Seasonal occurrence of vine pests in commercially treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley in the Province,

M. De Villiers* & K.L. Pringle Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology, Faculty of AgriSciences, University of Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1, Matieland, 7602 South Africa

The population fluctuations of attacking table grapes were studied in 12 commercially treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley in South Africa for three years. Sampling was conducted by inspecting different plant parts and using a variety of traps. Planococcus ficus (Signoret) males in the pheromone traps started increasing during Decem- ber,to reach a peak at the end of February. Cordon infestation preceded bunch infestation by three to five months, the latter occurring from about January or February. Thrips, mainly Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande), caught on blue sticky traps were active during spring and early summer. Damage to the berries occurred about four weeks after thrips were recorded on the sticky traps. Phlyctinus callosus Boh. was recorded under fluted cardboard bands tied around the stems of vines from early October,with the first bunch damage recorded towards the end of October . More acerbella (Walker) were caught in pheromone traps during the cool winter months than during the hotter summer months. Damage to the bunches started during November and declined during January and February, only to increase again towards the end of February and March. Although Helicoverpa armigera (Hübner) moths were caught in pheromone traps, no damage ascribed to this was recorded. The only phytophagous was Tetranychus urticae Koch, which was active throughout the fruiting season. The most common predatory mite was Euseius addoensis (Van der Merwe & Reyke). Key words: vine pests, generic monitoring, temporal occurrence.

INTRODUCTION South Africa is the second largest table grape Hence, it is essential that a monitoring system is producing country in the Southern Hemisphere, sensitive enough to detect low pest levels, since Chilé being the largest. During the 2003/2004 even low levels may lead to fruit rejections. production season there were just over 12 300 ha Knowledge of when the pests are likely to occur of table grapes in South Africa. The total produc- will be helpful in this regard in that it will give tion was 269 427 tons with a value of about R1.90 insight as to when monitoring should be initiated. billion (approximately US $270 million). The total The two most important phytosanitary pests of value of table grape exports was R1.78 billion or table grapes in the Hex River Valleyare the banded just over 93 % of the value of the crop (Anon. 2004). fruit weevil, Phlyctinus callosus Boh. (Coleoptera: However, table grapes in South Africa are infested Curculionidae), and pear leafroller, Epichoristodes by a number of insect pests which are not present acerbella (Walker) (: ), in countries to which they are exported, such as (Pryke 2005). These pests also cause damage to the the United States of America and Israel, giving rise bunches, which may not always be of economic to phytosanitary concerns. In addition, in these importance. Phlyctinus callosus is nocturnal and markets there are legislative restrictions on the shelters in bunches during the day. It is included presence of insecticide residues on fruit, which when the grapes are packed, resulting in rejections complicates the management of these , and of export consignments when detected by the of those that are not of phytosanitary importance, inspectors (Pryke 2005). Larvae of E. acerbella bore but which cause economic damage. In the case of into the berries resulting in rejections of export phytosanitary pests there is zero tolerance and consignments when detected. control measures are applied preventatively. Economic pests include the grapevine mealybug, Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudo- *To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] coccidae), a key pest in South African vineyards

African Entomology 15(2): 241–260 (2007) 242 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

(De Klerk 1981; Myburgh et al. 1986; Walton & the fruit itself. Along with the European red mite, Pringle 2004). It has caused substantial economic Panonychus ulmi Koch, T. urticae is considered to be losses in California, the Middle East, South America, the most important pest of grapevines in Europe Pakistan, South Africa and the Mediterranean (Candolfi et al. 1992). It is also the most important (Joyce et al. 2001). The grapes become infested with spider mite pest of grapevines in dry summer mealybugs and are contaminated by their wax regions of Europe (Schruft 1985), being especially secretions, egg sacs and honeydew, with blemishes important in Spain (Flaherty & Wilson 1988a). resulting in unmarketable fruit (Nel 1983; Myburgh Threshold levels of indirect pests may also be et al. 1986). Severe infestation inhibits the normal determined and knowledge of when they occur is ripening processes, resulting in lack of taste and also important. colour, eventually causing the grapes to wither This study was conducted to gain information (De Klerk 1981; Myburgh et al. 1986; Blumberg et al. on the temporal occurrence of table grape pests in 1995). Yellowing of the leaves and premature leaf commercially treated vineyards in South Africa, drop may occur (Myburgh et al. 1986; Walton & creating a base from which to develop monitoring Pringle 2004). The vine becomes weakened, vigour systems for the management of insect pests on decreases and its lifespan is shortened (De Klerk table grapes. Some of the sampling methods used 1981; Myburgh et al. 1986; Joyce et al. 2001; Walton in the present study were developed by other & Pringle 2004). researchers, but have never been combined into Another economic pest of table grapes is Western one generic monitoring system with which the flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande) whole table grape pest complex can be sampled. (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), which causes halo spot damage. Halo spots are formed during MATERIAL AND METHODS oviposition in the berries when a small dark scar forms at the puncture site and the surrounding Study sites tissue becomes whitish, making the fruit of certain The study was conducted on three farms in the white cultivars unsightly and unmarketable Hex River Valley in the Western Cape Province of (Weaver 1976; Flaherty & Wilson 1988b; Jensen South Africa, namely Klipheuwel (19°31’E, et al. 1992). On large-berried cultivars these spots 33°30’S), Boplaas (19°36’E, 33°30’S) and De Vlei may crack when the grapes grow, allowing entry Boerdery (19°41’E, 33°26’S). At each farm two of rot organisms (Flaherty & Wilson 1988b; Jensen blocks of Barlinka, a late season, black cultivar, and et al. 1992). two blocks of Dauphine, a late season, white The African bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera cultivar, were used. Each block was approximately (Hübner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), is a sporadic one to two hectares in size. Twenty evenly distrib- pest of grapes, causing severe damage when uted plots, each consisting of five vines between epidemics occur (De Klerk 1981). Most damage is two trellising posts, were selected per block, giving caused early in the season when the larvae feed on a total of 100 vines per block. Therefore, a total of buds, blossoms, leaves and berries (De Klerk 1981; 1200 vines were used in the study. Farmers were Blomefield et al. 1986). Deep round holes are usually not willing to leave blocks unsprayed and continued eaten into the berries which may be consumed their spray programmes in all the sampling blocks. entirely (Blomefield et al. 1986). The fruit forms See Appendix A for a list of chemicals sprayed. cork tissue over the injured places, inhibiting subsequent normal development, leading to Temperature data malformation (Blomefield et al. 1986). When Temperature data were obtained from the ARC – mature, or almost mature, fruit is infested, the Institute of Soil, Climate and Water (AgroMet Sec- wounds remain as relatively large corky holes or tion), Pretoria. depressions (Blomefield et al. 1986). In certain table grape producing areas, there are Sampling indirect pests, such as the two-spotted spider mite, Sampling, consisting of physical plant inspection Tetranychus urticae Koch (: Tetranychidae), as well as use of traps and bands, commenced in which causes leaf damage and ultimately affects May 2002 and continued to mid-April 2005. Plant plant growth (Pringle et al. 1986) and yield inspections started with the cordons during the (Prischmann et al. 2002) without directly damaging dormant stages of the vine. Cordon inspection De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 243 consisted of examining the top fork of each of the Pheromone capsules were placed in yellow delta five vines per plot for the presence of P. ficus to a traps, containing a white sticky pad, at a density of distance of within 30 cm of the main stem. one trap per block of one to two hectares to monitor After bud break, the shoots and leaves became the activity levels of E. acerbella, H. armigera and visible and these were inspected in addition to the P. ficus. Separate traps were used for each of these cordons. The distal 15 cm of one shoot per vine pests. The traps for E. acerbella and H. armigera was examined for shoot infestation by P. ficus and were placed at the height of the bunches shoot damage caused by P. callosus. One leaf per (T. Blomefield, pers. comm.) and at the height of vine was examined for the presence of leaf-feeding the cordon for P.ficus (Walton et al. 2003), with the arthropods such as spider , Tetranychus spp. openings parallel to the row direction in order to (: Tetranychidae) and P. ficus. After avoid chemicals being sprayed into the trap. examination in the field, the leaves were placed in and H. armigera traps were brown paper bags and transported, in cool bags, to inspected at weekly intervals. Planococcus ficus the laboratory, where they were stored in a cold traps were placed in the vineyards during July room prior to being examined. The leaves were 2003, when the traps became commercially avail- brushed with a brushing machine to dislodge the able. The first data were recorded during August insects and mites (Sabelis 1985) and all the devel- 2003. These traps were inspected at two-weekly opmental stages of the mites and their predators intervals during the fruit season (September to the were counted with the aid of a microscope. Leaf end of April during 2003 and 2004) (Walton et al. samples were taken from October to the end of 2003; Walton et al. 2004) and monthly during the April, when the fruit season ended. From April rest of the year (Walton et al. 2003). onwards the quality of the leaves rapidly deterio- Sampling occasionally had to be postponed due rated until leaf fall and it became too difficult to to rain. A handheld computer with Cybertracker brush the brittle leaves with the brushing machine. software (http://www.cybertracker.co.za) was After shoot and leaf emergence, the inflorescences used to record data obtained from vine inspections, of the vine became visible. Inspection of the latter trap catches and band monitoring in the field. started as soon as the inflorescences appeared and These data were downloaded to a computer and continued through flowering and berry set, until imported into Access, a relational database (Dowling harvest of the ripe bunches. Inspection of the 2000). Appropriate ‘queries’ were developed in inflorescence will be referred to as bunch inspection. order to prepare the data for analysis. One bunch per vine was examined for the presence of insects and damage caused by insects such as Temporal patterns of occurrence P. ficus, P. callosus, F. occidentalis, E. acerbella and Plant inspections were conducted at intervals of H. armigera. two weeks in each vineyard as described above. Trap and band monitoring continued through- The data (insects per sample unit and percentage out the year. Fluted cardboard bands (Nel 1983; infestation) for each two-weekly cycle from the 12 Nel & Addison 1993) were tied around the stems of vineyards were averaged and plotted against one vine per plot to trap P.callosus. After inspection, date, which was determined as the day that fell in the weevils were removed and the cardboard the middle of the sampling cycle. These will be band was moved to the next vine in the plot. referred to as the combined data. The same was The activity of F. occidentalis was monitored done for P.ficus males caught in pheromone traps. using a blue sticky trap (Gaum & Giliomee 1994; Epichoristodes acerbella and H. armigera trap catches Chu et al. 2000) in four to five of the 20 plots. The were recorded every week in all 12 vineyards. sticky traps were placed outside the canopy, as this These weekly trap catches were averaged and is the position where most thrips are caught plotted on inspection date. (E. Allsopp, pers. comm.) Monitoring of the plants and inspection of the Synchrony between phytophagous mites and cardboard bands and sticky traps were done at their predators two-weekly intervals. The sampling dates of the Cross correlation analysis (Chatfield 1984) was 12 vineyard blocks were not the same, as they performed between the phytophagous mites and could not be sampled on one day. Two sets of six their predators to determine whether or not the blocks each were sampled in alternate weeks. population increase of predatory mites occurred 244 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Fig. 1.Mean monthly temperatures in the Hex River Valley from the onset of the 2002/2003 season until the end of the 2004/2005 season. after that of the phytophagous mites. This was RESULTS performed on the combined data for each of the three seasons, as well as on the data from each Temperature data individual block for the three seasons. Temperatures in the Hex River Valley started to rise during spring, with mean monthly tempera- Synchrony in abundance for different sampling tures above 20°C usually recorded from Novem- methods for each pest ber to March (Fig. 1). Maximum temperatures Cross correlations (Chatfield 1984) between were recorded during February during all three bunch damage and the number of F. occidentalis seasons, after which they declined and reached a caught on the sticky traps were performed on the minimum during July to August (Fig. 1). combined data, as well as on the data from the individual blocks. The same was done for E. acer- Planococcus ficus bella caught in the pheromone traps and for Cordon, shoot, leaf and bunch infestation are P. callosus recorded under the cardboard bands. presented in Fig. 2B,C. In one of the blocks, no The objective was to determine whether or not infestation was observed. In three of the blocks, no there was a time lag between trap catches and shoot infestation was observed and in one of the bunch damage and to quantify any time lag. blocks there was no bunch or shoot infestation. However, P. ficus males were recorded in traps in Simplifying pheromone trapping for Planococcus all 12 blocks. For this reason, data on damage from ficus all 12 blocks were included in Fig. 2B,C. Higher Planococcus ficus cordon inspections should start levels of infestation were observed in the when more than 65 P. ficus males per pheromone Dauphine vineyards at Klipheuwel (not shown trap are recorded over two weeks (Walton et al. here, but observed during the study). Planococcus 2003). The sticky pads used in the pheromone ficus cordon infestation preceded bunch infesta- traps have a counting grid, consisting of 36 blocks. tion during all the seasons. The time lag between The amount of time spent counting P. ficus males cordon and bunch infestation ranged from four on the sticky pads in the pheromone traps could months during the 2002/2003 season to five be reduced by counting the number of grid blocks months during the 2003/2004 season and three with P.ficus males in the field and relating it to the months during the 2004/2005 season. The first actual number of P.ficus males. Therefore, for each bunch infestation was recorded during January pheromone trap and sampling date, the total 2003 and January 2005 in the 2002/2003 and number of P. ficus males found in the pheromone 2004/2005 seasons, respectively,and February 2004 trap was regressed on the number of blocks in the during the 2003/2004 season (Fig. 2B). Planococcus grid on the sticky pad (grid blocks) in which P.ficus ficus leaf infestation occurred more or less at the was recorded during physical inspection. same time as bunch infestation (Fig. 2B,C). Shoot De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 245

Fig. 2. Seasonal occurrence of Planococcus ficus from the onset of the 2002/2003 season until the end of the 2004/2005 season.A, Pheromone trap catches;B, bunch infestation;C, cordon infestation (thick solid line), leaf infes- tation (broken line), shoot infestation (thin solid line). 246 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Fig. 3.Relationship between the total number of Planococcus ficus males per pheromone trap and the number of grid blocks on the sticky pad on which P.ficus males were present. ln(Y ) = 0.637 + exp[0.479 × {ln(X )}]; r = 0.97. infestation occurred later than bunch infestation not possible to identify all the thrips on the sticky during the 2002/2003 season, earlier during the traps, since they could not be suitably prepared for 2003/2004 season and was absent from all twelve the necessary microscopic examination. As a result, blocks during the 2004/2005 season (Fig. 2B,C). only thrips that could be easily distinguished from During the 2002/2003 season, when infestation F. occidentalis due to apparent differences in size, levels were highest, bunch, leaf and shoot infesta- abdominal shape and colour were not counted. tion showed a peak during March, just after the Thrips were recorded from all 12 blocks and were warmest month of the year (Fig. 1). active mainly during spring and summer (Fig. 4A). The presence of P. ficus males in the pheromone During all seasons, thrips numbers on the traps traps preceded bunch infestation by four months started to increase from about September or Octo- during the 2003/2004 season and four and a half ber, reaching a peak during November (Fig. 4A) months during the 2004/2005 season (Fig. 2A,B). when the mean monthly temperatures started to During both seasons, numbers of P. ficus males in increase above 20°C (Fig. 1). the pheromone traps increased during December The presence of thrips on the blue sticky traps and peaked towards the end of February (Fig. 2A). preceded halo spot damage caused by F.occidentalis Bunch and cordon infestation were highest during during all the seasons (Fig. 4A). The latter also the 2002/2003 season. Bunch infestation was occurred in all blocks and was found from mid- lowest during the 2003/2004 season, while cordon November onwards. Thrips activity as well as halo infestation was lowest during the 2004/2005 spot damage was lowest during the 2002/2003 season (Fig. 2B,C). season and highest during the 2004/2005 season There was a good non-linear relationship between (Fig. 4A). the actual number of P. ficus males found in the There was a good correlation between thrips pheromone traps and the number of blocks in caught on sticky traps and halo spot damage to the grid of the sticky pads on which P. ficus was the bunches with a time lag of four weeks (two recorded (Fig. 3). When P.ficus males were present sampling cycles) between trap catches and bunch in 26 and 27 grid blocks, the number of males damage (r = 0.90; P < 0.001) (Fig. 4B) for the counted in the pheromone traps was 63 and 67, combined data. For data from the individual respectively. blocks the time lag was also usually four weeks with correlations varying from r = 0.56 (P < 0.001) Frankliniella occidentalis to r = 0.94 (P < 0.001). However, in two blocks Not all of the thrips found on the sticky traps there was a lag of only two weeks (one sampling were F. occidentalis. The thrips complex included cycle) with correlations of r = 0.69 (P < 0.001) and both phytophagous and predatory thrips. It was r = 0.80 (P < 0.001). In one of the Dauphine blocks De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 247

Fig. 4. A, Seasonal occurrence of Frankliniella occidentalis from the onset of the 2002/2003 season until the end of the 2004/2005 season. Sticky trap catches (solid line), halo spot bunch damage (broken line). B, Cross correlation between the average number of thrips on the blue sticky traps and halo spot bunch damage caused by F.occidentalis for the combined data. One time interval = two weeks. at Boplaas, no significant time lag was observed. time lags of two weeks were observed were not The time lags did not seem to be influenced by sprayed against F. occidentalis. The two Dauphine sprays applied against F. occidentalis. During the blocks at Boplaas received the same sprays, yet 2002/2003 season, sprays against F. occidentalis in one of the blocks there was no time lag and were applied only in the vineyards at Boplaas (a in the other block, a time lag of four weeks was total of four blocks) and during the 2003/2004 and observed. 2004/2005 seasons only in the Dauphine vineyards at Boplaas (a total of 2 blocks) (Table A1). In the Phlyctinus callosus Barlinka vineyards at Boplaas where sprays No P.callosus damage was recorded in the blocks against F. occidentalis were applied, time lags of at Klipheuwel and a total of only four weevils were four weeks were observed as was the case with found under the cardboard bands at this farm. many of the vineyards where sprays against During the 2002/2003 season P.callosus activity was F. occidentalis were not applied. The blocks where low in all the blocks and almost no damage was 248 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Fig. 5. A, Seasonal occurrence of Phlyctinus callosus from the onset of the 2003/2004 season until the end of the 2004/2005 season. Average P.callosus per trap or band (broad solid line), percentage bunch damage (thin solid line), percentage shoot damage (broken line). B, Cross correlation between P.callosus bunch damage and the number of weevils found under the cardboard for the combined data. One time interval = two weeks. recorded. Consequently, these data were not combined data (Fig. 5B). However, the cross corre- included in Fig. 5A. During the remainder of the lations for individual blocks were only significant seasons P. callosus was found under the cardboard for data from five of the blocks. These correlations bands from the beginning of October, while peak varied from r = 0.42 (P = 0.011) to r = 0.69 (P < numbers were recorded during November (Fig. 5A). 0.001) with time lags between zero (no lag) and This preceded bunch and shoot damage, which eight weeks (four sampling cycles). Sprays against were first recorded towards the end of October or P. callosus were not applied in any of the blocks the beginning of November, while peak damage and could therefore not have influenced the time levels were recorded from November to January lags (Table A1). (Fig. 5A) when the mean monthly temperatures began to rise above 20°C (Fig. 1). Epichoristodes acerbella The cross correlation between the number of Epichoristodes acerbella was found in traps of all weevils under cardboard bands and weevil bunch 12 blocks and activity peaked during damage was strong at a time lag of two weeks spring, while the first bunch damage caused by (one sampling cycle) (r = 0.76, P < 0.001) for the the larvae, observed in 10 of the 12 blocks, was De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 249

Fig. 6. A, Seasonal occurrence of Epichoristodes acerbella from May 2002 until the end of the 2004/2005 season. Pheromone trap catches (solid line), bunch damage (broken line). B, Cross correlation between numbers of E. acerbella caught in pheromone traps and bunch damage for the combined data.One time interval = two weeks. recorded during the end of November (Fig. 6A). this season, bunch damage was highest (Fig. 6A). Epichoristodes acerbella moths were more active Thus, low moth activity did not necessarily result during the cooler times of the year (May to in low bunch damage. When looking at data from November) than during the warmer months individual blocks (not shown here, but observed (December to April) (Figs 1, 6A). During the during the study), there was no consistent correla- 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons, moth activity tion between moth incidence and bunch damage. started to decline from the end of October on- Bunch damage occurred at a later stage than the wards (Fig. 6A). This decline was earlier during the presence of moths in the traps. However, the 2002/2003 season than during the subsequent two correlations between moth counts and larval seasons. There was a decline in bunch infestation damage were weak, although significant (r = 0.30; by the larvae towards January and February, after P = 0.020) at a time lag of 24 weeks (12 sampling which incidence of larvae in the bunches in- cycles) for the combined data (Fig. 6B). For data creased towards the end of February and March from the individual blocks, a significant time lag (Fig. 6A). The lowest moth activity during the was observed in only six of the blocks, varying cooler months (May to November) was observed between 10 weeks (r = 0.63, P = 0.002) and 22 during the 2002/2003 season. However, during weeks (r = 0.27, P = 0.037). 250 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Fig. 7. Seasonal occurrence of Helicoverpa armigera from the onset of the 2002/2003 season until the end of the 2004/2005 season.

Helicoverpa armigera predatory mite Euseius addoensis (Van der Merwe Helicoverpa armigera was recorded in traps in all & Ryke) (: Phytoseiidae) made up vineyards. During the 2002/2003 and 2004/2005 more than 85% of the predatory mite complex seasons H. armigera numbers peaked during during all the seasons in the study (Table 1). The spring and early summer (Fig. 7), but numbers in rest of the predatory mite complex consisted of traps were low throughout the 2003/2004 season. Neoseiulus californicus (McGregor) (Mesostigmata: No bunch, bud or foliage damage, caused by the Phytoseiidae), Tydeus grabouwi (Meyer & Ryke) larvae, was recorded. (Prostigmata: ) and an undescribed phyto- seiid in the Typhlodromus (Mesostigmata: Phytophagous and predatory mites Phytoseiidae) (Table 1). The latter was only found The phytophagous mites found on vine leaves from the 2003/2004 season onwards. The predatory were all T.urticae. These were observed in all vine- mites were active from mid-October. Numbers yards and were active from October to April, with increased towards the end of the season (Fig. 8). the highest numbers recorded during the warm- Tydeus grabouwi is not an important predator (K.L. est time of the year (Figs 1, 8). During the 2003/2004 Pringle, pers. obs.) and was therefore not included and 2004/2005 seasons, the average T.urticae popu- in the data used in Fig. 8. lation reached a peak during January. During No acaracides were applied. However, mite the 2002/2003 season this peak occurred during populations are influenced by organophosphates February, but numbers were lower than during and pyrethroids, which have a detrimental effect the following seasons (Fig. 8). on predatory mites like E. addoensis, causing popu- Predatory mites were found in all vineyards. The lations of T.urticae to increase in the absence of this

Fig. 8. Seasonal occurrence of Tetranychus urticae (solid line) and the predatory mite complex (broken line) on vine leaves for the (A) 2002/2003, (B) 2003/2004 and (C) 2004/2005 seasons. De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 251

Table 1. Percentage occurrence of each predatory mite recorded on vine leaves in the Hex River Valley for the 2002/2003, 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 seasons.

Season Euseius Neoseiulus Typhlodromus Tydeus addoensis californicus species grabouwi

2002/2003 97.79 1.95 – 0.25 2003/2004 89.08 3.99 5.03 1.91 2004/2005 86.11 0.87 10.85 2.17 natural enemy (Schwartz 1990). Organophosphates there were differences between seasons showed sprayed in the trial blocks were Prothiofos, that such a predetermined spray programme may Chlorpyrifos, Mevinphos and Mercapthothion lead to either unnecessary sprays or under spraying. (Table A1). The organophosphate sprays were Due to the succession of P.ficus infestation where mostly applied early in the season, during August cordons are the first plant part to be infested and September before leaf sampling started. during the dormant stages of the vine, followed by Tetranychus urticae populations did not start to bunch infestation a few months later,cordon infes- increase until December, with predatory mite tation can be used as an early warning for bunch populations increasing from January or February infestation. This was also observed by Walton onwards (Fig. 8). A few organophosphate sprays (2003). Leaf and shoot infestation cannot be used were also made during the period from October to as an early warning for bunch infestation since it January (Table A1). Upon inspection of the indi- did not precede the latter, and it would not be vidual blocks (not shown here, but observed necessary to include such inspections in a moni- during the study), there was no instance where an toring system. Walton et al. (2003) recommended organophosphate application lead to a decrease in the use of pheromone traps for P. ficus, starting the predatory mite population. trap inspections during October. Instead of count- There was a time lag between the occurrence of ing all P.ficus males found in the pheromone traps T. urticae and the predatory mites on the vine as Walton et al. (2003) did, the number of grid leaves (Fig. 8). A cross correlation analysis on the blocks with males present can be counted, thereby combined data indicated that this lag was five to saving time. The presence of P. ficus males in 26 six sampling cycles or 10 to 12 weeks (Fig. 9). The grid blocks on the sticky pad correlated with the only significant correlation was for data from the threshold of 65 males per trap determined by 2002/2003 season (2002/2003 season: r = 0.71, P = Walton et al. (2003). Even though P. ficus counts in 0.020; 2003/2004 season: r = 0.52, P = 0.185; the pheromone traps did not start increasing until 2004/2005 season: r = 0.35, P = 0.363). Cross corre- December, trap inspections should start during lation analysis of data from individual blocks October or about one month after bud break to showed significant time lag correlations in some of make sure the threshold is not exceeded prior to the blocks, varying from 10 weeks (r = 0.74, P = sampling. When males are found in 26 grid blocks, 0.014) to 14 weeks (r = 0.79, P = 0.021) for the cordon inspections should commence. 2002/2003 season, six weeks (r = 0.66, P = 0.037) to The number of thrips caught on blue sticky traps eight weeks (r = 0.70; P = 0.034) for the 2003/2004 gave a good indication of the extent of F. occi- season, and no significant correlations for the dentalis bunch damage that could be expected four 2004/2005 season. weeks later. This was however not always the case for data from the individual blocks, indicating that DISCUSSION bunch damage predictions can only be made in general, but not for individual blocks. Despite this An important, yet not unexpected, observation time-lagged correlation between thrips on sticky was that for all the pests or damage caused by traps and bunch damage, the use of the sticky these pests, there were differences in occurrence traps for predicting damage is not recommended, between the three seasons. Many producers follow as it was extremely difficult to identify thrips on a set recommended spray programme without the sticky traps. Halo spot damage by thrips on the making use of a monitoring system. The fact that berries has been recorded early in the season, from 252 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Fig. 9. Cross correlation between Tetranychus urticae and the predatory mites on vine leaves for the combined data during the (A) 2002/2003, (B) 2003/2004 and (C) 2004/2005 seasons. One time interval = two weeks. the onset of bloom until fruit set (Jensen et al. 1992). this will only be useful in determining the infesta- However, in the present study it was detected only tion status and not to give growers an indication of from mid-November onwards. Hence, by the time when to apply control measures to prevent dam- the damage was observed, it was too late to apply age. control measures. Bunch inspections should, Phlyctinus callosus shoot and bunch damage however, not be excluded, since they can provide occurred simultaneously, thus shoot damage the producer with information on the infestation cannot be used as an early warning system for status of the vineyard. Bunch inspections for bunch damage and need not be included during thrips damage should start during November or monitoring. Bunch damage predictions based on from berry set onwards. Information gained from band counts cannot be made in individual blocks. De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 253

This was similar to observations in apple orchards areas in South Africa. In areas where there is a (Nel 1983). However, the presence of weevils history of H. armigera damage, trap inspections for under the cardboard bands could be used to iden- moths should start during September or from bud tify vineyards where P. callosus was present and break onwards, with the onset of the fruit season. consequently where phytosanitary problems may In the present study, T. urticae was not regarded arise for the U.S.A. and Israeli markets. Monitoring as an important pest, due to low population using bands should start during the mid-September numbers. There are, however, certain table grape or from bud break onwards in order to ensure that producing areas where this pest causes substantial the onset of weevil activity is recorded. The presence economic losses. Tetranychus urticae was recorded of weevils can be expected from October onwards, at an earlier stage than in Europe where these as observed during this study, as well as by Barnes mites did not colonize the foliage prior to summer et al. (1986), who observed weevil emergence in (Schruft 1985). In the present study, population apple orchards during spring. Monitoring of the levels of T. urticae in the Hex River Valley during bunches should be initiated during the beginning October were very low, with higher population of October or from flower separation or even levels occurring a few months later. However, flowering onwards, since damage to the stems of Schwartz (1990) recorded high numbers of T. urti- flowers, which will become berries, may already cae on vine leaves in the Hex River Valley during occur at this stage. October. Sabelis (1985) recommended initiating Although E. acerbella moths were found in the sampling for phytophagous mites within about a pheromone traps before bunch damage by the month of the new leaves unfolding. Thus, in areas larvae was recorded, the number of E. acerbella with a history of economic damage caused by moths found in the pheromone traps did not pro- T. urticae, sampling should be initiated during vide an indication of the amount of bunch damage October or one month after bud break. Since farm- that could be expected. Thus, the pheromone ers do not have brushing machines or micro- traps could only be used to identify vineyards scopes, sampling for T. urticae should be based on where this pest was present and consequently presence-absence sampling, where leaves are where phytosanitary problems might arise. Adult merely identified as infested or uninfested (De E. acerbella activity recorded in the present study Villiers 2006). Workers should be trained to distin- was similar to previous findings (Blomefield & Du guish tetranychid mites from other small arthropods Plessis 2000) in that it also increased from May such as thrips. onwards. However, in the present study it did Predatory mites in the family Phytoseiidae can not remain at a high level only until August as be divided into four main groups or types based observed by Blomefield & Du Plessis (2000), as on their life styles, with type I being specialized high moth counts were recorded until October. predators of Tetranychus mites, type II being selec- The decline from October onwards may have been tive predators of mites in the family Tetranychidae, due to an increase in temperatures, since this moth type III being generalist predators and type IV spe- is sensitive to high temperatures (Bolton 1979; cialized pollen feeders and generalist predators De Villiers 2006). A decline in larval activity was (McMurtry & Croft 1997). Type I phytoseiids can observed later during the warm January to February rapidly increase in numbers when there is an period. Trap inspections for E. acerbella moths increase in spider mite populations. However, this should start during May, since high moth activity may lead to overexploitation of the spider mites during winter months prior to the fruit season and they may die or leave the area because they may lead to larval activity later in the fruit season. cannot feed on alternate food sources (McMurtry Bunch inspections should commence during the & Croft 1997). No type I phytoseiids were found in beginning of November or from berry set onwards. the present study. Type II, III and IV phytoseiids As was the case with E. acerbella, pheromone are not dependent on Tetranychus mites. Type II traps for H. armigera can only be used to identify predators can feed on any mites in the family vineyards where this pest is present and where Tetranychidae; Type III, on a range of small arthro- phytosanitary problems may arise if larvae are pods, including insects; Type IV can exploit pro- found in the bunches. Although no damage was tein sources that are not of origin, such as recorded during the present study, larvae have pollen and fungal spores. In a biological control been found in bunches in other grape producing system, Types III and IV have the advantage of 254 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

Table 2. Summary of sampling procedures for monitoring population levels of the main table grape pests in the Hex River Valley.

Pest Sampling method Frequency Phenological stage or time period

Planococcus ficus Pheromone traps Biweekly One month after bud break (October) to harvest Cordon inspections Biweekly After males have been found in 26 grid blocks on sticky pad Bunch inspections Biweekly Two months after first cordons were infested Frankliniella occidentalis Bunch inspections Biweekly Berry set (November) to harvest Phlyctinus callosus Cardboard bands Biweekly Bud break (mid-September) to harvest Bunch inspections Biweekly Flower separation (October) or flowering to harvest Epichoristodes acerbella Pheromone traps Weekly Dormancy (May) to harvest Bunch inspections Biweekly Berry set (November) to harvest Helicoverpa armigera Pheromone traps Weekly Bud break (September) to harvest Bunch inspections Biweekly Berry set (November) to harvest Tetranychus urticae Leaf inspections Biweekly One month after bud break (October) to harvest being able to establish and survive in the absence should start in areas where this pest is considered phytophagous mites. The most abundant preda- to be a problem. This is also the time when band tory mite found in this study, E. addoensis, is a type inspections for P. callosus should commence. IV phytoseiid (McMurtry & Croft 1997). It is able to About one month after bud break, trap inspections keep T. urticae below economically damaging for P. ficus should commence. Cordon inspections levels in vineyards where no organophosphate for P. ficus should start after males are recorded in and pyrethroid sprays are applied (Schwartz 26 grid blocks on the sticky pad. Although a lag of 1990). Neoseiulus californicus is rated between a at least three months between cordon and bunch type II and a type III phytoseiid (McMurtry & infestation was observed in the present study, Croft 1997; Croft et al. 1998; Jung & Croft 2001), so it bunch inspections for P. ficus can commence about can feed on arthropods other than spider mites two months after the first cordon infestation is and it may also feed on pollen (Croft et al. 1998). observed. This will ensure that unacceptable Tydeid mites will feed on various plant and ani- levels of bunch infestation do not occur. Leaf mal food sources (Gerson et al. 2003). Although inspections for T. urticae should also start about T. grabouwi is not an important predator, it one month after bud break if the latter is regarded may serve as a food source for some of the other as a problem. At flower separation or flowering, predatory mites (Gerson et al. 2003). The predatory bunch inspections for P. callosus should start. At mites may have contributed to the reduction of berry set, bunch inspections for F. occidentalis and T. urticae populations towards the end of the E. acerbella should commence. season. Even though H. armigera bunch damage was not Information gained here regarding the time at observed in the present study, bunch inspections which pests appear in commercially treated vine- for this pest should also start at berry set in areas yards can now be used to develop a monitoring where it is considered to be a problem. However, system for the table grape pest complex in the Hex in a generic monitoring system, one system will be River Valley. The next step will be to determine used for all pests. Therefore, for pests causing sampling errors and ultimately the reliability of bunch damage, inspections should start as soon as decisions regarding control intervention. Results damage can be expected. In the case of this study, obtained in this study indicated that monitoring this was at flower separation, which was the time for the different pests should start at different when damage by P.callosus could be expected. The times following phenological stages of the vine information on time of season when bunch (Table 2). During the dormant stages of the vine, damage by the other pests were first recorded, can trap inspections for E. acerbella should commence. be used as an indication of when to expect damage At bud break, trap inspections for H. armigera by these pests. De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 255

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS their cooperation during the study, the Deciduous The National Research Foundation (NRF) pro- Fruit Producers’ Trust for funding towards the vided financial assistance. Opinions expressed research and the following personnel from and conclusions arrived at, are those of the authors the Department of Conservation Ecology and and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF. Entomology, University of Stellenbosch: J.M. The authors would also like to thank the owners Heunis for help with identification of predatory and managers of the farms Klipheuwel, Boplaas mites, J. Liebenberg for helping with counting and De Vlei Boerdery for use of vineyards and mites and A. Johnson for trap inspections.

REFERENCES

ANONYMOUS, 2004. Key Deciduous Fruit Statistics 2004. ment system for table grapes in the Hex River Valley. Compiled by Optimal Agricultural Business Systems Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stellenbosch, for Deciduous Fruit Producers’ Trust, , South Af- Stellenbosch. rica. DOWLING, N. 2000. Database Design & Management BARNES, B.N., DAIBER, K.C. & DONALDSON, J.M. using Access. Continuum, London. 1986. Fruit-eating and leaf-eating beetles. In: FLAHERTY, D.L. & WILSON, L.T. 1988a. Part II. Mites Myburgh, A.C. (Ed.) Crop Pests in Southern Africa Vol. and insects that cause disease-like symptoms in 1. Deciduous Fruit, Grapes and Berries. 35–42. Plant grapes: Mites. In: Pearson, R.C. & Goheen, A.C. (Eds) Protection Research Institute, Department of Agri- Compendium of Grape Diseases. 60–61. The American culture and Water Supply, Pretoria. Phytopathological Society, Minnesota. BLOMEFIELD, T.& DU PLESSIS, N. 2000. Pear leafroller: FLAHERTY, D.L. & WILSON, L.T. 1988b. Part II. Mites a simple matter of weed control? Deciduous Fruit and insects that cause diseaselike symptoms in Grower 50(6): 12–13. grapes: thrips. In: Pearson, R.C. & Goheen, A.C. (Eds) BLOMEFIELD, T.L., DAIBER, K.C. & BOLTON, M.C. Compendium of Grape Diseases. 61–62. The American 1986. Fruit-eating and leaf-eating caterpillars. In: Phytopathological Society, Minnesota. Myburgh, A.C. (Ed.) Crop Pests in Southern Africa Vol. GAUM, W.G.& GILIOMEE, J.H. 1994. Preference of west- 1. Deciduous Fruit, Grapes and Berries. 26–34. Plant ern flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis (Thysa- Protection Research Institute, Department of Agri- noptera: Thripidae), and greenhouse whitefly, Tria- culture and Water Supply, Pretoria. leurodes vaporariorum (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae), for BLUMBERG, D., KLEIN, M. & MENDEL, Z. 1995. differently coloured sticky traps. Journal of the South- Response by encapsulation of four mealybug species ern African Society for Horticultural Sciences 4(2): 39–41. (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) to parasitization by GERSON, U., SMILEY, R.L. & OCHOA, R. 2003. Mites Anagyrus pseudococci. Phytoparasitica 23: 157–163. (Acari) for Pest Control. Blackwell Science, Oxford. BOLTON, M.C. 1979. Some effects of temperature, JENSEN, F.L., FLAHERTY, D.L. & LUVISI. D.A. 1992. humidity and larval diet on the life cycle of the South Thrips. In: Flaherty, D.L., Christensen, L.P., Lanini, African carnation worm, Epichoristodes acerbella W.T., Marois, J.J., Phillips, P.A. & Wilson, L.T. (Eds) (Walker) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Journal of the Grape Pest Management. 2nd Edition. 193–201. Divi- Entomological Society of Southern Africa 42: 129–135. sion of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Univer- CANDOLFI, M.P., BOLLER, E.F. & WERMELINGER, B. sity of California. 1992. Spatio-temporal distribution of Panonychus ulmi JOYCE, A.L., HODDLE, M.S., BELLOWS, T.S. & Koch (Acari, Tetranychidae) on Guyot-trained grape- GONZÁLEZ, D. 2001. Oviposition behaviour of vines. Journal of Applied Entomology 114: 244–250. Coccidoxenoides peregrinus, a parasitoid of Planococcus CHATFIELD, C. 1984. The Analysis of Time Series: An Intro- ficus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 98: 49–57. duction. 3rd Edition. Chapman and Hall, London. JUNG, C. & CROFT, B.A. 2001. Ambulatory and aerial CHU, C-C., PINTER, P.J., HENNEBERRY, T.J., UMEDA, dispersal among specialist and generalist predatory K., NATWICK, E.T., WEI, Y-A., REDDY, V.R. & mites (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Environmental Entomol- SHREPATIS, M. 2000. Use of CC traps with different ogy 30: 1112–1118. trap base colors for silverleaf whiteflies (Homoptera: McMURTRY, J.A. & CROFT, B.A. 1997. Life-styles of Aleyrodidae), thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), and phytoseiid mites and their roles in biological control. leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Journal of Annual Review of Entomology 42: 291–321. Economic Entomology 93: 1329–1337. MYBURGH, A.C., SWART, P.L. & URBAN, A.J. 1986. CROFT, B.A., MONETTI, L.N. & PRATT, P.D. 1998. Mealybugs and Australian bugs. In: Myburgh, A.C. Comparative life histories and predation types: are (Ed.) Crop Pests in Southern Africa Vol. 1. Deciduous Neoseiulus californicus and N. fallacis (Acari: Phyto- Fruit, Grapes and Berries. 43–47. Plant Protection seiidae) similar type II selective predators of spider Research Institute, Department of Agriculture and mites? Environmental Entomology 27: 531–538. Water Supply, Pretoria. DE KLERK, C.A. 1981. Wingerdplae. In: Burger, J. & NEL, P.J. 1983. Deciduous Fruits and Vines. Pests and Deist, J. (Eds) Wingerdbou in Suid-Afrika. 433–462. Diseases and their Control. David Philip, . Maskew Miller, Pretoria. NEL, P.J.& ADDISON, M.F.1993. The development of an DE VILLIERS, M. 2006. Development of a pest manage- integrated pest management programme in apple 256 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007

orchards in Elgin, South Africa and the implications Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) and a for integrated fruit production. Acta Horticulturae 347: predaceous mite on table grapes in the Hex River 323–326. Valley. South African Journal of Enology & Viticulture PRINGLE, K.L., RUST, D.J. & MEYER, M.P.K. 1986. 11: 33–37. Plant-eating mites. In: Myburgh, A.C. (Ed.) Crop Pests WALTON, V.M.2003. Development of an integrated pest in Southern Africa Vol. 1. Deciduous Fruit, Grapes and management system for vine mealybug, Planococcus Berries. 62–68. Plant Protection Research Institute, ficus (Signoret), in Vineyards in the Western Cape Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, Province, South Africa. Ph.D. dissertation, University Pretoria. of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. PRISCHMANN, D.A., CROFT, B.A. & LUH, H-K. 2002. WALTON, V.M., DAANE, K.M. & PRINGLE, K.L. 2004. Biological control of spider mites on grape by phyto- Monitoring Planococcus ficus in South African vine- seiid mites (Acari: Tetranychidae, Phytoseiidae): em- yards with sex pheromone-baited traps. Crop Protec- phasis on regional aspects. Journal of Economic tion 23: 1089–1096. Entomology 95: 340–347. WALTON, V.M.& PRINGLE, K.L. 2004. Vine mealybug, PRYKE, J.S. 2005. Insect Contaminants in Table Grapes. Planococcus ficus (Signoret) (Hemiptera: Pseudo- M.Sc. thesis, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch. coccidae), a key pest in South African vineyards: a SABELIS, M.W.1985. Sampling techniques. In: Helle, W. review. South African Journal for Enology & Viticulture & Sabelis, M.W. (Eds) Spider Mites. Their Biology, 25: 54–62. Natural Enemies and Control. World Crop Pests Vol. 1A. WALTON, V.M., PRINGLE, K.L. & DAANE, K.M. 2003. 337–350. Elsevier, New York. Geïntegreerde beheer van wingerdwitluis (Plano- SCHRUFT,G.A. 1985. Grape. In: Helle, W.& Sabelis, M.W. coccus ficus) met behulp van feromoonvalletjies in (Eds) Spider Mites. Their Biology, Natural Enemies and wingerde in Suid-Afrika. Wynboer: ‘n Tegniese Gids vir Control. World Crop Pests Vol. 1B. 359–366. Elsevier, Wynprodusente 168: 15–16. New York. WEAVER, R.J. 1976. Grape Growing. John Wiley & Sons, SCHWARTZ, A. 1990. Pesticide effect on populations of New York.

Accepted 22 July 2007 De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 257

Bacillus Bacillus

Bacillus thuringiensis sprays (Barlinka only), 1 week apart, during late January sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from early November to

Bacillus thuringiensis

Bacillus thuringiensis sprays (Barlinka only) during late January and mid-February sprays, at 2- to 3-weekly intervals, from late November to mid-February (Dauphine only) September (Dauphine); 1 Prothiofos sprayspray (Dauphine (Barlinka only) only) during during late early October; January 1 Mevinphos October (Dauphine) November to mid-December (Dauphine) PLUSmid-January 2 sprays (Dauphine only) during early and apart, during early and mid-January 2 Endosulfan sprays, 1 to 2 weeks apart, during early and mid-October; 5 3 Endosulfan sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from mid-October to mid-November; 6 2 Endosulfan sprays, 2 weeks apart, during late September & mid-October (1 Dauphine vineyard thuringiensis thuringiensis mid-December PLUS 2 var. Kurstakivar. Kurstaki 5 sprays from early October to late January, at intervals 2 of sprays, 6 2½ weeks, weeks 2 apart, weeks, during 6 mid- weeks and and late 2 December weeks var. Kurstaki 4 sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from late November to late December (Barlinka) or from early var. Kurstaki 3 sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from early November to early December PLUS 2 sprays, 2 weeks

Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus thuringiensis ProthiofosChlorpyrifosChlorpyrifosBromopropylateFormetanate and sugarChlorpyrifos; Prothiofos; Mevinphos 1 spray 2 during Chlorpyrifos mid-November 2 sprays, sprays, 2 2Endosulfan weeks weeks apart, apart, during during mid- mid- 2 and and sprays, 1 late 2 late spray 2 August weeks August during (Barlinka) sprays, apart, 2 late or during weeks October late early apart, (Dauphine) August and or during and late early early early August November and (Barlinka (Barlinka) mid-October only); 1 spray during mid-September Formetanate and sugarEndosulfanSpinosad 2Chlorpyrifos sprays, 2 weeks 1 apart, sprayEndosulfan; during during late mid-November October (Dauphine and only) var. early Kurstaki November (Barlinka) or 1 spray during late Chlorpyrifos; Mevinphos 1Endosulfan; spray during late October var. Kurstaki 1 spray during early November (Dauphine only) Chlorpyrifos 1 spray duringEndosulfan; late August 1 (Barlinka) Chlorpyrifos or spray early during September early sprays, (Dauphine) August; at 1 2-weekly Mevinphos intervals, spray from during late mid-January October to late December PLUS 2 monthly 1 spray during early August var. Kurstaki without first spray); 4 spp. Mercapthothion & proteinspp. Mercaptothion & Protein 1 spray during late November (Dauphine only) 1 spray during mid-December

P.ficus P.ficus P.ficus Colomerus vitis E. acerbellaF.occidentalis H. armigeraP.ficus Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus thuringiensis Colomerus vitis E. acerbellaF.occidentalis Bacillus thuringiensis Colomerus vitis F.occidentalis E. acerbellaP.ficus E. acerbella Bacillus thuringiensis Ceratitis P.ficus E. acerbella Ceratitis P.ficus E. acerbella . Insecticides sprayed against pests at Klipheuwel (KH), Boplaas (BP) and De Vlei Boerdery (DV). 03/04 03/04 04/05 04/05 04/05 03/04 Table A1 FarmKH Season Pest 02/03 Spray programmes were not available Chemicals Time and frequency BP 02/03 DV 02/03 258 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007 s 2 & 3), Pyraclostrobin s 1 & 2), Sulphur (sprays 3 to 5) r & 1 spray during mid-March (Barlinka) or late y & 1 during mid-March s 1 & 2), Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb (spray 3, Barlinka) or s 4 & 5), Fenarimol (spray 6), Sulphur (spray 7), Fenarimol (spray 8), Cop- Mancozeb (spray 3, Dauphine), Mancozeb (sprayout 4) spray (Dauphine 4) vineyards with- following order: Spiroxamine(Pyraclostrobin (spray was used for(spray 6, spray Barlinka) 4 or in Kresoxim-methylFenarimol (spray Dauphine (sprays 6, 8 vineyards), Dauphine), to Sulphur Pyraclostrobin 11),after (spray Sulphur spray 7), (spray 12 12) (mid-February) PLUS 1 Sulphur spray, 3 weeks ing order: Mancozeb (spray (spray per oxychloride/Sulphur (sprayoxychloride/Sulphur (spray 9), 12), Fenarimol Fenarimolsprays, 1 (spray (sprays during 13) 10 late PLUS Februar 2 & Folpet/Sulphur 11), Copper March (Dauphine) ing order: Spiroxamine, SulphurCymoxanil/Propineb & & Mancozeb (sprays SulphurPropineb 1 (spray 5), (spray to Kresoxim-methyl & 4), 3), Copper ammoniumPenconazole Trifloxystrobin, (spray carbonate Kresoxim-methyl 7, (spray 6), Barlinka) & orate Penconazole Cymoxanil/ & (spray Copper 7, ammonium carbon- Dauphine),(spray 9, Penconazole Barlinka) or (spray Penconazole (spray 8), 9, Dauphine),phur Copper Copper oxychloride/Sul- (sprays oxychloride/Sulphur 10 & 11) (Dauphine vineyards without spray 11) lowing order: Mancozeb,Cymoxanil/Propineb & Spiroxamine Sulphur & (spraySulphur 2), Sulphur Trifloxystrobin, & Cymoxanil/Propineb, (spray Iprodione(spray 1), 4), Penconazole (spray (sprays Spiroxamine, 5 to 3), 7),(spray Kresoxim-methyl (spray Cymoxanil/Propineb 9) 8), Azoxystrobin PLUS & 1(spray Kresoxim-methyl 10) Copper ammonium carbonate spray 3 days afterfollowing order: spray 9 Pyrifenox (spray 1), Sulphur (spray mid-October; 1 Pyraclostrobinspray (Dauphine spray only) during during late mid-November; December 1 Azoxystrobin 1 spray during early March 12 sprays, at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, from early October to late January, in the 4 sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from mid-October to late November, in the follow- 11 sprays, at 2-weekly intervals, from mid-October to early March, in the follow- 9 sprays, at two-weekly intervals, from mid-October to early February, in the fol- 13 sprays, at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, from early October to late January, in the 1 Mancozeb spray during early October; 1 Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb spray during 1 spray during mid-Novembe bin; Trifloxystrobin; Cymoxanil/Propineb; Kresoxim-methyl; Copper ammo- nium carbonate; Penconazole; Cop- per oxychloride/Sulphur Cymoxanil/ Propineb; Trifloxystro- bin; Iprodione; Kresoxim-methyl; Penconazole, Azoxystrobin; Copper ammonium carbonate Fenarimol; Copper oxychloride/Sul- phur; Folpet/Sulphur Strobulirine; Azoxystrobin Spiroxamine; Sulphur; Pyraclostro- Kresoxim-methyl; Fenarimol Mancozeb; Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb Iprodione Spiroxamine; Sulphur; Mancozeb; Mancozeb; Spiroxamine; Sulphur; Pyrifenox; Sulphur; Pyraclostrobin; Mancozeb; Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb; Iprodione but may include the following:mildew powdery (white rust) (sprays 1,(both 2, 4–6, Barlinka 7 and(both Barlinka Dauphine), and 8, Dauphine),and 10, 9 11) downy mildew(Dauphine only)) (sprays 2–6, 7 but may include the following:mildew powdery (white rust) (sprays 1–9), downy mildew (sprays 1–4, 9, 10) androt Botrytis (spray 3) Downy mildew Botrytis rot Downy mildew Botrytis rot 03/04 Powdery mildew (white rust) 03/04 Reasons for spraying were not given, 04/05 Reasons for spraying were not given, . Fungicides sprayed against diseases at Klipheuwel (KH) and Boplaas (BP). BP 02/03 Powdery mildew (white rust) KH 02/03 Spray programmes were not available Table A2 Farm Season Disease Fungicide Time and frequency De Villiers & Pringle: Occurrence of vine pests in treated vineyards in the Hex River Valley 259 ,5&7)and s 4 & 5), Sul- s 3 & 4), Sulphur PLUS 1 Folpet/Sulphur spray during late (Dauphine only), at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, s3&4) s 1 & 2), Kresoxim-methyl (spray s 1 & 2), Cymoxanil/Mancozeb (spray 3) s 1 & 2), Trifloxystrobin (spray 3), Fenarimol (spray ,4&6)OR11sprays PLUS 7 sprays (Barlinka only), at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, from late s6&7) s3&4) following order: Spiroxamine(spray (spray 3), Kresoxim-methyl 1), (sprayFenarimol Sulphur (spray 4), 6) PLUS Copper (spray 4 sprays, oxychloride/Sulphurlate 2), at January, in 1-weekly (spray the intervals, Pyraclostrobin following from 5), order: Fenarimol early (spray Januaryphur 1), (spray Copper to 2), oxychloride/Sul- Fenarimol (spray February early November; 1 Azoxystrobin spray during early December 6 sprays, at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, from late October to early December, in the 1 Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb spray during late October; 11 spray Mancozeb during spray mid-December (Barlinka) during or late February (Dauphine) phur (spray 6), Fenarimol (spray(spray 7), 10), Sulphur Fenarimol (spray (spray 8), 11), Fenarimol(sprays Sulphur 14 (spray (spray 9), & 12), 15) Sulphur Fenarimol (spray 13),3 Sulphur sprays, at 2-weekly intervals,order: from Mancozeb mid-October (spray to mid-November, in the following 7 sprays, at 1-following to order: 2-weekly Sulphur intervals, (spray (spray from 5, early Barlinka) October or(spray to Copper mid-December, oxychloride/Sulphur in (sprayDecember the 5, to Dauphine), late Fenarimol February,Fenarimol (sprays alternating 2 between Sulphurfrom (sprays late December 1, to early 3 March, alternating9) between and Fenarimol (sprays Sulphur 1, 3, (sprays 5, 2, 7 4, & 6,4 8, sprays, 10 at & 11) 1-following to order: 2-weekly Mancozeb intervals,(spray (spray from 1); early Cymoxanil/Mancozeb October (Spray to1 2), mid-November, spray in during Mancozeb the early Januaryand PLUS 1 2 during sprays early (Barlinka March only), OR 1 1 spray during (Dauphine late only) February during mid-March 15 sprays, at 1- to 2-weekly intervals, fromorder: mid-October Sulphur to early (spray March, in the following bin; Kresoxim-methyl; Copperchloride/Sulphur; oxy- Fenarimol; Folpet/ Sulphur Azoxystrobin Spiroxamine; Sulphur; Pyraclostro- Fosetyl-Al/Mancozeb; Mancozeb; Iprodione Sulphur; Kresoxim-methyl; Copper oxychloride/Sulphur; Fenarimol Mancozeb; Cymoxanil/Mancozeb Iprodione Sulphur; Trifloxystrobin; Fenarimol Mancozeb; Cymoxanil/Mancozeb Downy mildew Botrytis rot Downy mildew Downy mildew Botrytis rot 04/05 Powdery mildew (white rust) 03/04 Powdery mildew (white rust) . Fungicides sprayed against diseases at De Vlei Boerdery (DV). DV 02/03 Powdery mildew (white rust) Farm Season DiseaseTable A3 FungicideFarm Season Disease Time and frequency Chemical Time and frequency 260 African Entomology Vol. 15, No. 2, 2007 ,4&6) s4&5) s 3 & 5), followed by another Sulphur spray during early March 8 sprays, at 1- tofollowing 2-weekly order: intervals, Sulphur from (sprays lateTrifloxystrobin 1 September (spray to to 4), late 3) Kresoxim-methyl December, (one (spray in(spray Dauphine 7), 5), the Fenarimol vineyard (spray Fenarimol 8) without PLUS (spray 6 sprayfrom 6), sprays 1), (Barlinka mid-January Sulphur only), to at 2- late to January, 6-dayand alternating intervals, Fenarimol between (spray Sulphur (sprays 1,OR 2 5 Sulphur spraysearly-February (Dauphine only), at 1-weekly intervals,2 from mid-January Mancozeb to sprays,Cymoxanil/Mancozeb 2 spray during weeks late October;early apart, 1 December Phosphorous during PLUS, acid spray in lateJanuary during Dauphine and September vineyards, 1 1 Dioxy-MP14 & Azoxystrobin sprayAzoxystrobin during spray mid-October; late sprays, during 1 January early 2 OR,followed in weeks Barlinka by apart, vineyards, 5 2 during sprays,following at late order: 1- December Dioxy-MP14 to(spray and 3), 3-day (spray Sulphur early intervals, (spray 1), from January, Azoxystrobin mid-1 to (spray spray late during 2), mid-November February, PLUSlate in Dioxy-MP14 February 1 the (Barlinka) spray during early February (Dauphine) or Sulphur; Trifloxystrobin; Kresoxim- methyl; Fenarimol Mancozeb; Cymoxanil/Mancozeb; Phosphorous acid; Dioxy-MP14; Azoxystrobin; Sulphur Iprodione Downy mildew Botrytis rot 04/05 Powdery mildew (white rust) Farm Season Disease Chemical Time and frequency