RESEARCH REPORTS he most important insect pest of grape in eastern North TAmerica is the grape berry moth (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. Arthropod 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 moths 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 (Vitis 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 insects 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