RESEARCH REPORTS

he most important pest of grape in eastern North TAmerica is the grape berry (Taschenberg et al., 1974). This insect feeds almost exclusively on wild and cultivated grapes (Luciani, 1987). Egg laying is restricted to the edge vines Research for the fi rst generation, and then each consecutive generation moves further inside the vineyard (Powell and Wylie, 1959). This behavior has resulted in the Reports recommendation to restrict insecticide sprays to the vineyard edge against the fi rst generation hatch (Johnson et al., 2002). First generation larvae infest grape fl owers, bud clusters, and im- Effects of Grape a reduced insecticide program with mature berries (Taschenberg, 1945). Exosex-GBM dispensers for mat- Larvae in succeeding generations bur- ing disruption, or no pesticide use Berry Moth in abandoned vineyards. row directly into one or more grape diversity and carabid (Carabidae) berries while maturing, creating wormy Management density in each vineyard was sampled and unmarketable grapes. Generations with pitfall traps. Grape berry moth per season range from one or two in Practices and fl ight was monitored by pheromone southern Ontario (Luciani, 1987) to traps. Grape berry moth–infested three or four in Arkansas (Johnson Landscape on grapes were collected from the fi eld et al., 2002). The female moth pro- Arthropod Diversity and reared in the lab until parasites or duces a sex pheromone identifi ed as emerged. There were signifi - (Z)-9-dodecenyl acetate (Roelofs et cant differences in arthropod diversity al., 1971). in Grape Vineyards between vineyard sites, with Shannon diversity index values generally higher There are several grape berry moth in the Southern in woods and managed vineyards with pest management programs being fol- conventional sprays and/or mating lowed by growers. The conventional United States disruption than in abandoned sites. pest management program relies upon Shannon index values for arthropod crop phenology for timing of insecti- diversity were signifi cantly lower at cides. Some growers improved spray Joe R. Williamson and the vineyard edge in Searcy (recently timing by using pheromone-baited abandoned), vineyard center and edge Donn T. Johnson1 traps to detect fi rst moth catch (biofi x) in Bald Knob (abandoned), and the and thereafter accumulating degree- vineyard edge in Hindsville (con- days to predict larval hatch. Traps are ventional sprays). In 2003, carabid ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. Endopiza density was signifi cantly highest in initially placed along a wooded edge viteana, pheromone, mating disrup- the edge and center of the Hindsville adjacent to the vineyard early in the tion, parasitism vineyard (high insecticide usage) and season, then moved towards the vine- SUMMARY. Agricultural monocultures the abandoned Bald Knob vineyard yard center as the season progresses with intensive pest management had signifi cantly lowest carabid (Lewis and Johnson, 1999). Mating practices reduce diversity and create density. Apparently, insecticide sprays disruption has reduced, and sometimes instability in agricultural ecosystems, resulted in more food on the vineyard replaced, insecticide use in vineyards. thereby increasing reliance upon fl oor for carabids. The vineyard fl oor The use of 988.4 pheromone dispens- pesticides. This study compares the management was too variable among ers per hectare (400 per acre) reduced infl uence of three insect pest man- vineyards to deduce its effect on grape berry moth pheromone trap carabid density. With some exceptions, agement programs in vineyards on catch by >92% and gave comparable arthropod diversity as well as parasit- low-spray and no-spray vineyards ism and control of grape berry moth generally showed greater diversity larval damage to that of insecticide- (Endopiza viteana), the key pest of and parasitism of grape berry moth treated vineyards (Dennehy, 1991; grapes ( labrusca) in eastern than high-spray vineyards. Parasitism Trimble et al., 1991). Exosex (Exosect North America. Vineyards in Bald was higher in some high-spray vine- Ltd., Southampton, U.K.) pheromone Knob, Hindsville, Judsonia, Lowell, yards than in low-spray with mating dispenser is a new auto-confusion sys- and Searcy, Ark., were managed with disruption vineyards. Grape berry tem that results in mating disruption. a range of intensity of insecticide use, moth fl ight and berry damage were The male is attracted to and enters the more dependent on spray timing than dispenser, then becomes contaminated intensity. This study demonstrates with an electrostatic Entostat powder Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas, that insect pest management pro- 319 Agriculture Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701 grams impact arthropod diversity and charged with sex pheromone. The 1To whom reprint requests should be addressed. E-mail parasitism. Further testing is needed contaminated male exits the dispenser address: [email protected] to determine why parasitism of grape and becomes a point source of sex There is no confl ict-of-interest or fi nancial disclosure berry moth decreased in the vineyards pheromone and attracts other males. statement to be made. using the mating disruption tactic. This auto-confusion system needs to

232 ● April–June 2005 15(2) be evaluated for mating disruption of cally signifi cant. The grape berry moth placement of Exosex-GBM dispens- pests such as the grape berry moth. is only present in the eastern U.S. ers. The 8.1-ha (20 acres) Hindsville Findings on biological control of Therefore, a more intensive insecticide- ‘Concord’ vineyard (planted in 2000) grape berry moth have been variable. based pest management program is was conventionally managed with one Taschenberg (1945) observed 3.4% to required in the east than in California insecticide spray applied to edge vines 57.2% parasitism of grape berry moth vineyards. Little scientifi c research has in 2003 and four and three whole larvae and pupae. These levels of overall been conducted on the effects of grape vineyard insecticide sprays applied parasitism are insuffi cient to provide berry moth management practices on in 2002 and 2003, respectively. The adequate control of grape berry moth arthropod diversity in vineyards. 5.7-ha (14 acres) Lowell ‘Concord’ (Dozier et al., 1932; Garlick, 1935; The purpose of this study was to vineyard was conventionally managed Gleissner, 1943; Ingerson, 1920; Lu- compare fi ve Arkansas vineyards with in 2002, receiving the highest insecti- ciani, 1987). The complex of grape differing pest management programs cide use of all vineyards (three whole berry moth parasitoids in New York for arthropod diversity, carabid density, vineyard sprays). includes 22 species of Ichneumonidae, temporal changes in grape berry moth Mating disruption was used in 13 Braconidae, three Chalcidae, and trap catch and cluster damage, and combination with early season insec- one Bethylidae (Taschenberg, 1945). overall percent larval parasitism. ticide sprays for grape berry moth Gleissner (1943) found better control control in three vineyards. In 2003, of grape berry moth by predators, Materials and methods the management in the Lowell vineyard especially such as ants (Formi- Five vineyards from northwest was altered to only two whole vineyard cidae) and ground beetles or carabids. and north-central Arkansas followed sprays in combination with mating However, no known studies have been slightly different pest management disruption by Exosex-GBM dispensers. conducted on natural enemies of grape programs: conventional insecticides; Two additional whole vineyard sprays berry moth in the southern U.S. insecticides combined with Exosex- were applied both years to the upper Sustainable agricultural practices, GBM mating disruption dispensers; canopy to prevent canopy damage by such as integrated pest management, and abandoned (no insecticide use). japanese beetle (Popillia japonica) in often result in greater biodiversity and Only three insecticides were used in July. An 8.1-ha Searcy ‘Venus’ vineyard stability of the ecosystem (Brown and these vineyards: carbaryl (Sevin 4F; was involved in a pilot grape IPM Schmidt, 2001; Pimentel, 1961; Risch Bayer Crop Science, Research Triangle project in 2001 and 2002 and the et al., 1983; Striegler et al., 1997). Park, N.C.), fenpropathrin (Danitol 2.4-ha (6 acres) Judsonia ‘Mars’ and Carabid beetles and rove beetles or 2.4 EC; Sumitomo Chemical Co., To- ‘Sunbelt’ vineyard was added in the staphylinids (Staphylinidae) are of- kyo), and azinphos-methyl (Guthion project in 2002 and 2003. This pro- ten used as a common indicator of Solupak 50% SP; Bayer Crop Science). gram consisted of one or two insecticide biodiversity (Dennis and Fry, 1992) Table 1 contains vineyard block de- sprays applied to the vineyard edge in and environmental changes in natural scriptions and timing of insecticides May followed by one or two whole and modifi ed ecosystems. Shah et al. in April for several climbing cutworm vineyard sprays applied in June or July. (2003) compared pitfall trap samples species (Noctuidae) and May through Spray recommendations were based on in organic and conventional cereal July for grape berry moth control and weekly pheromone trap catch and daily farms and noted 79.7% were carabids and 16.7% were staphylinids. Dritschilo Table 1. Descriptions of the Arkansas grape vineyards (all Vitis labrusca cultivars) and Wanner (1980) caught signifi cantly sampled in 2002 and 2003 and corresponding timings of insecticide applications greater numbers of carabids in organic and placement of Exosex dispensers for grape berry moth mating disruption. corn (Zea mays) fi elds (no commercial Date Insecticide use fertilizers or pesticides) than in con- ventionally managed corn fi elds. In Vineyard planted Cultivars 2002 2003 the Pacifi c northwestern U.S., Epstein Lowell <1980 Concord carbarylz: fenpropathrin: 20y May, et al. (2000) found more carabids, 18y, 25x May, 21, 28x June, spiders, and other predators of key 13, 28x June, 7, 15w July; insect pests in apple (Malus ×domes- 8 July to 15w Aug. Exosex: 13 June tica) orchards using mating disruption Judsonia 1995 Sunbelt, carbaryl: 1y May, carbaryl: 2, 29x May; with selective insecticides than under Venus 2x June Exosex: 4 June conventional management. In West Virginia, Brown and Schmitt (2001) Hindsville 2000 Concord azinphos-methyl: carbaryl: 3x Apr.; observed higher numbers of predators 21, 31x May, fenpropathrin: 19y May, and parasitoids in apple plots receiving 13, 25x June 28x June, 14x July no pest management tactics, although Searcy 1982 Venus carbaryl: abandoned, no spray large numbers of mite predators and 14y, 25x May certain parasitoids were observed in pest management plots. In California, Bald Knob 1998 Venus abandoned, no spray abandoned, no spray zInsecticides included: carbaryl (Sevin; Bayer Crop Science, Research Triangle Park, N.C.), fenpropathrin (Danitol; Mayse et al. (1998) observed a trend Sumitomo Chemical Co., Tokyo), azinphos-methyl (Guthion; Bayer Crop Science), and Exosex-GBM (Exosect of higher levels of pests, predators, Ltd., Southampton, U.K.). and parasitoids in grapes managed by yApplication made only to the vineyard edge (perimeter). xApplication made to the whole vineyard. organic than conventional methods, wWeekly sprays applied only to canopy above the top trellis wire to the whole vineyard to control japanese although numbers were not statisti- beetle.

● April–June 2005 15(2) 233 RESEARCH REPORTS cumulative degree-days (Lewis and wire helped keep vertebrate insecti- at 28 °C (82.4 °F) and 16 h light/8 Johnson, 1999). In 2001, insecticide vores from removing specimens. Each h darkness. Records were kept of the control of the second and later genera- vineyard had one pitfall trap installed total number of infested berries and tions of grape berry moth in the Searcy at each vineyard site: under a vine in the number of emerging parasitoids vineyard were replaced by an early June the vineyard center, two rows in from per vineyard. Each parasite was iden- placement of Isomate-GBM dispensers the vineyard edge, and at the wooded tifi ed to family. Comparisons were (Pacifi c Biocontrol Corp., Vancouver, edge (only in Searcy and Lowell). The made to determine which vineyard had Wash.) at 988.4 dispensers/ha for other vineyards had no wooded edge. the highest rate of grape berry moth mating disruption. In 2002, the Searcy Specimens were collected either weekly parasitism. vineyard had insecticide sprayed once or bi-weekly throughout the growing The Shannon diversity index and to the edge and once to the whole season, preserved in 75% ethanol and evenness formulas (Pielou, 1977) were vineyard but Isomate-GBM was not returned to the laboratory for identi- used to give diversity ratings for pitfall used. The Judsonia vineyard received fi cation and tabulation. trap data at each vineyard site. Greater one edge spray and one full vineyard In 2003, pitfall traps of a different order diversity was indicated by higher spray in 2002 compared to 2003 when design than used in 2002 were placed in index values and evenness values close it received two full vineyard sprays. each vineyard site location (three repli- to 1. The mean of the order diversity In 2003, Exosex-GBM dispenser was cates per location). Each trap consisted and carabid density estimates for these evaluated against grape berry moth. of a plastic cup [9 cm diameter × 16 sites were compared as described by The manufacturer’s recommended cm high (3.5 × 6.3 inches); Solo Cup Magurran (1988) using analysis of rate of 25 Exosex dispensers/ha (10.1 Co., Highland Park, Ill.], placed fl ush variance (ANOVA) and comparing dispensers/acre) were set out on 4 and with ground level, and ethylene glycol treatment means by least signifi cant

13 June, respectively, in both the ‘Con- added to a 5-cm depth. At each vine- difference at P < 0.05 (LSD0.05) (PROC cord’ vineyard in Lowell and a ‘Mars’ yard site, three pitfall traps were placed GLM, SAS Institute, 1999). Vineyard and ‘Sunbelt’ vineyard in Judsonia. in the soil: under vines in the vineyard insecticide records (Table 1) were used About 9.1 m (30 ft) northeast of the edge and center; and along the woods to help explain vineyard differences in Exosex-treated vineyard in Lowell was adjacent to the vineyard (again, only arthropod diversity, carabid density, a 1.6-ha (4 acres) ‘Concord’ vineyard in the Searcy and Lowell vineyards). grape berry moth trap catch, percent- that received the same insecticide sprays A cover of 12 × 12-cm (4.7 inches) age berry damage, and percentage (Table 1) but no Exosex dispensers plywood was placed approximately 3 grape berry moth parasitism. (conventional). In Judsonia, a 1.6-ha cm (1.2 inch) above each trap. Covers ‘Mars’ vineyard conventionally man- were anchored to the ground with four Results and discussion aged with insecticide sprays (Table 1) 15-cm (5.9 inches) nails to reduce trap ARTHROPOD DIVERSITY. Signifi - was 1.6 km (1 mile) from the Judsonia overfl ow due to rain. cant differences in arthropod diversity Exosex-treated vineyard. Flight of adult male grape berry were detected between vineyard sites Samples were collected from moth was monitored with Pherocon IC (Table 2). Barrett (1969) stated, abandoned vineyard(s) that received no traps (Trécé, Inc., Adair, Okla.) baited “species diversity is almost always re- pesticide. The 4.0-ha (10 acres) Bald with a sex pheromone lure. Each vine- duced with toxic input.” Our results Knob ‘Mars’ vineyard was sampled in yard had two or three traps hung from on arthropod order diversity did not 2002 and 2003. No pesticide sprays, the top wire along the vineyard edge for always refl ect this. In 2003, signifi cantly fertilizer nor water were applied to the fi rst generation, and repositioned higher Shannon index values for di- this vineyard since 2000. In 2003, to the vineyard center in mid-May. versity were noted in the woods edge, the Searcy vineyard was abandoned. Moth counts were recorded and aver- vineyard edge and center in Lowell The other vineyards were managed aged weekly or biweekly. Pheromone (conventional with mating disruption), conventionally prior to this study. lures were replaced monthly and trap vineyard center in Hindsville (conven- Most vineyards were sampled for bottoms replaced as needed. tional), vineyard edge and center in arthropod diversity, carabid density, Grape clusters were sampled bi- Judsonia (conventional with mating grape berry moth trap catch, berry weekly in each vineyard. The percent- disruption), woods edge and vineyard damage due to grape berry moth, and age infestation by grape berry moth center in Searcy (recently abandoned) grape berry moth larval parasitism. larvae was determined by inspecting than in the vineyard edge in Searcy Sampling occurred over two grow- 100 to 400 fruit clusters in the vine- (recently abandoned), vineyard edge ing seasons, from 7 June to 12 Sept. yard edge and center (more than 10 in Hindsville (conventional sprays) and in 2002, and 18 Apr. to 12 Sept. in rows from an edge). Clusters were vineyard edge and center in Bald Knob 2003. considered damaged if one or more (abandoned). The Shannon index value In 2002, pitfall traps were used grape berries showed signs of grape for Searcy woods edge dropped from to assess diversity of insects and spi- berry moth larval tunneling. During 1.82 in 2002 to 1.73 in 2003 due to ders, and density of carabid beetles in each damage assessment, infested grape unknown removing insect these fi ve vineyards. Traps consisted of berries were collected, transported to specimens from pitfall traps. But the wallpaper trays, 18 × 18 × 96 cm (7.1 the laboratory and reared until adults evenness value increased indicating × 7.1 × 37.8 inches), with ethylene or parasites emerged (as described by many species collected in 2003 but glycol inside to a 5-cm (2.0 inches) Taschenberg, 1969). Larval-infested fewer of each when compared to 2002. depth. The top edge of each pitfall grape berries from each vineyard were The Bald Knob vineyard sites had a trap was placed fl ush with ground placed into separate glass cages and small value for diversity and species level. A cover of standard chicken maintained in a growth chamber set evenness each year indicating a low

234 ● April–June 2005 15(2) Table 2. A comparison of arthropod species evenness and Shannon index of di- Table 3. A comparison of the number versity for the various Arkansas vineyards and sites within each vineyard. of carabids per pitfall trap ±SE for the various Arkansas vineyards and sites 2002 2003 within each vineyard in 2003. Species Shannon Species Shannon Vineyard Site evenness index evenness index Vineyard Site No. of carabids Lowell Woods 0.81 1.95 0.77 1.97 az Hindsville Center 81.7 ± 10.7 az Searcy Center 0.77 1.77 0.80 1.87 a Hindsville Edge 50.7 ± 19.7 b Hindsville Center 0.77 1.69 0.68 1.83 ab Lowell Center 31.7 ± 12.7 c Lowell Center 0.71 1.62 0.71 1.82 ab Lowell Woods 23.3 ± 8.4 c Judsonia Edge ------0.71 1.80 ab Judsonia Edge 16.7 ± 3.2 cd Lowell Edge ------0.77 1.80 ab Lowell Edge 15.0 ± 4.2 cd Judsonia Center 0.69 1.59 0.71 1.77 bc Searcy Edge 14.0 ± 5.2 cdy Searcy Woods 0.69 1.82 0.78 1.73 bcy Searcy Center 13.7 ± 5.2 cd Searcy Edge ------0.78 1.69 cdy Judsonia Center 12.0 ± 1.2 cd Bald Knob Edge ------0.71 1.68 cd Searcy Woods 7.0 ± 4.6 dy Hindsville Edge ------0.66 1.60 cd Bald Knob Edge 5.7 ± 1.5 d Bald Knob Center 0.54 1.35 0.68 1.55 d Bald Knob Center 4.0 ± 1.0 d z zValues in 2003 followed by a common letter are not signifi cantly different (P ≤ 0.05) by LSD . Means followed by a common letter are not signifi cantly 0.05 ≤ yLow values due to an unknown routinely digging up and removing specimens. different (P 0.05) by LSD0.05. yLow values due to an unknown animal routinely dig- ging up and removing specimens. abundance of fewer species compared to all other sites. CARABID DENSITY. The mean ca- rabid counts per pitfall trap (density) were signifi cantly higher at both the edge and center (>50 carabids/trap) of the Hindsville vineyard (high insec- 25 ticide usage) than all other vineyard 25 20 sites (<32 carabids/trap) (Table 3). 20 The Lowell vineyard center (high 15 15 insecticide usage) and woods also had 10 signifi cantly more carabids per pitfall 10 trap (>20 carabids/trap) than Searcy 5 woods and Bald Knob vineyard edge 05 Moths per trap and center (<14 carabids/trap). The 7 June LC 0 14 June

21 June JC 5 July 7 June abandoned Bald Knob vineyard edge 28 June HC LC 12 July 14 June and center had the lowest signifi cant 19 July

21 June SC 26 July JC 5 July 2 Aug. 28 June 9 Aug. BA HC carabid density of all vineyard sites 12 July Date Location/mgmt. 19 July 16 Aug. 23 Aug.

26 July SC

(

● April–June 2005 15(2) 235 RESEARCH REPORTS

trend similar to that of grape berry moth pheromone trap catches (Figs. 1–2), at least at the vineyard center sites. Edge vines had greater berry damage, due to the reported edge effects of larval attack by fi rst and second-genera- 2525 tion grape berry moth (Johnson et al., 20 2002). Two of the vineyards with high 20 pesticide use (Lowell and Judsonia) 15 15 had the highest cluster damage. The 10 Hindsville vineyard had high pesticide 10 inputs and low cluster damage, but had 5

27 Mar. not yet built up a signifi cant grape berry

10 Apr. 5 Moths per trap

24 Apr. 8-May 0 27 Mar. moth population. Interior damage was

22-May * LE 10 April

5 June 0

8-May LC 24 April JE not found at the Hindsville or Searcy 3 July 19 June

22-May JC * LE 5 June Date 17 July HC LC sites in 2003. The Searcy site was not 31 July SA JE 3 July

19 June BA 14 Aug. JC sprayed at all in 2003 but still had a very

28 Aug. HC Date 17 July Location/mgmt. 11 Sept. 31 July SA 9 Oct. low grape berry moth population that 25 Sept. BA 14 Aug. 8 Aug. ct. ept. Sept. Location/mgmt. was attributed to use of Isomate-GBM in 2001 and well timing insecticide Fig. 2. A comparison of the average number of grape berry moth males per pher- sprays applied to the edge vines in both omone trap in 2003 in six Arkansas vineyard locations each under one of three 2001 and 2002. Damage assessment pest management programs (Location/mgmt.): Lowell Exosex mating disruption (* LE = multiply number of moths per trap by 10), Lowell conventional (LC), at the Bald Knob vineyard could not Judsonia Exosex mating disruption (JE), Judsonia conventional (JC), Hindsville be recorded because of 100% black rot conventional (HC), Searcy abandoned (SA), and Bald Knob abandoned (BA). infection by June of each year. GRAPE BERRY MOTH PARASITISM. Table 4. A comparison of the mean number of grape berry moths per pheromone The four vineyards produced a total trap and percent of grape clusters sampled that had grape berry moth larval tun- of 20 ichneumonid (Ichneumonidae) neling in one or more berries at harvest in the various Arkansas vineyards follow- specimens and 43 braconid (Braco- ing different pest management practices in 2002 and 2003. nidae) specimens that emerged from 2002 2003 grape berry moth pupae. The Searcy Moths, seasonz Moths, earlyz Moths, latez vineyard (abandoned in 2003) had a Vineyardy (no./trap) Ex Cx (no./trap) (no./trap) Ex Cx very low grape berry moth population but produced two larval parasites out of Judsonia C 95.0 14 4 --- 86.1 15.1 5.5 three larvae (67%). Percent parasitism Judsonia MD ------32.4 7.7 22.9 7.3 varied widely among conventionally Lowell C 111.6 4 6 --- 80.5 39 14 managed vineyards: Hindsville (3.6% of Lowell MD ------569.0 40.0 68 17 28 larvae); Judsonia (40.6% of 32 lar- Hindsville C 25.6 2 0 6.2 22.0 0 0 vae); and Lowell (48.6% of 37 larvae). Searcy A 33.5 38 0 2.0 7.3 0 0 Two vineyards integrating early season Bald Knob A 40.0 ------1.0 6.5 ------insecticide sprays with mating disrup- zSeason = 7 June to harvest 2002; early = trap catch of over wintered moths from 20 Mar. to 13 June 2003 (date tion had moderate rates of parasitism of placement of Exosex dispensers); late = trap catch from 13 June to harvest 2003. of grape berry moth: Judsonia (25% yA = abandoned; C = conventional insecticide use; MD = early season insecticide use followed by mating disrup- tion (Exosex-GBM). of four larvae); and Lowell (15.6% of xE = percent damage in vineyard edge; C = percent damage in vineyard center. 179 larvae). The Bald Knob vineyard could not be monitored for parasitism in June and July due to a lack of grapes Trimble et al., 1991) and the Searcy 2002, the season catch in 2002 was after an early black rot infection. vineyard in Arkansas in 2001 (Johnson, 33.5 moths/trap with 38% damage in unpublished data). In both 2002 and edge vines but 0% damage in the vine- Conclusion 2003, the conventional Hindsville yard center. After being abandoned in The abandoned Bald Knob vineyard had season totals of <30 2003, the season catch dropped to 9.3 vineyard (no fertilizer or insecticide moths/trap and <2% damage. moths/trap and 0% damage in edge and used) had signifi cantly less arthropod Abandonment of a vineyard center possibly due to 67% larval para- diversity (Table 2) and carabid density reduced percent grape berry moth sitism. Moth counts in the abandoned (Table 3) than did the vineyards using damage. The Searcy vineyard was Bald Knob vineyard dropped from 40 conventional and conventional with considered a high risk site for grape moths/trap in 2002 to 7.5 in 2003. mating disruption pest management. berry moth with >50% of perimeter Black rot (Xanthomonas campestris) Shah et al. (2003) reported that organic adjacent to woods (Hoffman and infection destroyed all the host fruits farms producing oats (Avena sativa) Dennehy, 1987). After integrating by early June each year and there were (organic fertilizer but no synthetic pes- Isomate-GBM mating disruption in no moth infestations nearby. ticides) had lower Coleopteran species 2001 and degree-day timed insecticide Grape berry moth damage to diversity but a much higher density of sprays of the vineyard edge in 2001 and grape clusters (Figs. 3–4) follows a several carabid beetle species than did

236 ● April–June 2005 15(2) factor(s) affected parasitism. Further study is needed to determine if a pest management program integrating early season insecticide sprays followed by mating disruption will support more arthropod diversity and carabid abun- 50 dance, and enhance parasitism of grape 40 berry moth eggs and larvae. 30 Literature cited 20 Barrett, G.W. 1969. The effects of an acute 10 insecticide stress on a semi-enclosed grass- Damage (%) 7 June 0 land ecosystem. Ecology 49:1019–1035. 14 June 21 June

5 July LC 28 June JC Brown, M.W. and J.J. Schmitt. 2001. 12 July

19 July HC Seasonal and diurnal dynamics of benefi cial 26 July Date 2 Aug. SC insect populations in apple orchards under 9 Aug. Location/mgmt. 16 Aug. different management intensity. Environ. 23 Aug.

30 Aug. Entomol. 30:415–424. Dennehy, T.J. 1991. Pheromonal control Fig. 3. A comparison of the percentage of grape clusters with one or more berries of the grape berry moth: An effective al- damaged by grape berry moth larvae in 2002 in four Arkansas vineyard loca- ternative to conventional insecticides. New tions, each under one of two pest management programs (Location/mgmt.): York Food Life Sci. Bul. 135. Lowell conventional (LC), Judsonia conventional (JC), Hindsville conventional Dennis, P. and G. Fry. 1992. Field margins: (HC), and Searcy conventional (SC). Can they enhance natural enemy population densities and general arthropod diversity on farmland? Agr. Ecosystem Environ. 40:95–115. Dozier, H.L., L.L. Williams, and H.G. Butler. 1932. Life history of grape berry moth in Delaware. Delaware Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 176. 50

40 Dritschilo, W. and D. Wanner. 1980. Ground beetle abundance in organic and 30 conventional corn fi elds. Environ. Ento- 20 mol. 9:629–631.

10 Damage (%) Epstein, D.L., R.S. Zack, J.F. Brunner, L. Gut, and J.J. Brown. 2000. Effects of 0 broad-spectrum insecticides on epigeal

5 June LE LC arthropod biodiversity in Pacifi c North- 12 June

19 June JE 3 July 26 June JC west apple orchards. Environ. Entomol. 10 July

17 July HC 29:340–348. Date 24 July SA 31 July 7 Aug. Location/mgmt. Garlick, W.G. 1935. Some observations on 14 Aug. 21 Aug.

28 Aug. the grape berry moth. Ontario Entomol. Soc. Annu. Rpt. 65:106–112. Fig. 4. A comparison of the percentage of grape clusters with one or more berries Gleissner, B.D. 1943. Biology and control damaged by grape berry moth larvae in 2003 in four Arkansas vineyard loca- of grape berry moth in the Erie grape belt. tions, each under one of three pest management programs (Location/mgmt.): Pennsylvania Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 451. Lowell Exosex mating disruption (LE), Lowell conventional (LC), Judsonia Exosex mating disruption (JE), Judsonia conventional (JC), Hindsville conven- Good, J.A. and P.S. Giller. 1991. The effect tional (HC), and Searcy abandoned (SA). of cereal and grass management on staphy- linid (Coleoptera) assemblages in southwest conventional farms (organophosphate ventionally managed vineyards (3.6% Ireland. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:810–826. insecticides). to 48.6%) than those integrating early Hoffman, C.J., and T.J. Dennehy. 1987. Only in the Hindsville vineyard season insecticide sprays with mating Assessing the risk of grape berry moth did a difference in insecticide use disruption (15.6% to 25%). How- sttack in New York vineyards. New York’s (Table 1) contribute to signifi cantly less ever, Seaman et al. (1990) observed Food Life Sci. Bul. No. 120. arthropod diversity (Table 2) and sig- a maximum of only 20% parasitism of Ingerson, H.G. 1920. Life history of the nifi cantly more carabid density (Table grape berry moth larvae but found no grape berry moth in northern Ohio. U.S. 3) in the edge (more insecticide) than signifi cant difference in percent parasit- Dept. Agr. Bul. 911. the vineyard center (less insecticide). ism among wild, organically managed Percent parasitism of grape berry and conventionally managed grapes. Johnson, D.T., B.A. Lewis, K. Striegler, S. Wesson, and J. Smith. 2002. Demonstra- moth larvae varied more among con- They also had no evidence as to what

● April–June 2005 15(2) 237 RESEARCH REPORTS tion of grape IPM. Proc. Oklahoma and SAS Institute. 1999. SAS system for Win- Arkansas Hort. Ind. Show 21:187–190. dows, Ver. 8. SAS Inst., Cary, N.C. Lewis, B.A. and D.T. Johnson. 1999. Grape Seaman, A.J., J.P. Nyrop, and T.J. Dennehy. berry moth pest management program. 1990. Egg and larval parasitism of the grape Proc. Oklahoma and Arkansas Hort. Ind. berry moth (: ) in Show 18:56–60. three grape habitats in New York. Environ. Entomol. 19:764–770. Luciani, M.A. 1987. The biology of the grape berry moth, Endopiza viteana Cle- Shah, P.A., D.R. Brooks, J.E. Ashby, J.N. mens (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in south- Perry, and I.P. Woiwod. 2003. Diversity ern Ontario. MS Thesis, Univ. Guelph, and abundance of the coleopteran fauna Guelph, Ont. from organic and conventional manage- ment systems in southern England. Agr. Magurran, A.E. 1988. Diversity indices and Forest Entomol. 5:51–60. species abundance models, p. 35–37. In: A.E. Magurran (ed.). Ecological diversity Striegler, R.K., M.A. Mayse, W. O’Keefe, and its measurement. Princeton Univ. Press, and D.R. Wineman. 1997. Response of Princeton, N.J. Thompson seedless grapevines to sustain- able viticultural practices. Viticult. Enol. Mayse, M.A., J. Harper, and J. Stock. Res. Ctr., California Agr. Technol. Inst. 1998. Arthropod community dynamics Res. Publ. 970102. in new varietal vineyards. Viticult. Enol. Res. Ctr., California Agr. Technol. Inst. Taschenberg, E.F., R.T. Carde, A. Hill, Res. Publ. 981003. J.P. Tette, and W.L. Roelofs. 1974. Sex pheromone trapping of the grape berry Pielou, E.C. 1977. Ecological diversity moth. Environ. Entomol. 3:192–194. and its measurement, p. 299–303. In: E.C. Peilou (ed.). Mathematical ecology. Taschenberg, E.F. 1945. Studies of the Wiley, New York. control of grape berry moth, Polychrosis viteana (Clemens), in Chautauqua County. Pimentel, D. 1961. Species diversity and PhD Diss., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, N.Y. insect population outbreaks. Ann. Ento- mol. Soc. Amer. 54:76–86. Taschenberg, E.F. 1969. Large-scale con- tinuous rearing of the grape berry moth, Powell, D.M. and W.D. Wylie. 1959. The viteana. Ann. Entomol. Soc. grape berry moth in northwest Arkansas. Am. 62:1374–1378. Arkansas Farm Res. 8:11. Trimble, R.M., D.J. Pree, P.M. Vickers, and Risch, S.J., D. Andow, and M.A. Altieri. K.W. Ker. 1991. Potential of mating disrup- 1983. Agroecosystem diversity and pest tion using sex-pheromone for controlling control: Data, tentative conclusions, and the grape berry moth, Endopiza-viteana new research directions. Environ. Entomol. (Clemens) (Lepidoptera, Tortricidae), in 12:625–629. Niagara peninsula, Ontario vineyards. Can. Roelofs, W.L., J.P. Tette, E.F. Taschenberg, Entomol. 123:451–460. and A. Comeau. 1971. Sex pheromone of the grape berry moth: Identifi cation by classical and electroantennogram methods, and fi eld tests. J. Insect Physiol. 17:2235–2243.

238 ● April–June 2005 15(2)