DOCSLIB.ORG

Grape Commodity-Based Survey Guidelines

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Grape Commodity-Based Survey Guidelines Grape Commodity-based Survey Guidelines 11 August 2008 Last Revision: August 2010 Melinda Sullivan and Edward Jones USDA APHIS Plant Protection and Quarantine Center for Plant Health Science and Technology 1 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…5 Purpose of Document 5 Location of Surveys 7 Time Frame 7 Organisms to be Surveyed 7 Chapter 2: Survey Design & Sampling Methodology .………………………………………………………………..…..9 Introduction 9 Summary of Action Steps 9 Objective of Survey 10 Population to be Sampled 10 Data to be Collected 10 Degree of Precision Re- 11 quired The Frame 12 Selection of sampling plan 13 and sample selection Methods and Units of Meas- 17 ure Pre-test 19 The Organization of Field 19 Work Summary and Analysis of 20 Data Gaining Information for Fu- 20 ture Surveys Chapter 3: Summary of Survey Strategies………………………………………………………………………………….21 Visual Survey 21 Trapping 28 Chapter 4: Pest Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29 Pests by affected plant part 29 CAPS– approved survey 30 methods 2 Chapter 5: Detailed Survey Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………31 Adoxophyes orana 31 Autographa gamma 33 Copitarsia spp. 34 Diabrotica speciosa 35 Epiphyas postvittana 36 Eupoecilia ambiguella 37 Heteronychus arator 38 Lobesia botrana 39 Planococcus minor 40 Spodoptera littoralis 41 Spodoptera litura 42 Thaumatotibia leucotreta 43 Candidatus Phytoplasma aus- 44 traliense Phellinus noxius 45 Chapter 6: Identification Tables…………………………………………………………………………………………………46 Adoxophyes orana 46 Autographa gamma 48 Copitarsia spp. 51 Diabrotica speciosa 54 Epiphyas postvittana 56 Eupoecilia ambiguella 58 Heteronychus arator 60 Lobesia botrana 62 Planococcus minor 64 Spodoptera littoralis 65 Spodoptera litura 67 Thaumatotibia leucotreta 69 Candidatus Phytoplasma aus- 71 traliense Phellinus noxius 72 Appendix A…………………………………...…………………………………………………………………………………………………..74 Appendix B…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..81 Appendix C………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 86 3 Draft Log: The state of science is advancing faster than most documents in print can be updated. As such, this document is entitled “perpetual draft” with the intention of making updates as they are appropriate. Updates might include the inclusion of new high risk pests that are identified, inclusion of new survey methodology for existing pests, or removal of current pests that no longer pose a high risk or have become well established in the United States. In order to keep track of changes in the document, please find the draft log listed below. The date of the current draft is listed on the cover page. Original Submission: August 2008 Revised Submission: October 2008 July 2010: Added Diabrotica speciosa and Eupoecilia ambiguella. Added Appendix M information and re- moved outdated information. Updated survey chapter. Fixed several typographic errors. August 2010: Updated hyperlinks. 4 Chapter 1: Introduction Purpose of Document: Welcome to the Grape Commodity-based Survey Guideline. This document is intended to be a tool to assist you as you develop pest detection survey plans in your respective states for exotic pests of grape. A detection survey determines the presence or absence of a pest but does not delimit a pest or establish the prevalence of a pest. This is a companion document to the Grape Commodity-based Survey Reference, available at the CAPS website (Figure 1.1). The Grape Commodity-based Sur- vey Reference is a collection of detailed datasheets on 26 exotic pests, 6 pests of restricted distribution in the United States with regulatory significance, en- demic pests easily confused with exotic pests, and potential vectors of exotic pests. These datasheets contain information on the biology, host range, survey strategies, and identification of these pests. The Grape Commodity-based Survey Guideline is the result of a concerted effort to help states focus resources on survey efforts and identification of a smaller group of target pests. This guide contains little information about biol- ogy. We must acknowledge that there is no silver bullet survey that would be wholly applicable to each state. Environment, personnel, budgets, and re- sources vary from state to state. However, as state participants in the Coop- Figure 1.1 Cover Page of the erative Agricultural Pest Survey (CAPS), you can take steps to increase the uni- Grape Commodity –based Survey Reference. This document con- formity and usability of data across political, geographic, and climatic regions, tains pest datasheets on the most while maintaining flexibility for appropriateness within individual regions. This threatening exotic pests of grape manual is not intended to be a field guide to identify exotic pests in the field including information on biology, and distinguish the exotic pest from commonly occurring pests. The purpose of survey, and identification. The document is available for this manual is to provide a framework to aid cooperators in collecting the best download from the CAPS website. samples to send to a qualified taxonomist or diagnostician for pest identifica- tion. Considerable diagnostic or taxonomic expertise may already exist in your state. The survey methods described in this document combine survey strategies for exotic pests, including arthropods and plant pathogens. It is important to note that these broad categories have unique bio- logical features that dictate current methods of sur- vey. However, each category is grouped accord- ing to an appropriate sampling method within the context of this manual. This Commodity-based Survey Guideline is intended to be implemented over several years with the initial field survey year beginning in FY 09. Portions of the recommendations may need clarification or adjust- ment as funding levels change, new threats are identified, or detection technologies improve. The transition to commodity based survey has just be- gun, and as such, end user feedback will be impera- tive to the creation of a useful end-product for corn and other commodities of large economic impor- Figure 1.2 Figure of the United States showing grape acreage by tance. National survey methodologies as estab- county in 2007. This image was generated using data from the Na- lished will take precedence over the methods de- tional Agricultural Statistics Service by Daniel Borchert (USDA-APHIS- scribed in this manual. Methods listed in Appendix M PPQ-CPHST). of the National Survey Guidelines will also take precedence over the methods described. 5 Chapter 1: Introduction Table 1.2. Pests targeted in the CAPS Grape Commodity-based Location of Surveys: Note that the lo- Survey Guideline. cality scope of the Survey Guideline is limited to the contiguous United States. The acreage by Scientific Name Common Name Type of Pest county is shown in Figure 1.2. The total bearing acreage and the value for the top 5 producing states for grape in this manual is shown in Fig- Adoxophyes orana Summer fruit tortrix Arthropod-Moth (minor pest) ures 1.3, 1.4, respectively. Total bearing acre- age by type of grape and value of production is shown in Figures 1.5, 1.6, respectively for Cali- Autographa gamma Silver-Y moth Arthropod-Moth fornia, which accounts for greater than 80% of (major pest) the total acreage and value for the United States. Copitarsia spp. Owlet moths Arthropod-Moth (major pest) Time Frame: The Survey Guideline is in- tended to be carried out as a multi-year survey. Diabrotica speciosa Cucurbit beetle Arthropod– Beetle State and federal priorities, resources, and (major pest) funding, however, may influence whether the survey can be carried out for multiple years. Future versions of this manual may call for on- Epiphyas postvittana Light brown apple Arthropod-Moth going surveys following the same or a slightly moth (major pest) modified protocol. The multi-year time frame has advantages because states will have more Eupoecilia am- European grape berry Arthropod-Moth opportunity to collect data over a larger time- biguella moth (major pest) scale. Negative data collected over several years using a statistically based protocol can be influential in scientific, political, and trade Heteronychus arator African black beetle Arthropod– Beetle arenas. (major pest) Lobesia botrana European grapevine Arthropod-Moth Organisms to be Surveyed: The moth (major pest) scope of surveyed organisms within the Survey Guideline is limited to a sub-group of pests from Planococcus minor Passionvine mealybug, Arthropod- the Grape Commodity-based Survey Refer- Pacific mealybug mealybug (major ence from the FY 09’ and 10 Analytical Hierar- pest) chy Process (AHP) Prioritized Pest List and one emergency pest (light brown apple moth). This Spodoptera littoralis Egyptian cotton leaf- Arthropod-Moth sub-group includes 12 arthropods and 2 plant worm (major pest) pathogens (a phytoplasma, and a fungus). The scientific name and common names of these Spodoptera litura Rice cutworm Arthropod-Moth pests are shown in Table 1.2. Photos of each major pest) pest are given in Figure 1.7. Many of the pests targeted in this survey can be Thaumatotibia leuco- False coding moth Arthropod-Moth detected visually or by collecting samples of treta (minor pest) plant tissues. As a result, 1-2 trips for each survey should be adequate. For most of the arthro- Candidatus Phyto- Australian grapevine Phytoplasma pods, pheromone lures are available, and use plasma australiense yellows (major pest) of these lures with traps will require a minimum of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Characteristics of Grapevine Yellows-Susceptible Vineyards and Potential Management Strategies
    YEAR-END PROJECT REPORT Virginia Wine Board, August, 2015 Title: Characteristics of Grapevine Yellows-susceptible vineyards and potential management strategies Principal Investigators: Dr. Paolo Lenzi (100% time on project) Dr. Tony K. Wolf (10% time on project) Postdoctoral Research Associate Professor of Viticulture AHS Jr. AREC, Virginia Tech AHS Jr. AREC Virginia Tech Virginia Tech Phone: (540) 869-2560 extn 42 (540) 869-2560 extn 18 [email protected] [email protected] Type of Project: Research Amount funded: $110,903 Overall Project Objectives 1. Identify phytoplasma alternative hosts in and around North American Grapevine Yellows (NAGY)- affected vineyards and attempt to identify the characteristics of vineyards that predispose them to increased risk of NAGY 2. Evaluate efficacy of potential Grapevine Yellows management practices Summary North American Grapevine Yellows (NAGY) was recognized in Virginia vineyards as early as 1987. Principal investigator T. Wolf began a collaborative research association with Dr. Robert Davis and his lab at the USDA/ARS in Beltsville Maryland and that partnership led to a greater understanding of the nature of the pathogens that cause NAGY in Virginia. An important finding from our work of the nineties was that the causal agents of NAGY – bacteria-like organisms called phytoplasmas – were unique to grapevine yellows diseases in North America. That is, they were not the same pathogens that cause the European variants of the disease, such as Flavescence dorée , or Bois noir . The missing information about NAGY was which vector or vectors were involved in phytoplasma transmission, and what other plants in the vineyard environment served as alternative hosts for the pathogens.
    [Show full text]
  • IPM Elements for Wine Grapes in Virginia and North Carolina
    IPM Elements for Wine Grapes in Virginia and North Carolina Growers should use this document and its sub-headings as a checklist of possible Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices that they could implement. Growers should count only the activities they perform in their wine grape pest management practices and aim to be compliant with at least 80% of the activities listed. This is not a requirement, but only a suggested level of compliance. This document is intended to help wine grape growers identify areas in their operations that possess strong IPM qualities and also point out areas for improvement. Growers should attempt to incorporate the majority of these specific techniques into their usual production and maintenance practices, especially in areas where they fall short of the 80% goal. Pests and Diseases of Wine Grapes in Virginia and North Carolina Arthropods Diseases Vertebrates Weeds Aerial phylloxera Anthracnose Bears Annual broadleaf Climbing cutworms Bitter Rot Birds weeds European red mite Black rot Deer Annual grasses Grape berry moth Botryosphaeria canker Geese Perennial grasses Grape cane borer Botrytis bunch rot Groundhogs Perennial broadleaf Grape cane gallmaker Crown gall Moles weeds, including Grape cane girdler Downy mildew Raccoons Woody perennials Grape curculio ESCA or Petri Turkeys Yellow nutsedge Grape flea beetle diseases Voles Grape leafhopper (Young vine decline) Grape root borer Eutypa dieback Grape rootworm Grapevine yellows Grape tumid Leafroll virus gallmaker Phomopsis cane and Grapevine looper leaf spot Japanese beetle Pierce’s disease Mealybugs Powdery mildew Redbanded leafroller Ripe rot Sharpshooters Sour rot (non-specific Stinkbugs fruit rot) Wasps Tomato/Tobacco ringspot virus Check if done I.
    [Show full text]
  • Grape Insects +6134
    Ann. Rev. Entomo! 1976. 22:355-76 Copyright © 1976 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved GRAPE INSECTS +6134 Alexandre Bournier Chaire de Zoologie, Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronornique, 9 Place Viala, 34060 Montpellier-Cedex, France The world's vineyards cover 10 million hectares and produce 250 million hectolitres of wine, 70 million hundredweight of table grapes, 9 million hundredweight of dried grapes, and 2.5 million hundredweight of concentrate. Thus, both in terms of quantities produced and the value of its products, the vine constitutes a particularly important cultivation. THE HOST PLANT AND ITS CULTIVATION The original area of distribution of the genus Vitis was broken up by the separation of the continents; although numerous species developed, Vitis vinifera has been cultivated from the beginning for its fruit and wine producing qualities (43, 75, 184). This cultivation commenced in Transcaucasia about 6000 B.C. Subsequent human migration spread its cultivation, at firstaround the Mediterranean coast; the Roman conquest led to the plant's progressive establishment in Europe, almost to its present extent. Much later, the WesternEuropeans planted the grape vine wherever cultiva­ tion was possible, i.e. throughout the temperate and warm temperate regions of the by NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY on 02/01/10. For personal use only. world: North America, particularly California;South America,North Africa, South Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1977.22:355-376. Downloaded from arjournals.annualreviews.org Africa, Australia, etc. Since the commencement of vine cultivation, man has attempted to increase its production, both in terms of quality and quantity, by various means including selection of mutations or hybridization.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Grape Draft 0814
    DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF RED LEAF DISEASES OF GRAPES (VITIS SPP) IN OKLAHOMA By SARA ELIZABETH WALLACE Bachelor of Science in Horticulture Oklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma 2016 Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate College of the Oklahoma State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE July, 2018 DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF RED LEAF DISEASES OF GRAPES (VITIS SPP) IN OKLAHOMA Thesis Approved: Dr. Francisco Ochoa-Corona Thesis Adviser Dr. Eric Rebek Dr. Hassan Melouk ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thank you to Francisco Ochoa-Corona, for adopting me into his VirusChasers family, I have learned a lot, but more importantly, gained friends for life. Thank you for embracing my horticulture knowledge and allowing me to share plant and field experience. Thank you to Jen Olson for listening and offering me this project. It was great to work with you and Jana Slaughter in the PDIDL. Without your help and direction, I would not have achieved this degree. Thank you for your time and assistance with the multiple drafts. Thank you to Dr. Rebek and Dr. Melouk for being on my committee, for your advice, and thinking outside the box for this project. I would like to thank Dr. Astri Wayadande and Dr. Carla Garzon for the initial opportunity as a National Needs Fellow and for becoming part of the NIMFFAB family. I have gained a vast knowledge about biosecurity and an international awareness with guests, international scientists, and thanks to Dr. Kitty Cardwell, an internship with USDA APHIS. Thank you to Gaby Oquera-Tornkein who listened to a struggling student and pointed me in the right direction.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Paper
    Copyright © 2019 University of Bucharest Rom Biotechnol Lett. 2019; 24(6): 1027-1033 Printed in Romania. All rights reserved doi: 10.25083/rbl/24.6/1027.1033 ISSN print: 1224-5984 ISSN online: 2248-3942 Received for publication, Janaury, 7, 2018 Accepted, October, 5, 2018 Original paper Organic acids and sugars profile of some grape cultivars affected by grapevine yellows symptoms CRISTINA PETRISOR1*, CONSTANTINA CHIRECEANU1 1Research and Development Institute for Plant Protection, Ion Ionescu de la Brad Bdv, No. 8, District 1, Bucharest, Romania Abstract Grapevine yellows are a group of infectious diseases, which are usually associated with phytoplasma pathogens, affecting quality of grapes and survival of grapevine. The objective of this work was to evaluate sugars, total phenols and organic acids concentrations in the grapes of four wine cultivars (Fetească Neagră, Pinot Noir, Traminer rose, Chardonnay) healthy and affected by specific symptoms to phytoplasmoses. Berry samples were collected from the Miniș-Măderat (Arad County) and Odobești (Vrancea County) vineyards. Individual sugars and organic acids compounds were identified and quantified in grape berries by the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method using DAD and RID detectors, while total phenolic compounds by using spectrophotometry. The content and composition of sugars and acids varied between healthy and symptomatic plants. Analysis of grape juice revealed reduction in sugars (fructose and glucose) from symptomatic to non-symptomatic vines. Lower values of acidity were obtained in grapes of affected compared to non-affected vines. The differences in acids content between grapes of affected and not affected vines were more pronounced at Pinot Noir variety, with lower concentrations of malic and tartaric acids in grapes from symptomatic vines in both locations studied.
    [Show full text]
  • VINEYARD BIODIVERSITY and INSECT INTERACTIONS! ! - Establishing and Monitoring Insectariums! !
    ! VINEYARD BIODIVERSITY AND INSECT INTERACTIONS! ! - Establishing and monitoring insectariums! ! Prepared for : GWRDC Regional - SA Central (Adelaide Hills, Currency Creek, Kangaroo Island, Langhorne Creek, McLaren Vale and Southern Fleurieu Wine Regions) By : Mary Retallack Date : August 2011 ! ! ! !"#$%&'(&)'*!%*!+& ,- .*!/'01)!.'*&----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&2 3-! "&(')1+&'*&4.*%5"/0&#.'0.4%/+.!5&-----------------------------------------------------------------------------&6! ! &ABA <%5%+3!C0-72D0E2!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!F! &A&A! ;D,!*2!G*0.*1%-2*3,!*HE0-3#+3I!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!J! &AKA! ;#,2!0L!%+D#+5*+$!G*0.*1%-2*3,!*+!3D%!1*+%,#-.!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!B&! 7- .*+%)!"/.18+&--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&,2! ! ! KABA ;D#3!#-%!*+2%53#-*MH2I!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!BN! KA&A! O3D%-!C#,2!0L!L0-H*+$!#!2M*3#G8%!D#G*3#3!L0-!G%+%L*5*#82!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!&P! KAKA! ?%8%53*+$!3D%!-*$D3!2E%5*%2!30!E8#+3!AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!&B! 9- :$"*!.*;&5'1/&.*+%)!"/.18&-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------&3<!
    [Show full text]
  • 2003Session3.Pdf
    THE SITUATION OF GRAPEVINE YELLOWS AND CURRENT RESEARCH DIRECTIONS: DISTRIBUTION, DIVERSITY, VECTORS, DIFFUSION AND CONTROL E. Boudon-Padieu Biologie et écologie des phytoplasmes, UMR 1088 Plante Microbe Environnement, INRA – Université de Bourgogne, Domaine d’Epoisses, BP 86510 – 21065 Dijon Cedex France Grapevine yellows (GY) are known now for 50 years. After the first appearance of Flavescence dorée (FD) in West-South France in the 1950’s, similar diseases have been observed in vineyards of other regions or countries (22) in Europe, North-America, Asia Minor and Australia. Typical symptoms are leaf rolling and discoloration of veins and laminae, uneven or total lack of lignification of canes, flower abortion or berry withering. Eventually, severe decline and death occur with sensitive varieties or with particular GY diseases. All these diseases have been associated with phytoplasmas. Phytoplasmas, discovered in 1967, are wall-less intracellular bacterias restricted to phloem sieve tubes and transmitted only by vector insects in which they multiply and circulate. Recently, comparisons of conserved regions in their genomic DNA, have permitted to classify all known phytoplasmas into about 20 groups and subgroups within a monophyletic clade in the Class Mollicutes, closest to the Acholeplasma clade (57, 78). Numerous DNA probes have been designed that permit diagnosis and identification of phytoplasmas in plant tissues and in insects. This, together with transmission assays, has also permitted the recent identification of new phytoplasma vectors. Though Koch’s postulate cannot be fully satisfied with non-culturable pathogen agents, it is now considered that phytoplasmas are responsible for typical GY symptoms. These conclusions have been reached because of transmission experiments with natural vectors in the case of Flavescence dorée (FD) and Bois noir (BN), of the similarity of symptoms caused world wide by GY diseases on numerous grapevine cultivars and of consistent detection of phytoplasmas in affected grapevines and in infective insect vectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Grape Commodity Survey Farm Bill Survey Work Plan – May 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014
    Grape Commodity Survey Farm Bill Survey Work Plan – May 1, 2013 – April 30, 2014 Cooperator: Kansas Department of Agriculture State: Kansas Project: Grape Commodity Survey Project funding Farmbill Survey source: Project Coordinator: Laurinda Ramonda Agreement Number 13-8420-1656-CA PO Box 19282, Forbes Field, Bldg. 282, Address: Topeka, Kansas 66619 Contact Information: Phone: 785-862-2180 Fax: 785-862-2182 Email Address: [email protected] This Work Plan reflects a cooperative relationship between the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) (the Cooperator) and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ). It outlines the mission-related goals, objectives, and anticipated accomplishments as well as the approach for conducting a Grape Commodity survey and control program and the related roles and responsibilities of the Kansas Department of Agriculture and USDA-APHIS-PPQ as negotiated. I) OBJECTIVES AND NEED FOR ASSISTANCE In 1985, Kansas passed the Farm Winery Act establishing guidelines for wineries and by 2005, 13 licensed farm wineries in Kansas produced 50,000 gallons of wine from only 170 total acres of grapes. In January 2010, the number of licensed farm wineries had grown to 23 located in 21 counties from central to northeastern Kansas. In 2010, the total number of acres of grapes in Kansas vineyards was 342.1 acres on 73 farms and this continues to grow. There were 174.1 acres of grapes harvested with 354.7 tons of grapes produced. Over 60 percent of grapes produced are used at their own operations. The total value in 2010 of grapes produced was $401,150 and this continues to rise.
    [Show full text]
  • Tricholine Vitis a New Solution to Managing Grape Pests
    Vitis YOUR ALLY AGAINST THE EUROPEAN GRAPEVINE MOTH ABIM 2019 Dr Caroline Reid, Bioline UK Senior Technical Support – Northern Europe Manuel Gomez, Bioline Iberia Senior Technical Support – Southern Europe European grapevine moth • Wine quality strongly depends on the grape quality. • Grapevines are attacked by a wide diversity of tortricid moths. • Adult females lay egg clusters on or close to flowers and grape bunches • The eggs hatch into pale-coloured larvae that feed predominantly on flowers and developing fruit or on leaves. • Second and third instar larvae are the most damaging, due to their increase in numbers throughout the season. • In addition to direct-feeding damage, larvae produce wounds subsequently infected by bunch rot fungi, as well as spoilage yeasts and bacteria. Their action can further attract infestations by fruit flies (Drosophila spp.). several species are carriers of Botrytis • Economic losses can be 13.3% for second generation and 27% for third * * Theodoros Moschos, International Journal of Pest Management 2 Volume 52, 2006 - Issue 2 Three species of grapevine moth controlled Vitis Lobesia botrana Eupoecilia ambiguella Argyrotaenia ljungiana 3 The dispenser: a concentrate of technology • Eggs ready to hatch are placed inside the dispenser • Bio-degradable (cardboard): no need to remove at the end of the season • Water resistant • Protection from the sun • Protection against predators (ants) • No need to prepare the application (ready to use) Small exit holes prevent entry of ants • Fast to apply: 30 min/ha for
    [Show full text]
  • Update on Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter & Other Invasive
    Update on glassy-winged sharpshooter & other invasive vineyard pests Matt Daugherty, Department of Entomology, UC Riverside ([email protected]) Stages of biological invasions In California, 8 to 10 exotics introduction introduced each year ~20% become invasive Multiple stages (hurdles) to establishment biological invasions Human activities often contribute to invader success spread Early detection often improves impact outcomes Light brown apple moth European Grapevine Moth • other vineyard moth pests Brown marmorated stink bug Glassy-winged sharpshooter Vine mealybug Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM), Epiphyas postvittana Tortricid leafroller, ¼ inch in length Native to Australia Extreme generalist • 350+ genera, 500+ species of plants • berries, tree fruits, native trees/shrubs, ornamentals, weeds First found in CA in 2007 LBAM eradication program established for Bay Area • mating disruption via pheromone sprays Regulated nursery stock https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Plant/lbam/rpts/LBA M_BMP-Rev_3.pdf • substantial monitoring costs • increased insecticide use Regulated movement of bulk green waste 2011 Fairly widespread Prevalent in cooler, coastal areas, relatively rare inland Present in natural areas, residential areas No documentation of major damage? 2019 Limited further spread Prevalent in cooler, coastal areas, relatively rare inland Present in natural areas, residential areas No documentation of major damage? Why isn’t LBAM more invasive? Hawkins & Cornell 1994 LBAM is attacked by several resident generalist parasitoids • enemy release Rule
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Grape Survey Report
    2017 Grape Survey K. Buckley & M. Klaus 2017 Entomology Project Report - Plant Protection Division, Pest Program Washington State Department of Agriculture 2 May 2018 2017 Grape Survey Report Katharine D. Buckley & Michael W. Klaus, Washington State Department of Agriculture Summary The WSDA conducted a Grape Commodity Survey in 2017 to determine the status of invasive pests and diseases in Washington State affecting juice, wine and table grapes. Except for Grape Phylloxera, which is known to occur in Washington, no other target pests of this survey were found. Background Washington State is 2nd in the US in wine grape production with 55,445 acres currently in production (Mertz et al. 2017), which support over 900 wineries (washingtonwine.org). The impact of this wine industry on the state is estimated to be $4.8 billion (washingtonwine.org). Washington is also the largest producer of juice grapes (Honig et al. 2017) with 21,632 acres of primarily Concord and some Niagara varieties (Mertz et al. 2017). The value of these crops could decrease substantially if certain invasive pests established here. Additional pesticide sprays would be required, which would disrupt Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs already in place. All of these pests and diseases are also restricted by various countries, making exports of vine stock, nursery stock and fresh fruit more difficult. 1 2017 Grape Survey K. Buckley & M. Klaus Light Brown Apple Moth (Epiphyas postvittana (Walker)) Light brown apple moth (LBAM) is a highly polyphagous species with more than 1,000 plant species including over 250 fruits and vegetables such as apples, citrus, corn, peaches, berries, tomatoes and avocados (Weeks et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Viticulture Notes December 2011
    VITICULTURE NOTES ............................ Vol. 26 No. 6, December, 2011 Tony K. Wolf, Viticulture Extension Specialist, AHS Jr. Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Winchester, Virginia [email protected] http://www.arec.vaes.vt.edu/alson-h-smith/grapes/viticulture/index.html I. Current situation a. Dormant pruning ......................................................................... 1 b. Our 2011 spray program ........................................................... 2 c. Web-based vineyard site evaluation tool ..................................... 4 d. Grapevine yellows update .......................................................... 4 II. Question from the field ....................................................................... 5 III. Upcoming meetings ........................................................................... 7 IV. Positions available in industry .......................................................... 13 I. Current situation Dormant pruning: Many vineyards commence pruning on better days of the fall including November and December. While there is some concern about the potential effects of very early (eg., November) pruning on subsequent cold hardiness of grapevines, the scant research done on this subject does not suggest a significant problem. Of course, compensation for winter injury, should it occur, has fewer options for vines that are finish-pruned before the threat of damaging low temperature injury. This has been the principal reason why operators of smaller vineyards often wait until
    [Show full text]