, 143:548 | Cite as

Relative performance of European grapevine moth (Lobesia botrana) on grapes and other hosts

  • Denis Thiéry
  • Jérôme Moreau
Plant Animal Interactions


The European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana is a major grapevine pest, but despite the abundance of vineyards it is a generalist and uses either grapes or alternative species. Given the abundance and predictability of grape, L. botrana could be expected to have evolved towards monophagy. In order to understand why this species remains polyphagous, we hypothesized that larvae reared on rare wild host plants should have higher fitness than those reared on the more abundant grape host. For this, we compared larval performance and several life history traits on three alternative host plants (Daphne gnidium, Olea europaea, Tanacetum vulgare) and three Vitaceae (Vitis vinifera), two cultivars and one wild species (Ampelopsis brevipedunculata), and two control groups raised on either a low or a high nutritive value medium. Alternative hosts are more suitable than Vitaceae for the reproductive performance of L. botrana: larval mortality and development time was reduced, while pupal weight, growth rate, female longevity, female fecundity, duration of laying and mating success were increased. High quality food ingested by larvae promotes higher adult body weight and enhances female reproductive output. This suggests that alternative hosts provide greater nutritional value for L. botrana than Vitaceae. The use of alternative host plants could thus be maintained in the host range because they offer L. botrana a better fitness than on the Vitaceae. This could typically represent an advantage for moths behaving in plant diversity grape landscapes.


Lobesia botrana Polyphagy Insect plant relationships Life history traits 



We thank X. Arruego, C. Couranjou and E. Richard for their experimental contribution. Authors are indebted to Drs R. Naisbit, B. Benrey and D. Bailey for valuable discussions and comments on the earlier version of manuscript and to E. Haine for language correction. The second author was supported by a Swiss national Foundation grant NCCR. All experiments described in this paper were done in France according to the rules of the ethical board for animal experiments complying with the current laws of this country.


  1. Balachowsky A, Mesnil L (1935) Les Insectes Nuisibles à la vigne, Polychrosis botrana Schiff. (Lepid. Tortricidae) In: Les insectes nuisibles aux plantes Cultivées, leurs mœurs, leur destruction, vol 1, Paris, pp 677–686Google Scholar
  2. Barbosa P (1988) Some thoughts on the evolution of host range. Ecology 69:912–915CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benrey B, Denno RF (1997) The slow growth-high mortality hypothesis: a test using the cabbage butterfly. Ecology 78:987–999Google Scholar
  4. Bernays EA (1989) Host range in phytophagous insects: the potential role of generalist predators. Evol Ecol 3:299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernays EA, Graham M (1988) On the evolution of host specificity in phytophagous arthropods. Ecology 69:886–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernays EA, Wcislo WT (1994) Sensory capabilities, information processing, and resource specialization. Q Rev Biol 69:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bovey P (1966) Super-famille des Tortricoidea. In: Balachowsky AS (ed) Entomologie Appliquée à l’Agriculture. Vol 2 Lépidoptères, Masson et Cie, Paris, pp 456–893Google Scholar
  8. Bulmer MG (1983) Models for the evolution of protandry in insects. J Theor Biol 35:195–206Google Scholar
  9. Camara MD (1997) A recent host range expansion in Junonia coenia Hubner (Nymphalidae): oviposition preference, survival, growth, and chemical defense. Evolution 51:873–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cates RG (1980) Feeding patterns of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insect herbivores: the effect of resource abundance and plant chemistry. Oecologia 46:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Courtney SP, Chen GK, Gardner A (1989) A general model for individual host selection. Oikos 55:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dall SRX, Cuthill IC (1997) The information costs of generalism. Oikos 80:197–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Damman H (1987) Leaf quality and enemy avoidance by the larvae of a pyralid moth. Ecology 68:88–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dethier VG (1970) Chemical interactions between plants and insects. In: Sondheimer E, Simeone JB (eds) Chemical ecology. Academic, New York, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  15. Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eichhorn KW, Lorenz DH (1977) Phonologische Entwicklumggsstadien der Rebe Nachrichtenbl. Pflanzenschutzd (Braunschweig) 29:119–120Google Scholar
  17. Fagerström T, Wiklund C (1982) Why do males emerge before females? Protandry as a mating strategy in male and female butterflies. Oecologia 52:164–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feeny P (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Wallace JW, Mansell RL (eds) Biochemical interactions between plants and insects. Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. Plenum, New York, pp 1–40Google Scholar
  19. Gabel B (1995) Tansy flowers attract European grapevine moth females, Lobesia botrana den. & Schiff. (Lep. Tortricidae). J Appl Entomol 113:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gabel B, Roehrich R (1995) Sensitivity of grapevine phenological stages to larvae of European grapevine moth, Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. (Lep., Tortricidae). J Appl Entomol 119:127–130Google Scholar
  21. Gabel B, Thiéry D (1994) Non-host plant odor (Tanacetum vulgare; Asteracea) affects the reproductive behaviour of Lobesia botrana Den. et Schiff. (Lepidoptera Tortricidae). J Insect Behav 7:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Häggström H, Larsson S (1995) Slow larval growth on a suboptimal willow results in high predation mortality in the leaf beetle Galerucella lineola. Oecologia 104:308–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haukioja E, Neuvonen S (1985) Induced long-term resistance of birch foliage against defoliators: defensive or incidental? Ecology 66:1303–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jaenike J (1978) On optimal oviposition behaviour in phytophagous insects. Theor Popul Biol 14:350–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jaenike J (1990) Host specialization in phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 21:243–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Janzen DH (1985) A host is more than its chemistry. Illinois Nat Hist Surv Bull 33:141–175Google Scholar
  27. Kaspi R, Mossinson S, Drezner T, Kamensky B, Yuval B (2002) Effects of larval diet on development rates and reproductive maturation of male and female Mediterranean fruit flies. Physiol Entomol 27:29–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Keese MC (1997) Does escape to enemy-free space explain host specialization in two closely related leaf-feeding beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae)? Oecologia. DOI 10.1007/s004420050286Google Scholar
  29. Landolt PJ, Phillips TW (1997) Host plant influences on sex pheromone behaviour of phytophagous insects. Annu Rev Entomol 42:371–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lustner G (1914) Das Verhalten der Raupen des ein-und zweibindingen Traubenwicklers zu den Weinbergskraüten und anderen Pflanzen. Z Weinbau Weinbehandl 1:3–35Google Scholar
  31. Maher N, Toulouse ME, Jolivet J, Thiéry D (2000) Oviposition preference of the European grape vine moth, Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) for host and non host plants present in Bordeaux area. IOBC/wprs Bull 23(4):131–134Google Scholar
  32. Marchal P (1912) Mission d’étude de la Cochylis et de l‘Eudemis pendant l’année 1911. Librairie Polytechnique. ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Nylin S, Wiklund C, Wickman PO, Garcia-Barros E (1993) Absence of trade-offs between sexual size dimorphism and early male emergence in a butterfly. Ecology 74:1414–1427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ohsaki N, Sato Y (1994) Food plant choice of Pieris butterflies as a trade-off between parasitoids avoidance and quality of plants. Ecology 75:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parry D, Spence JR, Volney WJA (1998) Budbreak phenology and natural enemies mediate survival of first-instar forest tent caterpillar (Lepidoptera: Lasiocampidae). Environ Entomol 27:1368–1374Google Scholar
  36. Rausher MD (1985) Variability for host preference in insect populations: mechanistic and evolutionary models. J Insect Physiol 31:873–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ringo J (1996) Sexual receptivity in insects. Annu Rev Entomol 41:473–494PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Roditakis NE (1988) Factors affecting population size of grapes berry moth Lobesia botrana Den. & Schiff. in Crete. In: Cavalloro R (ed) Influence of environmental factors on the control of grape pests diseases and weeds. ECC publications, Balkema, Amsterdam, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  39. Roehrich R, Boller E (1991) Tortricids in vineyards. In: Van der Gesst LPS, Evenhuis HH (eds) Tortricid pests, their biology natural enemies and control. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp 507–514Google Scholar
  40. Savopoulou-Soultani M, Tzanakakis ME (1987) Comparison of olive flowers with vine flowers and leaves as food for larva of Lobesia botrana. In: Cavalloro R (ed) Influence of environmental factors on the control of grape pest diseases and weeds. Commision of the European Communities, Rotterdam, pp 63–67Google Scholar
  41. Savopoulou-Soultani M, Tzanakakis ME (1988) Development of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on grapes and apples infected with the fungus Botrytis cinerea. Environ Entomol 17:1–6Google Scholar
  42. Savopoulou-Soultani M, Stavridis DG, Tzanakakis ME (1990) Development and reproduction of Lobesia botrana on vine and olive inflorescences. Entomologia Hellenica 8:29–35Google Scholar
  43. Savopoulou-Soultani M, Stavridis DG, Vassiliou A, Stafilidis JE, Iraklidis I (1994) Response of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) to levels of sugar and protein in artificial diets. J Econ Entomol 87:84–90Google Scholar
  44. Schultz JC (1988) Many factors influence the evolution of herbivore diets, but plant chemistry is central. Ecology 69:896–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Singer MC (1982) Sexual selection for small size in male butterflies. Am Nat 119:440–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slansky F (1976) Phagism relationship among butterflies. J N Y Entomol S 84:91–105Google Scholar
  47. Southwood TRE (1972) The insect/plant relationship—an evolutionary perspective. Symp R Entomol Soc Lond 6:3–30Google Scholar
  48. Stoeva R (1982) Les hôtes de la teigne bariolée des vignes Lobesia botrana Schiff en Bulgarie. Horticult Viticult Sci 19:83–89Google Scholar
  49. Strong DL, Lawton JH, Southwood R (1984) Insects on plants. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  50. Swain T (1977) Secondary plant compounds as protective agents. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 42:55–302Google Scholar
  51. Thiéry D (2005) Les vers de la grappe. Guide Pratique, Vigne & Vins Publ. Int. (in press)Google Scholar
  52. Thiéry D, Xuéreb A (2003) Relative abundance of several larval parasitoids of Lobesia botrana on different varieties of grapes. IOBC/wprs Bull 26:135–139Google Scholar
  53. Thiéry D, Xuéreb A, Villemant C, Sentenac G, Delbac L, Kuntzman P (2001) Larval parasites of vineyards tortricids: a brief overview from 3 french vine growing areas. IOBC/wprs bull 24:13–142Google Scholar
  54. Thomas AW (1989) Food consumption and utilization by 6th-instar larvae of spruce budworm, Choristoneura fumiferana: a comparison on three Picea (spruce) species. Entomol Exp Appl 52:205–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Torres-Vila LM, Stockel J, Roehrich R (1995) Le potentiel reproducteur et ses variable biotiques associées chez le mâle de l’Eudémis de la vigne Lobesia botrana. Entomol Exp Appl 77:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Torres-Vila LM, Rodriguez-Molina MC, Roehrich R, Stockel J (1999) Vine phenological stage during larval feeding affects male and female reproductive output of Lobesia botrana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Bull Entomol Res 89:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weseloh RM, Andreadis TG, Moore REB, Andersson JF, Dubois NR, Lewis FB (1983) Field confirmation of a mechanism causing synergism between Bacillus thuringiensis and the gypsy moth parasitoid, Apanteles melanoscelus. J Invertebr Pathol 41:99–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. West SA, Cunningham JP (2002) A general model for host plant selection in phytophagous insects. J Theor Biol 214:499–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiklund C, Fagerström T (1977) Why do males emerge before females? Oecologia 31:153–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wiklund C, Kaitala A, Lindfors V, Abenius J (1993) Polyandry and its effect on female reproduction in the green-veined white butterfly (Pieris napi L.). Behav Ecol Sociobiol 33:25–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.UMR 1065 INRA-ENITAB Santé végétaleINRA Institut Supérieur de la Vigne et du VinVillenave d’Ornon CedexFrance
  2. 2.Institut de ZoologieUniversité de NeuchâtelNeuchâtelSwitzerland
  3. 3.Equipe Ecologie-Evolution, UMR 5561BiogéosciencesUniversité de BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations