here - advid

ADVID
Technical
Notes
1
THE GRAPEVINE
MOTH
Series: ADVID Technical Notes
Technical Note 1 - “The Grapevine Moth”
PUBLISHING DETAILS
Publisher: ADVID - Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Viticultura Duriense
Text: Cristina Carlos
Photographs: Cristina Carlos / ADVID
Coordinator: Fernando Alves
Year: 2012
Print run: 250 copies
Distribution: ADVID - Associação para o Desenvolvimento da Viticultura Duriense
ISBN: 978-989-95481-4-5
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
We would like to thank Prof. Laura Torres (UTAD) for her revision of the text.
Graphic Design: www.hldesign.pt
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
3
Contents
m Introduction
m Morphology
m Biology
m Damage and Losses
m Risk Assesment
m Integrated Pest Management
. Cultural Precautions
. Chemical Control
. Mating Disruption
m Biological control
m Bibliography
ADVID
Technical
Notes
ADVID
Technical
Notes
4
Introduction
The grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Denis & Schiffermüller, is considered the main vineyard pest in the Demarcated
Douro Region (DDR). The moth’s economic impacts arise not only from the direct damage caused by its larvae, but
also from indirect damage due to the onset of rot, particularly grey rot.
This publication is intended to provide practical guidelines that may support decision-making strategies for phytosanitary protection against the grapevine moth, taking into account the conditions of the Demarcated Douro Region.
Morphology
Adult
Greyish-brown moth, 11-13 mm long, with a wingspan of approximately 6 mm
(Photo 1).
Eggs
Elliptical, less than 1 mm, translucent to yellowish (Photo 2). At the end of
its development, a black dot (corresponding to the pre-hatching stage of the
larva; “black head”) can be observed.
Photo 1 – Adult Lobesia botrana
Larvae
Greenish to greyish-brown, with a light brown head. Larval size varies from
1 mm after hatching to 1 cm at maximum development, and the larvae pass
through five developmental stages. When disturbed, they make fast and agile
movements, dropping from silk threads (Photo 3).
Pupae
Although difficult to locate, pupae can be found (depending on generation)
in white cocoons under bark, in cracks in support-stakes, in the folds of
leaves or in clusters. They are approximately 0.5 cm long. Initially greenish,
they gradually turn dark brown (Photo 4).
Photo 2 – Egg Lobesia botrana
The average duration in days of the different stages of development is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 – Average duration, in days, of the different stages of development of the grapevine
moth for the three generations
Source: Coscollá (1998)
Photo 3 – Larva Lobesia botrana
Photo 4 – Pupa Lobesia botrana
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
5
Biology
The grapevine moth hibernates as a pupa in vines. In the conditions of the DDR, the moth then progresses through three
developmental stages capable of causing damage to grapevine inflorescences/clusters (CARLOS et al., 2007 a).
The first adults appear around mid-March, and these appearances are highly staggered (Fig 1).
Mortality
Diapause
Fig. 1 – Biological cycle of Lobesia botrana (adapted from Stockel, 1989)
Despite their early flight, the first generation of adults only find suitable clusters for laying eggs on the vines from the
second fortnight of April (trace bloom) onward. It is likely that the adults lay eggs on alternative hosts prior to this
period. The flight of the adults is crepuscular, and they remain inactive during the day, hidden in leaves or clusters.
The first generation of larvae causes damage during the pre-flowering/fruit set period (May), the second generation
causes damage when grapes are at the pea-sized stage/veraison (mid-June to mid-July), and the third generation causes
damage during ripening (August-September). The adult flights continue until early October (CARLOS et al., 2007 a) (Fig. 2).
In the conditions of the DDR, the grapevine moth may have a fourth generation. This generation, however, does not
complete its development and is therefore known as a suicide generation.
No. of captures / week
nests, % clusters attacked
adults
nests
attack
Fig. 2 – Flight curve of Lobesia botrana and the frequency of attack of the 1st G (*) and the 2nd/3rd G (¤) in the DDR. ADVID, 2002.
ADVID
Technical
Notes
ADVID
Technical
Notes
6
Damage and Losses
The harmfulness of the grapevine moth is closely related to the climatic and microclimatic conditions of the location in
which it develops and can vary by region and year. In the DDR, the pest is generally considered highly harmful in the
Baixo Corgo, moderately harmful in the Cima Corgo and not very harmful in the Douro Superior.
1st Generation
During the month of May, the larvae develop in flower buds,
perforating them and joining several flowers with silk threads
(Photo 5). The larvae then continue their development inside
the resulting glomerule (Photos 6 and 7). These larvae may
also form a second glomerule. Several authors have found
that grape clusters have a significant capacity for compensation at this stage, with each cluster being able to withstand
(depending on the variety) attacks of 1 to 4 glomerules (1 to
2 larvae) or the elimination of 30 flowers per inflorescence
with no impact on yield (ROEHRICH & SCHMID, 1979 referred
to in TORRES-VILA (1999)). COSCOLLÁ (1980) mention that,
in the conditions of the Spanish Levant, the vine is capable
of compensating for up to 50% flower loss. Exceptions to
this compensatory ability are found in varieties with small
clusters and in northern climate conditions that favour early
attacks of Botrytis cinerea.
In the case of highly compact clusters (e.g., Touriga Franca), the thinning caused by these larvae may be beneficial
(Photo 8), as it prevents phenomena such as the expulsion
of berries at cluster closure, commonly known as “escadas”,
or the bursting of berries during ripening that results in the
onset of grey rot or sour rot. Risk assesments by ADVID in the
period from 2000 to 2006 suggest a relatively lower economic
importance of the first generation in the DDR (CARLOS et al.,
2007 b). For this reason, it has become increasingly common
not to perform treatments against this generation or to only
do so when the attack exceeds the economic injury level
(EIL) of 200 nests per 100 clusters sampled.
2 - 06
13 - 06
20 - 06
5
6
7
Photos 5, 6 and 7 – Damage caused by the first generation of the
grapevine moth (glomerules)
20 - 07
Photo 8 – Evolution of a cluster (Touriga Franca) attacked by six grapevine moth nests (first generation)
30 - 08
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
7
2nd Generation
In mid-June, eggs are laid on green berries (pea-sized stage/cluster closure), generally in more shaded clusters (CARLOS et al., 2007 a). These 2nd generation larvae establish themselves by perforating the berry peduncle or the point of
contact between two berries (Photo 9).
The harmfulness of this generation depends on the evolution of climate conditions, the location and the variety. In the
event of high temperatures and reduced relative humidity, the attacked berries dry out (Photo 10), and the quantitative
production loss is generally not significant. In the event of rainfall, the damage caused by the larva may lead to the
early onset of grey rot inside the cluster, particularly among varieties with highly compact clusters on highly vigorous
vines. In the DDR, although the frequency of attack can be significant, this frequency does not appear to be reflected in
damage levels. This result may be due to the occurrence of climate conditions that are unfavourable for the development
of grey rot (CARLOS et al., 2007 b).
9
10
The EIL defined for the 2nd and 3rd
generations is 1-10% of the clusters
attacked; attacked clusters are defined by having at least one viable
egg or one perforation. In the case
of well-exposed vines with average
vigour, this level of damage may be
found in 10% of clusters attacked.
Photos 9 and 10 – Damage caused by the 2nd generation of the grapevine moth (perforations)
3rd Generation
The third wave of oviposition usually occurs around the first fortnight of August on clusters that are already at the
ripening stage (CARLOS et al., 2007 a). The behaviour of larvae in this stage is similar to that of larvae in the 2nd generation. In addition to perforating clusters, however, the also larvae nibble the berries, and several berries damaged by
the same larva can often be observed (Photo 11).
11
12
The harmfulness of the grapevine
moth is high at this stage because
the maturity of the clusters, as well
as the climate conditions, may lead
to the onset and spread of grey rot
(Photos 12, 13 and 14), which significantly lowers the value of the harvest. In the DDR, it is this generation
that causes the greatest economic
damage, as the climate conditions are
more favourable for the development
of both the pest and grey rot.
Therefore, in the case of vines with
a history of attacks, and particularly
on varieties with highly compact clusters, such as Touriga Franca, it may
be advisable to adopt the lowest economic injury level (1-10%) (CARLOS
et al., 2007 b).
Photo 11 – Direct damage caused by the 3rd
generation of the grapevine moth
Photos 12-14 – Attack of grey rot generated
by the 3rd generation of the grapevine moth
13
14
ADVID
Technical
Notes
ADVID
Technical
Notes
8
Risk Assesment
Scouting for grapevine moth risk should begin with the placement of a pheromone trap in the vineyard (Photo 15), which
is an essential step for determining the periods in which the risk assesment for each generation should be concentrated
(they indicate the start and end of the flight period and therefore those of the laying period).
The trap must be placed in a vineyard with a history of attacks, at the height of the grape clusters (see information
bulletin No. 3 from 2006).
In the first generation, wine growers commonly estimate damages at the final flowering stage, during which it is relatively easy
to observe the grapevine moth “nests.” This practice leads to
the estimation of risk at a significantly advanced stage of larval
development, which may impact the effectiveness of insecticide
treatment.
Observation should thus begin at the trace bloom stage with a
search for the glomerules (flower buds spun together) formed by
the larva, and the number of glomerules observed per 100 clusters
should be recorded (Table 2).
Photo 15 – Pheromone trap
Table 2 – Proposed risk assesment methodology for Lobesia botrana in the DDR (CARLOS & AGUIAR, 2006)
Generation
When
From trace
bloom
What to look for
Glomerules
First signs of the
presence of larvae: silk
threads, flower buds
spun together,
excrement, or larvae.
1st
Intensification
of captures up
to 1 week after
the peak
Viable eggs
Perforations
(if permitted by the
cluster)
2nd
Precautions
Do not make the estimate based on well-developed nests
(from flowering/fruit set - late).
EIL
200 nests/clusters
Aggravating factors
production, presence/absence of beneficials, early
incidence of Botrytis
or
Perform the estimate before cluster closure by carefully
observing the cluster interior (point of contact of berries).
Check the viability of eggs and the laying intensity/cluster
(indicates harmfulness).
What is most visible (viable eggs or perforations)?
Distinguish them to select the appropriate means of
control (ovicide or larvicide).
1-10% clusters
attacked
(by viable eggs or
perforations)
Do not treat
Aggravating factors
climate conditions of the location, variety,
presence/absence of beneficials
Intensification
of captures up
to 1 week after
the peak
3rd
Viable eggs
Perforations
(if permitted by the
cluster)
Check the viability of eggs and the laying intensity/cluster
(indicates harmfulness).
What is most visible (viable eggs or perforations)?
Distinguish them to select the appropriate means of
control (ovicide or larvicide).
Aggravating factors
climate conditions of the location, variety,
presence/absence of beneficials, early ripening
1-10% clusters
attacked
(by viable eggs or
perforations)
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
9
The intensification of captures on the trap indicates the ideal periods for risk assessment of the 2nd and 3rd generations.
These assessments should be geared to the observation of viable eggs on clusters (Photos 16 and 17), as the observation
of perforations is difficult, slow and inaccurate due to cluster closure. In the case of the 3rd generation, the perforations are situated within clusters that are at an advanced stage of ripening, which does not allow the observation of the
perforations without damage to the clusters.
16
For this reason, it is recommended that the risk
for these generations be estimated on the same
day that the intensification of captures is observed and that estimations be repeated weekly
until a week after the peak of the captures.
Prediction models
Two moth prediction models are currently used
in France: the EVA from the Plant Protection
Service, which is distributed through the Service
Notices, and the ACTA/ITV, which is included in
the program Logiciel Méteo-Pro that is distributed by ACTA. The ACTA/ITV provides timely information on the development of the pest over
time based on climate records obtained since the
start of the year. This model is an interesting
tool for predicting the phenology of the pest, as
it indicates the egg-laying period, the hatching
of larvae, the development of the larvae and the
presence of adults. It does not indicate higher
or lower pest pressure, however, which means
that management decisions are dependent on
the sampling of clusters on the vine.
17
Photo 16 – Comparison of a viable egg (left) and a non-viable egg (right)
Photo 17 – Viable eggs from the 3rd generation of the grapevine moth
Integrated Pest Management
Cultural Precautions
Vine-growing practices may indirectly affect moth populations, both through influencing their stages of development
and by modifying their behaviour.
- Dusting - According to TORRES-VILA (1999), the grapevine moth prefers to lay eggs on undusted clusters rather than
on clusters that have been dusted with sulphur, road dust or lime. If there is no substratum, however, the eggs may be
laid equally on both clusters.
- Pruning and training of the vine - Systems that facilitate air movement around the fruiting organs are recommended.
- Leaf Removal - Besides facilitating the penetration of spray into clusters, the direct exposure of the moth eggs to
sunlight results in their desiccation.
- Harvest Period - The harvesting of clusters with larvae that have not yet abandoned them to pupate may reduce
the incidence of the pest. In addition, bringing forward the grape harvest may be recommended if the risk of grey rot
is high.
Chemical control
When deciding whether to perform phytosanitary treatment, the wine grower must take various factors into account.
1 - Insecticide effect / Active ingredient - Visual observation can identify the stage of development of the moth
(eggs or perforations) that exists in greater quantities. The wine grower must then choose the active ingredient of the
pesticide in accordance with the target of the treatment; products with ovicidal action should be used on eggs, while
products with larvicidal action should be used on larvae/perforations (Table 3).
ADVID
Technical
Notes
RUNNER
methoxyfenozide
PRESA
“
“
ISONET-L
CORAGEN
EXPLICIT WG
STEWARD
CBC (Biosani)
DUPONT / BAYER
DUPONT
DUPONT
DOW
IND. AFRASA
PROBELTE
SIPCAM QUIMAGRO
AGRISENSE (Biosani)
VP
SC
WG
WG
SC
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
SC
spa
EC
WG
DC
DC
DC
Form.
172 mg /
dispenser
200 g/l
30%
30%
480 g/L
18%
18%
6,4%
3,8 %
3,2 %
3,2 %
240 g/L
500 dispensers
/ ha
15-17,5 ml
12,5 g
12,5 g
10-12 ml
50 g
50 g
50 g
100 g
100 g
100 g
30-40 mL
60 mL
100 mL
240 g/ L
30 - 40 g
25 %
50 mL
50 mL
50 mL
Recommended
application
rate/hl
75 g/L +
30g/L
100 g /L
100 g /L
100 g /L
Concent.
Mating
disruption
O+L
O-L (+)
O-L (+)
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L (+) - O
L (+) - O
O (+) + L
O (+) - L
O (+) - L
O (+) - L
O (+) - L
Type
pheromone
contact + ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
contact + ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion
ingestion + contact
contact + ingestion
contact + ingestion
ingestion + contact
ingestion + contact
ingestion + contact
Mode of action
5-6
months
10 -14
14
14
7 - 14
10 - 12
10 - 12
10 - 12
10 - 12
10 - 12
10 - 12
14-21
21
21
14
21
21
21
Activity
in days
Is
N
Xn
Xn
N
Is
Is
Is
Is
Is
Is
Is
Is
Xi
Xn
Xn; N
Xn; N
Xi; N
TC
0
28
10
10
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
14
56
56
56
PHI
Before beginning
of 1st flight
(updated in 2012)
Add 20% at
borders
-
at economic
threshold
Until eggs in
black dot stage
-
“
“
“
“
“
Add 1 kg of sugar
/ kg formulated
product
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Comments
at economic
threshold
Eggs in black
dot stage (preeclosion)
First catch
First catch
First catch
First catch
Time of
application
Legend: PHI – Pre-harvest interval (in days) before harvest | Type: O- ovicide; L- larvicide; A- Adulticide; (+) indicates increased activity | TC – Toxic class : Is- Non toxic; Xi- Irritant; Xn- Noxious; C- corrosive;T- Toxic | Hl- hectolitre (100 l)
(E,Z)-7,9- dodecadenyl acetate
Mating Disruption
clorantraniliprol
“
indoxacarb
Chemical
SPINOSADE
BELTHIRUL
“
KENOGARD
BAYER CROPSCIENCE
DOW
DOW
SYNGENTA
SYNGENTA
SAPEC AGRO
SELECTIS
BASF
Producer
Emulsion, oil in water
EW
VP
EO
Emulsion, water in oil
EC
Vapour Releasing Product
Emulsifiable concentrate
SL
SC
DP
Dispersible powder
Suspension concentrate
WG
Water Dispersible
Granules
Soluble concentrate
WP
Internacional Code
Wettable powder
Form-Formulation:
Legend
10
spinosade
TUREX
BACTIL X2
“
DIPEL
“
Bacillus thurigiensis
DIPEL WP
MIMIC
tebufenozide
Biopesticide
LUFOX
INSEGAR 25 WG
fenoxicarb + lufenuron
fenoxicarb
BINGO
SALERO
“
CASCADE
Trade name
“
flufenoxuron
Insect growth regulators
Active ingredient
Table 3- List of recommended products for integrated pest management of European Grapevine Moth
ADVID
Technical
Notes
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
11
ADVID
Technical
Notes
2 - Persistence of the treatment - The grower should know the number of days during which the product is effective, beginning with the moment of application. If there is still a risk of attack (e.g., intense flight curve) after the
product is no longer active, a new risk assesment should be made, and the need for treatment should be reanalysed.
3 - Withdrawal period - The grower should know the period of time between the application of the pesticide and
the harvest of the grapes. For the 3rd generation of the moth, particularly for early varieties, great care must be taken
to select active substances that do not leave residues on the clusters at the time of the harvest.
4 - Spraying - The main reason for the lack of effectiveness of pesticide treatments against moths is the inappropriate application of the spray to the biological target. Attention must be paid to the flow rate, spray nozzles and their
orientation and the recommended working pressure, with respect to the active substance dosage recommended by the
product retailers. The effectiveness of the treatment depends on the correct distribution of the product on the treatment
target. Treatments against the grapevine moth should be aimed, whenever possible, only at the clusters. The distribution of the spray onto the rest of the vegetation may lead to an under-dosage of the active substance on the clusters.
In the particular case of biological control agents used by spraying (Bacillus thurigiensis and spinosad) or of biotechnical control using insect growth regulators or inhibitors (RCI and ICI), the wine grower must take special care to select
the active substance according to the pest’s biological cycle (Table 3, Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 – Period for the application of active substances acting on Lobesia botrana
Mating disruptio
ADVID
Technical
Notes
12
Mating Disruption
Mating disruption is method of protection against the
grapevine moth that consists of disturbing the encounters
between males and females. It is conducted by saturating
the atmosphere of the vineyard with the sexual pheromone of Lobesia botrana (E,Z-7.9-dodecadienil acetate) to
prevent mating and egg-laying, which prevents the damage caused by the resulting larvae.
The synthetic pheromone is distributed by pheromone
dispensers (Photo 18).
Photo 18 – Pheromone dispenser (ISONET-L)
Mating disruption against the grapevine moth has
been tested in the Douro by ADVID since 2000 (JORGE, 2000; GASPAR, 2002; COSTA, 2003; DOMINGOS, 2004; CARLOS
et al., 2004). The results obtained over this period have not been entirely satisfactory; although in most cases, mating
disruption has led to a reduction of larval damage compared with control vineyards, there is almost always a need
to perform one or more insecticide treatments on these vineyards to complement mating disruption. However, as the
practice offers advantages both in environmental terms (due to the reduction in number of treatments) and in terms of
applicator and consumer health, there has been an increasing number of growers using mating disruption, and it is one
of the means of protection that should be promoted in integrated pest management (IPM).
Biological control
Due to the economic importance of the grapevine moth in the DDR, it is important to identity and assess the importance
of the pest’s natural enemies, particularly its predators and parasitoids. This knowledge can then be used to develop
protection measures that fit into the framework of IPM in viticulture, as has already been performed in other countries.
Predators of the grapevine moth
The predators of L. botrana include 10 species of spiders and 21 species of insects. Notable predator groups include the
Neuroptera, including Chrysoperla carnea (Photo 19 and 20), and the Coleoptera Coccinellidae (Photo 21), Carabidae,
Cleridae and Malachiidae (Photo 22), although these latter groups have limited incidence (COSCOLLÁ, 1998).
Photo 19 – Green lacewing larva attacking a moth larva
Photo 20 – Adult green lacewing
Photo 21 – Adult coccinellid (7-spot ladybird)
Photo 22 – Adult malachiid beetle
ADVID has been performing work in the DDR since 2002 to study the main predator insects active on vines and to identify
their periods of activity in the vine growing season. Among the captured insects, the families Chrysopidae (Photos 19
THE GRAPEVINE MOTH
13
and 20) and Malachiidae (Photo 22) were considered to be of greatest interest as potential predators of the grapevine
moth. Most of the captures of representatives of these families were reported between June and August/September
(CARLOS et al., 2005).
Parasitoids of the grapevine moth
Approximately 100 types of parasitoids of the grapevine moth are known, including Hymenoptera Ichneumonidae, Braconidae, Pteromalidae and Chalcididae. Their action in reducing populations of the pest is, however, not considered
very significant. Hibernating pupae are the exception to this rule, and parasitism rates of approximately 70% have been
observed on this developmental stage. Normal pupal parasitism rates are approximately 30-40%, nearly all of which is
due to Pteromalidae of the genus Dibrachys (COSCOLLÁ, 1998).
Since 2002, ADVID has been identifying the main parasitoids (Photo 23) of the grapevine moth in the DDR and assessing
their importance in limiting this pest. Seven species of parasitoids have been identified, the most abundant of which are
Elachertus affinis (Masi) (Hym.: Eulophidae) (Photo 24), which represents 32.9% of the total of immersed parasitoids;
Brachymeria sp. (Hym.: Chalcididae) (Photo 25), which represents 29.2%; Campoplex capitator (Aubert) (Hym.: Ichneumonidae) (Photo 26), which represents 19.3%, and Dibrachys cavus (Photos 27 and 28), which represents 2.5%. The
parasitism rates varied between 2.0 and 50% for the 1st generation and between 6.8 and 36.8% for the 2nd generation
(CARLOS et al., 2006).
C. capitator was the most abundant species in five of the eight samplings, covering both the 1st and the 2nd generation
of the moth. In addition, parasitoids from the families Braconidae, Bethylidae (Hymenoptera) and Tachinidae (Diptera)
were also identified, of which only a single specimen was obtained (CARLOS et al., 2006).
Photo 23 – Moth larva parasited by
hymenoptera larva
Photo 24 – Elachertus affinis
Photo 25 – Brachymeria sp.
Photo 26 – Campoplex capitator
Photo 27 – Dibrachys cavus
Photo 28 – Dibrachys cavus
(inside moth pupa)
It is important to further this type of research, to identify the factors that determine the effectiveness of beneficials as
natural control agents. According to this point of view and in consideration of both the typical wine farm structure in
DDR (vineyards on terraces, comprising small plots that are often separated by embankments) and the Swiss experience
(BÖLLER et al., 2004), priority should be given to the identification of potential ecological compensation areas (ECA)
as well as the possibility of manipulating them in order to increase the density of beneficials and their effectiveness as
agents of natural control of the pest.
ADVID
Technical
Notes
ADVID
Technical
Notes
14
Bibliography
BÖLLER, E.F., HÄNI, F. & HANS-MICHAEL, P. (Eds). 2004. Ecological infraestructures: Ideabook on functional biodiversity at
the farm level. Temperate zones of Europe. Swiss Centre for Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Switzerland,
212 p.
CARLOS, C.; ALVES, F. & TORRES, L. 2007 a. Ciclo biológico da traça da uva, Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.), na Região
Demarcada do Douro. 7º Simpósio de Vitivinicultura do Alentejo. 23 to 25 May 2007, pp 67-74.
CARLOS, C.; ALVES, F. & TORRES, L. 2007 b. Importância dos ataques de traça da uva, Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.),
na Região Demarcada do Douro.Vititécnica nº 4 (to be published).
CARLOS, C. & AGUIAR, A. 2006. Estimativa do risco da traça da uva na Região Demarcada do Douro. Contributo para a
sua aferição a nível regional. 1º Encontro sobre Estimativa do Risco. ESACB, 20 April (to be published).
CARLOS, C.; COSTA, J.; GASPAR, C; DOMINGOS, J.; ALVES, F. & TORRES, L. 2004. Mating disruption to control the grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) in Porto Wine Region vineyards: a three-year study. 6th International Conference on Integrated Fruit Production. Baselga di Piné, Trentino, Italy, 26-30 September 2004, pp 249-253.
CARLOS, C.; COSTA, J.R.; TÃO, C.B.; ALVES, F. & TORRES, L.M. 2006 Parasitismo associado à traça da uva, Lobesia botrana
(Dennis & Schiffermüller) na Região Demarcada do Douro. Bol. San. Veg. Plagas, 32: 355-362.
CARLOS, C., TÃO, C.B., DOMINGOS, J.A., COSTA, J.R., ALVES, F. & TORRES, L.M. 2005. Insectos predadores associados à
vinha na Região Demarcada do Douro. VII Encontro Nacional de Protecção Integrada. Escola Superior Agrária de Coimbra,
6-7 December 2005, 388-397.
CAVACO, M.; CALOURO, F. & CLÍMACO, P. 2005. Produção Integrada da cultura da vinha. DGPC. Oeiras. 146 pp.
COSCOLLÁ, R. 1980. Estudio poblacional, ecológico y económico de la Polilla del racimo de la vid Lobesia botrana Den.
& Schiff. en la província de Valencia. Planteamiento de un sistema de lucha dirigida. Tesis Doct. ETSIA, Valencia, 408 pp.
COSCOLLÁ R. 1998. Polillas del racimo (Lobesia botrana Den. y Schiff.). In G. Barrios et al. (eds.), Los parásitos de la vid,
MAPA-Mundi Prensa, Madrid, 29-42.
COSCOLLÁ, R. 2004. Indices de plaga en la polilla del racimo de la vid (Lobesia botrana). 15º Symposium Internacional.
Evolución del riesgo de plagas y enfermedades. El muestreo como herramienta esencial en la Protección Integrada. Phytoma España. 164. December 2004, 47-52.
COSTA, J.M.R. 2003. Protecção integrada da vinha contra Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) na Região Demarcada do Douro
com recurso à luta biotécnica - método de confusão sexual. Relatório final de estágio. UTAD, Vila Real, 82 pp.
DOMINGOS, J.M.A. 2004. Protecção integrada da vinha contra Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff) com recurso à luta biotécnica - método de confusão sexual e contribuição para o conhecimento dos insectos predadores associados à cultura da
vinha na na Região Demarcada do Douro. Relatório final de estágio. UTAD, Vila Real, 119 pp.
GASPAR, C.F. 2002. Protecção integrada da vinha contra Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) na Região Demarcada do Douro,
com recurso à luta biotécnica – método da confusão sexual. Relatório final de estágio. U. Açores, Angra do Heroísmo,
118 pp.
JORGE, S.M. 2000. A eudémis da vinha Lobesia botrana (Den. & Schiff.) na Região Demarcada do Douro: curva de voo,
estimativa do risco e luta por confusão sexual. Relatório final de estágio. UTAD, Vila Real, 121 pp.
TORRES-VILA, L. M. 1999. Un aniversario aciago: dos siglos de historia como plaga de la polilla del racimo de la vid,
Lobesia botrana Den. y Schiff. http://www.seea.es/conlupa/lbotrana/lbotrana.htm (consulted on 26-01-2006).
STOCKEL, J. 1989. Préconisations Vers de grappe: comment prévoir les risques ?. Connaissance de la vigne et du vin .
Hors série, pp 75-80.
ADVID is a non-profit association set up in 1982 by companies associated with the production and marketing of wine in the Demarcated
Douro Region.
Following the change in its statutes in 1997, winegrowing enterprises with different organisational levels, from companies to individual
winegrowers, could also join as full or associate members.
Its purpose is the study, experimentation, demonstration and dissemination of viticultural techniques suited to the specific characteristics
of the Demarcated Douro Region, with a view to the competitiveness and quality of its wines.
Recognised since 2009 as the management entity of the Demarcated Douro Region Wine Cluster, its mission is to contribute to a dynamic
and consolidated wine production sector in the Douro Region, through a sustainable technology strategy applied to all its stakeholders.
The following companies are full members (updated in 2012):
Adriano Ramos Pinto - Vinhos, S.A.
C.ª Geral da Agricultura das Vinhas do Alto Douro
Churchill Graham, Lda.
Niepoort (Vinhos), S.A.
Quinta do Noval - Vinhos, S.A.
Rozès, S.A.
Sociedade Vinícola Terras de Valdigem, S.A.
Sogevinus Fine Wines, S.A.
Sogrape Vinhos, S.A.
W. & J. Graham & C.ª, S.A.
ADVID • Cluster dos Vinhos da Região Demarcada do Douro
Quinta de Sta. Maria, Apartado 137, 5050 - 106 GODIM (PESO DA RÉGUA)
Phone: +351 254 312 940 | Fax: +351 254 321 350
E-mail: advid@advid.pt
www.advid.pt