DOCSLIB.ORG

Addressing Biodiversity and Habitat Preservation Through Measures Applied Under the Common Agricultural Policy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Addressing Biodiversity and Habitat Preservation Through Measures Applied Under the Common Agricultural Policy Addressing biodiversity and habitat preservation through measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy Jana Poláková Graham Tucker Kaley Hart Janet Dwyer Matt Rayment i This study, financed by the Commission of the European Communities, has been carried out by the Institute for European Environmental Policy, and the consultant has full responsibility for the content. The conclusions, recommendations and opinions presented in this report reflect those of the consultant, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Commission. September 2011 Jana Poláková Graham Tucker Kaley Hart Janet Dwyer Matt Rayment With contributions from: Andrew J. McConville, Evelyn Underwood, Ben Allen, Francesca Solca, Jane Mills and Juliet Ingram. ii The report should be cited as follows: Poláková, J, Tucker, G, Hart, K, Dwyer, J, Rayment, M (2011) Addressing biodiversity and habitat preservation through Measures applied under the Common Agricultural Policy. Report Prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Contract No. 30-CE- 0388497/00-44. Institute for European Environmental Policy: London. Corresponding author: Jana Poláková, IEEP ([email protected]). Acknowledgements The authors of this report would like to express many thanks to a great number of people for their expert contributions. They would like to thank: Henrietta Menadue, Clunie Keenleyside, Sonja Gantioler, Stephanie Newman, Laura Baroni and Caitlin McCormack for their additional research support. David Baldock for invaluable support and important contributions to individual chapters. The case study partners, for collecting a large proportion of the empirical material upon which the analysis in the report rests: Raluca Barbu, HighClere Consulting, Romania. Yann Desjeux, INRA, France. Simone Schiller and Nadja Kasperczyk, Institut für Ländliche Strukturforschung of the Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Jaroslav Pražan, Czech Republic. George Vlahos, Greece. Ben Allen and Henrietta Menadue, IEEP, UK. Dr Simon Butler (at the time University of Reading, now University of East Anglia) carried out the trait-based modelling of biodiversity impacts commissioned for this study. The biodiversity expert panel for their advice and valuable comments: András Báldi from the Institute of Ecology and Botany of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences; Nigel Boatman from the Food and Environment Research Agency, UK; Irina Herzon from the University of Helsinki; Juan José Oñate from the Autonomous University of Madrid; Rainer Oppermann from the Institute for Agroecology and Biodiversity (IFAB) in Mannheim; Chris van Swaay from the Dutch Butterfly Conservation; Chris Stoate from the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, UK; and Peter Veen. The agricultural and agri-environmental policy expert panel for their contribution to the development of the policy aspects of the study: Guy Beaufoy from the European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism; Pille Koorberg and Iiri Selge from the Agricultural Research Centre Estonia; Trees Robijns from BirdLife International; Nigel Boatman; Juan José Oñate; Irina Herzon; and Gábor Figeczky from WWF Hungary. iii Delphine Dubray for the French translation of the Executive Summary. To the following for allowing us to use their photos on our front cover: C Keenleyside G Beaufoy Institute for European Environmental Policy R Barbu B Allen And finally, the authors are grateful for the support and invaluable comments by Caroline Raes, the Project Officer at DG Agriculture. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................ XIV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................... XVII RESUME ............................................................................................................................ XXX 1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ............................................................. 1 1.1 Framing the Study ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and structure of the report .......................................................................... 3 2 THE INTERACTIONS BETWEEN AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY IN EUROPE .............. 6 2.1 The development of agricultural habitats.................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Forms of agriculture and field-scale habitats ....................................................... 6 2.1.2 Landscape-scale influences on biodiversity ........................................................ 13 2.2 The interrelationships between agricultural practices and biodiversity .................. 17 2.3 The biodiversity importance of agricultural habitat types ....................................... 21 2.3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................... 21 2.3.2 Natural and semi-natural habitats ..................................................................... 23 2.3.3 Improved grasslands and croplands ................................................................... 24 2.3.4 Permanent crops ............................................................................................... 27 2.3.5 Ecosystem services and agricultural habitat type ............................................... 28 2.4 Agricultural drivers and recent trends in the structure of the agricultural sector ... 30 2.5 Impacts of agricultural change on agricultural habitats and species ....................... 35 2.5.1 Natural and semi-natural habitats ..................................................................... 35 2.5.2 Biodiversity trends and their causes in improved grasslands and cultivated crops 40 2.5.3 Permanent crops ............................................................................................... 43 2.6 Future prospects for biodiversity in agricultural habitats in the EU ........................ 45 2.6.1 Driving forces affecting agriculture and the rural economy ............................... 45 2.6.2 Likely impacts of future agricultural change on biodiversity .............................. 46 3 EU POLICY MEASURES FOR THE DELIVERY OF BIODIVERSITY THROUGH AGRICULTURE 48 3.1 Identifying policy measures for the delivery of biodiversity through agriculture .... 48 3.2 Effectiveness of legislative measures for delivery of farmland biodiversity ............ 57 v 3.3 Effectiveness of CAP Pillar 2 measures for delivery of biodiversity ......................... 61 3.3.1 The agri-environment measure ......................................................................... 61 3.3.2 Other CAP Pillar 2 measures .............................................................................. 76 3.4 Effectiveness of CAP Pillar 1 measures for delivery of biodiversity ......................... 80 3.4.1 Pillar 1 direct payments ..................................................................................... 80 3.4.2 Pillar 1 cross compliance.................................................................................... 81 3.4.3 Pillar 1 eligibility rules ........................................................................................ 87 3.4.4 Other CAP Pillar 1 and other CAP measures ....................................................... 91 3.5 The effectiveness of the set-aside measure – the case of a re-designed policy response ............................................................................................................................. 93 3.6 Effectiveness of other EU policies for delivery of farmland biodiversity ................. 95 3.6.1 EU LIFE and LIFE+ programme ........................................................................... 95 3.7 Effectiveness of other national, voluntary, and market based measures for delivery of biodiversity .................................................................................................................... 96 4 FACTORS OF SUCCESS AND FAILURE ........................................................................... 98 4.1 Measure and Scheme Design at Member State level............................................... 98 4.1.1 Developing a coherent mix of policy measures .................................................. 99 4.1.2 Targeting and tailoring .................................................................................... 101 4.1.3 Accessibility and attractiveness of schemes ..................................................... 103 4.1.4 Payment Rates ................................................................................................ 104 4.1.5 Ongoing evaluation and review ....................................................................... 105 4.2 Farmer Attitudes and the Role of Advice and Training .......................................... 106 4.3 Institutional Factors ............................................................................................... 110 4.4 Implementation of other policies .......................................................................... 112 4.5 Other Intervening Factors ...................................................................................... 114 5 ACHIEVING BIODIVERSITY GOALS THROUGH AGRICULTURE WITHIN A SUSTAINABILITY PERSPECTIVE..................................................................................................................... 119 5.1 EU rural
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Surveillance of Grape Berry Moth, Paralobesia Viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera
    Surveillance of grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Virginia vineyards by Timothy Augustus Jordan Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Entomology Douglas G. Pfeiffer, Chair J. Christopher Bergh Carlyle C. Brewster Thomas P. Kuhar Tony K. Wolf March 21, 2014 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Remote, Vitis, Sex pheromone trap, Infestation, Degree-day, Landscape Chapter 3*****by Entomological Society of America used with permission All other material © 2014 by Timothy A. Jordan Surveillance of grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana Clemens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae), in Virginia vineyards by Timothy Augustus Jordan ABSTRACT My research addressed pheromone lure design and the activity of the grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana, flight and infestation across three years of study. In my lure evaluations, I found all commercial lures contained impurities and inconsistencies that have implications for management. First, sex pheromone concentration in lures affected both target and non-target attraction to traps, while the blend of sex pheromones impacted attraction to P. viteana. Second, over the duration of study, 54 vineyard blocks were sampled for the pest in and around cultivated wine grape in Virginia. The trapping studies indicated earliest and sustained emergence of the spring generation in sex pheromone traps placed in a wooded periphery. Later, moths were detected most often in the vineyard, which indicated that P. viteana emerged and aggregated in woods prior to flying and egg-laying in vineyards. My research supports use of woods and vineyard trap monitoring at both the height of 2 meters and in the periphery of respective environments.
    [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]
  • Table of Contents
    THE SUBLETHAL EFFECTS OF METHOXYFENOZIDE ON THE FIELD ORIENTATION AND COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR OF CYDIA POMONELLA (LINNAEUS) (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School University of Missouri-Columbia In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science by AMANDA KAY FRANKLIN Dr. Bruce Barrett, Thesis Supervisor December 2008 The undersigned, appointed by the Dean of the Graduate School, have examined the thesis entitled THE SUBLETHAL EFFECTS OF METHOXYFENOZIDE ON THE FIELD ORIENTATION AND COURTSHIP BEHAVIOR OF CYDIA POMONELLA (LINNAEUS) (LEPIDOPTERA: TORTRICIDAE) presented by Amanda Franklin a candidate for the degree of Master of Science and hereby certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Major Advisor: _________________________________________ Dr. Bruce Barrett Thesis Committee: _________________________________________ Dr. Richard Houseman _________________________________________ Dr. Kent Shelby _________________________________________ Dr. Mark Ellersieck ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank and dedicate my research, first and foremost, to my family for all their endless support, without which I would not have made it this far. I would also like to thank my advisor, Dr. Bruce Barrett, for this opportunity and guidance throughout my years as a student. In addition, I would like to show my great appreciation for committee members, Dr. Mark Ellersieck, for providing all his statistical consultation and both Dr. Richard Houseman and Dr. Kent Shelby for reviewing my manuscript. Thanks as well to Randy Thiessen for all his help during my field study. I truly appreciate all the students and friends I have made in the graduate entomology program. Their sense of humor, understanding, and passion for entomology inspired me not only as a student but also as a working entomologist.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Plant Cultivar of the Grapevine Moth Lobesia Botrana Affects the Life History Traits of an Egg Parasitoid
    Biological Control 50 (2009) 117–122 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Control journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ybcon Host plant cultivar of the grapevine moth Lobesia botrana affects the life history traits of an egg parasitoid J. Moreau a,*, A. Richard b, B. Benrey b, D. Thiéry c a Université de Bourgogne, Equipe Ecologie-Evolution, UMR 5561 Biogéosciences, 6 Bd Gabriel, F-21000 Dijon, France b Institut de Biologie, Université de Neuchâtel, CH-2007 Neuchâtel, Switzerland c UMR INRA-ENITAB en Santé Végétale (1065), Centre de Recherches de Bordeaux, Institut des Sciences de la vigne et du Vin, B.P.81, F-33883 Villenave d’Ornon Cedex, France article info abstract Article history: The quality and susceptibility of insect eggs for egg parasitoids may be affected by the diet experienced Received 30 September 2008 by the females that produce the host eggs. We tested the hypothesis that the host plant fed upon by an Accepted 27 March 2009 herbivore during the larval stages will determine the quality of the eggs laid by the adult for an egg par- Available online 5 April 2009 asitoid. We used the tritrophic system comprising five grape cultivars, the European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana and the parasitoid Trichogramma evanescens. Parasitoid performance in host eggs of dif- Keywords: ferent sizes and originating from five grape cultivars was determined. Overall, egg parasitism was higher Lobesia botrana on cultivars on which L. botrana laid larger eggs, which resulted in higher larval survival and faster devel- Trichogramma evanescens opment time of the wasps. One exception was found for the cultivar Pinot.
    [Show full text]
  • Minnesota's Top 124 Terrestrial Invasive Plants and Pests
    Photo by RichardhdWebbWebb 0LQQHVRWD V7RS 7HUUHVWULDO,QYDVLYH 3ODQWVDQG3HVWV 3ULRULWLHVIRU5HVHDUFK Sciencebased solutions to protect Minnesota’s prairies, forests, wetlands, and agricultural resources Contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. Prioritization Panel members ....................................................................................................... 4 III. Seventeen criteria, and their relative importance, to assess the threat a terrestrial invasive species poses to Minnesota ...................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Prioritized list of terrestrial invasive insects ................................................................................. 6 V. Prioritized list of terrestrial invasive plant pathogens .................................................................. 7 VI. Prioritized list of plants (weeds) ................................................................................................... 8 VII. Terrestrial invasive insects (alphabetically by common name): criteria ratings to determine threat to Minnesota. .................................................................................................................................... 9 VIII. Terrestrial invasive pathogens (alphabetically by disease among bacteria, fungi, nematodes, oomycetes, parasitic plants, and viruses): criteria ratings
    [Show full text]
  • Lobesia Botrana
    Lobesia botrana Scientific Name Lobesia botrana Denis & Schiffermüller, 1776 Synonyms: Phalaena vitisana Jacquin, 1788 Olindia rosmarinana Millière, 1866 Common Name(s) European grapevine moth, grape fruit moth, grape leaf-roller, grape vine moth, grape moth, vine Figure 1. Adult male of Lobesia botrana (Todd Gilligan, Colorado State University). moth Type of Pest Moth A Taxonomic Position Class: Insecta, Order: Lepidoptera, Family: Tortricidae Reason for Inclusion in Manual CAPS Target: AHP Prioritized Pest List - 2003 through 2009; PPQ Program Pest Pest Description European grapevine moth (EGVM) is primarily a pest on the flowers and B fruit of grape vines, but the moth has been known to infest stone fruit trees, privet, and olives as well. Survey for this pest in stone fruit, privet, and olives is important because, in general, these secondary hosts flower before grapes; and L. botrana can be found on these earlier hosts before moving over to grapes, its preferred host. Eggs: The egg of L. botrana is of the Figure 2. Larva (A) and pupa (B) of L. botrana (Instituto so-called ‘flat type’ with the long axis Agrario S. Michele All’ Adigen, HYPPZ Zoology). Last update: November 2014 1 horizontal and the micropyle at one end. Eggs are elliptical, flattened, and slightly convex. The egg measures about 0.65 to 0.90 mm x 0.45 to 0.75 mm. Freshly laid eggs are pale yellow, later becoming light gray and translucent with iridescent glints (opalescent). The chorion is macroscopically smooth but presents a slight polygonal reticulation in the border and around the micropyle (CABI, 2009; Gilligan et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera)
    RESEARCH Scientific Names of Pest Species in Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) Frequently Cited Erroneously in the Entomological Literature John W. Brown Abstract. The scientific names of several pest species in the moth meate the literature. For example, the subfamilial designation for family Tortricidae (Lepidoptera) frequently are cited erroneously in Olethreutinae (rather than Olethreutidae) was slow to be accepted contemporary entomological literature. Most misuse stems from the for many years following Obraztsov’s (1959) treatment of the group. fact that many proposed name changes appear in systematic treat- They even appear at both taxonomic levels (i.e., Olethreutinae and ments that are not seen by most members of the general entomologi- Olethreutidae) in different papers in the same issue of the Canadian cal community. Also, there is resistance among some entomologists Entomologist in the 1980s! (Volume 114 (6), 1982) Olethreutinae to conform to recently proposed changes in the scientific names of gradually was absorbed into the North America literature, espe- well-known pest species. Species names discussed in this paper are cially following publication of the Check List of the Lepidoptera Brazilian apple leafroller, Bonagota salubricola (Meyrick); western of America North of Mexico (Hodges 1983), which has served as a black-headed budworm, Acleris gloverana (Walsingham); and green standard for more than 20 years. budworm, Choristoneura retiniana (Walsingham). Generic names During preparation of a world catalog of Tortricidae (Brown discussed include those for false codling moth, Thaumatotibia leu- 2005), it became obvious to me that several taxonomically correct cotreta (Meyrick); grape berry moth, Paralobesia viteana (Clemens); combinations of important pest species were not in common use in pitch twig moth, Retinia comstockiana (Fernald); codling moth, the entomological literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Seven Species of Olethreutinae (Lepidoptera
    JAPB63_proof ■ 19 May 2015 ■ 1/6 Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity xxx (2015) 1e6 55 HOSTED BY Contents lists available at ScienceDirect 56 57 Journal of Asia-Pacific Biodiversity 58 59 60 journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/japb 61 62 63 Original Article 64 65 1 Seven species of Olethreutinae (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) new to 66 2 67 3 Korea 68 4 69 a b c,* 5 Q14 Jae-Cheon Sohn , Kyu-Tek Park , Soowon Cho 70 6 a 71 7 Department of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, USA Q1 b The Korean Academy of Science and Technology, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 72 8 c Department of Plant Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea 73 9 74 10 75 11 article info abstract 76 12 77 13 Article history: Seven species of Olethreutinae, namely, Bactra venosana (Zeller), Eudemis brevisetosa Oku, Gypsonoma 78 14 Received 10 March 2015 dealbana (Frölich), Hedya iophaea (Meyrick), Lobesia takahirai Bae, Pammene nemorosa Kuznetsov, and 79 Received in revised form 15 Phaecadophora fimbrata Walsingham are reported from Korea for the first time. Photos of adult habitus 80 20 April 2015 16 and genitalia are provided if available. Accepted 23 April 2015 81 Copyright Ó 2015, National Science Museum of Korea (NSMK) and Korea National Arboretum (KNA). 17 Available online xxx 82 Production and hosting by Elsevier. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// 18 83 creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 19 Keywords: 84 20 fauna 85 host plants 21 86 22 new record Tortricoidea 87 23 88 24 89 25 90 26 Introduction In this paper, we report seven species of Olethreutinae new to 91 27 Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Biological Control of Invasive
    Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Biological Control Biological Control of Invasive Plants in the Eastern United States Roy Van Driesche Bernd Blossey Mark Hoddle Suzanne Lyon Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team—Morgantown, West Virginia United States Forest FHTET-2002-04 Department of Service August 2002 Agriculture BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF INVASIVE PLANTS IN THE EASTERN UNITED STATES Technical Coordinators Roy Van Driesche and Suzanne Lyon Department of Entomology, University of Massachusets, Amherst, MA Bernd Blossey Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY Mark Hoddle Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, CA Richard Reardon Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, USDA, Forest Service, Morgantown, WV USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2002-04 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank the authors of the individual chap- We would also like to thank the U.S. Depart- ters for their expertise in reviewing and summariz- ment of Agriculture–Forest Service, Forest Health ing the literature and providing current information Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, West on biological control of the major invasive plants in Virginia, for providing funding for the preparation the Eastern United States. and printing of this publication. G. Keith Douce, David Moorhead, and Charles Additional copies of this publication can be or- Bargeron of the Bugwood Network, University of dered from the Bulletin Distribution Center, Uni- Georgia (Tifton, Ga.), managed and digitized the pho- versity of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, (413) tographs and illustrations used in this publication and 545-2717; or Mark Hoddle, Department of Entomol- produced the CD-ROM accompanying this book.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Frank G. Zalom
    Award Category: Lifetime Achievement The Lifetime Achievement in IPM Award goes to an individual who has devoted his or her career to implementing IPM in a specific environment. The awardee must have devoted their career to enhancing integrated pest management in implementation, team building, and integration across pests, commodities, systems, and disciplines. New for the 9th International IPM Symposium The Lifetime Achievement winner will be invited to present his or other invited to present his or her own success story as the closing plenary speaker. At the same time, the winner will also be invited to publish one article on their success of their program in the Journal of IPM, with no fee for submission. Nominator Name: Steve Nadler Nominator Company/Affiliation: Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis Nominator Title: Professor and Chair Nominator Phone: 530-752-2121 Nominator Email: [email protected] Nominee Name of Individual: Frank Zalom Nominee Affiliation (if applicable): University of California, Davis Nominee Title (if applicable): Distinguished Professor and IPM specialist, Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California, Davis Nominee Phone: 530-752-3687 Nominee Email: [email protected] Attachments: Please include the Nominee's Vita (Nominator you can either provide a direct link to nominee's Vita or send email to Janet Hurley at [email protected] with subject line "IPM Lifetime Achievement Award Vita include nominee name".) Summary of nominee’s accomplishments (500 words or less): Describe the goals of the nominee’s program being nominated; why was the program conducted? What condition does this activity address? (250 words or less): Describe the level of integration across pests, commodities, systems and/or disciplines that were involved.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobesia Botrana Poster
    The European Grapevine Moth, Lobesia botrana Recommendations for Sustainable and Effective Resistance Management Insecticide Resistance Action Committee www.irac-online.org . Lobesia botrana - Background Life Cycle Insecticide Resistance Management Lobesia (=Polychrosis) botrana (Denis et Schiffermuller) (Lepidoptera: Adult Egg Control of Lobesia botrana may require multiple insecticide applications in Tortricidae), also known as the European grapevine moth (EGVM) is one season. Foliar sprays are mostly targeted to the control of the 2nd traditionally a major vineyard pest throughout Europe, the Middle East, generation in wine grapes, and the 2nd and 3rd generations in table grapes. North and West Africa, and Southern Russia. Native of South Europe, it was Normally 1 to 3 applications are needed in wine grapes and up to 6 in late- more recently reported in Chile and Argentina (2008) and found in the maturing table grapes. United States (Napa Valley) in October 2009. Lobesia botrana is regulated as a quarantine pest in a number of countries. Insecticide Resistance Management (IRM) Larva Sustainable IRM management programs are based on the integration of as many pest management tools as possible. Use insecticides only when needed, based on established thresholds and alternating effective insecticides belonging to different MoA groups. The adoption of all applicable control measures (including mating disruption) together with MoA group alternation remains best IRM strategy, as it minimizes the selection pressure for resistance. Cocoon Insecticide Mode of Action (MoA) Window Approach Lobesia botrana can have two to four generations per year depending L. botrana species range on the climatic conditions and the date of grape harvest. EPPO (2015) EPPO Global Database https://gd.eppo.int L.
    [Show full text]
  • Near East and North Africa Regional Synthesis for the State of the World’S Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture
    REGIONAL SYNTHESIS REPORTS NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA REGIONAL SYNTHESIS FOR THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE NEAR EAST AND NORTH AFRICA REGIONAL SYNTHESIS FOR THE STATE OF THE WORLD’S BIODIVERSITY FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS ROME, 2019 Required citation: FAO. 2019. Near East and North Africa Regional Synthesis for The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture. Rome. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-131823-2 © FAO, 2019 Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/ legalcode/legalcode). Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited.
    [Show full text]