ORONA 99 MTEVANDIDI 100 TCHODI SALKHINOSI 115 IMERULI SHAVI 141 SEURA 96 KHROGI 118 CHKHIKOURA 26 ADREULI TKHELKANA 34 VERTQVITCHALIS TETRI 27 SKHILATUBANI 64 MUDJURETULI 94 MURADOULI 37 TCHETCHIPESHI 36 CHITISKVERTSKHA MESK 28 PORTOKA 110 SAPERAVI GRDZELMTEVA 42 TITA KARTLIS 33 GABEKHOURI TSITELI 81 JGHIA 119 USAKHELOURI 83 BADAGI 54 SHAVTSITSKA 59 OPOURA 140 TCHUMUTA 60 OTSKHANURI SAPERE 91 AKOMSHTALI 134 ODJALESHI 125 KRAKHUNA 51 ARGVETULA 123 BATOMURA 116 DJINESHI 68 GHVANURA 73 SATSURAVI 117 SAMTCHATCHA 121 KHUSHIA SHAVI 10 CHINURI 132 AMLAKHU 72 SHAVTKHILA 135 SHAVKAPITO 138 BAZALETURI 5 DZVELI ALEKSANDROULI 124 SIRGULA 52 TAVKARA 122 DIDSHAVI 113 TSKHVEDIANIS TETRA 3 MRGVALI VARDISPERI Q 46 Dendrogram for Leaves /By 81 parameters of leaves (distance, angles, ratios, synthetic data)/ CHITISTVALA KAKHURI KTSIA BROLA TSNORIS TETRA ASPINDZURA GORULI MTSVANE CHKHIKOURA BADAGI BATOMURA

24 Variability of Ampelographic Traits

25 Phenology Gorizia collection: 150 acces. Three years ( ) data

26 Grouping According to Anthocyanins GROUP PROPERTIES Low < mg/kg GEORGIAN VARIETIES Medium mg/kg High mg/kg REFERENCE VARIETIES G No ester forms Pinot noir G Higher Okhtoura; Tkbili Qurdzeni; G G Lower levels of total acetates + p-coumarates level Malvidin 3 glucoside (free + esterified) Medium Akomshtali; Aleksandrouli; Didshavi; Ghrubela Kakhuri; Ghvinis Tsiteli; Kistauris Saghvine; Kuprashviliseuli; Mamukas Vazi; Mudjuretuli; Adanasuri; Ghvanura; Mtevandidi; Vazisubnis Tsiteli Amlakhu; Dzelshavi Obchuri; Khipuscij; Usakhelouri; Lower Amotkhvij; Tchumuta; Tsitelouri Aladasturi; G Higher Adreula Tkhelkana; Buza; Noshrio; G G G G Higher levels of three-substituted anthocyanins (Delph. + Petun. + Malv. 3 gluc. free and esterified) Higher levels of total acetates + p- coumarates level Malvidin 3 glucoside (free + esterified) Medium Lower Lower levels of total acetates + Medium levels of threesubstituted anthocyanins Higher levels of total acetates + p-coumarates p-coumarates Abshiluri; Aspindzura; Djani; Ghrubela Kartlis; Ktsia; Orbeluri Odjaleshi; Paneshi; Saperavi Atenis; Satsuravi; Shavi Kurdzeni; Skhilatubani; Tqvlapa Shavi; Tsqobila; Zerdagi Argvetuli Sapere; Qvelouri; Tamaris Vazi; Batomura; Asuretuli Shavi; Iqaltos Tsiteli; Marguli Sapere; Shavtkhila; Tavkveri; Zakatalis Tsiteli; Akhmetis Shavi; Chkhaveri; Dzveli Alexandrouli; Khushia Shavi; Orona; Tchodi Salkhinosi; Tvaldamtsvriseuli Djani Bakhvis; Kamuri Shavi; Shonuri Dziganidzis Shavi; Maghlari Tvrina; Otskhanuri Sapere; Katchitchi; Vertkvitchalis Shavi Argvetula; Budeshuri Tsiteli; Tavkara Endeladzis Shavi; Gabekhouri Tsiteli; Imeruli Shavi; Maglari Shavi; Odjaleshi; Saperavi Grdzelmtevana; Barbera Croatina Teroldego Cabernet F.; Merlot; Marzemino Jghia; Rko Shavi; Seura; Tqupkvirta Cabernet S. G Lower levels of three-substituted anthocyanins Shavtsitska; Mgaloblishvili; Sangiovese G Very low levels of three-substituted anthocyanins Badagi; Khrogi; Mrgvali Vardisperi Qurdzeni Nebbiolo G Only Delphinid 3 glucoside free Rkatsiteli Vardisperi 84 Georgian and 10 reference colored varieties have been involved in the research

27 Investigation of V. sylvestris Gmel. 189 exemplars of wild vine have been discovered

28 Geographic Location based on the SSR markers Mostof the samplescollectedin thisregionbelongtothe redbrancedpart of the dendrogram Mostof the samplescollectedin thisregionbelongtothe blue brancedpart of the dendrogram UPGMA Dendrogram based on the Nei s genetic distance for 20 SSR loci

29 Representation of the genetic distance of the individuals and populations by a multi n factiorial analysis (microsatellite data) Blue=Georgian varieteies White=Georgian wild genotypes Yellow=Modern cultivars Grey=table varieties from East Violet=Wine varieties from Cent. Europe Green=Wine varieties from W. Europe 2305 cvs from Vassal collection Georgian Remarks: note the large variability and distance of the Georgian varieties, showing a large and novel genetic diversity. On the other hand, Georgian wild and cultivated are quite close to each other showing that their close links (probably domestication).