Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:39:00.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PHENOLOGY, MOVEMENT, AND WITHIN-FIELD DISTRIBUTION OF THE GRAPE BERRY MOTH, ENDOPIZA VITEANA (CLEMENS) (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE), IN NEW YORK VINEYARDS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 May 2012

C.J. Hoffman  and
T.J. Dennehy
C.J. Hoffman
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University NYSAES, Geneva, New York, USA14456
T.J. Dennehy
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University NYSAES, Geneva, New York, USA14456
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

From 1976 to 1986, the average date of first male pheromone trap catch of grape berry moth was 20 May with an average degree-day (DD) accumulation (base 10 °C) of 150.1 (SE = 13.2). Fifty percent cumulative trap catch of the first generation of males averaged 334.1 (SE = 7.8) DD with an average date of 11 June. Degree-day accumulation was a more accurate method for predicting peak male trap catch than predictions based upon vine phenology and calendar date. Within-field distribution and levels of berry moth infestation were markedly affected by the surrounding habitat. Wooded edges or hedgerows were closely associated with an increase in the level of damage along vineyard borders and higher levels of overall infestation when compared with vineyards without wooded edges. Egg and larval infestation levels in wild hosts (Vitis spp.) were greater than those within adjacent commercial vineyards. Early in the season, male berry moth were trapped in high numbers in wooded areas adjacent to vineyards. After mid-July, males were trapped predominantly within vineyards and few were trapped in wooded edges. Movement of adults from wooded areas into vineyards is not suggested by observed patterns of female oviposition. Females oviposited primarily on wild hosts within the wooded areas and within the adjoining vineyard edges throughout the season.

Résumé

De 1976 à 1986, la date moyenne de première capture au piège à phéromone de la tordeuse de la vigne était le 20 mai, soit en moyenne après l’accumulation de 150,1 DJ (base 10 °C)(SE = 13,2). Le cinquante pourcent de capture cumulative des mâles de première génération s’est produit en moyenne à 334,1 (SE = 7,8) DJ, à la date moyenne du 11 juin. L’accumulation du temps en DJ s’est avérée une méthode plus exacte de prévision du pic de capture des mâles que les prévisions basées sur la phénologie de la vigne ou sur le calendrier. La distribution intra-champ et le degé d’infestation étaient très affectés par l’habitat. La présence de bordures boisées et de haies était associée à un niveau plus élevé de dommage en périphérie des vignobles, ainsi que des niveaux plus élevés d’infestation d’ensemble, comparé a des vignobles aux bordures non boisées. Les niveaux d’infestation par oeufs ou larves chez des hôtes naturels (Vitis spp.) étaient plus élevés que ceux des vignobles commerciaux adjacents. Tôt en saison, les mâles ont été capturés en nombres élevés dans les boisés adjacents aux vignobles. Après la mi-juillet, les mâles ont été capturés surtout dans les vignobles, peu étant piégés dans les bordures boisées. Le déplacement des adultes des boisés vers les vignes n’apparaît pas comme une possibilité d’après les patrons de pointe des femelles. Les femelles pondaient surtout sur des hôtes naturels dans les boisés et dans la périphérie des vignes durant toute la saison.

Type
Articles
Information
The Canadian Entomologist , Volume 121 , Issue 4-5 , April 1989 , pp. 325 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Entomological Society of Canada 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baker, C.R.B. 1980. Some problems in using meteorological data to forecast the timing of insect life cycles. EPPO Bull. 10: 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskerville, G.L., and Emin, P.. 1969. Rapid estimation of heat unit accumulation from maximum and minimum temperatures. Ecol. 50: 514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Courtney, S.P., and Courtney, S.. 1982. The ‘edge effect’ in butterfly oviposition: causality in Anthocharis cardamines and related species. Ecol. Ent. 7: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennehy, T.J., Hoffman, C.J., Nyrop, J.P., and Saunders, M.C.. 1989. Development of low spray, biological, and pheromone approaches for control of grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana, Clemens, in the eastern United states. In Monitoring and Integrated Pest Management of Arthropod Pests of Small Fruit. Intercept, London. In press.Google Scholar
Green, G.W. 1962. Low winter temperatures and the European pine shoot moth, Thyacionia buoliana (Schiff.), in Ontario. Can. Ent. 94: 314–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, C.J., and Dennehy, T.J.. 1987. Assessing the risk of grape berry moth damage in New York vineyards. New York's Food Life Sci. Bull. 120. 4 pp.Google Scholar
Ingerson, H.G. 1920. Life history of the grape berry moth in northern Ohio. U.S.D.A. Bull. 911. 42 pp.Google Scholar
Knight, A.L., and Croft, B.A.. 1987. Temporal patterns of competition between a pheromone trap and caged female moths for males of Argyrotaenia citrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a semienclosed courtyard. Environ. Ent. 16: 1185–1192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luciani, M.A. 1987. The biology of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana, Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in southern Ontario. M. Sc. thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada. 84. pp.Google Scholar
Moericke, V., Prokopy, R.J., Berlocher, S., and Bush, G.L.. 1975. Visual stimuli eliciting attraction of Rhagoletis pomonella (Diptera: Tephritidae) flies to trees. Ent. exp. Appl. 18: 497–507.Google Scholar
Roberts, W.P., and Simpson, C.M.. 1982. Pest management program for grapes series: Monitoring and predicting spray dates for the grape berry moth on the Niagara Peninsula. OMAF Agdex 212/632.Google Scholar
Sanders, J.G., and Delong, D.M.. 1921. Factors determining local infestations of the grape berry moth. J. econ. Ent. 14: 488–490.Google Scholar
Taschenberg, E.F. 1945. The biology and control of the grape berry moth, Polychrosis viteana (Clemens). Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. 23. pp.Google Scholar
Taschenberg, E.F., and Parsons, G.M.. 1960. Performance of Sevin against grape berry moth. J. econ. Ent. 53: 856–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar