Grapevine plants marked by Radio frequency identification (RFID) system were monitored to determine whether the system interfered with the growth and health status of the vines. TAGs were inserted inside pith of rootstock in 2007, 3 cm below the grafting point, following two different procedures: (A) involved direct drilling of pith from the upper end of the rootstock; (B) consisted in a “U” cut performed laterally on the rootstock by a specially designed machine and involved tissues from bark to pith. After each procedure, the microchip was positioned inside the pith, and grafting was performed. In 2008 and 2009, growth was monitored and histological observations were made on fresh trunk sections (20-μm thick) in proximity of the microchip location. Plants subjected to procedure A did not show any differences in tissue status compared to the control, based on growth data. Indeed, the insertion method did not cause additional wounds to the rootstock as only a portion of pith is removed to accommodate the microchip. Conversely, procedure B was more invasive due to the “U” wound, causing partial loss of functionality in terms of open vessels. Image analysis of transversal sections revealed that the damaged area did not exceed 27% and 19% of total vascular area in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The extent of histological of damage was limited to the microchip position: no histological alteration was noted to the area above and below the microchip, and no growth decrement was recorded for the marked plants, compared to the control.
Histological studies of RFID marked grapevines
PANATTONI, ALESSANDRA;TRIOLO, ENRICO
2009-01-01
Abstract
Grapevine plants marked by Radio frequency identification (RFID) system were monitored to determine whether the system interfered with the growth and health status of the vines. TAGs were inserted inside pith of rootstock in 2007, 3 cm below the grafting point, following two different procedures: (A) involved direct drilling of pith from the upper end of the rootstock; (B) consisted in a “U” cut performed laterally on the rootstock by a specially designed machine and involved tissues from bark to pith. After each procedure, the microchip was positioned inside the pith, and grafting was performed. In 2008 and 2009, growth was monitored and histological observations were made on fresh trunk sections (20-μm thick) in proximity of the microchip location. Plants subjected to procedure A did not show any differences in tissue status compared to the control, based on growth data. Indeed, the insertion method did not cause additional wounds to the rootstock as only a portion of pith is removed to accommodate the microchip. Conversely, procedure B was more invasive due to the “U” wound, causing partial loss of functionality in terms of open vessels. Image analysis of transversal sections revealed that the damaged area did not exceed 27% and 19% of total vascular area in 2008 and 2009, respectively. The extent of histological of damage was limited to the microchip position: no histological alteration was noted to the area above and below the microchip, and no growth decrement was recorded for the marked plants, compared to the control.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
