Grape Berry Moths in Western European

339N.J. Bostanian et al. (eds.), Arthropod Management in Vineyards: Pests, Approaches, and Future Directions, DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-4032-7_14, © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

14.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the topic of pest biology and management for cluster-feeding Lepidoptera of European origin, from the viewpoint of applied entomologists working in Europe and North America. We describe the main biological, morpho-logical, and behavioral features of the Palaearctic moths harmful to grapes. Five species of Lepidoptera feed on grape clusters in Europe. Lobesia botrana (Denis & Schiffermüller) and Eupoecilia ambiguella (Hübner) are key pests that require spe-cifi c control measures. Argyrotaenia ljungiana (Thunberg), Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) and Ephestia parasitella unicolorella Staudinger are occasionally harm-ful to vineyards. As the fi ve species are similar in size and occur almost in the same ecological niche, morphological features allowing species identifi cation are pro-vided in Table 14.1 . For comparison, a description of the North American grape berry moth Paralobesia viteana (Clemens) is provided by Isaacs et al. (Chap. 15 ).

C. Ioriatti (*) Centre for Technology Transfer, FEM-IASMA , 38010 San Michele all’Adige , TN , Italy e-mail: [email protected]

A. Lucchi Department of CDSL, Section of Agricultural Entomology , University of Pisa , Via del Borghetto 80 , 56124 Pisa , Italy e-mail: [email protected]

L. G. Varela UC Cooperative Extension, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources , University of California , 133 Aviation Blvd., Suite 109 , Santa Rosa , CA 95403-2894 , USA e-mail: [email protected]

Chapter 14 Grape Berry Moths in Western European Vineyards and Their Recent Movement into the New World

Claudio Ioriatti , Andrea Lucchi , and Lucia G. Varela

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4032-7_15

Tabl

e 14

.1

Mai

n m

orph

olog

ical

fea

ture

s of

the

prin

cipa

l gra

pe c

lust

er-f

eedi

ng m

oth

pest

s in

Eur

opea

n vi

neya

rds

Spec

ies

Fam

ily,

sub

fam

ily

Adu

lt E

gg

Firs

t ins

tar

larv

a Fi

fth

inst

ar la

rva

Pupa

Lobe

sia

botr

ana

Tortr

icid

ae,

Ole

thre

utin

ae

Win

gspa

n 11

–13

mm

. 0.

6 ×

0.7

mm

1

mm

10

mm

4–

6 m

m

Fore

win

gs ta

n-cr

eam

, mot

tled

with

gra

y-bl

ue, b

row

n, a

nd

blac

k bl

otch

es. H

indw

ings

gr

ay w

ith a

fri

nged

bor

der.

Win

gs h

eld

in a

bel

l sha

pe

over

the

abdo

men

at r

est

Slig

htly

elli

ptic

al,

yello

w s

traw

at

layi

ng, g

radu

ally

tu

rns

to tr

ansp

ar-

ent l

ight

gra

y w

ith

brig

ht ir

ides

cent

re

fl ect

ions

Cre

amy

whi

te

with

a

blac

k he

ad

Tan

to y

ello

wis

h br

own

head

an

d pr

otho

raci

c sh

ield

, re

ar e

dge

of th

e pr

otho

raci

c sh

ield

has

a

dark

er b

row

n to

bla

ck

bord

er. W

hite

tube

rcle

s at

the

base

of

the

body

ha

irs.

Ana

l com

b ha

s 5–

6 da

rk b

row

n te

eth

Slim

with

the

cran

ial a

nd

the

caud

al e

nd

roun

ded.

Cre

mas

ter

with

8 h

ooke

d br

istle

s.

Fem

ale

pupa

e ge

nera

lly m

ore

stoc

ky

and

larg

er th

an m

ales

Eup

oeci

lia

ambi

guel

la

Tort

rici

dae,

To

rtri

cina

e W

ings

pan

12–1

5 m

m

0.6

× 0

.8 m

m

1 m

m

12 m

m

5–7

mm

Fo

rew

ings

yel

low

-bro

wn

with

da

rk b

row

n ba

nd. H

ind

win

gs

slat

e gr

ay f

ring

ed

Lig

ht y

ello

w w

hen

fi rst

laid

late

r be

com

ing

spot

ted

with

bri

ght o

rang

e

Cre

amy

whi

te

with

bro

wn

head

Red

dish

to b

row

nish

yel

low

w

ith b

rist

les

over

its

who

le b

ody.

Hea

d ca

psul

es a

nd p

roth

orac

ic

plat

e an

d th

orac

ic le

gs

are

blac

k. A

nal c

omb

with

6–7

teet

h

Red

dish

bro

wn.

C

rem

aste

r w

ith 1

6 ho

oked

bri

stle

s.

Fem

ale

pupa

e ge

nera

lly m

ore

stoc

ky

and

larg

er th

an m

ales

Cry

ptob

labe

s gn

idie

lla

Pyra

lidae

, Ph

yciti

nae

Win

gspa

n 15

mm

0.

7 ×

0.4

mm

1

mm

11

mm

7

mm

Fo

rew

ings

dar

k gr

ay, p

unct

uate

d by

tiny

bla

ck s

pots

, vei

led

in

whi

te a

nd d

otte

d w

ith r

eddi

sh

scal

es c

hara

cter

ized

by

indi

stin

ct li

ghte

r ba

nds.

Hin

d w

ings

shi

ny w

hite

and

st

reak

ed w

ith te

rmin

al g

ray

lines

. Hor

n-sh

aped

pro

cess

on

the

thir

d m

ale

ante

nnom

erou

s

Subc

irco

lar

shap

e w

ith o

ne s

light

ly

fl atte

r po

le. W

hite

at

layi

ng, i

t gr

adua

lly a

ssum

es

a ye

llow

ish

colo

r

Lig

ht y

ello

w

with

bro

wn

head

Yel

low

to li

ght b

row

n bo

dy

with

two

narr

ow

long

itudi

nal d

arke

r ba

nds

on th

e do

rsal

sid

e.

Bro

wn-

redd

ish

head

with

sm

all b

lack

are

as a

t the

ba

se o

f bl

acki

sh b

rist

les

Bro

wn-

redd

ish

whi

ch w

ill

turn

gra

dual

ly to

war

d th

e da

rk r

ed. V

ery

shar

p cr

eam

y ab

dom

en, d

ista

lly

disp

lays

obl

ique

ho

oks

Eph

esti

a pa

rasi

tell

a un

icol

orel

la

Pyra

lidae

, Ph

yciti

nae

Win

gspa

n 15

–18

mm

10

mm

7–

8 m

m

Fore

win

gs li

ght b

row

n w

ith

tran

sver

se r

eddi

sh b

row

n an

d ba

rely

per

cept

ible

str

ips

Subc

ircu

r sh

ape,

w

hite

at l

ayin

g W

hite

-pin

kish

w

ith d

ark

brow

n he

ad

Lig

ht y

ello

w b

ody

with

sh

ades

of

pink

and

nu

mer

ous

bris

tles

with

el

onga

ted

blac

kish

hai

r tu

berc

les.

Red

dish

hea

d

Red

dish

-bro

wn

Arg

yrot

aeni

a lj

ungi

ana

Tort

rici

dae,

To

rtri

cina

e W

ings

pan

12–1

6 m

m

18 m

m

Fore

win

g si

lver

-whi

te, s

trig

ulat

ed

with

gra

y; m

arki

ngs

dark

re

ddis

h br

own,

spr

inkl

ed w

ith

blac

k; m

argi

ns o

f ba

sal a

nd

med

ian

fasc

iae

irre

gula

r. H

indw

ing

gray

Bat

ches

of

40–5

0,

yello

w, t

urni

ng

brow

n du

ring

de

velo

pmen

t

Cle

ar g

reen

bod

y. L

ight

gr

een

or y

ello

wis

h gr

een

head

. Ana

l com

b w

ith

6–8

pron

gs

Pale

bro

wn;

in a

silk

en

coco

on in

spu

n le

aves

, or

ove

rwin

teri

ng in

a

coco

on in

deb

ris

on

the

grou

nd

342 C. Ioriatti et al.

14.2 Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella

14.2.1 Taxonomy and Occurrence

The European grapevine moth (EGVM) L. botrana was described in 1775 by Denis and Schiffermüller as Tortrix , and subsequently as Eudemis and Polychrosis . Currently, as Lobesia Guenée 1845, it is in the family Tortricidae, subfamily Olethreutinae, tribe Olethreutini (Razowski 1995 ) . Lobesia botrana is historically present in Europe, Asia, and Africa (CAB 1974 ) . Although widespread in all grapevine-growing areas, it is economically important mostly in southern Europe. In southern France, in central and southern Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, and the islands of the Mediterranean Basin, L. botrana is the only moth species to have an important impact on grapevine production (Thiéry 2005 ) . Recently, it has expanded its geographic range and was found in Chile in 2008, California in 2009, and Argentina in 2010 (Gonzales 2010 ; Varela et al. 2010 ) .

The European grape berry moth (EGBM), E. ambiguella , is considered a signifi -cant insect pest in many grapevine-growing areas where it can cause considerable damage to grapes. It is found from Britain to Japan, from the Mediterranean Basin to the Scandinavian countries (farther north than grapevine-growing regions) (CAB 1986 ) . First described by Hübner in 1796 as Tinea ambiguella , it was sub-sequently included in the genera Cochylis and Clysia and lastly, according to Razowski ( 1995 ) , in the genus Eupoecilia. Known as Einbindiger Traubenwickler, Polilla de la vid, Cochylis de la vigne and Tignola della vite, it was recognized as the major grape berry pest in Europe until the 1920s. More recently, and in many areas, it has been gradually replaced as a major pest by L. botrana. The shift started in the Mediterranean Basin and is now extending to Switzerland, Austria and southern Germany where populations of L. botrana and E. ambiguella overlap.

14.2.2 Host Plants

Lobesia botrana larvae feed on grapevine flowers and berries and on a number of other plants growing in warm-dry environments, such as one fi nds in most Mediterranean countries. Its host range includes about 40 species belonging to 27 different families (Coscollá 1997 ) . The spurge fl ax Daphne gnidium L. is hypoth-esized to be its original host plant (Bovey 1966 ; Lucchi and Santini 2011 ; Tasin et al. 2011 ) . However EGVM is frequently associated with other hosts in habitats where suitable host plants occur. These hosts include for example olive tree infl o-rescence, Virginia creeper, jujube, rosemary, evergreen clematis, dogwood, ivy, currant (Bovey 1966 ; Coscollá 1997 ; Stavridis and Savopoulou-Soultani 1998 ; Thiéry 2005 ) . Eupoecilia ambiguella is also polyphagous and shares several host plants with EGVM. Even though mugwort, Artemisia vulgaris L., is sometimes reported as its native host plant, grapevine is now accepted as its original host.

34314 Grape Berry Moths in European Vineyards

Other cultivated and wild host plants include black and red currant, lemon citrus, Virginia creeper, blackthorn, smooth bedstraw, wayfaring tree, highbush cranberry, laureltinus, privet, ash, maple, dogwood, and many others (Solinas 1962 ) . Since grape berry moths are mostly restricted to grapevines in grapevine-growing areas, the nutritional and ecological polyphagy of these two tortricid species needs to be researched.

14.2.3 Life History

Eupoecilia ambiguella and L. botrana have a similar biology, but slightly different climatic preferences: L. botrana prefers warm and dry conditions and E. ambiguella prefers cool and humid climates (Bournier 1977 ) . Lobesia botrana and E. ambiguella are typical multivoltine species with facultative diapause. In northern Europe and in the Mediterranean Basin, EGVM has 2–4 generations per year on Vitis vinifera L., depending on latitude and microclimates (Roditakis and Karandinos 2001 ; Harari et al. 2007 ) . Two to three generations per year are the rule in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and northern France. It has three generations in the warmer climates of southern France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy, where the species can sometimes give rise to a fourth fl ight and a fourth generation, partial or complete. In Israel, Egypt, and Crete some EGVM populations do not undergo diapause and spend the winter in the larval stage, continuing to feed on unharvested clusters or on alternate hosts. EGBM usually has only two generations per year. A third generation has been frequently observed in France and Italy (Marcelin 1985 ; Varner and Mattedi 2004 ) .

Lobesia botrana moths are crepuscular insects fl ying at canopy levels at twilight (60–80 lux). Males are more active than females. The fl ight of virgin females is interrupted by several stationary phases, in which they release a pheromone, the main component of which is ( E,Z )-7,9-dodecadienyl acetate (Roelofs et al. 1973 ) . Eupoecilia ambiguella moths are active from twilight to dawn, resting motionless during daylight. They feed, call, and mate during the night and early morning. Females lay eggs in the afternoon and evening (Bovey 1966 ) . The main component of the pheromone is ( Z )-9-dodecenyl acetate (Arn et al. 1976 ; Saglio et al. 1977 ) .

Adults of L. botrana (Fig. 14.1a ) feed from emergence to sexual maturity. Mating occurs about 24 h after emergence and oviposition starts 3 days thereafter. Mating lasts from a few minutes to 2 h. Males mate several times with different females, and females have a rare tendency toward polyandry. Males are much less attracted to mated females than to virgins. On average a female lays from 50 to 80 eggs (Fig. 14.1b , c), most of which are laid in the fi rst week of life. The average life span of the adult moth is approximately 15–20 days, usually shorter for males than females. The fi rst generation of both species develops on fl owers (anthophagous) and the other generations on berries (carpophagous) (Figs. 14.1d and 14.2b–d ).

Single eggs are laid on bracts, caps and stems of the fl ower clusters in spring and on the berries in summer. First generation larvae feed on several pre-bloom fl owers


and web them together with silk. Webbing gradually thickens to form the so-called glomerulus or nest (Fig. 14.2a ).

In hot weather, E. ambiguella larvae sometimes bore into the rachis and peduncle, seeking moisture. Within the glomerulus, EGBM larvae construct a silk case to which they retreat during the hottest hours of the day. In these nests, the hidden larvae feed on fl owers whose remnants are used to increase the size of the case. First generation grape berry moths eventually pupate either inside the glomerulus or on the underside of a leaf (Figs. 14.1e and 14.3d ). Their pupal stage lasts about 2 weeks.

The emerging moths (Fig. 14.3a ) lay single eggs on the berries (Fig. 14.3b ). EGBM hardly ever lays eggs on the rachis or on peduncles. After hatching, the

Fig. 14.1 Lobesia botrana ( a ) adult, ( b ) egg, ( c ) egg in the black-head stage, ( d ) larva, ( e ) pupa

Fig. 14.2 Lobesia botrana ( a ) larval nest, ( b, c ) injured berries, ( d ) grape cluster infected by gray mold and sour rot

Fig. 14.3 Eupoecilia ambiguella ( a ) adult, ( b ) egg, ( c ) larva, ( d ) pupa


larvae (Fig. 14.3c ) feed on the berries and may cause severe damage. When dis-turbed they drop down on a silk thread. European grape berry moth larvae are slug-gish while EGVM larvae are highly mobile. Feeding on berries promotes infection by gray mold ( Botrytis cinerea Persoon ex Fries), which leads to even greater injury than that caused by the insect itself. Non-diapausing larvae pupate preferably within the cluster or on the leaves. Photoperiod induces diapause that lasts for months, but mature EGBM larvae stay for several months in a prepupal stage and low tempera-tures are necessary to advance to the pupal stage (Fig. 14.3d ). The diapausing larvae build their cocoons mainly under exfoliating bark, in crevices and cracks of the trunk and cordons.

14.2.4 Economic Importance and Control

14.2.4.1 Grape Berry Moth Damage

The two species are quite similar in behavior and damage. Sometimes they are pres-ent at the same time in the same vineyard but with a different degree of population density. Until the end of the nineteenth century, E. ambiguella was widespread in all the southern European regions. From the beginning of the twentieth century, L. botrana gradually became the predominant species south of the Alps.

Grape berry moth infestation levels depend on the growth characteristics of the cultivars, the agronomic practices, the climatic conditions, and the number of genera-tions per year. The anthophagous generation does not generally cause yield reduction. The following carpophagous generations are the most destructive due to larval feeding on green and ripe berries, which results in yield reduction. The presence of larvae, web-bing and rotten berries, leads to downgrading of table grapes. Moreover, secondary infections of gray mold, B. cinerea , develop rapidly on damaged berries causing bunch rot which substantially degrades wine quality. Black aspergilli’s rot, Aspergillus niger and A. carbonarius , producers of ochratoxin A (Cozzi et al. 2006 ) , are also often related to larval feeding activity. Because of these undesirable economic effects, L. botrana and E. ambiguella must be managed to keep their damage at an acceptable level.

14.2.4.2 Population Density and Risk Assessment

Time of the fi rst appearance of adults and hatching of the fi rst eggs can be forecasted by predictive models based on temperature requirements of individual instars and critical conditions for oviposition (Moravie et al. 2006 ) . Unfortunately, forecast models based on DD are empirical and their robustness is strongly dependent on the environment in which they have been validated. Alternative forecasting techniques are currently under development, such as the evaluation of larval age distribution during the previous generation in order to predict the distribution of female emer-gence (Delbac et al. 2010 ) .


Trapping females with food-baited traps is a valuable tool to predict the onset of oviposition, an event used to properly time insecticide treatments (Thiéry et al. 2006 ) . However, baited-trap maintenance and monitoring are very time-consuming chores for growers and consultants. Pheromone traps are easier to use. They are a sensitive tool to monitor fl ight of males. They can be useful to time an ovicidal treat-ment, and to properly schedule scouting activities in the vineyard.

Forecasting models and moth trapping alone do not provide suffi cient population density information and need to be supplemented with appropriate fi eld scouting of eggs and young larvae (Shahini et al. 2010 ) . Based on the resulting infestation assessment (% of injured clusters, number of nests per infl orescence, number of eggs and larvae per cluster, number of injured berries per cluster), insecticides are applied according to action thresholds (AT). The action thresholds vary widely depending on the generation, susceptibility of the cultivar to the subsequent infec-tion by B. cinerea , as well as whether berries are produced for table grape, raisins or wine production.

First generation larvae may not necessarily need to be controlled by chemical treatments, especially if they develop on cultivars with abundant blossom not subject to intense shedding. Between fl owering and harvest, damage to infl orescences is compensated by the increase in weight of uninjured berries in the majority of cultivars. That explains the lack of a defi ned injury threshold for the anthophagous generation (Moschos 2005 ) .

Chemical control for the fi rst generation is exclusively applied when the pest pop-ulation density is particularly high or if it exceeds an AT of more than 50% infested infl orescences (Bagnoli et al. 2009 ) . For the following generations, the suggested AT ranges from 5% to 15% of infested (eggs or young larvae) clusters respectively for compact and loosely-bunched cultivars, according to their susceptibility to rot.

Knowledge of the spatial distribution of the population is important for the devel-opment of effi cient sampling programs, that allow a more accurate estimate of the damage and AT.

14.2.4.3 Natural Enemies and Biological Control

The cohort of L. botrana and E. ambiguella natural enemies varies considerably in time and space due to insect physiology, activity and ecological niche of individual species. Fungi of the genera Spicaria , Beauveria , Paecilomyces , Aspergillus , Cephalosporium , Cladosporium , Penicillium , Citromyces , Verticillium and Stem-phylium can infect a large percentage of overwintering pupae. The bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner var. kurstaki (Btk) and var. aizawai are effectively and exten-sively used against EGVM and EGBM, both in conventional and organic vineyards (Scalco et al. 1997 ; Vidal 1997 ; Keil and Schruft 1998 ; Shahini et al. 2010 ) . Arthropods associated with grape berry moths include predators such as spiders (Clubionidae, Theridiidae, Tomisidae, Linyphiidae, Salticidae), mites (Thrombididae) and insects belonging to Dermaptera, Hemiptera, Neuroptera, Diptera and Coleoptera (Solinas 1962 ; Coscollá 1997 ) . Among insect parasitoids, species associated with EGVM in


Europe belong to the Hymenoptera (Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Chalcididae, Pteromalidae, Eulophidae, Elasmidae, Trichogrammatidae) and Diptera (Tachinidae). As with most natural enemies including parasitoids, the natural con-trol achieved by each species varies greatly in time and space. Typically, the fre-quency of egg and larval parasitism is high in the fi rst two generations and decreases drastically in the overwintering generation, which is mainly affected by larval-pupal and pupal parasitoids.

Extensive scientifi c efforts to develop biological control as an effective solu-tion for practical use in the fi eld are still needed. Egg parasitoids of the genus Trichogramma have been mass-released in an inundative strategy with mixed results (Castaneda-Samayoa et al. 1993 ; Hommay et al. 2002 ; Ibrahim 2004 ) . The ptero-malids Dibrachys affi nis Masi and D. cavus (Walker) are gregarious generalist larval-pupal parasitoids of Lepidoptera, Diptera and Hymenoptera that can be readily reared in the laboratory. However, due to lack of host specifi city and because they are also hyperparasites, they are not good candidates for release. The most frequent and effi cient species in European vineyards is the larval parasitoid Campoplex capitator Aubert (Ichneumonidae). It is regarded as the best candidate for EGVM biological control, but to date, releases have not taken place because of the diffi culties associated with artifi cially mass-rearing the species (Thiéry and Xuéreb 2004 ) .

14.2.4.4 Chemical Control

Most insecticides applied in the past against grape berry moths have been gradually replaced by more selective and less toxic products. New neurotoxic insecticides (spinosyns and oxadiazines), chitin synthesis inhibitors, compounds accelerating molting, microbial insecticides, and more recently some avermectins and anthra-nilic diamides, have been introduced in current integrated control strategies. Nevertheless, the organophosphates chlorpyriphos and methyl chlorpyriphos are still largely used in European vineyards. Control with insecticides that are larvicidal with some ovicidal activity gives remarkable fl exibility on application timing. The effi cacy of these products depends on the optimal treatment of the most susceptible stages, so prediction of life cycle events is critical for each moth species. Because of increasing accuracy of the forecasting tools, a single insecticide application to control the second generation of either species is usually effective in most grapevine districts in Europe. More treatments are needed in the southern regions to control L. botrana . In terms of selectivity, B. thuringiensis has undoubtedly the highest ecological value, but its use is still limited due to its short persistence. Successful application timing can be achieved with adequate population monitoring with pher-omone traps and egg fi eld scouting.

14.2.4.5 Pheromone-Mediated Control Strategies

The use of pheromones for control of grape berry moths has increased in vine-yards due to the high selectivity and low environmental impact. Mating disruption


(MD) with hand-applied dispensers is the most well-studied and widely used pheromone-mediated control technique against grape berry moths in the European grapevine-growing regions (Stockel et al. 1992 ; Neumann et al. 1993 ; Charmillot and Pasquier 2000 ) . Currently it is applied on approximately 140,000 ha in European vineyards, i.e. about 3–4% of the total grapevine-growing area in the European Union (Table 14.2 ). Recent MD area-wide applications have also been conducted in Chile and California where EGVM was accidentally introduced (Witzgall et al. 2010 ; Ioriatti et al. 2011 ) .

The most common hand-applied dispensers available on the market for grape berry moths are Shin-Etsu twist-ties ropes (Isonet L ® , Lplus ® , LE ® in Europe; Isomate ® in the US), the BASF twin ampoules (RAK1+2 ® , RAK 2 ® ) and, for EGVM only, the Suterra ® membranes. The active ingredients in these dispensers are the main pheromone components, ( E,Z )-7,9-dodecenyl acetate and ( Z )-9-dodecenyl acetate for EGVM and EGBM, respectively.

Five hundred dispensers per hectare (the number of dispensers may vary depend-ing on manufacturer) must be deployed in the vineyards before the onset of the fi rst seasonal fl ight, because late deployment will likely cause control failures. Dispensers must be evenly distributed in the vineyard, and should be attached to vine shoots to ensure protection by foliage from direct exposure to sun and high temperatures. Twice as many dispensers must be hung along the vineyard edges. Border effects are obviously much reduced when MD is applied in area wide proj-ects as in certain growing regions of Germany, France, Switzerland, northern Italy, and Spain (Kast 2001 ; Ioriatti et al. 2008 ) .

Depending on the vineyard layout, the time to attach the dispensers on the vines may vary between 1.5 and 3 h/ha. The surface area of vineyards in Europe under pheromone-mediated (MD) control of grape berry moths is still limited, despite intensive research and substantial experience with practical applications during the last two decades. This is because of socio-cultural and economical conditions existing in the different vine growing areas where interest in innovative

Table 14.2 European vineyards treated with pheromone mating disruption for management of grape berry moth pests during 2010 (IBMA 2011 ) in relation to the total vineyard surface of each country (OIV 2007 )

Country Total vineyard surface (ha) Vineyard treated with MD (ha) % treated

Germany 102,000 70,000 68.6 France 867,000 20,000 2.3 Italy 847,000 16,500 1.9 Spain 1,169,000 14,500 1.2 Switzerland 14,800 7,000 47.3 Austria 49,900 2,400 4.8 Czech Republic 17,700 1,300 7.3 Portugal 248,000 1,200 0.5 Hungary 75,000 300 0.4 Slovakia 17,600 100 0.6 Cyprus 15,300 100 0.7 Total 3,423,300 133,400 3.9


methods is often low. Increasing quality standards for wine and table grapes, with respect to pesticide residues, are creating new opportunities for extensive adop-tion of MD in IPM programs. However, high costs of MD (about 110 €/ha for EGVM and 150 €/ha for both insects) have hampered the diffusion of this method to date. Cost reduction must be considered for a wider adoption of MD in European vineyards.

Novel pheromone application systems to control Lepidoptera pests such as auto-confusion, lure and kill, aerosol puffers, microencapsulated sprayables, and nano-fi bers may represent future opportunity for grape berry moth control (Underwood et al. 2002 ; Charmillot et al. 2005 ; Nansen et al. 2007 ; Anfora et al. 2008 ; Hein et al. 2011 ) . New investments in fundamental research are critical for an effective improvement in semiochemical applications. The research should address the repro-ductive, physiological, and behavioral mechanisms by which the pheromone affects the target insects, as well as explain how volatile compounds are involved in tritrophic interactions.

14.2.4.6 Lobesia botrana as an Invasive Species in the Americas

It was fi rst detected in Chile in April of 2008. Grapes are grown from the region of Atacama in the north to the region of Araucanía in the south. In surveys conducted in the growing season of 2008–2009, moths were detected in all grapevine-growing regions. Low levels of catches were detected in the 2010–2011 season in grapevine-growing areas from Atacama to Araucanía. However, large urban areas remain as moth reservoirs. The current control strategy is to attempt eradication of the pest and major efforts are concentrated towards vineyards and urban areas surrounding grapevine-growing areas. After three seasons of control with insecticide and MD, moth catches in monitoring traps have decreased signifi cantly and the number of foci per region has also decreased considerably.

In the United States, the fi rst report of this pest was in September 2009 in the Napa Valley, California. Surveys conducted in 2010 show that the highest infesta-tion is in Napa County, with a few moths detected, and a few foci in nine other counties of California. No detection has been made in any other US state, despite trap-based surveillance in many of the primary grape production regions. The strat-egy in California is also eradication and in the fi rst year of control populations decreased dramatically from the fi rst to the third generation.

It is unclear how EGVM was fi rst introduced into Chile or California. At low popu-lation levels the damage caused by the larvae is inconspicuous. By the time the fi rst infestations are detected, the spread may be extensive due primarily to movement of grapevines with undetected infestations and movement of unsanitized machinery.

In both Chile and California the primary host for EGVM is grapevine fl ower clusters and berries. In extensive surveys in Chile it has only been detected in plums next to an infested vineyard. In California, it has been detected in low numbers only in olive fl owers adjacent to vineyards. To date, surveys conducted in riparian vege-tation in infested areas of California have not detected larvae in wild grapes.


Chile began eradication programs 2 years before California. In the fi rst year, control measures were applied to vineyards to a radius of 5,000 m from a detection site. This was reduced to 1,000 m the following year. The recommendations are to make two insecticide applications for the fi rst generation, one for the second and one for the third generation, plus the application of pheromone dispensers for mat-ing disruption. In urban districts surrounding grapevine-growing areas, homeown-ers have a choice of destroying the fruit or accepting insecticide treatments.

In California, EGVM has three generations a year. In the fi rst year control mea-sures were applied to a radius of 1,000 m from a detection site and it was reduced to 500 m the following year. With the goal of eradicating the pest, one insecticide application is targeted for each of the fi rst and second generations, when the larvae are most exposed. To further suppress populations the use of MD dispensers (the product registered as Isomate®-EGVM in the US) is highly encouraged. Control in urban areas has been limited to those counties with low trap catches. Homeowners mostly adopted fruit removal as a management technique.

Given that the fi rst fl ight and egg laying period is very extended, if the application for this generation is done before egg laying or too early in the egg laying period, a second application may be needed to cover the prolonged egg hatch. Furthermore, at this time, the fl ower cluster is rapidly expanding, decreasing the surface covered by an insecticide. Thus, it is best to wait and time the control of the fi rst generation when the highest proportion of larvae is about to emerge from eggs. The timing for this event can be determined by following the male moth fl ight with pheromone traps and monitoring egg development. If the insecticide used has some ovicidal properties the recommendation is to make the application when the heads of the larvae are visible in 20% of the eggs. When eggs are too few to monitor, treatment is applied shortly after peak fl ight. Insecticides registered for organic production are strictly larvicidal and are applied at egg hatch. Due to the short residue of organic materials, two or more applications are recommended starting at egg hatch and weekly for as long as larvae are detected forming glomeruli in the fl ower cluster.

The insecticide timing for the second generation depends on whether the insec-ticide has some ovicidal properties or if it is strictly larvicidal. If it is ovicidal, the applications can start a few days after the fi rst males of the second fl ight are caught in a trap. For larvicidal insecticides (conventional or organic), the applications can start 10–14 days after the fi rst moths of the second fl ight are caught, if eggs are too few to monitor. The second generation is substantially shorter than the fi rst, lasting approximately 4 weeks. This makes timing for control of the second generation easier to predict. If treatments are timed appropriately for the fi rst and second gen-erations, treatment of the third generation should not be necessary. Treatments for the third generation are limited in their effi cacy in California because of overlap in generations, the diffi culty in penetrating a closed cluster and the short period between egg hatch and the larvae penetrating the berry.

The strategy of targeting control measures towards the fi rst and second generation supplemented with mating disruption has proven extremely successful at drastically reducing populations. This is probably aided by the fact that all control measures are taking place in an area wide manner since all growers are strongly encouraged


to participate. So far, alternate hosts do not appear to contribute signifi cantly to population levels. In California, chlorpyriphos is not registered for seasonal use in vineyards, and the insecticides most used to control L. botrana are insect growth regulators, diamides and Btk, and to a lesser extent, spinosyns and avermectin. A major concern of the program was to avoid disruption of natural control of native pseudococcids pests. This was achieved by using selective insecticides.

A major challenge is to achieve complete control in urban areas. Another chal-lenge is to determine when a population has truly been eradicated. Delimitation of infestations is done using pheromone traps. Pheromone traps are effective; however the male moth does not fl y more than 100 m, with an average distance <50 m (Roehrich and Carles 1981 ) . This entails having a very high density of traps with no catches during several generations. The risk of a false negative is signifi cant since it will be tempting to declare the pest eradicated when in reality populations are breed-ing at undetectable levels.

In February 2010, EGVM was also detected in the major grape production region of the Province of Mendoza in Argentina. As of 2011, the fi rst year of control is underway.

14.3 Cryptoblabes gnidiella

14.3.1 Taxonomy and Occurrence

Among Pyralidae Phycitinae, the honeydew moth (HM), C. gnidiella (Fig. 14.4a–e ), is the most frequent and harmful species on grapes in the Mediterranean Basin. Described for the fi rst time by Millière in 1867 as Ephestia gnidiella , it was then reported by Briosi as Albinia wockiana in 1877. The current classifi cation is due to Hartig ( 1939 ) , who redescribed the species from specimens collected in central Italy. Widespread throughout the Mediterranean region, HM is reported from Malaysia, New Zealand, Hawaii, some African and Asian countries, and many trop-ical and subtropical regions of North and South America.

14.3.2 Host Plants

Cryptoblabes gnidiella is a polyphagous species associated with about 60 different host plants belonging to 30 families. These include Actinidia deliciosa (Chevalier), Citrus spp., Daphne spp., Daucus carota L., Diospyros kaki L., Eriobotrya japonica (Thunberg) Lindley, Gossypium herbaceum L., Malus spp., Persea Americana Miller, Prunus spp., Pyrus spp., Ricinus communis L., Tamarix spp., and Vitis spp. (Zocchi 1971 ; Yehuda et al. 1991–1992 ; Sing and Sing 1997 ) . Very frequently HM shares the host plant with other insects, either Lepidoptera (e.g., the European grapevine moth L. botrana ) or Hemiptera (aphids and pseudococcids) which


produce honeydew of which HM larvae are active consumers, hence the common name “Honeydew moth”.

14.3.3 Life History

In the Mediterranean Basin, C. gnidiella has 3–4 generations per year depending on latitude, with a fi rst fl ight in May–June, a second in July, a third in August–September and a fourth in October–November, with possible overlapping generations on late harvest grape varieties (Bagnoli and Lucchi 2001 ) . In Israel the species can have up to seven generations on grapes and citrus (Avidov and Harpaz 1969 ) . In the grapevine-growing areas of northeast Brazil, where climatic conditions allow two annual crops, HM can have as many as nine generations per year (Bisotto-de-Oliveira et al. 2007 ) . It overwinters as a larva and pupation takes place inside a silken cocoon. The sex pheromone of Cryptoblabes gnidiella is a mixture of quaternary aldehydes (Bjostad et al. 1981 ) .

14.3.4 Economic Importance and Control

The economic importance of C. gnidiella varies greatly according to geographical areas. Though it mainly occurs in coastal areas characterized by heavy infestation of

Fig. 14.4 Cryptoblabes gnidiella ( a ) adult, ( b ) young larva, ( c ) mature larva, ( d ) pupa, ( e ) infested clusters


L. botrana and Planococcus spp., it is also able to infest healthy pre-veraison grapes, feeding on cluster stems. During ripening, larvae may feed superfi cially on berry skins. Regardless of the feeding damage, since it is highly gregarious the number of larvae determines the level of damage caused (Lucchi et al. 2011 ). Because of the highly aggregated larval distribution, affected clusters are fully compromised by the inevitable and rapid development of rots enhanced by the presence of drosophilids and by nitidulids. In Israel and Brazil, the species is considered a key pest of vine-yards (Harari et al. 2007 ; Bisotto-De-Oliveira et al. 2007 ) . Protection of grapes from C. gnidiella infestation is achieved with effective control of L. botrana . If well timed, it eliminates the need for a specifi c spray against phycitin larvae. Moreover, Btk can be usefully employed in case of asynchronous outbreaks.

14.4 Ephestia parasitella unicolorella

Larvae of E. parasitella unicolorella (Pyralidae: Phycitinae) (Fig. 14.5a–f ) are found within the cluster after veraison as a secondary pest on wilted or dried berries and very often hidden within them. Winter is spent in the larval stage, in a thin cocoon spun by the mature larva on woody structures of the vine or on support poles. It is not yet clear where this insect resides outside the vineyard, especially during the spring, nor the number of generations that the species has in Europe. The economic importance of E. parasitella unicolorella is negligible. Deseo ( 1980 ) reports that the young larva feeds on the rachis and petiole of the bunch, whereas the older larva can penetrate and develop on a single berry, feeding on the pulp. At harvest mature larvae are frequently found in the most internal parts of the bunch associated with or inside rotten or dried berries, almost motionless and folded in a C shape. Xuéreb et al. ( 2003 ) advised to destroy the unharvested clusters to avoid the further development of the species in the vineyard. In a recent review the name of Ephestia unicolorella woodiella Richard & Thomson has been proposed for this species (Huertas Dionisio 2007 ) .

14.5 Argyrotaenia ljungiana

Argyrotaenia ljungiana (Fig. 14.6a–d ) (syn. A. pulchellana Haworth) is present throughout the Palaearctic region with the exception of Japan. Females deposit their eggs in batches of 40–50 eggs, usually on the upper surface of the leaves. Larvae feed primarily on leaves of host plants. Pupation occurs in a silken cocoon inside webbed leaves. In the Mediterranean region, the species has three generations per year, the fi rst generation occurring in April and May, the second from the end of June to July and the third in August–September. Argyrotaenia ljungiana overwinters in the pupal stage, inside a cocoon in debris on the ground. A highly polyphagous species, it feeds on many wild and cultivated plants, including grapevine and apple.


Fig. 14.5 Ephestia parasitella unicolorella ( a ) adult, ( b, c, d ) larva, ( e ) overwintering larva, ( f ) pupa

Occasionally, A. ljungiana can give rise to important outbreaks in vineyards, where it feeds on infl orescences and berry clusters. The harmfulness of this tortricid on grapes has been described in Italy (Varner et al. 2001 ) , France (Marcelin 1985 ) , Bulgaria (Kharizanov 1976 ) , and Hungary (Voigt 1972 ) . On the berries it may cause superfi cial but extensive excavations, which are different from those caused by the other two tortricids, but it can also provide entry points to rots when feeding on ripening grapes. Sometimes the larvae can deeply abrade the cluster rachis causing desiccation of the grapes.


14.6 Conclusion

Of the fi ve Lepidoptera species feeding on clusters in European vineyards, EGVM and EGBM have the highest adverse economic impact. The other three species described here, two Pyralidae and one Tortricidae, are occasional or secondary pests. EGVM has increased its geographic range in the twentieth century throughout Europe and the Middle East, invading the Americas early in the twenty-fi rst century. In the Mediterranean region south of the Alps, EGBM is being replaced by EGVM as the major lepidopteran pest. Where EGVM is established, insecticide control for the fi rst generation is not practiced given that, in most varieties, damage to the infl o-rescence has no impact on yield. Insecticidal control is targeted primarily at the second generation larvae. In recent years, more selective insecticides have been introduced, with some having ovicidal activity. In Europe, the area-wide approach based on the use of pheromones to control EGVM and EGBM represents an impor-tant development in a more environmentally acceptable control of these insects. In regions were eradication is being pursued a program combining mating disruption

Fig. 14.6 Argyrotaenia ljungiana ( a ) adult, ( b ) larva, ( c, d ) damage on grapes


and insecticides targeted for fi rst and second generation larvae has achieved a drastic reduction in population levels.

Acknowledgements We are much indebted to Bruno Bagnoli and Vittorio Veronelli for productive discussions on grape moths. Photo acknowledgments: Bruno Bagnoli: Figs. 14.1b , c; 14.3c ; 14.4b–d ; 14.5b , c. Paolo Giannotti: Figs. 14.1a , e; 14.3a , d. Mauro Varner: Fig. 14.6b , c. Elena Pozzolini: Fig. 14.6d .

References

Anfora G, Baldessari M, De Cristofaro A, Germinara GS, Ioriatti C, Reggiori F et al (2008) Control of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by biodegradable Ecodian sex pheromone dispensers. J Econ Entomol 101:444–450

Arn H, Rauscher S, Buser HR, Roelofs WL (1976) Sex pheromone of Eupoecilia ambiguella : cis-9-dodecenyl acetate as a major component. Z Naturforsch Teil C Biochem Biophys Biol Virol 31:499–503

Avidov Z, Harpaz I (1969) Plant pests of Israel. Israel University Press, Jerusalem Bagnoli B, Lucchi A (2001) Bionomics of Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) (Pyralidae Phycitinae)

in Tuscan vineyards. IOBC/WPRS Bull 24(7):79–83 Bagnoli B, Lucchi A, Pollini A (2009) Contro le tignole della vite si interviene sulla seconda

generazione. L’Informatore Agrario 22:9–11 Bisotto-de-Oliveira R, Redaelli LR, Sant’Ana J, Cover C, Botton M (2007) Ocorrência de

Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) relacionada à fenologia da videira em Bento Goncalves. Neotrop Entomol 36:555–559

Bjostad LB, Gurevitz E, Gothilf S, Roelofs WL (1981) Sex attractant for the honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes gnidiella . Phytoparasitica 9:95–99

Bournier A (1977) Grape insects. Annu Rev Entomol 22:355–376 Bovey P (1966) Super-famille des Tortricoidea. In: Balachowsky AS (ed) Entomologie appliquée

à l’agriculture. Lépidoptères. Édition Masson et Cie, Paris, pp 859–887 CAB (1974) Distribution maps of pests, map 70. CAB International, Wallingford CAB (1986) Distribution maps of pests, map 76. CAB International, Wallingford Castaneda-Samayoa O, Holst H, Ohnesorge B (1993) Evaluation of some Trichogramma species

with respect to biological control of Eupoecilia ambiguella Hb. and Lobesia botrana Schiff. (Lep., Tortricidae). Z Pfl anzenk Pfl anzen 100:599–610

Charmillot PJ, Pasquier D (2000) Lutte par confusion contre les vers de la grappe: succès et problèmes rencontrés. IOBC/WPRS Bull 23(4):145–147

Charmillot PJ, Degan T, Pasquier D, Briand F (2005) Nouveaux procédés à base de phéromones pour lutter contre les vers de la grappe: essais préliminaires en 2004. Rev Suisse Vitic Arboric Hortic 5:283–288

Coscollá R (1997) La polilla del racimo de la vid ( Lobesia botrana Den. y Schiff.). Generalitat Valenciana, Conselleria de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Valencia

Cozzi G, Pascale A, Perrone G, Visconti A, Logrieco A (2006) Effect of Lobesia botrana damages on black aspergilli rot and ochratoxin A content in grapes. Int J Food Microbiol 111:S88–S92

Delbac L, Lecharpentier P, Thiéry D (2010) Larval instars determination for the European grape-vine moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) based on the frequency distribution of head-capsule widths. Crop Prot 29:623–630

Deseo KV (1980) Due fi tofagi di secondaria importanza nei vigneti emiliani: Euzophera bigella Zell. ed Ephestia parasitella ssp. unicolorella Staud. (Lepidoptera, Pyralidae). Inf fi topatol 30:7–9

Gonzales M (2010) Lobesia botrana : polilla de la uva. Rev Enol 2:2–5


Harari AR, Zahavi T, Gordon D, Anshelevich L, Harel M, Ovadia S et al (2007) Pest management programmes in vineyards using male mating disruption. Pest Manag Sci 63:769–775

Hartig F (1939) Contributo alla conoscenza della fauna lepidotterologica dell’Italia centrale. Mem Soc Entomol Ital 18:186–198

Hein DF, Breuer M, Hummel HE, Greiner A, Wendorff JH, Hellmann C et al (2011) Electrospun nanofi bers as novel carriers of insect pheromones: communication disruption strategy against the tortricid moths Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana in vineyards. IOBC/WPRS Bull 67:183–187

Hommay G, Gertz C, Kienlen JC, Pizzol J, Chavigny P (2002) Comparison between the control effi cacy of Trichogramma evanescens Westwood (Hymenoptera: Trichogrammatidae) and two Trichogramma cacoeciae marchal strains against grapevine moth ( Lobesia botrana Den. & Schiff.) depending on their release density. Biocontrol Sci Technol 12:569–581

Huertas Dionisio M (2007) Estados inmaturos de lepidoptera (XXX). Tres especies del género Ephestia Guenée, 1845 en huelva, España (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Phycitinae). Sociedad Hispano-Luso-Americana de Lepidopterologia, Madrid, España, SHILAP Rev. Lepidopterol 35:381–399

IBMA (2011) International biocontrol manufacturers association. http://www.ibma-global.org Ibrahim R (2004) Biological control of grape berry moths Eupoecilia ambiguella Hb. and Lobesia

botrana Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) by using egg parasitoids of the genus Trichogramma . Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Phytopathology and Applied Zoology, Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Giessen, Germany

Ioriatti C, Anfora G, Tasin M, De Cristofaro A, Witzgall P, Lucchi A (2011) Chemical ecology and management of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera; Tortricidae). J Econ Entomol 104(4):1125–1137

Ioriatti C, Lucchi A, Bagnoli B (2008) Grape area wide pest management in Italy. In: Koul O, Cuperus GW, Elliott N (eds) Areawide pest management: theory and implementation. CABI International, Wallingford, pp 208–225

Kast WK (2001) Twelve years of practical experience using mating disruption against Eupoecilia ambiguella and Lobesia botrana in vineyards of the Wuerttemberg region, Germany. IOBC/WPRS Bull 24(2):71–73

Keil S, Schruft G (1998) Effectiveness of Bacillus thuringiensis on the grape vine and grape berry moth ( Lobesia botrana and Eupoecilia ambiguella ). Conference Information: Integrated control in viticulture. In: Proceedings of the meeting at Gödöllo, Hungary, 4–6 Mar 1997 IOBC/WPRS Bull 21(2):63–65

Kharizanov A (1976) Argyrotaenia pulchellana Haw. A new pest of vine. Rastitelna Zashchita 24:32

Lucchi A, Botton M, Bagnoli B (2011) Tignola rigata su vite da tenere sotto controllo. L’informatore agrario 31:65–69

Lucchi A, Santini L (2011) Life history of Lobesia botrana on Daphne gnidium in a natural park of Tuscany. IOBC/WPRS Bull 67:197–202

Marcelin H (1985) Control of grape tortricids. Phytoma 370:29–32 Moravie MA, Davison AC, Pasquier D, Charmillot PJ (2006) Bayesian forecasting of grape moth

emergence. Ecol Model 197:478–489 Moschos T (2005) Yield loss quantifi cation and economic injury level estimation for the carpopha-

gous generations of the European grapevine moth Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Int J Pest Manag 52:141–147

Nansen C, MacDonald KM, Rogers CD, Thomas M, Poppy GM, Baxter IH (2007) Effects of sex pheromone in electrostatic powder on mating behaviour by Lobesia botrana males. J Appl Entomol 131:303–310

Neumann U, Schmid A, Ioriatti C, Varner M, Castillo R, Lucas A et al (1993) La technique par confusion contre les “vers” de la grappe en Europe aujourd’hui. Phytoma 456:15–17

OIV (2007) Organisation internationale de la vigne et du vin. http://www.oiv.int/oiv/cms/index Razowski J (1995) The catalogue of the species of Tortricidae (Lepidoptera): part IV: Palaearctic

Olethreutinae Microcorsini, Bactrini, Endotheniini and Olethreutini. Acta Zool Cracov 32:285–324

http://www.ibma-global.org

http://www.oiv.int/oiv/cms/index


Roditakis NE, Karandinos MG (2001) Effects of photoperiod and temperature on pupal diapause induction of grape berry moth Lobesia botrana . Physiol Entomol 26:329–340

Roehrich R, Carles JP (1981) Observations sur les déplacements de l’Eudemis, Lobesia botrana . Boll Zool Agr Bach II 16:10–11

Roelofs WL, Kochansky J, Cardé R, Arn H, Rauscher S (1973) Sex attractant of the grape vine moth, Lobesia botrana . Mitt Schweiz Entomol Ges 46:72–73

Saglio P, Descoins C, Gallois M, Lettéré M, Jaouen D, Mercier J (1977) Etude de la phéromone sexuelle de la cochylis de la vigne Eupoecilia ( Clysia ) ambiguella , HB Lépidoptère Tortricoidea, Cochylidae. Ann Zool Ecol Anim 9:553–562

Scalco A, Charmillot PJ, Pasquier D, Antonin P (1997) Comparaison de produits a base de Bacillus thuringiensis dans la lutte contre les vers de la grappe: du laboratoire au vignoble. Rev Suisse Vitic Arboric Hortic 29:345–350

Shahini S, Kullaj E, Cakalli A, Lazarevska S, Pfeiffer DG, Gumeni F (2010) Population dynamics and biological control of European grapevine moth ( Lobesia botrana : Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in Albania using different strains of Bacillus thuringiensis . Int J Pest Manag 56:281–286

Sing YP, Sing DK (1997) Host plants, extent of damage and seasonal abundance of earhead cater-pillar Cryptoblabes gnidiella (Millière). Adv Agric Res India 7:133–137

Solinas M (1962) Studio morfo-biologico sulla Clysiana ambiguella Hb. Ann Facoltà Agraria Univ Cattolica Piacenza 4:327–361

Stavridis DG, Savopoulou-Soultani M (1998) Larval performance on and oviposition preference for known and potential hosts by Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Eur J Entomol 95:55–63

Stockel JP, Schmitz V, Lecharpentier P, Roehrich R, Neumann U, Torres-Vila M (1992) Three years experience in the control of the grape moth Lobesia botrana (Den. and Schiff.) using mating disruption in a Bordeaux vineyard. IOBC/WPRS Bull 15:117–120

Tasin M, Lucchi A, Ioriatti C, Mraihi M De Cristofaro A, Boger Z, Anfora G (2011) Oviposition response of the moth Lobesia botrana to sensory cues from a host plant. Chemical Sense 36(7):633–639

Thiéry D (2005) Vers de la grappe. Les Connaître pour s’en Protéger. Vigne & Vin, Bordeaux Thiéry D, Xuéreb A (2004) Vers une lutte biologique contre Eudémis ( Lobesia botrana ). In:

Proceedings, Mondiaviti, 1–2 Dec 2004, Bordeaux, France, pp 47–52 Thiéry D, Rétaud P, Dumas-Lattaque L, Féru R, Xuéreb A, Bourriau F (2006) Trapping Lobesia

botrana females with apple juice: a valuable tool to predict oviposition? IOBC/WPRS Bull 29(11):235–238

Underwood K, Howse P, Loughlin D (2002) Potential applications of ExoSect® Auto-confusion TM . In: Book of abstracts of the IOBC/WPRS Working group meeting “Pheromones and other semiochemicals in integrated production”, Erice, Italy, 22–27 Sept 2002

Varela LG, Smith RJ, Cooper ML, Hoenisch RW (2010) European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana , in Napa Valley vineyards. Practical Winery & Vineyard. March/April:1–5

Varner M, Mattedi L (2004) Le tignole nella Piana Rotaliana. L’Informatore Agrario 26:63–69 Varner M, Mattedi L, Lucin R (2001) Mating disruption in Trentino viticulture: 10 years experi-

ence in “Cantine Mezzacorona”. IOBC/WPRS Bull 24(7):143–150 Vidal G (1997) Les bio-insecticides. Le Bacillus thuringiensis , comment s’y retrouver? Pro Agric

Vitic 114:299–302 Voigt E (1972) Damage caused by Argyrotaenia pulchellana Haw. to grape vines in Hungary.

Pfl anzenschutzberichte 43:13–23 Witzgall P, Kirsch P, Cork A (2010) Sex pheromones and their impact on pest management.

J Chem Ecol 36:80–100 Xuéreb A, Mautrait E, Laguerre M, Thiéry D (2003) Une pyrale polyphage pouvant causer des

dégâts au vignoble. Phytoma 559:30–32 Yehuda SB, Wysoki M, Rosen D (1991–1992) Phenology of the honeydew moth, Cryptoblabes

gnidiella (Millière) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae), on avocado in Israel. Isr J Entomol 25–26:149–160 Zocchi R (1971) Contributo alla conoscenza dell’entomofauna delle tamerici in Italia. Redia

52:31–129

Documents

Grape Berry Moths in Western European