Weather Ελληνικά Sign in
Home › Article

Kiwifruit decline syndrome (KVDS): hydraulic failure, not a pathogen

Kiwifruit

Savvas Pastopoulos, Agronomist MSc, Pastopoulos Agronomics, Neos Mylotopos, Pella, Greece

Kiwifruit vine decline syndrome, moria del kiwi in Italian, KVDS or KiDS internationally, is not a disease with one microorganism and one product. It is hydraulic failure: the vine ceases to be able to lift water, and it wilts within a few weeks while the orchard is irrigated. What follows is what is documented today, what remains open in the literature, and what has actually been tested as an intervention.

A note on nomenclature: both acronyms occur in the international literature. KVDS (Kiwifruit Vine Decline Syndrome) is the prevailing one in Italy and in the more recent work; KiDS (Kiwifruit Decline Syndrome) also occurs, less often. They are the same thing.

A note for readers outside Greece

Where this article refers to approvals, those of the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food are valid in Greece only and say nothing about what is permitted in any other country. No active substance and no dose is named anywhere in this article. Almost every measurement quoted was made in Italy or New Zealand and carries its origin inside the sentence; areas and yields are given in hectares and tonnes as the sources give them.

What is settled and what is not, to be read first

The aetiology of the syndrome remains an open field of research. The 2026 review puts it as follows: "despite significant progress, major gaps remain in clarifying the precise aetiology and in identifying the primary pathogens" [2]. The 2024 microbiome review is even more categorical: "to date no single, common causal agent has been found, and the syndrome is characterised as multifactorial" [3]. The Italian national guidelines themselves describe the cause as unresolved [11].

What follows is deliberately separated into what has been measured and what is still a supposition. Wherever a practice is proposed, it is stated whether it has been tested and with what result.

Kiwifruit vines with evident wilting while the orchard is irrigated
Fig. 1The characteristic paradox of the syndrome: vines with evident signs of wilting, while the orchard is irrigated. The water is there in the soil, the vine cannot take it up.

1. How large the problem is

The first record of such a decline was not made in Italy: it was made in New Zealand, after a cyclone that caused heavy and prolonged flooding in kiwifruit plantings [1]. The Italian epidemic is more recent. The first cases appeared in 2012 in Veneto, in 2015 in Piedmont and in 2017 in Lazio and Calabria [2].

The first estimates spoke of about 10% of the Italian plantings, around 2,900 hectares [2]. By 2020 the record had risen to 6,560 hectares, that is 26% of the total Italian area [11]. The distribution was very uneven: in the province of Verona 2,000 of the 2,500 hectares had been affected, in Lazio 2,000 to 3,000 of the 9,500, in Friuli only 60 of the 650 [11]. At regional level, CREA gives for 2020 Veneto 80%, Piedmont 60%, Friuli 10% [12].

The figure for Piedmont is often cited as "over 70%". The publication of the very research centre that monitors the region gives 60% for 2020 [12], and the national guidelines give 3,180 hectares for the same year [11]. The lower, documented value is kept here.

Where the problem stands in 2025

In October 2025 the record speaks of more than 8,000 hectares lost, about 30% of the cultivated area, chiefly green-fleshed and in part yellow-fleshed; for the yellow-fleshed, about 600 hectares are reported and damage of the order of 180 million euro for the whole chain [13].

The 2026 review values the losses at 85 million euro of gross production value and 47 million euro of operating margin, with annual yield reductions of 50% or more in the heavily affected areas [2].

For a sense of scale: Italian kiwifruit production was recorded at 537,867 tonnes on 26,947 hectares in the agricultural census of 2021 [12]. Italy remains today the principal producer of yellow-fleshed kiwifruit of the northern hemisphere, with about 100,000 tonnes, while Hayward production is in retreat [17].

What "syndrome" means, as opposed to "disease" A syndrome is a set of symptoms arising from the convergence of many causes, not from a single factor. That is also the reason why there is no "the product". The literature is unanimous in the characterisation: it is a multifactorial phenomenon without a single causal agent [3], and it is treated as such in the Italian national guidelines [11].

Sources: 1 2 3 11 12 13 17

2. How it is recognised in the orchard

The progression is rapid and usually irreversible. The description in the literature is that "vines that do not collapse completely within twelve months usually die the following year" [1], that is one to two years from the appearance of the first symptoms. The main signs:

  • Disappearance of the feeder roots. This is the first and the most revealing. In kiwifruit about 95% of the total length of the root system consists of fine, fibrous roots [1]; losing them is equivalent to losing the whole absorbing capacity.
  • Separation of the root cortex from the central cylinder. The epidermis "slips" and comes off like a sock; it is recorded as a characteristic symptom on the secondary roots [11].
  • Brown, soft, wet areas of rot on the thick roots, with an initially reddish-brown discolouration of the main root [11].
  • Sudden necrosis and leaf fall, often without a preceding phase of yellowing.
  • Wilting and dieback of shoots in the middle of summer, while the orchard is being irrigated normally.
Poor kiwifruit root system without peripheral white roots
Fig. 2An uprooted vine from an affected orchard. A poor root system, with a complete absence of peripheral new white roots and rootlets. Only the thick, old roots are left, and they do not absorb.
Wet rotten kiwifruit roots with the epidermis separating from the central stele
Fig. 3Wet, rotten roots where the epidermis separates from the central stele. It is among the most characteristic findings of the syndrome and it is found with a spade, not by looking at the canopy.
A practical rule for the orchard Wilting in an irrigated orchard is not answered by more irrigation. That is everyone's first reaction and the worst one: waterlogging is recorded as the main trigger of the syndrome [5]. The next step is the spade and an inspection of the roots. When the white rootlets are missing and the cortex comes away by hand, the problem is not a shortage of water but an inability to take it up.

Sources: 1 5 11

3. The mechanism: from the root to the collapse

The chain of events is the part of the syndrome that has been documented best, because it has been measured directly:

  1. Damage to the root. The feeder roots are lost, through waterlogging, soil-borne pathogens, poor soil structure or a combination of these.
  2. Functional drought. The vine does not take up water although the soil is wet. The understanding of the syndrome rests on this.
  3. Cavitation. The water column in the xylem vessels breaks and air enters. In affected vines both cavitation and implosion of xylem vessels were recorded [8].
  4. Blockage. Tyloses and exudates plug the xylem vessels, making the damage permanent.
  5. Collapse. Wilting, dieback, death of the vine.

The CREA team measured these stages in a planting of Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa cv. Hayward in Italy, comparing an affected with a healthy orchard. In the vines of the affected orchard the following were recorded:

MeasurementAffected orchardHealthy orchard
Leaf temperatureAbove 39 °C on 18 days (2021) and 24 days (2022); maximum 40 °CMaximum 34 °C
Stomatal conductanceBelow 0.20 mol H₂O m⁻² s⁻¹Significantly higher throughout the period
Stem water potential−0.9 to −1.2 MPa−0.4 to −0.7 MPa
Cumulative sap flow (2022)90 to 204 litres263 to 653 litres
Daily variation in trunk diameterHighLow

That is clear water stress, with the orchard irrigated, and with the sap flow in the affected orchard about three times lower than in the healthy one [8].

Sources: 8

4. Why kiwifruit is so vulnerable

The question "why us and not apple" has an answer, and it is anatomical. Actinidia has a large demand for water but is at the same time extremely sensitive to waterlogging of the root and to anaerobic soil conditions [1].

  • Very wide xylem vessels. They secure a large water supply when all goes well, but they are prone to cavitation when the tension rises. In the Italian measurements, a marked narrowing of the xylem vessels was observed in all the vines, with the greatest frequency in the 30 to 45 µm class, an adaptation that reduces the risk of embolism but costs in supply [8].
  • Delayed stomatal closure. This is not a field impression but a measurement: "all the kiwifruit vines in the experimental orchards showed very low stomatal sensitivity to VPD, irrespective of the treatment" [9]. The vine "insists" on transpiring while the atmospheric demand shoots up; in the same work days with VPD above 4.0 kPa and a maximum of 4.66 kPa were recorded.
  • Large leaves, high transpiration. The surface that loses water is disproportionate to the root system.
  • Shallow, fleshy roots, 95% of them fibrous. Low tolerance of anoxia and of mechanical stress [1].

Sources: 1 8 9

5. The figures behind the vulnerability

5.1 Root density: kiwifruit is off the scale

Because it explores the soil volume slowly, kiwifruit develops a root density higher than that of the other fruit crops: the roots are crowded into a small volume of soil and compete with each other for the same oxygen [19].

SpeciesRoot length density (cm of root per cm³ of soil)
Olive0.014 to 0.04
Apple0.04 to 0.20
Peach0.05 to 0.56
Sweet cherry0.10 to 0.50
Pear0.12 to 0.56
Kiwifruit0.56 to 1.60

Table after [19]. The source writes the unit simply as "cm⁻³"; the quantity that takes these values in the literature is root length density, in centimetres of root per cubic centimetre of soil, and it is rendered that way here.

5.2 The "lungs" of the root are four times smaller

2% against 5.5 to 11.5%

The intercellular space of the roots, the aeration porosity, that is the space between the cells, acts as a store of air, in effect as the "lung" of the root system. In kiwifruit this space is reported to represent only 2% of the total root volume [19].

For comparison, in citrus rootstocks the same space is reported at 7% to 11%: Rough Lemon 7.2%, Troyer citrange 9.4%, Trifoliate orange 9.8%, Sweet orange 10.9%. Among peach rootstocks, Mr.S. 2/5 reaches about 11.5%, Monegro 7% and Nemared 5.5% [19]. Those "lungs" give the other species autonomy under conditions of excess moisture. Kiwifruit does not have it.

5.3 Oxygen demand and the five-hour rule

  • Kiwifruit roots are reported to have a higher oxygen consumption than peach and apple: at a soil temperature of 30 °C the demand is given as about twice that of peach and three times that of apple [19]. The absolute values of the source (0.18 against 0.10 and 0.06 milligrams of oxygen per litre per hour) are not reproduced here, because the source does not state a litre of what, of soil, of soil solution or of root volume.
  • Under conditions of soil saturation, all the available oxygen is exhausted within 5 hours, and after a corresponding interval of excess moisture the first symptoms of stress appear on the leaves: reduced transpiration and photosynthesis, a rise in leaf temperature [19].
  • The five hours were not verified in an original work, and the most recent independent measurement gives days, not hours: in the 2025 waterlogging study, on vines with A. chinensis var. deliciosa rootstocks, stomatal conductance fell below 0.05 mol m⁻² s⁻¹ and photosynthesis was reduced by 47% to 63% within four days of waterlogging [14].
  • In warm and poorly aerated soils, a few days with excess water in the middle of summer are enough for the available oxygen to be consumed and for the renewal of the root system to be prevented [19].

5.4 The soil volume the root explores

The soil volume occupied by the root system in the first four years after planting, as the Greek source gives it [19]:

Species and rootstockYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
Peach on MISSOUR1.22 m³3.39 m³3.60 m³3.60 m³
Peach on Mr.S. 2/50.56 m³1.97 m³2.80 m³2.80 m³
Kiwifruit Hayward0.13 m³0.83 m³1.35 m³1.41 m³
What this means for irrigation In the first year kiwifruit explores ten times less soil than a peach on a vigorous rootstock, and even in the fourth year it does not reach half of it [19]. The practical consequence coincides with what the Italian literature recommends independently: localised irrigation with daily amounts calculated on actual consumption, so that the soil is kept steadily at field capacity, often and little, not rarely and much [1].

5.5 The vine wilts well before the "wilting point"

The water the vine can actually use without suffering stress, the so-called readily available water, is given as only 30% to 40% of the total available water, that is of the range between field capacity and the wilting point [19].

A misunderstanding that costs The classic "wilting point" is defined at 15 atmospheres. For kiwifruit, the Greek source reports that wilting occurs much earlier, around 10 to 12 atmospheres [19]. Irrigation scheduled from the standard tables, on the assumption that there is margin up to 15, finds the vine already under stress. No published Greek measurement of that threshold under Greek soil and climate conditions was found.

5.6 When exactly the vines collapse

The vines start the first part of the annual cycle well, with no signs of distress, because evapotranspirative demand is still low and the leaf area limited [19]. As temperature and leaf area increase, the vines collapse, and death occurs in the summer months.

The damage, however, was not done in summer: it was done earlier, during the rainy period or through mistaken management of the irrigation [19]. The ratio of roots to foliage has already been altered, and summer merely presents the bill, a picture consistent with the measurements of sap flow and water potential in the affected vines [8], which record the summer condition without dating the onset of the damage.

Sources: 1 8 14 19

6. The factors that converge

FactorWhat it does
Waterlogging and poor drainageAnoxia in the rhizosphere and destruction of the feeder roots. It is characterised explicitly as the main trigger of the syndrome: "waterlogging caused either by excessive irrigation or by rainfall proved to be the main driver of KVDS" [5].
Soil-borne oomycetesPhytopythium spp., Pythium spp. and Phytophthora spp. attack the already weakened root system [2]. Neither of the two factors on its own produced symptoms; only their combination did, in 90% of the vines [4].
High VPD and temperatureAtmospheric demand for water increases, the leaf overheats and the tension in the xylem vessels rises, with cavitation even when there is enough water in the soil, and with stomata that do not react in time [9].
Soil structureCompacted or heavy soils limit aeration and drainage; it is the reason raised beds were tested as an intervention at all [11].
Climate changeAlternation of prolonged drought with torrential rain. The syndrome has spread also to plantings where waterlogging is prevented or is caused only occasionally by intense local rainfall, an indication that water alone does not explain everything [1].
No single factor is enough, and this has been tested

It is the cleanest study in the literature. Vines were placed in three conditions: waterlogging in sterilised soil, non-sterilised soil without waterlogging, and waterlogging in non-sterilised soil.

Symptoms appeared only in the vines of the third group, at a frequency of 90%. The two other groups showed no symptom at all [4]. Both the water and the microorganism are needed.

Nematodes are often cited as an aggravating factor. In the works checked here, no measurement was found that quantifies their contribution to the syndrome, and for that reason they are not included in the table above. Their presence remains an independent problem of the crop.

Sources: 1 2 4 5 9 11

7. Which pathogens are involved

This is exactly where the literature has not reached a conclusion. The causes of the syndrome have been disputed since 2012, and in 2026 the review still writes that "major gaps remain in clarifying the precise aetiology and in identifying the primary pathogens" [2].

One pathogen is not enough to explain the syndrome

The microorganisms that have been linked with the syndrome, as the 2026 review records them [2] and as the isolation studies give them [5] [6]:

  • Oomycetes: Phytopythium vexans, P. litorale, P. chamaehyphon, P. helicoides, Globisporangium spp., Pythium dissotocum, Phytophthora spp.
  • Fungi: Desarmillaria tabescens, found "exclusively in the roots of symptomatic vines", Fusarium solani, Ilyonectria and Dactylonectria spp.
  • Bacteria: Clostridium bifermentans and C. subterminale, isolates of which "were able to induce symptoms when inoculated under controlled conditions" [2].

The critical finding of the microbiome work is that Phytopythium spp. were found in healthy as well as in diseased orchards, which "suggests that the onset of KVDS is most probably related to a shift in the wider microbial community rather than being due exclusively to these oomycetes" [3].

For years the discussion turned on the genus Phytophthora. The research of the last five years has moved the centre of gravity to the related genus Phytopythium:

  • Systematic isolation from Italian plantings found four species, P. vexans (52 isolates), P. litorale (10), P. chamaehyphon (7) and P. helicoides (2) [6].
  • Pathogenicity was confirmed by controlled inoculations on one-year-old vines of cv. Hayward, with 72 hours of waterlogging two days after inoculation. At 26 days, the severity on a 0 to 4 scale was 2.17 ± 0.58 for the P. vexans strain PP1 and 2.67 ± 0.29 for P. chamaehyphon PH6 [6].
  • P. vexans was found "in about 55% of the symptomatic vines" [2], and the integrated microbiome analysis characterises it as the "main candidate agent", while adding explicitly that "several questions remain unanswered" [7].
Two findings that do not allow the matter to be closed

First, the study that identifies P. vexans as the main candidate found at the same time that "KVDS has little effect on the bacterial, fungal and oomycete communities" of the soil and the roots, with "weak traces of possible dysbiosis" [7]. The idea that the syndrome is accompanied by a large-scale overturning of the microbiome is not confirmed by that work.

Second, in the first systematic isolation of pathogens from Italian plantings, bacteria were not identified as pathogens [5]. That same work was confined to three orchards in the province of Verona and the authors note explicitly that extension to more orchards and to other geographical areas is needed, which means that the geographical differentiation of the oomycetes remains an open question, not a finding.

The practical significance remains the same: oomycetes are not fungi, and the common fungicides do not reach them. Products with documented activity against oomycetes are needed, and, above all, removal of the condition that favours them, namely standing water [4].

No active substance and no dose is named here. The choice and the dose of any product are checked each time in the database of approved plant protection products of the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food for kiwifruit, because approvals change, and that database is valid for Greece only; in any other country the national register of that country applies.

Sources: 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. Before planting: the soil decides

The investment cost of a new kiwifruit planting is given in the Greek source at 60,000 to 70,000 euro per hectare [19]. No published Greek costing of establishment, with local labour, pergola materials and nursery stock, was found; the figure concerns the Italian situation and does not transfer unchanged. At that level of investment, in any case, there is no room for wrong choices.

The three analyses that have to come first Before the establishment of a new planting, soil analysis is recommended that is chemical, physico-mechanical and hydrological [19]. The third is the one that is almost always omitted, and it is the one that shows whether the site is suitable for kiwifruit. The analyses determine the choice of rootstock, the irrigation method, its correct management and the fertilisation plan.
What to look for in the soil
  • Depth without impermeable layers. A compact layer at shallow depth is enough for the subsurface water table to rise and for "pools" to form that rot part of the root system. With a root system that in the fourth year explores barely 1.41 m³ [19], there is no room for escape downwards.
  • Excellent drainage. It is the only applicable condition that breaks the chain: without waterlogging, the syndrome was not expressed even in the presence of the soil microorganisms [4]. The study also achieved it by sterilising the soil, which is not an option in the orchard.
  • High organic matter. It is not a luxury: it contributes to the structure and to the hydraulic conductivity of the soil, hence to the speed at which water leaves the root zone [19].

Sources: 4 19

9. What can be done

There is no cure for an affected vine. There is, however, prevention, and there are interventions that have been tested with measurements. Below they are kept separate from those that are merely recommended.

9.1 Water, the first priority

  • Drainage before anything else. If the orchard holds water after heavy rain, no other intervention has any meaning until that is solved. It is the only one of the two necessary conditions of the study, waterlogging and the presence of soil-borne microorganisms [4], that the grower can remove in the orchard, and waterlogging is characterised as the main driver of the syndrome [5].
  • Irrigation with measure and measurement. The documented recommendation is localised irrigation with daily amounts calculated on actual consumption, so that the soil stays steadily at field capacity without stagnation [1]. "More water because it is wilting" feeds the cycle.
Raised planting beds: what the trial showed

Raised beds are cited everywhere as the solution, and they do help, but they do not solve the problem. The wording of the review is precise: "the raised bed proved effective in reducing KVDS symptoms and in improving vine growth, but it did not prevent KVDS from being induced" [2].

The Italian national guidelines reach the same conclusion, describing the practice as "not resolutive" although beneficial on heavy soils [11]. It is an intervention that delays the problem without preventing it.

9.2 Microclimate control, the line with the cleanest results

An study of 2022 and 2023 in Piedmont, in a Hayward planting, compared a control, shade netting alone, and shade netting together with over-canopy microsprinklers (from mid June to August, three times a day for seven minutes). The measured results of the combination, against the control [10]:

MeasurementControlShade plus over-canopy irrigation
Maximum leaf temperatureAbove 40 °C (2022 and 2023)35.1 °C (2022) and 35.9 °C (2023)
Stem water potential−0.63 MPa−0.28 MPa
Root starch21.51%43.59%
CO₂ assimilation and transpirationLower at the peak hoursSignificantly higher

Root starch is the "fuel" with which the vine refills its xylem vessels after cavitation; and its doubling within the summer shows that recovery is feasible. The study was done in Piedmont, in northern Italy, on Hayward; no corresponding trial under Greek conditions was found.

9.3 Soil and root

  • Organic matter at planting and thereafter, for structure and hydraulic conductivity [19].
  • Decompaction with a ripper at the right moisture conditions, for aeration without injury to the root system.
  • Correction of pH and nutrition, so that the root is not already weakened when the pressure arrives.

For commercial microbial products and biostimulants as an intervention against the syndrome, no field trial with a measurable result was found. At research level there are measurements: the 2026 review reports biofumigation with rocket extract that reduced severity by 70% to 80% and characterises the bacterium Pseudomonas asplenii strain Pa4A7 as "highly effective in preventing the appearance of symptoms" [2], research data, not a commercially available solution.

Organic matter as a hydraulic intervention Increasing the organic carbon of the surface layers improves the hydraulic conductivity of the soil [19]: more organic matter means the water leaves the root zone faster, which is exactly what kiwifruit needs. The correlation coefficient that circulates for this relationship (R² = 0.75) could not be verified in an original publication and is not cited here as a measurement.
Compaction destroys the structure, not only the pores In a well structured soil, the organisation of the aggregates allows the formation of pores through which water drains and air circulates. In a flooded and compacted soil the aggregates break down, with a drastic reduction in pores. That damage is not repaired by one pass of a ripper; it takes years of organic matter for the structure to be rebuilt.

Sources: 1 2 4 5 10 11 19

10. Rootstocks and breeding

Kiwifruit is a special case among the fruit crops: until recently the crop rested essentially on a single commercial cultivar, with no use of rootstocks [19]. In China the revision of the genus recognises 48 species of Actinidia [15], a reservoir of genetic material that was left unexploited for resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. That omission has consequences today.

10.1 What is being tested now

The 2026 review collects the rootstocks with documented tolerance [2]:

  • Actinidia macrosperma, three genotypes, Ma176, Ma183 and Bounty 71, are characterised as "particularly tolerant of KVDS".
  • Actinidia valvata, KR5 showed greater tolerance than Hayward under waterlogging stress.
  • The hybrid Z1 (A. chinensis var. deliciosa P1 × A. arguta "Gemma"), with good graft compatibility on green-fleshed and yellow-fleshed cultivars, "showed promising tolerance of KVDS".

10.2 Bounty 71: what the measurement shows

It is the rootstock with the cleanest experimental data. In an study in southern Italy, three rootstocks in pots, Bounty 71 (A. macrosperma), D1 and Hayward (both A. chinensis var. deliciosa), grafted with "Zesy 002", were subjected to nine consecutive days of substrate saturation [14]:

RootstockStomatal conductance and transpirationPhotosynthesis on day 4
Bounty 71 (A. macrosperma)Values similar to the well watered vines, with no significant differenceNo effect from the waterlogging
D1 (A. chinensis var. deliciosa)Below 0.05 mol m⁻² s⁻¹ and 1 mmol m⁻² s⁻¹Reduction of about 63%
Hayward (A. chinensis var. deliciosa)Below 0.05 mol m⁻² s⁻¹ and 1 mmol m⁻² s⁻¹Reduction of about 47%

The conclusion of the researchers is carefully worded: Bounty 71 "can cope with short-term and temporary waterlogging and improve the tolerance of the grafted vines" [14]. Short-term and temporary, not permanent.

In the Greek source Bounty 71 is attributed to Actinidia macrosperma and at the same time described as a selection from Actinidia polygama seedlings, selected in New Zealand in 1997 and trialled from 1997 to 2007 against the rootstock Bruno [19]. Those trials and that chronology could not be verified and are not reproduced here as data. The taxonomic attribution to A. macrosperma is confirmed by the 2025 experimental work [14] and by the 2026 review [2].

The most important sentence of the whole subject

No rootstock has shown that it withstands soil asphyxia for a long period. Bounty 71 withstands temporary waterlogging [14]; the raised bed reduces the symptoms but does not prevent the syndrome [2]; and for the remaining rootstocks the data are still early [11].

Without correct irrigation and correct soil management, none of the other interventions has anything to hold on to. That is worth reading twice by anyone who expects the solution to come in a container.

10.3 What needs care with the new plants

For most rootstocks there are not yet sufficient data for their commercial release on a large scale to be proposed; the Italian guidelines characterise them as "under evaluation, without sufficient data as yet" [11]. Years of evaluation in different soil and climate environments are needed, and verification of compatibility with the cultivars.

Potted plants need different care The nursery material itself has changed. With micropropagation, nurseries now supply not only bare-root plants in winter, but plants throughout the year [19]. These are potted plants, with an active root system and a barely developed aerial part in continuous growth. It is sensitive material: it requires particular care at transplanting, so that stress from high temperatures is avoided.

Soil ripping in kiwifruit orchards, when and how it is done correctly. Commentary in Greek.

Kiwifruit on soil with a high pH and a medium to heavy texture: is it worth it? Commentary in Greek.

Sources: 2 11 14 15 19

11. What applies in Greece

No published Greek record of the syndrome was found

A search of the Greek and the international literature found no published record of KVDS in a Greek planting. The most recent international review of the syndrome mentions Greece only as a producing country, with no case [2].

That does not mean the syndrome is absent. It means it has not been recorded and published. The difference is material and it is written here explicitly instead of being covered with a guess.

Kiwifruit is a major crop in Pieria, Imathia and Arta, and it has expanded into other districts as well, often onto heavy and poorly drained soils. The phenomenon of sudden dieback has been discussed in Greek growing circles for years: in a recent agronomic presentation it is described as a "long-standing problem" with a peak in July and August, and is attributed to a combination of causes, excessive or insufficient irrigation, root pathogens, nematodes, a high water table, salinity [16]. It is not identified as KVDS in any of the Greek references that were checked.

The Greek advantage and what threatens it

While Italian Hayward production is in retreat, Greek production is rising, to the point where total European availability remains essentially stable [17]. Exact Greek production figures by year could not be verified and are not cited here.

That advantage is not a given. The Italian "Recupero Radici" programme for tackling the moria has already been extended with new experimental sites in France and in Greece [13], an indication that the matter is no longer regarded as exclusively Italian.

Sources: 2 13 16 17

12. What does not solve the problem

  • More irrigation. It worsens a root that is already asphyxiating; waterlogging is the main driver of the syndrome [5].
  • "General purpose" fungicides. Oomycetes are not fungi, and, above all, with the waterlogging removed the syndrome was not expressed at all in the controlled study [4], so the priority is the water and not the product.
  • Raised beds alone. They reduce the symptoms but do not prevent the syndrome [2].
  • Replacing a vine in the same position, without changing the soil conditions. The new vine goes into the same conditions that killed the previous one.
  • Fertilisers as "tonics" on a vine that has lost its absorbing roots, 95% of whose length consists of fibrous roots [1]. There is no mechanism left to take them up.
The substance in three lines The decline syndrome is not primarily a plant protection problem but a problem of soil, water and microclimate, on top of which the pathogens come second [1]. Drainage [4], soil structure and protection of the foliage from extreme VPD [10] are the three levers for which measurements exist.

Sources: 1 2 4 5 10

13. What the Italian experience shows

The syndrome changed Italian kiwifruit growing within thirteen years: from the first cases in Veneto in 2012 [2] to more than 8,000 hectares lost in 2025 [13]. And the cause was not a new pathogen that arrived from abroad: the microorganisms under suspicion are found in healthy orchards as well [3].

The most uncomfortable observation in the literature is this one: the syndrome has spread also to plantings where waterlogging is prevented or is caused only occasionally by intense local rainfall [1]. That is, drainage, which is the first and the soundest answer, is not a complete answer. Something else has changed in the relationship between the vine, the soil and the atmosphere, and that something, to date, has not been identified.

Why this text does not close with a conclusion In a field where the 2026 review writes that "major gaps remain in clarifying the precise aetiology" [2], and where the very work that proposes a "main candidate" admits "several questions remain unanswered" [7], the finding is the uncertainty itself. Anyone who presents KVDS as solved, with one pathogen, one product or one rootstock, is saying something the literature does not say.

What can be said with certainty is far narrower, but also far more useful: without waterlogging the syndrome was not expressed in the controlled study [4], and protecting the foliage from overheating doubled the starch reserve in the root [10]. In the water and in the microclimate, then, there is proven margin. In "the product" there is none.

A reminder from elsewhere In 1970 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the geneticist Norman Borlaug, on the reasoning that he had given "a well-founded hope, the green revolution" [18]. Half a century later, a syndrome such as KVDS is a reminder that raising yields and preserving the productive capacity of the soil are not the same thing. Statements attributed to Borlaug about a revision of the green revolution could not be verified in a primary source and are not quoted.

Recovery will require a re-examination of the way the whole system is managed, and in particular of the relationships between nutrition, water, soil and the root system. It is not a matter of one product or one technique. It is a matter of how the orchard is planted, how it is irrigated and what is left behind in the soil.

Related: wood rot of kiwifruit, another serious threat to the vines. Commentary in Greek.

Sources: 1 2 3 4 7 10 13 18

14. Sources

The numbers within the text refer to the list below. Where only the abstract and not the full text was used, this is stated explicitly.

What was removed from the earlier source list and why
  • The work of Polat et al. in Pest Management Science on the comparative aggressiveness of P. vexans and P. litorale in Turkey did not open, either as full text or as an abstract. It was removed, and with it the claim that P. litorale is "significantly more aggressive".
  • The work of Tacconi et al. (2015) in Acta Horticulturae 1096 did not open and was removed.
  • The review on authorea was replaced by its published form in Plant Stress [2].
  • The list headed "Bibliography cited by the above article" was removed: these were citations at second hand, none of which was opened directly.

Photographs: archive of Pastopoulos Agronomics, from orchards in the district.

Disclaimer and lawful use

Plant protection products are used only on the basis of the approvals of the Greek Ministry of Rural Development and Food and in accordance with what is stated on their labels: approved crops, doses, maximum number of applications, re-entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals. Those approvals are valid in Greece only and say nothing about what is authorised in any other country; in every other country the national register of that country applies.

Any spray on vines carrying fruit can cause staining of the fruit and burning of the foliage. A prior test on a limited number of vines with the same product and the same dose, and a wait of 5 to 7 days before general application, are required. Spraying is done in the late afternoon or early in the morning, never in a heatwave and never on foliage under water stress.

This is informative and educational material and summarises published findings. It is not an individualised agronomic recommendation. Almost all the measurements cited were made in Italy or New Zealand and do not transfer unchanged to a Greek orchard; where a figure could not be verified in an original publication, this is stated at the point where it appears. Any intervention is made at the responsibility of the user, following an on-site assessment by a licensed agronomist. Pastopoulos Agronomics bears no responsibility for damage that may arise from the use of the information herein.

Related articles

Training kiwifruit: T-bar and pergola

Training kiwifruit: T-bar and pergola

The architecture of the kiwifruit vine and why both training systems follow from it. T-bar and pergola with their dimensions, advantages, costs and a comparison in numbers. Training from the day of planting: planting high, a first season for the root with tipping at one metre, cutting back low the following spring and taking the trunk up in the second season, leaders, winter and summer pruning, males and the support structure. Three diagrams, a table of mistakes, and the gaps that remain for Greece. A field observation from Giannitsa on planting distances.

Kiwifruit Pruning